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 : ... 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:10:00 - [2071]
 

Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally.

The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts.

I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity.

CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity.

No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better.

After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started.



JTK Fotheringham
Dashavatara
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:14:00 - [2072]
 

Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:19:16
Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:16:46
Originally by: PLUCX
What I see here is that CCP makes a huge profit with PLEX and whant to keep the wheel spinning. By cutting the players income, they make PLEX much more appealing!


I don't think you understand the factors that drive out-of-game PLEX selling and in-game PLEX dependance.

Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash
I have gone through the thread and counted each poster's opinion, either for or against.


I don't think you get out enough. Seriously, this was a waste of your time.

Originally by: Dharh
This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. In fact, they should make this exact change to moon goo too. -30% in -0.0 to -0.2, -15% in -0.3 to -0.4, 0% in -0.5 to -0.6, +15% in -0.7 to -0.8, and +30% in -0.9 to -1.0. Along with that moon goo should deplete and slowly refill the same way PI resources do.


I don't think you like affordable T2.

I suspect the Dev's problem is that adjusting 0.0 will take tinkering with more than one factor, but in order to not totally shaft the game, they need to change one thing at a time. Saddly, they're not starting with something that will make much difference towards their stated goal, and will likely have the opposite effect.

My 2c for fixing 0.0:
  • Introduce something to change the risk / reward ration for moon mining - at present, it is far too easy to milk your moon and run your stuff over your JB to market - personally, I'd look into commando teams in an in-development-FPS-tie-in-game boarding moon goo towers (from specially suited Black-ops insertion ships) to disrupt them! Towers are way more juicey targets than planets anyway - as things presently stand! This would make 0.0 alliances defend in depth, and might help break the crappy over-dependence on super-caps with a return to moar small gang pew pew. Only point of caution, I'd monitor the effect on supply of moon goo, and introduce T2 moon mining to adapt to changing demand. This makes the risks for silly isk from moons much higher without adversely affecting moon goo supply, and fuels moar in-depth game play.

  • Change Sov to reflect real-world invasions. A real invasion is never really over once the big battles are done - sov shouldn't climb based only on length of time held, but should be disrupted by some factors too, e.g. sov-holding alliance ships killed in system could produce a hit (based on size/type) of some sort on the sov index. That would make roaming gangs a lot moar of a threat - as they might hit your sov, not just your wallet. It might even allow a way to break through cyno-jammers if you're willing to invest in guerilla warfare instead of pos bashing.

  • I could go on, but this is now tl;dr.


Originally by: Kovid

After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started.



This - I think I'm just giving specific examples of what these might be.

/JTK

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:21:00 - [2073]
 

Originally by: kasai zenpachi
I am sorry but are there titans in high sec or carriers, we use expensive ships and lose thing with out problem because we can replace the loses (never fly something you can't afford to lose remember) so since the loses are more expense the rewards must be larger, is common sense. We this nerf will i really want to lose a carrier, titan or T3 at the same rate as before? the answer in no.


They are not taking it away completely, they are only reducing it. You just have to move to a lower true sec status, or you would have to make somewhat less isks if you choose to stay in -0.01.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:21:00 - [2074]
 

Originally by: JTK Fotheringham

My 2c for fixing 0.0:
  • Introduce something to change the risk / reward ration for moon mining - at present, it is far too easy to milk your moon and run your stuff over your JB to market - personally, I'd look into commando teams in an in-development-FPS-tie-in-game boarding moon goo towers (from specially suited Black-ops insertion ships) to disrupt them! Towers are way more juicey targets than planets anyway - as things presently stand! This would make 0.0 alliances defend in depth, and might help break the crappy over-dependence on super-caps with a return to moar small gang pew pew. Only point of caution, I'd monitor the effect on supply of moon goo, and introduce T2 moon mining to adapt to changing demand. This makes the risks for silly isk from moons much higher without adversely affecting moon goo supply, and fuels moar in-depth game play.

  • Change Sov to reflect real-world invasions. A real invasion is never really over once the big battles are done - sov shouldn't climb based only on length of time held, but should be disrupted by some factors too, e.g. sov-holding alliance ships killed in system could produce a hit (based on size/type) of some sort on the sov index. That would make roaming gangs a lot moar of a threat - as they might hit your sov, not just your wallet. It might even allow a way to break through cyno-jammers if you're willing to invest in guerilla warfare instead of pos bashing.

  • I could go on, but this is now tl;dr.




Two excellent ideas really, given that CCP is finally getting around fixing whats broken with nullsec one can hope we might one day see something along these lines.

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:23:00 - [2075]
 

Originally by: JTK Fotheringham
Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:16:46
Originally by: Dharh
This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. In fact, they should make this exact change to moon goo too. -30% in -0.0 to -0.2, -15% in -0.3 to -0.4, 0% in -0.5 to -0.6, +15% in -0.7 to -0.8, and +30% in -0.9 to -1.0. Along with that moon goo should deplete and slowly refill the same way PI resources do.


I don't think you like affordable T2.

I suspect the Dev's problem is that adjusting 0.0 will take tinkering with more than one factor, but in order to not totally shaft the game, they need to change one thing at a time. Saddly, they're not starting with something that will make much difference towards their stated goal, and will likely have the opposite effect.

My 2c for fixing 0.0:
  • Introduce something to change the risk / reward ration for moon mining - at present, it is far too easy to milk your moon and run your stuff over your JB to market - personally, I'd look into commando teams in an in-development-FPS-tie-in-game boarding moon goo towers (from specially suited Black-ops insertion ships) to disrupt them! This would make 0.0 alliances defend in depth, and might help break the crappy over-dependence on super-caps with a return to moar small gang pew pew. Only point of caution, I'd monitor the effect on supply of moon goo, and introduce T2 moon mining to adapt to changing demand. This makes the risks for silly isk from moons much higher without adversely affecting moon goo supply, and fuels moar in-depth game play.

  • Change Sov to reflect real-world invasions. A real invasion is never really over once the big battles are done - sov shouldn't climb based only on length of time held, but should be disrupted by some factors too, e.g. sov-holding alliance ships killed in system could produce a hit (based on size/type) of some sort on the sov index. That would make roaming gangs a lot moar of a threat - as they might hit your sov, not just your wallet. It might even allow a way to break through cyno-jammers if you're willing to invest in guerilla warfare instead of pos bashing.

  • I could go on, but this is now tl;dr.


/JTK


More to the point I don't think we are entitled to cheap T2. I'm perfectly fine with more people using faction/officer gear rather than pure T2. But thats kinda besides the point.

It just does not make sense that low quality null sec equals high quality null sec in almost any aspect.


JTK Fotheringham
Dashavatara
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:32:00 - [2076]
 

Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:33:22
Originally by: Dharh


It just does not make sense that low quality null sec equals high quality null sec in almost any aspect.




I don't think I'm actually disagreeing on that point. But your previous suggestion (about moon goo) would only have the effect of ramping up the price of T2 for no real in-game benefit - that I'm in disagreement with.

I'm just a bit "meh" about this particular change - as it will not result in the outcome Greyscale is looking for, and will maybe, although not as dramatically as some are suggesting, have the opposite effect (i.e. wasteland buffers around the big 0.0 alliances that don't actually encourage new people to grab a slice of the pie.)

/JTK

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:40:00 - [2077]
 

Edited by: Dharh on 01/04/2011 00:44:02
Originally by: JTK Fotheringham
Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:33:22
Originally by: Dharh


It just does not make sense that low quality null sec equals high quality null sec in almost any aspect.




I don't think I'm actually disagreeing on that point. But your previous suggestion (about moon goo) would only have the effect of ramping up the price of T2 for no real in-game benefit - that I'm in disagreement with.

I'm just a bit "meh" about this particular change - as it will not result in the outcome Greyscale is looking for, and will maybe, although not as dramatically as some are suggesting, have the opposite effect (i.e. wasteland buffers around the big 0.0 alliances that don't actually encourage new people to grab a slice of the pie.)

/JTK


Maybe just adding moon goo depletion and/or balancing it with sov upgrades. Moon goo scaling might not make sense with null sec quality, but it is a bit too profitable.

And I agree with you. Null sec quality changes, moon goo changes, and sov changes (making it easier for enemy to take sov) would do the trick.

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:46:00 - [2078]
 

Originally by: kasai zenpachi
we use expensive ships and lose thing with out problem


Wait a minute, you want to use expensive ships and lose without problem.... just because you are in 0.0? why?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Just because you want to field carriers and dreadnoughts, doesn't mean you have to have the option to farm for a day or two, and return in fully fitted carriers to participate in a 1000 v 1000, and then come to COAD and ***** at CCP to fix lag.

If you're in 0.0 and want more rewards, fine! But that doesn't mean you should get many many times the reward the empire has to offer just because you are in 0.0

JTK Fotheringham
Dashavatara
Posted - 2011.04.01 00:49:00 - [2079]
 

Originally by: Dharh
Maybe just adding moon goo depletion and/or balancing it with sov upgrades. Moon goo scaling might not make sense with null sec quality, but it is a bit too profitable.


I think you're missing my point. Present moon mining is high profit without corespondingly high risk. I'd like to see the risk ramped up, with some sort of threat of tower disruption, through covert action, and Dust514 suicide teams massacaring the tower crew, off-lining it for 6 hours, and unanchoring all the modules. That would be a risk to attach to moon goo towers.

Nerfing the production to match the low risk would make T2 prohibitively expensive. We like T2 stuff, it kills good. Very Happy CCP want a game with depth, we players want a game with depth. That's infinitely preferrable to the small scale tinkering with isk/hour output.

/JTK

Xel Ra
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:27:00 - [2080]
 

Originally by: Kovid
Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally.

The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts.

I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity.

CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity.

No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better.

After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started.





You're so corny. Their "beliefs". It's not a religion, and you're not the high priest of pvp, you drama queen. What a cheeseball, "toppling goliaths" in your spaceship game.

You have no idea what other people think, whether they plan to fight with the isk they made or not, with your blanket statements of pure drivel. You come in here, posting since page 1, obsessed with the legitimacy of your own voice, convinced of your own self-righteousness by the inflated size of your aggrandized ego. You sure are impressed with yourself in the "harsh place" of the computer screen you're staring into. What a joke.

You're actually begging CCP in this post to make defense _less_ difficult and to give you more _offensive options_, because your so freakin' leet, right? What a pathetic crybaby pot calling the kettle black. You need CCP to hold your hand, you need all the "carebears" to be nerfed, why, because you're so tough, you're so billy bob badass that you can't do it otherwise? Do you even listen to the ridiculous tripe that you post in your own head before you post it? Do you realize what choad you sound like?

Go ahead, dude. Keep squacking on into the night for hours, post after post, with you gameworld _ideology_ that only you, the chosen prophet of Eve, see with any perspicacity. I bet you try this hard in real life, too.

We don't need you to tell us whether Eve is or is not "hard enough" with or without sanctums you arrogant overblown id-driven self-important drama queen. Apart from being someone to mock, someone to be occasionally toyed with and laughed at, the only attention you are worth is pointing how in this post you epitomize a total fraud.

"Boo-hoo....there's too many cyno jammers and jump bridges. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'm a leet supergamer."

Svenne009
Heroes.
Merciless.
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:31:00 - [2081]
 

I think CCP has it wrong and actually thinks grinding anomaly's is fun.

Let's say a fitted Zealot costs about 170M (T2 + ammo + paste), and a "normal" income per tick is about 15M when running Haven's or Sanctum's. A bit low, but realistic, not everyone rats in carriers or dead-space fitted ships and taken in consideration the delay between the anomaly's and possible reds/neutrals in system.

So it would take me about 12*20min = 4H to earn that. Thats excluding a costly clone or needed implants.

If that income drops to about 10M/tick - about what you would get in our current ratting space, doing the low-end anomaly's. Lengthens my grind to +- 6H for that ship. Thats a lot of risk/effort Vs reward.

Knowing that you could the same isk or more jumping to Empire missions or WH space. And most of the time there is less upkeep cost involved, less risk, ... So a lot of people will relocate characters to named places. And come to 0.0 for the announced/obligated SRP fleets -> more blob, less small gang warfare.

And alliances fight over MOONS not over ratting systems.

Joker 725
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:33:00 - [2082]
 

If you truly want to do something to fix nullsec on an epic scale for fighting, then fix the lag problem FIRST before you start screwing up the ability for average players to earn ISK, buy ships and fittings, and participate in these battles that you somehow think are an improvement. I've seen it said over and over in this thread and I have to agree - you truly have no clue on what goes on in nullsec. You're just an EvE bureaucrat ruining the game one stupid decision at a time.

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:40:00 - [2083]
 

Originally by: Joker 725
then fix the lag problem FIRST before

There will never be a fix, make it possible for 1000 v 1000, you nubs will just nap more people and bring in more, and then the fight will be 2000 v 1000. LAG FIXED RIGHT????

Optimator One
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:43:00 - [2084]
 

Originally by: Svenne009
I think CCP has it wrong and actually thinks grinding anomaly's is fun.

Let's say a fitted Zealot costs about 170M (T2 + ammo + paste), and a "normal" income per tick is about 15M when running Haven's or Sanctum's. A bit low, but realistic, not everyone rats in carriers or dead-space fitted ships and taken in consideration the delay between the anomaly's and possible reds/neutrals in system.

So it would take me about 12*20min = 4H to earn that. Thats excluding a costly clone or needed implants.

If that income drops to about 10M/tick - about what you would get in our current ratting space, doing the low-end anomaly's. Lengthens my grind to +- 6H for that ship. Thats a lot of risk/effort Vs reward.

Knowing that you could the same isk or more jumping to Empire missions or WH space. And most of the time there is less upkeep cost involved, less risk, ... So a lot of people will relocate characters to named places. And come to 0.0 for the announced/obligated SRP fleets -> more blob, less small gang warfare.

And alliances fight over MOONS not over ratting systems.


You're forgetting corp TAX over that 12m per tick. and that makes 8m per tick then.

CALWELL
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:50:00 - [2085]
 

WELL U THINK THAT BY DOING THIS CCP THAT U THINK IT WILL MAKE IT BETTER? WELL GUESS WHAT, IT WONT!!!!!!!!!! AND ALSO EXPECT 600 MEMBERS EITHER TO QUIT OR GUESS WHAT WE R GOING TO CRASH ALL MISSION RUNNERS SCAN THEM DOWN BLOW THEM UP COMPLETE THEIR MISSIONS WHILE THEY DIE IN A BLAZE OF GLORY JUST TO MAKE OUR MONEY SYSTEMS LIKE UMOKKA KAIMON OHSIAMIA NORV AND HAVE 600 PPL SITTING ON THE UNDOCK OF JITA AND BLOW WHATEVER UNDOCKS THEN WE'LL QUIT UR GAME OR JUST BY PLEXES AND NEVER PAY U A DIME AGAIN GUESS WHO'LL LOOSE CCP

Dark Templari
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:56:00 - [2086]
 

This is ******ed. They want to nerf the individual players income to encourage fighting but won't touch moons. They prove with every small change they know nothing about the game.


Inmei T'ko
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:56:00 - [2087]
 

Originally by: Xel Ra
Originally by: Kovid
Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally.

The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts.

I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity.

CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity.

No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better.

After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started.





You're so corny. Their "beliefs". It's not a religion, and you're not the high priest of pvp, you drama queen. What a cheeseball, "toppling goliaths" in your spaceship game.

You have no idea what other people think, whether they plan to fight with the isk they made or not, with your blanket statements of pure drivel. You come in here, posting since page 1, obsessed with the legitimacy of your own voice, convinced of your own self-righteousness by the inflated size of your aggrandized ego. You sure are impressed with yourself in the "harsh place" of the computer screen you're staring into. What a joke.

You're actually begging CCP in this post to make defense _less_ difficult and to give you more _offensive options_, because your so freakin' leet, right? What a pathetic crybaby pot calling the kettle black. You need CCP to hold your hand, you need all the "carebears" to be nerfed, why, because you're so tough, you're so billy bob badass that you can't do it otherwise? Do you even listen to the ridiculous tripe that you post in your own head before you post it? Do you realize what choad you sound like?

Go ahead, dude. Keep squacking on into the night for hours, post after post, with you gameworld _ideology_ that only you, the chosen prophet of Eve, see with any perspicacity. I bet you try this hard in real life, too.

We don't need you to tell us whether Eve is or is not "hard enough" with or without sanctums you arrogant overblown id-driven self-important drama queen. Apart from being someone to mock, someone to be occasionally toyed with and laughed at, the only attention you are worth is pointing how in this post you epitomize a total fraud.

"Boo-hoo....there's too many cyno jammers and jump bridges. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'm a leet supergamer."


THis! Oh, this. ROFL

Mort269
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.04.01 01:58:00 - [2088]
 

PLEASE tell me this is all just an April Fools joke. =)

Lev Aeris
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.04.01 02:28:00 - [2089]
 

Originally by: Mort269
PLEASE tell me this is all just an April Fools joke. =)



Even if it wasn't intended to be one, they still have about 20 hours to capitalize on using that graceful exit strategy. ;)

RabbidFerret
Kinetic Cartel
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.04.01 02:51:00 - [2090]
 

Moons....


Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.04.01 03:16:00 - [2091]
 

Originally by: Gothiczwerg
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda

Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ****ed.

0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites
0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site
0.45 - 0.6499 = no change
0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site
0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites

Your formula for change in sites should be
=(cx*-4)+(dx*-1)+(fx*1)+(gx*6)
(where x is the row number)


If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12.


So all I can conclude from this is either you weren’t entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH.

(just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.)


You are wrong with this:
In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change)

it sounds for me:
0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 1st band no sites
0.25 - 0.4499 = -4 site 2nd band no sites
0.45 - 0.6499 = -1 site 3rd band 3-4 sites
0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 4th band 4-5 sites
0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites 5th band 10 sites

maximum of the 4 sites (2 havens 2 Sanctums) in the 3rd and 4th band ... -1 and +1 respectively




No. They were very explicit in most cases:
Band 1: 0 sites
Band 2: 3 > sites > 0 (I strongly suspect 2)
Band 3: 3
Band 4: 5
Band 5: 10

-Liang

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.01 03:30:00 - [2092]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Gothiczwerg
Originally by: Sarina Rhoda

Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ****ed.

0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites
0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site
0.45 - 0.6499 = no change
0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site
0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites

Your formula for change in sites should be
=(cx*-4)+(dx*-1)+(fx*1)+(gx*6)
(where x is the row number)


If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12.


So all I can conclude from this is either you weren’t entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH.

(just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.)


You are wrong with this:
In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change)

it sounds for me:
0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 1st band no sites
0.25 - 0.4499 = -4 site 2nd band no sites
0.45 - 0.6499 = -1 site 3rd band 3-4 sites
0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 4th band 4-5 sites
0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites 5th band 10 sites

maximum of the 4 sites (2 havens 2 Sanctums) in the 3rd and 4th band ... -1 and +1 respectively




No. They were very explicit in most cases:
Band 1: 0 sites
Band 2: 3 > sites > 0 (I strongly suspect 2)
Band 3: 3
Band 4: 5
Band 5: 10

-Liang

And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.04.01 03:38:00 - [2093]
 

Edited by: Widemouth Deepthroat on 01/04/2011 03:38:26
derp could be worng

Quincy Taggart
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:17:00 - [2094]
 

Edited by: Quincy Taggart on 01/04/2011 04:17:37
Dumb asses...

Less isk, less fun, less 0.0 population, less players...

time to dust off my mission runner ugh

Miso Hawnee
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:22:00 - [2095]
 


The last time I saw anything this imbecilic was when CCP Nozh posted his (mis)understanding of target painters.

Gimmy Rotten
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:25:00 - [2096]
 

real True Sec !

\o/ thx CCP

Fredrick Engly
RaVal Thyokill Industies Inc.
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:42:00 - [2097]
 

This is just ******ed. Has to be a joke and a bloody bad one at that. Call for this guys resignation

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:45:00 - [2098]
 

Originally by: mkmin

And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick.


Maybe its because that's what the dev blog says:
Originally by: Dev Blog

In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.



Lets break it down:
- Current is 4 sites
- the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively.
- Band 3 = 3 sites
- Band 4 = 5 sites
- Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change)
- Band 1 = 0 sites
- Band 2 = Some sites (1-2)
- but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades.
- Band 5 = 10 sites

-Liang

Lost'In'Space
Posted - 2011.04.01 04:46:00 - [2099]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: mkmin

And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick.


Maybe its because that's what the dev blog says:
Originally by: Dev Blog

In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.



Lets break it down:
- Current is 4 sites
- the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively.
- Band 3 = 3 sites
- Band 4 = 5 sites
- Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change)
- Band 1 = 0 sites
- Band 2 = Some sites (1-2)
- but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades.
- Band 5 = 10 sites

-Liang


How long before the sites get re-spawned?

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.04.01 05:00:00 - [2100]
 

Originally by: Lost'In'Space
How long before the sites get re-spawned?


The dev blog didn't mention any changes in spawn timers. You did read it right?

-Liang


Pages: first : previous : ... 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 ... : 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