open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP plan to improve 0.0 by turning 80% to "dross"
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic

Soma Khan
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:23:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Anitta Blake
CCP Greyscale: salesman of the year 80% of 0.0 is dross

This a complete u turn on Dominion sov upgrades

Quote:
CCP Abathur The upgrades we are making available in Dominion are just the beginnings of a system that we plan to expand upon in order to enable players to turn their sovereign space into hubs of economic activity or military fortresses.


so it is your belief that *every* system with sov needs to be a "hub"

Dark Striped
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:26:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: nano bobcat
Edited by: nano bobcat on 03/04/2011 16:21:05
Originally by: Dark Striped
Originally by: nano bobcat
yes


why?

because it lags less, for instance.
And its not only about the fleet sizes at all, like I wrote above. You put it that simple and you got a simple answer. Now you request reasons, so read the thread.

Originally by: Dark Striped
so 0.0 shoudl be less populated to compensate for blue balls and failing fc's, are you ****ing joking?


I just pointed out that CCPs original intention of more people in 0.0 went wrong possibly.


so make people use mission alts to finance there 0.0 pvp so fleet fights lag less?
they just bought more hard ware and advertise the fleet fights as a big part of eve, so ofc we should aim to reduce the size of those fights

nano bobcat
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:29:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: nano bobcat on 03/04/2011 16:33:31

Originally by: Dark Striped

so make people use mission alts to finance there 0.0 pvp so fleet fights lag less?

omg, you still didnt get it?? Lack of reading comprehension or something?
There are a lot of people in 0.0 just for ratting, not for pvp. The most of them are in pet alliances, which will crumble after patch deployment because they cant do their primary activity (farming sanctums all day long) anymore in crappy space where they usually are.

Dark Striped
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:34:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: nano bobcat
Edited by: nano bobcat on 03/04/2011 16:30:02
Originally by: Dark Striped

so make people use mission alts to finance there 0.0 pvp so fleet fights lag less?

you still didnt get it?? Lacking read comprehension or something?
There are a lot of people in 0.0 just for ratting, not for pvp. The most of them are in pet alliances, which will crumble after patch deployment because they cant do their primary activity anymore in crappy space where they usually are.


i get what your saying just i think your wrong. people arnt just in 'pet' alliances to rat, there there to develop there corps in view of joining a better alliance later, they are there to avoid the big hassels of alliances like cta's and such but still liek to pvp in 0.0.
you seam to think that they just rat, and i can assure you that just isnt always the case.
this change wont effect fleet fights, lag or encorage allainces to fight with each other for ratting space. it only effects the smaller guys ability to make lv4 income in 0.0


nano bobcat
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:41:00 - [65]
 

well, I do believe that it will help making the NAP blobs smaller.

Grog Barrel
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:49:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Holy One


too much isk in circulation. ccp has issue with fleet fights causing too little movement in 0.0. this means more isk in circulation. it has to be addressed.

also you need to understand that this is just one of a handful of changes ccp is going to be rolling out over coming months to rebalance dominion.

i'm really looking forward to the jump bridge nerf myself ..Very Happy






i too like to see only one side of the coin, while completely ignoring the other.

Dr Richard Dawkins
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:52:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Dark Striped
Originally by: nano bobcat
Edited by: nano bobcat on 03/04/2011 16:30:02
Originally by: Dark Striped

so make people use mission alts to finance there 0.0 pvp so fleet fights lag less?

you still didnt get it?? Lacking read comprehension or something?
There are a lot of people in 0.0 just for ratting, not for pvp. The most of them are in pet alliances, which will crumble after patch deployment because they cant do their primary activity anymore in crappy space where they usually are.


i get what your saying just i think your wrong. people arnt just in 'pet' alliances to rat, there there to develop there corps in view of joining a better alliance later, they are there to avoid the big hassels of alliances like cta's and such but still liek to pvp in 0.0.
you seam to think that they just rat, and i can assure you that just isnt always the case.
this change wont effect fleet fights, lag or encorage allainces to fight with each other for ratting space. it only effects the smaller guys ability to make lv4 income in 0.0




He's spot on, actually. The sov. blocks are braced to loose a chunk of their renters and indigent chaff on patch day. These players do, literally, farm all day until there is an OP they are needed for (which isn't that often) and they're fine with it. They spend most of their day complaining about "afk cloakers," since that's a bigger drain on their gameplay than anything else.

Bottom line is the effects will be hitting every nullsec entity in some form or fashion.

Gender AncestryBloodlin
Posted - 2011.04.03 17:25:00 - [68]
 

Wow! I keep on hearing there are too little targets for pirates in low-sec. You seem to be saying that pimped out afk rattlesnakes/machariels/cnr's/etc sitting in sanctums and havens for you to gank is a bad thing... i just dont understand... If you think that this patch will make the lobs smaller, you may be right from 2000 people to maybe 1500... but the tactics will be exactly the same: Two large blobs sit at a distance from each other and then you hear "Primary 'somerandomname1,' Secondary 'somerandomname2' ...(ad infinitum)..."

So now you lose gankable targets and end up with the same type of pvp... greatCrying or Very sad

Stick Cult
Posted - 2011.04.03 17:27:00 - [69]
 

What the **** is dross.

Anitta Blake
BSC LEGION
Split Infinity.
Posted - 2011.04.03 17:49:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Serpents smile

Personally I think CCP should add to this and make moon goo dynamic. Let it run out at some point on one moon and spawn a new vein on another moon somewhere else.

OMG!Shocked What am I saying? The tears would be epic! Laughing




make moon goo more dynamic and add a sov cost escalator the more systems you have the more it cost for each one say +25% for each one after the 1st 5



Dark Striped
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:03:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: nano bobcat
well, I do believe that it will help making the NAP blobs smaller.


the nap blobs have always been this large, that wont change.

its human nature to come together to defend and fight, it will always be that way.

Jireel
CANUCK ENGINERING
Fade 2 Black
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:19:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Jireel on 03/04/2011 18:19:09
Just an idea I had about that.
I saw a thread recently stating that NPC bounties delivered each day were like 4 times higher than the money sinks, biggest sink being LP payouts. If people stop ratting in 0.0 and go back to missions in high/low/nullsec, the LP payouts will increase while bounties will take a big hit... reducing inflation. Could that be one of CCP goals ?

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:27:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Jireel
Edited by: Jireel on 03/04/2011 18:19:09
Just an idea I had about that.
I saw a thread recently stating that NPC bounties delivered each day were like 4 times higher than the money sinks, biggest sink being LP payouts. If people stop ratting in 0.0 and go back to missions in high/low/nullsec, the LP payouts will increase while bounties will take a big hit... reducing inflation. Could that be one of CCP goals ?

That's odd because in the economics discussion in fanfest EVE's on-staff PHD economist said the isk grows in EVE by about 6% per month. I suck at math here, but that sounds like 0.2% per day. That is significantly lower than 400% per day. If this was about reducing isk faucets, they'd just wait a month as the anti-botting stuff kicks in and and reduces the isk faucets. Or perhaps this is meant to help the CCP friends who are losing their botting income by flat out giving them isk instead.

And this is not meant to reduce the isk in the game. This is meant to take the isk out of the hands of those who need it most (the 80%) and dump it in the laps of those who already have as much as they will ever need (the 20%.) Yup, any chance of the 80% ever posing a serious threat to the 20% ever again is going completely out the window. You think 0.0 was stagnant before dominion, it's going to be worse than it ever has been.

Jonathan Malcom
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.04.03 18:32:00 - [74]
 

Disclaimer: I DID NOT WRITE THIS. This was written by Mord Fiddle who is a luminary and a genius. You can find his blog here. Hopefully, some of you will find it enlightening on the reality of this subject.

Quote:
Many of you will have heard that CCP Greyscale took to the podium during Eve Fanfest to announce the first in a series of changes to nullsec. In essence the change is an alteration of ratting yields in improved systems, hands-down the easiest and most common way of making the ISKies down in nullsec. Nullsec systems will be divided up into five bands based on their current truesec values. The least valuable systems in the first and second bands will get no high nullend ratting sites (Haven and Sanctums) at all. Middling systems in the third and fourth level bands will get the current max of four high end sites. The remaining band containing the best classes of system will have up to six high end sites.

Call the first and second band Shallow Nullsec, the third and forth bands Middle Nullsec, and the last band Deep Nullsec.

The original system improvement scheme, which gave all systems the same maximum possible high-end sites, was designed to get more folk out into nullsec. However CCP Greyscale believes that by making the low value parts of nullsec as valuable as the high value parts of nullsec, they've dampened the hunger for PvP in nullsec. He also thinks that by re-introducing Shallow Nullsec - parts of nullsec that he thinks nobody will want when the ratting yields go down- he's creating fertile ground for small new alliances just entering nullsec.

The reaction of nullsec residents to this change has not, generally, been positive.

OK, to be honest it's been viscerally negative. Ripard Teg's blog entry, while more thoughtful than many, is pretty representative of the overall tone. The others range from annoyed to frothing at the mouth. I predict increased attendance at next years Fan Fest as nullsec players from around the world line up to whisper unpleasant truths into Greyscale's ear.

For myself I need to sit down and have a think over this one. It's a change with a lot of twists in its tail, not all of them necessarily bad. I doubt we'll see the ones CCP's hoping for, but that's business as usual. The most interesting change will be the sudden drop-off in the amount of money pouring into the New Eden economy; a tightening of the money supply that will cascade in a lot of unexpected directions. Economic upheavals tend to result in a lot of unanticipated macro level outcomes.

Ironically, none of these will make more space available for small start-up nullsec alliances. Likely the opposite. I expect a thinning out of the population in Shallow Nullsec regions, but the occupants won't be starter alliances unless they're under the protection of more powerful nullsec patrons. Even without Havens and Sanctums, all sovereign systems have value as there are things you can make and do there that you can't anywhere else in New Eden. The doctrine of "nobody else wants it" is dead as long as that's true.

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.04.03 19:35:00 - [75]
 

I understand why CCP want to do this change to "refresh" 0.0 the problem is the current idea is going to be about as effective as a chocolate fire guard.

The reason new alliances dont get into 0.0 is because the demands on their players and resources are too great. Current sov mechanics are complicated, annoying and very heavily timezone orientated which is ironic because it was designed to be the exact opposite (O2O is a HUGE example of the timezone problem).

CCP listen to what us players are saying, this will do far more damage to the smaller alliances and wont force established alliances to move.

Sit down with reps from the 0.0 alliances and discuss this, its blatantly obvious that the guys currently looking for "quick fixes" for 0.0 have no idea how 0.0 actually works.

GoBack 2WOW
Posted - 2011.04.03 19:58:00 - [76]
 

You guys need to...

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.04.03 19:58:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: mkmin
That's odd because in the economics discussion in fanfest EVE's on-staff PHD economist said the isk grows in EVE by about 6% per month. I suck at math here, but that sounds like 0.2% per day. That is significantly lower than 400% per day.
Wrong point of reference.

ISK growth per month is in relation to the total ISK supply (and possibly even in relation to item production don't remember exactly what he said). ISK infusion per day is ~4× higher than ISK outflux per day it's that net overproduction that, at the end of the month, adds up to a total 6% growth of the ISK supply.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.03 20:07:00 - [78]
 

Ccp should make changes once they've got rid of bots.

They can't make accurate changes to the economy when bots and rmt have a large impact on 0.0 wars.

Also they need to make trusec dynamic or they will need to make further changed down the line. That's the daft thing, all the reasons they claim that these changes will help are short term only and won't fulfil the things ccp want in the long term.

Zanes Shoubje
Posted - 2011.04.03 20:18:00 - [79]
 

So does this mean Plex are going back to 280 like they were before Dominion.

And, HTFU.

Maken Cheese
Posted - 2011.04.03 21:03:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Jonathan Malcom
Quote:
He also thinks that by re-introducing Shallow Nullsec - parts of nullsec that he thinks nobody will want when the ratting yields go down- he's creating fertile ground for small new alliances just entering nullsec.



So... CCP thinks making huge tracts of 0.0 space completely worthless will make smaller alliances want to fight for it? To what end? "Let's take this space that no one wants because it has no value, sink billions of isk into the effort of taking and holding it, and see no return on it whatsoever!"

Brilliant!

Flibertygibbet
Posted - 2011.04.04 08:31:00 - [81]
 

Theres nothing In Greyscales "predictions" about fiscal engineering - whether it be inflation/deflation or isk sinks or whatever. He genuinely seems to believe that by turning the majority of systems in 0.0 into useless space that MORE people will move into 0.0 and there will be more fights.

He has not, seemingly entertained the idea that in fact there will be less people in 0.0. That living in 0.0 is a choice, not a requirement for alliances.

What everybody agrees upon, is that it will NOT increase 0.0 occupation and it WILL force people back into empire. This is contrary to CCP's stated goals. Why then, has there been not one word from them/

Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar
Nomadic Asylum
Posted - 2011.04.04 09:08:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Brooks Puuntai on 04/04/2011 09:08:53
Originally by: Maken Cheese
Originally by: Jonathan Malcom
Quote:
He also thinks that by re-introducing Shallow Nullsec - parts of nullsec that he thinks nobody will want when the ratting yields go down- he's creating fertile ground for small new alliances just entering nullsec.




Also the fact that most "shallow nullsec" are located near empire connections which means most alliances or blocs will be using those useless systems for logistical purposes(JBs, Cyno Gens, etc). This is CCP pretty much looking for a quick fix without thinking it all the way through. This will not solve anything other then hurting the bottome line of alliances.

nano bobcat
Posted - 2011.04.04 09:17:00 - [83]
 

it would possibly solve the problem of all those fat meatshield layers around the "core".

Miss Krunk
Posted - 2011.04.04 09:20:00 - [84]
 

The thing I don't completely understand is, why should there be worthless space? The eve pop keeps increasing but they want to shrink the amount of usable space?

If anything, they should have more warpgates constructed to new 0.0 systems....make null-sec bigger.

Also, to those saying this will only take us back to pre-dominion...that is stupid. They aren't removing anomalies, just taking them away from some people.

leich
Amarr
Sad Panda'z
Posted - 2011.04.04 09:22:00 - [85]
 

As Per CCP Grayscales post. The amount of people you will be able to support per constalation will remain the same.

Stop moaning about the changes they wont make any diffenace to anyone.

They also wont help resolve the issue wich is 0.0 is empty im not saying no one lives there people do. But you get one system with 30 people in it and then 10 systems with no one in. This is the issue with 0.0.

They above changes are likley to make this worse not better.

I do think CCP has really dropped the ball on this one. They are trying to do the wrong thing. There needs to be more poputlated systems not less. remove damm cosmics all togeather (for all i care) boost all of the belt rats acordingly to sec status would have been a better move. that way there would be a good reason for people to be in every system in 0.0 not just the ones with the good sites.

Do CCP ever look at there own game and i dont know engage there brains.

Carrieann Spears
Posted - 2011.04.04 09:47:00 - [86]
 

ITT: Hisec trollbears with no understanding of nul sec.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.04.04 09:49:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Originally by: Jireel
Edited by: Jireel on 03/04/2011 18:19:09
Just an idea I had about that.
I saw a thread recently stating that NPC bounties delivered each day were like 4 times higher than the money sinks, biggest sink being LP payouts. If people stop ratting in 0.0 and go back to missions in high/low/nullsec, the LP payouts will increase while bounties will take a big hit... reducing inflation. Could that be one of CCP goals ?

That's odd because in the economics discussion in fanfest EVE's on-staff PHD economist said the isk grows in EVE by about 6% per month. I suck at math here, but that sounds like 0.2% per day. That is significantly lower than 400% per day. .


He didn't say that the amount of money in EVE was increaseing by 400% a day, he said that there was 4 times as much money entering the economy as was leaving it through sinks. Which is a worrying situation since it is not at all obvious that 4 times as many ships and modules are being produced every day than are lost or destroyed.

Anomalies need some kind of built-in ISK sink mechanism akin to the LP store that missions use. The LP store was an excellent economic adjustment to the mission ISK fountain. With a little bit of creative thought, we could see a similar ISK sink introduced into the Anomaly system to change it from being an ISK fountain into a wealth fountain.

Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar
Nomadic Asylum
Posted - 2011.04.04 10:02:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: leich
As Per CCP Grayscales post. The amount of people you will be able to support per constalation will remain the same.


I think its quite obvious CCP doesn't even know how things work. While yes the changes will support the same however the same won't be there. Since running low-sec anomalies in 0.0 is pointless and can make more running l4s.

Quote:

They also wont help resolve the issue wich is 0.0 is empty im not saying no one lives there people do. But you get one system with 30 people in it and then 10 systems with no one in. This is the issue with 0.0.


Not necessary true. Systems now cant support 30 active people. So your probably referencing to a station system which has a **** ton afk docked. Dominion actually did cause people to spread out more then what they did since any system can be upgraded. Where as belt rats where determined by truesec so ****ty truesec systems no one bothered using those.


Quote:

boost all of the belt rats acordingly to sec status would have been a better move. that way there would be a good reason for people to be in every system in 0.0 not just the ones with the good sites.


As stated above this already is the case. Tbh what they should have done was have the anomaly rats bounty scale with the truesec. Not base there spawn rate on truesec.


Quote:

Do CCP ever look at there own game and i dont know engage there brains.


No only with their wallet.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.04.04 10:11:00 - [89]
 

Quote:

Hate to break it to those people, but the bugger a lot of players have with CCP is that they repeatedly stated they want MORE people in 0.0



They wanted PvPers not farmers.
That is they wanted PvPers recouping their losses not heavy farmers occasionally opting in a rare op.

PLEX cost increase, rent costs decuplicating imply there's a lot of worthless "filler" in 0.0. Filler that doubles the already big blobs, filler that are using CPU yet not paying subscriptions (they pay with PLEX that someone else has to pay).

CCP borked it hard and now they want to revert AB(D)ominion and World Of Farmcraft back into previous state and try another way.

Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar
Nomadic Asylum
Posted - 2011.04.04 10:38:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

They wanted PvPers not farmers.
That is they wanted PvPers recouping their losses not heavy farmers occasionally opting in a rare op.

PLEX cost increase, rent costs decuplicating imply there's a lot of worthless "filler" in 0.0. Filler that doubles the already big blobs, filler that are using CPU yet not paying subscriptions (they pay with PLEX that someone else has to pay).

CCP borked it hard and now they want to revert AB(D)ominion and World Of Farmcraft back into previous state and try another way.


Its already been shown with Unholy Rage that GTC/Plex prices are directly tied to botters, since when that happened GTC prices plummeted. So non botting renters really don't have a drastic effect on plex prices since most of that income goes towards paying the rent. As far as renting prices that was most likely caused because of Dominion and SOV having an actual upkeep charge coupled with the moon goo changes which caused alot of alliances to rely on renting to generate alliance income.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

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