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 : ... 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Kijo Rikki
Caldari
Point of No Return
Waterboard
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:05:00 - [571]
 

I don't really know what's going on but I will say this change was a kick in the balls for us on timing alone. We just finished installing a level 5 upgrade to our home system and brought down a second for a neighboring one. Considering the truesec of the space we hold, that was a giant waste of money! ugh

Also reading the blog to me sounded like this:

Quote:

Expected consequences:
  • People will buy more plexes and generate more real income for CCP



qlko1
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:05:00 - [572]
 

CCP, make the vote, let's see what people think about this idea.

U're making those changes for us, right? Maybe it's time to ask us about our point of view.

VOTE!

Ace Frehley
Minmatar
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:05:00 - [573]
 

Stop whine about the nerf. Look at the real world. No big empires (Hello USA, China and Russia) have 100% profitble land. Most of their "landmark" is pretty useless. SHould be the same in EVE. WAnt an empire? Be prepared to pay for the crapspace that comes with it. Dont wanna live in a crap region and pay for it? Well dont do it, live there anyway or move to better space.

padshiiangel
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:07:00 - [574]
 

Originally by: qlko1
CCP, make the vote, let's see what people think about this idea.

U're making those changes for us, right? Maybe it's time to ask us about our point of view.

VOTE!


good idea Idea

Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:11:00 - [575]
 

Originally by: Ignatius Gnarl


The crappiest nullsec needs to be better than the best hisec. Even now, there is pretty much zero economic incentive in terms of the average player to get out to nullsec or fight. Alliances fight over high end moons, and mostly people fight for the love of fighting. Proposed changes remove what weak economic incentives there are, whilst kicking away the means that allow people to fight for love.

Utterly insane. What frightens me most is how can CCP think like this? It's almost like they made EVE by accident. They seem to have no idea how it works. Why doesn't Greyscale take a year out, roll a fresh character, and try to build a corp and get into nullsec. This is a serious proposal. I reckon if he did that, then next year we'd have much better thought through proposals.



first paragraph... incorrect. ive said this before... just because it has a lower security status does not make it a better place to rat. it could have 3 belts...

second paragraph... if CCP frightens you pick another game or go back to hi-sec.

DjDangle
The Fraternal Association of Killer Squibs
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:12:00 - [576]
 

Originally by: qlko1
CCP, make the vote, let's see what people think about this idea.

U're making those changes for us, right? Maybe it's time to ask us about our point of view.

VOTE!


agreed

Vardec Crom
Skyforger
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:14:00 - [577]
 

Originally by: ShoreTay
The levels are utter fail in this thread is simply astounding.

The status quo is a problem for many reasons:

  • All 0.0 space has essentially the same profitability right now; there is no reason to fight for "better space"

  • 0.0 is an incredible isk faucet, while missions are not. Most of the rewards from missions don't put any isk into the economy, while Sanctums are helping to pump like 800B a month into the economy

  • Truesec is meaningless. CCP designed trusec to make certain space more desirable than others. Obviously moongoo ruined this plan, but sanctums still generate way more isk per month that even the best moongoo if they are properly farmed.


All I seem to see in this thread is "whaaaaaa, I can't pay for 0.0 without my Sanctums, whaaaaaa." Good. Make allies, fight for better space, move, quit. I don't care. It shouldn't be so easy for everyone to make 50M an hour (I'm hoping this mission nerf is great).

I don't live in 0.0. I won't really be affected from these changes, but I know that something needs to be changed.


Absolutely something needs to change, but as you freely admit, you don't live in 0.0. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like. Like I said, this will in no way change Alliance goals. People aren't going to start sieging blues for better ratting systems, thats the facts. All this does is introduce an inconvenience to your average null sec player. As far as making 50 mil an hour from sanctums, yea, it's 0.0, you know, the risk vs reward doctrine? In my opinion it should be more profitable.

If CCP wants to have more fights, this is not the way to do it, and every nullsec player will agree.

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:19:00 - [578]
 

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.


This is sort of true. The number of anoms (just like the number of belts) dictates the maximum number of players a system can support, but does not usually affect their income, since as things currently stand, the number of players active in a system is unlikely to go above the system's carrying capacity. In my experience in Fountain, a typical Haven/Sanctum can support up to four or five players at a time without significant degradation of their income. A Drone Patrol/Horde can support approximately three players; for example: a carrier, a battleship/battlecruiser, and a Noctis salvager. So long as players cooperate, merely reducing the number of Haven/Sanctum spawns won't terribly degrade individual pilot income so long as pilots cooperate to run the one Sanctum their system has.

However, eliminating Havens (nevermind Sanctums) altogether will have a very adverse effect on individual pilot income, since the next-best anomalies, Hubs/Drone Squads, are less profitable to such an extent that they cannot reasonably support a typical pilot who engages in regular PvP, especially alliance-scale PvP where ship loss is highly probable. So systems with no Havens whatsoever (almost 40% under the proposed changes) will at best be able to only support two or three pilots at a given time. This will not be an issue for small entities whose pilots can go back to belt ratting without coming into conflict, or for large entities whose space contains multiple systems in the best truesec bracket; however, regions such as Providence and Geminate are liable to lose significant portions of their populations because as things stand they will lose virtually all of their good anomalies, and will no longer be able to support current population densities. While it would be nice if those alliances moved to better space, most probably those alliances will simply start to bleed members since all of the good space is already occupied.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.


Under your proposed changes, space at the lowest end of the bracket will not be upgradeable in any meaningful way. As I've said time and again, and as many other players can verify, the income from anomalies below Havens is so low that it's not worth installing the upgrades to get them. The new pilot can make more ISK belt ratting than running Hubs. So the carrying capacity of low-value space actually cannot be increased far as ratting goes.

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.


This is a valid concern. However, the proposed changes remove many of the incentives for new alliances to move into areas such as Providence or Geminate or Cloud Ring, since the carrying capacity of those regions will be drastically reduced. It might not be a bad idea to reduce the value of 'newbie' regions, but that reduction should not be quite as drastic. Furthermore, as has been stated time and again, alliance-scale conflict more often revolves around moons, not the incomes of individual players.

Ace Frehley
Minmatar
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:19:00 - [579]
 

Stop whine, everything cant be fair. Mostly northen people whining, wounder why......

You already have the moons, so should be all fair, or dont tell me only MM and Razor owns em Laughing


Sisinnius
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:20:00 - [580]
 

Edited by: Sisinnius on 26/03/2011 15:38:01
Edited by: Sisinnius on 26/03/2011 15:25:31
Edited by: Sisinnius on 26/03/2011 15:21:52
Dear CCP Failscale it is becoming increasingly apparent that CCP has lost touch with what is going on in their own game. Maybe take a longer look at EVE and leave DUST for a bit to find out why...

Since I have been in the game null sec has gone from digital toilet paper to 'where it's at' in EVE terms...There are far more smaller alliances already living in and investing in null sec that there ever was, either directly or through rental ('pet') agreements..

With respect to investment please remember the trillions of ISK that have been invested by alliances in upgrades, this will have the effect of killing smaller alliances who already have a foothold in crap-sec...

Your pathological short-sighted attempts to fix what is not broken is in stark contrast to your failure to deal what is wrong in EVE ....breathkaing in it's ignorance....
- Reduce genuine player income from grinding versus botting and RMT
- Focus on LAG reduction

On the botting/RMT point - what do you think about CCP being seen to nerf the honest player but not take a single action against botting or RMT. By the way botters dont care what their system is like as they operate on an ISK-over-time basis.....more powah to the botters, eh comrades ???

In terms of your perceived 'benefits':

- Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
@ Or they wont cos they have good space already
@ They will grab more crap-sec to compensate for their members and in doing so nerfing the the ability of your oh-so-loved fledgling null sec alliances to get a foothold
@ hey will kick out renters or pets from decent space and transplant them to crap-sec or they return to high-sec

- In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
@ Helllo, we're over here, [whistles], stop fiddling with DUST, remember us, we play EVE....

- Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
@ I think I have pointed out why the contrary will happen (what do you mean by a foothold, less money in crap-sec is not a one-way-ticket to station-ville, ihub-ville, upgrades-ville)

- Coalitions will be marginally less stable
@ I refer the honourable Failscale to my "have you looked at EVE recently" comment

- Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
@ Rather annoyingly they already spent TRILLIONS upgrading systems only for them to be turned into large floating paper-weights

EVE is currently more vibrant and better than it was a few years back, don't make it crash back, there will be an exodus fom the game if you break whats right with it and ignore what's wrong with it....

....if you don't stop this we're calling The Sheen...truth torpedo incoming !!!

Commanders Heaven
Gallente
Solar Revenue Service
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:25:00 - [581]
 

Can One of the DEVS please make me understand how on earth the smaller alliance BENEFITS from this?
This will not make any of the powerblocks go away.
You will only make people be more concentrated inn the best systems.
Atm you actually have 0.0 at the spot were everyone can live of 1 to 3 systems, removing sanctums and heavens from higher sec 0,0 systems aint what you should do.
The way to actually make this game work towards what you inteend it to do is if you nerf moon go.
If you nerf moon goo, people will again actually have to grind a little for the isk.

This is just terrible inn any way and it clearly shows how terrible you understand it is to play this game.
You finally made 0.0 a living place for people who cant compete with the biggest blocs. and now your nerfing them to the point were holding 0,0 space with high sec rating is not worth it.
Way to go.

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:28:00 - [582]
 

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.


This is an interesting thought, and one I have not had time to consider. I suppose my biggest concern is that several regions will have virtually no good systems, and thus be able to support very few pilots, leading to less conflict. Assuming that this is not the case, and that the carrying capacity of most regions as a whole will not be adversely affected, this might not be as bad a change as I had feared.

Again, thanks for keeping us informed.

Remorox
Morne Attitude
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:29:00 - [583]
 

Terrible changes that are going to hurt 90% of the 0.0 players. Pets are going to have absolutely no chance of making enough isk to pay for rent now that these 'changes' are going to put all of the 0.0 population in a handful of systems. I guess if you want to force everyone to high sec mission running to pay for 0.0 PvP your changes are good :/.

Every mega alliance is going to cram all the good systems, and leave the **** systems for renters. Sure, small alliances will have more systems to NPC in, but you're going to make these systems so bad that it'll be impossible to compete with the isk/hr that can be made doing missions. GG. Here's to hoping 20 pages of complaints makes CCP reverse their shortsighted decisions.

Ace Frehley
Minmatar
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:36:00 - [584]
 

What most of you whiners completly miss is that it cost to little to keep a large empire going.

If we look at NC for an example. The Rome of NC is Morhus Mihi. Thats the center of NC and where all the riches is going. They also have the military power of nc with lots of supercaps and so on.
To maintain their empire the cost is today ZERO. They move in smaller alliance who can live in the border regions and supply themself cuz of equal space. RAWR has the best moon probobly in the border egion as a fee to protect em. But that is not a major setback for the border alliances, they can rat like no tomorrow.

But look at the roman empire, the border regions of their empire just was a giant isksink. It costed them a fortune to keep those borderegions under control, the price to have the better more richer regions safe. It was cost/benefit situation. Dont proect the outer borders and risk their incomerich regions to get raided, or defend them and live with the cost. Same thing should be in EVE. It has to cost a fortune to keep a larger section of space going. Either RAWR has to pay for someone to live in a ****ty space, by sharing moons or allow them to rat in better places, or ignore tose regions and live with hostile forces live closer to them. Good to see CCP is going back from easy mode to hardmode.

Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries
R-I-P
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:40:00 - [585]
 

Edited by: Desert Ice78 on 26/03/2011 15:55:13
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28
Morning all,

- 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.


Good morning Greyscale you moron. I see that a good nights sleep has not imporved your intelligence at least. Why do you find this so hard to get through your thick skull:

As per your figures, 80% of nul sec will be useless, and 20% will be valuable; now who do you think will be controling the 20%? And anyone who wants to fight them for it, what are they going to use to finance the war? 80% of nul sec will move back to hi-sec and the power-blocks will be even more entrenched and richer...

Please will you wake up and smell the coffee. Actually no, resign and leave us all alone. Go do your beancounting somewhere else.

edited: spelling as ever

Ed Rush
Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:43:00 - [586]
 

HAHA :D GO CCP :D


first get players to ihub systems etc.. upgarde... and then remove the benefits :D :D

Kimsemus
Muppet Factory
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:47:00 - [587]
 

Edited by: Kimsemus on 26/03/2011 15:48:07
Why do you guys think this is a good idea? You put sanctums into 0.0 to make it more available for more people, now you're going to begin nerfing it, while buffing the number of lvl 4 agents in 100% highsec? I think I can see where your priorities are... (As if there was any doubt before)The alliance who are NOT the north already don't have access to the absurd amount of moongoo isk, so sanctum ratting pretty much is their only means of recourse, not that that even holds a candle to the zero-labor required isk farm that some of the moons are...

Granted we own lower Catch and have some of the lowest truesec in the game, but this just kind of makes the south weaker, imo.

Skaarl
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:47:00 - [588]
 

my question is, will we see the same changes applied to high sec? if the risk:reward ratio for 0.0 is so far out of whack that drastic crap like this needs done then surely level 4 missions in high security space are even more out of whack? will rewards and bounties in high security missions, which are nothing more than private, guaranteed access anomalies, face the same idiotic changes? fair is fair and what is good for the goose and all that crap.

this is just CCP's NGE, welcome to loosing a LOT of customers if these changes go live.

Jaggins
Ixion Defence Systems
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:50:00 - [589]
 

I have consulted the Oracle. She has given me a Black Prophecy about a Perpetuum of Knights from an Old Republic that exists a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Help us sensible Devs, you are our only hope.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:52:00 - [590]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

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.

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.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


IMHO the direction CCP is taking with the outlined anomaly changes is good, don't listen to the carebear whines, if you think it will help 0.0 become a better place do it! (it could very well work)

Urgan Nagru
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:53:00 - [591]
 

Originally by: Shannik
i think people wont share any sites like most of the more experienced players do with the sites atm, so this means the lesser skilled pilots will be put back in hisec again because noone wants to help em earn isk and share the wealth anymore.

kudo's ccp for killing 0.0 population even more and making the hi sp players richer again and the change for the younger players to grow in the game even more difficult.




I completely agree with this, having the ability to upgrade systems, such as the one we had in Scalding Pass (-0.17) truesec, allowed us as a small corp to expand and make isk in an otherwise useless part of space that had recently been vacated. If the sanctums and havens had been nerfed we couldnt have survived there.

Schani Kratnorr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.03.26 15:53:00 - [592]
 

Originally by: "CCP Greyscale"
While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec.

This is wrong and any changes you make based on it will be wrong too.

Upgrades and anomalies specifically have nothing to do with stopping conflict in 0.0 space. In fact, having 'room' for more than two people in each system is making 0.0 potentially useful. By prematurely nerfing that because of the 'titan ratting'-isk-faucet-problem will just elevate something else to the forefront of the "most isk/hour"-que.

The real cause of the lack of conflict in 0.0 (asuming there even is one,) is the fact that the game cannot handle a hundred people jumping into another hundred. The sov. Capture-the-flag type sov. warfare system is partially responsible because it forces the opposing sides into blob warfare by default. "Just get online, get in target system and wait guys!..."

This kind of gameplay is booring and results in limited participation thus creating a set of "vicory conditions" for the side that cares the most.

What we are seeing now is the emergence of a new middle class of multibillionaires who rake in tons of isk from bounties and often leave the loot to rot. These bllionaires are the cannonfodder in a super-capital arms race. The feb-march O2O system wars are the beginning of the kind of gameplay we kan expect to dominate 0.0 sov warfare.

By effectively talking about nerfing the way upgrades effect isk/hour you are scewing the playing field further and not adressing the main problem - raw bounty payout.

I seem to recall a while back when the bounty-to-loot ratio in missions was changed. the argument then was that it should require effort to "get your reward." The same approach is needed now more than ever. Just have a look at the source of most of the isk coming in to the system and realize how the players gravitate towards the place where they don't have to pick up scraps to get paid. Bounties go into wallet, and from there back into fun & games. If you change that, you change how people use and abuse sov. upgrades.

That is just part of it though. Until you effectively re-design sov warfare the major players cannot effectively fight each other. In the long run, the erratic performance simply wont allow anything remotely interesting to take place. Some times both sides load (mostly,) and get a proper fight where tactics and individual skill mean something, but more often than not, you are stuck with the "three modes of EVE."

Working // modules cycle as normal w. 0-10 sec. perceived delay.

Rubber band // player experience changes dynamically from 'normal' to 'stuck' and back. Veteran blob warfare logistics pilots will have a good idea what I mean. You have to anticipate and stay one step ahead of the 'zerg-like' targeting by the opponent. The very action of coordinating your actions causes nodes to overload. So each "change of primary" is usually accompanied by an increase in the number of outstanding packets. This then results in "poor client performance," which in turn is what puts a "damper on conflict in nullsec."

Soul-negating-lag // node cannot keep up, number of outstanding packets climb, player behaviour starts to compound the problem.


So before you abuse you powers and use ****ty server code, isk faucets and uninspired sov.warfare design as a reson to nerf one of the many isk faucets, please consider the facts.

Facts
- Excluding cynoships, there are now only eight ships worth piloting when it comes to sov.warfare
- The apocalyptic do-or-die nature of sov. results in lemming-behaviour, which in turn funnels players into single systems. Their numbers inevitably exceed the limits of any system you can design (and pay for at any given time.)
- ISK-direct-into-wallet bounty payouts still dominate the "top ISK/hour guides."

/TLDR: nerfing anomaly upgrades wont fix 0.0 warfare

Vincent Jarjadian
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:05:00 - [593]
 

If you want to make lower truesec space better....

then leave the lower end systems as they are and make the higher end ones better than currently but for a higher sov cost for sanctums/havens.

This might... give someone a reason to fight for better systems and keep the current systems as populated as before...

As for giving new alliances the ability to get into 0.0 space without need for massive cap/supercap forces... Put in more space further out from empire which would require colonization... Large alliances cant control too large a space without leaving themselves open to attack...

Or add in constellaitons which are not linked to other constellations and require some input from wormholes/cynos/JBs to get into. maybe even make it so you need to scan down the stargates within these constellations.

Just dont nerf the space we use to pay for PVPing... Battleships and T2 ships and capitals are expensive toys to go pop in a few seconds...

especially in the recent very laggy battles.

zealot shakree
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:12:00 - [594]
 

Quote:
Hey everyone,

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.

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.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


You are doing the right thing Greyscale. The majority of the negative feedback you are getting is from NC goons who realize that these changes actually have a chance at making half of eve no longer blue to them and idiots who either don't remember a time before anomalies or have only been playing for 15 months and will do or say anything to make sure they don't lose their precious anomalies.

For those of us who have been around for longer then a year, its obvious that things get along just fine without anomalies, in fact one of the most densely populated a vibrant areas of eve pre-dominion was *shock* providence. For those of you who say this will just make low truesec systems a wasteland all I have to do is point to the fact that a 1500 man alliance functioned just fine in one of these "wastelands" before anomalies even existed.

Its true that moon minerals are the main source of most high end alliances income, but the money that the grunts use to pay for pvp come from anoms, plexes, and *gasp* belt ratting, if you implement these changes the grunts will start pushing their alliances to seek better space if they aren't happy with the amount of income they are getting, which is exactly what you want.

If they don't want to seek better space then they can start distributing riches they are receiving from the moons these grunts who are the ones who die protecting these assets instead of hording it.

This is a much needed change and I hope you have the courage to go through with it, don't listen to predictably high percentage of negative responses from the NC and MM and their countless mindless goon pets as they are obviously being whipped into a frenzy via jabber, forums, ect. They have done no research and are simply whining about their anomalies being taken away or regurgitating baseless claims on what the effects of these changes will be in hopes that if enough of them cry they can effectively prevent these changes and maintain the status quo which is obviously not acceptable.

I believe these changes are a step in the right direction but some other things will need to be done if you really want the effects you proposed to become a reality.

Namely the high end moon distributions, spawning some more high end moons in southern space will be nice, all those moons in northern space wont last forever and it would be nice to watch NC actually have to stage an assault somewhere besides their backyard to maintain their moon goo flow. (can you imagine watching 50k ******s trying to deploy lol)

Ed Rush
Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:18:00 - [595]
 

the ihubs should be removed along with them and the old sov system re-introduced imho. :D

Forumena Altair
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:19:00 - [596]
 

Before Dominion wars were fought over rare moons.

After Dominion wars were still fought over moons, not sanctums.

After this "proposed" change, wars will STILL be fought over for moons.


ITS THE MOONS STUPID!

shadowfire88
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:23:00 - [597]
 

Originally by: Vincent Jarjadian
If you want to make lower truesec space better....

then leave the lower end systems as they are and make the higher end ones better than currently but for a higher sov cost for sanctums/havens.



So basically just just make eve ridiculously easy? +1 to the proposed changes.

Jennifer Weir
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:23:00 - [598]
 

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.


Are you trolling us? You better be.

Rich players are going to stay where they are.
Poor players will go back to highsec to do L4s or just flat out quit because you took their fun away. Yeah, it sounds lame, but that's what you are doing.
Large alliances are going to stay where they are.
Small alliances are (even more) screwed and will likely go back to highsec/lowsec or just close altogether.

I personally enjoy doing anoms and hate, HATE, HATE, missions and agents. Removing quality isn't going to make me hate agents less. Anoms let me fight 1 enemy consistently. I lose standing with 1 pirate faction. I'm ok with that. Missions have decline timers and a bunch of other really stupid **** I can't stand. Fly here, kill this, fly back, repeat. No.

Nerfing even a few nullsec systems to make less than L4/5s is just so stupid that if I used the correct words to describe it this forum would replace it with *s. If you make this change you will see 5 canceled accounts from me right off the bat. I'm not gonna be like this other guys and say I'm gonna quit and then don't or just come back later. I quit another game just the same, and now I play EVE. I don't bluff, and I'm sure a lot of others don't either.

If you do this I'm quitting and I'm not looking back. Period.

Kajan Tormen
Minmatar
Blood Money Inc.
The Blood Money Cartel
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:26:00 - [599]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you.

Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable.

The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses.

Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes!

As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all.

he said it better then I ever could, so I'm just going ahead and quote this.
fully agree!

Webby McWebberson
Posted - 2011.03.26 16:35:00 - [600]
 

will the broken true sec of Delve/Fountain be fixed or just business as usual?
nerf moons.
afk cloakers rock.


Pages: first : previous : ... 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 ... : 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