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 : ... 83 84 85 86 [87] 88 89 90 91 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

fibergunner
Posted - 2011.04.04 00:23:00 - [2581]
 

Being in a coalition that you have so many caps and son field you can easily rf ANY tower in 5 minutes or less. Thanks for the kill mails 2 days later.

BFF <Twisted Evil

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN
Quote:

I reckon a propper Capfleet will be most impressed by your hardeners.
Smart idea +10

I dont they have a chance against a whole coalition XD not that the hardners are gonna prevent the invitable.


I was assuming it would be more than one tower. About 20 towers with a lot of hardeners on. Then listen in on comms to hear the moaning about having to siege all of them. Watch as the amount of people willing to x up goes down more and more. Then, hot drop them with DRF and watch from the safety of the POS as many dread pilots get punched in the *******.

Granted you still will be kicked out but at least you didn't go down like a *****. Or am I thinking some of these renters have a spine?

HaVoK023
FW Scuad
E C L I P S E
Posted - 2011.04.04 00:33:00 - [2582]
 

I cant belive that here are people who agree with these changes.. They must live in High sec or wormholes.. because this anomalies changes are not good for anyone living in null sec.

Go do mission carebears and stop posting **** here.

rofflesausage
Posted - 2011.04.04 00:35:00 - [2583]
 

Originally by: Lonely Island

Problem is the Dominion changes encouraged the wrong type of player to set up shop in 0.0. ie Alliances such as FCON, FA, WTF, LAWN would have no business in 0.0 if they actually had to fight for their own space.


Now you're talking about something entirely different.

I remember when the provi-block was falling, and with no realistic chance of winning, FCON still fielded full fleets to give hell before they got kicked out. They went out in their ships and left in their pods (or woke in their clones).

0.0 has little to do with 'fighting for your own space' - I'm in absolute awe at anyone that thinks this is the case. Nullsec is about NAPs and blobs. Nothing more.

This change changes neither.

It does nothing other than take the people who have spent billions on the 'upgrades' system, and nerfs their purchases with almost no warning.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.04 00:51:00 - [2584]
 

Somewhere in null sec...
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Sanctum Nerf 2011

bp920091
Killer Koalas
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.04.04 01:07:00 - [2585]
 

Edited by: bp920091 on 04/04/2011 01:12:50
Originally by: HaVoK023
I cant belive that here are people who agree with these changes.. They must live in High sec or wormholes.. because this anomalies changes are not good for anyone living in null sec.

Go do mission carebears and stop posting **** here.


You know, this is almost completely true. The people for this change fall into three categories, two of which will not be affected by this change at all.

1. People in highsecurity space, possibly jealous of the people out in 0.0, therefore wishing them harm. These people may not have ever travelled out into 0.0, so why should they feel the need to elaborate about what should happen out in 0.0.
2. People living in low security space, completely convinced that they are the "PVP masters of EVE" and they have nothing but hate and contempt for the people who live out in 0.0. These people should have no say in the matter, as they do not rely on sancutms/havens for ANY of their income
3. People living out in 0.0, getting rich off moongoo, or have a highly sucessful trading alt in highsec.

For the average alliance member in 0.0, this is a terrible change, it will wreck their ability to field ships that are actually effective (ever heard of a non logistics ship besides a carrier that was good at repping >500 dps?).

All this change will accomplish is a short term buying of plex, while good for CCP in the short term, will be incredibly detrimental in the long term.

Also what i find to frustrating about these changes is the fact that CCP is trying to be so underhanded about them. How they are being underhanded follows.

1. This change was never discussed with the CSM, or at least never made it into the minutes for the meetings
2. This never appeared in the developer blog newsletter, which describes the major developer blogs in the past month
3. this was released during fanfest, where a good number of the most enthusiastic players were not able to even really know about it until they got back home.
4. The reasons for this change that were listed never really made sense and were dismissed within the first 5 five (im being generous to CCP) pages of this thread.
5. The response from CCP greyscale after a few pages said that their models predicted overall good changes. Yet if these models did show good changes, perhaps showing them to the playerbase would be a good idea. Even if they didn't want to show us them, perhaps just describing what will happen, in a somewhat logical manner.

CCP used to be a company that listened to it's customers, developers were very active on forums, and the majority if not all people at CCP actually played the game itself. I am sorry to see that in recent years, all of these things have been occurring less. I personally think that everyone at CCP should be REQUIRED to play eve, just punish any developer that uses any out of game tools (ie developer tools) to improve their (or their friend's) gameplay. This would go a long way to resolving a lot of problems in EVE right now.

/edit. If you do not believe me about these people, feel free to check up on these people on killboards, go look for yourself if you do not believe me.http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/index.php

Oh, and i also forgot about people in WH space, they also will not be affected by this change.

Sister Megabitch
Posted - 2011.04.04 01:16:00 - [2586]
 

I want my system upgrade isk back.... I payed for one thing and you bait and switched me.Concord should gank your a$$.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.04.04 01:50:00 - [2587]
 

Originally by: bp920091

You know, this is almost completely true. The people for this change fall into three categories, two of which will not be affected by this change at all.

2. People living in low security space ... These people should have no say in the matter, as they do not rely on sancutms/havens for ANY of their income



A few comments:
- It seems perfectly reasonable for me to have an opinion about the raw ISK that floods into the economy from 0.0 sanctums.
- People from all walks of life (in and out of game) create perfectly well reasoned opinions about things they have no direct involvement in.
- 0.0 PVPers frequently cry about how high sec missions should be massively nerfed.
- Intel channels and blueing everyone within 40 jumps guarantees that there's no risk in 0.0 PVE... except the risk of falling asleep in your sanctum.

Go run a sanctum about it. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
For the average alliance member in 0.0, this is a terrible change


In the short term, yes. In the long term, I suspect not changing things would be far worse.
Quote:
1. This change was never discussed with the CSM


The CSM has proven it cannot be trusted with large structural changes to Eve's economy.

Quote:
2. This never appeared in the developer blog newsletter, which describes the major developer blogs in the past month


They came out at near the same time. Its entirely possible this one simply didn't make it into this month's newsletter. Try not to attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.

Quote:
3. this was released during fanfest, where a good number of the most enthusiastic players were not able to even really know about it until they got back home.


On the contrary - it allowed them the opportunity to discuss it face to face.

Quote:
4. The reasons for this change that were listed never really made sense and were dismissed within the first 5 five (im being generous to CCP) pages of this thread.


They don't make sense to a person burying their head in the sand... yes, I agree.

Quote:
5. The response from CCP greyscale after a few pages said that their models predicted overall good changes. Yet if these models did show good changes, perhaps showing them to the playerbase would be a good idea. Even if they didn't want to show us them, perhaps just describing what will happen, in a somewhat logical manner.


The players in this thread have proven beyond doubt that they aren't willing to listen to anything that disturbs their favorite ISK fountain and will only entertain ideas that further break the game.

Quote:

CCP used to be a company that listened to it's customers, developers were very active on forums, and the majority if not all people at CCP actually played the game itself. I am sorry to see that in recent years, all of these things have been occurring less. I personally think that everyone at CCP should be REQUIRED to play eve, just punish any developer that uses any out of game tools (ie developer tools) to improve their (or their friend's) gameplay. This would go a long way to resolving a lot of problems in EVE right now.



Amusingly, a lot of CCP people DO play the game. Someone in your own alliance probably helped come up with this change and is listening to you ignorantly rant about it on TS.

-Liang

Omtaga
Posted - 2011.04.04 02:13:00 - [2588]
 

There must be a master list somewhere of:

"Things to try to get experienced players to all join one of two alliances."

Yep, That's what the Chinese did, it's probably easier to manage "one" game, btw, when are we merging with the Chinese Servers? Wouldn't that just make everything more chaotic and fun? Shouldn't 0.0 be deeper, it seems a little narrow? Can we get more space, like a lot more? Isn't highsec just way too big, or is it just me? I guess I'm saying I want the game to have lots more 0.0 and no additions to highsec and some new real badguys.

lpttpnalt
Posted - 2011.04.04 02:17:00 - [2589]
 

WHEN WILL YOU RESPOND CCP.

all the forumtrolls are doing is beating a dead horse right now. give us something to read UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

Dream Raven
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.04 02:25:00 - [2590]
 

I guess it's back to running level 4s.

Zelman Axe
Posted - 2011.04.04 02:36:00 - [2591]
 

Forget it fellow POD Pilots the change has been listed for the 5th of April another screw up with balancing the game. If your not in a blob your nobody you will never have space because S%&TTY space will be used as a buffer zone, no renters, no small alliances no conflicts go the NAP fest.

Mistchaser
Posted - 2011.04.04 02:37:00 - [2592]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
The players in this thread have proven beyond doubt that they aren't willing to listen to anything that disturbs their favorite ISK fountain and will only entertain ideas that further break the game.


Um, actually, if you look at just the previous page, there is an interesting suggestion by Avallarion Selara which looks more like a compromise, and which seems reasonable to me, and might to anyone else who has actually run a sanctum. Instead of completely nuking military upgrades, why not just make the truesec have SOME impact on the frequency of high-end anoms spawning.

You realize that those military upgrades cost 2.25 billion isk per system, right? And now they aren't going to do what they were thought to do when they were purchased. In some cases they were just put in, or are still being put in by people who don't anticipate this nerf.

And you know what turns off the isk faucet real quick? Hunting the ratters. There's nothing that says "Juicy Targets Live Here" like having military index to 5 in the first place. And Dotlan has a handy feature that lets you see how many rats have been killed per system in the last 1 or 24 hours. Put a single cloaked ship in a system, and all of a sudden the faucet dries up. Add a cyno and some friends, and if anyone does dare to rat you can make them pay for it with a vengeance.

I don't know where this illusion of being blue to everyone within 40 jumps comes from. I live in the north, and there are reds all over the place.

Why not let the players take care of the other players? Trust me, no one wants a stagnant game, no one wants to just sit around and rat all day. I'd much rather play some other game than do that. But I do want the nullsec systems that I fought for, pay massive sov bills for, and fight to defend all of the time to provide me with the cash I need to maintain and defend them.

couriertrading alt
Posted - 2011.04.04 02:51:00 - [2593]
 

I have not lived in 0.0 for a few months now, however i dont see these changes doing anything good for anyone except the major alliances who will have larger buffer zones of useless space that does not need to be deffended in the same way as currently.

Surly it would make more sense to leave the anom's as they are and add higher quality anom's at lower true sec to encourage the capture and holding of these area's as opposed to making them the only area's where a player can fund their own PVP, 0.0 is very expensive when you are trying to take space and you do need a way of making isk, MoonGoo is for sov and other important things so we run anom's for profit as ratting to is to high risk for too low profit (profit equal to level 2/3 in high sec at best maybe)

If you go through with this better work on uping the player cap in high sec systems again because they are going to be a whole new kind of busy Sad


Bubanni
Cryptonym Sleepers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:08:00 - [2594]
 

They could change the value of the rats based on true sec instead of removing the anomalies. :) (1.4-1.8mil battleships in -1 true sec, and 700-900k battleships in 0.0 as highest value in in big sanctums for an example)

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:33:00 - [2595]
 

Edited by: The Mittani on 04/04/2011 03:33:47
wow he actually wrote that alliances choose space based on anomaly or ratting reasons, and that we pick our staging systems in conflicts based on anomalies or truesec.

huh

i'd avoided reading this blog because it came out while i was geting ******edly drunk at fanfest and then for a few days after, but this is pretty disturbing stuff from greyscale, not gonna lie

you ccp guys do know most modern alliances reimburse fleet ships and so the actual trusec of a staging system has absolutely no impact upon the combat strength/ability to fight of an alliance at war, right?

85 page thread this post is gonna get lost in the shuffle but this is p. disturbing because of the ignorance it displays about the realities of how nullsec alliances work in practice



The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:38:00 - [2596]
 

yo fwiw i don't mind differences in space quality and think too much nullsec homogeneity is a bad thing, what worries me about this dev blog isn't the actual anom change itself but the apparent ignorance in the reasoning displayed to justify it, which indicates a much more far-reaching problem

deklein has the best trusec in the game p much so from a brass-tacks, my-own-alliance perspective idgaf, but when a dev makes a long post and the reasoning behind it is suspect, i get worried.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:39:00 - [2597]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
yo fwiw i don't mind differences in space quality and think too much nullsec homogeneity is a bad thing, what worries me about this dev blog isn't the actual anom change itself but the apparent ignorance in the reasoning displayed to justify it, which indicates a much more far-reaching problem

deklein has the best trusec in the game p much so from a brass-tacks, my-own-alliance perspective idgaf, but when a dev makes a long post and the reasoning behind it is suspect, i get worried.


Maybe he figured it would go over worse if he said "you guys are making too much money which is bad for the economy, so we're going to make it harder for you to make money unless you fight for the good spots to grind ISK." Either way, I'm still happy with the change.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:42:00 - [2598]
 

"yo you guys are making too much iskies for your toonies and need a nerf" would be peachy, that's a reasonable argument

"alliances choose staging systems based on ratting/anom trusec" is a terrifying statement vOv

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:50:00 - [2599]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
Edited by: The Mittani on 04/04/2011 03:33:47
wow he actually wrote that alliances choose space based on anomaly or ratting reasons, and that we pick our staging systems in conflicts based on anomalies or truesec.

huh

i'd avoided reading this blog because it came out while i was geting ******edly drunk at fanfest and then for a few days after, but this is pretty disturbing stuff from greyscale, not gonna lie

you ccp guys do know most modern alliances reimburse fleet ships and so the actual trusec of a staging system has absolutely no impact upon the combat strength/ability to fight of an alliance at war, right?

85 page thread this post is gonna get lost in the shuffle but this is p. disturbing because of the ignorance it displays about the realities of how nullsec alliances work in practice



Potential income has to have some sort of impact for most alliance/corps in choosing space. The problem with this change is that it doesn't address moons and sov as well.

However, this change in and of itself is necessary and sane. Whereas leaving things the way they are (with near homogeneous space everyfrickenwhere) does not make any sense.

If people are going to have a ****ing heart attack over it, then I suggest CCP postpone this change so it can be rolled out in conjunction with _other_ changes that fix the other things in one fell swoop. Low quality null sec has place as an entry point for small corps/alliance, medium quality null sec where most day to day battles take place/buffer area, and high quality null sec as primary space for long term survival.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:54:00 - [2600]
 

yeah don't get me wrong i think there should be a difference between, say, cloud ring and delve in income potential




Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.04 04:11:00 - [2601]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
What's next?

You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.


Just going to leave this here.

So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining. Laughing

Pedro Snachez
Senex Legio
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2011.04.04 04:37:00 - [2602]
 

Edited by: Pedro Snachez on 04/04/2011 04:38:37
Originally by: Marconus Orion
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
What's next?

You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.


Just going to leave this here.

So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining. Laughing


Um, I think a lot of the frustration being expressed here is pretty much in line with what The Mittani said. CCP's reasoning for the changes doesn't even come close to matching the outcome that pretty much everybody can play out in their heads. If nerfing ISK income was the goal, then he should have just said that. Grayscale's argument is pretty flimsy and flies in the face of what most people know about 0.0, and coming from a dev that tends to **** people off.

Also, the classic "hey, let's implement vital components one at a time with HUGE amounts of time in-between" that CCP rolls out for most expansions doesn't go over too well when the first stage is a massive hatchet blow to personal income. Turning vast areas of 0.0 worthless and saying "let's see what happens!" is better left on SISI until other concepts are ready to go to counterbalance it. People are getting ragey, and that might be entertaining, but the delivery by CCP has definitely made things much worse than they needed to be.

Kitty Strokum
Posted - 2011.04.04 04:40:00 - [2603]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
What's next?

You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.


Just going to leave this here.

So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining. Laughing


Only the rich players get moons... most moons are left for 'alliance' or 'corp' not the individual.

Doris Dragonbreath
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2011.04.04 04:53:00 - [2604]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
What's next?

You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. We're conducting an ongoing review of nullsec issues at the moment, with items on the agenda including force projection tweaks, conquest mechanic adjustments and improvements to the nullsec industrial landscape. Keep your eyes peeled for more updates as the year progresses, and let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love that you'd like to see brought to the top of our priorities.


Just going to leave this here.

So funny to see you all conveniently forget about this part of the dev blog because it does help your argument. So there goes your *****ing and moaning argument about how they are ignoring moons, sov system, logistics and industry. But please keep QQing in here. It has been most entertaining. Laughing


So much "ongoing review". Basically this thread boils down to nice "feckk ya we going to do it anyway" from CCP. From patch notes one can see that this will be implemented regardless of bold diclaimers in the middle of this thread "we are thinking about it".

Quote:

The type of anomalies spawned by sovereignty upgrades now will be affected by the security status of the system. See CCP Greyscale's blog (http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883) for more information. Please note that these changes will take effect within the first week after deployment and will not all be updated immediately after the patch is deployed.


I have decided to go emo about it. Dropped sub on all my secondary accounts. I'll give it a month before I decide if I will take ... "extended break" from EVE. You see I would like dinner and movie at least before getting screwed. Only positive thing out of this **** is that I had not dropped station on top of the ihub in my home system that shall now be worse than doing lev 4 missions in hi sec.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.04 05:01:00 - [2605]
 

Originally by: Kitty Strokum
Only the rich players get moons... most moons are left for 'alliance' or 'corp' not the individual.


Players make up a corp. Corps make up an alliance. What happens to a players wallet will have an effect on the alliance and on a larger scale, the coalition.

If you corp/alliance/coalition leaders are keeping all the profits from moon goo and not helping the grunts out who help acquire and protect said moons, then your a fool for staying. Unless you like role playing being a slave.

Whatever happens to the individual players DOES have an impact on coalitions.

Gistatis Tribunus
Posted - 2011.04.04 05:07:00 - [2606]
 

:conspiracy: :conspiracy: CCP HATES 0.0 OMG ALL MY ISK GONE I QUIT NOW BB!!1111

In all seriousness, I do believe that this will have good effects in long run and I support these changes.

Dalketh
Posted - 2011.04.04 05:53:00 - [2607]
 

This is why so many people have a problem with you being chairman of the new CSM.... getting drunk and being flippant about serious issues while these things are pushed through. Stellar start to your reign. One earns respect - you don't get it by block votes.

Originally by: The Mittani

huh

i'd avoided reading this blog because it came out while i was geting ******edly drunk at fanfest and then for a few days after, but this is pretty disturbing stuff from greyscale, not gonna lie


The Offerer
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.04 05:58:00 - [2608]
 

Originally by: Gistatis Tribunus
:conspiracy: :conspiracy: CCP HATES 0.0 OMG ALL MY ISK GONE I QUIT NOW BB!!1111


It won't be that funny when subscription count drops Wink

Quincy Taggart
Posted - 2011.04.04 05:59:00 - [2609]
 

This is bad for every 0.0 player. Do NOT do this. There is no reason to nerf the individual players income unless you want a lot of unhappy players. Having to press the bar for twice as long to get my isk pellet is NOT fun. And I need the isk pellets to fund my 0.0 conflict....you are defeating your own purpose...


Triksia Bonsol
Posted - 2011.04.04 06:17:00 - [2610]
 

Dear CCP Greyscale !

Get your hands off our sanctums and heavens !

Were can I vote to abandone this "improvement" and tell us - who from CSM 5 asked for this ??

A you REALLY understand and want to more high-sec mission runners in emperia space ? This is no ANY profit/gain to hunting Hubs and lower anomalies !

You should better re-balance Technecium Moons and fix lags in big fleet battles.


Pages: first : previous : ... 83 84 85 86 [87] 88 89 90 91 ... : 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