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 : ... 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:18:00 - [901]
 

Edited by: Cyrus Doul on 27/03/2011 19:24:58
Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public


meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/




Yeah. but that thing doesn't allow for customization of the production of the parts. It just buys them off market then runs it though the print. A built from purchased mins avatar at component me 0 with a me 100 avatar print only cost 36 billion like your capital power generator says it cost 7.2 billion. built from mins it is 5.7 a unit. when you need 500 units that's a discrepancy of 750 million in that part alone...

Also this sheet is actually more of a copy of my production sheet that I use. thats why on the actual ships there are rows like have and in build...


you can change the PE/ME - its near the picture of the item on the individual item sheet. you can't change the prices (yet). but to a degree you shouldn't need to, as since you could have otherwise sold those mats for the prices used, the profit for the end item is still the profit. as for the shopping list, i agree. i requested that he add an export feature, so we could dump the info into an excel spreadsheet and perform our own magic on it. though, something that checks API for items owned like eveHQ PRISM wouldn't be a bad idea. just not sure who all would be willing to give a website that info.

but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it!


Fair enough. Didnt notice that part. But yeah when I made this sheet I didnt know about that page. the other one that I had seen sorta sucked. And neither had a shopping list which is what i really really wanted. The whole thing started for just a Wyvern then I sorta got bored at work one day and cloned it while I had no tickets to work on.

oh and when i say with the min values that's what it cost. the Min values i use are from what if you were to go to jita and buy the mins to make a part, not base min if i pulled it out of an asteroid.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:21:00 - [902]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Arnakoz
to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.


Just like printing a whole bunch of money is better right?


i see what you did there. you compared eve with the real world! as if it too has multiple forms of currency, complicated import/export laws and is based on regional resources!

i'm sticking with what i said. this nerf will make low end null sec worse off than lowsec currently is. i'm not sure how anyone sees this as good. especially considering how many already whine about lowsec.

CN111
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:22:00 - [903]
 

GREAT NEWS ccp , great changes... so you kick us all in the but because this change will affect the small alliances and corps, bots will be unaffected, big alliances will get bigger.

very good ideea... I am amazed , this games gets nicer and nicer, great way to rebalance indeed

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:25:00 - [904]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/03/2011 19:27:18
Originally by: Arnakoz

but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it!



lolz, that's totally bull****. At least stick to saying something remotely true.

Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Arnakoz
to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.


Just like printing a whole bunch of money is better right?


i see what you did there. you compared eve with the real world! as if it too has multiple forms of currency, complicated import/export laws and is based on regional resources!



Read me

Quote:
i'm sticking with what i said. this nerf will make low end null sec worse off than lowsec currently is. i'm not sure how anyone sees this as good. especially considering how many already whine about lowsec.


And that just shows your basic ignorance.

-Liang

Jonas Nysut
Caldari
The Resistance Movement
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:35:00 - [905]
 

Dear CCP, this is a very very bad idea.

You guys are failing to understand what drives nullsec space etc.
If you want to create more conflict for resources then you need to buff more systems with better/new resources to fight over.
Also you should make it easier for industrial alliances to upgrade their I-hubs by making it easier to maintain the industrial index instead of it dying straight away of someone don't mine in it for a few hours :S
Also the upgrades are too massive for the i-hubs and should have bpos so we can build them out in space rather than having to ship them to empire, you could have concord sell the parts needed to build them to create an isk sink, as long as the parts can fit into a jump freighter rather than a normal freighter, as this is what is stopping alot of new alliances from upgrading their systems to maximum levels.

Honestly ccp, you need to make moons run out of minerals and then respawn various mins after a certain time etc.
That way you will create more conflict over moon resources etc if they change locations, or adding new resources like say hidden moons that have to be scanned out etc.

Also why don't you put some more 0.0 space out there? if you think that 0.0 is becoming too crowded then add some more space for ppl to go fight over them!

Regards,
Jonas

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:40:00 - [906]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

lolz, that's totally bull****. At least stick to saying something remotely true.
-Liang


how do you figure? lowsec is mostly unused why? because the earning potential is low and the risk is high. that would be the exact same case if this change were implemented. actually worse, considering people could earn the same/more in lowsec, and not have to pay SOV/outpost costs.

so how exactly do you surmise it to be inaccurate?

as for the ISK/money printing biz. i'm sure neither of us are economists (though, one of use has a graduate level education in mathematics...) so maybe we just agree to disagree here.

William Loire
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:54:00 - [907]
 

Posting in another EVE players have gone soft and have no clue thread.

This is an excellent change to create more conflict. If Greyscale and team were to instead buff the best null systems then the isk faucet into the game would grow AGAIN helping further inflation, thus that is not a reasonable option.

However regions like providence that are, sha'll we say, complete and utter **** do deserve to have there Dominion fees downgraded, or have there truesec rebalanced.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:08:00 - [908]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz

how do you figure? lowsec is mostly unused why? because the earning potential is low and the risk is high. that would be the exact same case if this change were implemented. actually worse, considering people could earn the same/more in lowsec, and not have to pay SOV/outpost costs.

so how exactly do you surmise it to be inaccurate?



TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true.

Quote:
though, one of use has a graduate level education in mathematics...


Wait what... how did you know... ?!? Shocked

Gibbo5771
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:28:00 - [909]
 

Sucks tbh, the NC will just use there mass numbers to overrun any space they want...not that its not already happening

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:36:00 - [910]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true.



currently. but wouldn't the nerf make that untrue? i've ratted just the low end anoms, when i first moved to null, and the earnings were horrid - like 3-5/m hour. about the same as level 3's. and considering they are also moving level 4 missions to low sec, i think my assessment to be even more true: the common null sec systems will become what lowsec systems currently are.

Christopher AET
Segmentum Solar
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:44:00 - [911]
 

Well the reasons have been stated many times over so i will suffice to state that I do not support this idea.

Raven Kumamato
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:47:00 - [912]
 

Good change, keep it coming. The amount of isk that could be farmed in safer than empire cause of intel channels solo in any 0.0 system is way too high (personally did 175 mil/h) - with a proper fleet for farming up to 250 mil/h. True sec will matter even at anom upgrade 5 and fights will be over it, small ganks will be able to break down income for Mr Average of your most hated enemy.

Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:47:00 - [913]
 

As far as low-end sites go, I've gotten 15-20m/hour (not counting loot/salvage) in a poorly fitted Typhoon running low-end sites. It's possible to make fair ISK in them, although not sure how it compares to L4s.

My main ojection to this is that I don't believe it would accomplish the stated goals; as I suggested earlier, adding a sovereignty discount and cheaper upgrades available only to sub-constellation alliances in low-end space might help with this. (Optionally, only apply the discount if the holding alliance gets a given number of NPC kills per week)

Vaporize
Gallente
United Kings
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.03.27 20:58:00 - [914]
 

Edited by: Vaporize on 27/03/2011 21:05:38
Oh bubba noooooooo........

Quicktime
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:05:00 - [915]
 

Nobody would read 31 pages of comments but couple of points.

CCP do not play this game. Don't expect them to know the life of a player.

CCP is looking at how many people are paying for this game in isk and attempting to reduce it.

CCP will keep nerfing / reducing the amount of isk a person can generate until they get the number of isk paying players down to a number they feel is acceptable.

CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they.

All Allies
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:07:00 - [916]
 

Along with every single other pilot who has replied to this post, I firmly contest the proposition to remove these sites from space. It makes the rich richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappears, the same as what happens in national economies during a major recession or depression. The permanently poor will ultimately leave Eve and go find some other game, which will cost CCP income.

Who's the idiot that thought this was a good idea? Is that Greyscale? Lose that guy if he can't do better than this.

Sannye
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:08:00 - [917]
 

Originally by: Raven Kumamato
Good change, keep it coming. The amount of isk that could be farmed in safer than empire cause of intel channels solo in any 0.0 system is way too high (personally did 175 mil/h) - with a proper fleet for farming up to 250 mil/h. True sec will matter even at anom upgrade 5 and fights will be over it, small ganks will be able to break down income for Mr Average of your most hated enemy.


Where, and how can you possible get 175 mill pr hour ratting?

What is this - let's make up numbers as we go??
Even with tengu/carriers you wont make a fraction of what you made up there by dooing sanctums/heavens.


Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:09:00 - [918]
 

Edited by: Abramul on 27/03/2011 21:11:31
Originally by: Quicktime
CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they.

You do realize that CCP gets cash for every GTC/Plex introduced to the game, right? They're still paying; they're just arranging for someone else to front the cash in exchange for their time. (Naturally, 'time as currency' does give an advantage to bots, but the RMT problem would probably be worse without PLEX.)

Any Red
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:11:00 - [919]
 

CCP, your players do NOT want this change. NONE of them.


TorTorden
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:14:00 - [920]
 

Edited by: TorTorden on 27/03/2011 21:15:09
Originally by: Abramul
Originally by: Quicktime
CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they.

You do realize that CCP gets cash for every GTC/Plex introduced to the game, right? They're still paying; they're just arranging for someone else to front the cash in exchange for their time.


It is actually the most expensive way to pay for the game as well with it being at least a 1.5 $ last I checked over a regular 1 month sub.
From a purely MoAr monies point of view the 12 month subcribers should be ccp's least favorite customers Embarassed

Originally by: Any Red
CCP, your players do NOT want this change. NONE of them.



Thats still not a reason to not do it Wink

VIncent Vance
Gallente
URSALIS LOGISTICS GROUP
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:15:00 - [921]
 

Props to CCP & Greyscale for the proposed changes. Ignore the 'BFF' plebs rantings on this one; maybe in future their membership will consist of more than empire carebears moving to 0.0 to get a higher 'isk per hr' rate by chain running sanctums till their eyes bleed....

Internet Knight
The Kobayashi Maru
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:19:00 - [922]
 

CCP, we love you. We really do. Especially those guys in QA, they never get enough love.

We're on page 31 here. We have one or two dedicated fanatics towards your stance and still many are complaining about it. I'm undecided. I like nearly everything else that Little Things Are Little has presented. Clearly this isn't something so Little.

I've seen some comments about changes to missions. I seem to have missed the devblog outlining those changes. I hope someone can link the blog to me. I think, ultimately though, as long as even "bad" high-truesec 0.0 is more profitable than missions, then the changes are fine. If not...

I live in W-space. How will this affect me? I don't have system upgrades. Honestly, I haven't had time to run the anomalies. I just run PI and import ice fuel while I keep my skills training. What a waste of W-space, right? But I am a small entity. If suddenly all the 'good' W-space anomalies were removed from the spawning pool in my system (and we all know that W-space isn't exempt from the idea of 'good' and 'bad' anomalies), I'd be very much disappointed and would look for somewhere else to live.

So you're right, people will have a reason to move on. But who would move in to take my place? If there's no reason to live there instead of somewhere else, why live there?

I've lived in 0.0 for years. Frigate and cruiser rats are mostly useless. If you're removing battleship spawns from certain areas of nullsec (except in belts and "random" anomalies), there should be another reason to live there. Battleships in bad 0.0 are still fairly rare and still have the crappiest bounties, am I not mistaken? Combine that with your proposed changes to anomalies and you effectively remove ratting reasons for moving into (even temporarily) bad truesec.

Greyscale, you're on the right track as far as encouraging conflict (aside from the fact that consolidating large alliances into fewer systems encouraging blobbing) - you mentioned ISK income per persion and sustainable population. You're increasing the sustainable population in good truesec while not necessarily increasing the ISK income per person. But in removing "really good" anomalies from bad truesec, you're effectively reducing the ISK income per person and therefore drastically reducing the sustainable population there.

If you drastically increase the sustainable population in good/low truesec systems while not affecting ISK income per person per amount of time (or perhaps also increasing that), that will also encourage consolidation and therefore encourage conflict. If you don't adjust the sustainable population in bad/high truesec systems while also not adjusting ISK income per person (eg, keep them as is), you will still encourage new alliances in. The idea here is that new alliances will continue recruiting new people. As they recruit new people, they will fill and need to move to stay consolidated.

Perhaps there might be a way to show ISK generation in each truesec tier before sov upgrades compared to today. You can show expected changes to those numbers after the changes. I think it would be in your interest to show how your changes will still be able to sustain the current level of population in the bad/high truesec and the better/low truesec will be able to sustain more people.

VIncent Vance
Gallente
URSALIS LOGISTICS GROUP
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:20:00 - [923]
 

Originally by: Any Red
CCP, your players do NOT want this change. NONE of them.




lol how the **** can you speak for all the playerbase? Being part of the NC 'Shortbus' crew isn't representative of most....

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:24:00 - [924]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/03/2011 21:24:56
Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Liang Nuren

TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true.



currently. but wouldn't the nerf make that untrue? i've ratted just the low end anoms, when i first moved to null, and the earnings were horrid - like 3-5/m hour. about the same as level 3's. and considering they are also moving level 4 missions to low sec, i think my assessment to be even more true: the common null sec systems will become what lowsec systems currently are.


No, historically - before Dominion.

-Liang

Ed: And if you were making 3-5m/hr ... I don't even. I made more than that as a 3M SP noob belt ratting in a Vexor.

Internet Knight
The Kobayashi Maru
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:25:00 - [925]
 


If you still think it's a good idea to remove good anomalies from sov upgrades in bad/high truesec, then perhaps a good idea would be encouraging "good" random anomaly spawns from alternative means. The anomalies are inhabited by pirates, right? Pirates want population, right? Drones want to kill humans, right? So encourage "good" anomalies according to how much population is in the system - perhaps not pod pilots, but rather through PI. With more structures on the planets in the system, you will get better and better chances of good anomalies spawning in system. Every X chance (100%?), it's a guaranteed spawn... so if you've got tons of people in system running PI, you might get something like 369% chance (lol) for a total of 3 or 4 spawns... haha :P

Furthermore, a negative chance would be added for each anomaly of that type already in system through another method (pretty much only includes escalation and sov upgrades right now, no?). That would discourage using this as a method of creating ever additional sites in good/low truesec and therefore encouraging PI in the outlands and encouraging population to live there and encouraging trade.

This also allows you to circumvent sovereignty to encourage people living in hiding rather than showing that they are there. In my experience, people hiding their assets tend to create far more local conflict than people not hiding their assets.

It also allows for bigger alliances to rely more on their pets for their PI products. Pets will need to use PI so that their ratters don't complain amount site spawns, whereas bigger alliances assumably have a larger PI product requirement. It encourages trade and therefore market conflict. It encourages smaller conflict whereby enemies of larger alliances do indeed have smaller targets to hunt - the supporters of the larger alliance.

So, in my opinion, hold off on anomaly changes until you can push this through too, and then do a double whammy. Of course, the exact chance percentage is something that would need to be fine tuned on several occasions thereafter, but it seems like an excellent compromise. I see it as a win/win compromise situation.

End User
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:30:00 - [926]
 

My proposal:
Depletion
Depletion
and
Depletion

pirate factions get sick of being vaporized so they move to areas where less NPC killing happens. true-sec changes accordingly. make 1 haven the bare minimum.

moons have more then one kind of goo and what ever you harvest should deplete and move to other moons so that the amount of any given moon product remains static but the location changes based on a depletion system. this would make it more difficult to constantly control the static moons and would mean that more exploring for good moons is required.

belts and mining sites deplete similarly. heavily mined areas will have less high end ores and more low end ores.
still always some high ends available but not so nice.

drug clouds? should still be regional maybe no change required.

leave planets alone the local depletion mechanic is fine and sets PI apart.


true-sec status in null should be dynamic as pirate factions move to greener pastures.

why?

because the least utilized space will become the most valued space. the most crowded and built up areas will deplete, people will have to move around. it's unlikely that an equilibrium will ever be reached because people will always prefer to consume resources in defensible pockets.

This creates a constant demand for moon scans it means that the little guy has a chance to sit on a good moon undetected for a while. then epic politics would happen when someone does a moon scan and finds out what you are sitting on etc etc.

another implication is that each type of 0.0 resource (moon goo minerals pirates etc) would be unrelated to each other so that in a system where nobody does anything but rat there is a good chance that mining will become more profitable and so on.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:30:00 - [927]
 

Originally by: Quicktime
Nobody would read 31 pages of comments but couple of points.

CCP do not play this game. Don't expect them to know the life of a player.

CCP is looking at how many people are paying for this game in isk and attempting to reduce it.

CCP will keep nerfing / reducing the amount of isk a person can generate until they get the number of isk paying players down to a number they feel is acceptable.

CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they.


Well, although both of us agree that this is a bad idea, i figured i should clear this out. No matter how many people play with ISK, CCP gets the same amount of money as they would if everyone had an credit card subscribed to their accounts.

If all the 360.000 accounts in EVE paid with PLEX, CCP would still get the same revenue.

Panda Name
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:41:00 - [928]
 

DEATH TO THE NC

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:52:00 - [929]
 

Why should worthless pets such as FCON, DH etc make just as much isk as high tier alliances? Being able to belt rat, plex in your system and do a few average anomalies is fine and how it should be (and how it was). If their members need more isk then they should be sharing their moon goo profits amongst their membership instead of hoarding it for the IC to buy personal super caps.


Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.03.27 21:56:00 - [930]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 15:26:58
Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 15:25:40
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.


From SHC, where people do know what they're talking about.



Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region

A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!)
B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums)
C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now)
D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now)
E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now)

Code:

| Region | A | B | C | D | E | |
|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------|
| The Spire | 3 | 9 | 28 | 18 | 14 | DRF (d) |
| Cobalt Edge | 7 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 14 | DRF (d) |
| Malpais | 8 | 22 | 27 | 34 | 11 | DRF (d) |
| Perrigen Falls | 4 | 9 | 39 | 42 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| Etherium Reach | 6 | 13 | 37 | 34 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| The Kalevala Expanse | 6 | 16 | 19 | 17 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| Outer Passage | 12 | 22 | 15 | 28 | 8 | DRF (d) |
| Oasa | 12 | 16 | 24 | 24 | 8 | DRF (d) |
| Delve | 16 | 10 | 20 | 16 | 8 | PL(for sale)|
| Tenal | 27 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 8 | NC |
| Feythabolis | 29 | 28 | 18 | 6 | 8 | CAAASEROL |
| Branch | 17 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 7 | NC |
| Period Basis | 9 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 7 | ? |
| Cache | 17 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 7 | DRF |
| Deklein | 7 | 6 | 22 | 27 | 6 | NC/DC |
| Fountain | 43 | 21 | 14 | 8 | 6 | NC/DC |
| Querious | 31 | 15 | 11 | 12 | 5 | ? |
| Insmother | 37 | 27 | 30 | 10 | 4 | DRF |
| Omist | 12 | 18 | 6 | 3 | 4 | DRF |
| Vale of the Silent | 48 | 46 | 10 | 11 | 3 | NC |
| Catch | 59 | 15 | 15 | 8 | 3 | CAAASEROL |
| Esoteria | 30 | 20 | 15 | 6 | 3 | CAAASEROL |
| Paragon Soul | 20 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | CAAASEROL |
| Tenerifis | 29 | 28 | 12 | 10 | 2 | CAAASEROL |
| Detorid | 26 | 39 | 23 | 6 | 2 | DRF |
| Scalding Pass | 30 | 15 | 10 | 6 | 2 | DRF |
| Geminate | 26 | 28 | 13 | 3 | 2 | NC |
| Immensea | 20 | 29 | 26 | 9 | 0 | DRF |
| Wicked Creek | 22 | 38 | 15 | 7 | 0 | DRF |
| Tribute | 27 | 14 | 6 | 7 | 0 | NC |
| Impass | 21 | 19 | 7 | 3 | 0 | CAAASEROL |
| Cloud Ring | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NC/DC |
| Fade | 2 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 0 | NC |
| Providence | 68 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ev0ke |
| Pure Blind | 58 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NC/DC |

As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty.

Well done CCP, you're going to depopulate 0.0

Here's the link but easier to read.


They weren't empty pre-Dominion, they won't be if this change goes through.


Pages: first : previous : ... 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 ... : 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