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 : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:13:00 - [61]

It is way too little and way too late. Powerblocs now occupy multiple regions each so will be only marginally impacted by such a change = no increase in conflict.

You are not changing the way war is conducted, which means EHP *yawn* warfare = no increase in conflict.

You will impact the profitability of a lot of bots, that's something at least, but don't delude yourselves into thinking that this is going to change anything whatsoever.

In short: Decent first change, but you have a very long way to go to meet the goals you set prior to Dominion (small scale pew, sov in flux etc.)

Renan Ruivo
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:14:00 - [62]

We will soon start to see people ragequiting the game is this BS comes to TQ. I'd even ask then if i can haz their stuffz, but what will be the point.. Their ratting stuffz will be useless anyway.

Posted - 2011.03.25 20:15:00 - [63]

So ccp 60 comments and everybody tells you how fail your new solution is. maybe you should think about this!

SmallGang Bandit
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:18:00 - [64]

The tears here are exquisite. What the vast majority of you whining babies are saying is:

I can't PvP in anything less than a 250 million ISK HAC, and you are making it impossible for me to have a hangar full of these

I won't run those cheap anomalies in my 750 million ISK Strategic Cruiser, and you are making it impossible for me to have a hangar full of these

Last time I checked, the lower grade anomalies still generated a few million ISK in bounties, loot and salvage (yes, using all means of income generation). So OMFG, you will now have to consider PvP in a mere T2 fit BC.

This is what I see this change doing, and this is the real concern for all of you spacerich babies:

Individual pilot income is going to slowly go down, until the isk/hr running anomalies becomes equal to the isk/hr running hisec missions, and stabilize at that point. Guessing it will stabilize at a lower total wallet level, and at the individual pilot level fewer high-dollar ships will be affordable.

Sadly what this will do is actually mirror the income divide that has become the norm in the modern U.S. - those who have more (Supercarriers/Carriers) and access to those higher truesec systems with iHub upgrades will have even more ISK, and the average scrub will have less. Because why would an alliance with access to Sanctums and Havens let some non-capital scrub farm anomalies. After all only the super pilots need the ISK, right?

The real question is, when the average nullsec pilot wallet stabilizes at a lower overall level, will this impact the T2/T3/Moongoo markets, since these ships won't be vanilla anymore - there will be actual value in them (except for pilots those alliances that are already beyond stupid rich with the Tech buff from last year).

Hate to break it to all of you though - it's not going to "destroy the game" after all you only had those sanctums/havens for the last year anyway, and if you are that angry, and going to quit playing, make sure to give all your stuff to someone in your corp/alliance, so they can use it.

Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:21:00 - [65]

I think this will be a disaster for most of 0.0, it will not lead to more conflict, it will lead to less people in 0.0 overall and less interesting encounters. After all lets look at Providence which was linked. Why would you sov grind it knowing you can't get a sanctum/haven? How will you pay for your sov?

Geminate also mentioned. The one good thing about Geminate is that ratting never caused wars there ever since the Drone Regions were introduced it has been strategically important. Still it is better than Providence in that one constellation by Stella Polaris is decent, and Brick Squad is about mid way on about half their systems.

Less is not more dynamic. Maybe this is an early April Fool's Day joke.

If you want to do this let me propose some changes.

Your current band system makes about half of 0.0 useless. It would be more cost effective time wise to just do missions in high sec than to even do anomalies in 0.0. So what do you think folks will do.

Make the first band (-2.0 and lower) as it is currently in systems. Then each band improves from there (instead of waiting until its at the 3rd and 4th band)by +1 converted. This ensures that existing space remains as valuable as it is today.

Working along this same line I would suggest that instead of 4 per level that it is necessary that you increase the number of anomalies in a system. Double that 4 to 8. The more pilots a system can support the better. It means an alliance needs less space to accommodate its pilots then they might be more inclined to allow someone to take a less desirable space.

Next lower the military index requirements. Large alliances can easily already keep multiple systems at level 5 when not off on campaigns. The lowering of the requirement will have less effect on them, however those smaller alliances if they are to have a chance will need to have an easier time leveling up their index. I'd halve the current amounts.

I cannot guarantee that these would meet your stated goals, but I can guarantee what has been suggested in the blog will never meet the stated goals as it increases the space needed to support the same number of pilots which means there will be no shrinkage and no space available for new groups.

Carebears with Attitude
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:21:00 - [66]

I don't care about 0.0, but I really like it when CCP states outright what effect it is their game mechanics changes is intended to bring about.

Renan Ruivo
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:24:00 - [67]

Originally by: SmallGang Bandit
Hate to break it to all of you though - it's not going to "destroy the game" after all you only had those sanctums/havens for the last year anyway, and if you are that angry, and going to quit playing, make sure to give all your stuff to someone in your corp/alliance, so they can use it.

Yes, we did not had anomalies 15 months ago, so its ok to remove them. We also have the same political map we had 15 months go.

Also, the alliances pilots that have more thannys than i have noobships on high-sec and who live in -0.6 and up will also be forced to adapt to going back to belt ratting.

Good analysis. You surprisingly fit the bill to work for CCP, so send them your CV.

DTson Gauur
Nulli Tertius
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:25:00 - [68]

Hey CCP, remember the Exodus expansion which you meant to make nullsec more viable too, just that you introduced lvl4 missions at the same time? REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED? If this change goes through unchanged, I can guarantee it will happen again.

Jita Tradedrone
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:28:00 - [69]

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
The only alliances which use anomalies as an income source are the small ones that are still estabilishing foothold. They rat sanctuns and havens to pay for the initial PVP ships for home-defense, to pay for the POS and jump-freighters to set up a modest moon mining scheme and to encourage new blood to join.

Now they wont be able to do that. Good job.

Thank you for typing what i was thinking.. i second it

Cataclysm Enterprises
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:40:00 - [70]

So, back to the old and proven pre-Dominion grunt-level 0.0-financing-system called "L4 empire mission running alt".
Incidentally, they were just announced on Fanfest to all become equally good... Confused

Master Gotama
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:41:00 - [71]

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: ukiyo e
Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision.

Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it?

Your post makes 0 sense.


hi, you must be new here. in EVE, people attack you to see your ship explode. people defend space because it is valuable. see the difference??

Jack Atarius
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:41:00 - [72]

This is a fail idea for all the comments listed above. This proposed change will make the average pilot flock out of nullsec. Personally, I don't make billions of isk with multiple characters farming planets and goo. If you want us to buy more PLEX, then say so. Don't mess with game mechanics because you want more entertainment and lulz.

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:42:00 - [73]


what about the all isk and time we have sunk into upgrading the systems (plex and logistical upgrades), the poses, the stations. I cant think of a single alliance that owns space would just up sticks and move just because system "x" has a better sec status and i'm pretty sure that was the case before upgrading systems came in.

I would say hundreds of billions of isk (if not the odd trillion or so) have been pushed into upgrading systems with narf sec status because they are now usable systems, doing this is pee'ing on the all the current sov holders.

You want "advanced-alliances" to move out and make way for newer less experience alliances you are going to have to find some other way to do it. All this is going to do is irritate alot of the 0.0's who have just gotten use to this change.

You want alliance like MM to move out you need to provide us with an extremely good reason and one that wont take 6 months for us to have to bed ourselves into because POS people like myself suffer badly everytime you guys suggest the next great idea for 0.0 and tbh I'd rather play the game than spend days/weeks/months modifying towers/sov/stations to deal with the latest "idea".

You want us to live in smaller areas with bigger populations then you need to think about something else, i dunno like:
  • have the empires absorb ALL current 0.0 space (possible except drones)

  • create 2 or 3 times the current number of 0.0 regions or just a huge belt of stars

  • (if belt of stars) give us the chance to build up the gate network with limits on gate range and numbers per system

  • Give every region (in small groups not like the current distribution, say one or two regions) a near unqiue moon goo that will give a resonable income (not 50bil a week, but say 1 or 2 bill (there are corps out there that live off moon goo and simply wouldnt function without it)

  • Make it horrendously expensive for alliance to expand too much and dont make it a linear progression say holding x systems becomes so expensive even with every player in game helping out you still couldnt pay the bill (you guys did say your looking for a new isk sink.....)

(probably not the best idea in the world but meh im not a game designer, the nearest i get that is designing fancy spreadsheets)

You say the CSM is a great tool for your company, well prehaps if you want to seriously change 0.0 to make it dynamic then you need to look at grabbing one or two dozen people from various 0.0 alliances who deal with most of the 0.0 areas (alliance command, POSes/sov, FCs, carebears/indys). Alright we may not agree with what each other but I bet we will probably point you in a decent direction.

PS i would love to know if there is a Dev who who deals with POSes in his/her/hamster free time I would love to see their opinion of the system of how well it works. If there isnt I challange a dev to go out set up a couple of deathstars or a small moon goo reaction chain and then dismantle them and tell me its fun or is a resonable amount of "pain for my eve pleasure".

Ophelia Ursus
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:43:00 - [74]

Waaaaaah, my game-breaking isk faucet is getting nerfed! I don't care that there was a massive and completely unsustainable influx of ISK into the economy that coincided with the Dominion changes, you can't nerf my Sanctums!!!11!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Crying or Very sadCrying or Very sadCrying or Very sadCrying or Very sad

Posted - 2011.03.25 20:46:00 - [75]

this is going to ruin 0.0, it wont be eaiser for newer alliances to go to 0.0, they wont even bother going there because its making it worthless...

this is the worst idea ever...

Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:46:00 - [76]

Terrible and misguided changes.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:47:00 - [77]

I have seen many changes by CCP. Some were good.
Some were mediocre.
Some were terrible.

This one is below horripilant. Just don't do it. I can't find the words to describe how much this is going to backfire, so I'll just leave the other many other players to comment at how POOR this idea is.

Heck I am not even able to play enough to bother with going 0.0 since 2 years and I still feel the pain for the guys who will try.


The real question is, when the average nullsec pilot wallet stabilizes at a lower overall level, will this impact the T2/T3/Moongoo markets, since these ships won't be vanilla anymore - there will be actual value in them (except for pilots those alliances that are already beyond stupid rich with the Tech buff from last year).

Hate to break it to all of you though - it's not going to "destroy the game" after all you only had those sanctums/havens for the last year anyway, and if you are that angry, and going to quit playing, make sure to give all your stuff to someone in your corp/alliance, so they can use it.

All this blurb is not going to destroy the game, indeed.

It will nerf the begeezus of the low end alliances and players till the just do what they did before: leave 0.0 and add to the huge pile of Motsu farmers. GREAT, GREAT idea to "improve" the game back to pre-Dominion!

zeta alpha Egivand
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:48:00 - [78]

im not planning on going to 0.0... but this looks like a bad idea, and im sure my friends will not be happy...

Posted - 2011.03.25 20:50:00 - [79]

I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.

We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.

I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.

Anthrax jay
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:52:00 - [80]

you say you dont care about the density of players in 0.0, yet the lower security systems will be more defended, with more people in.

this is the worst idea yet ccp, i hope this isnt implemented as it will ruin the game.

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:53:00 - [81]

Large alliances control moongoo.... check
Large alliances control vast amounts of space... check
Those vast amounts of space contain the best true sec... check
Large alliances get more powerful smaller aliances get weaker.. check

So what is the mission hub of of choice latley? I need to start moving my ****.

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:53:00 - [82]

And when I sperged the guy is clueless about everything related to 0.0 I was crucified for my lack of manners and ability for mature communication. How can you communicate with someone who has courage to spill such embarrassing devblog.

CCP Nozh is 0.0 Einstein for this guy.

Renan Ruivo
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:55:00 - [83]

Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 25/03/2011 20:57:05
Apparently, the few people who support this idea also think that a massive exodus of people towards high-sec missioning is a good thing.

Also, some people also believe these alliances who made a living out of < -0.2 should try to conquer > -0.5 space.

Sure, we had income then, now we no longer have. So lets get whats left of our money and try to take systems away from people who still have their income source unchanged. Because surely PVP ships are free.

Either leave anomalies as they are, or completely remove them from all systems to make thing the way they were pre-dominion. Otherwise this shall forever be known as EVE's SOE moment.

One mistake does not rectify another.

Black Sky Hipsters
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:57:00 - [84]

CCP this is a terribad idea.

Newer players donít go to 0.0 to kill endless spawns of frigs and cruisers. The filler you speak of (and their payouts) donít attract newer players. They want to make good isk. By making this change, you are removing their incentive to go into 0.0 and consolidating all the isk making potential in those areas that already have large Alliances controlling them. This MAKES NO SENSE. Evil or Very MadEvil or Very MadEvil or Very Mad

Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:58:00 - [85]

Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 25/03/2011 20:58:51
Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 25/03/2011 20:58:07
*checks Deklein systems truesec in dotlan*

Deklein buff, changes sound good to me! Very Happy

In all seriousness though, I think a more careful consideration of not just the balance between 0.0 regions, but the balance of risk vs reward in 0.0 is in order. This is a nerf to a great deal of average joe 0.0 dwellers personal income, whichever way you look at it, and I really don't think many people would argue that those particular wallets are the ones most in need of emptying.

(Let's face it, rich super-capital pilots aren't exactly running sanctums)

Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [86]

well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars....

but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor....
so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!!

Sentient Blade
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [87]

I can't see any possible advantage to this idea... the most powerful alliances will hold the handful of very low truesec systems, and the rest of nullsec will not be at all profitable to operate in.

Personally, as the CEO of a small nullsec alliance with just one system, if this change comes about, I'll be heading back up to high sec.

Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [88]

ITT: 0.0 powerbloc members explain why for the good of EVE, all their space must be be maximally valuable.

The only hope that the "small alliances" everyone keeps yammering on about have for getting any space is that there is some space the powerblocs aren't interested in.

Remember that at the moment there is only one single lonely particular non-powerbloc alliance that holds space, and that's Pandemic Legion. Pointing at PL and saying that "you must be at least this good to hold space" is not, I think, a particularly realistic bar to set.

Remember also that 15 months ago, the game was getting along just fine without anomaly upgrades....

Posted - 2011.03.25 21:00:00 - [89]

throwing in my support on the "this is a bad idea" side.

Posted - 2011.03.25 21:01:00 - [90]

Edited by: Tadari on 25/03/2011 21:04:18
To make a long story short: This is bull****.
If there would be a dislike button here.. i would hammer it down through the middle of the earth..

First decission now: no PLEX for Japan.. have to spare my Isk now, I think Confused

BTW: Didn't like missions - but I did them for ISK.. dont really like anos.. but I do them.. for just one reason.. ISK = Fun in PVP.. no Isk = no PVP.. no PVP = boring game..

Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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

These forums are archived and read-only