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

Mr Ludak
Caldari
Science Experts
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:01:00 - [91]
 

The main thing which bothers me here that the main motivator behind this change is to break blobs which is utterly ******ed.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:06:00 - [92]
 

I lead one of those alliances your sov changes keep trying to buff - we're small(~400 members, 2 systems), we're out in the middle of a war zone(East Geminate), and while we're vaguely in one of the big power blocs nobody is exactly counting us as one of the big movers and shakers in NC. And let me just say that you've made a better attempt at destroying us as a sovholding alliance than 20,000 angry Russians have managed in the last six months of invasions. We can handle PvP, we can handle cloaky gankers, we can handle grinding HP on sov structures. We can't handle paying for all of the above with systems that make a level 3 agent in lowsec look valuable.

I'm not opposed to the idea of making truesec matter somewhat again. If a -0.01 system lost a sanctum, that'd be tolerable. Lame for us, perhaps a bad decision, but we could deal with it. But no sanctums, no havens? Why not just jack the sov bill up to 50 mil a day and have devs set themselves red and hang out cloaked in local while you're at it? If you're going to tell us not to even bother holding sov, you might as well do it right.

Maulkyn
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:06:00 - [93]
 

This change will be a set back for our corporation. We have fully upgraded a system and dropped a station.

We didn't care what the truesec status was when we spent the billions of ISK on upgrades and constructing a station but it certainly has an impact now.




Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:09:00 - [94]
 

Ok so 100's of billions wasted north and south because systems that were valueable are not going to be. And furthermore not recoverable.

So people will leave 0.0 for their jewing and come to 0.0 for pew pew.

This change will just be the resurrection of the empire missioning alts as primary income stream, well done.

Noone is gonna stage in the same system that they rat, attracts to much attention.

Want to fix eve?

Allow Devs to Play in 0.0 again. Let them see how it works, and what will work and not work.

If you wanna counter blobs, bring back AoE DD but limit its use maybe irradiate grid allowing only 2 or 3 on a grid for an hour. On top of that reduce the range and damage. Bam its done.

Cause entities living in regions that arent 'good' will just use other mechanics to make money, mining/highsec missioning/Plex hunting/Belt Ratting/ and such so all it does is **** people off that they spent money upgrading systems to live in and now those same systems are worthless completely

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:09:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
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....

Which is why 0.0 is now way more populated than 15 months ago.

You are right that only way a single lonely non-powerblock alliance can hold space is when larger blocks arent interested in them, is this way now, wont change (you are wrong btw that PL is the only one). However right now if they hold some space they can do their thing, make their isk there, and if hostiles come switch to pvp ships.
After this change the only space they could possibly hold would be completely worthless, and they would need to make their money in high sec. It all comes down to just doing lvl 4 missions in high sec, which is nice for CCP, since if you also want to live in 0.0 you are pretty much forced to have alts.

Tiligean
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:12:00 - [96]
 

A faction fit Tengu in every hangar in nullsec is the way EVE should be.

Don't you DARE change the nullsec anomaly spawns CCP!!!

If I can't have a faction Tengu to rat in, this game isn't worth playing. Because my faction Tengu pays for the plex that support my 5 accounts. And if you nerf nullsec anomalies, my alliance won't be able to have Sovereignty in 30 systems - we'll only be able to afford 10!

Seriously. Sounds like if you have a trusec system at -0.5 to -0.8 it will be at least "as good" as it is now, and if you have trusec -0.9 to -1.0 and full upgrades you get six extra sites. That would suggest that there may be a wider distribution of anomalies across the various Trusec, and frankly, since the crappiest trusec (other than Provi) is in the NC regions, home of TECHNETIUM, I'm not sure it's a bad move.

So the NC alliances, which have the biggest ISK faucet in EVE in TECHNETIUM, will have to decide if that ISK needs to trickle down to the pilots rather than gild the hangars of the leadership, to maintain the high quality of combat ships they field now. Providence is screwed, but really, they were already screwed over there (sorry guys).

I'm looking at how quickly most of you posted, you probably don't even know the truesec of the system you run your sanctum in right now, do you?

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:12:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: LegendaryFrog
Let's face it, rich super-capital pilots aren't exactly running sanctums


Actually, I am pretty sure there are sanctum-financed supercapitals around. But, had they not been santum-financed, they would have been L4-financed or any other way. And personally, I prefer the sanctum-financed over the alternatives because it means the shiny toy was actually financed by living, working and breathing in 0.0.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:14:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Klam
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.


i like it

Tiligean
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:18:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Orianda
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!!!


You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC.

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:18:00 - [100]
 

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


I live in Cobalt Edge. Virtually none of the systems I work out of will be adversely affected by the currently proposed changes. I suppose it's the reward for being so far out in the middle of nowhere. And yet I still think this is a horrifically awful idea by anyone's standards.

Originally by: Malcanis
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.


Clearly you need to consider the real implications of CCP's proposed changes, instead of swallowing wholesale the bull that they posted. Small alliances can and do get into nullsec; they simply have to do so under the aegis of a larger alliance or powerbloc. No matter what CCP does, small antisocial alliances who are too diplomatically incompetent to work with others will never be able to move into nullsec on their own, unless CCP makes nullsec so worthless that large alliances will simply abandon it. This is because even if space is worthless to an individual pilot, it may be strategically important to the alliance or coalition, since most alliances don't want a potentially hostile entity putting up towers within jump range of their home systems. Even if a system does not act as a bottleneck or a jump point, no alliance is going to allow potential hostiles near its home space. All that CCP has done is make numerous systems and sometimes entire regions useless to the individual pilot; this does not mean that ... say ... the DRF will stop attacking Geminate.

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


And seven years ago we didn't have capital ships, or sovereignty. Surely the game was getting along just fine without them, so maybe we should all go back to living in Empire.

CCP has made nullsec more dynamic and vibrant by creating new incentives for players to live there; all of a sudden they think that they can make nullsec even more dynamic by making it very difficult for individual players to live there without using jump clones or alts for Awesome Super-Fun Level 4 Mission Grinding (tm). At least in nullsec we can shoot ninja salvagers.

This change will not kill nullsec, nor will it destroy the current balance of power. It will most likely have the exact opposite effect from what CCP intends. Rather than creating conflict and breaking up coalitions (which would require alliances to be able to survive in a smaller volume of space), they're actually going to reduce the ability of alliances who do not currently hold high-value space to be able to even survive in nullsec.

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:19:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Tiligean
You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC.
Nobody denies you the option of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Just a couple of guys pointing out that it isn't clever.

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:21:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Tiligean
Originally by: Orianda
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!!!


You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC.


A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running.

luceron
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:22:00 - [103]
 

I'm curious about why this blog was released during Fanfest instead of before it.
Was CCP Greyscale concerned about backlash at Fanfest?

If you want to encourage fights, taking from the "have nots" to give more to the "haves" doesn't seem like way to do it.

If you want alliance scale conflicts you need to do something with the moon-goo system.

This all seems pretty simple to understand. Not sure how you can work at CCP and be so disconnected from issues and concerns of the bulk of member body. /sadface

Stefan Pompka
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:22:00 - [104]
 

Are you high CCP?

This will hurt PvP, not boost it. Alliance money comes from POSes - you don't touch that. Individual member's money comes from ratting so they can earn money for PvP. You nerf individual player's income they have rat more and PvP less.

PvPers don't like grinding. I left 0.0 space because as a casual player I could not afford PvP on a regular basis - not enough time to grind. Plus I hate it. With this craptastic idea you will push people away from PvP.

Alliances do fight for better space, but better space understood as moon mining not rats.

Get a clue already :/

Want to boost small scale PvP? Allow smaller groups to challenge big alliances. Take away the need to use caps and supercaps to challenge them, allow small gangs to hurt large entities by hit and run attacks and there you have boosted small scale pvp.

Want to boost large, alliance level scale pvp? Have the rare, valuable resources shift between moons every two months to push alliances to fight for different space.

mal serentity
Gallente
Wildly Inappropriate
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 - [105]
 

This will seriously hamper the isk feeding to replace the ships corps/allainces loose in pvp. so why make it harder. the isk must flow and your making it not worth the trouble.

I dont like this direction your looking to go.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Alice Katsuko

A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running.


We afforded faction fit pimp **** before sanctums, you know.

-Liang

Aracturus
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 - [107]
 

"tl;dr There's now a no reason to live in nullsec again:"
Fixed.

kula kain
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:26:00 - [108]
 

this will in no way change the way space is sought after....

anomolies mean nothing to us that actually live in these areas of space.. most of us could care less if we even have sov upgrades lvl 5..

this game is still revolving around moon materials those who hold the grand daddy of them all control the isk flow of the game.. look at dronelands etc they dont give rats about the bounties they still collect building materials..
geminate has no extreme sec status and we still clash head over head there..

the south regions are still conflicting and moving about..

the only real reason why i see a need at all for this change is so ccp and all the rest of these devs that actually play the game can fully fulfill thier ego greed with thier own special sec status systems...

(another way for IT maybe to regain easy isk in thier space since all thier moon goo is being eaten)

new alliances that forge and grow into null sec early on will not have a chance anyhow unless they buddy up with a bigger coalition and thus still have rent etc they will have to pay.. these changes will not change how the effects of politics nor the way the sand box grinds for space..
no ingame changes can increase the sought after 0.0 space.. as the ratting means nothing.
the only thing that grows thiers minds are industrialists scope of moon goo. and the effect of sov space ability to build supers..
it is not the ratting status of the space..

in your changes to this your only wasting the time thousands of players have already spent to change to the upgrades you already put in.. to change it again is only going to de motivate those people and in all honesty those are the people retaining your membership and bringing thier friends to play..

if you keep changing your mechanics you only risk loosing older player base which refers down the line to referrals on player base..

overall u will then see less people in 0.0 as most of our alliances etc are already taking hard hits over sov mechanic's week+ to take one ihub sov system is rediculous.
also allowing hostiles 3++ chances to defend over the top maybe u should change these things instead of changing the ratting ability of the area..

once an alliance is established new alliances really cannot be motivated to take 1 month to conquer a constelation..

honestly i do not support these changes and your just getting more ******ed as u make up more crap....

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:26:00 - [109]
 


Some considerations.

  • Having space with several differences in value is good
  • Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good
  • People fighting over resources is good
  • People not fighting and moving to empire because they can't fund their war effort is not good



In order to have "small fights",we need a 0.0 populated by small independent entities.
But small entities can't survive without being able to fight sov and pos warfare, because in order to live in 0.0 you need some sort of space asset for refitting, do logistics, production...
I'm not asking for small groups to win the big game, I am just asking for small groups to be able to survive in the shade.

Kronos Hopeslayer
Lorentzian Traversable Corporation
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:27:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Kronos Hopeslayer on 25/03/2011 21:28:47
This is CCP throwing in the towel over fighting lag in massive fleet battles. The major power blocs use 100's to even 1000's of extra pilots from smaller pet alliances to make the huge blobs we see today. The major power alliances themselves could care less about ratting because they use high end moons to keep afloat. These smaller pet alliances however have become successful due to raking in the isk from players farming anoms, and when these anoms go so will the smaller alliances. Thus removing the huge blobs, and CCP can go back to making stupid things like incarna...

0.0 will be come like it was pre-dominion, and that is a ghost town outside of major trade/ratting hubs. The major powers that control the best moons won't move, or even bother to try to take better ratting systems. All those systems below .45 will empty out, and only will have upgrades if it has a high end moon worth cyno-jamming to protect. The only conflict we will see on dotlan will be pets who happen to be in good systems being kicked out by their master alliances.

So 0.0 will go back to the North being what it has been before and after dominion, the drone region will see some renters leave, but to be honest botters won't care too much if they go from making 5bil a month to 3bil a month. The south will not see much change other then smaller alliances moving from crappy .4 and below systems back to NPC space or else where. Fountain, Cloud Ring, Geminate will stop being a battleground since no one will want it any more. The South West will be the only place showing any sort of conflict, and once that dust settles Eve 0.0 will become stagnant, and empty again.





Merrik Talorra
Northstar Cabal
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:27:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog.


Then CCP Greyscale needs to have his head examined. Seriously.

This hurts the players, not the alliances. If you're looking to break up the big power blocs, you won't.

I know I'm looking forward to grinding crap anoms to pay for things when I'd much rather be out doing PvP. You know, that thing we do in null sec from time to time Shocked

justin666
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:28:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Tadari
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..


this guy has it spot on..... EVERYONE here does these sites to fund pvp.. no question about it and blowing this income to bits is SUCH a bad move in every single way how on earth are you even thinking of this???.. i just dont understand how ccp hire muppets doing these sort of things and most people in this thread are right.. there going to be loads and loads of people going back to high sec to make the isk NEEDED to fund the current 0.0 wars and what gets me most is this line from the ccp dumbhead saying this.. let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love.. omfg

and yes i know i have posted 4 times in this thread and i never done this before because this change is so f++cking bad.. listen to players for once ffs

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:28:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Camios

  • Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good




  • Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident ****ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother****ers in high sec get through mass market PVP.

    -Liang

    060606
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:29:00 - [114]
     

    This is mad I do not see why this would cause massive fail in alliances.

    No action should be taken with out a vote from its members since this could ruin peoples game time and make alot of people leave eve.

    fire elf
    Solar Storm
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:31:00 - [115]
     

    *claps* Well Done CCP! U are gonna make 0.0 look good ? quess what.. your doing the opposite ... Well Done is all I can say.

    Azaydius
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:33:00 - [116]
     

    So for corporations with very few useful anomaly systems, what is to stop hostiles from leaving an AFK cloaked covops camping inside their anomalies, causing them to never de-spawn and effectively shutting down said corporation's ability to make any isk from their upgraded systems?

    Not to mention this will change nothing about how wars are handled, those who can field the most supercapitals will still dominate the game. This change will probably do nothing except increase the amount of people who use bots and send many people to the "fun" of hi security mission running.

    Laechyd Eldgorn
    Caldari
    draketrain
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:37:00 - [117]
     

    Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 25/03/2011 21:39:23
    OHHAI,

    this change would not change anything (just look at low sec trololololoo), most likely even would make things worse for small/new alliances. im not really interested much about anomalies, not even doing them, but this blog just doesnt make sense.

    how about first fixing all those anomalies which are not even worth doing?

    who wants to rat frigates in low sec. i hear there's 9000 isk bounty on one frigate. lets go guys.



    Pax Selvetica
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:37:00 - [118]
     

    Originally by: Azaydius
    So for corporations with very few useful anomaly systems, what is to stop hostiles from leaving an AFK cloaked covops camping inside their anomalies, causing them to never de-spawn and effectively shutting down said corporation's ability to make any isk from their upgraded systems?


    You Sir, are a genius.

    Switching training to Stealth Bombers as we speak.

    Alice Katsuko
    Terra Incognita
    Intrepid Crossing
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:37:00 - [119]
     

    Originally by: Liang Nuren
    Originally by: Alice Katsuko

    A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running.


    We afforded faction fit pimp **** before sanctums, you know.

    -Liang


    Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system. The number of players who can derive decent income from belt ratting in a system with bad truesec is fairly small; it's certainly smaller than the number of players who can derive decent income running Sanctums/Havens, if only because players who run anomalies don't compete with players who rat in belts. There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs.

    Basically, CCP is arguing that by nerfing the income of individual players in certain regions, they will create incentives for players to fight over those systems.

    Wiu Ming
    Wrecking Shots
    Posted - 2011.03.25 21:38:00 - [120]
     

    Edited by: Wiu Ming on 25/03/2011 21:38:51
    Originally by: Renan Ruivo
    Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 25/03/2011 18:46:20
    This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift.

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


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


    Couldn't have said it better myself.


    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 https://forums.eveonline.com

    These forums are archived and read-only