open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Raidek
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:22:00 - [331]
 

This is a terrible idea. I'm all for space being better then each other but making alliances suffer because of a design change after they devoted a lot of long term planning towards what they accomplished since dominion is pretty much ****.

The idea of space being unique and not the same is great, this solution is not.

DingoGS
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:26:00 - [332]
 

I would swear that the economic analysis during the fanfest said that everything was "pretty normal" and the game was just in need for some "isk sinks", not a isk production nerf.
Maybe CCP should listen their economists, economists love ships being blown up so people have to replace them often, makes the game better according to their own economists. And lets face it, where are more ships blown up, highsec or nullsec?, where does that money come from?

This seems a crazy idea thought by one guy that thinks its cool to make big changes without analyzing them.

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
Tragedy.
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:26:00 - [333]
 

I have spent most of the better part of my day reading this thread. Frankly I am one of those in a smaller alliance in Vale who if this change went through would have to leave for empire or find a larger alliance to join. I am rather loyal to my alliance so leaving them is not an option to me but cloning to empire every other day to do missions is not all that appealing.

I believe that every system in 0.0 should have at least 1 Sanctum and 1 Haven...build up from there for the lower trusec systems. I hope that CCP takes this into consideration seeing as this has been a rather popular suggestion on this thread and Greyscale did state they would reconsider this change.

Finally I would like to point out that right now a large portion of players in nullsec don't PvP not because they are afraid to lose a ship or can't afford to replace them but because of the lag. Simply put...fix the lag...make that priority one over all else. Don't make any major drastic changes like this until that is done. With lag fixed there will be more fights and more players in those fights. More ships will be lost, more ISK cycled through the system and in the end you get another ISK sink that could very well balance out the economy again.

Hazrdis
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:28:00 - [334]
 

Personally I think, at worst make the lowest levels have 1 sanctum and 1 haven, so that they are not completely useless. Make higher levels obviously much more useful. I understand wanting to make something valuable other than moon goo, and I'm sure alliance memberships will lean on leadership a bit, but are you really expecting a 3000member alliance to survive on say 30 sanctums?

If it comes down to doing missions to make money or spending hrs upon hours every day running around trying to find sanctums etc in expensive ships, I won't be able to play, I don't have the time. I won't be able to pvp a lot, because I won't have ships, and I won't have ships because I want to pod myself after doing an hr of sanctums as it is let alone 3 hrs to match the income of 1 hr.

I think alliance membership has gone up seeing as it is affordable to be out and fighting, but it would go back down with this. Yeah alliances survived before these changes, but are alliances the same now?


lmao 2cat
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:31:00 - [335]
 

Also thanks for letting us pay billions of isk upgrading systems that will never spawn any worthwhile anomaly.

omgdutch2005
Gallente
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:36:00 - [336]
 

think of making a diffrence, by NOT nerfing, but by offering better space not making the current space be fail!!!!

you want to remove botting.. how the hell are folks going to be botting less for example if they earn less in their space....

1 H self ratting in good system or 3H unattended bot ratting and pvp all day what i want..

hmm waht would be the choise ;-)

now i stfu and go to bed, its getting late, 440am :P o7

Cooper Wylde
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:45:00 - [337]
 

What about iHUB upgrades. Or are those just now collectors items that we wasted time flying out in freighters.

are you guys really this dumb or is this because the CSM is full of people who don't set foot out of 0.5 space.

firefighter4
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:47:00 - [338]
 

this is the worst idea ever to do to 0.0 ccp you guys really need to rethink this over

luav II
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:47:00 - [339]
 

i guess 0.0 will be vewy vewy quiet during weekdays if they push this through

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:48:00 - [340]
 

Originally by: Aeternus IV

For F*ck's Sake, I mean really... I hope whoever thought of this idea is sterile, this world needs less morons, not more.


Best post to this point, cuz I said so.
+1
insert gay meme here

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:51:00 - [341]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.


Thanks for listening, CCP Greyscale. I sincerely hope that you rethink your current plans for nullsec. The problems with your proposals have been extensively documented in this thread. At the same time, folk have pointed out numerous times where the true problems with nullsec lie (hint: look at moon goo). Concentrating geographically nullsec ISK faucets should be rather obviously an awful idea, after the debacle which is now unfolding as a result of you concentrating Technetium in the hands of the Northern Coalition.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.


Would it be possible to get a more-detailed list of the problems you perceive in nullsec as it is? I like the idea of encouraging conflict and breaking down giant powerblocs while allowing more alliances to set up shop in nullsec. So do many other players who live in nullsec, no doubt. Most of us also [hopefully] understand that significant changes may have to be made at times for the health of the game as a whole, which may inconvenience some players or entites.

However, I have two major problems with your current proposals. (1) The proposals show a frightening misunderstanding of how nullsec truly works. For example, suggesting that players run anomalies below Havens, or that they would do so because those anomalies are somehow 'safer' is ludicrous, so the idea that players would want systems which spawn no Havens or Sanctums is exceedingly silly. (2) As a consequence of the above, your current proposals would be counterproductive: if right now a small alliance can get into nullsec by renting or aligning with a larger entity and upgrading its low-value system to be useful, under the proposed changes that small alliance would be stuck farming Hubs for miniscule profits at best, and would most likely be simply locked out of nullsec altogether. So rather than foster conflict and attract new alliance, your proposals would actually drive players out of nullsec.

All of this has been discussed in greater detail in earlier posts. It took me about half an hour of thought to figure out why the above changes are problematic. I find it hard to believe that no-one at CCP thought of the many negative and counterproductive effects your proposed changes will have.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:53:00 - [342]
 

Grayscale, i'm sorry, i believe that this sort of change was proposed without much thinking. Not only was it a mistake, but it was a very unresponsible thing to do. I respect the work you guys do, but this has "poorly thinked" written all over it. Not only it enraged your playerbase, it gave the wrong idea of the quality of your guys work. Now a lot of people were led to believe that you guys do in fact like to change things without thinking too much about it.


I do not expect this change to be implemented on the way it was originally proposed, because everyone here pointed out with a lot of solid arguments that the changes proposed will not achieve the consequences you guys wanted. It will, in fact, do the exact opposite. Big alliances will stay big (and grow bigger), botters and macroers will continue botting and macroeing COMPLETELY unaffected and, completely the contrary of what you want, small alliances will have an even harder time estabilishing a foothold. And acording to the consequences you said you expect to happen, you don't want any of this to happen.

If you guys want to affect the income source of the big dogs, you shouldn't look to anomalies, you should look toward moons.


Also, i noticed that this dev blog was posted toward the end of today's fanfest exhibitions. Expect a major roar this next afternoon.

Rex Augustus
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:54:00 - [343]
 

This proposed change, and I hope to GOD that it's only a proposed change, will, as many others have mentioned, screw over the smaller corps, alliances and individual players.

Nullsec wars have nothing to do with the truesec values of the system, and everything to do with moon income. We don't even give a damn about the content of the belts for the most part.

We go from the absolutely -awesome- change in removing the Learning skills, to this tripe?

Listen to the new folks coming in on the CSM. Odds are pretty good you're going to get some -very- experienced nullsec residents and leaders showing up in this.

You're not creating new conflict between the players.

You're creating new conflict between the players and CCP. A conflict that will result in $$$ leaving for good.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.03.26 03:55:00 - [344]
 

Originally by: Mortania
Looking through the database, there are:
3524 systems with negative security.
1635 are between -0.0 and -0.25, about 46.4%
738 are between -0.25 and -0.45, about 20.9%
554 are between -0.45 and -0.65, about 15.7%
414 are between -0.65 and -0.85, about 11.7%
183 are between -0.85 and -1.00, about 5.2%

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.


The initial idea is sound, though I think the 'bands' should be reconsidered.

I: -0.0 to -0.149
II: -0.15 to -0.399
III: -0.4 to -0.649
IV: -0.65 to -0.849
V: -8.5 to -1.0

Would make more sense I guess.

sappy mcsap
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:05:00 - [345]
 

this is totally going to make more people fight

tons more drama! o wait you wanted pvp? yah thats not gonna change with this gl :P

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:10:00 - [346]
 

Power bloc tears, best tears. Wink

Van Ketris
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:15:00 - [347]
 

I think the most important thing I could point out on this issue is the key note of allowing entry by smaller alliances with less 0.0 experience or power. From my viewpoint, and others, it's things such as consistant anomalies regardless of true-sec or moons that encourages this move. If you know you can get your members into a better situation than high-sec, and that they can keep busy and afford pvp, then you are much more likely to make that plunge and survive.

The power blocks in null won't go away with a change like this, and those who get hurt the most are people who were willing to live in less valuable systems, but knowing it was still of good value to their individual members. Especially smaller corporations who were able to join an alliance and live in a low-belt, low true-sec system.

Those corps often have different ideals than the alliance or larger corporations. These groups grow in good situations with anoms allowing them to recruit from good space in a larger group, and someday maybe create their own alliance having made friends/allies and grown. If it's no longer viable to live in low true-sec systems you'll find alliances relying more on their large corps, and members needing to join those corps to get access to the valuable space.

We can argue how viable living in these new 0.00-0.2 systems will be, but I think it's apparant that below havens/sanctums any income made will be significantly less than other means. Taking away any sort of reliable isk necessary for growth for combat pilots in these systems. So some 740+ systems are now not possible homes for weaker groups who need all the help they can get. Not to mention power blocks care more about holding a given spot on the map than the sov of the systems. Look at the old IT area, lots of unclaimed systems, but if you tried to claim sov they shut you down fast.

Hordak Zann
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:15:00 - [348]
 

I'm sorry, this is Bu****it. This pretty much takes away any chance smaller alliances have against larger ones. Oh wait, moon goo?? Right, all the larger alliances have them under their thumbs. It will also make people leave 0.0 for empire where they'd earn better isk grinding Level 4's. I say keep it the way it is and live and let live.

Lt Al3x3i
ROMANIA Renegades
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:16:00 - [349]
 

Edited by: Lt Al3x3i on 26/03/2011 04:18:46
so now u want as to go to npc space like venal stain curse a??? **** sov who it gona give a crap for space like -0.1 -0.7 space???

Proats
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:17:00 - [350]
 

Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 04:20:17
Originally by: Marconus Orion
Power bloc tears, best tears. Wink
Power blocs have the ability to take the valuable regions from any of the small or mid-sized entities easily, or already control those regions anyway. Why would they have any selfish reasons to care about these changes?

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
Tragedy.
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:17:00 - [351]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Power bloc tears, best tears. Wink


You clearly have no idea what you are saying when you say that. The Power Blocks don't and will never give a damn if this change goes through because this will do nothing but give them even more ISK off Havens and Sanctums. The power blocks have the lower true sec systems. The ones this will effect are the smaller alliances who are pets, rent or are guests of the larger alliances and don't have systems with the lower sec status.

Seriously...people...get a clue.

Ascendic
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:33:00 - [352]
 

Edited by: Ascendic on 26/03/2011 04:33:10
Originally by: Liang Nuren


The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes.

-Liang

Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game.


Orly? Let us see said evidence or feel free to STFU.

How does that cok taste?

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:35:00 - [353]
 

Originally by: Ascendic
Edited by: Ascendic on 26/03/2011 04:33:10
Originally by: Liang Nuren


The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes.

-Liang

Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game.


Orly? Let us see said evidence or feel free to STFU.

How does that cok taste?


Ignore that person. A lot of people already are ignoring it.

Ella Scorpio
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:40:00 - [354]
 

Please, CCP, stop and think of the children. Won't anyone think of the children?

Seriously, I'm glad Greyscale and CCP are listening. I understand the attraction of the elegance of this solution. As I'm devs often think "oh, we should have designed it this way." But it's too late...you already have a universe. I could see this working had it been designed with valuable systems located to also make them inconvenient to get to and also to take (pre-jump bridge, pre-super moms). But starting with what you have now, it doesn't make sense.

This will kill nullsec, because like tech moons, the big alliances will just keep the income for themselves and lock everyone else out. Actually, if CCP made -0.01 the baseline and buffed everything else, then you could potentially encourage the upwardly mobile to take space while keeping nullsec vibrant. It's kind of like trying to improve a neighborhood by cutting off the electricity to all the average houses, but adding really nice kitchens to the better houses...you might think that would encourage people to move into the nicer houses, but the people in the average houses already would have been in the nicer houses if they could...so now they are just sitting in the dark thinking about tanks.

I would hope the tech moon debacle would make you think twice about concentrating resources too tightly so that only giant alliances can thrive...the whole beauty of dispersed isk faucets is that it encourages lots of smaller scale sov wars. I understand that Dominion made things too homogenic (not the word I'm looking for, but it's late, and that's the name of a Bjork album so hopefully it will resonate with CCP) but don't swing things so far the other way. Fix the truesec bugs in areas like Delve, fix the tech moons, fix the bugs with entrapment arrays, make anoms (and escalations) more variable and interesting so that anoms other than Haven/Sanctum level are profitable, THEN revisit this idea.

Ransom Note
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:42:00 - [355]
 

Edited by: Ransom Note on 26/03/2011 04:49:06
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies.


He's the only one....

If these changes go ahead they will make the training plan that I've had in place for the last 6 months completely worthless. Furthermore, I'll probably end up going back to empire, and if I end up having to rescue another damsel I'll probably just quit. I'm certainly not going to go join one of the blobfest alliances just for Sanctum income.

Donovin Orly
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:46:00 - [356]
 

CCP,

First of all I want to say thank you for trying to make a better game for us to enjoy and trying to create some more war for us to revel in.

With that said... please do not do this, I strongly doubt it will cause the reaction you hope for but instead make the game less accessible for new players/corps.

It seems to me that you put a lot of work into getting people out into 0.0 and you have been successful this idea seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction.

Joseph Smith
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:48:00 - [357]
 

Edited by: Joseph Smith on 26/03/2011 04:49:23
i don't see how this will help the small guys, all its going to do is concentrate the wealth into the hands of the already powerful.

I'm sure my alliance will still charge rent on the crap system and if you don't pay i'm sure we will remove you, others will take there place.

So at the end of days the little guys will get screwed harder and the giant power block will still be giant power blocks.




lilpday
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:49:00 - [358]
 

this is DUMB this will hurt all the small self made allainces all the small pvp fleets and anything small it will creat blobs in the main systems and just make it so only capital pilots can pvp again..... this is very disapointing

Xiang Zhu
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:50:00 - [359]
 

TL;DR

Please fix lag (like really fix it and not 'tweaks') and other really stupid bugs before implementing poorly thought out changes that will make this game less fun.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 04:52:00 - [360]
 

Originally by: Proats
Power blocs have the ability to take the valuable regions from any of the small or mid-sized entities easily, or already control those regions anyway. Why would they have any selfish reasons to care about these changes?


Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi
You clearly have no idea what you are saying when you say that. The Power Blocks don't and will never give a damn if this change goes through because this will do nothing but give them even more ISK off Havens and Sanctums. The power blocks have the lower true sec systems. The ones this will effect are the smaller alliances who are pets, rent or are guests of the larger alliances and don't have systems with the lower sec status.

Seriously...people...get a clue.


"Alliance living in **** region, you are to stay blue with us and be a nice buffer to keep us safe while we farm Sanctums all day, cool?"

"What incentive is there for me to do that?"

"So we can still be friends!"

"So you want me to be a buffer while you get fat and rich?"

"Yes. Remember, I allow you to exist. You can go to high sec and farm missions... oh wait. Those are nerfed too so you have to be a buffer for me."

"Well now there is no incentive to be blue with you."

"Sure there is. You get to tell people that we are friends. That is all the incentive you need. Pass me another turkey leg..."

"How about we switch regions. We will take the good one and you take the **** one. After all if we are frie.."

*COUGH!* *COUGH!!*

"HORRIBLE IDEA! We were here first so no point in changing now. Pass that gravy over. Now get you ass back on those gates and make sure if a non-blue comes though, you let us know so we can get our ships safely out of the Sanctums. MOVE IT!"


So why should an alliance who lives in a 'not so great' region want to stay blue with an alliance living in a 'great' region?


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (118)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only