| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
   |
Posted - 2011.03.26 13:14:00 -
[1]
If you want to increase the number of small alliances, why not:
- Remove sovereignty bills for constellation-and-smaller alliances. (Keep bills for strategic upgrades, except maybe cyno jammer)
- Add smaller, cheaper versions of Ihubs and upgrades that are only usable if the owner holds a constellation or less.
This might result in large alliances fragmenting to reduce sov bills, but is this really a bad thing?
As far as anomalies go, I would favor increasing respawn time in low-grade systems; 4 sanctums and havens with a 1-hour respawn would probably be viable for a small corp, and 4-hour would probably work for maybe 5 guys in battlecruisers running as a group.
|
Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:47:00 -
[2]
As far as low-end sites go, I've gotten 15-20m/hour (not counting loot/salvage) in a poorly fitted Typhoon running low-end sites. It's possible to make fair ISK in them, although not sure how it compares to L4s.
My main ojection to this is that I don't believe it would accomplish the stated goals; as I suggested earlier, adding a sovereignty discount and cheaper upgrades available only to sub-constellation alliances in low-end space might help with this. (Optionally, only apply the discount if the holding alliance gets a given number of NPC kills per week)
|
Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:09:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Abramul on 27/03/2011 21:11:31
 Originally by: Quicktime
CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they.
You do realize that CCP gets cash for every GTC/Plex introduced to the game, right? They're still paying; they're just arranging for someone else to front the cash in exchange for their time. (Naturally, 'time as currency' does give an advantage to bots, but the RMT problem would probably be worse without PLEX.)
|
Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:13:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Abramul on 27/03/2011 22:13:38
Originally by: Influentialistic Teleportificationisalism
If you still think it's a You would need to have it only work for active structures... collectors actually collecting, factories actually making stuff... etc. Otherwise someone might make 200 trial accounts, train them all to CC upgrades and planetary management 5, and then throw down as many buildings as possible, and then forget about the trial accounts.
But I like the idea.
"Each level in this skill improves the quality of command facility available to you, in turn allowing for a greater number of connected facilities on that planet. Cannot be trained on Trial Accounts."
But agreed, you'd want to ignore NPC corp, inactive account, and otherwise abandoned CCs.
|
Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
-Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 03:34:00 -
[5]
I would like to modestly propose a few changes to NPC corps and missions:
-Characters should automatically be moved to an NPC corp after a month in a school corp
-NPC corps other than school corps should be subject to faction war declarations
-Missions in highsec should generate a scannable anomaly or beacon
Expected consequences
- Some players will immediately start wanting to look for better corporations
- In the longer run, there'll be more wardecs going on, with more localized goals
- Newer players will have an easier time getting a foothold in highsec
- Salvage will be marginally less wasted
- Mission runners will have to choose more carefully what space they operate in, where their staging systems are, and so on (mission hubs will have more mercenary and ninja activity)
|
| |
|