EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Cyaxares II	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:51:00 - [481] Edited by: Cyaxares II on 26/03/2011 10:51:30 Originally by: Marconus Orion I don't like the idea of a cap on the number of corps in an alliance or the number of blues. not a serious suggestion anyways... corps formed alliances way before these were supported in-game and people already use external tools to circumvent the lack of being able to share standings across alliance borders (e.g. the old CVA KOS list). As mittens said, you can't prevent people from being friends and all a limitation of alliance size or number of blues would achieve would be to make people circumvent these restrictions with OOG tools.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:56:00 - [482] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11 Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28 Morning all, Just wanted to drop a few points to think about in here now that I've had some sleep. I'm still mulling over the arguments presented, just wanted to add in some things to the discussion here so our though processes are more closely aligned. - Assuming the same pilots-per-anom ratio, increasing the number of good anoms in a given area has no impact on the average ISK per pilot. It does affect the carrying capacity of a given system, and it does make it more cost-effective to ensure your space isn't over-saturated, but if a given alliance already has sufficient capacity for their players, then short of a major recruiting drive this change is just going to save them a bit of money at the alliance level by allowing them to pay for a smaller number of systems. Other than that it doesn't really have an effect on their income. - Historically it's extremely rare that space will stand empty for any extended period ("claimed wastelands" have historically and AFAIAA been highly correlated with the presence of high-value moons, which is a separate issue). People live in Outer Ring. The population density/carrying capacity of low-value space can be affected, but I would not expect any area of space to be truly empty for long. - Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go. I think there was another point but I've forgotten what it was; I'll come back later if I remember. {edit} Oh yes, I remember: - Absolute sec status counts are somewhat misleading in this context, because with the proposed changes you only need a few good systems to balance out a lot of bad ones. Two upgraded -0.9 or lower systems are equivalent to a fully-upgraded constellation under the current mechanics. The thing we were looking at most when evaluating numbers for this was how many "good" systems a region had. If a region is 80% dross but you can support your entire alliances from the remaining 20%, then you're in a pretty decent place. By your final point your conceding the alliance has to hold the whole region? So exactly how will this open up space? There is another solution you know, You need systems to be able to first support more people. I'm talking 100s to a system in 0.0. Without that in place what you need to do next will be pointless, you need them occupied doing in their systems. Introduce new 0.0 systems, shouldn't be to hard. Another 10 regions. Watch the balkanization occur.
DarthMopp Gallente I.D.I.O.T. Ewoks	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:00:00 - [483] Originally by: CCP Greyscale stuff K, you just sound like any women when asking for opinions. As them you don¦t really want to hear a different opinion from a guy, you just want to hear your own one, just with a deeper voice. Listen, do what you want to. Your game, your rules. Maybe your expectations are right, maybe the whole cluster will be in an uproar, fighting for the value of these shiny sanctums. For my part i cannot see that already given structures will get broken up by what you call a great idea and i call the worst brainfart since the invention of the reusable toilet paper. Sure, the players will adapt to any given change. They did before and they will now. Just don¦t cry too hard if they dont adapt the way you want them to, ok? "Alea iacta est"
Lightzaber	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:01:00 - [484] Take a country and split it in 2. Take 1 half then cripple its industry/farming. Tell it to go to war vs the rich if they want better. Watch its futile attempts vs the rich. Laugh. ??? Rich half profits
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:03:00 - [485] Originally by: El'Niaga Introduce new 0.0 systems, shouldn't be to hard. Another 10 regions. Please no. we need to fill the 0.0 systems we have as it is. most of the damn game goes uninhabited. the whole idea of this change is so that the bigger alliances will hold certain systems/constellations/regions while smaller alliances fill in the blanks and get roamed. great fun for everyone. i can bet to you there is some group of hi-sec corps that want to move into 0.0 but cant for whatever reason. this will give them an opportunity to do just that. IF 0.0 becomes bloated then yes, by all means, make CCP a storyline as to why the ingame elements completely missed the '10' regions that happened to have all manner of NPC rats in them =) only thing im saying here, is people need to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about whats going to happen from a neutral view. and quit the water works, we have enough of that already in here. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??
Geralden	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:05:00 - [486] CCP Greyscale clearly doesnt play the same EVE as the players do? You want more fights over the good truesec, but yet you assume that the same alliance can hold an entire region ? You claim not having heavens/sanctums doesnt affect the isk/pilot? Have you ever even ran a sanctum yourself, or do we need to plot a graph before you understand it? You want a more dynamic 0.0, but your dominion expansion with Ihub's, timers, and the whole sov system is as RIGID as ever. Why would anyone not utterly insane pay the sov bill for a worthless crap system ? The belt's could sustain pilots before Dominon, but ppl. forget that you didnt have to pay an insane rent to concord, for having SOV in 0.0 systems. Now, who will pay for some anom's that cant even pay the rent for holding sov? This is just... worthless. CCP, spend less time making space barbie, more time to understand your own game.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:07:00 - [487] Originally by: Cyaxares II not a serious suggestion anyways... corps formed alliances way before these were supported in-game and people already use external tools to circumvent the lack of being able to share standings across alliance borders (e.g. the old CVA KOS list). As mittens said, you can't prevent people from being friends and all a limitation of alliance size or number of blues would achieve would be to make people circumvent these restrictions with OOG tools. I do understand people will try to use OOG tools to try and get around standings. They would at least have to put forth effort. If they wanted to be friends with someone without standings then they won't have the luxury of the in game tool. Also remove the corp and alliance ticker off the overview. Come up with a more intuitive directional scanner and nerf the living out of the instant intel that is the local window. You want to know who exactly is coming in and out of system that is a threat? Then put a scout on the gate and have them relay what he sees. Simply being in a system docked or neck deep in an anomaly should not mean you can scout as well.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:09:00 - [488] Originally by: Geralden Edited by: Geralden on 26/03/2011 11:07:23 who will pay for some anom's that cant even pay the rent for holding sov? moons? just a thought. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??
StarDeffender	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:10:00 - [489] Edited by: StarDeffender on 26/03/2011 11:11:55 CCP got a ideea how to bring more people in EVE. Focus to improving FU-k in stations to draw in more second life people and let 0.0 space as it is for the eve players. This is the kind of ****ed thinking that make people hate CCP. God forbid they fix the index counter so people don't have to rat till last min to make sure they have sanctums next 24h, the plex spawning system, ... or the billions of bugs that need fixing. As i see right now for me if ratting is taken out I'l probably go to empire to run lvl4's and salvage with my alt. make isk to buy plex on the 2 accounts close the 3rd and thats that. Or train all 3 accounts for PI and do that ** all day with 9 chars... If you want more conflict give me and 0.0 players more isk.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:10:00 - [490] Originally by: Geralden You want more fights over the good truesec, but yet you assume that the same alliance can hold an entire region ? QFT Lack of logic from DEV detected.
tai miyako	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:10:00 - [491] Useless idea, ******ed perception of game play and driving power behind players activities. If you want boost some places - boost them don't nerf others. Now you will make poor even more poorer - how they going to fight for those "sweet" systems without any resources? Don't make barren lands in 0.0 it is packed very densely with players already it will not make any good to squeeze even more people in only few systems and make useless hundreds of 0.0 systems.
Curt Granat	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:13:00 - [492] Come on dont ruin this beautiful game with this sily changes
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:15:00 - [493] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:50:11 Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 26/03/2011 10:45:28 Morning all, - Related to this, the current concern about low-value space as it relates to new alliances is that, because it can be upgraded to be almost as good as anywhere else in the game, there's little incentive to move along once you're there. Dominion worked well with getting these regions more useful and more occupied, but we're concerned that unless the current tenants have a good reason to want to leave behind the infrastructure they've built up and move on to better areas, the next crop of prospective alliances are going to find they have nowhere to go. I think it's good that you're considering migratory pressures, but with your current proposal those pressures are fixed - you can apply them once and migration will occur but will quickly reduce as a new equilibrium is reached. (Of course within this Im assuming that you anticipate a steady migratory flow from high sec into null sec). Ideally I think you need to consider resource springs that bubble up and then are consumed over time. Once such a spring begins to dry up the local population will stabilise as migratory pressure forces some to seek green pastures (new resource springs elsewhere). I think you have the capability to achieve this based upon what we've seen in terms of PI, Incursions and exploration mechanics. Simply re setting the 'sweet spots' on the map will only have a short term impact. You will have to repeat the whole process all over again in a few months time (in essence this has already happened before with the removal of static 10/10 plexes). You could do this of course, but it will require constant CCP management which, as many comments here demonstrate, opens you up to claims of favouring certain existing entities or disadvantaging others in a deus ex machina manner. Far better imho that you build in a fluctuating mechanic that works with less of a 'hand on the tiller' approach? C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Doka G	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:16:00 - [494] This is a GREAT idea . . . To increase PLEX sales? Surely CCP wouldnt do that would they? Would they? looks for tinfoil hat
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:19:00 - [495] Edited by: SirJoJo on 26/03/2011 11:21:51 Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hey everyone, It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far, and any time this sort of reaction occurs it's pretty common policy for us to take a pause and do another evaluation pass on the design, taking into account the arguments raised by players. Obviously we're in the middle of fanfest right now so everything takes a little longer than usual, but I'm going to talk to some people tomorrow, get some other perspectives, and figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here. We are starting to take another serious look at a range of nullsec issues right now, with an eye to fixing structural issues with the current design. Be aware that fixing the problems we're facing is very likely going to involve disrupting the current status quo, and in at least some cases I'm expecting us to push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. We have to consider the long-term big picture, and that priority may sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of some elements of the playerbase. That said, this may or may not be one of those occasions - watch this space. Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week -Greyscale Now plzz dont listen to the large immense of whine coming form people living in rather useless 0.0 space in there opinion. now the space is not useless, its just not as good as all the other 0.0 space and it shouldent, eve is about conflict and space, now whit all space being the same it makes less reason for conflicts, and thats a bad bad thing for eve. whit the introduction of anomolies old time belt ratting was made practically useless compared to anomolies and you could now upgrade any space to have the best anomolies so whit that all the conflict evolving around the space in 0.0 pretty much stopped happening, we want conflicts in eve and we want them all over the space between all sizes of alliances as it is now theres pretty much only 2 entitys in eve creating a conflict one being PL and the other the DRF whit there geminate assault, atm eve is from fountain to geminate one big happy party and that can only happen because there no conflict of interest happening, they all have the same value of space and they a are all happy, and its pretty much the same in the south just not on such a big extend as in the north. now imagine what would happen when eve wet back to well there 0.0 space thats good, decent , and worthless ppl would have to step up and react or they would have to live in crap space( well no so crap but it could be better) These changes is some of the best ever introduced by CCP and first time in a million years you make the game harder for once, now DO IT, lets have a harder game for once and lets see some more conflict in this game instead of the 2 Multigazillion alliance conflict we have had for years, o.o space shouldn't be all the same in fact there should be alot more difference in it, Anomolies changes are good for EVE as a hole, make them happen and watch the game evolve around its space and not being one big we all happy cause we all have the same value space now, whit the new anomolies changes its a end to lets put 3k members into this useless space and nap em, the 3k ppl would say no and most likely say give us some of the good space also or we will take it, CONFLICT AROUND SPACE!!!
Beowulff Schaefer	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:26:00 - [496] Originally by: CCP Greyscale It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far... That's because it's a generally bad idea. All you will cause is: temporary deflation in the economy; a flight from nullsec to other areas of space; the account termination of folks who get fed up with it; and an increase in the number of botters. Your goals of making nullsec more accessible won't be addressed at all. The issue with nullsec accessibility is political, historical and based on SOV mechanics. The big power blocks like fights and have existing huge resources to do those fights. SOV holding allows the defender the chance to get fights. Every big block in existence will fight for "worthless" space because they like to fight. The idea that the blocks will splinter or fight more because of this is just silly.
Florestan Bronstein Amarr Taishi Combine	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:26:00 - [497] Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 26/03/2011 11:26:12 Originally by: SirJoJo whit the introduction of anomolies old time belt ratting was made practically useless compared to anomolies and you could now upgrade any space to have the best anomolies so whit that all the conflict evolving around the space in 0.0 pretty much stopped happening someone link EyjoG's nice "titans destroyed" graph here, please (didn't take a screencap during the stream yesterday)
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:28:00 - [498] Originally by: Beowulff Schaefer Originally by: CCP Greyscale It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far... T Your goals of making nullsec more accessible won't be addressed at all. in fact it will, whit space not being worth the same the less wealthy space would be more accessible for newer alliance as many old alliance dont want it and will focus around more wealthy space
Prologick	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:29:00 - [499] So CCPs suggestion to the worthless space problem is to just make (or join) Bigger Alliances that at least encompass entire regions (so you can isk grind in the 5 -1.0 sec systems a region has) instead of alliances than own constellations? While people in good regions just rake in moon goo and farm their 50 -1.0 sec status. Bolstering their fleets at a faster rate than anyone else in the game, giving the smaller Alliances (now covering entire regions) not the slightest change to move up the foodchain. With everything CCP states, it starts to sound even more stupid and badly thought out. If you want to fix your problems, you should link Truesec and anomaly spawns to Player activity in a system, o wait.....
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:31:00 - [500] Originally by: Florestan Bronstein Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 26/03/2011 11:28:13 Originally by: SirJoJo whit the introduction of anomolies old time belt ratting was made practically useless compared to anomolies and you could now upgrade any space to have the best anomolies so whit that all the conflict evolving around the space in 0.0 pretty much stopped happening someone link EyjoG's "titans destroyed" graph here to prove that all conflict in 0.0 has indeed stopped, please (didn't take a screencap during the stream yesterday ) when conflicts arise over resources they tend to be about moons (i.e. alliance income), not ratting space (i.e. members' personal income). 2 big conflicts dont rly justifie it for eve, there should be many more, and because 20 titans die in one big battle 5 times a year between the same 2 coalition dont rly prove your point at all,
Zilero	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:31:00 - [501] After reading a lot of the replies its obvious they fall into one of three categories: 1) We don't give a ** because we get our main income from moon goo which so far won't be affected, but hey making everyone else weaker sounds really cool, let me support this. 2) We give a ** because we actually use sanctums and havens for income in our crap space. Nerfing our income will decrease our amount of isk, making it impossible for us to contest better space. We are the ones the guys from above would like to see get even less isk! or the best ones: 3) I live in hisec and have no clue whatsoever, but all those 0.0 dwellers make WAY too much isk, NERF THEM! Worst part is CCP has once again shown that they apparently have nobody playing in 0.0 and/or the guys they have playing have access to unlimited isk either through CCP and/or moon goo and/or they just sit and spin ships in station.
Skilo the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:31:00 - [502] If you (CCP) tell us that the anomalies in a -0.94 sec system will have better chance of droping faction loot then a -0.14 ... that i can understand and agree Now to just throw away months of players efforts to develope systems ... removing income from systems where there are Billions in assets placed ... YOU JOAKING RIGHT?
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:34:00 - [503] Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 11:35:38 Originally by: Beowulff Schaefer this is just silly. obviously it isnt because this thread is already 17-18 pages long. BFF my ass pretty soon. Originally by: Zilero After reading a lot of the replies its obvious they fall into one of three categories: 1) We don't give a ** because we get our main income from moon goo which so far won't be affected, but hey making everyone else weaker sounds really cool, let me support this. 2) We give a because we actually use sanctums and havens for income in our crap space. Nerfing our income will decrease our amount of isk, making it impossible for us to contest better space. We are the ones the guys from above would like to see get even less isk! or the best ones: 3) I live in hisec and have no clue whatsoever, but all those 0.0 dwellers make WAY too much isk, NERF THEM! Worst part is CCP has once again shown that they apparently have nobody playing in 0.0 and/or the guys they have playing have access to unlimited isk either through CCP and/or moon goo and/or they just sit and spin ships in station. or 4) people who care how the game is changed and want it based on survival of the fittest. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**
Doka G	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:35:00 - [504] Originally by: SirJoJo Originally by: Beowulff Schaefer Originally by: CCP Greyscale It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far... T Your goals of making nullsec more accessible won't be addressed at all. in fact it will, whit space not being worth the same the less wealthy space would be more accessible for newer alliance as many old alliance dont want it and will focus around more wealthy space Bullcrap. Big alliance sees some small startup nearby in crappy space. They think "Heh this will be fun killing them" They go kill them Startup guys get unhappy, most move back to highsec, some get ****ed and ragequit.
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:38:00 - [505] Originally by: Doka G Originally by: SirJoJo Originally by: Beowulff Schaefer Originally by: CCP Greyscale It'd be pretty difficult not to notice the fairly strong negative reaction this blog's getting so far... T Your goals of making nullsec more accessible won't be addressed at all. in fact it will, whit space not being worth the same the less wealthy space would be more accessible for newer alliance as many old alliance dont want it and will focus around more wealthy space Bullcrap. Big alliance sees some small startup nearby in crappy space. They think "Heh this will be fun killing them" They go kill them Startup guys get unhappy, most move back to highsec, some get ****ed and ragequit. you are new to this game, eve 0.0 space have always been populated, and you point is rly not worth anything, cause what are the chances the big guy would leave that space alone if the space was worth the same as there own counter if it was worth less?
lisa herrick	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:39:00 - [506] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Originally by: devblog those anomaly changes in full reported by CCP Greyscale \| 2011.03.25 16:36:21 Expected consequences òSome alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space òIn the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals òNewer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec òCoalitions will be marginally less stable òAlliances 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) OMG ! brilliant idea - seriously ! Grats CCP - this is in all honesty a really well thought out update, and one that i think could be pivotal in pee-vee-pee.
Crewsock	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:40:00 - [507] Edited by: Crewsock on 26/03/2011 11:40:44 Conspiracy Theory: What if the motivation for this change was to increase PLEX sales by nerfing player income? Got to pay for your pvp somehow. Solution: We could start Ratting the belts like the bots do. New Forum Game: If you see someone post the letters 'LOL' insert 'I'm an idiot' as you read it.
AngusThermo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:41:00 - [508] Edited by: AngusThermo on 26/03/2011 11:45:32 Sir JOJO: Where do you think the pilot's come from ? Do they magically appear from nowhere, ready to fly? Most have been empire dwellers, to some extend allso lowsec dwellers. The ONLY lure you have, when you recruit - is that 0.0 has better revenue, so you spend LESS time farming isk and MORE time having fun roaming/killing stuff. This change will LESSEN the conflicts, because in order to risk your ships, you allso need time to farm it. If your isk/hour is reduced by 75% or more, you will not live in 0.0 but you will move back to empire to do either missions or trade/scam/whatever rocks your boat. This change could result in one of the following 2 scenarios: 1. pilots that live in poor systems, will get poorer - but not having isk to support fleet ships, they have to retreat to empire. Most 0.0 corps dont survive that. Many leave the game. 2. Rich pilots get safer, since only a few systems are worth making isk in, it's simpler to boubble/protect those systems. Less conflict will arise, since everyone will be using carriers/supers and be in huge gangs. The result is not what you wanted, because you need isk to fight.
BlitZ Kotare	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:41:00 - [509] Edited by: BlitZ Kotare on 26/03/2011 11:44:25 I haven't read the preceding 17 pages in their entirety, but I don't really need to do so to understand there is a lot of complaining involving this change. However, I do see some potential benefit... Some space will become more valuable while other space will decline in value. This value needs to be carefully balanced with highsec however, even the lowest truesec 0.0 system at it's highest level of upgrade should be able to significantly out-produce L4 missions after LP store purchases - which is not really the case now for any 0.0 systems, earnings are very similar actually. As long as this is balanced between 0.0 regions and there is some reasonable period of 'grandfathering' (IE: people who paid for upgrade X with expectation Y due to current/previous game mechanics should not be penalized by change Z) I don't see a problem with this. Rebalance L4's vs 0.0 ratting and lets roll. EVE is an ever-changing game and we should all adapt to that. Nullsec is relatively stagnant overall in terms of powerblocks and more conflict on a galactic scale is desirable. In short, give me someone new to kill
Doka G	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:42:00 - [510] you are new to this game, eve 0.0 space have always been populated, and you point is rly not worth anything, cause what are the chances the big guy would leave that space alone if the space was worth the same as there own counter if it was worth less? I'm not new, and my reason is: because ppl like to to fight, especially when they know they will win.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.