Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eperor
Skyforger Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 10:34:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:Tiger's Spirit wrote:1. Destructible stations. 2. Moving technitium or other rare moon minerals after one month to other 0.0 region. 3. Change Upkeep System. Give chance for smaller corps and alliance. Make much more expensive for corp or alliance if they want upkeep more systems than one. Change every infrastructure upgrades and structure costs when corp or alliance hold more than one.
Example with Advanced Logistics Network cost per 30 days: Just 1.5 billion now if an alliance want to upkeep ALN in five system, because every ALN cost 300 million in every system.
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 300 million from first system = 600 million Third system: 300 million + 600 million from other two system = 900 million Fourth system: 300 million + 900 million from other three system = 1.2 billion Fifth system: 300 million + 1.2 billion from other four system = 1.5 billion
After change; 300 million + 2x300 million + 3x300 million + 4x300 million + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion
First system: 300 million Second system: 300 million + 2x300 million = 900 million Third system: 900million + 3x300 million = 1.8 billion Fourth system: 1.8 billion + 4x300 million = 3 billion Fifth system: 3 billion + 5x300 million = 4.5 billion This will have exactly the opposite impact that you want. ..... I understand the argument that holding huge areas of space should be more difficult than it is now. But simply making it cost more ISK is not a solution, as the only way to get enough ISK on an alliance level is to conquer more space. Eventually you reach a balance when the space the alliance holds de iure is enough to pay for the space the alliance uses de facto. Ideally, this balance should be achieved without having to hold any space simply to make ISK. All alliance-owned space should be profitable to operate in. No argument here, and i think you are wrong. Just go and check 0.0 areas now. The big alliances controlled huge terroritories, but when you go there you just see so many empty systems without any pilots. If you cant pay for 30-60 system upkeep cost, because that is too much ISK, you need more renters or smaller corps and alliences there. Thats better against blob and much better for smaller corps and alliances, because it is possible to populate the empty systems so better, while this is cut smaller parts the big continuous possessed areas.
No need for more renters that the case, you can sipmply not put up sov there but control it by your Fleets that space by controling key points, you can hold all ******* region just by byuilding up JB network and by holding entrance points. noting els is not needet to be controled. Problem for small entatis wil be the sames befor wil brin nochange at all.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 11:23:00 -
[32] - Quote
Eperor wrote:No need for more renters that the case, you can sipmply not put up sov there but control it by your Fleets that space by controling key points, you can hold all ******* region just by byuilding up JB network and by holding entrance points. noting els is not needet to be controled. Problem for small entatis wil be the sames befor wil brin nochange at all.
Easy fixing. No sov= no JB,no station. No sov= less ISK from NPC bounty
The big alliances hold 60 systems, but at least 50 percent of those systems is inhabitant , that's unacceptable. It what makes it unviable the small corps and alliances there, because they cant controlling systems there. But big alliances can do this easily, because their upkeep costs is too low. Need to cut these 6k alliance member numbers to smaller parts and populate the inhabitant spaces what controlled by big alliances, but nothing live there. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 11:33:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote: The big alliances hold 60 systems, but at least 50 percent of those systems is inhabitant , that's unacceptable. It what makes it unviable the small corps and alliances there, because they cant controlling systems there. But big alliances can do this easily, because their upkeep costs is too low.
Those systems are empty because they're garbage. They're claimed because game mechanics (like the market) make sharing a region with non-blues at best obnoxious and at worst harmful. |
Cyprus Black
82nd Assault Fleet
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 12:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
An opportunity for small corps and alliances to move to null without having to bow down to super alliances nor get destroyed within a matter of hours after going out to null.
Currently that opportunity doesn't exist except in wormholes. I am neither fanboy nor flamer. I am logic, dispassionate and cruel. |
Big Bad Mofo
Retribution.
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 23:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
its time to nerf moongold. its become saturated. Every valuable moon location is now known and instantly taken by the power blocs wiht a billion caps etc and there i snothing the average person can do about it. its simply not fair that all an alliance needs to do si put up a pos and thats it to make billions.
proposal randomise moongold every 3 months! make people work for it and let everyone have a chance to hit the jackpot |
Big Bad Mofo
Retribution.
51
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 23:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
1) stop allowing alliances to hold so much space 2) alliances can only settle in one region and own only 51% of the stations in that region this gives more chance to others and makes more skirmishes, of course they can just make an alt alliance an take the rest, so that needs to be looked at. 3) limit the number of people in an alliance to 2000 4) add more stations in npc 0.0 regions like venal, gw that hardly has none to allow more ppl to go in and more pvp to happen 5) move 0.0 npc regions away from 0.0 sov regions, not right that the sov holders can also control the 0.0 npc region. perhaps move them in between highsec and lowsec |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 07:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
OK rather than imposing artificial limits on people's behavior (limiting the amount of systems an alliance can claim or the amount of blues they can have) let's look at the what motivates people to form these giant power blocks and see if we can take away the things that motivate people to create a universe that we don't like (huge NAP fests, giant blob warfare)
The reason for this is that people will try to get round whatever rules you put in place. Take a look at the practice of can flipping, it's a bit of a mechanics exploit, but it exists for the simple reason that people like shooting at other people. And they'll navigate around the aggression rules to do what they wanted to do to begin with.
So why do big power blocks exist? Or rather why do people feel the need to form them?
Well so far I have come up with two reasons and I think we can work on one of them.
The first reason is that blobs win, and if you have a blob harassing you, the way to beat it is with a bigger blob. Having 100 noobs in you fleet flying drakes is useful. But having 1,000 noobs in drakes is even better. I don't know if this concept will ever go away so I am just going to ignore that elephant in the room for now.
The second reason I think is the presence of rare, valuable, and monopolizable resources that only an alliance can hold, (tech moons in particular). And for the most part these are resources that your average grunt will not care about.
So as an example ask yourself how much space (in jumps) do you need to enjoy the game? How many jumps would you go from your home station on a daily basis to rat or mine in? How many jumps would you go to buy something expensive or large (like a new ship, or a faction module)? And how many jumps would you go to start roaming?
I don't know about you but I would say I'd be willing to 3 jumps to run a haven every day (this is about the size of an alliance's home pocket). I'd go 10 jumps to the local market hub to drag an expensive CTA battleship or logi back home all by myself. And I'd like my roams to start at most 20 jumps from home. Try throwing up a roaming fleet advert in alliance and tell people that the first fleet destination is 30 jumps out before you are going to start looking for targets, see how many people join your fleet.
So if the average nullsec pilot would probably prefer to live their life in under 20 jumps, why do they have a sea of blues wrapping around most of nullsec?. And (in addition to the ability to batphone a blob) I would guess that it's the alliance as an entity is motivated to take and hold as many rare and valuable resources as they can. This can be tech moons, a specific type of isotope, or one type of pirate that drops certain faction modules.
So what do you guys think would happen to large alliances if tech moons were more common and drove down the moon goo price, or if the refined products of tech moons could also be produced by PI? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
199
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 09:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
Big Bad Mofo wrote:1) stop allowing alliances to hold so much space No.
Big Bad Mofo wrote:2) alliances can only settle in one region and own only 51% of the stations in that region this gives more chance to others and makes more skirmishes, of course they can just make an alt alliance an take the rest, so that needs to be looked at. No.
Big Bad Mofo wrote:3) limit the number of people in an alliance to 2000 No.
Listen. Limits of this nature are dumb, and they will just be worked around by making alt alliances. And don't come here and tell me you want to limit the alliances we can make, and limit "how many blues" an alliance or corp can have.
Big Bad Mofo wrote:4) add more stations in npc 0.0 regions like venal, gw that hardly has none to allow more ppl to go in and more pvp to happen 5) move 0.0 npc regions away from 0.0 sov regions, not right that the sov holders can also control the 0.0 npc region. perhaps move them in between highsec and lowsec Meh. I think you'll find that modifying space itself will be more work than it's worth.
I think you'll find that what needs to be done isn't anywhere close to what you're thinking. What needs to be done is make SOV descriptive rather than prescriptive, and activity-based. Want to hold a region? **** you, use it. When someone lives in a space, and has system control most of the time, it's theirs. The instant they move on and someone else actually starts using it, it's theirs.
Limits. Pfwah. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
123
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 18:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Specific nullsec industries needs huge boosts to make it worthwhile and reincentivize living in space for grunts. Add new low-end roids that spawn in null that go far beyonf a mere +10% bonus, or make a capital-class strip mining module. Maybe Rorquals will finally be seen outside a POS. Nerf Jump Freighters/the whole "cyno supply train" so that all goods and materials aren't completely centralized in Jita. Have it so that PI can have planets to run a manufacturing slots, opening up null for non-capital class manufacturing (while running a deficit, not surplus of food and power PI items). Retool null archae/hacking sites so that the average site is worth more then the average anomaly site. Oh and buff anoms.
Indirectly nerf highsec by making it more dangerous to live there (increasing cost of operation). Patch wardec loopholes, the bounty system, NPC corp invulnerability. |
Xtover
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 18:52:00 -
[40] - Quote
1) Buff truesec. There are so many -0.1 systems and very few -0.8 - (-0.9)
2) Bring back sov upgrades, but increase the difficulties of the levels while weighing the benefits
3) Require upkeep of these systems, and prevent this sort of minimal occupation. consecutie systems should be claimed, and in order to upgrade some systems they need to have control of the systems around it.
4) There needs to be the ability to put more than one station per system. With established sov an alliance should be able to put manned, destructible sentries on stations and gates.
5) High end ore should deplete, and fluctuate. Remove moon minerals completely, and slap the goo on comets. The comets move slow enough to where once found they can be mined for several months.
6) Remove belts completely. Why even have them? Just have them spawn on D scan randomly every day. The fact that systems have 5-15 belts on average is just dumb anyway. Do this everywhere and make mining interesting.
7) Change loot tables.. ABCs should be profitable to mine in null. Speaking of which, does anyone even use a Rorqual for mining ops anymore? Something changed- when I first started it was desired to do mining ops for Ark or Bistot.
|
|
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 21:51:00 -
[41] - Quote
Xtover wrote:1) Buff truesec. There are so many -0.1 systems and very few -0.8 - (-0.9) 2) Bring back sov upgrades, but increase the difficulties of the levels while weighing the benefits 3) Require upkeep of these systems, and prevent this sort of minimal occupation. consecutie systems should be claimed, and in order to upgrade some systems they need to have control of the systems around it. 4) There needs to be the ability to put more than one station per system. With established sov an alliance should be able to put manned, destructible sentries on stations and gates. 5) High end ore should deplete, and fluctuate. Remove moon minerals completely, and slap the goo on comets. The comets move slow enough to where once found they can be mined for several months. 6) Remove belts completely. Why even have them? Just have them spawn on D scan randomly every day. The fact that systems have 5-15 belts on average is just dumb anyway. Do this everywhere and make mining interesting. 7) Change loot tables.. ABCs should be profitable to mine in null. Speaking of which, does anyone even use a Rorqual for mining ops anymore? Something changed- when I first started it was desired to do mining ops for Ark or Bistot. QFE
+1
I think these changes would be great. I also heartily agree with Point 3, so long as upkeep requires more than just isk, but also diverse resources. |
Frothgar
V0LTA VOLTA Corp
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 21:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
I'm concerned that player owned customs offices are being thought of as a means to drive conflict and encourage small gang work. As it stands it really doesn't happen because right now there is no way to inerrupt productivity of a planet as it appears the resources keep being produced and piling up until the gantry is out of reinforced mode.
I'd like to make it more urgent to defend these structures by making it so that reinforcing the gantry/customs office stops production planetside. EG like in moon mining POSes. A POS in reinforced mode does not produce moon goo (CPU based modules go offline) So should PI structures.
Alternatively, perhaps make it so its possible to raid planetary resources when you reinforce the Customs office.
What it boils down to, is IMO there should be consequences for owning more space than you can reasonably police.
Right now, there aren't and thats a bit sad. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
261
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 22:31:00 -
[43] - Quote
Regarding Sov, I've written another proposal for the CSM that covers the issues with territorial warfare:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9-6J-IZ4wFYY2ZlNjViMzItYzNlYS00MzQwLWI0N2YtNzE1MWEyMmVkOTA1
This is a follow-up to a document on starbase misery which was read by the CSM summit in the summer. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 04:41:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP is looking to get people out of high sec, and frankly all the big stick/small carrot approach currently being used does is play with the market and engender hard feelings. At various times in the past CCP has mentioned the idea of co-regency for corps of sufficent standing to 'claim' a system in lowsec in the same manner that null sec alliances are able to claim space. I feel that if this were implemented and were to include the ability to set up conquerable outposts in systems without stations, this may be the answer they're looking for.
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |