Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
154
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:52:41 -
[1] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Anoms need to be removed as the primary income source in null and replaced with something more like missions to allow for much larger populations in a system.
This is The best i have read so far : )
You take and finish The mission Remotley.
You warp to the mission and Beacon appears in space (overwiew/system scanner etc.)
It would be much better than current system, and let much more people into one system.
Simply Remap current anomalies, add 30%+ to the NPC Bounty
and every one will be happy \o/ Boom. |
Kestral Anneto
Umbra-Domini SpaceMonkey's Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 22:44:06 -
[2] - Quote
+1 from me. I would still have the Anoms spawn, but make them something similar to L5's, where they would be a group activity. Make them harder, pay out a bit more and have them spawn like current exploration sites, random across the region. |
Madd Adda
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:57:24 -
[3] - Quote
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:44:45 -
[4] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.
Combat anoms don't work.
You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10
Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.
We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
1645
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:12:41 -
[5] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.
^This
+1 for adding missions. -1 for removing anoms.
Any proposal should add missions without removing anoms. No to cutting content. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15372
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:17:06 -
[6] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Madd Adda wrote:so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content. ^This +1 for adding missions. -1 for removing anoms. Any proposal should add missions without removing anoms. No to cutting content.
When I say remove anoms as the primary form of making isk I mean just that. Anoms would remain, they just wouldn't be the primary way of making isk.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
1645
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:18:37 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:sabre906 wrote:Madd Adda wrote:so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content. ^This +1 for adding missions. -1 for removing anoms. Any proposal should add missions without removing anoms. No to cutting content. When I say remove anoms as the primary form of making isk I mean just that. Anoms would remain, they just wouldn't be the primary way of making isk.
+1 |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1941
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:32:42 -
[8] - Quote
Baltec, while I agree Null needs higher density, your entire analysis is badly flawed. Mission LP values have not risen at all, and in a lot of cases have dropped. Combat Anoms also do not need removing in the slightest, they work just great for what they are meant to do.
However you are right that you need vastly higher densities possible in Null. I just disagree that 'missions' are the way forward, and would love to see 'new' multi objective type Anoms & Sigs, where there are lots of things that give payouts, not just 'kill the big ships', but 'hack this structure' 'Rep that structure' etc, with a time limit after the first objective is completed, so that a small fleet can work together in a site but hit different sub objectives and all get good payouts. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
155
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:10:33 -
[9] - Quote
Null use to be "ok" but with new sov, it's very appealing.
A lot of stuff was not updated for many many years (only the drop rates)
Just the damn numbers, come on CCP, Chnge the way escalations work like Fleet staging point (no one does it any more)
Give us better reward for siting in this dead end of space.
Change Anoms into fast and easy to use concord mission system, that will reward more isk, and support more players.
Give us Very hard caps/super caps escalations with officer spawn at the end or some thin. .. Show Null some low it needs.
It's just crazy you make more isk/hour doing incursions in hi sec with no risk, than beein in dead end of space -_-'' |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15382
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:40:32 -
[10] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Baltec, while I agree Null needs higher density, your entire analysis is badly flawed. Mission LP values have not risen at all, and in a lot of cases have dropped.
Wrong.
While CCP have not added more LP to missions what each LP is worth has risen due to inflation. This is the issue, LP value will rise with inflation while bounty based rewards will remain stagnant, this means that the reward for missions rises while reward for anoms has effectively fallen. Bounty based reward systems don't work if you have inflation.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Helios Panala
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:09:19 -
[11] - Quote
Some sort of pseudo-agent solution maybe? Outposts could be able to hire NPCs who will reward clearing anoms/mining rocks with the location of new hidden anoms/ore sites.
Run anom, tell npc you've just run anom, he points out (spawns) hidden anom. Double anoms! Half of them you could run even with a cloaky in system as he'd have to scan you out first.
Edit: Oh, and nerf missions and high-sec incursions. |
Rejuice K
Nagas gave me Harpies
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:13:23 -
[12] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Some sort of pseudo-agent solution maybe? Outposts could be able to hire NPCs who will reward clearing anoms/mining rocks with the location of new hidden anoms/ore sites.
Run anom, tell npc you've just run anom, he points out (spawns) hidden anom. Double anoms! Half of them you could run even with a cloaky in system as he'd have to scan you out first.
Edit: Oh, and nerf missions and high-sec incursions.
This - Not sure about nerfing missions/incursions, I don't know much about them. But other than that, This! |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:21:36 -
[13] - Quote
How about high bounties on drifter caps that will appear at random around your sov. Killing one could provide a massive boost to your occupancy and require commiting significant forces to take it down. Or someone else could come in and kill it in your system, dropping your occupancy rating downward and then proceeding to attack your now weakened structures. |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:26:45 -
[14] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:How about high bounties on drifter caps that will appear at random around your sov. Killing one could provide a massive boost to your occupancy and require commiting significant forces to take it down. Or someone else could come in and kill it in your system, dropping your occupancy rating downward and then proceeding to attack your now weakened structures.
Edit: Suddenly ratting in supers doesnt sound so crazy |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
214
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:32:36 -
[15] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Madd Adda wrote:so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content. Combat anoms don't work. You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10 Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward. We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run. ' yeah no, even if the need to hold lots of space were implemented. people would still hold as much space as possible, look at how much of null is empty. Im not there because I hate the politics, running 25 jumps to guard someone elses space, GS opening fire on FA to put in a puppet etc. Not my kind of politics thanks
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
AlexKent
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:38:42 -
[16] - Quote
It's a great idea. fully supported. Nullsec has terrible value and with the current sov changes there is little meaning to defending space.
High-sec incursions need their payment cut drastically, same for mission running, these are the safest forms of pve and sometimes pay better than ratting in null.
While a single mission agent can support an unlimited number of players, a medium truesec, fully upgraded null system can support a maximum of 10 players. It needs a major overhaul.
Look at the NPC nullsec, the residents can make a very decent living from farming just 1-2 agents in that area. Yes it is dangerous but rewards are great. |
Helios Panala
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:06:20 -
[17] - Quote
I feel the fact that null systems can only support limited numbers is intentional in order to create scarcity and conflict. Agents and missions copy/pasted over from HS & NPC null would ruin that.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15392
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:18:54 -
[18] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:I feel the fact that null systems can only support limited numbers is intentional in order to create scarcity and conflict. Agents and missions copy/pasted over from HS & NPC null would ruin that.
Yea, so I guess you want to give us back our tech moon isk printers then?
Forcing scarcity on people doesn't work, it just turns us into haves and have nots. In the case of anoms it means most of our members are earning isk in highsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10079
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 19:23:31 -
[19] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:I feel the fact that null systems can only support limited numbers is intentional in order to create scarcity and conflict. Agents and missions copy/pasted over from HS & NPC null would ruin that.
Anoms don't create scarcity or much conflict. In fact, what you just posted was the thinking behind the move by CCP that created the current situation:
Quote:Expected consequences
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)
That was 4 years ago. Suffice it to say, that not onlt didn't work, it backfired completely.
The problem as I see it is that with Dominon, CCP took an existing thing ("cosmic anomalies") that were random, secondary sites (secondary to sing nature sites that require probes to find that is) and made them the CORE of the sov null sec income system. Anomalies were never designed for that, they were basically quick 'bite sized' content that players could find easily all across New Eden.
The results of using anomalies in this way have been mostly bad. Lots of raw isk stuffed into the economy, lots of imbalances (back before ccp nerfed it, tracking titans with scimitar remote link support could blap the then frig-less forsaken hubs so fast it as crazy, 500 million isk per hour) and as baltec mentions, the way anoms pay means that their relative value (and with them, the value of sov null) has declined over time.
While i've been skeptical of using missions as the core of the system upgrade scheme, Baltec is right, anomalies are horrible for the purpose. And I say this as someone who likes anomalies and runs them with Rattlesnakes to relax (well, relax as much as you can while watching local).
|
Helios Panala
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 22:46:24 -
[20] - Quote
Well they might not have created much conflict before, but the sov system itself is changing now. Maybe this time it will have the desired effect.
Anyway, I'm all for null paying better, or at least paying better relative to HS & LS, but I'm just being realistic. It's very doubtful anoms will be replaced with missions. It would allow far to many people to turtle up in a few systems. |
|
aquatac
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:42:11 -
[21] - Quote
Thats actually a good idea.
+1 |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
156
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:05:10 -
[22] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Well they might not have created much conflict before, but the sov system itself is changing now. Maybe this time it will have the desired effect.
Anyway, I'm all for null paying better, or at least paying better relative to HS & LS, but I'm just being realistic. It's very doubtful anoms will be replaced with missions. It would allow far to many people to turtle up in a few systems.
Isn't that what the new sov system is about? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1621
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:36:44 -
[23] - Quote
Agondray wrote:
EDIT: there lots of risk in incursions if you mess up. I watch people not turn on tanks, shoot a logi or cap buddy with safety red, not broadcast on time, or sansha just hates the fleet and blam. its just the communities have nullified the player losses like null sec (insurance, unless you do something stupid and the still may give payout). Just high sec have allowed fleets to optimize ship builds for the 1 purpose. You all want to do something to incursions than theres 2 options you can take.
Being stupid is not a risk. If you run incursion and can't turn your safety to green, can't broadcast on time or can't turn on your tank, you are just stupid. Those part are not a risk but an error from the pilot.
Sansha popping ships only should happen in really awful timing like double+ otuni spawn right as the target DC is about to cycle so it also gets shut off. The ships that can die after a ship loss because aggro went to all hell are all linked to the guy not broadcasting in time or logi being too damn slow. |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:17:03 -
[24] - Quote
It would have to be agents in space, but that just makes systems so tiny. Most likely, they wouldn't even been Concord-friendly agents either.
Here's an alternative thought. What if every grid had potential?
What if we warped to a "belt" area, and anything could be there? Could be a few scattered ores, could be a few rats, could be a relic site, could be a whole DED complex. Maybe there could be hardly anything at all, but when you fly off the grid, another grid spawns with random content. Now you're exploring.
I think CCP wants to limit players per system though, so it would make sense that for every content spawned, the likelihood of another of equivalent quality spawning elsewhere in the system would need to go down. Sov upgrades could improve this chance multiplier. When spawn rates are strained, you'd mostly just find ore and the odd belt rat.
CCP doesn't delete functioning content though, so it would have to exist adjunct to the current exploration system. On the other hand, I don't see any need to spawn WHs in belts, and we definitely need more WHs in most of k-space. That would solve a lot of the logistical issues people have been worried about since jump fatigue was introduced. They also help to generate novel content and fun roams. Maybe we could replace the static belts and exploration with anomaly belts and signature belts. The anomaly belts would have the same function as static belts, and sigs would be a bit more dynamic. That would oblige everyone to spend a bit more time poking around in space before getting to the farmable content.
I really like the idea of small, fast ships scouting around for PVE content, and then calling in heavier ships for support. Maybe they could even find randomly spawned agents in space out there, or hull-restricted acceleration gates that spawn deadspaces. |
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
486
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:24:52 -
[25] - Quote
I would like to see concord missions and LP be re-introduced in the format as harder FW-type missions, but I think the STATION agent missions should all end up in lowsec, not null.
Combat anoms are very plentiful, so having something like a constellation DED fortress that has a few agents that give out the same type of missions would be acceptable. It would drive good pvp content with having all access to them be in a centralized location for people to fight over; you could even do something with system upgrades to increase frequency/reward from missions, as a deviation from the current ihub upgrades that affect sites. Having your ihub in the same system as the DED fortress would give incentive for people to base out of/populate that system and would benefit the constellation as a whole. |
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
486
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:30:54 -
[26] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:i accidentaly a post At least it wasn't the whole post? |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:38:04 -
[27] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:baltec1 wrote:Anoms need to be removed as the primary income source in null and replaced with something more like missions to allow for much larger populations in a system. This is The best i have read so far : ) You take and finish The mission Remotley. You warp to the mission and Beacon appears in space (overwiew/system scanner etc.) It would be much better than current system, and let much more people into one system. Simply Remap current anomalies, add 30%+ to the NPC Bounty and every one will be happy \o/ Boom.
It would make a 0.0 system capable to more than 8 people be active at the same time.
+1
Bounty +/- 0 |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
920
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:50:56 -
[28] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Well they might not have created much conflict before, but the sov system itself is changing now. Maybe this time it will have the desired effect.
Anyway, I'm all for null paying better, or at least paying better relative to HS & LS, but I'm just being realistic. It's very doubtful anoms will be replaced with missions. It would allow far to many people to turtle up in a few systems.
This has been the main selling point by Greyscale and Fozzie with the sov changes; one must choose more carefully where they live.
Well, north has chosen the 1/5th of the livable nullsec, south has chosen 1/4td and rest is renters, Catch and Provi.
Situation is the same as city planners building a massive sprawling metropolis which has tens of millions of jobs, hundreds of skyscrapers, massive highways and ample housing for everyone but decided that a single gap station per square mile is enough. Now, instead of adding more gas stations, it's logical to try to force people to get rid of their cars instead of building more pumps, right? |
Helios Panala
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:01:23 -
[29] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Helios Panala wrote:Well they might not have created much conflict before, but the sov system itself is changing now. Maybe this time it will have the desired effect.
Anyway, I'm all for null paying better, or at least paying better relative to HS & LS, but I'm just being realistic. It's very doubtful anoms will be replaced with missions. It would allow far to many people to turtle up in a few systems. Isn't that what the new sov system is about?
Considering how quickly sov can be messed with under the new system it seems designed to make you spread a decent amount of people over all your territory.
To many people in one place = no money as your fields can't produce enough rats to farm, but your sov is very secure. Spread out over a lot of systems = more money but attacks on sov would cause a lot more strain.
Obviously the exact numbers need altering, but the basic idea looks solid. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
159
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:16:54 -
[30] - Quote
[quote=Helios Panala Considering how quickly sov can be messed with under the new system it seems designed to make you spread a decent amount of people over all your territory.
To many people in one place = no money as your fields can't produce enough rats to farm, but your sov is very secure. Spread out over a lot of systems = more money but attacks on sov would cause a lot more strain.
Obviously the exact numbers need altering, but the basic idea looks solid. [/quote]
It does, but not under current circumstances.
It would make sence to remove the anoms, give remote ded space agent, with a limit on how much misionss they can give.
Those missions would have 0 reward from the agent!
Right now you can have 3x Forsaken hub, Way not give Agnet option that he can give out up to the 8x Forsaken hubs, and after that he is out of intel.
IF some ones takes the mission, Anomaly would spawn same way like now, But system would be able to support more players.
And allow small / medium sized corps to live in one system #like in wormhole space.
Insted of spreding around and losing the bonds eve is about :( And make Anoms Walid for CO-OP like wh/incursions
Coz thats what eve is about!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |