| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
   |
Posted - 2009.11.18 19:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 18/11/2009 19:15:07
 Originally by: Aprudena Gist
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
It's a massive misconception that anomalies are not profitable. As said before, the top ones (which you'll have permanently available through the top tier upgrades) isk for isk match the most profitable missions, and certainly blow ratting out of the water.
Added to that, we're looking at more ways to improve on the planned content, hopefully building on the foundation we're laying now.
I've ran about 30 CA's over the years and every single of one them was about 1/3 as useful as running a level 4 mission and took about the same amount of time. They are useless pointless, unsafe ,****ty and totally random as to what you get out of them. If you understood just how ****ing bad they were compared to a mission you might care but your sitting up in your ivory tower now that you work for ccp. But hey its not like our opinion or practical experince make any difference you idiots are CCP makes all the decision like CCP Nohz and ****ing over ships are a wim just because you can.
Look at how stupid you are.
Try actually reading the posts next time. These are not the random quality "30 anomalies you have run over the years".
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 19:45:00 -
[2]
Originally by: teji
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
It's a massive misconception that anomalies are not profitable.
They most certainly aren't profitable on TQ. That is no misconception. It looks like you have changed them on SiSi so we'll see how you've done in making them actually competitive to other activities.
Quote:
As said before, the top ones (which you'll have permanently available through the top tier upgrades) isk for isk match the most profitable missions, and certainly blow ratting out of the water.
Oh, ok so there still isn't any reason to not do level 4 missions in empire instead of grinding for standings which decay if you go on vacation for a few days. Imagine the outrage if your empire standings decayed if you didn't log on for a few days. That would be pretty funny.
Does the entire population of your core systems frequently go on vacations of at least 4 days? 
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:09:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Industria Dragous
Ah the fine print.
# Changed the online time of Sovereignty Blockade Units from six hours to three hours.
# Changed the reinforcement variance timers on Outposts and Infrastructure Hubs from four hours to two hours.
Not sure I like these 2 changes since it appears to have been made to support the aggressor. The intent as I read early on with this patch was to allow smaller groups to claim space and to cut down on the timezone issue.
With these 2 timer reductions the attacker can roll over a system with 2 to 3 gates and no outpost in about 7-8hrs. That is assuming the Infrastructure Hub has about a large POS HP's and resists. With the reinforcement variance timers now falling to a narrower range the Hub would be more likely to fall in a closer time to the attacker. Therefore the defender logs in to find the Hub an SBU are invulnerable an have nothing to do but wait. The SBU should be vulnerable an require a repair in order for the attacker to continue or something. I may not understand the exact timing here but it seems that a smaller window on reinforcement variance with the shorter anchor time will likely limit the small groups to defend in their peak time with even a small amount of space.
Vulnerability states
SBU(s) are vulnerable while being anchored and onlining.
Once an Outpost and/or Infrastructure Hub is reinforced, the SBU(s) enter a parallel reinforcement cycle. That means that the SBU(s) are invulnerable as long as there are no vulnerable structures in system.
If the Outpost and Infrastructure Hub are vulnerable, so is the SBU(s). If the Infrastructure Hub is vulnerable and the outpost is not, then the SBU(s) are vulnerable. If the Outpost and Infrastructure Hub are vulnerable, so is the SBU(s).
I think you are a bit confused on how the reinforcement timer varience affects things. Reducing the time greatly benefits the defender.
The defender sets the time (within a 24 or 28hr timeframe depending on the structure we are talking about) that the structure comes out of reinforcement. The 2 hr + or - variable affects the time the defender chooses. So 4 hours + or - gave you an 8 hour spread of time when your structure might come out of reinforcement, and that was not to the defenders advantage. A 2 hour + or - (4 hour variance) allows the defender much more precise control (presumably during the height of their prime time).
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:58:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 19/11/2009 20:00:16
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 19/11/2009 19:59:46
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Originally by: Myriand
Originally by: CCP Abathur @ Sovereignty - breaking the chains 2009.09.09
The other major factor is the more space you spread your ęDominion' across, the more expensive it will become to maintain your stargate network. 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 more properly utilizing their space and providing more places for their members to generate income. In order to facilitate that, we are going to let you do some really cool stuff!
So.... what was really made to implement this?! From what I see, cost is linear and it will cost less with Dominion than it cost with POS Fuel!
So, what will CCP invent in the last few days before the patch to keep the promisse of making the cost of holding systems not linear?
I too would like to know. When I read that bit from Abathur I felt that Dominion just might work. What happened to this critical piece of the puzzle?
Major alliances announced their intention to simply split their space among various "dummy" alliances that they would set up and maintain for the express purpose of keeping the costs to maintain sov low if a geometric progression of cost for a single alliance was instituted.
Now in truth it "does" cost more to have SOV and upgrades in a large number of systems (as opposed to just a few) even with a linear pricing scheme. My main concern is that now with the costs so low, and the rewards effectively doubled, that there will not be enough incentive for large allinaces to relinquish space. In this, time will tell. I suppose if necessary the fee's can be raised at a later date if necessary, but the outpouring of rage would be epic.
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 03:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: teji
Originally by: Ranger 1
it will cost less with Dominion than it cost with POS Fuel!
Citation Needed
Quote:
and the rewards effectively doubled
Citation Needed
Eh?
I'm not sure who you are quoting in the first line, but its not me.
As for the second, its your own alliance mates that keep insisting that the only upgrade anyone will make use of is the anomalies, and now you get a max of 20 per system instead of the original 10 that was proposed.
Note, I don't believe this will have any effect on inflation in EVE as the money will simply be earned in a different location than now.
But really these things have already been pointed out by most of the older and wiser players in game already, including past and present alliance leaders. I know you'll recognize at least one or two of them. 
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
| |
|