| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
100
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Kingnuts wrote:The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.
I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional. I don't understand your logic there.
How exactly did the standing requirement prevent any large alliance from creating Corps with 1 guy having 7+ faction standing and all other members (industry alts for example) having no faction standing? Thus anchoring and utilizing as many highsec POSs as they wished?
|

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kingnuts wrote:You make a very good point. I didn't take into account the possible use of alt corps but now, reflecting on it, I'm slightly amazed that the griefing potential of such a set-up hasn't been exploited yet. Maybe the large alliances aren't so evil after all? 
Also it probably makes more sense to them to allow highsec industrialists to compete among eachother and maximize manufacturing efficiency, so they can buy cheap stuff with their huge moongoo profits (+ sell the mongoo products to said highsec industrialists).
|

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Baneken wrote:It's because someone actually has to grind those standing to 8.0 first and the it still has to be a one man corp that cannot transfer the ownership of a POS but with the new system you can skip the one man corp and standings grind from the equation.
However killing a POS to be able to replace a POS isn't really that profitable since a POS needs fuel to run unlike PoCo's and nobody is so desperate on having a high sec POS in any particular moon that they would pay up to keep it there. Fuelling & usage requirements also keep alliances from killing all POSes in sight and replacing them for an extortion racket.
I've just started researching POSs, but I understand you don't need to online (fuel) a POS to occupy a moon and ask for money to allow someone else to use the moon. You just need to anchor a small tower and leave it offline. Even without stront, in the event of a wardec you'd still have 24 hours to take appropriate action to 'enforce' your occupation of the moon.
|

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
My bet is that major nullsec alliance leadership is mainly interested in maintaining ther Internet Spaceship power - 'cause its gratifying.
Power means:
1) ISK 2) Warm bodies
To attract and retain warm bodies you have to make sure they're having fun.
So... since controlling ALL highsec moons is neither profitable nor fun I doubt major alliances are interested.
Controlling every moon within a few jumps of Jita may be worthwhile, though  |

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings Yeah, it could make sense for CCP to still retain some advantage regarding faction standings. For example a significant discount in the new NPC station manufacturing/research fees formula. |

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hal Safon wrote:Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:i like that the poses don't require absurd standings now, that's nice. I sort of do as well, but what is going to happen if you want a moon and someone else has a POS there is this: 1) Pay 50mil to wardec corp owning POS; 2) Corp owning POS takes down their POS before war starts; 3) Corp owning POS jumps to new corp and throws up new POS at moon at the same time (2) is being completed; 4) Pay 50mil to wardec corp in step 3. 5) Give up on new moon. I have to imagine there will be a mechanic introduced to avoid this abuse. Well, anyone can do step 3 and/or try to suicide gank the other Corp's hauler carrying the new tower while the old one is being unanchored.
Seriously though, with so many moons becoming available (remember 0.8-1.0 systems will be 'opened', Tippia estimated 13.000 'new' moons!) if you really want that moon it's not so crazy to occasionally have to play 'who can anchor a new tower first' games. |

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:look at it from the other side; 50m per day to stop some one using a pos. Exactly. Also, no more than 50m once or twice a week would probably be enough to make their POS operations impossibly tedious and unprofitable. |

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings Yeah, it could make sense for CCP to still retain some advantage regarding faction standings. For example a significant discount in the new NPC station manufacturing/research fees formula. I hawe made up may mind going to unsub 5 acconts im don as indi pilot in this game,if all nerfs to hi sec hade been in 1 patch sins i started playin i think they had lost a lott more subs,in sted they nerf hi sec a littel bit ich time they have a bigg update so not hard to se wher this ending, ? Can't really see how this is related to my post suggesting CCP could think of a way to preserve some of the value of faction standings (given so many people - not me, btw - invested heaps of time in it).
Why do you think highsec is being nerfed? And even if it is, what's preventing you from being a lowsec, nullsec or WH indy pilot? Combat PVP is fantastic but in no way a prerequisite for successful living out of highsec. |

Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
110
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:So, given that war decs will almost always be larger aggressor corp vs. smaller corp, and the aggressor will almost always have neutral logi available, the status quo will not change with the introduction of these changes. HTFU? Sure people will dock up, or avoid the war dec in other ways, just as they do now. And they'll ditch they're POS too. Is that what these changes are meant to encourage?
One way or the other, war decs are a poor solution for removing/defending a POS. And what would a good solution be?
Truth is, either you make highsec POSs invulnerable and throw away the very foundation of the game (competitive sandbox), or any removing/defending mechanic will always favor larger and more organized groups.
The solution for the little fish? Thrive in your pond 'cause the ocean is full of sharks! Don't make your POS a juicy easy target and you'll be fine.
|
| |
|