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 : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

jitadwella
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:42:00 - [511]
 

Sounds like an AWESOME idea!!! Let's turn some of the most heavily inhabited regions into barren wastelands! Let's make it so that more than half of 0.0 is more risky and less rewarding than highsec! While we're at it, let's go ahead and remove a major source of income for grunts of the younger alliances, so that they have no hope of attacking major alliances holding higher truesec!

Seriously, CCP? Seriously? Having all space equal is a bad thing, yes. Making large tracts of nullsec absolutely worthless wastelands is even worse. Many younger alliances have spent large chunks of their budgets upgrading their space with outposts and now you come and destroy everything they've done. Many regions won't even be worth putting sov in AT ALL with these changes. Who would pay for bills in Cloud Ring, where there's only 1 system that would even have havens/sanctums? Are you really expecting a group of 1 month old players to come in and throw down sov? After 1 or 2 months' training, literally no players use hubs or lower Cosmic Anomalies. After they've held Cloud Ring for two months, what do you expect this band of noobs to do? Attack titans with rifters? Of course not, they'll move straight back to Empire or join up with a bigger alliance, abandoning their space. Or, more likely, they'll never come out to nullsec to begin with. No large alliance with common sense will be allowing the huge swarms of recruits to join up, and no small alliance is able to conquer high truesec under the current Dominion system.

Buff higher truesec, maybe SLIGHTLY nerf lower truesec. Add more ihub upgrades (incursions?), and maybe add some upgrades that will only work in certain levels of truesec (supercap docking?). Most importantly, CHANGE THE DOMINION MECHANICS to reward small risktaking entities! Literally nobody likes the current mechanics, ask NC, DC and DRF leaders, ask PL, ask Ev0ke/NCdot, and most importantly ask the small alliances whose space you are about to make worthless. As it stands, the system is far too defensive. It's fine and dandy to buff high truesec to the point where it's supervaluable, but make it possible to for a determined entity to capture!


Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:43:00 - [512]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
- Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot. It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income.
True. But wasn't this one of the specific goals of Dominion? Increasing the carrying capacity of 0.0 systems.

Quote:
- Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long.
Also true. But, historically, the cost of living in that space was earned ELSEWHERE. Be it empire based industrial endeavors, pos production somewhere in lowsec, L4 in motsu or scamming in Jita. The space was claimed, but largely unoccupied as players were elsewhere earning the ISK to afford having their flag raised in Sov-0.0.

Quote:
- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.
Well, CVA did a good job of providing a 0.0-light experience by shielding its population from most harsh realities of nullsec. But apart from that, you always had to be the bully or be taken in under the wings of a bully. And this is not going to change. This should not be going to change.
As an independant zerosec newcomer, to not be bombed back to Jita within hours, you have to occupy worthless space, in a strategically worthless spot that does not open a possible cyno-vector and be willing to be kill-farmed by your neighbors. Rare.

Quote:
- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.
So, back to pre-Dominion status, where a single entity claims 5 regions to have the 6 good systems?
The idea of dominion was to break up the extremely large sov claims needed to sustain your members by making it much more expensive to own space, but at the same time increase the resources available in each system and rent out other systems within the range you can comfortably project your force. And for the system to have that sustainability, it needs to be constantly worked in. For that to be an interesting option, you need to be able to generate the ISK in one or two systems.
In EVE 2011 we still have power blocks - but did we really think those would ever disappear? The entire vision of Dominion hinges on the 85% crap a region offers to be interesting on its own. Not be carried by the better 15%.

SirJoJo
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:43:00 - [513]
 

Originally by: AngusThermo
Sir JOJO:

This change will LESSEN the conflicts,



How can there be any less then now, RLY go list all conflicts in eve atm,

Wake up dude, there no conflict because there no reason to have one since all the space is Equal

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:46:00 - [514]
 

Originally by: AngusThermo
Most 0.0 corps dont survive that. Many leave the game.

2. Rich pilots get safer, since only a few systems are worth making isk in, it's simpler to boubble/protect those systems. Less conflict will arise.



correction. some 0.0 corps loose where they put their manhood, players that cant hack it and were going to quit anyway (and rightfully should, good riddance) quit. all the rest (corps and players) shuffle into other corps which float their boat and its like those unfit entities never existed except on some corp histories.

as well as... roamers try and go gank those supers... omnom capital kills.

GKO
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:49:00 - [515]
 

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 25/03/2011 18:46:20
This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift.

Quote:
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies


So CCP Greyscale is excited about screwing people over?! This puts my confidence on CCP staff at such a high level..


Hey Greyscale is normally a cool guy, just saying.... my guess is he was forced to publish this devblog because everyone else was drunk. So he maybe didnt read the devblog before releasing.

@topic: well... now it is easier to place afk cloakers!

AngusThermo
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:50:00 - [516]
 

Originally by: SirJoJo
Originally by: AngusThermo
Sir JOJO:

This change will LESSEN the conflicts,



How can there be any less then now, RLY go list all conflicts in eve atm,

Wake up dude, there no conflict because there no reason to have one since all the space is Equal


I've been at war for the last 3 years. There has not been 1 week of "peace" so i would suggest you leave your worthless jita corp, and go find conflict. There's plenty around.

SirJoJo
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:52:00 - [517]
 

Originally by: AngusThermo
Originally by: SirJoJo
Originally by: AngusThermo
Sir JOJO:

This change will LESSEN the conflicts,



How can there be any less then now, RLY go list all conflicts in eve atm,

Wake up dude, there no conflict because there no reason to have one since all the space is Equal


I've been at war for the last 3 years. There has not been 1 week of "peace" so i would suggest you leave your worthless jita corp, and go find conflict. There's plenty around.


Plenty as in 2?



Slaman Snikovski
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:55:00 - [518]
 

Originally by: AngusThermo
Edited by: AngusThermo on 26/03/2011 11:45:32
Sir JOJO:

Most have been empire dwellers, to some extend allso lowsec dwellers. The ONLY lure you have, when you recruit - is that 0.0 has better revenue, so you spend LESS time farming isk and MORE time having fun roaming/killing stuff.

This change will LESSEN the conflicts, because in order to risk your ships, you allso need time to farm it. If your isk/hour is reduced by 75% or more, you will not live in 0.0 but you will move back to empire to do either missions or trade/scam/whatever rocks your boat.




If the only reason you came down to 0.0 because it had more revenue than high-sec you should get back to carebear land and stay there. About time CCP made some changes that made the game more difficult instead of letting people who only care for they sanctums sit there all day making lots of money without risking anything.
This game should be about getting better rewards for higher risks.

Scapogo
Amarr
5 Inch Incorporated
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:55:00 - [519]
 

Only thing you will achieve by this is that we will have many empty useless crap systems nobody will want. Not even some new alliance because they can make more isk in WH or Incursions.

I hope you will think about this one more time and instead of nerf you will make better sec systems better without nerfing others.

Ppl in crap systems will need rat longer and will have less time and isk for pvp. So result is oposite to your expectations.

Thanks god there are other games.

AngusThermo
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:56:00 - [520]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: AngusThermo
Most 0.0 corps dont survive that. Many leave the game.

2. Rich pilots get safer, since only a few systems are worth making isk in, it's simpler to boubble/protect those systems. Less conflict will arise.



correction. some 0.0 corps loose where they put their manhood, players that cant hack it and were going to quit anyway (and rightfully should, good riddance) quit. all the rest (corps and players) shuffle into other corps which float their boat and its like those unfit entities never existed except on some corp histories.

as well as... roamers try and go gank those supers... omnom capital kills.


That can happen, if the system isnt boubbled, cynojammed... If an alliance only have a few good anom systems, dont you think there will be more supers than one there? Chances for a roam to get tackle/people through the boubblecamp in time is = 0.

You would have less conflict, because, you would loose each time. If you loose each time you roam, do you wanna roam ?

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 11:57:00 - [521]
 

Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 11:58:52
Originally by: AngusThermo

I've been at war for the last 3 years. There has not been 1 week of "peace" so i would suggest you leave your worthless jita corp, and go find conflict. There's plenty around.


i think you should check who you are talking to before you assume they are in a 'jita corp'.

hes referring to the amount of major conflicts.. i dont know if you've noticed but there are 2 major sides of eve. DC/NC against DRF and Stain train. CCP is trying to open up the doors for more sides of the fight, not 2 gigantic cluster****s.

oh and quit posting from some random toon... no battleclinic record ftl. trolled much?

JeanLuc Blindtard
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:04:00 - [522]
 

If you want to ad more conflict move the isk making index up instead of down.

So keep everything as it is but add up more "large sum" isk making options in some regions of space.

Dont just take peoples isk making everywhere, to make them fight for w/e is left. I cant go pvp for new space just so I can get a piece of space to rat to make isk for 30d plex now cant I?

Isk is not just for pvp we pay sov/renter bills, (on my corp been like 3 bill atm) we also buy those 30 day PLEX to keep us alive...

Most isk comes from ratters that are already talking about moving back to empire if our system going to loose the main isk making anoms.

Overall turn out for my corp after changes: Most probably 6 or 10 people will go to empire back to lvl4's and salvaging. Some 3 or 4 will focus fully on pi in npc 0.0 space. Rest up to 40 members drop corp look for a 0.0 alliance arround the isk making pokets or a high/low sec war decking pvp corp/alliance... Current Corp closed.

Overall turnout for me: 1 out of 3 accounts closed. remaining 2 account moved to empire for lvl4 mission runing and salvaging/looting.

For more conflict (as if it was needed) I propose you make some kind of global event that will massively push isk into pokets of the dudes that run it but it wouldn't need a giant fleet to complete it. This event will be moving from region to region like 1 move a month or so, but it would be a giant magnet for people.

Basically you can make it like a wormhole to a happy happy place where isk flows...

A comet or something traveling through space and that holds massive amounts of t2 materials or some SHuT.

Donno Sleeper mother ship that drops T3 modules and module bpc's travels arround eve been seen here an there drawing people to it...

Theres more than 1 way to get people to fight each other why go for the r e t a r d e d way that wont work???

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:07:00 - [523]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: El'Niaga

Introduce new 0.0 systems, shouldn't be to hard. Another 10 regions.



Please no. we need to fill the 0.0 systems we have as it is. most of the damn game goes uninhabited. the whole idea of this change is so that the bigger alliances will hold certain systems/constellations/regions while smaller alliances fill in the blanks and get roamed. great fun for everyone. i can bet to you there is some group of hi-sec corps that want to move into 0.0 but cant for whatever reason. this will give them an opportunity to do just that.

IF 0.0 becomes bloated then yes, by all means, make CCP a storyline as to why the ingame elements completely missed the '10' regions that happened to have all manner of NPC rats in them =)

only thing im saying here, is people need to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about whats going to happen from a neutral view. and quit the water works, we have enough of that already in here.


You're about as obtuse as Grey.

You can't fix the game in its current state. All Grey's blog proposes is a short term migration that will shortly be put down as the powers keep anyone from getting into 0.0 that doesn't pay them rent....they have the ships and manpower to do it.

The only counter to that is to make sure they can keep the space they have and keep it. The create more space that is outside the range of their cap ships or limited paths...kinda like geminate between NC and DRF. Since they have their space it stands to reason most of them will be content, however those that aren't will move, opening up space. But the space will only fill if the systems can keep folks busy.

Guess you weren't around when the Drone Regions opened up. It was a dynamic change to the game and they were quickly filled with groups fighting one another. Ultimately most of those don't exist anymore (TNT is still around see them post now and then, not sure if any of the other original Drone alliances survive). Those initial Drone Wars probably drug out for around a year maybe 18months.

That's what they need if they want more conflict, only more space will be a dynamic enough change. That space though has to be able to support hundreds. Perhaps some lost tribes of humanity are there to to have some new npc 0.0.


Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:07:00 - [524]
 

[Continued]

And, the power-blocks have for the most part shrunk. And I think there are more entities on the sov map than before.

When I started my nullsec-life in 2007, a typical roam would hop from known ratting system to known ratting system, with large stretches of empty space with stargates inbetween (apart from the occasional cloaked early-warning-intel-scout). Nowadays, one still has ones favorite hostile population center to visit, but the space in between isn't empty. There are people living there, working their (small/rented) part of outlaw space. And its awesome.

The possibilities to increase earning capabilities introduced with Dominion are:
- hidden belts. Nice, and a decent income source I think (250 SP industry ftw), but problematic for small entities as protecting them requires huge resources. Also, once your neighbors figure out there are is helpless cash flying around in space, you get A LOT more frequent visits.
- exploration. Here, the real earners are the escalations. And for those to be a reliable source of income, the pocket of space you need to somewhat control is much bigger. One can sneak into hostile space to run an escalation, and it probably still is a lot of fun; but if you being able to pay your concord bill relies on them, you have a problem.
- anomalies. Out of the three options, the only one that does not leave you horribly exposed (exhumers) and works reliably if you aren't on good terms with your neighbors.

But making owning bad space cheaper by lowering the infrastructure upkeep for them will just mean the big players move their costly infrastructure (jbridges, scap production) into bad space to save ISK while having the good systems too (I know because we would).

PS/Disclaimer: ev0ke, providence, wah! I haven't ratted in years and my wallet will not care about this adaption one way or another.

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:09:00 - [525]
 

Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard
If you want to ad more conflict move the isk making index up instead of down.

So keep everything as it is but add up more "large sum" isk making options in some regions of space.

Dont just take peoples isk making everywhere, to make them fight for w/e is left. I cant go pvp for new space just so I can get a piece of space to rat to make isk for 30d plex now cant I?

Isk is not just for pvp we pay sov/renter bills, (on my corp been like 3 bill atm) we also buy those 30 day PLEX to keep us alive...

Most isk comes from ratters that are already talking about moving back to empire if our system going to loose the main isk making anoms.

Overall turn out for my corp after changes: Most probably 6 or 10 people will go to empire back to lvl4's and salvaging. Some 3 or 4 will focus fully on pi in npc 0.0 space. Rest up to 40 members drop corp look for a 0.0 alliance arround the isk making pokets or a high/low sec war decking pvp corp/alliance... Current Corp closed.

Overall turnout for me: 1 out of 3 accounts closed. remaining 2 account moved to empire for lvl4 mission runing and salvaging/looting.

For more conflict (as if it was needed) I propose you make some kind of global event that will massively push isk into pokets of the dudes that run it but it wouldn't need a giant fleet to complete it. This event will be moving from region to region like 1 move a month or so, but it would be a giant magnet for people.

Basically you can make it like a wormhole to a happy happy place where isk flows...

A comet or something traveling through space and that holds massive amounts of t2 materials or some SHuT.

Donno Sleeper mother ship that drops T3 modules and module bpc's travels arround eve been seen here an there drawing people to it...

Theres more than 1 way to get people to fight each other why go for the r e t a r d e d way that wont work???


No. EVE is meant to be harsh while still being playable. this means adapting. the nano***s did it. Sov warfare has done it countless times and will do it countless times more. and im sure that gallente pilots are hard at work theorycrafting to do it too =). at any rate, if CCP starts conforming to tears than this game will not be the same as it was. (although gallente does need reworking...)

Viger
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:17:00 - [526]
 

IMO, its a terrible way to try and force more conflict.

You want more conflicts yet you are cutting players ability to make isk, isk that is used to purchase/replace pvp ships/mods. Prices will not go down just because some systems are not as profitable.

Alliances don't rely on ratting for isk, a large number rely on moon goo, this is a nerf to the smaller corps and individuals, if you want to force conflict, change the moon goo set up, tie them to sov, etc.

At Fan Faire yesterday it was started that you are tracking pos timers and such to help anticipate when battle are going to occur so you can help avoid lag, how many of those pos were moon goo types. That is driving a large number of the conflicts atm.

If you want more conflict, look at changing the status system, don't give the ability to set someone to blue.
If you want more conflict, change sov mechanism
If you want more conflict, change moon goo


sc11232
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:20:00 - [527]
 

Edited by: sc11232 on 26/03/2011 12:21:08
I hope you read comments, because you have got 20 pages of mostly negative comments.
I have asked in my corp and noone was happy with the changes. Despite of us living in highest truesec systems that will improve ammount of anoms.
It seems that results will be:
1) It wont achieve what you think it will achieve.
2) Many people will be unhappy.


if you dont consider feedback provided in those forums after asking for it, then you are truly, ignorant.

Slaman Snikovski
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:23:00 - [528]
 

Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20
If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict.
I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged.

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:24:00 - [529]
 

Edited by: Mioelnir on 26/03/2011 12:26:01
Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
No. EVE is meant to be harsh while still being playable. this means adapting. the nano***s did it. Sov warfare has done it countless times and will do it countless times more. and im sure that gallente pilots are hard at work theorycrafting to do it too =). at any rate, if CCP starts conforming to tears than this game will not be the same as it was. (although gallente does need reworking...)

True. But the 0.0-vision Dominion introduced relies on even the most crappy system being somewhat interesting ISK wise. So if that knob gets turned, other knobs need to be turned too.

The removal of static 10/10s did not lead to a flat out ceasefire in 0.0. Neither did Dominion. And neither will the proposed change magically increase conflicts. Conquering a well of prosperity from you enemy is always nice, but it is rarely the goal (but a good enabler to force the other party into a fight).
The two biggest factors behind large-scale wars were, are and always will be $YOU simply enjoying shooting people in the face and $YOU thinking the guy 3 jumps over is a ******** and needs to be tought a lesson.

So to increase conflict, one needs to increase the population. People will then go on each others nerves, backstab, form alliances, betray alliances and shoot wildly on their own as egos start to clash.

AngusThermo
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:32:00 - [530]
 

Edited by: AngusThermo on 26/03/2011 12:34:42
Originally by: Slaman Snikovski
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20
If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict.

Originally by: sc11232
Edited by: sc11232 on 26/03/2011 12:21:08
I hope you read comments, because you have got 20 pages of mostly negative comments.
I have asked in my corp and noone was happy with the changes. Despite of us living in highest truesec systems that will improve ammount of anoms.
It seems that results will be:
1) It wont achieve what you think it will achieve.
2) Many people will be unhappy.


if you dont consider feedback provided in those forums after asking for it, then you are truly, ignorant.


If you live in high-sec what do you care for the changes?
I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged.


Highest truesec = best space availible, nothing about empire in his reply, where do you get that from?

If you believe that you can "gun hoe" and grab a ratting system for kicks, you are sadly mistaken. You need sov before you can install upgrades, and you need to work to get the upgrades upgraded...
It's not done overnight in a roam - it's only done by kicking out ALL the enemy pos, ihubs, flipping staions ... ect.

It comes down to "who has the stamina" or "who has the isk to contiune to field correct setup fleet battleships".
If you are in a poor system, how will you generate enough ISK to keep the campaign going? It's not a matter of one night - but months.


Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:33:00 - [531]
 

You want to make some areas of space better than other? That's fine. But don't do this by making 90% of the space absolutely crap.

Quote:
26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.

So you're basically saying that in your views, 8 regions will be completely useless and not even worth fighting for?

Sov upgrades are a good thing, as it doesn't matter what kind of space you conquer, you can always invest money into making it that much better. Say a new alliance grabs three systems, in a few weeks they can make these three systems as good (economically) as the core systems of a long-estabilished alliance.

If the new system is implemented (which I serioualy hope not), the major powerblocks will sit on the best systems and barricade those so that nobody else will ever be able to get an Ibis in. And if someone tries to take over the "crappy" systems (read: 90% of EVE), they will end up with an income stream less than running level 4 missions in empire. How exactly are they supposed to compete with powerblocks having 8 sanctums in every system?

You don't understand you don't need to bring conflict into 0.0. There is enough conflict going on without you messing with the game. You need to incentivize people to go out to 0.0 and fight in these conflicts. You won't do that by making sovereign space worse. If a sanctum can keep N people in ships as soon as they lose them in combat in the current system, the same will be true in the new one. But there will be way less sanctums - so less people across the universe will be able to fight and not have to grind NPCs all day.

...or is that the combat you want to bring to 0.0? Just a glorified empire with missioning hubs here and there, and leagues of useless space inbetween?

JeanLuc Blindtard
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:35:00 - [532]
 

Originally by: Slaman Snikovski
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20
If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict.
I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged.



You're not verry smart are you?

1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
White Noise.
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:38:00 - [533]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.


Greyscale, you truly dont understand how we play this game..

Alliances assign 1 system or at most, 1 constellation for each alliance corp.
Entire alliance members dont just pile into 2 or 3 systems.. this is NOT how this game is been played. Having this implemented, will leave 80% of region empty and everyone packed into 20%, making it a nightmareish area to rat/mine in

InnerDrive
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:42:00 - [534]
 

Edited by: InnerDrive on 26/03/2011 12:45:09
ok first of all i woud like to say that i allways hated the true sec. system. the folks your with dont allways deside to go live in those systems for various reasons wich causes insane frustration at times to be stuck in crappy systems.

im a fan of conflict but true sec is just anoying.

its going to lead again into the entire alliance packing up in the best systems because the rest is crap. we really need more distribution. if you really want 200 people to sit in the only -0.6 till -1 system go right ahead and implement this!!!

One thing i woud add to 0.0 is : So we dont have to type the same jumpbridge password over and over again but lett the client remember it...

Schnapii
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:43:00 - [535]
 

I just prayed to God and Chuck Norris answered that he is not happy about those changes.

Cause he has to roundhousekick CCP for that!

Who the cheat has drunken so much to create such a dev O.o?!

The Idea to splitt the powerblocks down to some small dudes isn't that bad... But the way CCP want to try this, just would push their 'resource-control' to a maximum.

Bren Keilloram
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:48:00 - [536]
 

I'm not an anomaly runner, but I want to post an alternative here:

since developing a piece of space is still a pain (an so should be rewarded as such) and considering the CCP long history of nerfing stuff regardless of what payers want, I suggest an alternative:

1) for a low end system (0.0 to -0.2 as far as I can understand), fully developed, the number of anomalies/quality of them will be the same that it is today
2) in going from there to lower truesec (from -0.3 to -1.0) the number of high end anomalies will increase accordingly, but not only that: it'll also be increased the quality of the sanctums.
I think it's time to introduce the hidden, forsaken and forlon sanctums variations and this may be a good time to do such a thing.

Imho, this will help ccp to reach their goals about the whole anomaly revamping thing with the bonus to not **** off so many players.

Pawnee
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:48:00 - [537]
 

in my wish list:

No crappy Cosmic Anomalies and Signatures in 0.0 at all.

As CCP Greyscale mentioned correctly, players are in 0.0 for Havens, Sanctums and Hordes, and some the good complexes 6/10+. I was disappointed years ago from some exploration sites, when CCP introduced it. I learned, there are exploration sites in 0.0, which have rewards worse than lvl4 missions in high sec or belt ratting. Scanning for such a site is extra time and in the end you find out, just ratting in this system would have been better. As result, nobody will do this exploration site again. When it spawns, it just wastes resources. New players, and you have to be very new - like only 2-3 months old - could still join older players or stay in low or high sec for this time.

What will happen to the broken true sec standings in Pirate NPC regions?



Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:49:00 - [538]
 

Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard
Originally by: Slaman Snikovski
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20
If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict.
I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged.



You're not verry smart are you?


his error was a mis-communication. yours was being an idiot... your post had absolutely no worth at all. comets... hmm i seemed to remember a troll about that recently.

luceron
Posted - 2011.03.26 12:58:00 - [539]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

- Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot.


True but you're talking about taking access to those anoms away from anyone that is not strong enough to take and hold the best systems in a region. (I think we've seen the way this works with the moon-goo system.)

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income.


I don't think you are saying anything other than there will be a clear and marked benefit for alliances that have the power to control the best truesec regions and/or systems in a region. Sure this is true, but that is basically the list of powers that currently control the high-end moon-goo. What about those of us that don't have the power or means to take high-end moons, what makes you think we will be able to take and hold "high end true-sec systems"

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

- Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long.


Again true, but not really the issue we are worried about. The concern is more along the line of how does this change affect the little guy. It's like saying we are going to tear down the mill where you guys work, but don't worry I'm sure some kids will play stick ball in the empty lot we leave behind. Great, but what about my lost wages.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

- Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go.


Why is this view point ignored when considering the dynamic between small/medium size entities and the large high-end moon holders. Never hear anyone at ccp saying, "those powerblocs with all the high-end moons need to make room for up and coming entities at a faster rate." And some of those entities have been entrenched in their areas for a very long time.

Keep in mind "the next crop of prospective alliances" have a better chance of taking space from those of us that live in "crappy systems".

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

- Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place.


Problem is that less organizations will be able to access that resource. In essence you're taking something that is as ubiquitous as rain and reducing it to 20% of it's current accessibility. Benefits the powerblocs, screws the rest. Join powerblocs?Evil or Very Mad

JeanLuc Blindtard
Posted - 2011.03.26 13:02:00 - [540]
 

Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins
Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard
Originally by: Slaman Snikovski
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33
Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20
If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict.
I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged.



You're not verry smart are you?


his error was a mis-communication. yours was being an idiot... your post had absolutely no worth at all. comets... hmm i seemed to remember a troll about that recently.



I was just pointing out there other ways to make people beat each other than taking the isk away. I dont really care what that might be.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : 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