Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Neu Bastian
Minmatar Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:57:00 -
[271]
I understood the Sov Changes where also meant to shake up things in 0.0, making it harder for large alliances to hold 7658765867543 systems.
As it is, it looks like holding sov through many systems will be made easier, specially since there are naturally rich systems that dont need much upgrading at all, and rather than shaking up 0.0, we're jsut gonna have even bigger alliances, with more renters and pet relations.
Will there be anything done to prevent large chunks of 0.0 to be ruled over by the same few parties?
Quote:
Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
|
Orthaen
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:10:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 17:48:12
It will be interesting to see if the model is workable. Will alliances be able to protect their carebears sufficiently to make them feel the risk is acceptable? Will alliances get enough carebears to work daily for them? Will carebears be happy with their new landlords?
Is the game-play paradigm becoming more and more like real life to the point where it no longer is a game? Or fun?
Fun is subjective. If you enjoy grinding level 4s all afternoon, there's no reason you wouldn't like grinding anomalies as well. If you can mine veldspar 6 hours a day, there is no reason changing "veldspar" to "arkonor" will make the game more like a job for you. I think the main problem, for all the big alliance whiners ((lolgoons)) is that they refuse to believe that there are people in EVE that dont think and act like they do. For some people, slosh ops and suicide ganks aren't enjoyable. There are people that like "grinding" and would gladly do it in 0.0, if just for the novelty of being in 0.0. Then you add pirate faction loot on top, and you're golden.
No, I dont think prices will tank enough to make the worthwhile ones worthless
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:20:00 -
[273]
Regular players in 0.0 weren't getting a cut of the R64 riches anyway
And do you have any idea just how much ISK they generate for the big alliances? Hundreds of billions per month. It's completely out of whack
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:22:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 18:25:19
Quote:
Fun is subjective. If you enjoy grinding level 4s all afternoon, there's no reason you wouldn't like grinding anomalies as well. If you can mine veldspar 6 hours a day, there is no reason changing "veldspar" to "arkonor" will make the game more like a job for you. I think the main problem, for all the big alliance whiners ((lolgoons)) is that they refuse to believe that there are people in EVE that dont think and act like they do. For some people, slosh ops and suicide ganks aren't enjoyable. There are people that like "grinding" and would gladly do it in 0.0, if just for the novelty of being in 0.0. Then you add pirate faction loot on top, and you're golden.
No, I dont think prices will tank enough to make the worthwhile ones worthless
Well - that is really what I am wondering about. Will alliances get enough players to do just that? You may be right about the 'mis-perception' of the current big alliances - since the economic paradigm has been primarily "passive income source" and PvP centric for them.
Now you have a pretty dramatic shift ...
1) Alliances now will have to require members to PvE. They do this by stating - look you'll make more ISK if you base out here in nul-sec. And we will protect you.
2) Some hi-sec players give it a try - and also players in the alliance actually find it easier now to do PvE activites.
3) Do the Hi-Sec players get enough rewards to offset getting killed on occasion? Can the alliance protect the new hi-sec PvE'rs enough?
4) Will the current Alliance players who PvE normally for the Alliance be content in having to keep their activities going and probably do more each day then before?
5) Will alliance leadership be happy now having to manage more PvE/carebear activities rather than focusing on PvP - Military strategic goals? Is there going to be a place for military type alliances or will that become impossible?
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:47:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 18:54:36
Originally by: ropnes Regular players in 0.0 weren't getting a cut of the R64 riches anyway
And do you have any idea just how much ISK they generate for the big alliances? Hundreds of billions per month. It's completely out of whack
I think everyone is agreed (even goonies) that the R64'rs are way OP on the income. So CCP is nerfing them - I even wonder if they're nerfing them enough.
But the counterbalance to nerfing R64's is to force more PvE type activity in nul-sec space. There already is plenty of PvE to be had in hi-sec or wormholes. So why would a PvE'r want to move to nul-sec just to PvE unless there was a really good incentive to do so?
nul-sec currently is PvP centric with passive income sources. So I guess it is no wonder many of the current nul-sec dwellers are unhappy with the changes, since you are forcing them literally to become more PvE centric - at least a portion of their player base, in order to simply stay where they are at.
Most of the changes simply change the economic model - but what about the military implications of protecting more PvE'rs in nul-sec space? Even if it is more profitable - will current hi-sec dwellers really want to risk so much just to exist in nul-sec? Are they really protectable, especially given the increased population that will be required to maintain the daily isk costs?
Will the current PvP nul-sec alliance enjoying becoming patrol/guards in nul-sec? Is that what they want out of their PvP?
It seems much of what we're getting in this initial release worked out the economics of nul-sec but not a whole lot on the impact this will have on the 'PvP' side of the coin - other than changing the dynamics of system ownership. But actual protection - military upgrades etc - there is none.
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:54:00 -
[276]
Originally by: wallenbergaren Their members ALREADY PvE How do you think most ppl make money?
Well of course - but they are doing it for themselves. They are not also forced to give a portion of their profits to the alliances (at least not on the scale that will be required post-Dominion).
Those who play strictly PvE tend to not even bother with nul-sec, why deal with all the hassles if you can get your profit almost 100% protected in hi-sec? Even if it is not as much - why risk your 100 million Hulk and other assets in nul-sec? For what? 25% gain in profits of which you will be forced to give some portion to your alliance landlord? Extreme risk from gank squads ruining your game playing?
And will current PvP'rs want to sit on PvE operations as Guards - rather than be part of the back and forth military operations of system capture?
|
SpeakerForTheDad
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:57:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Orthaen
I feel the need to restate what I said earlier, because I know no one reads the whole thread. What you predict happening is exactly the point. CCP desires a system where alliances that are 95% military suffer, and fail, because those military alliances are letting a vast portion of the game CCP made go to waste, and simultaneously preventing anyone else from using them. The obvious solution is to recruit miners, and missioners (anomalies are close enough, in secure space), and people that like exploration. You can keep doing your pewpew, while they work the systems. You have fun pewing, they have fun farming, and everyone is happy. By pewing, you keep the systems they farm in safe. By farming, they keep your alliance afloat and supplied to pew. Beautiful system, no? An alliance is rewarded for utilizing every tool at its disposal, instead of just R64 moons and blobs.
To the occaisonal "CCP NEEDS TO PUT THIS ON SISI!!!!" whine, I say; you're an idiot. Devs spawned the upgrades for people the day the first blog about upgrades went up. Perhaps if you logged on sisi, and asked to have a system upgraded to test, instead of just *****ing, you'd know this.
This is my read on the Dominion change as well. I have received some interesting response to my recruitment post, but very few folks seem to understand that my tiny corp - with the ability to "mission," mine, invent and build - is a guaranteed net positive to anyone trying to hold sov and *improve* their space.
Here's hoping that someone figures this out sooner rather than later. I am primed to move to 0.0 if I can find the right alliance to hook up with.
Speaker
The Dad Abides |
Soyemia
Minmatar Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:26:00 -
[278]
CCP really needs to answer how much they belive these can make isk/hour compared to L4 missions. It needs to be atleast double. Unless it is CCP will change nothing, congrats, or maybe even nerf the amount of people who are goingto hang in 0.0.
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:46:00 -
[279]
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?
Colonies and Capitals |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:52:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 18:54:36
Originally by: ropnes Regular players in 0.0 weren't getting a cut of the R64 riches anyway
And do you have any idea just how much ISK they generate for the big alliances? Hundreds of billions per month. It's completely out of whack
I think everyone is agreed (even goonies) that the R64'rs are way OP on the income. So CCP is nerfing them - I even wonder if they're nerfing them enough.
But the counterbalance to nerfing R64's is to force more PvE type activity in nul-sec space. There already is plenty of PvE to be had in hi-sec or wormholes. So why would a PvE'r want to move to nul-sec just to PvE unless there was a really good incentive to do so?
nul-sec currently is PvP centric with passive income sources. So I guess it is no wonder many of the current nul-sec dwellers are unhappy with the changes, since you are forcing them literally to become more PvE centric - at least a portion of their player base, in order to simply stay where they are at.
Most of the changes simply change the economic model - but what about the military implications of protecting more PvE'rs in nul-sec space? Even if it is more profitable - will current hi-sec dwellers really want to risk so much just to exist in nul-sec? Are they really protectable, especially given the increased population that will be required to maintain the daily isk costs?
Will the current PvP nul-sec alliance enjoying becoming patrol/guards in nul-sec? Is that what they want out of their PvP?
It seems much of what we're getting in this initial release worked out the economics of nul-sec but not a whole lot on the impact this will have on the 'PvP' side of the coin - other than changing the dynamics of system ownership. But actual protection - military upgrades etc - there is none.
I dont think you get how T2 Production works. Just because dyso and prom are having their use decreased and there for the value of them decreased doesn't mean the values of others aren't going to go up and everything will generally still cost the same the value will just be in mining more moons rather then less. It will realistically have no real effect on who gets the money its just going to be more work to get it which is why the changes are stupid and ineffective.
|
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 19:58:00 -
[281]
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. |
teji
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:41:00 -
[282]
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
|
Glassback
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:45:00 -
[283]
I'm going to use my ewar immune dockable super carrier to farm anomalies all day!
|
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:50:00 -
[284]
Forgive me if this has been addressed.
The system cost, now is the cost the same for each system no matter how many you own? Or will the cost increase per system? Cause if they don;t increase based on how many systems then nothing will change, the large alliances will still fork out whatever for there systems and just hold as many as they want. But if the cost goes up based on the number of systems you own, then they will have to stratigraphic decide what systems to keep. So... which is it?
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:06:00 -
[285]
Originally by: DaReaper Forgive me if this has been addressed.
The system cost, now is the cost the same for each system no matter how many you own? Or will the cost increase per system? Cause if they don;t increase based on how many systems then nothing will change, the large alliances will still fork out whatever for there systems and just hold as many as they want. But if the cost goes up based on the number of systems you own, then they will have to stratigraphic decide what systems to keep. So... which is it?
If the per system cost is based on the number of systems you own, an alliance will create a bunch of shell alliances just for the purpose of claiming sov, and still nothing will change.
|
Graysteel
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:06:00 -
[286]
Was wondering if it would be possible with the mining up to provide ice.
Perhaps something like level 1 gives 1 ice belt with random selection of mixed ice with a small limited quantity in each iceburg. level 2 gives a little more ice, more of a selection and so on...?
This would allow those that mine ice a place in their sov to mine ice.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:06:00 -
[287]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 19/11/2009 21:15:06
Originally by: DaReaper Forgive me if this has been addressed.
The system cost, now is the cost the same for each system no matter how many you own? Or will the cost increase per system? Cause if they don;t increase based on how many systems then nothing will change, the large alliances will still fork out whatever for there systems and just hold as many as they want. But if the cost goes up based on the number of systems you own, then they will have to stratigraphic decide what systems to keep. So... which is it?
Why do you think it would make a difference? In the latter case the same people would either make additional alliances, just to hold sov or shrink their sov area and rent their space. The latter option again would not solve anything. The current sov system is in reality an influence system and the map reflects that. No matter how hard you crack on them, the influence isn't going to go away. They will in essence own those systems no matter what the new sov map will tell you.
Even forcing them to a single system won't allow your small team to make a home in all that "empty" space the mechanic creates. You can't escape the fact, that you will have to deal with bigger and stronger entities and get along with your landlord. In worst case it might even make things cheaper for them, unless you escalate the cost hard from the start and create a system no-one likes or affords.
The best you can achieve is to change the static sov warfare and create activities to liven up the unused space of the current alliances. You need to also create reasons why an alliance should allow outsiders in their influence area and mechanics that allow them to profit from the extra activity in some ways. Giving them extra income for as many as possible in a single system also helps, since then they aren't forced to take vast areas just so their grunts can make a living, but I'm not sure how much that really matters compared to the influence borders.
|
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:08:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Nobani
Originally by: DaReaper Forgive me if this has been addressed.
The system cost, now is the cost the same for each system no matter how many you own? Or will the cost increase per system? Cause if they don;t increase based on how many systems then nothing will change, the large alliances will still fork out whatever for there systems and just hold as many as they want. But if the cost goes up based on the number of systems you own, then they will have to stratigraphic decide what systems to keep. So... which is it?
If the per system cost is based on the number of systems you own, an alliance will create a bunch of shell alliances just for the purpose of claiming sov, and still nothing will change.
prolly. or rent out areas
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:24:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Why do you think it would make a difference? In the latter case the same people would either make additional alliances, just to hold sov or shrink their sov area and rent their space. The latter option again would not solve anything. The current sov system is in reality an influence system and the map reflects that. No matter how hard you crack on them, the influence isn't going to go away. They will in essence own those systems no matter what the new sov map will tell you.
This is why in my opinion the best solution is the simplest: Sov is determined the same way as today, but gives absolutely no benefits whatsoever. If you have a POS somewhere, you can anchor a CSAA, jump bridge, cyno beacon, cyno jammer, whatever. No fuel benefits for sov, and conquering stations uses different mechanics (maybe similar to the current POS mechanics. I'm sure this wouldn't work in practice for reasons people smarter than me will point out, but I really dislike the arbitrary time limits for anchoring certain structures.
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:26:00 -
[290]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 21:27:51 Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 21:27:26
Originally by: Nobani
If the per system cost is based on the number of systems you own, an alliance will create a bunch of shell alliances just for the purpose of claiming sov, and still nothing will change.
The "shelling" problem could be fixed by only allowing advanced upgrades based on # of system owned by a single alliance. Therefore you could not get advanced upgrades unless a single alliance claimed multiple systems (instead of multiple "shell" fronts owning only single systems).
|
|
Mcon99
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:38:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Nobani
If the per system cost is based on the number of systems you own, an alliance will create a bunch of shell alliances just for the purpose of claiming sov, and still nothing will change.
Correct. Which is why that method of trying to shrink the size of alliances will fail, therefore, better for everyone CCP did not waste their time implementing it.
All the threads about the changes in Sov have had me thinking for a while - what would be the best way to generally shrink the size of existing alliances? Goons, Atlas, they keep saying they want less space, but yet the same number of members, and yet still have small entities living next door. This doens't seem believable as they would have the overwhelming firepower to crush their new neighbours, even if the upgrades can provide for their members (which I fully believe they can).
The solution? It's actually quite simple. Make an exponetial cost tree and a bill to be paid by a corp/alliance for BLUE standings. What do I mean? Lets say a 100 man corp sets another 100 man corp blue. There would be a small, monthly cost associated with that standing, automatically billed. Both corps would be billed, the same amount, for setting each other blue. Now lets say a third corp joined the fray, another 100 people, and all 3 corps were now set blue to each other. The cost would go up for each corp to reflect the fact there is now 300 blues in the 'tree', but it would still be affordable.
Now, for the Goons, Atlas, Razor, Legion, Shadow, Tau Ceti, etc, who have 1000+ members, the cost tree would basically make it insanely unaffordable for them to EVER set anyone else blue, or blue to them. So, if the Goons had no blue standing to anyone, their monthly bill for standing would be 0 isk. The minute they set one other alliance or corp blue, even if that corp is only 3 people, the billing would be massive, hundreds of millions at least if not 10 of billions per month. By the flip side, if I tried to set Goons blue to me (whether they are my friends or not), I would suddenly get a bill for that same huge sum of money.
This would effectly prevent things like Goons and NC from ever working together, heck, it would make the entire NC 'block of blue' completely unaffordable. You want to be a large alliance? That is fine, there is no direct penalty for that, but you have to bring people into your corps under your flag. Large alliances would be forced to operate alone - the idea of the entire side of the map aligned against you would be broken.
It also could stop the issue with exponetial sov costs, as setting up alt alliances would be no longer practical as you could no longer set standings between the alliances, regardless if all the alt alliances only had 2 toons. All that would matter would be the total sum of the blue 'tree'.
I would say set the exponetial costs to really take off once the blue tree was around 750 people. That still leaves room for decent sized alliances holding a few systems to work together, but totally nerfs the ability of any of the large alliance to ever work together again. Perfect!
|
Moraguth
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 22:04:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Glassback I'm going to use my ewar immune dockable super carrier to farm anomalies all day!
sweet... i'll use my uber tanked HIC to hold you in place when we invade and get a cool super carrier kill to start off the day!
Hahaha, okay, not you specifically. But you should definitely reconsider this use of a SC if you plan on keeping it more than a month or two. good game
Hoc filum tradit - This thread delivers.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 22:16:00 -
[293]
Paying for standings would just screw smaller entities much more because they wouldn't be able to get standings with anyone
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 22:23:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Nobani on 19/11/2009 22:24:15
Originally by: Mcon99 The solution? It's actually quite simple. Make an exponetial cost tree and a bill to be paid by a corp/alliance for BLUE standings.
No. You want to put a cost on a blue '+' to stop alliances from working together. That's like putting a tax on marriage certificates to stop people from having sex.
|
Actumarius
Caldari Nemissaries of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 22:25:00 -
[295]
Remove level 4s from Hisec. Fix Game.
|
The Tallman
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 22:31:00 -
[296]
Edited by: The Tallman on 19/11/2009 22:32:20 Guys they are not going to get it perfect the first time round. It's two weeks to deployment. The alliance members posting here know from experience what happens in 0.0 and how we all make isk for ourselves & our corps/alliances. We just have to accept that we will still have to keep an alt in empire to run Lev 4's for now. Hopefully the new rise in the cost of living in 0.0 won't break our corp/alliance banks. (Cyno Jammers still too costly)
The last changes were a step in the right direction but I still don't see any significant motivation for corps/alliances in empire to rush out to make a home in 0.0 with this new system. CCP will hopefully track closely what happens after the patch and make more fixes asap.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 22:53:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Actumarius Remove level 4s from Hisec. Fix Game.
Remove moon mining from null sec. Fix Game.
|
All That
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 23:43:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Slobodanka About those cloaked bombers in my maxed system...
Seems like an opportunity for a new strategic upgrade module -- "cloak dispersion array" -- with expensive upkeep. Would make afk cloakers obsolete, too, which has long been a twisted game mechanic. Blues (with neut or red alts) even use it to keep their allied miners from venturing outside the pos while they continue to strip belts with no interruptions or competition. If they are limited in scope, they might even balance recons a bit, rather than break them if they were able to show up in every system on the map.
The idea of blocking afk cloakers might even be necessary for any game which implements this "activity-based" index for upgrade levels. It would be a very imbalanced way of keeping your enemies from achieving their required activity quotas for level maintenance or level upgrade.
I would pay for one because efficiency is king! There should be an equally significant commitment from interlopers (and even allies, sadly) to block any sovereign corp from being efficient and productive.
|
All That
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 23:54:00 -
[299]
The idea of inflation may even have a place in a game like Eve. Another mechanism to balance the old accounts with the newer ones. It all boils down to what have you done lately, rather than resting on your "old money" laurels, which was gained with old institutions based on code that was thrown out. Throw out the money with the code!!
This also seems to be in line with a lurking benefit to CCP with these changes -- corps have to play to keep their system upgrades/benefits and by encouraging inflation, CCP gives more incentive to play to keep their wallets.
|
Ganthrithor
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 00:15:00 -
[300]
This new system is seriously horrible. How you could set out to "solve the problem of POS shooting" and arrive at this as a "solution" is baffling to me.
First of all, regarding the POS shotting problem, you have completely failed to solve it. Now instead of shooting ten POSes we will shoot single stationary structure with the EHP of ten POSes. Hooray. On top of this, whereas now we can time / kite POSes, in Dominion we'll have to deal with randomized timers and a lack of control.
Second, the entire new sov / upgrades/ whatever system is terrible. First you devised a giant isk sink in the form of Sov bills. You say you implemented these new fees in order to take the place of tower fuel bills. Well guess what? There's still a lot of people who need Sov AND need online starbases! My moon mining business for example needs sov for the tower fuel bonus and the ability to deploy cyno beacons. Now I will need to pay my tower fuel bills AND a monthly sov bill of 240m isk (sov and cyno beacon). Guess what? The most valuable moons I mine generate ~200m / month in gross sales. Even if I had zero fuel costs I'd still be 40m in the red each month just paying for a cyno beacon! This is absurd, and unless you also implement a change which causes all the valuable moons to spawn in the same five systems there's no way anyone is going to be able to afford to mine mid-grade moon materials let alone low-ends. Even if you just opened 2-3 new accounts and stuck cyno alts all over the galaxy (so you could operate without beacons) your new system STILL drives operating costs up 25% since noone's going to be able to afford to take sov and claim their tower fuel consumption bonus.
The system productivity upgrades are by far the least-terrible idea you've come up with. Improvable space does seem like a good idea. However, implementation could be done better. More on this in a bit.
Here's a serious idea. I know this will never happen because "sunken costs and we'd look stupid" but I'm throwing the idea out there anyway-- toss 90% of these awful ideas in the bin and implement a simple solution. You want to reduce the amount of POS shotting? Great. Keep the current Sov system as is, but shift Sov-controlling POSes to planets instead of moons. This would drastically decrease the number of towers required to maintain a majority. Moon orbiting POSes could still be used for moon mining, production, ratting poses, logsitcs / upgrades etc but they wouldn't be able to claim Sov. In strategically unimportant backwater systems, small business owners will still be able to claim sov using a single tower, they'll still be able to run their logistics networks etc all while paying the cost of a medium or even a small tower. For strategically important systems, the number of POS required to maintain a majority (or even to block all planets) will be much lower than under the current system. Fewer POSes will be spammed, fewer will need shooting, and people can spend less time shooting pos during territorial wars.
One more note on POSes-- reinforced mode is a great system. Stront timing already works very well in discouraging casual assaults on territory owned by groups who live in another time zone. Currently the only way for an attacker to ensure a fight in their timezone is to kite towers, which means people need to make a serious effort, which I think is good. If you simply moved Sov controlling POSes to planets we could keep this excellent system.
Lastly, territorial upgrades could still fit into a modification of the current POS / sov system. Simply make your territorial upgrades into POS modules with large cpu/grid requirements similar to those of cyno jammers. This will effectively force upgrades to be installed on their own large towers (like jammers or jump bridges now).
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |