EVE Search - Dominion is a huge fail... Alliances punished and now taxed for sov

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Dominion is a huge fail... Alliances punished and now taxed for sov

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Doom Viper	Posted - 2009.12.05 00:50:00 - [1] Help me understand this.... Alliances pre dominion... Could hold sov in an entire constellation.. Paid zero isk to ccp for that priveledge except for POS fuel and related expenses. Post dominion ccp feels that the new direction of the game is a new alliance tax on holding sov that is approx 180m / month per system in which the alliances wants official sov. How the hell did we allow ccp to add this massive isk sink to the game when we are taking all the risk? Where is this isk going (for role play purposes)? Not to concord cuz they don't operate in 0.0. We own our own space? Not post dominion. Now all alliances rent there space from CCP? Seriously.... I love this game but we are taking it in the rear. Ccp have destroyed the entire purpose of 0.0 alliance warfare mechanism... Fight for your space and then you own / control it. Now what is the benefit... We fight to pay ccp for what we once owned without the penalty. tl;dr. Alliances no longer own their space and now we are all renters. 0.0 is nerfed and now it's capture the flag ( the hubs serve no RP purpose )
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2009.12.05 00:55:00 - [2] So what you're saying is you LIKED tower spam?
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.12.05 00:59:00 - [3] Now it makes more sense to only hold sov over systems you actually use. It's not game breaking. It breaks the problems with the game. My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Kiri Croft Minmatar New World Industries	Posted - 2009.12.05 00:59:00 - [4] if you get annoyed with the changes so much can i have your stuff
Alexeph Stoekai Stoekai Corp	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:03:00 - [5] Originally by: Doom Viper Where is this isk going (for role play purposes)? The alliance that owns a system does not own or operate the stargates. CONCORD has decided to impose a fee for alliances that lay claim to systems connected to CONCORD's stargate network, and if they don't pay that fee they don't allow the alliance to use the subspace comms system that is propagated through hubs on stargates (according to TonyG). In OOC terms, the new ISK sink serves a number of purposes: A) It allows an alliance to control sov without having to manage a hundred POSes. Thus it is a service fee for removing a tedious element from the game. B) It is an ISK sink balancing the loss of many such POSes. C) It is an ISK sink balancing the addition of high-quality pirate complexes that can be spawned in upgraded systems. -----
Fish Hunter	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:22:00 - [6] How is this a huge new isk sink. 1 large tower costs about 6mil isk per day tcu - 6 mil isk per day and no hauling of fuel for it Yeah the sov holder is gettin ripped off
Doom Viper	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:28:00 - [7] Originally by: Letrange So what you're saying is you LIKED tower spam? no, of course not, but this does not negate the need for POS's for jump bridge and cyno networks. WE are trading what we owned and fought for, to now being a renter in our own space. Instead of promoting pvp, they are inhibiting it because alliances will need to carebear their asses off to pay the rent... the 'upgrades' are a novelty... we should have had these type of bonuses in 0.0 anyway due to the whole risk/reward thing. Individuals can make way more isk free from any type of risk doing Level 4 missions... huge trade off in isk for what we already had.
Doom Viper	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:33:00 - [8] Edited by: Doom Viper on 05/12/2009 01:36:29 Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai Originally by: Doom Viper Where is this isk going (for role play purposes)? The alliance that owns a system does not own or operate the stargates. CONCORD has decided to impose a fee for alliances that lay claim to systems connected to CONCORD's stargate network, and if they don't pay that fee they don't allow the alliance to use the subspace comms system that is propagated through hubs on stargates (according to TonyG). In OOC terms, the new ISK sink serves a number of purposes: A) It allows an alliance to control sov without having to manage a hundred POSes. Thus it is a service fee for removing a tedious element from the game. B) It is an ISK sink balancing the loss of many such POSes. C) It is an ISK sink balancing the addition of high-quality pirate complexes that can be spawned in upgraded systems. Concord does not operate in 0.0 nor lay claim to 0.0 so that is fail RP. For 5 years we have been playing EVE alliances could lay claim either verbally or after the sovereignty changes in the past, and not pay for their own space... now we have to pay rent after 5 years? You cannot see this as a nerf to alliances in 0.0? I just dont see how this was the best option CCP had... i like everything except us paying rent for what we already owned.
Gun Gal	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:44:00 - [9] Lol what the op is trying to say really is that: For too long incompetant alliances were able to hold space simply due to mass tower spam now you fail and cry it's unfair again, I laugh at you and fart in your general direction! PS; why do I think the op is actually a goonie posting on his alt. ROFL
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:48:00 - [10] Originally by: Gun Gal again, I laugh at you and fart in your general direction! Confirming that their mothers smell of elderberries. My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Troll Bridgington	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:51:00 - [11] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Originally by: Gun Gal again, I laugh at you and fart in your general direction! Confirming that their mothers smell of elderberries. And their fathers are hamsters
5p4c3 Truck3r	Posted - 2009.12.05 01:51:00 - [12] this is where someone says something about not reading patch notes, dev blogs or even went on sisi to test.
Scrym Drunken Troublemakers Club	Posted - 2009.12.05 02:25:00 - [13] DOOM VIPER!!!!!!!!! sounds a lot tougher than I think you really are.
Juliette Leblanc Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.12.05 02:37:00 - [14] Originally by: Doom Viper Help me understand this.... Alliances pre dominion... Could hold sov in an entire constellation.. Paid zero isk to ccp for that priveledge except for POS fuel and related expenses. Post dominion ccp feels that the new direction of the game is a new alliance tax on holding sov that is approx 180m / month per system in which the alliances wants official sov. The way I see it is a little different. Pre Domninion an alliance that wanted to control a regions would have to get sov on every single system in that region, pay a lot of money for fuel to keep multiple POSes in each system and do a lot of work to do to manage that fuel logistic. Post Dominion the same alliance can completely control the same region by keeping sov on only some key systems, only need to pay isks equivalent to about one tower for each of the sov systems (not for each system in the region they control) need no logistic at all to do that and does not even have to remember to pay the invoices as they can now be automated. Getting sov is now much more difficult. Keeping sov is easier and speaking of costs, ruling over a wide area of space is potentially 10 times cheaper (if not 20) than it used to be. Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
Lukelen	Posted - 2009.12.05 02:39:00 - [15] Edited by: Lukelen on 05/12/2009 02:39:22 I wanted to say my two bits. Although I have NEVER played in 0.0 and do not fully understand sov in such space it seems common sense that if you OWN space which is what sovereign means then you decide what is controlled. It doesn't seem very far to involved outside influence. I would compare this to the USA demanding payment per month from France for its lands just becuase it was an instrument in liberating it from the Germans.
Aqriue	Posted - 2009.12.05 02:49:00 - [16] Originally by: Doom Viper Concord does not operate in 0.0 nor lay claim to 0.0 so that is fail RP. My belief is that all 0.0 space is claimed by the four empires. Look at the gate types present, they were there before you set foot in the system. That space is just not being utilized until your corp started working there. Now your paying taxes to rent it from the empires, CONCORD is the intermediary that collects and distributes the tax money. RP wins this round? Quote: For 5 years we have been playing EVE alliances could lay claim either verbally or after the sovereignty changes in the past, and not pay for their own space... now we have to pay rent after 5 years? You cannot see this as a nerf to alliances in 0.0? I just dont see how this was the best option CCP had... i like everything except us paying rent for what we already owned. What the heck are the big alliances doing with 5 years worth of stockpiled isk? Even after costs for maintaining it, there are loads of left over isk sitting around doing nothing because it can be generated easily. Its only going to be stolen by successful corp infiltration, might as well be put to some use instead of lining the pockects of your enemy. Even after the goons won delve, pretty sure they recooped any looses within the first 2 months doing nothing but moon mining and still have left overs to make huge cap fleets of rigged out rifters and pay for yodeling lessons before suiciding their eneimies.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.12.05 02:51:00 - [17] Originally by: Doom Viper 180m / month per system Originally by: Doom Viper massive isk sink Look how stupid you are. Originally by: CCP Casqade The forum does not represent anywhere close to 90% of the users. In fact it represents a clear minority of them.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.05 02:58:00 - [18] 35m/week, from what I understand, is about the fuel of one large tower (maybe a bit more but whatever). Which basically means alliances can hold sov, without hauling and managing 200 pos. How is this a bad thing? OHGODS BELOW THIS LINE IS MY SIG !!!! SRSLY! Blane Xero > Lance is at -0.9 sec status with a 1 million bounty. Lance is also amarrian. Thats 3 evil points
Leeham Gallente Dissonance Corp Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.05 03:03:00 - [19] So in RP terms how do the pirate faction gates fall into this scheme? Are the NC paying Guristas for their sov?
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.12.05 03:19:00 - [20] Originally by: Letrange So what you're saying is you LIKED tower spam? i keep hearing this faulty argument over and over again. this thread isn't about the sov mechanics and how combat revolves around that - even a simple tower HP~ and stronz bay reduction could've done that. this thread is about the blatant trillion-isk-sink that serves no purpose. - putting the gist back into logistics
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.12.05 03:25:00 - [21] Originally by: Roemy Schneider Originally by: Letrange So what you're saying is you LIKED tower spam? i keep hearing this faulty argument over and over again. this thread isn't about the sov mechanics and how combat revolves around that - even a simple tower HP~ and stronz bay reduction could've done that. this thread is about the blatant trillion-isk-sink that serves no purpose. But if your only talking about the isk then how is the new system any diffent isk sink wise to having to spend moon goo income on ice products each month to keep the sov towers running? Now with the changes the ice miner bots get the shaft as ice prices will fall to next to nothing and alliances will still be paying about what they did per month to keep sov up. Originally by: CCP Casqade The forum does not represent anywhere close to 90% of the users. In fact it represents a clear minority of them.
Obsidian Hawk Free Galactic Enterprises FREGE	Posted - 2009.12.05 03:33:00 - [22] Doom Viper, Who are you and have you been playing eve for the past 4 months at all? All 0.0 alliances new this was coming, we all prepped for it and we welcomed these changes.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.12.05 03:40:00 - [23] Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/12/2009 03:41:01 Originally by: Zeba But if your only talking about the isk then how is the new system any diffent isk sink wise to having to spend moon goo income on ice products each month to keep the sov towers running? Now with the changes the ice miner bots get the shaft as ice prices will fall to next to nothing and alliances will still be paying about what they did per month to keep sov up. yes, that was the faulty line of argument all along. the number of alliances actually using 5 sov towers per station system can be counted on one hand and leaves a couple of fingers unemployed. nor did you have 5 sov towers in jb systems let alone anywhere else. but _every_ alliance is running hundreds of industrial towers outside of station systems. believe me, ice is going upwards. running towers without sov means +33% of that stuff and considering how we'll need hundreds more carbide towers across the entire galaxy opposed to a few downsized dyspro/prom , that tendency just got squared - putting the gist back into logistics
Patent Lawyer Native Freshfood	Posted - 2009.12.05 03:43:00 - [24] Originally by: Obsidian Hawk Doom Viper, Who are you and have you been playing eve for the past 4 months at all? All 0.0 alliances new this was coming, we all prepped for it and we welcomed these changes. you represent all of EVE.. nice to know. Not everyone likes to rent the space they used to own. Oh, and anomolies are not respawning.. wtg CCP... silent nerf? cuz you are not responding to numerious threads saying that the upgrade to boost autorespawning anomolies are broken...
WarlockX Amarr Free Trade Corp	Posted - 2009.12.05 04:37:00 - [25] Everyone except YOU likes the new mechanics. Maybe the problem isn't with the mechanics, maybe the problem is with you. Eh? ----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page
Korizan Red Mercury Incorporated	Posted - 2009.12.05 04:53:00 - [26] CCP did say that 0.0 alliances where claiming more space then they were using. If the new SOV system left the overall cost the same as pre-dominion then nothing would have changed. As far as the whole, now we are taxed deal, well they could have made fuel pellets and made you fuel them just like POS's Considering the major changes in SOV they still can go down this road once everyone has there SOV figured out. I think if they did this right off the bat though it would have been really ugly. CCP did say they could add on to this system sooooo. Be careful what you wish for
Mire Stoude The Undesirables	Posted - 2009.12.05 04:58:00 - [27] RAWR SOCIALISM! Ohh sorry, I thought I was watching Fox News.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.05 07:32:00 - [28] Originally by: Roemy Schneider Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/12/2009 03:41:01 Originally by: Zeba But if your only talking about the isk then how is the new system any diffent isk sink wise to having to spend moon goo income on ice products each month to keep the sov towers running? Now with the changes the ice miner bots get the shaft as ice prices will fall to next to nothing and alliances will still be paying about what they did per month to keep sov up. yes, that was the faulty line of argument all along. the number of alliances actually using 5 sov towers per station system can be counted on one hand and leaves a couple of fingers unemployed. nor did you have 5 sov towers in jb systems let alone anywhere else. but _every_ alliance is running hundreds of industrial towers outside of station systems. believe me, ice is going upwards. running towers without sov means +33% of that stuff and considering how we'll need hundreds more carbide towers across the entire galaxy opposed to a few downsized dyspro/prom , that tendency just got squared You keep the discount in controlled system. So find another fail argument.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.12.05 07:46:00 - [29] Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/12/2009 07:56:13 well, let's hear your definiton of "controlled" system then? 'cause we have to pay 180mil/month just for sov now in case you missed that. in systems where your corp runs a carbide production with 2 large towers, you'd pay more than you save. even if you had 4 large towers there, but the reduced work load might be worth it. so let'*s call that the break-even. that's atill 180mil more for indu towers than before - putting the gist back into logistics
Alezander Jagen JagenCorp Combat Industries	Posted - 2009.12.05 08:23:00 - [30] Despite the new mechanics (which might be a little too lenient) the influence map is showing that many alliances aren't downsizing their territory. And the RP reason behind the gates... The empires send off ships (with the materials, machines, and humongous engines to get them there that we will never see on in-network ships that we fly) to compatible systems to build the gates. You can tell this is ongoing by the different (and presumably updated) models of stargates out in 0.0. Basically, the gates are run by different corporations who are independent of the empires and who have their own automated/slave workforce manning the gates. This is why you can get into empire with a low-sec rating. If CONCORD was running the gates, you wouldn't even be able to activate the gate in because CONCORD would have locked you out of the system. But compared to the old system, I'd rather pay straight money for holding systems than running logistics for hundreds of towers. Plus we're one step closer to POS's being true stations than a big stick in space with clusters of crud scattered about.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.