Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Noluck Ned
Gallente Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 03:12:00 -
[181]
Its been a long time since we had a thread like this around here...
Be right back, I need more popcorn.
|
SeIdarine
Minmatar Mass Evacuation Taboo.
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 04:23:00 -
[182]
oh lawd
Dear IT you are terrible @ caod, yes even worse then ~maru kage~
Molle, please place a caod ban all the trash your alliance recruited from motsu.
|
Danton Marcellus
Gallente Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 04:54:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza lol now this sounds like the BoB of old
I miss the days when they were off the forums.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Betty Boom
Caldari SPECTRE Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 06:08:00 -
[184]
I like it. Hopefully this discussion goes on. *popcorn*
|
Velvet69
Caldari eXceed Inc. Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 06:47:00 -
[185]
Word on the Street is IT are now NRDS.
We went roaming in Delve the other night and noone would engage us.
Next day, we hear we've been set -10.
Maybe next time we'll get some fights.
-velve-
Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn' If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions |
Imperator Ceasar
Caldari 104th Ranger Mobile Combat Regiment
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 08:16:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Imperator Ceasar on 24/02/2010 08:17:43
Originally by: Avernus Speaking as someone who has run both large and small alliances, both as IGA and pre-IGA, gotta disagree with the above sentiment.
Balance is the correct term to use, but it comes down to mechanics. You can't (and I mean can't as a matter of opinion) do it at the expense of one group to satisfy another group. IGAs provide a bare minimum of supporting tools for all of us, something we all hope to see change as Dominion progresses. With what we have available to us right now, aside from removing alliance mechanics altogether, you couldn't make it much more complex than it already is.
Sov mechanics on the other hand, took a step in the right direction with Dominion, but didn't go far enough.
What you seem to advocate is a sovereignty cost based directly upon number of systems held, and the cost should increase either exponentially, or on a scale. I think what is needed is a sovereignty cost based upon systems held, but tempered by activity using the existing indexes.
Few systems = low cost Lots of systems, coupled with low index activity = butthurt alliance wallet Lots of systems, high index activity = sustainable cost
We can't punish alliances for having lots of space, especially if they need it. On the same hand, I have no problem seeing alliance wallets suffer for those who have held onto far more than they can use.
Dominion needs a Vassal Alliance mechanic tbh. Would make some sense to use an expansion of existing contract mechanics. Owner of the space sets the terms (area, cost, right to build stations, erect POS, upgrade systems, length of contract), can put it on 'open market' or to those set blue. Owner and Vassal can haggle over the details and adjust the contract agreement until both sign off on it. Owner retains original rights to the space in question, while the contract is in effect however, sov mechanics show the space in question under the Vassals ownership. If the contract is defaulted for failure to meet terms of agreement or the owner declines to renew the contract at end of term, the space reverts to the owner.
Very thought provoking indeed - many thanks for putting some great thoughts together... I think your ideas balanced with some of mine & what has been proposed in the thread starter link & we could have a real winning combo of concepts to work with.
*tips hat* Intelligence like this is very refreshing.
|
Imperator Ceasar
Caldari 104th Ranger Mobile Combat Regiment
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 08:21:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Sandwich PvP Edited by: Sandwich PvP on 24/02/2010 00:46:02 IT's a sandbox. All of the arguments come down to this. Either you build a bigger, nastier Alliance to take what you want, or you learn the value of diplomacy and show the alliance that cutting a deal with you could be more of an advantage than a liability.
Placing artificial limits on the size of Alliance or the number of systems they can control would be an attack on the very basis of the game. Like it or hate it, this is EVE.
Edit: Now the dismantling of stations would fit within the the sandbox theme, and I don't know why it's not already in the game.
Spoken like a true benefactor of the current system - way to go in not disguising your own selfish interests & remaining closed minded to other ideas.
|
Le Cardinal
Caldari Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 08:37:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Le Cardinal on 24/02/2010 08:37:42 Find it funny that each time someone disagrees with you Imperator they are either biased or smacking you.
Looking at the OP maybe your right. Maybe it was a screw off message? As for holding much space. Dominion was partly about giving smaller entitiess a chance to live in 0.0. And as far as me concerned it has had that effect, but probably not for single corporations like yours. Large spaceholding alliances have opened their space and let other alliances benefit from their space, either by a) getting sov in systems/stations or b) using stations held by themselves.
No large spaceholding alliance have any interest in owning lots of space unless it has some kind of benefit. As pointed out earlier in this thread the cost of jb's etc has skyrocketed, and therefore you are dependent on alliances using you systems and stations.
If you had paid any attention to dotlan and not just the fancy sovmap you would see that large spaceholding alliances from north to south dropped a lot of sov systems when dominion hit, simply because it was too expensive to hold them. That doesnt mean that theywill accept that anyone tries to grab it. You have to cut deals to live in 0.0 on all levels. Its just a matter of perspective. large alliances depend on allies too to be able to keep space. Just as small alliances has to depend on an larger alliance to be able to hold space.
|
Eskalin
Minmatar Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 09:10:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Eskalin on 24/02/2010 09:10:49 because eve is a game of altruism, compassion, and trust RIGHT? the hypocrisy of your posts is awesome the tunnel vision you have exhibited here is almost plague black in proportion. of course large alliances are going to work for their own self interest, that is human nature. your own posts have shown the same amount of self interest, ignoring rational arguments and debate out of hand while cramming your opinion down our throats. the agenda you seem bent on foisting off on the community while more verbose than most bawww threads is just that, "ccp i want the game to cater to my whim!waaaaaaaaaa".
the game is far from perfect but the new sov system is better than the pos bashing that went before it. if you haven't done a 14 hour stretch of that then lucky you.
the court of public opinion isn't going to change our rental policy so use your supposed skill set from rl, inspire comrades, take space. or pay like a peasant for a lord's protection in their domain.
we all know you will just continue to cry here. prove me wrong.
edit spelling
If babies weren't to be eaten they wouldn't be hibachi sized
|
Eskalin
Minmatar Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 09:15:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Imperator Ceasar Spoken like a true beneficiary of the current system - way to go in not disguising your own selfish interests & remaining closed minded to other ideas.
fixed that for you. comprehension 4tw
If babies weren't to be eaten they wouldn't be hibachi sized
|
|
Imperator Ceasar
Caldari 104th Ranger Mobile Combat Regiment
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 09:39:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Eskalin Edited by: Eskalin on 24/02/2010 09:10:49 because eve is a game of altruism, compassion, and trust RIGHT? the hypocrisy of your posts is awesome the tunnel vision you have exhibited here is almost plague black in proportion. of course large alliances are going to work for their own self interest, that is human nature. your own posts have shown the same amount of self interest, ignoring rational arguments and debate out of hand while cramming your opinion down our throats. the agenda you seem bent on foisting off on the community while more verbose than most bawww threads is just that, "ccp i want the game to cater to my whim!waaaaaaaaaa".
the game is far from perfect but the new sov system is better than the pos bashing that went before it. if you haven't done a 14 hour stretch of that then lucky you.
the court of public opinion isn't going to change our rental policy so use your supposed skill set from rl, inspire comrades, take space. or pay like a peasant for a lord's protection in their domain.
we all know you will just continue to cry here. prove me wrong.
edit spelling
No crying here at all - I have suggested changes and predictably large alliances dont like my suggestions.
And I have never pretended to be unbiased either. But, I do see the continued inbalances and think CCP should go further in fixing things so large alliances do not get too powerful.
|
Imperator Ceasar
Caldari 104th Ranger Mobile Combat Regiment
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 10:02:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Eskalin Edited by: Eskalin on 24/02/2010 09:10:49 because eve is a game of altruism, compassion, and trust RIGHT? the hypocrisy of your posts is awesome the tunnel vision you have exhibited here is almost plague black in proportion. of course large alliances are going to work for their own self interest, that is human nature. your own posts have shown the same amount of self interest, ignoring rational arguments and debate out of hand while cramming your opinion down our throats. the agenda you seem bent on foisting off on the community while more verbose than most bawww threads is just that, "ccp i want the game to cater to my whim!waaaaaaaaaa".
the game is far from perfect but the new sov system is better than the pos bashing that went before it. if you haven't done a 14 hour stretch of that then lucky you.
the court of public opinion isn't going to change our rental policy so use your supposed skill set from rl, inspire comrades, take space. or pay like a peasant for a lord's protection in their domain.
we all know you will just continue to cry here. prove me wrong.
edit spelling
No crying here at all - I have suggested changes and predictably large alliances dont like my suggestions.
And I have never pretended to be unbiased either. But, I do see the continued inbalances and think CCP should go further in fixing things so large alliances do not get so powerful that they control huge swathes of Eve..
Why is it that a simple trading of ideas turns into personal insults and caustic comments so easily? All the Sov comments I've posted are simply ideas, which may be "out of the box" in perspective - but so what?
I started this thread because I was stunned by the fees and had no idea if that was the norm or not, so I posted the offer in its' entirety so as to not be called a liar, to solicit input as I was unfamiliar with the real ISK gen potentials under Dominion. This devolution of discussions into cutting comments and etc. is simply unnecessary.
|
Hyveres
Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 10:27:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Hyveres on 24/02/2010 10:30:12 Edited by: Hyveres on 24/02/2010 10:29:36
Originally by: Imperator Ceasar No crying here at all - I have suggested changes and predictably large alliances does not like my suggestions.
And I have never pretended to be unbiased either. But, I do see the continued imbalances and think CCP should go further in fixing things so large alliances do not get so powerful that they control huge swathes of Eve../quote]
It might be because this is one reason why a lot of us enjoy the game. It leads to big conflicts and drama.
Roams and ganks are fun but over time its just another variation of a small scale fight like you can get in almost any other mmo.
That being said under dominion large scale fleet fights does not work as well as they used to.
Oh and owning space is not a right to get a proper feel for 0.0 I'd actually recommend in starting out from NPC 0.0 like myself and a lot of others have done you might learn some valuable lessons there. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound |
Doddy
Gallente The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 11:31:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Imperator Ceasar
You are advocating for somethign that services your own current interests, so quite honestly you're lacking the gravitas to make your statements stick, for that reason alone.
You just don't get it do you? The size of alliances has nothing to with it. If it was made more expensive for alliances to hold more space, then alliances would just split into several smaller alliances. The same people would still be dominating the same space and smaller groups would just as hard a time of it as they are still facing in effect the same single alliance, the only difference being the sov map has more pretty colours. None of the entities in 0.0 currently has any issues working with people who don't happen to be in the same alliance, why do you think breaking up an alliance would have any effect?
Right now each corp in IT could make its own alliance and join it and nothing would change other than having more alliance bills to pay (which wouldn't be an issue if it reduced sov costs). Most of us were effectively doing that in the GBC anyway and it is also basically what the NC is.
An independent entity can't simply walk out of empire and expect empty 0.0 systems to be sitting waiting for them. On the other hand a bit of isk or a bit of diplomacy can obviously get you some space quite easily (atlas rental prices can be lower than the office costs of living in empire ffs). If you are a decent corp you probably make the jump from renter to ally quite easily (everyone wants competent freinds) and if you are not a decent corp you don't deserve space of your own anyway.
|
Estios
Minmatar Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:01:00 -
[195]
Originally by: OldPueblo
Originally by: The Ratfink
Originally by: OldPueblo "Lol Dianabolic." That's all I got.
What are you talking about, we've not been relevant since we won 0.0 last year then walked away from it. What does relevant even mean? Are you relevant? This might help me figure it out.
Oh man this is a good post, confirming quickest failcascade in EVE history and losing billions in assets, all sov and half your member base is 'walking away from it' Never stop posting
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Nestor Ne'Arthe
Amarr Unholy Asylum
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:11:00 -
[196]
Edited by: Nestor Ne''Arthe on 24/02/2010 13:16:23
Originally by: Imperator Ceasar
No crying here at all - I have suggested changes and predictably large alliances dont like my suggestions.
And I have never pretended to be unbiased either. But, I do see the continued inbalances and think CCP should go further in fixing things so large alliances do not get so powerful that they control huge swathes of Eve..
I'm on the same cart as you, as in - need space to do stuff around. However, you do not get any basic concepts of space rental, powers, politics, or anything.
As I have mentioned previously, back in 2004-2005, we didn't have Player Alliances, there was no SOV, there were no POS'es, outposts, system upgrades. All we had was a bunch of people, in different corporations, creating a coalition for a common goal.
All that was to 'claiming space' was: a) holding key gates to the region b) shooting everything that was not blue (hence NBSI)
Because those two concepts are pretty core to the whole EvE gameplay, there is no mechanic that could change it, without breaking it completely. See the previous comment about preventing more than one ship shooting another ship. In general, if you give power to the people, they use it. If they proclaim that some area of space is theirs, all you can do is to: a) agree, and leave it at that b) disagree, and go there, shoot them c) disagree, and ask them to lend you the space for a fee
Now, every commodity, and space is also a commodity, commits to market rules. This means that: a) it's worth as much as people are paying for it b) the seller can ask any price c) there is more than one seller d) price varies on quality
So, in essence: a) you cannot stop people from claiming space, because that it is what the game is about b) there is no way for CCP to 'fix' this c) public outrage about prices or customs will only give you a forum ragestorm on your head d) comply or fight, and that is also what the game is about
Some people were first in some places, some people know other people, some people are better organized than you, some people are generally better (at the game, or even in RL) than you.
So unless you can best them, you have to live with it.
Edit: Formatting. --
|
Daedhead
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:38:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Estios
Oh man this is a good post, confirming quickest failcascade in EVE history and losing billions in assets, all sov and half your member base is 'walking away from it' Never stop posting
lol
|
Homo Erectus
Amarr Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 14:13:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Estios Oh man this is a good post, confirming quickest failcascade in EVE history and losing billions in assets, all sov and half your member base is 'walking away from it' Never stop posting
they didnt want to be good at eve anyway |
Van PokerAlho
Amarr Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 14:59:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Van PokerAlho on 24/02/2010 15:01:10 10b per month seems a lot for a noob player like me. A system with 8-10 belts cant support more than one ratter, you can say whatever but it don't without the isks income being slightly more than a half, maybe two other can make anomalies, this is not very high profit. Someone said that 4 persons carebearing 1h per day in 28 days can pay the bills.
So a person who plays 2 hours per day, half of their profit is to pay others, cant see the point of moving to 0.0 for that pathetic profits, stay in highsec running lvl 4s, farm isks and LP points and you make much more isks and dont have neutrals coming and fffffff your ratting.
People like stability, paying 10b per month would create so much pressure on a corp that it would eventually fail.
Maybe a big and very organized corp can make it easily without major concerns, but then they have much more members and need more systems so they would need to pay more 10b here and there, still I see no point if they cant harvest moons as they could help paying the 10b.
This deal is garbage imho, there are plenty of 0.0 renters with better deals where you can play without pressure and earn a little more isks than in highsec (dispute, some will say otherwise), so I can't see why would anyone move to dangerous 0.0 to have the same profits that they can have in highsec, just to have a lot of pressure on their back with gigantic bills.
|
|
CCP Shadow
Caldari C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:00:00 -
[200]
The spam has been canned. Well, within reason.
|
|
|
Kaitou Shiroi
Gallente Hakata Group Blade.
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 15:05:00 -
[201]
Originally by: CCP Shadow The spam has been canned. Well, within reason.
REASON?! THIS. IS. CAOD! ---
Unless specifically stated otherwise, the opinions expressed in my posts do not reflect those held by my corporation or alliance.
|
Akov Stohs
Caldari Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:22:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Van PokerAlho Edited by: Van PokerAlho on 24/02/2010 15:01:10 A system with 8-10 belts cant support more than one ratter
What about 10 additional hidden belts? What about 10+ anomalies spawning as fast are you can do them?
The other thing to take note of, is that the deal is for exclusive, single entity only access to a system. If you are a smaller corp, and can share. I'm sure you can make a much different deal. If you're interested, contact dian, tell him you're a nub in a small corp that wants to share a system and would like to get your feet wet. See what he says.
|
William DeMeo
Gallente Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:30:00 -
[203]
Edited by: William DeMeo on 24/02/2010 17:30:39
Originally by: Keflin Geard Renters fail - and alliances that allow renters fail. If you want space - go get it, or die trying.
SYS-K
|
Muad' Dib
Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:34:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Muad'' Dib on 24/02/2010 17:35:13
Originally by: Yaay
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Yaay Obviously, you have no Idea how 0.0 mechanics work. However, that said, I'll undercut their price by 5 billion on the deposit, and 2 billion a month with all other stipulations remaining the same.
We will even give you a station system with a refinery if you so desire. Our shuttle prices in station will also be under 500k each, sorry Dian, Capitalism and all.
Yeah... That offer is so bad they should stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Renter buying upgrades is OK. Renter transporting upgrade is braindead. Who has the titans to JB them out? Surely that must be the renters.
And moon mining... If you're not mining the moon, why would you care what the renters do? Let them mine/refine those you do not claim.
Any contract must _explicitly_ give the renters free reign to pursue escalations, else find someone else to rent from.
10 billion for _one_ system? A single system will support some 20-30 people max spread over all timezones... asking more than 100M per pilot is not going to be very marketable prices...
They are your customers, not carebears to be fleeced.
You're thinking in terms of 1 day. 30 pilots x 24hrs x 20 mil per hr (low ball) = 14.4 bil a day... half of that is 7.2 bil a day. Never have pity on renters, give them an opportunity to exploit you and they will.
Renters always play the pity card, they get a **** load out of a system, especially with the upgrades now. At a low 12 hr estimate, and by most renter standards, 12 hrs income x 30 pilots daily x 20 mil/hr is very low, they can cover it in 1.5 days, leaving 28.5 days of freedom per month.
Atlas has no enemies, and no ability to retain half the space they hold. It makes sense to rent it cheap b/c there is so much. They just have 3/4 of eve blued or naped and renters too dumb or scared to figure out how much cheaper owning space is.
IT conversely have an EPEEN rep to uphold, which means losing 1 station would cost them 300 members in an instant, and more mockery here. IT also know that even if it is renter owned space, if it's lost, they take the fall on these forums. Atlas is better at scapegoating, b/c well, they don't give a **** anyways.
Personalities play a role in price. IT consider themselves top dollar even if the rest of eve does not.
Atlas has **** loads of space and not a care in the world.
We have less space, but we won't give it up cheaply to be abused, we'd rather squat on it ourselves.
Such is the personalities of EVE.
Now how about that deal?
WOW, Yaay has made a good post ... what has the world come to - by good post i mean the first half. :( --- I smack just for myself. Allow faction cap boosters to be traded via normal market ! |
Avernus
Gallente Imperium Technologies Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 18:00:00 -
[205]
In the end, mechanics and in-game tools can ease the difficulty of setting things up, but two things get results in 0.0:
-Diplomacy -Guns
Best used in combination. As mentioned above, people like friends who show competance, the more a small alliance or corporation can demonstrate that to their benefit, the greater likelyhood that other entities will be willing to cut a deal with them.
That said, sometimes money is the bottom line, especially when an entity decides they have enough blues and friends, and need to find ways to cover costs. Rental of space is one of the primary ways for major alliances to cover their sovereignty costs these days.
No Alliance wants to be in the red, or just breaking even. Big alliances have exceptionally large expenditures when they go on campaign, for that you need a warchest.
|
Sikhtar
Gallente GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 19:30:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza Edited by: Nicolo da''Vicenza on 23/02/2010 03:29:24 Edited by: Nicolo da''Vicenza on 23/02/2010 03:28:52
Originally by: Svett A few people in bounty alone can get 4b+ a day from anoms.
i read from a very reliable source that 2 guys can get 65,500b+ a month from one system with anomalies
At least 10000000B |
Shamad Conde
Gallente Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 22:22:00 -
[207]
I think IRS takes too much money out of my checks.
Maybe I should load a plane with fuel and crash it into their building so they change their pricing.
|
Emilia Bluu
Gallente Baptism oF Fire
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 23:11:00 -
[208]
That sleeping thing really cuts into my ratting thing.. I should consider cutting that out.
|
Avernus
Gallente Imperium Technologies Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 23:22:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Shamad Conde I think IRS takes too much money out of my checks.
Maybe I should load a plane with fuel and crash it into their building so they change their pricing.
If that was in response to my post, I was advocating activity showing your usefulness... not shooting the owner of the space you are wanting a deal from. Though... that can work as well on occasion depending on what you want.
|
Kayl Breinhar
Gallente GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 23:53:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Shamad Conde I think IRS takes too much money out of my checks.
Maybe I should load a plane with fuel and crash it into their building so they change their pricing.
Too soon! This is one joke too far.
There are no clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |