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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Tommy Blue
Black Lance
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:23:00 - [211]

CCP, dont you remember 0.0 wars BEFORE the sov change? when systems were based solely on truesec? I dont remember ANY wars over better truesec. You really think that is going to change this time?

If you are going through with this change, at least have the -0 to -.2 systems (the lowest) have what all systems can have now. Its pretty bad as it is, so it should only get better from this.

Also, remember lvl 4 missions in highsec. The lowest truesec in 0.0 should make more isk than the best lvl 4. ALWAYS.

Easy Co.
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:24:00 - [212]

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Mylor Torlone
Originally by: Liang Nuren

I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems.


No, you haven't.

Yes... I really have. :)


No, You have not.


Yes, before dominion the isk faucet did not exist. But the entire ****ing point of this was to make pilots interested in 0.0 It worked! My alliance embraced the change and worked its ass off to get out here.

We also invested billions of isk in both time and the mods themselves with the expectation that we were making an investment into our future. Only to find out that CCP is ****ing us in the ass.

So will CCP refund the isk spent on the upgrades currently in place prior to their "bait and switch?"

Also will the cost of sov be modified to reflect the real world value of the space. Currently why would anyone pay 200+ million isk a month for anom's that are bairly worth more than the ammo used to shoot them.

If ccp wants to change the dynamics in 0.0, and break up the larger power blocks. The ONLY way to do this is to change moons. Not to screw over the little guy.

The moons should be dynamic!

Say you have a tech moon, That tech moon should only have so much Tech that can be mined before it becomes depleated. Say 90 days worth at max capacity for good measure. After the moon has been mined dry it would dynamically spawn on another unclaimed moon somewhere in eve.

This would force players to actually survey the moons from time to time. It would also stop one or two powerfull alliances from sitting on all of the tech moons and swatting down anyone else who tries to take one.

Just an idea.

But either way. I'm sure CCP will push this through due to the overwhelming support i'm seeing here today.

Stefan Sidor
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:25:00 - [213]

*Let CCP keep the bots, soul crushing lag and nerfed nullsec.


Scan This
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:30:00 - [214]

honestly, all this is really going to do is make it harder for the non-established lower rank alliance people to be able to make a sustainable amount of money in 0.0.

Where they have no rights to setup their own moon mining arrays, and need sanctums as a way to replenish lost ships that don't get covered via alliance reimbursement.

most rating spaces aren't done because of security status of the system, they are done because of strategic locations IE dead end systems with 1 gate in.

I am not sure who thought this was a good idea, but it really won't accomplish what you think it will.

Hiro Naga
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:34:00 - [215]

buff the better truesec systems (-.5 or better)
leave the crap systems alone

You're not going to create more player conflict by making the majority of 0.0 less profitable than L4s in high sec.

Azaria Okaski
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:35:00 - [216]

well i live in one of the systems that is going to be effected. if this change goes though i will have lost the only thing that keeps me interested in this game, isk. im not part of a major alliance. so i don't have accsess to wikket sites. we managed to upgrade our systems now there going to be junk. no isk= no pvp boats.... no pvp boats means im not going on roams. also meaning i lsot enjoyment in eve. if this change goes through i see myself letting my 2 accts going inactive. ccp i think your doing it wrongSad

Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:35:00 - [217]

Hmm will be interesting.

I hear that there was a lot more planned in Dominion's “upgrade your space option” than what was release. Why not limited those upgrades to the levels depending on the level of null sec. So as we add to the Upgrading system platform, and we also slowly removed the Homogeny of all systems.

A you probably have get the feeling from the posts most players are concerned about loosing what they already have, than the game mechanics you are proposing.

Why not try adding secondary tier 2 Upgrades that produce more Havens, Hords or Sanctums that not only required level 5 military Upgrade to be installed but also have a Low Sec level requirement.
You might be able to even play with this a bit possibly allowing: Tech 2 Upgrades that allow us to customize our Area.
--> the loot table to be pushed towards Blueprints vs Concord Isk Items,
-->Chance of Sleeper encounter or Modified Incursion
-->Chance to have out of NPC area Sanctum or Haven/Hord
-->Chance for increase Hauler Spawns – We love trit in Null sec
-->Better chance of officer Spawns
-->Better Chance of an escalation
-->Better Chance of Anomalies containing high end named ore.
->Chance for Anomaly spawning on top of an AFK Cloaker resulting in him Decloaking.

For Industry
->Chance Modify the Composition Belts that are ie like allow us to make that Spodumain rock in the Small hidden Belt into a Veldspar or Hemorphite depending on the on the level of up grade.
->Increase the chance that the rats that show up will be a hauler spawn
-> (My favourite) A chance the new belts spawning (after flipping a belt) will spawn where the AFK Cloak is resulting in him De-cloaking him.
->Chance the Belt Spawning is Named ore
->Chance of no rats in belt
->Chance New Flipped belt will be 1 Upgrade Higher than the mining Index would normally allow
->Increase Chance the Belt holding an Officer Spawn
->Higher change of Gavametric sites being found in system

Jennifer Weir
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:36:00 - [218]

Edited by: Jennifer Weir on 25/03/2011 23:38:18
What is this I don't even...

-5 accounts if this even makes it to Sisi. 4srs. No giving assets, no posting around crying about it. Just gone.

I hate missioning as a general rule. Fly here, kill this, fly back. That's boring. Anoms are barely tolerable as is. I don't even PLEX my accounts, I pay cashmoney. I even buy PLEX to sell sometimes. But this... this is BS.

Way to encourage botting CCP o7

Rayzer Blade
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:38:00 - [219]

Tossing in my two cents

CCP, think it over. It might have looked good on paper, but you took a wrong turn.

This isn't how null works at all. You're hitting the grunts who will leave in the blink of an eye, when they can't afford new ships for the gf's anymore. The ally leaders look for the moons, if something.

Tiny Montgomery
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:40:00 - [220]

#1 This thread is hilarious

#2 CCP stick to your guns. Remember what happened with that Mothership thread last year. Listening to the whiners didn't exactly help the game did it?

Posted - 2011.03.25 23:42:00 - [221]

Originally by: Woodiex3

GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec

THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion.

Randem Salvo
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:42:00 - [222]

Nerf Hi-Sec instead, mission runners thrive on pain, they are all masochists.

Kentai Samica
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:47:00 - [223]

Nice going CCP, yet again focus all the isk into the hands of the super large and powerful.

Renters will still rent, there is no way to take and hold sov with the big guys around. Nnow it will be almost impossible to "save" some isk to mount your own sov war one day with all your time just going into covering the rent.

Break up the giant blue power blocks. Maybe charge sov based on how many systems you hold and how many blues are in the connecting systems, but again focusing the isk into 10% of the space will only make the isk divide worse.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:48:00 - [224]

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 23:49:08
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: Woodiex3

GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec

THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion.

Can I please see a screen shot of a whole bunch of consecutive 25M ticks in high sec?


Posted - 2011.03.25 23:56:00 - [225]

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 23:49:08
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: Woodiex3

GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec

THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion.

Can I please see a screen shot of a whole bunch of consecutive 25M ticks in high sec?


Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp.

nulab jones
Assisted Genocide
Unprovoked Aggression
Posted - 2011.03.25 23:59:00 - [226]

so let me get the right.

Less chance of sanctums = less people in 0.0, except in the case of -1.0 system where there are more people?

Sounds like less chance of people moving from gate to gate to resupply ammo, moveingloot or new ships, but more people in a handful of systems connected by JB's.

UM FFS even less chance of finding a roaming target for solo or small gang PVP and more chance of finding a frikking giant blob since all the people are focused into a singular system.

Say good be to Black ops since the majority of players will all be on a few systems, i'm not jumping a faction fitted Black ops BS in there with 45 ppl active and running sites, however it was fun when there where 5 in a random system.

Yay for CCP once again making the only way to play eve is the giant BLOB/Alliance

Sim Sala
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:00:00 - [227]

Edited by: Sim Sala on 26/03/2011 00:02:48
CCP, you gotta be ****ing kidding me. You are destroying the gameplay for the people in smaller alliances.

Good luck getting new costumers :(

Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:00:00 - [228]

Yet even more evidence to support the claim that CCP no longer has a fuc*ing CLUE how there game works.

Well done.

Lets Nerf nullsec isk making to cause more fites.

Orly? You will only send carebears back to lv 4 mission hubs and cause less fights as pilots will be starving for isk.

Also if you think alliances fight over sanctums you are an idiot Greyscale.

How about CCP DEV's start PLAYING their game before they start changing **** they do not have a clue about or personal experience.

Owait I forgot you guys cant join 0.0 alliances without giving them free sh!t and skewing the game to their favour.

Oops. Did I say that out loud?

Oh Yes I fuc*ing did.

Garrix LaCrioux
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:01:00 - [229]

Originally by: Venus Gospel
Originally by: Karl Shade
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

Not every alliance owns a whole region, you know. Some of us don't have another system over we can go.

So take it.

And how, precisely, do you propose a small alliance is supposed to do this when the space around them is held by much larger alliances with mutual defence pacts? A 400 man alliance against 5000 or more? 'So if you can't fight well enough, leave!' I hear you say. But it's not simply a question of skill. As it stands now with reinforce timers and supercaps 0.0 is a numbers game as much as a skill one. And smaller alliances simply don't have the numbers to take on allainces 10 times their size solo, one's who can muster dozens of supercapitals. The defending, larger, alliance will know exactly when their system comes out of reinforce, and even if then entirety of the smaller alliance turns up and only 1/5th of the larger they'll still be outnumbered 2-1. It's a no-win situation.

If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether. It's not going to make combat more dynamic, it's simply going to drive out all the smaller alliances and reduce 0.0 to a wasteland where only thousand plus member alliances can suceeed. That won't improve 0.0. It'll cripple it. 0.0 will become a series of periodic clashes between massive alliances, and nothing in between.

100% against this change.

Precisely. Or maybe it's a 2-3 year plan....

The smaller alliances will no longer be able to maintain any sort of foothold in 0.0 much less grow and become able to compete with large alliances for territory. Mission hubs like Motsu will over flow with missioners retreating from null sec and crash. Null sec will continue to be dominated by monstrous alliances and combat will shift to record breaking fleet sizes which will also crash nodes and cause horrendous lag for everyone involved. Members of the large alliances will begin leaving due to the frustrations of only large scale fleet battles and 15 minutes per action lag. Large alliances in null sec will slowly erode away and fall apart. Working as intended?

Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:03:00 - [230]

I like the idea of making profitability of system upgrades dependent on the system's real security status. But three things.

1) It should have been done that way in the first place. You could have also made no havens or sanctums spawn due to upgrades at that time. And now this change would be improvements to some systems (-0.3 to -1.0).
2) System upgrades cause quite a few things to spawn but you only mention anomalies. Because of this I fear you haven't thought out this change very far. Please apply more thought.
3) This will further focus which systems people rat in to make isk allowing 1 cloaked ship able to even more effectively disrupt isk making. Cloaking should also be changed at the same time.

Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:05:00 - [231]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Expected consequences

* Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
* In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
* Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
* Coalitions will be marginally less stable
* Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

CCP, you couldn't have gotten it more wrong.

There is little that I can write that hasn't already been addressed **cough, moons** by the professional posters above, but I will re-iterate: stop hurting the individual players' ability to put ships into space and make interesting times for their mates and their opponents.

I will also re-ask this: Will the sovereignty bills charged in the lesser quality space be inline with the benefit that the system provides its "owners?"

Lastly, I will ask another question that I have posed in other threads: As things stand currently, being charged by a high-sec law enforcement entity to hold and upgrade space in lawless regions is absurd from a role play standpoint. What is the in-game justification for implementing these charges?

Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:07:00 - [232]

Oh I also forgot to add this little note

Do you guys even pay attention to what is happening in your own fcking game?

In the past 4 months more supercapitals and subcapitals have been destroyed EVER. In the games entire HISTORY.

And you say there are not enough fights? WTF is wrong with you?

m3 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:08:00 - [233]

Edited by: Orakkus on 26/03/2011 00:08:22
Is this the place where I say.. "WTF? Do you play Eve?"? To be honest, I actually had to take a drink or two because the illogical reasoning was so profound as to defy reality. You sure this isn't some of you devs, drunkenly gathered around some beer, that was spiked by some really bad weed?

Sorry CCP Greyscale, you should not be excited about making these changes. These changes will make the systems that smaller alliances could get to less valuable, meaning that their members will have to work harder to get isk and with less isk available, they will lose more fights.

Thanks CCP Greyscale, you have just made 0.0 even less attainable, and less available to those who wanted it. Yippee!

Pro-tip: Please play Eve Online.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:08:00 - [234]

Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp.

So then your ISK comes from market PVP? I don't think we'll be seeing any more "25M" ticks if both the mission changes and sanctum changes go forward.


Posted - 2011.03.26 00:12:00 - [235]

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp.

So then your ISK comes from market PVP? I don't think we'll be seeing any more "25M" ticks if both the mission changes and sanctum changes go forward.


So the tick will be now 22mil/hr . It is still waymore than 7.

Monkey M3n
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:14:00 - [236]

Why is it that only the major power block kids are complaining in this thread?

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:15:00 - [237]

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 00:16:04
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
So the tick will be now 22mil/hr . It is still waymore than 7.

I doubt very much the changes will be that insignificant. Some talking with my corpmates on vent has lead me to the opinion that we're basically going to see high sec L4s nerfed to just above L3 levels.


Ed: Head on over to Missions & Complexes to check out the changes and the discussion of the implications. We're talking almost 70% reductions in high sec LP here. Twisted Evil

Posted - 2011.03.26 00:16:00 - [238]

At least.. we do have more conflict now. But the conflict seems to happen not between alliances but instead between CCP and the players Cool

Sturmgrenadier Inc
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:19:00 - [239]

I'm gonna say that the reason grayscale is quoting to do all this is BS, and the actual reason is because they want to remote the ISK sink.

Sim Sala
Posted - 2011.03.26 00:22:00 - [240]

The players at the Fanfest really should protest against this ****.

Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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