These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - Nullsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2012-12-03 23:03:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Blastil wrote:
You're the one that needs to check his facts mate. I can link you some relevant material if you'd like me to.


Please do.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#62 - 2012-12-04 05:02:56 UTC
A tech moon can produce near 5 billion isk in a month

numerically:
5,000,000,000

conveniently it costs about 250 mil isk to run a medium pos for a month, which divides quite evenly.

a single tech moon can run 20 medium poses. Thats about enough poses to control a constellation.

If a region can hold just a handful of tech moons, it pays for the majority control of the region.

while certainly one tech moon won't buy a region, the fact that just the tech found in the north pretty much can finance the control of all that territory on its own is pretty much ridiculous.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-12-04 07:38:19 UTC
Blastil wrote:
a single tech moon can run 20 medium poses. Thats about enough poses to control a constellation.


You might want to read this very recent devblog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=1787

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#64 - 2012-12-04 08:09:51 UTC
I think that eventually we should move towards a "time-grind" FW plex-style sov system rather than the current "ehp-grind" system we have currently. The problem with this is that you remove a reason for supercaps and titans to log on, as they are required to do this kind of stuff, which could mean less dead supers. Time-grind systems remove a barrier to entry and makes it easier for alliances with newer, or poorer players to compete. It would also make it more viable to fly different classes of ships as you don't need to bring ships with as much dps as possible in order to grind down objectives after a fight.

I also think that making it easier to flip systems would be a good thing, as it takes way too long currently to grind out a region after a group has packed up and left, and there is not enough punishment for skipping timers. It would also serve as a way for small groups to catch larger ones with their pants down. Less timers (ex: having ihubs and stations come out at the same time/similar times, or only having to kill the ihub or flip the station to drop sov) would be a good solution and would help to make the system less confusing.

Small gang objectives are difficult because we don't want to have time zone wars as they promote larger groups (bigger blobs) that have multiple timezone wings to be able to defend stuff. Starting off every eve session with an hour or two of repping is no fun, and shooting structures should promote fights. The most exciting way is to deny income by shooting people who can shoot back.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2012-12-04 08:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Blastil wrote:
while certainly one tech moon won't buy a region, the fact that just the tech found in the north pretty much can finance the control of all that territory on its own is pretty much ridiculous.


What about every region of the game that isn't the north? What do they do now that you've decided to set sov prices based on tech income? Hell, what do tech holders do once tech gets significantly lower (hint: it will)?

One of the great fallacies that always comes up when talking about nullsec is this assumption that non-Tech moons make anywhere near as much as tech - they don't, it's not even close. Even now with Tech pretty firmly kicked in the balls, it's still more than double the next best moon material. That was why it was such a big problem - you literally couldn't compete with it. This problem is exactly why we've been pushing so hard for bottom-up income, to turn alliance income into something based on the activities of its members rather than hoping you have some at least somewhat valuable moons you can exploit.

I'm not even going to touch your mega flip-flop on being able to pay for an entire region with a single tech moon.

Andski wrote:
Blastil wrote:
a single tech moon can run 20 medium poses. Thats about enough poses to control a constellation.


You might want to read this very recent devblog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=1787


Hoooly hell I almost didn't even notice that little bit of dumb Shocked

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-12-04 09:57:27 UTC
Remove local.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#67 - 2012-12-04 10:15:53 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove local.


Remove stupid posts calling for removal of local before we have a proper passive scanning system, because 0.0 isn't anything like W-space.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-12-04 13:40:16 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove local.


Remove stupid posts calling for removal of local before we have a proper passive scanning system, because 0.0 isn't anything like W-space.

no but you see elite small gang pvp and napfests and nullbears and abxhgjicsduihgktixhdejkrvghuvixodocuijghntgbxkdvhntkxcfvhg

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-12-05 02:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Malcanis wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove local.


Remove stupid posts calling for removal of local before we have a proper passive scanning system, because 0.0 isn't anything like W-space.

I have always advocated a new directional scanner, but not some lazy passive one for cowards. It has been in my sig for a good while now. Notice I mention both local AND the directional scanner? The results should be vastly dependent on the amount of effort put into the scanning.

Also refrain from name calling, I thought you were above all that, or was that last year?
Frying Doom
#70 - 2012-12-05 04:27:58 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove local.


Remove stupid posts calling for removal of local before we have a proper passive scanning system, because 0.0 isn't anything like W-space.

I have always advocated a new directional scanner, but not some lazy passive one for cowards. It has been in my sig for a good while now. Notice I mention both local AND the directional scanner? The results should be vastly dependent on the amount of effort put into the scanning.

Also refrain from name calling, I thought you were above all that, or was that last year?

I would be happy for a Dscan that looked like the radar from Elite 20 years ago.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-12-05 19:53:00 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Also refrain from name calling, I thought you were above all that, or was that last year?

So your name is now "stupid posts", since you call what he wrote "namecalling"?

Okay, then.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#72 - 2012-12-05 21:52:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Marlona Sky wrote:

Also refrain from name calling


Apparently you can't distinguish between someone castigating a stupid idea and calling someone a stupid person.


Why do you think that might be, Marlona Sky?


Incidentally, as long as we're refraining from name calling, would you like to retrract any of the rather personal observations you made about certain people in my "Big Lie" thread?

EDIT: PS I hope you don't have any of your modules on the "lazy" autorepeat mode. Obviously the only true method of gameplay is repeated endless clicking to do exactly the same task over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until we log out and wonder why there are still so many bots in EVE.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#73 - 2012-12-05 21:59:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Frying Doom wrote:

I would be happy for a Dscan that looked like the radar from Elite 20 years ago.


Pretty much. If we had a pimped out DSCAN with an Elite-style display which had varying ranges based on our ships sensor strength, the sig/sensor of the target ships, extended range for narrowed focus, the ability to reduce our own detectability by reducing sensor output, and so on, I'd cheerfully through instant local in the fire.

Make it responsive, make it configurable, make it vary with ship fittings (ECCM), allow us to "spoof" or sensor signature with Sensor Backup arrays, make it in to something that's not another damb space-spreadsheet that requires eternal clicking.

Then we can put local into delayed mode and I will be happier than a turkey that survived christmas.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#74 - 2012-12-05 22:07:59 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I would be happy for a Dscan that looked like the radar from Elite 20 years ago.


Pretty much. If we had a pimped out DSCAN with an Elite-style display which had varying ranges based on our ships sensor strength, the sig/sensor of the target ships, extended range for narrowed focus, the ability to reduce our own detectability by reducing sensor output, and so on, I'd cheerfully through instant local in the fire.

Make it responsive, make it configurable, make it vary with ship fittings (ECCM), allow us to "spoof" or sensor signature with Sensor Backup arrays, make it in to something that's not another damb space-spreadsheet that requires eternal clicking.

Then we can put local into delayed mode and I will be happier than a turkey that survived christmas.


You should look at the forum thread I made a while back:

Replace Local with an Intel Tool

It pretty much is exactly what you are talking about..... the thread also has some feedback about the pro's and con's of such a system.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#75 - 2012-12-08 11:29:54 UTC
I think a good goal to work towards would be towards a model of production, wherein any pilot living in nullsec, should, with skills appropriate to the ship class, be able to easily and without a huge amount of headache, produce all the equipment, that they would use on average. T1, T2, all of it. You'd live out of your space, doing PVE/industry activities, and it would basically print you the ships you needed for CTAs and such. Of course it would take more time/resources to build more expensive stuff, but anyone should be able to do it. There is a huge, huge barrier of entry for that in eve, that really just encourages most people to just buy off the market.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-12-08 19:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Change the sovereignty mechanics so that you need to actively live in system to keep it upgraded and controlled.

In other words make it so that even smaller entities can hold system if they actively support it somehow on daily basis. And so that even huge entities can't hold systems if they don't do anything in them other than fly by few times in a week.

So put this real simple: sov is held by activity and numbers. Sov would change hands related to damage dealt to residents/structures in system and the amount needed would change related to how big the activity, numbers and support in that system has been during x time. Think about something similar than red/blue bars in incursions. Obviously residents could "repair" the system while it is not being attacked and also any damage to attacking entities in system would reinforce the system. Additionally the longer someone holds system the stronger it would become. This would make the staging systems most difficult to capture.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Frying Doom
#77 - 2012-12-10 12:14:24 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Change the sovereignty mechanics so that you need to actively live in system to keep it upgraded and controlled.

In other words make it so that even smaller entities can hold system if they actively support it somehow on daily basis. And so that even huge entities can't hold systems if they don't do anything in them other than fly by few times in a week.

So put this real simple: sov is held by activity and numbers. Sov would change hands related to damage dealt to residents/structures in system and the amount needed would change related to how big the activity, numbers and support in that system has been during x time. Think about something similar than red/blue bars in incursions. Obviously residents could "repair" the system while it is not being attacked and also any damage to attacking entities in system would reinforce the system. Additionally the longer someone holds system the stronger it would become. This would make the staging systems most difficult to capture.

Activity is definitely the way sov needs to be structured.

With system upgrades, outpost upgrades ect.. tied to activity and down grades tied to inactivity or for a faster downgrade activity by a different corp or alliance.

So someone else is actively using your space you loose Sov faster.

Oh and of course POS and outposts should be better than NPC ones. Kind of like private enterprise is more efficient than government.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#78 - 2012-12-10 19:45:12 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:


What about every region of the game that isn't the north? What do they do now that you've decided to set sov prices based on tech income? Hell, what do tech holders do once tech gets significantly lower (hint: it will)?



You're making the assumption that the changes I suggest should happen in a vacuum. I suggest no such thing. In addition to 'miniaturizing' 0.0, you would need to also include a change to resource distribution, either making moons 'deplete' or altering moon-goo harvesting, as well as redistributing the weight of these materials. The method by which It should be done is a debatable subject, but is ancillary to the point that it SHOULD and MUST happen.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2012-12-10 19:50:53 UTC
You can take your "depleting moons" idea and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2012-12-10 20:23:18 UTC
Blastil wrote:
You're making the assumption that the changes I suggest should happen in a vacuum. I suggest no such thing. In addition to 'miniaturizing' 0.0, you would need to also include a change to resource distribution, either making moons 'deplete' or altering moon-goo harvesting, as well as redistributing the weight of these materials. The method by which It should be done is a debatable subject, but is ancillary to the point that it SHOULD and MUST happen.


When you keep saying something "should" and "must" happen, you have to actually demonstrate why that is. You know, with words and sentences and stuff. I've already explained why I think that the mechanics of moon mining aren't an issue (certainly not a major one anyway). Maybe it's high time you explain why it SHOULD and MUST happen, rather than just insisting over and over again that it does?

To quote one of the Eve Radio DJ's during the Mittens-Riverini debate: "Go ahead, use your words".

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["