Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Siri Buelle
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:23:00 -
[1]
Yes, I 've seen countless of threads about this in the Eve forums, but every single one of them is just filled with whining. Some people go on an explain what the issues are, something about Sanctums and Havens and i dont know what, its still very confusing for a newbie.
So if anybody is willing can you provide an explanation on what is going on with this 0.0 nerf? What used to be the case with low-sec space? What are they changing exactly? What are these sanctums and havens and this free ISK inflow im reading about?
Thank you in advance.
|
foksieloy
Minmatar Universal Army
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:25:00 -
[2]
Edited by: foksieloy on 06/04/2011 18:25:21 tl;dr; A year and a half ago players recived a lollipop. Now CCP took it away and made them cry. _______________________ The best thing in EvE is Barrage M. |
Baneken
Gallente The New Knighthood Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:29:00 -
[3]
Sanctums and heavens are anomalies that only spawn in null sec in great numbers and they harbour mostly 1-2 mil bounty BS's (about 20-30 per anomaly or more along with cruisers and such).
It's not like you can't make money other ways in null, it's just that new guys in null are so used on having "better then lvl 4's" ISK source delivered right on their door step.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Siri Buelle
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Siri Buelle on 06/04/2011 18:31:37 so from what i understood some large alliances that own a lot of 0.0 rent this space by letting people go after these anomalies and farm the BS etc that spawn?
|
Baneken
Gallente The New Knighthood Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Baneken on 06/04/2011 18:33:31
Originally by: Siri Buelle Edited by: Siri Buelle on 06/04/2011 18:31:37 so from what i understood some large alliances that own a lot of 0.0 rent this space by letting people go after these anomalies and farm the BS etc that spawn?
That and they also keep their members happy when they can just rat and grow fat all day long.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Dr Richard Dawkins
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:39:00 -
[6]
Originally by: foksieloy tl;dr; A year and a half ago players recived a lollipop. Now CCP took it away and made them cry.
This.
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:39:00 -
[7]
Before the Dominion expansion, 0.0 ownership and claiming sovereignty revolved around installing and blowing up "deathstar" POSes; the major wars were basically POS-shooting campaigns. Once an alliance got itself installed in an area, it could rat, mine, establish outposts as local trade hubs, as well as mine the local moons and build capital ships.
The thing was, not all space was equal; some 0.0 areas had really really good moons and rats, others had basically the crap you can find in lowsec empire space. This basically caused the big wars, as alliances all fought over the "best" areas.
Then CCP decided to entice high-sec players to move into 0.0, and their idea was to let players choose to "upgrade" any space to be equal to the "best space" if only you grind hard enough. They also changed the sovereignty mechanics to the whole IHUB TCU business (this makes the cost of keeping sovereignty higher).
So, people adapted; they put down IHUBs and upgraded their space and started getting rather rich (partly via botting) from farming the upgraded space. So instead of this happening only with a couple alliances in a few systems where the best rats were, it could now happen everywhere - everyone all over 0.0 could farm upgraded rats and PVE sites.
So pretty soon the amount of ISK in the game balooned, and everyone stopped fighting, because they had no reason to go attack someone else's space, since their own space was just as good. And CCP didn't like that; they want conflict and big wars and destruction of property.
So they're nerfing it.
And almost everyone who's grinded to upgrade space is now losing the benefits of the grind, with their space becoming sucky again, and no reimbursement. So they're complaining.
|
Kinectd Hashish
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:53:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Merouk Baas Before the Dominion expansion, 0.0 ownership and claiming sovereignty revolved around installing and blowing up "deathstar" POSes; the major wars were basically POS-shooting campaigns. Once an alliance got itself installed in an area, it could rat, mine, establish outposts as local trade hubs, as well as mine the local moons and build capital ships.
The thing was, not all space was equal; some 0.0 areas had really really good moons and rats, others had basically the crap you can find in lowsec empire space. This basically caused the big wars, as alliances all fought over the "best" areas.
Then CCP decided to entice high-sec players to move into 0.0, and their idea was to let players choose to "upgrade" any space to be equal to the "best space" if only you grind hard enough. They also changed the sovereignty mechanics to the whole IHUB TCU business (this makes the cost of keeping sovereignty higher).
So, people adapted; they put down IHUBs and upgraded their space and started getting rather rich (partly via botting) from farming the upgraded space. So instead of this happening only with a couple alliances in a few systems where the best rats were, it could now happen everywhere - everyone all over 0.0 could farm upgraded rats and PVE sites.
So pretty soon the amount of ISK in the game balooned, and everyone stopped fighting, because they had no reason to go attack someone else's space, since their own space was just as good. And CCP didn't like that; they want conflict and big wars and destruction of property.
So they're nerfing it.
And almost everyone who's grinded to upgrade space is now losing the benefits of the grind, with their space becoming sucky again, and no reimbursement. So they're complaining.
I never understood any of this either. But you, sir, summed it all up for me. Thank you. ^_^ I'm the new guy. :) |
Siri Buelle
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:56:00 -
[9]
thanks from me as well
|
Tau Cabalander
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:59:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 06/04/2011 19:03:20
Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
Every system has a security level, or "sec". The one that used to be displayed was a rounded version of the actual database value, or the "truesec". Example: 0.49 truesec was rounded to 0.5 sec
Nulsec systems are can be as low as -0.99 truesec which was still displayed as 0.0 sec (todays patch changes this allow displaying negative sec, but still not truesec).
The lower the truesec, the higher the rat bounty is, and after the patch some NPC sites will no longer spawn in lower quality nulsec.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 19:56:00 -
[11]
Originally by: foksieloy tl;dr; A year and a half ago players recived a lollipop. Now CCP took it away and made them cry.
Correction : CCP is now taking back PORTIONS of SOME of the lollipops.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
ChYph3r
Multiplex Gaming
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 20:02:00 -
[12]
Originally by: foksieloy Edited by: foksieloy on 06/04/2011 18:25:21 tl;dr; A year and a half ago players recived a lollipop. Now CCP took it away and made them cry.
Do you have my lolipop? Talking to all of you is like clapping with one hand! |
LHA Tarawa
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 21:27:00 -
[13]
Pre-dominion, the goodies in 0.0 were limited. The big allainces tried to keep others out so they would have fewer people to split thier cake with.
CCP decided this limited the maximum player base too much so made changes to encourage allainces to allow others in. You could upgrade your systems and get virtually limitless number of rats and high end rocks to shoot and profit off of.
And it worked. The alliances welcomed in these newcomers and charged them huge rents. During big fights, the new comers were expected to help fight, exploding the size of fleet fights.
CCP desperately needs to break up the few mega-coalitions into dozens or even hundreds of much smaller entities to shrink the size of the mega fleet fights. However, I don't think they have a clue how to do it. So, they will settle for undoing the near unlimited cash possible from most of 0.0 and drive people back out of 0.0 to shrink the size of the big fleet fights back down toward a more managable size.
Blob wins, so people will continue to blob. Therefore, CCP is never going to be successful at the one thing they are despeate to do... break up the coalitions into much smaller entities.
|
Dr Richard Dawkins
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 21:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: LHA Tarawa Blob wins, so people will continue to blob. Therefore, CCP is never going to be successful at the one thing they are despeate to do... break up the coalitions into much smaller entities.
Remove supercaps, that solves pretty much everything.
|
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 22:46:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Merouk Baas
So pretty soon the amount of ISK in the game balooned, and everyone stopped fighting, because they had no reason to go attack someone else's space, since their own space was just as good.
This is absolutely not true. The majority of the fighting in 0.0 has very little to do with system resources. I also believe that you know that.
|
mkint
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 22:48:00 -
[16]
Originally by: ACY GTMI
Originally by: Merouk Baas
So pretty soon the amount of ISK in the game balooned, and everyone stopped fighting, because they had no reason to go attack someone else's space, since their own space was just as good.
This is absolutely not true. The majority of the fighting in 0.0 has very little to do with system resources. I also believe that you know that.
It's not true, but CCP seems to think it's true.
But yeah, all the old pre-dominion wars were to control the r64 moons, so CCP nerfed them and is now surprised people aren't fighting the same kinds of wars. :S
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 23:49:00 -
[17]
In my opinion, CCP has to apply a little bit of "level/dungeon design" to the 0.0 space. The layout of the pipelines and of where the resources are is not that great for a fun strategic war plan. Areas are huge and require huge alliances to defend, pipelines are few and by now predictable, and moons etc. were somewhat randomly seeded (and all the locations are known, and fixed, too).
Unfortunately, they cannot change the map without upsetting the players - there is no way to pull a Cataclysm in a sandbox game where the players have been providing the content for 7+ years (and even if they do, the resulting land-rush can still result in a ruined game). Perhaps a slow change, a couple stargate links changed per week, might be accepted by the playerbase, as it would give people time to adjust / move / plan contingencies, but probably not.
|
Dr Richard Dawkins
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 00:30:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Merouk Baas In my opinion, CCP has to apply a little bit of "level/dungeon design" to the 0.0 space. The layout of the pipelines and of where the resources are is not that great for a fun strategic war plan. Areas are huge and require huge alliances to defend, pipelines are few and by now predictable, and moons etc. were somewhat randomly seeded (and all the locations are known, and fixed, too).
Unfortunately, they cannot change the map without upsetting the players - there is no way to pull a Cataclysm in a sandbox game where the players have been providing the content for 7+ years (and even if they do, the resulting land-rush can still result in a ruined game). Perhaps a slow change, a couple stargate links changed per week, might be accepted by the playerbase, as it would give people time to adjust / move / plan contingencies, but probably not.
Problem is JB's make the pipes and layouts irrelavent. JB's and SCs have seriously warped the gameplay and there's really nothing CCP can do to improve things (on the whole) without significant nerfs/changes to how they play a part in sov. warfare.
|
Terion Fierceglade
Gallente Shadow Directive
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 08:11:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Merouk Baas And almost everyone who's grinded to upgrade space is now losing the benefits of the grind, with their space becoming sucky again, and no reimbursement. So they're complaining.
I've wondered the same thing as OP and your explanation sums it all up perfect. Thanks very much.
|
Siri Buelle
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 12:14:00 -
[20]
Oh can someone also explain why people say removing supercaps will fix the issue? I know what supercaps are but I don't know why people consider them one of the causes of this problem.
|
|
Terion Fierceglade
Gallente Shadow Directive
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 12:29:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Siri Buelle I know what supercaps are
What are supercaps?
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.07 14:37:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Merouk Baas on 07/04/2011 14:39:02
Capital Ships are Dreadnoughts, Carriers, and, technically, all the other various bigger-than-a-battleship ships (Rorqual, freighters).
Super-capital Ships are the really huge capital ships: Supercarriers (previously named Motherships) and Titans. These ships cannot dock in stations, must be manufactured in space at 0.0 bases (takes months), and have HUGE DPS capabilities (Titans have a superweapon that can one-shot any ship, Supercarriers do huge damage via their Fighters and Fighter-bombers).
People want them to be nerfed for various reasons:
- they are getting very common (big alliances are pumping them out at 2x or more the rate at which they are destroyed in wars).
- small alliances that cannot aford to field these ships don't have a chance to win a fight against an alliance that can bring them to the field
- titans have the capability to create a jump-bridge field, teleporting whole fleets up to several star systems away, instantly from a safe base into the middle of the fight (and back if things go badly).
- capital ships in general tend to negate the layout of the map, esp. strategic bottlenecks and (fortified) buffer zones, because they have the ability to cyno-teleport across several star systems.
|
Disastro
Wrecking Shots Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 11:20:00 -
[23]
The short end of this discussion is... CCP is totally incapable of fixing lag in the game of Eve. So instead, they chose to do an end around because their programmers fail. The chose to do something to break up the size of the large fleets by making the alliances that hold space compete more for the higher end space that spawns many anomolies.
Of course.... This will fail. Because CCP has not considered the many other aspects of alliances and coalitions in eve. There are many reasons why coalitions exist in eve. It is not all about running anomolies. They will continue to exist well past this particular nerf. And lag will continue until they actually do some fixes to the code instead of choosing shortcuts like this.
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
|
Posted - 2011.04.10 17:42:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Disastro The short end of this discussion is... CCP is totally incapable of fixing lag in the game of Eve. So instead, they chose to do an end around because their programmers fail. The chose to do something to break up the size of the large fleets by making the alliances that hold space compete more for the higher end space that spawns many anomolies.
Of course.... This will fail. Because CCP has not considered the many other aspects of alliances and coalitions in eve. There are many reasons why coalitions exist in eve. It is not all about running anomolies. They will continue to exist well past this particular nerf. And lag will continue until they actually do some fixes to the code instead of choosing shortcuts like this.
And if you look closely, OP, you can see some of the butthurt and whine has seeped into this very thread. Watch and be amused.
|
Marcella Moreau
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 11:23:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Marcella Moreau on 11/04/2011 11:26:15 Edited by: Marcella Moreau on 11/04/2011 11:25:34 Trying to look at this from ccp's perspective. IE, the perspective of a game designer...
The goal here seems to me to be to create a "sandbox" that would please an extremely diverse and often contradictory player base. Please feel free to add or amend this as I'm sure I'm forgetting and/or mischaracterizing groups and people. CCP has to please the a)Empire Builders who want to control as much of nullspace as possible and who absolutely positively do not want others playing in their sandbox; b) the small alliances who believe that they should have a piece of nullspace all to themselves and who also absolutely positively do not want others playing in their sandboxes; c) elements of a and b who will allow others to play in their sandbox, but only after paying exorbitant rents; d)the "wildcatter" or "smuggler" who gets his kicks slipping around a, b, and c; e) the pvp pirate who wants to kill...kill...and oh yes...kill, and f) the carebear merchant/miner who wants to go about his business without having to deal with a, b, c, or e. And again, I'm sure there are other categories I haven't mentioned.
Frankly speaking, I don't think anyone can please all these groups! No matter what ccp does, someone is going to feel like they've got the short end of the stick here. If the sandbox could be enlarged, that might help some--for a while. Making it more difficult for big alliances to coordinate with each other through logistical or other mechanisms might help some--but you're going to torque off groups a and c if you do that. Skillful use of cloaking techniques etc. is usually good enough for the smuggler--maybe also allowing for the existence of the equivalent of "hidden" coves and inlets outside of WHs, but that could be detected with some effort might add some spice while at the same time providing a relatively safe harbor for the wildcatter trying to avoid the big alliance patrols and gatecamps.
So...how do you please the empire builders, pirate gangs, small-time alliances, smugglers and wildcatters, carebears, and God knows who else all at the same time? If someone can pull all that off, then CCP should name that person their new CEO!
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx |
Calfis
Amarr F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 18:37:00 -
[26]
A lot of the people complaining about the 0.0 nerf are the small alliances CCP intended to help by giving out lollipop space. Many of them are ex-high sec mission bears that have grown accustom to the easy isk for over a year.
CCP noticed that a lot of these small alliances are simply paying large alliances rent for a small parcel of space instead of actually fighting for it. They wanted to create an environment where small alliances can do small scale pvp to hold some null sec space. Instead they created vast areas for large alliances to lord over.
They now think that by taking away the value of this space that large alliances won't lord over it anymore (probably true) and small alliances can now fight for the space that the large ones no longer want to lord over (probably not true as most of the current renters despise fighting and are too well-fed by havens to want crap space).
Most of the complaining are angry mission bears that want their piece of null sec haven back.
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 22:13:00 -
[27]
Actually it's true. There used to be lots of smaller groups occupying the crappy space, making a meager living out there and having lots of small skirmishes as they tried to defend against roaming gangs and pirates. It was, actually, a pretty good balance of PVP times and peace/PVE times.
But right now, just taking away the benefits of upgrading the space results in a nerf, because it is quite a bit more expensive to install and keep sovereignty than previously.
I guess CCP wants to get rid of some of the ISK that's accumulated, but IMO not many are going to spend exorbitant sov. fees just to hold crappy space, so they would have to adjust the cost of holding sov. to be in tune with the truesec, otherwise it'll just be empty space as everyone moves to Empire.
|
Deen Wispa
Gallente Roughneck Regulators
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 06:06:00 -
[28]
So is it actually more profitable to run L4s than to run these Sanctums post-nerf?
-----------------
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 07:12:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Deen Wispa So is it actually more profitable to run L4s than to run these Sanctums post-nerf?
Level 4 missions can be blitzed to maximize LP income, sanctums do not involve LP income. Alternately, L4s can be run in a pimped-out marauder or pirate faction battleship. Running anomalies in a pimped out faction battleship is borderline insane.
On the other hand, it's rather difficult to run L4s in a T3 ship accompanied by 5 fighters, since carriers and super carriers are not allowed in hisec.
I think it boils down to how the individual pilot approaches anomalies versus L4 missions. I was belt-ratting in nullsec for an income of 60M ISK/hr. I run missions in hisec for about 60M ISK/hr. Are anomalies better or worse than belt ratting?
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Jovan Geldon
Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 07:17:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Deen Wispa So is it actually more profitable to run L4s than to run these Sanctums post-nerf?
The Sanctums themselves aren't being nerfed. There's just going to be less of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |