luceron
   |
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:58:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: CCP Greyscale
- Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot.
True but you're talking about taking access to those anoms away from anyone that is not strong enough to take and hold the best systems in a region. (I think we've seen the way this works with the moon-goo system.)
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income.
I don't think you are saying anything other than there will be a clear and marked benefit for alliances that have the power to control the best truesec regions and/or systems in a region. Sure this is true, but that is basically the list of powers that currently control the high-end moon-goo. What about those of us that don't have the power or means to take high-end moons, what makes you think we will be able to take and hold "high end true-sec systems"
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
- Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long.
Again true, but not really the issue we are worried about. The concern is more along the line of how does this change affect the little guy. It's like saying we are going to tear down the mill where you guys work, but don't worry I'm sure some kids will play stick ball in the empty lot we leave behind. Great, but what about my lost wages.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.
Why is this view point ignored when considering the dynamic between small/medium size entities and the large high-end moon holders. Never hear anyone at ccp saying, "those powerblocs with all the high-end moons need to make room for up and coming entities at a faster rate." And some of those entities have been entrenched in their areas for a very long time.
Keep in mind "the next crop of prospective alliances" have a better chance of taking space from those of us that live in "crappy systems".
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.
Problem is that less organizations will be able to access that resource. In essence you're taking something that is as ubiquitous as rain and reducing it to 20% of it's current accessibility. Benefits the powerblocs, screws the rest. Join powerblocs?
|