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 : ... 105 106 107 108 [109] 110 111 112 113 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.13 19:20:00 - [3241]
 

Edited by: Darth Gustav on 13/04/2011 19:21:51
Edited by: Darth Gustav on 13/04/2011 19:20:50
Originally by: Zig McJigg
Since these changes my corp barely even logs on and my alliance is pretty inactive as well.. what a waste.


^---this.

Did anybody who actually supports this (for whatever reason, luls i guess) notice Greyscale's claims, reasons, and predictions? Greyscale has discussed nothing, despite his (and CCP's) claim that there would be actual discussion. He claimed there wasn't as much conflict in nullsec as they expected, despite enormous upheaval in nullsec and record-breaking capital losses. He predicted that people would be stirred to try to take better space from those who have it, despite hundreds of kilobytes of forum posts to the contrary.

Yet he (and CCP) seem utterly unwilling to consider that people may actually not do what the models predicted.

What CCP have done here is another bait and switch. I don't know how things work in Iceland, maybe fish, salt, and hot springs act as some kind of ad-hoc bartering currency to help support the “IRL ISK.” But in the civilized world, informed customers don't take kindly to the bait and switch maneuver.

Ghost training was a feature, once touted as being good for the game. That model seems to have been obviously flawed, since CCP took it away and then lied about it (just like they're doing now), saying in turn that it was a bug, and that players who took advantage of it were “stealing from them.”

Then we were told that ihubs were a feature, too, that would bring balance to the game. When their models were once again proven wrong, we were given this latest round of bull**** about our ihubs still retaining all of their prior functionality. Right, and nullsec is currently filling up with droves of new corps and alliances all slathering for...Hubs?

Why did we even bother listening to CCP's intentions for ihubs? Are we, the paying customers, imbeciles? Shouldn't we have learned from CCP's past folly?

Perhaps we should have. Perhaps we yet will.

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 20:20:00 - [3242]
 

A goon named Toshimo Kamiya crunched the numbers on deklien and here they are.

Pre-patch = 136 Sanctum / 136 Haven (50/50) = 272
Post-patch = 45 Sanctum / 226 Haven (16.6/83.3) = 271

dek is one of the best true sec regions in the game and it's pretty damn huge the change, the numbers get scary bad if you look at other regions. This patch has been a massive global nerf to null sec, we'd really like some sort of conversation on this.

Jimbase
Posted - 2011.04.13 21:25:00 - [3243]
 

Great job CCP you may of just cut your number of players half. This has to be the worst change I have ever seen in any game.

Kudos to you CCP you found a way to finally fix lag, just make every one quit the game.

Daedalus Imperator
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.04.13 21:41:00 - [3244]
 

Since these changes have been made.

I have noticed a considerable less amount of players logging in. No one is active.

The reason is because the majority play this game to PvP. Without consulting us, listening, or using your brains CCP - you have made PvPing harder because players have to ISK up for hours and hours just to lose one ship. Are you trying to turn the game into a space version of WOW raiding or something?

You will lose a large portion of your members when an alternative game pops up now.

Nice to see how much you respect and communicate with your player base.

Nobani
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 22:42:00 - [3245]
 

Edited by: Nobani on 13/04/2011 22:42:44
Originally by: Daedalus Imperator
You will lose a large portion of your members when an alternative game pops up now.


A lot of people have been saying this recently. Sadly no new game with comparable features has popped up to test the theory.

I think the suits think "non-consensual PvP" doesn't sell.

BackStreet Babe
Posted - 2011.04.14 08:04:00 - [3246]
 

Originally by: nano bobcat
Edited by: nano bobcat on 13/04/2011 14:16:28

Originally by: BackStreet Babe

say a 100 man corp has 2 systems, the corp makes about 10bil a month, members make about 50bil
say that 100 man corp goes back missioning, the corp will make its 10bil a month, its members make 50bil isk and 30-50 bil in lp.

wrong.
lvl4 give much less revenue than farming sanctums non-stop. Farming ISK with missions requires more efforts than warp into anomaly, kill everything and go on with the next anomaly.

Originally by: BackStreet Babe

the lp generates isk to the player for missioning, so they are better off missioning than with anoms.

wrong again.
LP generate no ISK, LP stores remove ISK.

Originally by: Skaarl
it is based on creating more conflict by making some space more desireable than other space. which means to say that people will attack MM, RA, SOLAR, GOON, RZR, RO, -A- etc for their good true sec systems. basically CCP greyscale and team BFF have no clue how 0.0 works

yeah, but team Z pet knows more about 0.0, amrite?
People always fought over valuable chunks of space. Its the reason PL was in fountain, bob in delve and core NC in tribute, tenal and deklein.
You're right, small entities have never contributed much to conflicts, they were pulled with their lords whereever they were needed as cannon fodder/meatshields. This is what changed with the recent nerf, those meatshields will die (which is good).


lv4 missions make more isk than sanctums for the player, i have done both. with missions ok isk is removed form game via lp, it is not removed from the player he actaully gains isk via selling teh lp. so thats a fu to teh corp tax system, can live with that. but the player is far better off in teh safty of empire in his faction ship than ever having to worry about teh next red gang in 0.0.
missiosn no afk'ing at a pos waiting for that gang or cloaker to leave, just dock hit accept and undock.
isk per hour is better in empire. thats wrong. clearly you dont get this.

this now comes down to one thing, do you have good moons or not. if you do yay you can replace alliances ships, make supers and fight.
if you dont have good moons, well forget it, you cant take them as you cant replace ships and afford supers. your suplimental income just vanished over night. so even sov bills will be a *****
this just kicks sand in the little guys face as he gets ***** slapped by the big guys. if you belive anything else will happen you are a greyscale blind alt. more conflict my arse, more lv4 whoring is what this patch is for

AGORAPHOBIC NOSEBLEED
Posted - 2011.04.14 08:19:00 - [3247]
 

Yup. If you wanted to do something extreme, you could have just nerfed the moons. Then at least an alliance could pool individual player contributions in order to pay bills, make supers, and go to war. Now... well, who cares? What is the point of mobilizing to fight over space? I could care less about moons. How many times are you going to throw your isk into the lag fire? And for what reward?

Moons don't put hulls in my hanger or mods on my ships. Sanctums did. So we end up with a few power blocks that have the resources to make the Supers to hold on to their space, and if you don't have the resources to tip their bull, well, why bother?


CBBOMBERMAN
Posted - 2011.04.14 10:03:00 - [3248]
 

Edited by: CBBOMBERMAN on 14/04/2011 10:11:00
Edited by: CBBOMBERMAN on 14/04/2011 10:07:30
This is gonna have more of a negative effect than a positive one.

-Yes, its unquestionable that people will leave 0.0 as we have seen already it has had the effect.
-Yes it may encourage some wars but in truth be said, in the last two years we had very large wars and long wars too. I dont think this is something thats gonna help it.
-Large alliances and coalition will not let go of people cos numbers do count too and in this game you try and take all the advantages.
-While you can still make isk runing level 4s, we can agree its not the most convenient nor the most effective way. Clone jumping to high sec and back is a pain as you can only do it every 24 hours. While alts help, most people want also their alt in 0.0 for scouting or dual boxing. Jumping 20+ systems to high sec runing missions and runing back to 0.0 for an opp is alot to ask for many people (time).
-In the last few years we have seen alliances grow massive, so people did more into 0.0 in very large numbers. Today we see many more gate camps even on enemy territory than before.
-Thanks to sanctums we have seen an explosion in carriers and supper caps. And we have seen many of those so called "noobs in supper caps" due to it. While i agree getting into supper caps should not be easy i disagre that everyone else in caps should get punished too for it. All those people in caps are you current capital warriors, and with this patch they just got their legs cut under them. You can forget about them using caps to pvp. There is no way the can replace them now effectivelly.
-The reason why not many alliances move into 0.0 is simply cos its a lot of work. Yes making war on others, logistics of moving stuff, setting posses and refulling, cost of ships and CTAs among other things. A lot of alliances like to be more mobile and get pvp rather than tiying themselves to property cos once you do, you have to deffend it.

One thing is for sure. This is not gonna encourage more wars. If it did, we will already be experincing massive wars. Strangelly enought this has not happened already....I wonder why? All the current wars have been there for some time now. So, no new wars atm.
The wars you can perhaps say would be here evoke attacked the north. But this was very much expected as they want revenge for the last war, so this is a grudge/revenge thing, a very common thing in eve.

Alliances that can survive will survive, those that cant will will leave and rich will get richer and poorer gets poorer, wars will not be cost effective for average joe so he will not be able to replace his pvp ship as frequently. After all wagging war is an expensive thing.



Gunman1982
Posted - 2011.04.14 10:18:00 - [3249]
 

Edited by: Gunman1982 on 14/04/2011 10:19:43
Well I guess until someone posts links to warez or child ****ography sites not a single soul of the CCP dev or mod team will even look at all your posts and opinions. Neutral

Mh maybe it would be a good idea to push the report button on every single post so that we are sure that at lesat someone reads them.

Vengeance Thirst
Posted - 2011.04.14 11:12:00 - [3250]
 

After almost 3 bill invested in system upgrades (bought new ihub, ship to move it and upgrds... time waste ratting... and everything else) I decided to start a personal "Get a cloaky ship block a sanctum" campaign. If **** works out il get more alts on it.

CCP took my sanctums so I adapt.

50mil a day per sanctum to let it respawn Is my price, see me in local you know thats what I'm there for.

Pay up or do havens. Your precious -1 system is **** like mine is now :)

PortMoresby
Posted - 2011.04.14 13:49:00 - [3251]
 

I like the change. If you dont log in after the patch and your alliance is dead then you should ask yourself why you where in null sec anyway?
Ive never done sanctum/haven, but earning isk enough for PvP has never been a problem.

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
Tragedy.
Posted - 2011.04.14 16:25:00 - [3252]
 

CCP might as well just lock this thread. Their ignorance and refusal to read the 3000+ responses in this thread prove that they already don't give a **** about the players and what we want. So why not just lock it already? Prove to us that you just don't give a damn.

Genevio
Posted - 2011.04.14 22:12:00 - [3253]
 

My take on what’s really behind this.

Dust 514 is on the horizon. As I understand it, this will make planets part of sov warfare. Also the Dust Mercs will be supported by EVE alliances who want to use them for sov wars/sov defense.



So, two points:

1) With all the viable systems out there, the number of alliances who can afford to enter the bidding, and have space they care to defend, outstrips CCP’s projected number of Dust players. Having the effect of diluting the mercs across many systems and resulting in no good fights for the console guys, and the possible failure of the whole Dust endeavor.


2) With Havens and Sanctums creating so much isk for the average pod pilot, there is less need for folks to go through the tedium of PA to make isk. Since PA complexes will be vulnerable to planetary warfare. Less complexes, spread over more systems, means less objectives for the console folks per campaign.

Consolidation of the planetary battle zones is what this is about.

Might be out in deep space on this one, but that’s my two isk.

Neon Trotsky
Posted - 2011.04.15 00:04:00 - [3254]
 

Originally by: Genevio
My take on what’s really behind this.

Dust 514 is on the horizon.......

Consolidation of the planetary battle zones is what this is about.

Might be out in deep space on this one, but that’s my two isk.



I think that Dust plays a role. I'd describe it that they want planetary resources to be more and more important to the player base for Dust to be a success. This might be OK if we can make a decent amount of isk with less grind except the cost of these changes to null sec alliances in members and particpation could really hurt CCP. While I never made my money in sanctums, a lot of people do, and are months from the skills and assets to make consistent cash with the alternatives. So people are leaving null sec by the thousands--probably to spend a few months in empire to eventually unsub out of boardom.

CCP has delt a serious blow to my corp and alliance with this --taken away much of what has taken a year for us to build such that I am close to unsubbing all 8 of may accounts and taking a long break--perhaps forever. Thats not somesort of vengful ragequit statement at CCP, but its the consequenses of losing faith that what I work my ass off to build over the next year won't be torn usunder by the next whimsical missguided decision.







Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.15 01:24:00 - [3255]
 

Originally by: Neon Trotsky
Originally by: Genevio
My take on what’s really behind this.

Dust 514 is on the horizon.......

Consolidation of the planetary battle zones is what this is about.

Might be out in deep space on this one, but that’s my two isk.



I think that Dust plays a role. I'd describe it that they want planetary resources to be more and more important to the player base for Dust to be a success. This might be OK if we can make a decent amount of isk with less grind except the cost of these changes to null sec alliances in members and particpation could really hurt CCP. While I never made my money in sanctums, a lot of people do, and are months from the skills and assets to make consistent cash with the alternatives. So people are leaving null sec by the thousands--probably to spend a few months in empire to eventually unsub out of boardom.


They should not chase people out of nullsec, then. Here's an interesting stat players should be interested in:

How many POS's total will be taken down (dismantled and shipped out, not destroyed) in nullsec in the 30 days after this idiocy went live?

Another might be actual nullsec population before and after this nerf.
Quote:
CCP has delt a serious blow to my corp and alliance with this --taken away much of what has taken a year for us to build such that I am close to unsubbing all 8 of may accounts and taking a long break--perhaps forever. Thats not somesort of vengful ragequit statement at CCP, but its the consequenses of losing faith that what I work my ass off to build over the next year won't be torn usunder by the next whimsical missguided decision.



Bolded for emphasis. These changes are so laughable it hurts my brain.

CCP Greyscale: I defy you to provide us with real useful data on this, such as how many POS's are willingly taken down in nullsec due to this (not destroyed, just removed), or perhaps the ratio of sovereign systems to the whole of systems in nullsec before the nerf and 30 days after.

Also, please keep a tally of all the SC's being destroyed over ratting systems, we want to see real proof that this worked.

Maybe you could make a sweet video about your litterbox, er, sandbox.

Emergence my ass.


BackStreet Babe
Posted - 2011.04.15 10:58:00 - [3256]
 

dispite the dev blog not mentioning it a gm has just confirmed to me, that no system below -0.85 is ment to have any sanctums at all.

way to cover up your lies in that blog greyscale

Ze Beeblebrox
Amarr
Negotium Holding
Negotium Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.15 11:13:00 - [3257]
 

At the moment CCP and its representatives react like a stubborn deaf-mute-teenager who absolutely ignores any parental argument !

This behaviour is not acceptable for any company with respect towards its customers !

It is my guess that CCP will pay dearly for this stubborn and rightous stupid behaviour towards its clients.

The misbehaviour on behalf of CCP is:
- CCP Greyscales publicised intentions are either a lie or result of inability to comprehend 0.0 realities, or even worse pure disinterest of 0.0 realities and blatant stupidity.
- CCP didn't give all those smaller entities neither the time to write off their investitions (e.g. 2 months of adaption), as fully upgraded systems do cost about 3 bil ISK each and now are quite wortless, nor is CCP willing to at least partially reimburse the pirate upgrades which now became worthless crap.
- CCP does not communicate at all by any appropriate means, except stubborn, idiotic and obviously non-listening blabla. CCP should give direct reason underlying with statistics to its customerbase. There should be clear numbers why there were too many ISK generated in 0.0, there should be clear progress-data whether intended goals are at least partially reached or whether they will do any kind of adjustments at a given time, numbers become clear enough.
- CCP undermined any kind of legimity of the CSM as this institution was fully ignored upon such a change with that huge impact on major parts of EVE-Online. There seems to have been no consulting, no discussion, no seeking of any kind of feedback on behalf of the CSM. If such changes are to be undertaken without any kind of inclusion of the CSM, CSM becomes a worthless institution being nothing more than an ignorable PR-stunt.

What do these changes do:
- Major Powerblocks immediately handed over all those "good" Truesec-Systems over to their privileged members, likewise to good moons. Their members direct Income stays or even gets increased.
- Smaller Entities find themselves forced to move out of 0.0 or to accept systems with smaller ratting-Income. Some will revert to mining, some will optimize the harvesting of the remaining anomalies.
- Within a Powerblock Noone will ever fight for better systems as this will result in an immediate kickout by the Powerblock rulers.
- Renting Income for Powerblocks will drastically sink and thus get into a margin, where Powerblocks will still want to rent out systems for a bargain with the consequence of having complaining renters, wanting their Powerblock to clean their systems of visiting unfriendly neighboring entities. The trouble might not be worth the rent and thus only fewer entities who can deliver their masters some value, will be allowed to rent. The slightest doubt in loyality, the slightes trouble a smaller entity delivers, will get it kicked.

In short: first consequence is that many smaller 0.0-entities will leave and 0.0 immediately gets depopulated.

- Instead of introducing equality or even some slight disatvantage proportional to the size of alliances, CCP moved even further to give an advantage to greater entities, making it even more impossible for smaller ones to grow and stand up against established ones. Larger entities with privileged access to more valuable systems will easily be able to replace capital sized ships, whereas smaller entities will struggle to even replace battleship-class and functional T2 ships.
Members of larger entities will eventually not pay any headtax or likewise, because the alliance gets its income by Moons and Rent, where members of smaller entities will most likely have a head tax and much less offered by their alliance. The advantage of the established alliances is so huge, you do not have any chance as smaller alliance to recruit established corporations into your alliance, as you cannot deliver them advantages they demand.

In short: Established Alliances get richer, the Underdogs have no chance to grow.

EVE only for established ones is EVE dying

Filay Six
Posted - 2011.04.15 13:27:00 - [3258]
 

People, your points, both pros and cons, are valid and well brought forward but how many here really think CCP will read this or even care?

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.04.15 14:34:00 - [3259]
 

Funny how people think CCP has to discuss or ask players or CSM what to do with the game.
Its CCPs game, not CSMs, they may do what they want without asking anyone, if there are good reasons for that. CSM is good for gathering information from the playerbase but if they think, there is no need for it, its their decision.

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
Tragedy.
Posted - 2011.04.15 15:21:00 - [3260]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Funny how people think CCP has to discuss or ask players or CSM what to do with the game.
Its CCPs game, not CSMs, they may do what they want without asking anyone, if there are good reasons for that. CSM is good for gathering information from the playerbase but if they think, there is no need for it, its their decision.

What CCP doesn't seem to understand is that you can't stop selling chocolate to your customers and replace it with ****. You lose customers that way. If CCP continues this trend of "screw the players, we will do what we want" that Greyscale clearly expressed in one of his responses in this very thread then people WILL leave. Will it be the droves of players the doomsayers are predicting. Probably not. Will some people leave for sure? Yeah...

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.04.15 15:28:00 - [3261]
 

they gave you your sanctums and they took some people their sanctums again as they realized making all space to carebear heavens was a mistake.

Michael McDonald
Posted - 2011.04.15 16:47:00 - [3262]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Funny how people think CCP has to discuss or ask players or CSM what to do with the game.
Its CCPs game, not CSMs, they may do what they want without asking anyone, if there are good reasons for that. CSM is good for gathering information from the playerbase but if they think, there is no need for it, its their decision.


True.. CCP can do as the will. It is after all their game. Having said that... Their game is populated by a "Player Base" that supports, through RL money and interest, the continuation of Their Game. I feel the more that they do what They want to do will begin to have a Direct effect of what WE the players want to do. That, at least for many of us will be to log in less, care less, and maybe find a new game at some point.

Just saying.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.04.15 17:46:00 - [3263]
 

yeah right, its what you, customer, may do. However, what you cant demand, is CCP asking you for game changes. People will always whine, as you take them something away (which may be required).

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.04.15 19:02:00 - [3264]
 

Edited by: Darth Gustav on 15/04/2011 19:11:07
Originally by: Robert Caldera
yeah right, its what you, customer, may do. However, what you cant demand, is CCP asking you for game changes. People will always whine, as you take them something away (which may be required).


Except, CCP Greyscale said they were going to take another serious look at this. Then, in the same post, he kind of said that they don't care:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hey everyone,

It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here.

We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space.

Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week
-Greyscale


This all happened after people had forked out thousands of dollars to fly to an iceberg to drink beer and eat fish with their beloved game designers. No mention of this there, though...

Then, the very next day, still hung over from fan-fest:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Hi again,

Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality.

We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage.

We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner.

That's all for today,
-Greyscale


Noticeably positive for whom, exactly? This looks to me like a GIANT bait-and-switch conspiracy with very specific motive and intent. Sorry if you disagree.

Edit: Did I mention that this malarky is pretty much all the official word we've gotten from them, post-deployment = null "official feedback..."

Michael McDonald
Posted - 2011.04.15 23:45:00 - [3265]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
yeah right, its what you, customer, may do. However, what you cant demand, is CCP asking you for game changes. People will always whine, as you take them something away (which may be required).


Yeah man.. I understand the the "players" are not in the driver's seat driving the vehicle that is EVE. But we are along for the ride. The only thing that we do decide is how long to stay in the car. I am cool with that, but it just sounds like everyone in the backseat is grumbling loudly about the destination.

Can ppl adapt and find some entertainment value? Sure. Do ppl feel upset that a system that was implimented (see IHUB and Upgrades) was cumbersome and very expensive to get up and running only to be rendered mostly useless for intended effect? You betcha.

PPL might tire of following CCP out on these limbs only to have them break and no longer support them.

I guess I am just feeling kinda meh about the whole thing at this point.

The changes don't inspire me to play. They missed the mark. I just don't see how this holds any advantage. I does not stimulate PVP or anything. Why fight over space anymore. There is no promise that that space will be worth tomorrow what is seems to be worth today.


Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.04.16 03:22:00 - [3266]
 

sovereignty - breaking the chains
reported by CCP Abathur | 2009.09.09 11:56:50 Home Improvement

One issue that we intend to specifically address is that of ‘infrastructure'. This is a word you are going to hear a lot more of in the months and years to come. Essentially, we are going to give you the tools to improve the space you hold. There will be many ways you can do this, but they will all fall under one of three categories: Military, Economic and Industrial. These are not set ‘paths' that you can follow, simply a classification of daily activities that take place in EVE.

The idea is that some areas of space are obviously considered of less worth than others and always have been. This is going to change. YOU are going to change it. Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold. This will consist of things as simple as investing in improvements that allow your members to discover new riches in systems long thought barren and useless. The resources were always ‘out there', hidden or out of sight, and now you will have the tools to access them. Other developmental areas will concern the expansion and efficiency of your industrial base.

In essence, you are going to be able to make your space more attractive to both your current alliance members and also smaller entities that might be looking for incentives to take their first steps out of Empire. The goal is to provide incentives for you and your allies to not have to spread out so much in order to provide reasonable rewards for your pilots.



Just Sayin.

Cpl Punnishment
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.16 05:49:00 - [3267]
 

Originally by: Amber Villaneous
sovereignty - breaking the chains
reported by CCP Abathur | 2009.09.09 11:56:50 Home Improvement

One issue that we intend to specifically address is that of ‘infrastructure'. This is a word you are going to hear a lot more of in the months and years to come. Essentially, we are going to give you the tools to improve the space you hold. There will be many ways you can do this, but they will all fall under one of three categories: Military, Economic and Industrial. These are not set ‘paths' that you can follow, simply a classification of daily activities that take place in EVE.

The idea is that some areas of space are obviously considered of less worth than others and always have been. This is going to change. YOU are going to change it. Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold. This will consist of things as simple as investing in improvements that allow your members to discover new riches in systems long thought barren and useless. The resources were always ‘out there', hidden or out of sight, and now you will have the tools to access them. Other developmental areas will concern the expansion and efficiency of your industrial base.

In essence, you are going to be able to make your space more attractive to both your current alliance members and also smaller entities that might be looking for incentives to take their first steps out of Empire. The goal is to provide incentives for you and your allies to not have to spread out so much in order to provide reasonable rewards for your pilots.



Just Sayin.


I knew I should have held on to the reciept for that IHUB and Upgrades... LOL!

Has it been thirty days??

Imperator Ceasar
Posted - 2011.04.16 05:53:00 - [3268]
 

Originally by: Kerosene
Edited by: Kerosene on 25/03/2011 16:59:31
Ghetto Quote from Blog:

* 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)

On all 5 of them points I'd like to say 'my arse'.

1. Alliances don't base their location on the number of sanctums available.
2. Why? Do you think people fight over sanctums?
3. People won't move because of the change (see points 1 and 2 above) so why would alliances get a better foothold?
4. Coalitions will be less stable why?
5. Not while jump bridges exist. You think you over estimate the power of anomolies. They are a nice-to-have, not a reason for living somewhere.

edit: typo


GOOD ANALYSIS AND QUITE CORRECT - CCP HAS MISREAD THINGS AGAIN.

Imperator Ceasar
Posted - 2011.04.16 06:18:00 - [3269]
 

Originally by: Mistchaser
In case anyone was curious, here's the response to requesting reimbursement:

"Hi,

Unfortunately we can not offer any reimbursement for or remove installed Infrastructure Hub Upgrades. Please note that there has been no change in the function of such upgrades and they will continue to work exactly as they used to.

What will change is the type of anomalies available to systems, as detailed by CCP Greyscale in his DevBlog "those anomaly changes in full" which was released 2011.03.25. There also the reasons for those changes are explained.

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact us again."


==========================

Translation: We dont care what you say or what you think...

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.04.16 08:05:00 - [3270]
 

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1216357

CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.18 15:05:00
Originally by: RedClaws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by: RedClaws on 18/11/2009 15:02:56
Nice, improvements have been made since the last time.

Can we get some numbers on the new cost of outpost upgrades please?

Finding an empty anomoly might be a pain with a lot of people in the same system, is there any way to know or communicate reliably which are taken?

Edit: I noticed there was no mention of the anomolies being better once you upgrade , just more of them , is that still in?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The anomalies available increase in quality with the upgrades. So at level five, you will have more and better anomalies available. There are some low level ones in there as well that can be done by relatively young players, so the benefits aren't restricted to older players.

So what's this BS about "they function the same but are distributed differently"


Pages: first : previous : ... 105 106 107 108 [109] 110 111 112 113 ... : 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