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 : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:29:00 - [811]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:40:57
Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:37:24
Originally by: Mioelnir
Originally by: UniqueOne
A very interresting idea. I like it!

However, maybe putting up your own iHub should not be allowed for an ammount of time based on the size of the attacking force (over the base level) instead of a online time thing, but a bonus to online time of the defender putting another up? This could maybe also be used to remove the reinforced component to make swift/small attacks more viable. (and creating a nice new isk sink)

Also indexes should not be wiped between iHubs. They should decay at a faster rate while none is online though. This way if you blob it, your indexes decay before you can replace the iHub, but if you stay within the limits, you loose next to nothing.

I could see this causing systems to change hands a lot more, and much more fun fights. The only issue I can see is having blobs in surrounding systems as well. This sort of thing would need to be taken into account. maybe constellation-wide based attacker/defender stats?


Obviously there would need to be a lot of implementation details that need to be fleshed out beyond the basic parameters I scratched upon.


I really do like the basic idea man. Hope the devs are reading :)

This would probably also remove the need to change anoms as systems should change hands more often lowerring the indexes. It would also encourage large power blocks to spread out a little and try to cut off attackers before they get to the system - meaning they need to live out of and hold pipe systems (only a good thing for more PvP).

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:36:00 - [812]
 

Whoops, posted in another thread about this. Here's the original post.

The concept of upgradeable systems via iHubs isn't wrong, I see CCP are sort of getting religion on the 'upper echelons' of level 5 indexes, but reading this, they still miss a key factor, the original *broken* idea of _static_ truesec systems.

One would think, the amount of rats dying and large numbers of people in local should bump up truesec (as players are making it safer for players, less safe for NPCs right?)

Conversely, the lack of players living / ratting in systems / constellations should lower trusec values (rats have less predators).

This *idea* is as old as the 'Predatory-Prey Relationships: The Fox and the Rabbit game'. It is 'player driven' content as well (Hey that stuff sounds cool, oh wait a minute ...).

Its a bit redundant, but I'll say it anyway. Static content isn't player driven. If there were only 5 people playing your game, then it might 'drive' people to want to go invade someone for those resources, but the game is soooo much bigger than that game play style.

The current disease to full out, total hell death mayhem in this game is overpopulation of alliances via political means. You see the 'odd' invasion happen once or twice a year.

That's just not often enough, especially when there is no drive to build an alliance of space holding players to push out the current fat mass, when you can just, I don't know, like .. JOIN them?


Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:37:00 - [813]
 

Guys you are missing the point, sanctums were a risk free way for players to fund themselves to fight for their masters, while masters kept all the ISK and let it flow with moon goo.

Making it harder for NUMBERS to make isk means it will losses mean something, alliances will have to decide on whether it is worth living somewhere or not and if it isnt they can either leave or invade the good areas.

I mean really you guys are agreeing with CCPs decision anyway.

Almost all comments are "smaller alliances are screwed" therefore the only way for smaller alliances NOT to be screwed is either invade leaders, demand better space or leave, how is this a bad thing?

Besides theres more than one way to make ISK in 0.0

This change WILL make 0.0 less blobby as 'friends' will now have to make a choice in living in 0.0, either have **** space for friends, kill friends, demand better space or gtfo.

How is this even a bad thing?

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:38:00 - [814]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne


Firstly, the powerblock still has the advantage with more players to choose from. Only tactics would give the smaller entity a chance to win. This would just remove the pointlessness.

Secondly, it doesnt stop the powerblocks from retaking the systems even if they loose them initially.

More (and more fun) fighting is what we all want here isnt it?



Well if I have to spend a week moving my stuff, our corp POS's, and industrial base every month, because the rules make sov so fluid that space cannot be secured or controlled, this game will start to really suck bad. We would have to move into NPC stations and venture to fight into 0.0, for apparently no other reason than to fight. If space is not worth anything to hold, and can't really be held anyway, why live there and why bother to fight over it? Less security in Null means people will invest less isk and time on infrastructure in Null sec and will then be less interested in fighting over it--less PVP. I am in this game for PVP, but I also want to control the terms of engagement and be able to operate for a relatively secure base, and am willing to fight and work hard to keep that base safe, but if the rules change to make that impossible, why put yourself through that logistical nightmare?

Seb

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:43:00 - [815]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:50:18
Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:48:40
Originally by: Sebastian Hoch
Originally by: UniqueOne


Firstly, the powerblock still has the advantage with more players to choose from. Only tactics would give the smaller entity a chance to win. This would just remove the pointlessness.

Secondly, it doesnt stop the powerblocks from retaking the systems even if they loose them initially.

More (and more fun) fighting is what we all want here isnt it?



Well if I have to spend a week moving my stuff, our corp POS's, and industrial base every month, because the rules make sov so fluid that space cannot be secured or controlled, this game will start to really suck bad. We would have to move into NPC stations and venture to fight into 0.0, for apparently no other reason than to fight. If space is not worth anything to hold, and can't really be held anyway, why live there and why bother to fight over it? Less security in Null means people will invest less isk and time on infrastructure in Null sec and will then be less interested in fighting over it--less PVP. I am in this game for PVP, but I also want to control the terms of engagement and be able to operate for a relatively secure base, and am willing to fight and work hard to keep that base safe, but if the rules change to make that impossible, why put yourself through that logistical nightmare?

Seb


You could always split your assets/clones into different stations? And if the idea in the threads above were active you could instantly put up another iHub.

If they have a larger then base size force, they would need to wait before they can put up a new iHub - and if they don't then you can simply come with the right numbers and beat them. There would also be no reason you could not have a second fleet waiting outside the constelation to come in as reinforcements.

The larger alliances would still have the advantage, just not such a huge one. They also should have plenty of moon goo money to replace the hubs.

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:52:00 - [816]
 

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


Don't give in to the NC tears. Much needed changes imo (along with making jump bridges only useable by owning alliance).

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:54:00 - [817]
 

Look at all these noobs who think if they can't farm sanctums, havens or suck off moon goo there is no way to make isk in null sec.

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 12:56:00 - [818]
 

Originally by: Kalle Demos
Guys you are missing the point, sanctums were a risk free way for players to fund themselves to fight for their masters, while masters kept all the ISK and let it flow with moon goo.


Risk Free? lol. You really have no idea what your talking about? I think a top skilled loki boosted scanner can be in warp to a sanctum 8 seconds after jumping into a system. Multi-Bilions of ratting ships go down in flames in sanctums every week. The weekly carrier gank along is probably in the double digits. When those ratters become high sec mission alts, I wonder where all those gankers will get game content from? Incursions?


Originally by: Kalle Demos
This change WILL make 0.0 less blobby as 'friends' will now have to make a choice in living in 0.0, either have **** space for friends, kill friends, demand better space or gtfo.


Since challenging the local Power is not really an option, that leaves GTFO, or retool your financial model to stay ie high sec alts, or lots of mining if you can stand it. neither accomplishes what CCP says this change will do.

OH, and I don't know what your talking about, about moon goo abuse. I see the books for moon goo income and expense for my alliance and every isk is spent or saved for the collective benefit of the alliance, mostly in ship reimbursements. People should not allow themselves to be taken advantage of in this way and should join a corp or alliance that will work towards everyones success and not just supply the alliance leadership with supers.

Seb

Sebastian Hoch
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:02:00 - [819]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne


The larger alliances would still have the advantage, just not such a huge one. They also should have plenty of moon goo money to replace the hubs.


You have obviously never had to deal with complex industrial logistics in Null. It is already a pain and a lack of sov security would make it impossible. Oh and forget putting down a CSAA, as if any two bit 200 man alliance come along and kill your super build by breaking sov, you would never put them down. Look, this is not even what this thread is on about, so this is my last post. If you want the last word, go for it. I am done.

Seb

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:06:00 - [820]
 

To counter the nerd-rage:

* More knobs to tweak, so if it really is detrimental to EvE then it will be easy to balance for more sanctums/heavens.

* Instead of having static anomalies, low truesec systems could have intermittent access to higher-level anomalies.

* Adapt or die.

Sadron
Axis.
Pandorum Invictus
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:13:00 - [821]
 

Before the incarna the big question mark is what comes next after it. CCP has atm very hard incomming year and think they wanted more money and users short amount of time. If you think that this might be good idea, then you are 100% wrong. Yes you will have maybe extra 40000 new players coming in, but they stay max year and leave also.
Lets look some of the regions : i.e. Providence? "Eve online" desert. It is messed up already and you want to make it even worse ?
Atm many alliances are running so called "renter" policy what is just pulling many more corporations into 0.0 and it has worked fine. Some of the corporations never did PVP and will never do it. And with this thing they are now forced to leave. Many will lose the point of gameplay and in the end we have yes from your side more new players coming into the game, but with it you lose huge numbers of old players!
Good job CCP of going one step closer to the end of EVE ONLINE !

Patri Andari
Caldari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:16:00 - [822]
 

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


Really? Did you think about that before you typed it? I have only been playing this game for about 4 years but I can not remember a more conflict laden period in 0.0 than the last 12 months.

You do not have to justify your reason for making this change. It is your game to do with as you please. But...If you choose to offer up a reason please do not treat your customers like you think they are idiots.

You want to reduce the sheer amount of isk coming into the game from Havens and Sanctums? Say so! Do not hide behind this fallacy that EVE has become "peaceful"


Shivalla
Gallente
Financial Removal
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:29:00 - [823]
 

Changes are good. Need more conflicts. 0.0 has more than 1 way of making isk. Remember times when there was no anomalies at all. People still used to live well in 0.0.

Stop whining.

Just saying.

bitters much
Nekkid Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:29:00 - [824]
 

Originally by: Chris Bartlett
Edited by: Chris Bartlett on 25/03/2011 18:42:58
Not to mention theres a massive amount of whining about AFK cloakers as of late. If only a few systems are worth ratting in, you can ****ing guarantee there'll be reds in cloaky rapiers or what have you sat there waiting for the opportunity to gank, risk free.




Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:32:00 - [825]
 

By all means, please make this sort of change!

Homogenization of space, force projection and general availability of materials and transportation are what are allowing the giga-block spam to dominate today's political landscape at the cost of eliminating medium-scale PVP from the game. Abundance needs to be curbed, as much as the whiny PVE crowd cry, complain and moan about it. Yes, it will make people poorer, but right now, people are too rich. Please don't cave into the whining, but make it less favorable to extremely low value truesec space than the blog level suggests.

It's a great change to be made, but it does need to be made in tandem with other changes, and bots MUST be dealt with before too long to make it all work. 0.0 combat involves too much ISK flowing around; make people work for their ships again and bring back the wars of attrition.

Limonadka
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:44:00 - [826]
 

You kill karibasov. We are against these changes. Zeros become extinct, and the war will not happen.Evil or Very Mad

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:48:00 - [827]
 

I am strongly of the opinion that what ails Eve today are enablers; jump bridges, jump freighters, mass resource availability, and large scale ISK sinks are all contributing to create a no-shortage environment that greatly favors supercap spamming and hyper-inter-regional alliances and power block conflicts.

These enablers need to be cut down, and the whiners need to be told to shut up and deal with it, since it will help everyone in the long run. Please don't cave in, Greyscale!

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:49:00 - [828]
 

Originally by: Sadron
Atm many alliances are running so called "renter" policy what is just pulling many more corporations into 0.0 and it has worked fine.

Providence was ****-poor before Dominion yet was the most densely populated part of null.
When/If CCP gets around to actually implementing Dominion as it was originally planned then we'll have a feudal/contract system to facilitate renting.
Has nothing to do with them "having to leave", instead of getting ISK for an SC in a few days, they'll have to work for a week or two .. just like before.
Instant gratification is an evil beyond measure is contrary to Eve's dogma of rewarding perseverance, patience is not a virtue it is a bloody requirement!
Originally by: Patri Andari
Really? Did you think about that before you typed it? I have only been playing this game for about 4 years but I can not remember a more conflict laden period in 0.0 than the last 12 months...

Let's see, we have had the ongoing Goon+Friends fetish with Sir Molle+Friends and PL throwing their fat/weight around.
First was for control of the best region in Eve bar none (and the fetish thing), second was for moons and space to lease out and 'just because'.

The only 'fights' worth mentioning since Dominion has been over moons or space to lease. Adding more variables to fight over can only increase conflict.
Sanctums have fuelled the super-capital boom like nothing else, everyone have ISK to burn in absurd quantities with no real effort involved ..
Any and all losses are replaced before they are incurred which makes a mockery of the whole harshness that Eve is supposed to embody, might as well have a resurrection system like WoW with ISK being infinite.

Looking forward to seeing what else they are thinking about doing to make null more volatile. The stagnant scum filled status of those once vibrant waters is doing Eve no good.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:50:00 - [829]
 

Edited by: Camios on 27/03/2011 13:51:10
It is striking the fact that when you talk about change, the player affected always cry as it was a nerf.

Is it a nerf for sure? No, it might be.

Let the Grayscale team do their work, and push them to do the changes and to monitor the outcome.

A wise attitude for the playerbase would be te stop whining, te read carefully devblogs and minutes before complaining and to begin being constructive.

But the devs should do 2 things:

1. Motivate better the changes with data and graps in order to reduce player concerns.
2. FOLLOW the outcomes and react accordingly, always explaining to the playerbase why they do what they do.

TL;DR: CCP go ahead but monitor the outcomes.

I'l Duce
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:55:00 - [830]
 

This change will cause instability but not because of the content of changes but because of change. Any static environment will cause stability after the initial adaptation and unstable environment causes chaos.

So stop making static content and instead make the anomalies spawn/grow/evolve like PI resources.

Shivalla
Gallente
Financial Removal
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:56:00 - [831]
 

Originally by: Camios
Edited by: Camios on 27/03/2011 13:51:10
It is striking the fact that when you talk about change, the player affected always cry as it was a nerf.

Is it a nerf for sure? No, it might be.

Let the Grayscale team do their work, and push them to do the changes and to monitor the outcome.

A wise attitude for the playerbase would be te stop whining, te read carefully devblogs and minutes before complaining and to begin being constructive.

But the devs should do 2 things:

1. Motivate better the changes with data and graps in order to reduce player concerns.
2. FOLLOW the outcomes and react accordingly, always explaining to the playerbase why they do what they do.

TL;DR: CCP go ahead but monitor the outcomes.


This, and I would also want to point out, that there has been outcry for long time that there should be something done on the powerblocks and the general direction of game.

And when there is a attempt to do this, playerbase just starts to shed its tears and cry like babies.

CCP wants to do changes, but playerbase dont want the changes to affect themselves.


Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.27 13:59:00 - [832]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 13:59:32
Originally by: Shivalla
This, and I would also want to point out, that there has been outcry for long time that there should be something done on the powerblocks and the general direction of game.

And when there is a attempt to do this, playerbase just starts to shed its tears and cry like babies.

CCP wants to do changes, but playerbase dont want the changes to affect themselves.


Players want the game to be better, but they don't want it to hurt them. It's a catch 22; to fix the game, you need to hurt the ability of players to make money; that's one of the basic problems faced right now, and people hate the idea of the game becoming harder to play.

The game will adjust to the changes, and the health of the game will improve once the runaway insanity that is eve's "economy" is brought out of the realms of insanity that it exists in today. Changes to sanctums MUST be made!

Weyoun
Pegasus Battle Group
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:02:00 - [833]
 

So this means that CCP wants us to all come to null-sec and buy PLEX to sustain or ship and POS maintenancecosts.

Interesing idea to have us buy more PLEX.

Needless to say I am against these changes.

Sannye
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:04:00 - [834]
 

Originally by: I'l Duce
This change will cause instability but not because of the content of changes but because of change. Any static environment will cause stability after the initial adaptation and unstable environment causes chaos.

So stop making static content and instead make the anomalies spawn/grow/evolve like PI resources.


Static content only happened, because the space (ihub's) cost Billions in rent to CONCORD each month. That is the killer - the flow of isk needed to support an alliance is now so huge, that you have to make iskmaking programs, or die.
Sanctums came, because you can PAY and work to upgrade the systems - it's not something free, as many claim it is. It's upgradable because the dominion 0.0 policy was to get more pilots involved in EVE policy. It's a good thing.

Let me turn the question around a bit for the dull witted.

Why pay billions pr. month to pay SOV. for systems that cannot support your pilots?
What's the point of having SOV if all the nerf's mentioned in this thread (moongoo, sanctums, jumpbridges, titans, motherships) are all removed?

Noone will live in 0.0 if there' s not a CARROT for beeing there.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:06:00 - [835]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 14:06:09
Originally by: Sannye
Originally by: I'l Duce
This change will cause instability but not because of the content of changes but because of change. Any static environment will cause stability after the initial adaptation and unstable environment causes chaos.

So stop making static content and instead make the anomalies spawn/grow/evolve like PI resources.


Static content only happened, because the space (ihub's) cost Billions in rent to CONCORD each month. That is the killer - the flow of isk needed to support an alliance is now so huge, that you have to make iskmaking programs, or die.
Sanctums came, because you can PAY and work to upgrade the systems - it's not something free, as many claim it is. It's upgradable because the dominion 0.0 policy was to get more pilots involved in EVE policy. It's a good thing.

Let me turn the question around a bit for the dull witted.

Why pay billions pr. month to pay SOV. for systems that cannot support your pilots?
What's the point of having SOV if all the nerf's mentioned in this thread (moongoo, sanctums, jumpbridges, titans, motherships) are all removed?

Noone will live in 0.0 if there' s not a CARROT for beeing there.


Gee, I don't know, maybe they'd actually crank the costs down when people's faucets stop being adequate to pay for them?

Oh wait, we're talking billions per MONTH when a single player can make 60 million in a couple hour session, and the system can support 10+ players operating 23/7.

Your whine doesn't hold weight. If there is a genuine cash flow problem, CCP can always tweak the costs as needed.

bloody johnroberts
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:07:00 - [836]
 

im not sure if this has been said as i have had no time to read every thread but we at fanfest sat in a 0.0 round table and none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word.
i wonder why hmmmmmm
would it be the case that he would not have left the room dry anyway as we had plenty of beer.
it just goes to show that grayscales agenda is let fix nothing and hate on 0.0 player base



Serpentine Logic
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:09:00 - [837]
 

I blogged about this, but you can skip to the:

TLDR; I support this change, as long as you keep iterating on the nullsec isk supply (moon minerals etc). Would prefer not nerfing income generation for nullsec grunts any further though, ok?

Yes, it will affect me; however, I believe it's for the good of the game so I will HTFU and adapt.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:12:00 - [838]
 

Originally by: bloody johnroberts
im not sure if this has been said as i have had no time to read every thread but we at fanfest sat in a 0.0 round table and none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word.
i wonder why hmmmmmm
would it be the case that he would not have left the room dry anyway as we had plenty of beer.
it just goes to show that grayscales agenda is let fix nothing and hate on 0.0 player base


You clearly have no understanding of the source of the problems with the game. Going back to before, it comes down to how easy it is to accomplish certain things; movement of men, and movement of materials. The less time it takes to do something, the more people can move, and the faster they can move it.

This simple fact makes it very easy to get extraordinarily large forces into one spot at one time. This is nice for defenders, but it's bad for gameplay; the natural progression path is to what we see today: get as many pilots in the biggest ships possible in the same place at the same time. This is what CCP is trying to contend with.

To get rid of these problems, a scarcity problem needs to be introduced to the game's resources. It hurts individual players, yes, but lets face it; it's not something you weren't suffering through before the sanctums were introduced. People dealt with it then, and they can deal with inequality in the future. It generates conflicts, and makes people need to plan. It's damaging to the NC as an organization, and that is a good thing; power blocks are not good for Eve.

bloody johnroberts
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:21:00 - [839]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Originally by: bloody johnroberts
im not sure if this has been said as i have had no time to read every thread but we at fanfest sat in a 0.0 round table and none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word.
i wonder why hmmmmmm
would it be the case that he would not have left the room dry anyway as we had plenty of beer.
it just goes to show that grayscales agenda is let fix nothing and hate on 0.0 player base


You clearly have no understanding of the source of the problems with the game. Going back to before, it comes down to how easy it is to accomplish certain things; movement of men, and movement of materials. The less time it takes to do something, the more people can move, and the faster they can move it.

This simple fact makes it very easy to get extraordinarily large forces into one spot at one time. This is nice for defenders, but it's bad for gameplay; the natural progression path is to what we see today: get as many pilots in the biggest ships possible in the same place at the same time. This is what CCP is trying to contend with.

To get rid of these problems, a scarcity problem needs to be introduced to the game's resources. It hurts individual players, yes, but lets face it; it's not something you weren't suffering through before the sanctums were introduced. People dealt with it then, and they can deal with inequality in the future. It generates conflicts, and makes people need to plan. It's damaging to the NC as an organization, and that is a good thing; power blocks are not good for Eve.



and these changes will affect that how you clearly have no idea of 0.0

Traska Gannel
Posted - 2011.03.27 14:23:00 - [840]
 

Although the basic idea of making the lower true sec systems more valuable and attractive is a good one ... the current design seems to me to have significant issues.

1) The current design is primarily a nerf to the 0.0 economy and has little or no relation to making some systems more attractive than others. Look at the numbers ... systems with truesec < -0.65 will get better while every other 0.0 system gets worse. Then compare the total number of systems in each "band" ... they are not evenly distributed. Number of systems in the -0.9 to -1.0 is ~170 ... the number in -0.7 to -0.8 is ~398, number of systems in -0.3 to -0.4 is ~642. So the total of systems that are being improved (568) is less than the number of systems that are being nerfed in just ONE security band. The number in 0.0 to -0.2 is about 775.
If this design is about a substantial nerf to the 0.0 economy which is quite clearly from these numbers the primary goal and impact then please state this clearly and don't obfuscate the issue by hiding behind some meaningless design goal of making lower true sec more attractive. THAT goal could have been achieved without such design decisions.

What is the expected impact of this change?

2) Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs.

Less ISK into the coffers of 0.0 corporations and their members will mean less PVP. It will take 2 to 3 times as much grinding to generate the ISK for replacement ships and modules. In many cases it may mean a migration back to hi sec alts running L4 missions to make ISK for PVP since anomalies will no longer be profitable time wise across a vast section of 0.0 space. In fact, some corporations may find those sections of 0.0 with low true sec not worth inhabiting (or as is the current case in most areas - renting).

3) There will be some upheaval as major coalitions move to take control of desirable systems. After this happens the situation will become even more static than at present. Valuable systems will be held by the large alliances and corporations that can field substantial super cap fleets. Smaller Alliances and corporations will be locked out and the least worthwhile of 0.0 systems will slowly be depopulated when they turn out not to be worth owning. In addition, the smaller alliances and corporations will no longer have access to anomalies as a source of income to build up reserves for PVP or to construct super caps.

In conclusion, I think in the long run that the CCP design and vision will succeed in accomplishing the exact opposite of their stated goals. Since they are likely not unintelligent the most reasonable conclusion is that the objective of increasing conflict in 0.0 by differentiating systems is not the primary objective and instead the goal is to reduce the ISK influx into the game generated by the proliferation of 0.0 renter alliances which generate a significant amount of ISK by upgrading systems and running anomalies.

Some of this activity may even be due to bots running anomalies but instead of eliminating this sort of problem or coming up with another solution, CCP appears to think that eliminating the anomalies themselves is the preferred way to address the issue ... I think that this design decision needs to be reconsidered.



Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : 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