These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3401 - 2015-03-07 23:20:46 UTC
It is believed to be in each 'isk source communities' best interest to undersell what they make and oversell everybody elses. This is in the forlorn hope that CCP does not monitor isk making activities along with LP and other forms of reward.

Sadly They do. And they are not fools nor easily swayed by anecdotal evidence.

Making sov worth while has a LOT of aspects to it but I am not sure arguments over who is the poorest and who is the richest is part of it as, in the end, CCP will use internal data for such decision making processes OR they will go out with competent people to actually see what is what as they did with WH folks earlier.

But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it. Many a person has told me they don't care what isk is made in missions they refuse to shoot little red crosses all day. Incursions is adependent on a ton of other factors. Ratting in null depends on having secure borders. Each has its give and take and you are comparing apples and oranges when you try to stack them up against each other.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3402 - 2015-03-07 23:29:56 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it.


Uh, no Mike, I'd have to say that risk vs reward is still relevant.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3403 - 2015-03-07 23:32:45 UTC
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3404 - 2015-03-07 23:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:

But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it.


Uh, no Mike, I'd have to say that risk vs reward is still relevant.


As Mike points out - we can't weigh risk versus reward without looking at profit vs loss vs time spent vs amount of effort involved...and anecdotal or even theoretical analysis of the figures we anecdotally have available pales in significance to what CCP has available to look at.

edit: And we presume CCP WILL tweak those figures if necessary to keep people from all migrating back to highsec? Or do we have that little faith?

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3405 - 2015-03-07 23:37:47 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

As Mike points out - we can't weigh risk versus reward without looking at profit vs loss vs time spent vs amount of effort involved


Righto. Because if you actually do that, highsec is equally as damned.


Quote:

...and anecdotal or even theoretical analysis of the figures we anecdotally have available pales in significance to what CCP has available to look at.


And CCP is well known for ignoring a problem until it explodes in their face. I think I'll keep right on in my attempts to impress the importance of this on them. Because otherwise they'll likely ignore it until it implodes and slap on another ill conceived bandaid like the ESS.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#3406 - 2015-03-07 23:40:11 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:

But it is not supposed to be about who MAKES more but whether you enjoy doing it.


Uh, no Mike, I'd have to say that risk vs reward is still relevant.


As Mike points out - we can't weigh risk versus reward without looking at profit vs loss vs time spent vs amount of effort involved...and anecdotal or even theoretical analysis of the figures we anecdotally have available pales in significance to what CCP has available to look at.

edit: And we presume CCP WILL tweak those figures if necessary to keep people from all migrating back to highsec? Or do we have that little faith?


I lack faith. I always have, I always will. A history of too much stick too little carrot in nullsec has made me so. I could make a list if I am doubted.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3407 - 2015-03-07 23:48:10 UTC
Arrendis wrote:


Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result?


I thought it was obvious. More reasons to fight = good. As it stands now, you need a super-cap fleet to threaten an R-64, and the coalitions can always bring a bigger one. Make moon mining (in sov space) dependent on an iHub upgrade, and make the yield dependent on the index. It will make the systems that they are in a constant target.

Anything that will force fights is a good thing.

Passive moon mining is probably the biggest single mistake that the designers of Eve made. It probably should go away entirely in favor of active mining of T2 resources, but this would at least put these at risk. They aren't under any significant risk now.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3408 - 2015-03-07 23:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Those ihubs can be grief popped every couple weeks. You want moon mining thrown in the same pot?

Ok, yeah I agree. Make POSes drop ownership to Entosis.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3409 - 2015-03-07 23:56:03 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Those ihubs can be grief popped every couple weeks. You want moon mining thrown in the same pot?


Yep. You want the constant stream of passive income? Deal with the "grief poppers". In other words, play the damn game.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3410 - 2015-03-07 23:56:28 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Your right, sadly.
Regardless of CCP grand plans and ideas, no unaligned small alliance is going to take and hold any sov worth having.
Many will try and this is the basket CCP is throwing all the eggs in. When a small unaligned alliance takes sov, it will create content (for a few days here and there) for the bloks. There will be lots of kills over relatively short periods and CCP will produce metrics to show how successful the sov changes are.
Next comes a round of nerfs "re-balancing" to draw player attention away from the mess (mini game) called sov.

My only real question here is; How long will it take CCP to realize and acknowledge the mistakes.


NB; 3 of my old friends plan on resubbing for a month when these changes hit - This looks like the best troll mechanic CCP has ever introduced (talking about Entosis) and we want in on it.


- - - - - - - - - - -
Sleep 8 hours - work 8 hours - Eve 4 hours - that leaves you with 4 hours a day to have a life; be a parent, eat meals, go shopping and get anything else you need to do done.
Eve is meant to be a game. A game is meant to be fun. Fun is meant to be leisure time. None of these is meant to be a four hour a day, seven day a week commitment.


Small alliances are not going to go for sov worth having, at least initially, to do so is ignoring reality and those that try will fail.

Taking poor sov systems however is fun and not expensive now and doable. So what if people come in and roll it over, the whole idea is to be able to compete and this allows people do so, even if it means that their efforts are in the end nothing more than grinding away and getting swatted, before this system you could not even do that.

The fun part which all you doomsayers ignore is the fun of just putting a TCU down and seeing what you can get, up the stakes a bit and add a deathstar, what else can we get to jump in, this will be fun, for example how many people can you get jump fatigued so they cannot get to a serious battle, seriously so many strategic options.

I even see big blocks supporting small guys next to their enemies space, I am sure taht will happen, honorable third party and all that...

And the people who could just go off and cause mayhem with no need to defend their own stuff are now going to be in the boat with the rest of us, of course they will defend against it better than the small guys, but who expects otherwise, only idiots.

EDIT: If people have not seen one theme on my posts about Sov, its to do it because I want to do it and I think I can have fun doing it, but my motive has nothing to do with ISK generation because I know it is not going to be worth it. CCP has to look at the value of low true sec systems. Yes I can make ISK out of them if I try but so much is loaded against you, I would for example run around in a PvP ship blapping belt rats just because I can, small ISK generation but why not while waiting to blap aGoon interceptor with a 20m or 80m module, but my past experience in this game is that people will just do everything they can to stop you operating there, so for me its plant your flag, have fun around the PVP generated from that.

So you think sov for small groups, should be about wasting player time, isk, recourses and giving the big groups content.
Nice concept but no , your wrong.
The new sov mechanics will mean simply throwing isk at a system to hold sov is literally throwing that isk away.

Why would any small group, which will usually have limited resources, simply throw those resources away for 2 days of limited content?

Your going to get 8 hours content over 48 hours, per billion isk per system, invested. So roughly 6 billion isk (a constellation) will generate 2, 4 hour sessions of content for those of the group online for the 4 hour mini game.

Yeah, I can see lots of small alliances going for that. It's not like players living in Nul need somewhere they can call home and build or mine or rat or even just have a station they can stockpile stuff in.
With the ease of station flipping, being camped in by some mega alliance so obviously plays right into the hands of every small alliance that wants to sov - Doesn't it?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3411 - 2015-03-07 23:56:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
davet517 wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
Those ihubs can be grief popped every couple weeks. You want moon mining thrown in the same pot?


Yep. You want the constant stream of passive income? Deal with the "grief poppers". In other words, play the damn game.

m8
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3412 - 2015-03-08 00:06:39 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Alp Khan wrote:
[So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through anomaly bounties is an extravagant amount of income? One can make almost two times this figure running L4 missions in high-sec!
Such poverty out there in 0.0. How do you guys survive on your piddly 50m isk/hour direct isk handouts from CONCORD?


By doing a lot of it.

I don't afktar, I've used everything. Right now I'm using dual rattlesnakes. Those get 25 mil per tick per toon. Before taxes on 2 characters I make 150 mil per hour. More than enough to 'live on' and I do. Ratting is good because it's liquid isk, and because escalations break up the monotony.

But then I realize Im being silly because while Im hanging TWO faction BS's out their for captor gangs to hunt, I could just log on 1 o the other 2 toons and make MORE in high sec blitzing burners or in FW doing lvl 4s.

Whenever this topic comes up, people seem to think we're asking for more isk when we make so much.

We aren't we're point out a severe imbalance that warps the effects of EVERYTHING ccp tries to do to null sec. We're telling CCP (and you) that it doesn't makes sense that they make null harder to 'live' in on one hand and expect us to do that when we can simply take our alts and go run incursions, fw missions, high sec mission etc etc.

I keep posting the same dev blog because even after 4 years some of you haven't learned the lesson. CCP tends to develop things "in a vacuum" (without taking the rest of new eden into account). When they nerfed anoms we just went and did incursions (and some GANKED incursion runners) and null turned into a rental desert.

CCP could fix the issue by making a mechanic for sov null missions rather than anoms. Missions wouldn't be nearly as afkable as anoms, and good pve'r could squeeze more out of sov null like we do everywhere else.

M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3413 - 2015-03-08 00:10:15 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
davet517 wrote:
One more change, if you please. Add moon miners to the list of POS structures that you need sov to operate in non-npc 0.0. Then, you're golden.


Why? You don't need it to operate them in npc null. You don't need it to operate them in Empire. Why would you need it to operate them in sov null? What's the intent of the change, and how does the change promote the intended result?


The answer to all of those questions is "sour grapes".

Hell, some people are so deluded about moons that someone told me in this very thread that one good moon can generate 7 trillion isk per month.

"grr, moons"


I think the person who said 7 trillion a month was quoting the gross value of all R64s.

Rain6637 wrote:

Ok, yeah I agree. Make POSes drop ownership to Entosis.


If the POS is offline I'm all for this. So many offline faction towers laying around W-space Big smile

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3414 - 2015-03-08 00:13:50 UTC
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3415 - 2015-03-08 00:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alp Khan
Eli Apol wrote:
Alp Khan wrote:
I really dislike 'a friend of mine' or 'a friend of a friend' type of hearsay posting, therefore, I felt compelled to chime in as an authority on the points mentioned in your post.

I'm a member of the Goonswarm Federation SRP team and I do have plenty of experience with what you are describing as "afktar ratting" in your post. As a matter of fact, I routinely push out advisory ratting fits for mass adoption, taking into account considerations such as cost, longevity, survivability in PvP encounters and ease of training.

With those said, when it comes to afktar ratting, an individual in a system with desirable truesec (those are rare) is looking at 17m ISK per tick with maximum skills after alliance taxes. Before taxes, the figure is close to 20m ISK depending on the specific corporation (and their specific tax rate). Rat drops per anomaly are worth 2-3 m ISK on normal conditions and salvage is practically isn't worth anything. (Picking up drops and salvaging will take up your time, affecting your income)

So, could you tell me how 51M ISK per hour on an account through bounties is an extravagant amount of income?

Well obviously you must appreciate I don't want to get my associate in trouble nor draw attention to my other toons hence why I post from this PS alt - but he pretty much showed me that he actually MADE MONEY from losing ships in PvP whenever he feels like it (aside from perhaps buying insurance and the initial purchase?). It was a fair time ago but within the last year as far as I remember, sadly I cleared my cache since then so can't link directly nor reference the spreadsheet I was shown (I'm sure it would get removed from the public eye if I did anyways).

51m/hr more or less passively (keep local visible whilst doing anything else on your PC) is an extremely good income for New Eden and even more so when you can pretty much just put it towards plexing your accounts or frittering away as you wish rather than replacing lost pvp ships. To be honest I'm pretty sure there are some suboptimal L4 runners that would look at that kind of income with a green glint in their eyes especially since they don't have to do all that active clicking to achieve it. I wonder what the L4 income for flying an afktar would be for comparison of effort/isk/hr?

The point is, very little effort for 50m/hr and you think that's poor widdle old me suffering in nullsec with my incredibly generous SRP program. My sympathy is suprisingly absent.

edit: Hah, had it BM'd all along on my Eve account: http://i.imgur.com/Q9zvg5B.jpg


And this somehow has anything to do with personal income? With that wall of words, I'm sad to see that you are deflecting, and worse, even actively trying to direct the readers into thinking that null dwellers swim in ISK by linking just a single, outdated sheet.

But, even in the face such blatant ingenuity, I'll still give you the courtesy of a proper answer. Firstly, the chart you posted is outdated. Secondly, that chart doesn't even show that the maximum amount a GSF member can draw from SRP program for regular brawling and roaming related losses per month are limited to a certain amount. This amount is capped at low single digit billions. Lastly, ever since the moon goo nerfs, our SRP program is financed largely through line member taxation of various income generation methods, including, but not limited to, ratting bounties.

I'm telling you that I can make, flying a mere T2 frigate with almost zero risk at low-sec, up to 400m ISK per hour on a single character. I'm telling you that incursions everywhere are fountains of LP that converts to tidy amounts of ISK, providing low to medium nine digit ISK income per hour. I'm telling you that even a newbie highsec L4 mission runner on a battleship, through chosing the optimal faction to do missions for, easily nearly doubles the 52M ISK per hour that an Ishtar pilot can make in null.

And you are trying to claim here, that null has plenty of venues from ratting in a T2 HAC and making 52M ISK (at best) per hour on a single character. You don't even mention or know that every system in null have a limited number of anomalies, and thus, can support a very limited number of people ratting. The risk of ratting in null? You don't even come close to mentioning or touching that! An incursion runner in highsec does not carry the risks that a null dweller does. A character running FW L4s in lowsec isn't risking anything, and the chance of losing his 400M ISK per hour generating T2 frigate are slim to none! A L4 runner in any shape or form doesn't risk anything worthwhile in highsec while earning income! He won't even lose his cheap L4 boat as long as he avoids fitting unnecessarily expensive modules!

Next time you want to comment one an activity in this game, please make sure that you have plenty of experience with doing it yourself. My answer covers various income generating activities in low-sec and high-sec that I personally have taken up in the past. Unlike yourself, I've been there and done everything I cited in my post.

And yet, you, who has never lived out in null, are feeling comfortable with coming out to this thread and claim that income in null is all well and fair!
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3416 - 2015-03-08 00:23:16 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I think the person who said 7 trillion a month was quoting the gross value of all R64s.
It was me, yep that's what I meant...later calculations with more uptodate figures showed it as 4t across all space for all *known* moons R8 and higher for ones that cover their POS fuel costs and after subtracting their POS fuel costs - so disregarding anything that only pays a partial fuel cost and disregarding the huge number of moons that aren't included in dotlans figures.

Considering a huge proportion of those are only owned by the major blocs that's at least 1 trillion/month each (very lowball estimate, see above) that they're passively generating with no effort except "We have more supers than you"

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#3417 - 2015-03-08 00:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Alp Khan wrote:
the maximum amount a GSF member can draw from SRP program for regular brawling and roaming related losses per month are limited to a certain amount. This amount is capped at low single digit billions.

Bit of a blast from the past since ISD *ahem*

But blow me, only a couple *billion* in pvp losses are covered per person per month...which obviously then aren't paid for out of their personal wallets.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Josef Djugashvilis
#3418 - 2015-03-08 00:36:17 UTC
Alp Khan wrote...

I'm telling you that even a newbie highsec L4 mission runner on a battleship, through chosing the optimal faction to do missions for, easily nearly doubles the 52M ISK per hour that an Ishtar pilot can make in null.

I earn more than this running level 4 missions in my trusty Velator armed with civilian mining lasers !

Jeez, I sure do feel sorry for all you null-sec paupers.

This is not a signature.

Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3419 - 2015-03-08 00:41:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alp Khan
I've been seeing a lot of posts rightfully citing that sovereign null offers little to nothing for individual level income generation when compared with low-sec, wormholes and even high-sec. I'm reading posts that include concerns on this new sovereignty system proposal putting a lot of burden on defenders, yet offering them almost nothing to an individual for income generation.

Let me use a literary quote here and ask you all;

Is a null dweller not entitled to the sweat of his brow? "No," says the man salvaging L4 mission wrecks at high-sec, "the wealth belongs to the high-sec." "No," says the man living in his wormhole, "The wealth belongs to my access limited, well monitored chunk of isolated space." "No," says the bomber pilot taking his cloaky ship through the gates in low-sec, "The wealth belongs to the faction warfare."

I say it is time that we set our sights on the reality of unfairness here, and reject those answers.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#3420 - 2015-03-08 00:44:54 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)