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) |
Myriand
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:36:00 -
[241]
Originally by: CCP Abathur @ Sovereignty - breaking the chains 2009.09.09 The other major factor is the more space you spread your æDominion' 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? And don't come with the a answer that theres no point in hold and pay for a system if you dont use and improve it. Actually, alliances hold sov on systems paying much more than they will pay after Dominion and they dont use the system for nothing!
Where will be the free space?
As the nex expansion is very cool CCP failed twice! They promissed a big 0.0 change and more free space and less big sov alliances, making more players move to 0.0 and have theire space. at the same time stop with the usual 0.0 big blob fights making it more efective using roaming gangs to harass the neighbor. FAIL! CCP come back on is word after the big sov alliances start crying! FAIL!
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:50:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Mrs Snowman In my view, the new system doesn't actually encourage new corps/alliances to move into 0.0 by itself!
No? Mine will and I know many others will too 20 anomalies and a system to call our own? Nice
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:37:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Pointfive
Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 19/11/2009 03:41:10 Can we please stop to ask about LvL 4 Missions and about personal profits?
20 anomalies with each having some 20 million ISK / hour as they're also increased in value with the upgrades will result in:
20 Million x 20 anomalies = 400 Million ISK / hour x 24 hours = 9.6 billion ISK / day x 28days = 268.8 billion / month
A potential 268.8 billion a month, without even considering mining, complexes or belt-ratting. That's what you get for your alliance and/or your members to split.
Not enough?
How about i join the level 4 running alliance with you?
35 Million x infinite missions = infinite Million ISK / hour x 24 hours = infinite isk ISK
Maybe you dont care a bout personal income, but every individual person that actually lives in 0.0 and doesn't afk and spend most of their time making money in empire like you , personal income does matter.
If these changes do make you get ON PAR income with level 4's the most this change will do is make some of the people who dont have level 4s spend their time in 0.0 instead.
Space remains the same, nullsec still not enticing to the majority of the player base, patch changes nothing. Space is going to be even harder to take. So all this does is entrench the large alliances more. Great patch.
How about you stop whining and working for your isk bobby? Work ever heard of it? Lvl 4 missions and your estimates of "infinite isk per hour" is just plain dumb.
Dominion upgrades will allow your members to make a better income in null- if they choose to grind for isk. Null sec anomalies are very profitable- try one sometime.
Your just upset because these upgrades cost your corp isk- R U that controlling that you dont want your corp members to make any isk of their own?
|
Kaahles
Kentucky Fried Capitals
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:40:00 -
[244]
What I would like to know is somewhat more about the visual part of the I-Hub. I believe I’ve read somewhere that it changes visually depending on what upgrades you got installed. Is that still the case? And if yes: is the picture in the blog the “base model” (i.e. without any upgrades) so we will have a somewhat “wow that looks epic”-moment when we install the upgrades or is that a render of a fully upgraded I-Hub?
----------------------------- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! Contract me all your stuff so I can save it! |
Aversin
Gallente Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:54:00 -
[245]
Something I haven't seen mentioned or asked, is the truesec system being ditched? For example if I upgrade a -.05 system fully will it be just as good as a -.91 system or will the truesec status of a system still have an effect on the anomalies, sites, and everything else that spawn?
Originally by: Razner Cerizo They will never quit. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:04:00 -
[246]
Edited by: Nareg Maxence on 19/11/2009 12:05:00
Originally by: EvilweaselFinance
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Are you telling me the number of good sites you have available does not influence how much money you make spending x number of hours doing them?
The time spent clearing a single high-end anomaly makes you less money than other things you could be doing in the same time. If it's not profitable to do once, it's not profitable to farm.
This is not true. Even the lesser quality anomalies in 0.0 are comparable to ratting in income/hour in my experience, and they are certainly more interesting than warping to belt, rinse, warp to new belt, rinse, repeat.
Lowsec and highsec anomalies are a different story. The highsec anomalies are somewhat interesting as newbie content, but quickly start to suck compared to real exploration or running missions or whatever. The lowsec ones just suck, plain and simple. When you are ready to go into lowsec, you are ready to start grinding radar sites, and radar sites are magnitudes more profitable.
|
Miraqu
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:23:00 -
[247]
Edited by: Miraqu on 19/11/2009 12:22:44 Somehow most of you missed something from all the devblog pages and comments.
Those "anomalies" are not to be compared with any anomaly currently in the game.
Perhaps it was a bad choice of word to call those NPC-sites anomalies too, but don't be too fixed at what is currently an anomaly in the game.
I fully agree that most current anomalies aren't really worth scanning, the upgrade-sites really are. Maybe visiting the Test server could help.
|
Peryner
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:38:00 -
[248]
well I understand my idea wasn't the best :P
but still, I'm sure the dev would agree that putting in agents into 0.0 space as upgrades would be silly and repetitive with the current system.
Maybe just release custom player made missions? I'm not sure how other mmos make those profitable? Like city of heros or .. that other mmo. Where like, the players can make there own missions for other players to do. Like with thier own dialog and stuff : )
But .. seriously.. does anyone know other mmos reward playermade missions without breaking something?
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:46:00 -
[249]
Not all anomalies will be complete top end since it was said earlier that there are some for less experienced players so you probably wonŠt have 20 guys making max isk in one system from them.
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 12:58:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 19/11/2009 03:41:10 Can we please stop to ask about LvL 4 Missions and about personal profits?
20 anomalies with each having some 20 million ISK / hour as they're also increased in value with the upgrades will result in:
20 Million x 20 anomalies = 400 Million ISK / hour x 24 hours = 9.6 billion ISK / day x 28days = 268.8 billion / month
A potential 268.8 billion a month, without even considering mining, complexes or belt-ratting.
Or enemies attacking, or cloakers, or roaming gangs, or...
The grass must really be green on your side of high-sec empire...
|
|
Lady Aja
Caldari Cobalt Dragon Exploration Company
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 13:04:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Slobodanka
Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 19/11/2009 03:41:10 Can we please stop to ask about LvL 4 Missions and about personal profits?
20 anomalies with each having some 20 million ISK / hour as they're also increased in value with the upgrades will result in:
20 Million x 20 anomalies = 400 Million ISK / hour x 24 hours = 9.6 billion ISK / day x 28days = 268.8 billion / month
A potential 268.8 billion a month, without even considering mining, complexes or belt-ratting.
Or enemies attacking, or cloakers, or roaming gangs, or...
The grass must really be green on your side of high-sec empire...
still have to scan them down no matter what. be it ship scanner ( 30 seconds ) or probe. ( 6-8 seconds )... in either case.... most people will dock up and event hen you have to take a lucky dip and hope you catch a anon runner. if you was not reading this right now? what would you be doing instead of reading my sig?
|
Pac SubCom
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 13:12:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Slobodanka
Or enemies attacking, or cloakers, or roaming gangs, or...
Lack of coordination is no argument. --------------- ∞ TQFE
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 13:15:00 -
[253]
You know ive noticed most of the complaints about isk ratios are coming from goonswarm, you know the guys who own the most broken truesec ratting systems in the game.
The bottom line for me is this, if i can upgrade the space i have so it gives more income whilest keeping the potential for anytime pvp then it is more incentive for me to come to 0.0. Simple equasion, Pew-Pew plus isk making = good. L4 mission *****s are never coming out of empire because for most of them theres no pew pew in the equasion, its simply about isk making.
I say better to balance it based on people who might actually come out here rather than balance it based on a group who will never ever use it no matter what is done to it.
|
Myriand
Emperor's New Clones
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 13:19:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Myriand on 19/11/2009 13:22:32 Edited by: Myriand on 19/11/2009 13:20:12
Originally by: Lady Aja
Originally by: Slobodanka
Originally by: Vivian Azure Edited by: Vivian Azure on 19/11/2009 03:41:10 Can we please stop to ask about LvL 4 Missions and about personal profits?
20 anomalies with each having some 20 million ISK / hour as they're also increased in value with the upgrades will result in:
20 Million x 20 anomalies = 400 Million ISK / hour x 24 hours = 9.6 billion ISK / day x 28days = 268.8 billion / month
A potential 268.8 billion a month, without even considering mining, complexes or belt-ratting.
Or enemies attacking, or cloakers, or roaming gangs, or...
The grass must really be green on your side of high-sec empire...
still have to scan them down no matter what. be it ship scanner ( 30 seconds ) or probe. ( 6-8 seconds )... in either case.... most people will dock up and event hen you have to take a lucky dip and hope you catch a anon runner.
Originally by: Pac SubCom
Originally by: Slobodanka
Or enemies attacking, or cloakers, or roaming gangs, or...
Lack of coordination is no argument.
Lol, one is from a NPC corp(post with you main for some credebility), the other, acording to battleClinic his corp lives on a WH and he is a HS war dec griefer.
You guys, know very well how is to live and roam in 0.0 23/7!!! ROFL
Ninja edit: I'm not authorized to post with my main! But at least I dont use a alt protected by the gods of NPC corps L4 mission runners free wardec risk!
|
Zastrow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 14:11:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Aversin Something I haven't seen mentioned or asked, is the truesec system being ditched? For example if I upgrade a -.05 system fully will it be just as good as a -.91 system or will the truesec status of a system still have an effect on the anomalies, sites, and everything else that spawn?
the CSM asked CCP about this at the iceland summit. it's apparently a variable that cannot be easily changed because it's pre-loaded from the database at cluster startup or something like that 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 |
Vladimir Griftin
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 14:17:00 -
[256]
Some high end anomalies are upward of 45m in bounties alone, I know there are a couple of Sansha ones that are close anyway, they can easily be done in under an hour with a high DPS battleship.
The thing that really makes this better than L4's is the speed at which you can run them. You don't need to move, you just get wave after wave. No moving between rooms.
You can fit a probe launcher at a POS, run one scan with a deep space probe, rifit your gun and off you go. You have a warp in to every anomaly in the system.
If you learn the names of the good ones the ISK/hr ratio should be very decent because it will be non stop. Add in the chance of faction spawn and its really not bad at all.
The cost of a fully upgraded system with no strategic upgrades is 180m a month, something a single pilot could make in 4hrs.
The trouble is finding a way to reliably and fairly transfer that ISK up to the space holding Alliance level.
|
Myriand
Emperor's New Clones
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 14:19:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Zastrow
Originally by: Aversin Something I haven't seen mentioned or asked, is the truesec system being ditched? For example if I upgrade a -.05 system fully will it be just as good as a -.91 system or will the truesec status of a system still have an effect on the anomalies, sites, and everything else that spawn?
the CSM asked CCP about this at the iceland summit. it's apparently a variable that cannot be easily changed because it's pre-loaded from the database at cluster startup or something like that
Seems the CSM is in need of one or moew real life developers to make the ambarassing questions to CCP when they give that kind of answers!!!
|
Pac SubCom
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 14:21:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 19/11/2009 14:25:50
Originally by: Myriand But at least I dont use a alt protected by the gods of NPC corps...
I have more respect for man who lets me know where he stands, even if he is wrong, than for the one who comes up like a 0.0 pvp god and is nothing but a bear who wants to rat in more safety in 0.0 than npc corps could ever provide, with a larger payout than lvl 4 even if disturbed by hostiles once in a while.
If you coordinate, you don't have to stop doing your anomalies with cloakers or roaming gangs about. But you are unable to do so since in your alliance you make isk on your own of course - hence you don't deserve the payout of the chaining of anomalies in places where solo play doesn't net you the top isk.
People can't imagine any deviation from the business as usual. That's why they are afraid that they won't cope with the 0.0 environment they'll find themselves in after Dominion. And that's why they don't like these changes. --------------- ∞ TQFE
|
Myriand
Emperor's New Clones
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 14:26:00 -
[259]
Well, 20 anomalies with, lets especulat, 10 good anomalies means 10 chances of getting a faction rat in only one system!!!
Lets especulate again and say that every 10 factions rats you got a very nice drop (something worth more than 200-300M)
So... you do 10 anomalies, get the bounties, get the not so worth faction loot and get one good faction loot. Even if each anomalie only gives 25M in bountys this would end up in 250M plus the faction rat bounty, plus 9 faction crapy mods(50-100M) and a good faction mod.
I'm seeing more than a 1,5Bil only on 10 anomalies! Can you do that in L4?
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 15:18:00 -
[260]
Those drops wonŠt be worth that for long.
|
|
kezz2411
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 15:49:00 -
[261]
why not give stations and upkeep fee? it would tune down station spamming a bit by the larger alliances wouldn't it ?
|
Spurty
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 15:53:00 -
[262]
Originally by: kezz2411 why not give stations and upkeep fee? it would tune down station spamming a bit by the larger alliances wouldn't it ?
spamming surely not!
Obvious idea that though kezz, I support it. Make em open their doors to make the isk to support the stations!
Originally by: Machine Delta When making a point, anyone taking it should consider the source.
pretty deep coming from you |
Nairb Ecrep
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 15:54:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua Okay some of the numbers looking better and things are better explained that's good.
However 2 major problems remain.
1. Size of Infrastructure Hubs: Can we at least get these reduced to fit into a jump freighter. As it stands now the bottlenecks are going to prevent anyone from getting a freighter through.
2. NRDS space is threatened. I have an idea for a solution that I've not seen. A system tax. This is a tax on bounties received in the system set by the sovereign of the system and sent to their executor's wallet. Make it from like 1-10%. It also is taken before corp tax is taken so as not to have a corp bump their tax up to 100% and make the sovereign get nothing.
(Would also be nice to have an alliance tax...similar structure 1-10%, it comes out before corp tax but after sovereign tax :)...this would help alliances too :) )
Even though I said the same bit about system tax on page 5, what about this?
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:09:00 -
[264]
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. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:10:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Darek Castigatus You know ive noticed most of the complaints about isk ratios are coming from goonswarm, you know the guys who own the most broken truesec ratting systems in the game.
You have a keen eye for the obvious. This expansion is the best ever, just by the amount of goon tears flowing.
Sweet, sweet goon tears, the taste of honey and whine.
|
The Mittani
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:17:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Darek Castigatus You know ive noticed most of the complaints about isk ratios are coming from goonswarm, you know the guys who own the most broken truesec ratting systems in the game.
You have a keen eye for the obvious. This expansion is the best ever, just by the amount of goon tears flowing.
Sweet, sweet goon tears, the taste of honey and whine.
i cannot deny that my alliance is very, very upset about this. :(((
Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:44:00 -
[267]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 16:46:18
Probably what concerns me the most about these new nul-sec changes is the fundamental shift from "passive income source" to "active income source".
Currently players wage wars to control space at key income source locations. But there isn't a requirement to make players work further once they control the strategic economic objectives. It also focuses nul-sec mostly on combat/PvP.
In the new model - "passive income sources" are being nerfed and the costs to maintain an alliance are being increased. And the income source now to maintain your alliance is like a forced indenturement of Eve players - instead of fighting over key resources, alliances now must set up PvE operations that must be constantly ongoing on a daily basis for the alliance to survive.
I just wonder how many players will buy into this new model? Instead of fighting over nul-sec resources they will now be required to "grind" daily for resources. Even if they conquer new space - it still will require even more PvE activity for upkeep and more indenturement of alliance members.
To be honest, I think a better model could have been devised to avoid forced indenturement of players just to get nul-sec more populated or used. More dynamic and varied across systems "passive income" resources could have been introduced. More depth and rewards to PvP - the large fleet battles that would determine growth or diminishment of an alliance rather than how many anomalies players can grind a day.
My 2 cents.
|
Orthaen
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:24:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 16:46:18
Probably what concerns me the most about these new nul-sec changes is the fundamental shift from "passive income source" to "active income source".
Currently players wage wars to control space at key income source locations. But there isn't a requirement to make players work further once they control the strategic economic objectives. It also focuses nul-sec mostly on combat/PvP.
In the new model - "passive income sources" are being nerfed and the costs to maintain an alliance are being increased. And the income source now to maintain your alliance is like a forced indenturement of Eve players - instead of fighting over key resources, alliances now must set up PvE operations that must be constantly ongoing on a daily basis for the alliance to survive.
I just wonder how many players will buy into this new model? Instead of fighting over nul-sec resources they will now be required to "grind" daily for resources. Even if they conquer new space - it still will require even more PvE activity for upkeep and more indenturement of alliance members.
To be honest, I think a better model could have been devised to avoid forced indenturement of players just to get nul-sec more populated or used. More dynamic and varied across systems "passive income" resources could have been introduced. More depth and rewards to PvP - the large fleet battles that would determine growth or diminishment of an alliance rather than how many anomalies players can grind a day.
My 2 cents.
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.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:31:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Dante Edmundo Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 19/11/2009 16:46:18
Probably what concerns me the most about these new nul-sec changes is the fundamental shift from "passive income source" to "active income source".
Currently players wage wars to control space at key income source locations. But there isn't a requirement to make players work further once they control the strategic economic objectives. It also focuses nul-sec mostly on combat/PvP.
In the new model - "passive income sources" are being nerfed and the costs to maintain an alliance are being increased. And the income source now to maintain your alliance is like a forced indenturement of Eve players - instead of fighting over key resources, alliances now must set up PvE operations that must be constantly ongoing on a daily basis for the alliance to survive.
I just wonder how many players will buy into this new model? Instead of fighting over nul-sec resources they will now be required to "grind" daily for resources. Even if they conquer new space - it still will require even more PvE activity for upkeep and more indenturement of alliance members.
To be honest, I think a better model could have been devised to avoid forced indenturement of players just to get nul-sec more populated or used. More dynamic and varied across systems "passive income" resources could have been introduced. More depth and rewards to PvP - the large fleet battles that would determine growth or diminishment of an alliance rather than how many anomalies players can grind a day.
My 2 cents.
Everyone in 0.0 is already ratting Now they'll make more money doing anomalies instead. Corps will raise taxes and alliances will be fine
What you won't have is alliances making enough ISK for Titan blobs and endless amounts of Dreads. Good riddance
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:47:00 -
[270]
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |