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

Check My IP Information

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)

CCP Zymurgist Gallente C C P	Posted - 2011.03.25 16:36:00 - [1] CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP NA, EVE Online Contact Us

Kno Bodeesbitch	Posted - 2011.03.25 16:42:00 - [2] first?!?!?
Kerosene Caldari V I R I I Merciless.	Posted - 2011.03.25 16:59:00 - [3] Edited by: Kerosene on 25/03/2011 16:59:31 Ghetto Quote from Blog: * 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) On all 5 of them points I'd like to say 'my arse'. 1. Alliances don't base their location on the number of sanctums available. 2. Why? Do you think people fight over sanctums? 3. People won't move because of the change (see points 1 and 2 above) so why would alliances get a better foothold? 4. Coalitions will be less stable why? 5. Not while jump bridges exist. You think you over estimate the power of anomolies. They are a nice-to-have, not a reason for living somewhere. edit: typo __ Eve. Eve eve eve eve. EVE. Eve. Eve eve eve eve eve eve EVE eve eve. - Kerosene The way to stop isk farmers is to STOP BUYING ISK.
randomname4me	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:08:00 - [4] Edited by: randomname4me on 25/03/2011 17:15:00 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) Congrats to CCP for completely misunderstanding how nullsec works. let me correct your expected consequences: Quote: Big power blocks will immediately start securing the better space for themselves In the longer run, there'll be no changes in conflicts going on since alliance goals have not changed Newer alliances will have the same difficulty in renting space from the big power blocks in nullsec and will have a harder time fighting big power blocks since the space they can rent\hold will be too crappy to allow them to develop. Coalitions will be marginally more stable Alliances will have to an easy time choosing what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places but its no big deal when you have 5k members to call on and another 30k meat shields to clog up the systems anyway) Case in point: Quote: In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Do you really think test and friends took Fountain for the bounties? Also do you think the NC and the DRF have smashed 30 some titans over the quality of space available in Geminate? Petition\|Successful\|Reimbursement\|Lag Pick 3
Sydis	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:09:00 - [5] In theory this is great, but moons are the biggest source of income for an alliance and I do not see how this change will make any difference while that remains the biggest factor on the value of space.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:27:00 - [6] I don't believe this will do what you hope. It's perhaps not as brutal as I thought it would be but still glad we moved systems so we are in the highest bracket before this after that one blog that alluded to changes, prepare for the worst and then accept when it doesn't materialize.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:44:00 - [7] This is yet another example of how CCP does not understand nullsec. Alliances will not change their goals, as their goals are not affected by the security class of their target system, that is more often an unintended side effect. All this change does is make the few deep 0.0 systems more valuable (which would be a good thing if it was not already settled), while turning the VAST majority of 0.0 space into desolate wasteland once again. If CCP wanted small alliances to succeed, killing the way that they can actually compete with others is not the way to do so. They are killing their way to fight large alliances as small to mid sized alliances use Anomalies to earn cash, rather than moons, as large alliances just take them for themselves. A way that a positive change could be made, and still implementing the changes that they would like to see is improving the anomalies by security status, but not nerfing the lowsecurity areas (0.0 - -0.4). They could do this by increasing the number of faction drops even more in high security anomalies. This would still make deep 0.0 still very valuable, without killing the ability for small alliances to actually fight back against huge power-blocks. Also, CCP could gradually improve 0.0 space (not by large amounts, but gradually), as huge areas of it would be turned into wasteland once again with this "fix". I certainly hope CCP realized that all this change will do is increase the strength of power-blocks (something they say that they do not want to do), while reducing the ability for small alliances to actually do things (again, something they say they do not want to do).
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:47:00 - [8] Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly.
eatdatwatermelon	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:52:00 - [9] I live in a -0.24 system. The only way of reliably making isk in 0.0 that i actually have is to log on occasionally and do sanctums, as and when i have time to do so. Correct me if i'm wrong, but these changes suggest that -0.24 will no longer recieve any sanctums or havens? Might i ask what the **** that is about?
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:52:00 - [10] Brace for incoming tears, as people explain how nerfing something the game didn't even have 15 months ago will be the END OF EVERYTHING. Honestly though, this change does make sense; it's actually something close to the system that was originally expected. It's going to shake up renter-space like crazy, though. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:53:00 - [11] No alliance or corporation goes to war over bounties or drone poo. The DRF is not attacking Geminate because their players want access to Sanctums instead of Drone Hordes; new alliances almost never look for nullsec space in order to farm Havens; Goonswarm/TEST did not spend months fighting IT/BLAST/etc over Fountain and Delve so that their members would have access to better anomalies; Atlas/AAA/etc are not in conflict with PL over low truesec systems in Delve. The real conflict in nullsec is over alliance-scale resources, namely high-end moons. Of course, CCP has already spectacularly failed at 'balancing' nullsec and creating more conflict a while back: instead of balancing moon goo and reducing alliance income from it, they not merely created the Technetium bottleneck in T2 production but placed the majority of Technetium moons squarely in NC space. So I suppose this latest failure of an attempt at 'creating more conflict,' which only shows how little understanding of nullsec CCP really has, is hardly unexpected. While we're on the topic of anomalies, is there any chance that someone at CCP will actually fix warp-ins for drone anomalies so that we don't warp right into the middle of a giant structure? How about that fix for Pirate Entrapment Arrays which was promised when Dominion first came out?
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 17:55:00 - [12] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. You alliance has sufficient moon income to buy every member all the PvP ships they need. Why doesn't it? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Darth Vapour	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:06:00 - [13] Quote: Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec This requires some explanation how exactly this is the case. It seems to be quite the opposite if good space (held by powerful entities) becomes even better and bad space (where these new upstarts would enter the 0.0 arena) becomes entirely worthless.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:06:00 - [14] Ok, so you gave the candy and now you're taking it away. At any rate, i won't touch that right now. Sure i will be completely **ed on my income source, and will now have to resort to having an alt in high-sec running missions, that give more profit than belt-ratting in one system with over 20 alliance mates at any given time. But whats the purpose now of upgrading 0.0 to -0.2 systems? More Hidden Hubs**? [sarcasm]Hooray..[/sarcasm]. ____________ I like woman because breasts
pot ato	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Renan Ruivo But whats the purpose now of upgrading 0.0 to -0.2 systems? More Hidden Hubs? [sarcasm]Hooray..[/sarcasm]. I've been wondering this myself. Seems the only reason to install either ihub or TCU in this lower band is if you need strategic upgrades or want some more mining sites, and you can bet CCP will nerf the mining sites in the promised 'improvements to nullsec industrial landscape', which will leave only strategic upgrades.
DTson Gauur Caldari Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:12:00 - [16] In a non-shocker CCP again shows how they don't know a squat about nullsec living. I hope the new CSM makes this change die in a fire.
Guilliman R Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:17:00 - [17] CCP, we don't want to rat belts or rat anything less then havens and sanctums because it's **** income. You seem hellbent on nerfing 0.0 sec yet leaving high sec missioning alone. We do not want to spend hours farming frigates and cruisers in hubs and below to pay our pvp ships. You're only hurting those that need it, not those that abuse it by botting. I'm not sure if I'm willing to put in the time to rat in hubs alone to pay my accounts, so I might drop one. I really cba farming frigates. There's also too many people out there, so you're basically condemning majority of the anomaly ratters to compete with their buddies in far fewer available havens and sanctums. There's generally already a shortage <.< ------
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:21:00 - [18] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. You alliance has sufficient moon income to buy every member all the PvP ships they need. Why doesn't it? Say it aloud, don't create links to web locations that encourage RMT. Now, to answer you question - moon income is split on several tasks: building supercapitals/titans, sov bills, station building, POS and JB fuel and reimbursement programs for some of the fleet ships. Individual players (simple members) do not have any income from it. My point is, if you want more small scale PvP, individual members of the alliances need to have enough income to support their PvP. Nerfing 70%+ of nullsec will not accomplish that. With a nerf to anomalies blobs just became safer for grunts. Congratulations!
Nirnaeth Ornoediad Caldari Cryo Innovations Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:22:00 - [19] Moons are the biggest source of income for alliances, but Sanctums are the largest source of income for the average 0.0 pilot. This change will affect alliances who move based on membership desire more than it will affect the heavily autocratic alliances. Alliances that have things like ship reimbursement will also be affected less, as they're already effectively transferring wealth from moons to individual pilots. One effect it could have is allow roams, etc. to focus on smaller target areas, since it is more likely that alliances will develop fewer systems. More concentrated fish = more concentrated sharks = more small-scale PVP goodness. --------------------------------------------- U.S. Diplomat Cryo Innovations
Chris Bartlett Caldari C.R.M Productions BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:26:00 - [20] tl;dr If its worth fighting for, its worth defending. No smaller entities will stand a chance at making isk in null-sec like they used to, making the space even more small-entity unfriendly. CCP, you really haven't thought this through at all. In these past few months you'd become so much better at doing the right thing for the community as a whole, that i'd been cautiously optimistic regarding the changes to anomolies. Now the blog is up, we get this rubbish? I'm quite wound up at the moment so this probably won't be as eloquent/well thought out as i'd like, but hey, the blog/proposed changes weren't very well thought out either. Ugh where to **ing start. What you're basically missing is the fact that if the much lower trusec systems do indeed become "worth fighting over", the big alliances will have them in seconds. As it is currently, any 0.0 system can be useful with some TLC. Install your upgrades, pay your sov fee etc, and bobs your uncle, you can rat and make isk to lose in alliance/coalition fleet ops. You implement these changes, and all of a sudden regions like Geminate will become absoloutely useless. Why in gods name would an alliance bother with such a region, if there was no isk to be made? Noone will be fighting for the lower true-sec, because it'll already be claimed by the bigger powerblocs, who will be able to repel any and all attacks you may make against said systems with their standing super-cap fleets. EVE, as a game, is about being a man, having balls, and having some fun. To get a chance at making isk, which, unless you're fan of noobship fleets, you need to have said fun, you'd need to either become a pet of, or join, the big alliances. You can't rat in blue space, it causes diplomatic drama unless you're specifically allowed to do so. You can't attack/try and take their space due to **ty sov mechanics and the fact that they'll have bigger fleets. How precisely do you propose that people will take this lower true-sec space? They won't be able to. If its worth fighting for, its worth defending. If its worth defending, you'll get blobbed to hell and back. The big/rich get bigger/richer, the smaller dogs get smaller. No good will come of these proposed changes.

Guilliman R Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:30:00 - [21] Indeed. What you will end up seeing, is large coalitions cynojamming and bridging the good systems, and put them full of caps/suppers. Have fun roaming and fighting for it. ------
Chris Bartlett Caldari C.R.M Productions BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:36:00 - [22] Not to mention theres a massive amount of whining about AFK cloakers as of late. If only a few systems are worth ratting in, you can ****ing guarantee there'll be reds in cloaky rapiers or what have you sat there waiting for the opportunity to gank, risk free.
Phaershalee	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:43:00 - [23] LOL! CCP you have no clue about nullsec.
justin666	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:44:00 - [24] absolutely stupid change..... we dont run havens or sanctums for "fun" we do it so we can make some bl++dy isk to fight in the 0.0 wars you want us to do stop nerfing the income further and further
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:44:00 - [25] This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Rikki Sals Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:50:00 - [26] If you really want to change player behavior in nullsec at the coalition/alliance level, you will have to make changes to moons.
Jita Gilligan	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:52:00 - [27] Amazing how nerfs always are at the front of the line and the "good stuff" are vague inconsequential future promises. This isn't just a poor idea. It's a P I S S Poor idea. It will only make the rich richer. This one shoul be scrapped. Aren't you idiots supposed to be working on Space Barbie, or something?
Kalain ap'Sulen Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:55:00 - [28] Stating right now that this change sucks donkey **s. Quando ami flunkus morti.**
justin666	Posted - 2011.03.25 18:57:00 - [29] i wonder if ccp muppet releases that so far 90 percent of the player base in this thread does not like this change at all we dont want to rat more and more ffs
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:03:00 - [30] Never go full ****. Serious this is even by :CCP: standards ridiculous. Quote: Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players, for several reasons: to act as genuine filler so the earlier upgrades in some systems aren't empty; to give newer players resources they can use without much competition; and to give people running anomalies a little more safety from marauding enemies. 1. That is no reason they stay when you get more upgrades, why not just always 8 sites that increase in usefulness with higher level upgrades for example. 2. That is no reason to put 80% useless. 3. Yes because it is really safety that they first go looking in hubs and ports for our tengus. If they are that **ed they arent a danger, everyone knows only havens and sanctums are actually used by targets of roaming gangs. Quote: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Anyone who can tell me how much systems fall into each band? On first look this would mean 25% of all space is absolutely useless after this change (0.0 to -0.25), but i think more than 25% of 0.0 falls into this category. Creating an empty wasteland, good job CCP. Quote: Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space Yep, I wouldnt be surprised if we do that since all our space is suddenly useless. Quote: In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals If by more conflicts you mean some short blobs to evict all smaller alliances since we need now more lebensraum, yes. Quote: Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec You actually think they will be allowed to take the useless space? It just becomes buffer zone for us, even if they take it, useless space is kinda useless. Quote: Coalitions will be marginally less stable LAWL, you are truly idiotic. Serious go speak with Hardin (current CVA executioner), since he explained it best. But it comes down to simple fact: the more things you add to give us 'conflict', the more we band together to protect ourselves against it. In the hypothetical situation we would want other space (i am just a grunt, so dont take anythin for granted i say), we can do two things, ask our allies for better space (either from them or blob some poor alliance), or we can attack our allies, which CCP assumes we will do. Even if we completely ignore the BFF part and that we like hugging each other, what would be a better choice: Outblob some poor people with 50k group to get some space, or reset our BFFs to fight a 49k group then to take their space. Yeah was thinking that already, we stay BFF. Quote:** 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) Hello CCP, welcome to jump drives/bridges, you know those things you added long time ago to your game.

Zilero	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:03:00 - [31] Quote: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. So in other words, anoms which require expensive ships to run (well ok, run in a manner that actually give you decent isk/h) will now be in even fewer systems. This will make ganking of said expensive ships even easier , on the other hand it will require far less of the AFK cloaker accounts, so perhaps CCP will lose out on this as some griefing accounts will now no longer be needed? Anyway, terrible changes - 250 mil for a fitted Abaddon which you can lose in 20 seconds to a large fleet and now income is nerfed. CCP, you better see to it that mineral prices go way down or else provide some alternative way of income for 0.0 dwellers.
Jehanne D'ark Minmatar Ghost Tribal Credit Union Sspectre	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:04:00 - [32] Originally by: justin666 absolutely stupid change..... we dont run havens or sanctums for "fun" we do it so we can make some bl++dy isk to fight in the 0.0 wars you want us to do stop nerfing the income further and further Oh man! Looks like you are going to have to get some good null-sec then! Oh wait, doesn't that spawn conflicts? ahmagawd. /support
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:05:00 - [33] This wont affect macroers. This wont affect big alliances. You want to create less valuable space that is worthless to the big fishes, but worthy for the small alliances. But that won't work. A LONE PLAYER has more resources in high-sec then in the proposed 0.0 to -0.2 systems. BS ccp.. BS. Big time BS. An alliance resources are NOT based on sanctums and havens, they're based on moon goo. And the big bad DRF alliances income isn't based on anomalies either, they're based on bots ratting 23.5/7 on belts. So you're basically screwing BIG TIME the people you want to help.
Cpt Buckshot	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:08:00 - [34] Ok my 2 cents ... since I have been playing this game longer than most. This is ******ed idea .... Sounds like you are making changes to the game impress the boss with little thought to the actual game, maybe you should go back to driving that short bus.
Dr Shameless Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:09:00 - [35] providence will be made worthless by it http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Providence#sec less then -0.2 in most systems
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:09:00 - [36] In other news: CCP says "**** you" to anyone who doesn't own a supercap.
Leovarian Lavitz Minmatar TranSolar Prospecting and Private Securities AAA Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:11:00 - [37] I support this. More interesting space sounds... more interesting.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:11:00 - [38] The only alliances which use anomalies as an income source are the small ones that are still estabilishing foothold. They rat sanctuns and havens to pay for the initial PVP ships for home-defense, to pay for the POS and jump-freighters to set up a modest moon mining scheme and to encourage new blood to join. Now they wont be able to do that. Good job. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:11:00 - [39] whelp guess it's time to go back to running level4s better isk than sharing the 4 good anoms we'll have in the future with the other 500 members of my alliance gj ccp really shaking things up ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Arele Minmatar The Hull Miners Union	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:12:00 - [40] How about you guys get around to adressing the tech situation before turning most of 0.0 back into a useless wasteland?

ukiyo e	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:17:00 - [41] Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision.
Flaybius	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:19:00 - [42] I cannot disagree with this idea more. My alliance is based in in a poorer true-set area, and we have absolutely zero systems available to us that would have havens or sanctums after this change. Our pvpers are very active, and participate constantly in both the largest battles in the game and many small scale pvp fights. They absolutely depend on the income from sanctums to stay in the fight. If this change goes live I cannot see how our guys could afford their own ships for longer then a couple of weeks before being forced to move to hi-sec to mission. An alliance runs on moon goo, but the individual pilots are dependant on ratting. They lose money, they lose ships, they lose the will to stay in nullsec.
justin666	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:21:00 - [43] seriously people... we cant let them put this change live because its that stupid EVERYONE knows how bad this change is going to be and its going to favour this f+++ing botters put ccp **** in your post if you think this change is well.. **ed ccp ****
Mardoh	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:25:00 - [44] Quote: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. So that's they way how small Corps and Alliances are boosted, while Large Alliances will have it harder (that's what CCP wanted to do with Dominion). Sorry thats Crap... for me that would mean that i'll have to gather all the Money i need vor my 4 Accounts (Ships and stuff) with lvl4 Missions in Hisec because theres nothing to find anymore in the 0.0 where i live. THANKS CCP!!! THATS THE BIGGEST CRAP YOU EVER VROUGHT TO EVE-ONLINE. YOUR MAKING CASUAL GAMING IMPOSSIBLE!!! IF THAT CHANGE REALLY COMES ILL QUIT ALL MY ACCOUNTS!!!
Desya Dak'ann Caldari Wraith.Wing Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:28:00 - [45] This is a crock of **. 1) This means only if you moon mine you will make any sort of income in 0.0 2) It will not make anyone fight more, infact, it will just ** off the majority of nullbears to de-subscribe 3) This is so unbelievably unbalanced, its not even funny, running level 4s will be more profitable than securing the space, paying for upgrades etc 4) If 0.0 is so damn dangerous, why are we not allowed to make more money than hisec bears? I mean WTF are you thinking CCP THIS IS NOW A WIDOT FAILTHREAD!
Dethmourne Silvermane Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:28:00 - [46] This will almost certainly push people away from 0.0, as they move even more towards mission-running alts (already better for ISK/hr than sanctums in nearly every case). Or is CCP's goal to have people using more Tengus in high-sec on alts, so that they need a second account? The reality for me is this: if this change goes through, I will respectfully resign from 0.0, because I don't want to rely on a highsec alt for PvP when there's nothing at a player level worth being in nullsec for.
DarthMopp Gallente I.D.I.O.T. Ewoks	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:33:00 - [47] Originally by: Dr Shameless providence will be made worthless by it http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Providence#sec less then -0.2 in most systems Which will move Provi back to Pre-Dominion then :) Greyscale...seriously...you dont have a **ing clue what you are talking about. With dominion and the changes to the upgrades you finally had a working (which is kinda rare nowadays in EvE) system to get People INTO 0.0. Small alliances, corps and even pilots tended to use the anomalies to fund the upgrades, sovbills and some ships for them to burn within PvP. They didn¦t needed to run Highsec Missions to finance their PvP Ships. They could earn the money on the spot an when a fight is up could change into their real combat vessel and have some fun. (Remember, i am talking about the smaller Alliances, not the Global Players) Strange as it gets the moons with the good spice also tend not to be in the crappy truesec systems. So also no income from there. You want the peeps to fight? Well, then they will probably need some money, eh? What do you expect them to do? PI? This Farmville-Clone for desperate Spaceshipnerds? This by far is one of the biggest jokes i read until today. So you really think alliances will get moving because of those bull anomalies? I cannot explain properly how goddamn ***ed this assumption is. Do you really think Alliances will fight for truesec? "Hey peeps, lets do the bloodmill and bonegrinding trench warfare. For what you are asking me? FOR THE SANCTUMS! Because our PvE Players need them". Let me take a look at the crystal ball: you will have a lot of empty, abandoned space soon(tm). Another ISK sink gone soon. I can only see one advantage in this. As a Ratter-Ganker you don¦t need to waste time looking in the crap systems anymore. Just go to the -0.8 - -1.0 and kick them carebear asses. May i suggest to take this change back to the drawing board, get sober again and rethink it? Thank you. As much as i support every move into making 0.0 a more unstable place with fires burning all over it....this is a typical example of a plan doomed to backfire. "Alea iacta est*"
Jaggins Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:40:00 - [48] Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder.
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:44:00 - [49] Originally by: ukiyo e Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision. Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it? Your post makes 0 sense. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Herring MacGuffin Amarr Ice Breaker Industries	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:45:00 - [50] Will you also be basing this on the actual truesec of the system, or will the "broken" truesec regions have sanctums falling everywhere?

Sli'co Scoser Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:45:00 - [51] Originally by: Jaggins Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder. This. The lower the truesec, the more ports/hubs that are replaced with havens/sanctums. -1.0 sec systems would then have a boatload of sanctums/havens that can support even more people (for the large alliances that can extensively defend and thus be rewarded by such systems).
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:49:00 - [52] Edited by: Weaselior on 25/03/2011 19:49:28 I endorse this event or product edit: How does this affect pirate regions: will upgrades work off the -1.0 they all get for ratting, or off their actual trusec?
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:49:00 - [53] Quote: We're pretty happy with the increase in useful space, but having a densely populated nullsec is less important to us than having an interesting, vibrant and entertaining nullsec. Therefore, we're making some changes. A densely populated nullsec is indicative of a vibrant entertaining nullsec! if anything this change makes most of nullsec less interesting. it might cause some conflict, but imo most players will just switch back to mission running or w/e. also boost to afk cloaking!
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:52:00 - [54] 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) :golf clap: :facepalm:
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:54:00 - [55] I get the basic premise, but the actual idea and implementation are totally wrong. CCP better go back to the drawing board with this. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Jons Laroque	Posted - 2011.03.25 19:54:00 - [56] Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: Dr Shameless providence will be made worthless by it http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Providence#sec less then -0.2 in most systems Which will move Provi back to Pre-Dominion then :) Greyscale...seriously...you dont have a **ing clue what you are talking about. With dominion and the changes to the upgrades you finally had a working (which is kinda rare nowadays in EvE) system to get People INTO 0.0. Small alliances, corps and even pilots tended to use the anomalies to fund the upgrades, sovbills and some ships for them to burn within PvP. They didn¦t needed to run Highsec Missions to finance their PvP Ships. They could earn the money on the spot an when a fight is up could change into their real combat vessel and have some fun. (Remember, i am talking about the smaller Alliances, not the Global Players) Strange as it gets the moons with the good spice also tend not to be in the crappy truesec systems. So also no income from there. You want the peeps to fight? Well, then they will probably need some money, eh? What do you expect them to do? PI? This Farmville-Clone for desperate Spaceshipnerds? This by far is one of the biggest jokes i read until today. So you really think alliances will get moving because of those bull anomalies? I cannot explain properly how goddamn ***ed this assumption is. Do you really think Alliances will fight for truesec? "Hey peeps, lets do the bloodmill and bonegrinding trench warfare. For what you are asking me? FOR THE SANCTUMS! Because our PvE Players need them". Let me take a look at the crystal ball: you will have a lot of empty, abandoned space soon(tm). Another ISK sink gone soon. I can only see one advantage in this. As a Ratter-Ganker you don¦t need to waste time looking in the crap systems anymore. Just go to the -0.8 - -1.0 and kick them carebear asses. May i suggest to take this change back to the drawing board, get sober again and rethink it? Thank you. As much as i support every move into making 0.0 a more unstable place with fires burning all over it....this is a typical example of a plan doomed to backfire. Couldn't have said it better myself, I will most likely be pulling all my combat pilots out of nullsec space and placing them within the faction warfare in hisec. Reason being is that my ratting pilot is ALSO my pvp pilot.. So whats the point in having him in Null sec if i cannot make money well enough to support the costs of pvping. I think CCP is failing once again to look at all sides of the dice on this one. Classic story of the rich getting richer and the poor getting sht on.. As for the statement made about moons making Alliance money, well unfortunately that money is hardly ever funneled into the players pockets for ship replacements etc etc. All that this is accomplishing is allowing alliance wallets to grow while the players who live there and fight for that space gain nothing.
Automa	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:01:00 - [57] I'm sure someone will be able to count up from the dump the number of systems in each of these truesec bands, perhaps grouped by region. I think that the number of -0.9 to -1.0 is very small indeed. I also think the number of -0.0 to -0.25 is very large. VERY LARGE. CCP's state that they... 1. We want 0.0 to work better, more people in 0.0 etc, more battles (but spread out battles). 2. We want to differentiate 0.0 space so some is better than other space (to give something to fight over) 3. We want newer corps/alliances to be able to get a foothold. Other posters here have stated (correctly) that individual pilots run Anoms for personal income. To buy Ships/Skills/Impants etc which then get consumed in PvP (and sometimes the ships are lost before grid even loads). Isn't the solution obvious? As other posters have said, leave -0.0 to -0.25 alone and buff -0.75 to -1.00 to be better. That will give you the difference you seek whilst not nerfing the income for a huge number of 0.0 pilots personal income. In fact this is so obvious that I can't see CCP doing anything else but this if they press ahead with the change.
Halvus Minmatar Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:04:00 - [58] Instead of lowering the income of the average grunt why not: a) Make the current anomolies the baseline and spawn even better ones in low trusec systems. Super havens! b) Nerf moon goo. Spread out the materials more and make the rare materials less rare. Maybe balance the usage of the different moon materials in T2 manufacture. (The current system ensures that a small minority control the isk for most of eve, and provides only a few targets that need blobs to attack/defend) c) allow small gangs to disrupt the anomoly upgrades in some way, thus removing the ability of the host alliance to make isk. This will provide a reason for lots of small fights. The result is that alliances will need to farm their space, and small gangs can burn the farms. End reliance on moon goo now!
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:09:00 - [59] Originally by: Herring MacGuffin Will you also be basing this on the actual truesec of the system, or will the "broken" truesec regions have sanctums falling everywhere? Knowing CCP, most likely they'll use the broken mechanic, and get around to fixing it in a year or two, if ever. The mere thought that someone in CCP's game design department actually believes the bull that's in that dev blog is frightening. It only shows that CCP has absolutely no idea what drives conflict in nullsec. Looking forward to what other 'improvements' CCP has in store. I'm betting on a JB 'nerf' that restricts jump bridges only to established alliances with access to high-end moon goo.
Zufera	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:10:00 - [60] Edited by: Zufera on 25/03/2011 20:13:21 Originally by: Renan Ruivo The only alliances which use anomalies as an income source are the small ones that are still estabilishing foothold. They rat sanctuns and havens to pay for the initial PVP ships for home-defense, to pay for the POS and jump-freighters to set up a modest moon mining scheme and to encourage new blood to join. Now they wont be able to do that. Good job. Full ack on that. My colleague is building a 0.0-Sec Corporation from nothing currently. My only motivations in EvE are called "Sactum" and "Heaven". I don't like trading, I don't like PvP and I hate missions: I don't want to change systems and talk to 30 agents to get some good missions. There is only one kind of players, who are secure in 0.0-secs: Those **in' cloakers. And there is NO way to give them a fight, when you want or you need to. The little time I am not spending building Caps and Supers, I can't do any Anomalys cause you still have not nerved the **ing cloaking devices. We just need a special scanning probe, disabling cloaking devices (until the player leaves the system; a system change would reenable it). Instead of nerving the cloaking device, you are now nerfing 0.0-Sec. GREAT. :D Why don't you just improve the "True Sec" systems? Give them MORE, instead of taking from every small 0.0-player. You are just causing the "renters" to leave 0.0-sec. ... I always thought your goal was, to get most of the players into 0.0-sec... However: Feel free to ignore the properties of 0.0-space and nerf it. I will feel free to stop paying for my accounts then. Bash me! :D

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:13:00 - [61] It is way too little and way too late. Powerblocs now occupy multiple regions each so will be only marginally impacted by such a change = no increase in conflict. You are not changing the way war is conducted, which means EHP yawn warfare = no increase in conflict. You will impact the profitability of a lot of bots, that's something at least, but don't delude yourselves into thinking that this is going to change anything whatsoever. In short: Decent first change, but you have a very long way to go to meet the goals you set prior to Dominion (small scale pew, sov in flux etc.)
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:14:00 - [62] We will soon start to see people ragequiting the game is this BS comes to TQ. I'd even ask then if i can haz their stuffz, but what will be the point.. Their ratting stuffz will be useless anyway. ____________ I like woman because breasts
twinkygirl	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:15:00 - [63] So ccp 60 comments and everybody tells you how fail your new solution is. maybe you should think about this!
SmallGang Bandit	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:18:00 - [64] The tears here are exquisite. What the vast majority of you whining babies are saying is: Quote: I can't PvP in anything less than a 250 million ISK HAC, and you are making it impossible for me to have a hangar full of these Quote: I won't run those cheap anomalies in my 750 million ISK Strategic Cruiser, and you are making it impossible for me to have a hangar full of these Last time I checked, the lower grade anomalies still generated a few million ISK in bounties, loot and salvage (yes, using all means of income generation). So OMFG, you will now have to consider PvP in a mere T2 fit BC. This is what I see this change doing, and this is the real concern for all of you spacerich babies: Individual pilot income is going to slowly go down, until the isk/hr running anomalies becomes equal to the isk/hr running hisec missions, and stabilize at that point. Guessing it will stabilize at a lower total wallet level, and at the individual pilot level fewer high-dollar ships will be affordable. Sadly what this will do is actually mirror the income divide that has become the norm in the modern U.S. - those who have more (Supercarriers/Carriers) and access to those higher truesec systems with iHub upgrades will have even more ISK, and the average scrub will have less. Because why would an alliance with access to Sanctums and Havens let some non-capital scrub farm anomalies. After all only the super pilots need the ISK, right? The real question is, when the average nullsec pilot wallet stabilizes at a lower overall level, will this impact the T2/T3/Moongoo markets, since these ships won't be vanilla anymore - there will be actual value in them (except for pilots those alliances that are already beyond stupid rich with the Tech buff from last year). Hate to break it to all of you though - it's not going to "destroy the game" after all you only had those sanctums/havens for the last year anyway, and if you are that angry, and going to quit playing, make sure to give all your stuff to someone in your corp/alliance, so they can use it.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:21:00 - [65] I think this will be a disaster for most of 0.0, it will not lead to more conflict, it will lead to less people in 0.0 overall and less interesting encounters. After all lets look at Providence which was linked. Why would you sov grind it knowing you can't get a sanctum/haven? How will you pay for your sov? Geminate also mentioned. The one good thing about Geminate is that ratting never caused wars there ever since the Drone Regions were introduced it has been strategically important. Still it is better than Providence in that one constellation by Stella Polaris is decent, and Brick Squad is about mid way on about half their systems. Less is not more dynamic. Maybe this is an early April Fool's Day joke. If you want to do this let me propose some changes. Your current band system makes about half of 0.0 useless. It would be more cost effective time wise to just do missions in high sec than to even do anomalies in 0.0. So what do you think folks will do. Make the first band (-2.0 and lower) as it is currently in systems. Then each band improves from there (instead of waiting until its at the 3rd and 4th band)by +1 converted. This ensures that existing space remains as valuable as it is today. Working along this same line I would suggest that instead of 4 per level that it is necessary that you increase the number of anomalies in a system. Double that 4 to 8. The more pilots a system can support the better. It means an alliance needs less space to accommodate its pilots then they might be more inclined to allow someone to take a less desirable space. Next lower the military index requirements. Large alliances can easily already keep multiple systems at level 5 when not off on campaigns. The lowering of the requirement will have less effect on them, however those smaller alliances if they are to have a chance will need to have an easier time leveling up their index. I'd halve the current amounts. I cannot guarantee that these would meet your stated goals, but I can guarantee what has been suggested in the blog will never meet the stated goals as it increases the space needed to support the same number of pilots which means there will be no shrinkage and no space available for new groups.
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:21:00 - [66] I don't care about 0.0, but I really like it when CCP states outright what effect it is their game mechanics changes is intended to bring about. -- Salpad
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:24:00 - [67] Originally by: SmallGang Bandit Hate to break it to all of you though - it's not going to "destroy the game" after all you only had those sanctums/havens for the last year anyway, and if you are that angry, and going to quit playing, make sure to give all your stuff to someone in your corp/alliance, so they can use it. Yes, we did not had anomalies 15 months ago, so its ok to remove them. We also have the same political map we had 15 months go. Also, the alliances pilots that have more thannys than i have noobships on high-sec and who live in -0.6 and up will also be forced to adapt to going back to belt ratting. Good analysis. You surprisingly fit the bill to work for CCP, so send them your CV. ____________ I like woman because breasts
DTson Gauur Caldari Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:25:00 - [68] Hey CCP, remember the Exodus expansion which you meant to make nullsec more viable too, just that you introduced lvl4 missions at the same time? REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED? If this change goes through unchanged, I can guarantee it will happen again.
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:28:00 - [69] Originally by: Renan Ruivo The only alliances which use anomalies as an income source are the small ones that are still estabilishing foothold. They rat sanctuns and havens to pay for the initial PVP ships for home-defense, to pay for the POS and jump-freighters to set up a modest moon mining scheme and to encourage new blood to join. Now they wont be able to do that. Good job. Thank you for typing what i was thinking.. i second it
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:40:00 - [70] So, back to the old and proven pre-Dominion grunt-level 0.0-financing-system called "L4 empire mission running alt". Incidentally, they were just announced on Fanfest to all become equally good...

Master Gotama	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:41:00 - [71] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: ukiyo e Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision. Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it? Your post makes 0 sense. C. hi, you must be new here. in EVE, people attack you to see your ship explode. people defend space because it is valuable. see the difference??
Jack Atarius Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:41:00 - [72] This is a fail idea for all the comments listed above. This proposed change will make the average pilot flock out of nullsec. Personally, I don't make billions of isk with multiple bot...er characters farming planets and goo. If you want us to buy more PLEX, then say so. Don't mess with game mechanics because you want more entertainment and lulz. ------------ Our ambition should be to rule ourselves ~ Oscar Wilde
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:42:00 - [73] Um...... what about the all isk and time we have sunk into upgrading the systems (plex and logistical upgrades), the poses, the stations. I cant think of a single alliance that owns space would just up sticks and move just because system "x" has a better sec status and i'm pretty sure that was the case before upgrading systems came in. I would say hundreds of billions of isk (if not the odd trillion or so) have been pushed into upgrading systems with narf sec status because they are now usable systems, doing this is pee'ing on the all the current sov holders. You want "advanced-alliances" to move out and make way for newer less experience alliances you are going to have to find some other way to do it. All this is going to do is irritate alot of the 0.0's who have just gotten use to this change. You want alliance like MM to move out you need to provide us with an extremely good reason and one that wont take 6 months for us to have to bed ourselves into because POS people like myself suffer badly everytime you guys suggest the next great idea for 0.0 and tbh I'd rather play the game than spend days/weeks/months modifying towers/sov/stations to deal with the latest "idea". You want us to live in smaller areas with bigger populations then you need to think about something else, i dunno like: have the empires absorb ALL current 0.0 space (possible except drones) create 2 or 3 times the current number of 0.0 regions or just a huge belt of stars (if belt of stars) give us the chance to build up the gate network with limits on gate range and numbers per system Give every region (in small groups not like the current distribution, say one or two regions) a near unqiue moon goo that will give a resonable income (not 50bil a week, but say 1 or 2 bill (there are corps out there that live off moon goo and simply wouldnt function without it) Make it horrendously expensive for alliance to expand too much and dont make it a linear progression say holding x systems becomes so expensive even with every player in game helping out you still couldnt pay the bill (you guys did say your looking for a new isk sink.....) (probably not the best idea in the world but meh im not a game designer, the nearest i get that is designing fancy spreadsheets) You say the CSM is a great tool for your company, well prehaps if you want to seriously change 0.0 to make it dynamic then you need to look at grabbing one or two dozen people from various 0.0 alliances who deal with most of the 0.0 areas (alliance command, POSes/sov, FCs, carebears/indys). Alright we may not agree with what each other but I bet we will probably point you in a decent direction. PS i would love to know if there is a Dev who who deals with POSes in his/her/hamster free time I would love to see their opinion of the system of how well it works. If there isnt I challange a dev to go out set up a couple of deathstars or a small moon goo reaction chain and then dismantle them and tell me its fun or is a resonable amount of "pain for my eve pleasure".
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:43:00 - [74] Waaaaaah, my game-breaking isk faucet is getting nerfed! I don't care that there was a massive and completely unsustainable influx of ISK into the economy that coincided with the Dominion changes, you can't nerf my Sanctums!!!11! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Signature removed.
musejay1	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:46:00 - [75] this is going to ruin 0.0, it wont be eaiser for newer alliances to go to 0.0, they wont even bother going there because its making it worthless... this is the worst idea ever...
Montolio Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:46:00 - [76] Terrible and misguided changes.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:47:00 - [77] I have seen many changes by CCP. Some were good. Some were mediocre. Some were terrible. This one is below horripilant. Just don't do it. I can't find the words to describe how much this is going to backfire, so I'll just leave the other many other players to comment at how POOR this idea is. Heck I am not even able to play enough to bother with going 0.0 since 2 years and I still feel the pain for the guys who will try. Quote: The real question is, when the average nullsec pilot wallet stabilizes at a lower overall level, will this impact the T2/T3/Moongoo markets, since these ships won't be vanilla anymore - there will be actual value in them (except for pilots those alliances that are already beyond stupid rich with the Tech buff from last year). Hate to break it to all of you though - it's not going to "destroy the game" after all you only had those sanctums/havens for the last year anyway, and if you are that angry, and going to quit playing, make sure to give all your stuff to someone in your corp/alliance, so they can use it. All this blurb is not going to destroy the game, indeed. It will nerf the begeezus of the low end alliances and players till the just do what they did before: leave 0.0 and add to the huge pile of Motsu farmers. GREAT, GREAT idea to "improve" the game back to pre-Dominion! Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
zeta alpha Egivand	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:48:00 - [78] im not planning on going to 0.0... but this looks like a bad idea, and im sure my friends will not be happy...
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:50:00 - [79] I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change. We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional. I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.
Anthrax jay	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:52:00 - [80] you say you dont care about the density of players in 0.0, yet the lower security systems will be more defended, with more people in. this is the worst idea yet ccp, i hope this isnt implemented as it will ruin the game.

Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:53:00 - [81] Large alliances control moongoo.... check Large alliances control vast amounts of space... check Those vast amounts of space contain the best true sec... check Large alliances get more powerful smaller aliances get weaker.. check So what is the mission hub of of choice latley? I need to start moving my ****.
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:53:00 - [82] And when I sperged the guy is clueless about everything related to 0.0 I was crucified for my lack of manners and ability for mature communication. How can you communicate with someone who has courage to spill such embarrassing devblog. CCP Nozh is 0.0 Einstein for this guy.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:55:00 - [83] Apparently, the few people who support this idea also think that a massive exodus of people towards high-sec missioning is a good thing. Also, some people also believe these alliances who made a living out of < -0.2 should try to conquer > -0.5 space. Sure, we had income then, now we no longer have. So lets get whats left of our money and try to take systems away from people who still have their income source unchanged. Because surely PVP ships are free. Either leave anomalies as they are, or completely remove them from all systems to make thing the way they were pre-dominion. Otherwise this shall forever be known as EVE's SOE moment. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Iosue Black Sky Hipsters	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:57:00 - [84] CCP this is a terribad idea. Newer players donÆt go to 0.0 to kill endless spawns of frigs and cruisers. The filler you speak of (and their payouts) donÆt attract newer players. They want to make good isk. By making this change, you are removing their incentive to go into 0.0 and consolidating all the isk making potential in those areas that already have large Alliances controlling them. This MAKES NO SENSE.
LegendaryFrog Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:58:00 - [85] Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 25/03/2011 20:58:51 Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 25/03/2011 20:58:07 checks Deklein systems truesec in dotlan Deklein buff, changes sound good to me! In all seriousness though, I think a more careful consideration of not just the balance between 0.0 regions, but the balance of risk vs reward in 0.0 is in order. This is a nerf to a great deal of average joe 0.0 dwellers personal income, whichever way you look at it, and I really don't think many people would argue that those particular wallets are the ones most in need of emptying. (Let's face it, rich super-capital pilots aren't exactly running sanctums)
Orianda	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [86] well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars.... but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor.... so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!!
Sentient Blade	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [87] I can't see any possible advantage to this idea... the most powerful alliances will hold the handful of very low truesec systems, and the rest of nullsec will not be at all profitable to operate in. Personally, as the CEO of a small nullsec alliance with just one system, if this change comes about, I'll be heading back up to high sec.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 20:59:00 - [88] ITT: 0.0 powerbloc members explain why for the good of EVE, all their space must be be maximally valuable. The only hope that the "small alliances" everyone keeps yammering on about have for getting any space is that there is some space the powerblocs aren't interested in. Remember that at the moment there is only one single lonely particular non-powerbloc alliance that holds space, and that's Pandemic Legion. Pointing at PL and saying that "you must be at least this good to hold space" is not, I think, a particularly realistic bar to set. Remember also that 15 months ago, the game was getting along just fine without anomaly upgrades.... Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Togalosh	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:00:00 - [89] throwing in my support on the "this is a bad idea" side.
Tadari	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:01:00 - [90] Edited by: Tadari on 25/03/2011 21:04:18 To make a long story short: This is bull****. If there would be a dislike button here.. i would hammer it down through the middle of the earth.. First decission now: no PLEX for Japan.. have to spare my Isk now, I think BTW: Didn't like missions - but I did them for ISK.. dont really like anos.. but I do them.. for just one reason.. ISK = Fun in PVP.. no Isk = no PVP.. no PVP = boring game..

Mr Ludak Caldari Science Experts	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:01:00 - [91] The main thing which bothers me here that the main motivator behind this change is to break blobs which is utterly ******ed.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:06:00 - [92] I lead one of those alliances your sov changes keep trying to buff - we're small(~400 members, 2 systems), we're out in the middle of a war zone(East Geminate), and while we're vaguely in one of the big power blocs nobody is exactly counting us as one of the big movers and shakers in NC. And let me just say that you've made a better attempt at destroying us as a sovholding alliance than 20,000 angry Russians have managed in the last six months of invasions. We can handle PvP, we can handle cloaky gankers, we can handle grinding HP on sov structures. We can't handle paying for all of the above with systems that make a level 3 agent in lowsec look valuable. I'm not opposed to the idea of making truesec matter somewhat again. If a -0.01 system lost a sanctum, that'd be tolerable. Lame for us, perhaps a bad decision, but we could deal with it. But no sanctums, no havens? Why not just jack the sov bill up to 50 mil a day and have devs set themselves red and hang out cloaked in local while you're at it? If you're going to tell us not to even bother holding sov, you might as well do it right.
Maulkyn	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:06:00 - [93] This change will be a set back for our corporation. We have fully upgraded a system and dropped a station. We didn't care what the truesec status was when we spent the billions of ISK on upgrades and constructing a station but it certainly has an impact now.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:09:00 - [94] Ok so 100's of billions wasted north and south because systems that were valueable are not going to be. And furthermore not recoverable. So people will leave 0.0 for their jewing and come to 0.0 for pew pew. This change will just be the resurrection of the empire missioning alts as primary income stream, well done. Noone is gonna stage in the same system that they rat, attracts to much attention. Want to fix eve? Allow Devs to Play in 0.0 again. Let them see how it works, and what will work and not work. If you wanna counter blobs, bring back AoE DD but limit its use maybe irradiate grid allowing only 2 or 3 on a grid for an hour. On top of that reduce the range and damage. Bam its done. Cause entities living in regions that arent 'good' will just use other mechanics to make money, mining/highsec missioning/Plex hunting/Belt Ratting/ and such so all it does is **** people off that they spent money upgrading systems to live in and now those same systems are worthless completely
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:09:00 - [95] Originally by: Malcanis ITT: 0.0 powerbloc members explain why for the good of EVE, all their space must be be maximally valuable. The only hope that the "small alliances" everyone keeps yammering on about have for getting any space is that there is some space the powerblocs aren't interested in. Remember that at the moment there is only one single lonely particular non-powerbloc alliance that holds space, and that's Pandemic Legion. Pointing at PL and saying that "you must be at least this good to hold space" is not, I think, a particularly realistic bar to set. Remember also that 15 months ago, the game was getting along just fine without anomaly upgrades.... Which is why 0.0 is now way more populated than 15 months ago. You are right that only way a single lonely non-powerblock alliance can hold space is when larger blocks arent interested in them, is this way now, wont change (you are wrong btw that PL is the only one). However right now if they hold some space they can do their thing, make their isk there, and if hostiles come switch to pvp ships. After this change the only space they could possibly hold would be completely worthless, and they would need to make their money in high sec. It all comes down to just doing lvl 4 missions in high sec, which is nice for CCP, since if you also want to live in 0.0 you are pretty much forced to have alts.
Tiligean	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:12:00 - [96] A faction fit Tengu in every hangar in nullsec is the way EVE should be. Don't you DARE change the nullsec anomaly spawns CCP!!! If I can't have a faction Tengu to rat in, this game isn't worth playing. Because my faction Tengu pays for the plex that support my 5 accounts. And if you nerf nullsec anomalies, my alliance won't be able to have Sovereignty in 30 systems - we'll only be able to afford 10! Seriously. Sounds like if you have a trusec system at -0.5 to -0.8 it will be at least "as good" as it is now, and if you have trusec -0.9 to -1.0 and full upgrades you get six extra sites. That would suggest that there may be a wider distribution of anomalies across the various Trusec, and frankly, since the crappiest trusec (other than Provi) is in the NC regions, home of TECHNETIUM, I'm not sure it's a bad move. So the NC alliances, which have the biggest ISK faucet in EVE in TECHNETIUM, will have to decide if that ISK needs to trickle down to the pilots rather than gild the hangars of the leadership, to maintain the high quality of combat ships they field now. Providence is screwed, but really, they were already screwed over there (sorry guys). I'm looking at how quickly most of you posted, you probably don't even know the truesec of the system you run your sanctum in right now, do you?
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:12:00 - [97] Originally by: LegendaryFrog Let's face it, rich super-capital pilots aren't exactly running sanctums Actually, I am pretty sure there are sanctum-financed supercapitals around. But, had they not been santum-financed, they would have been L4-financed or any other way. And personally, I prefer the sanctum-financed over the alternatives because it means the shiny toy was actually financed by living, working and breathing in 0.0.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:14:00 - [98] Originally by: Klam I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change. We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional. I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person. i like it
Tiligean	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:18:00 - [99] Originally by: Orianda well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars.... but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor.... so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!! You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:18:00 - [100] Originally by: Malcanis ITT: 0.0 powerbloc members explain why for the good of EVE, all their space must be be maximally valuable. I live in Cobalt Edge. Virtually none of the systems I work out of will be adversely affected by the currently proposed changes. I suppose it's the reward for being so far out in the middle of nowhere. And yet I still think this is a horrifically awful idea by anyone's standards. Originally by: Malcanis The only hope that the "small alliances" everyone keeps yammering on about have for getting any space is that there is some space the powerblocs aren't interested in. Clearly you need to consider the real implications of CCP's proposed changes, instead of swallowing wholesale the bull that they posted. Small alliances can and do get into nullsec; they simply have to do so under the aegis of a larger alliance or powerbloc. No matter what CCP does, small antisocial alliances who are too diplomatically incompetent to work with others will never be able to move into nullsec on their own, unless CCP makes nullsec so worthless that large alliances will simply abandon it. This is because even if space is worthless to an individual pilot, it may be strategically important to the alliance or coalition, since most alliances don't want a potentially hostile entity putting up towers within jump range of their home systems. Even if a system does not act as a bottleneck or a jump point, no alliance is going to allow potential hostiles near its home space. All that CCP has done is make numerous systems and sometimes entire regions useless to the individual pilot; this does not mean that ... say ... the DRF will stop attacking Geminate. Originally by: Malcanis Remember also that 15 months ago, the game was getting along just fine without anomaly upgrades.... And seven years ago we didn't have capital ships, or sovereignty. Surely the game was getting along just fine without them, so maybe we should all go back to living in Empire. CCP has made nullsec more dynamic and vibrant by creating new incentives for players to live there; all of a sudden they think that they can make nullsec even more dynamic by making it very difficult for individual players to live there without using jump clones or alts for Awesome Super-Fun Level 4 Mission Grinding (tm). At least in nullsec we can shoot ninja salvagers. This change will not kill nullsec, nor will it destroy the current balance of power. It will most likely have the exact opposite effect from what CCP intends. Rather than creating conflict and breaking up coalitions (which would require alliances to be able to survive in a smaller volume of space), they're actually going to reduce the ability of alliances who do not currently hold high-value space to be able to even survive in nullsec.

Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:19:00 - [101] Originally by: Tiligean You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC. Nobody denies you the option of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Just a couple of guys pointing out that it isn't clever.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:21:00 - [102] Originally by: Tiligean Originally by: Orianda well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars.... but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor.... so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!! You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC. A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running.
luceron	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:22:00 - [103] I'm curious about why this blog was released during Fanfest instead of before it. Was CCP Greyscale concerned about backlash at Fanfest? If you want to encourage fights, taking from the "have nots" to give more to the "haves" doesn't seem like way to do it. If you want alliance scale conflicts you need to do something with the moon-goo system. This all seems pretty simple to understand. Not sure how you can work at CCP and be so disconnected from issues and concerns of the bulk of member body. /sadface
Stefan Pompka	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:22:00 - [104] Are you high CCP? This will hurt PvP, not boost it. Alliance money comes from POSes - you don't touch that. Individual member's money comes from ratting so they can earn money for PvP. You nerf individual player's income they have rat more and PvP less. PvPers don't like grinding. I left 0.0 space because as a casual player I could not afford PvP on a regular basis - not enough time to grind. Plus I hate it. With this craptastic idea you will push people away from PvP. Alliances do fight for better space, but better space understood as moon mining not rats. Get a clue already :/ Want to boost small scale PvP? Allow smaller groups to challenge big alliances. Take away the need to use caps and supercaps to challenge them, allow small gangs to hurt large entities by hit and run attacks and there you have boosted small scale pvp. Want to boost large, alliance level scale pvp? Have the rare, valuable resources shift between moons every two months to push alliances to fight for different space.
mal serentity Gallente Hysterically Unforgiving	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 - [105] This will seriously hamper the isk feeding to replace the ships corps/allainces loose in pvp. so why make it harder. the isk must flow and your making it not worth the trouble. I dont like this direction your looking to go.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 - [106] Originally by: Alice Katsuko A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running. We afforded faction fit pimp ** before sanctums, you know. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Aracturus	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:24:00 - [107] "tl;dr There's now a no reason to live in nullsec again:" Fixed.
kula kain	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:26:00 - [108] this will in no way change the way space is sought after.... anomolies mean nothing to us that actually live in these areas of space.. most of us could care less if we even have sov upgrades lvl 5.. this game is still revolving around moon materials those who hold the grand daddy of them all control the isk flow of the game.. look at dronelands etc they dont give rats about the bounties they still collect building materials.. geminate has no extreme sec status and we still clash head over head there.. the south regions are still conflicting and moving about.. the only real reason why i see a need at all for this change is so ccp and all the rest of these devs that actually play the game can fully fulfill thier ego greed with thier own special sec status systems... (another way for IT maybe to regain easy isk in thier space since all thier moon goo is being eaten) new alliances that forge and grow into null sec early on will not have a chance anyhow unless they buddy up with a bigger coalition and thus still have rent etc they will have to pay.. these changes will not change how the effects of politics nor the way the sand box grinds for space.. no ingame changes can increase the sought after 0.0 space.. as the ratting means nothing. the only thing that grows thiers minds are industrialists scope of moon goo. and the effect of sov space ability to build supers.. it is not the ratting status of the space.. in your changes to this your only wasting the time thousands of players have already spent to change to the upgrades you already put in.. to change it again is only going to de motivate those people and in all honesty those are the people retaining your membership and bringing thier friends to play.. if you keep changing your mechanics you only risk loosing older player base which refers down the line to referrals on player base.. overall u will then see less people in 0.0 as most of our alliances etc are already taking hard hits over sov mechanic's week+ to take one ihub sov system is rediculous. also allowing hostiles 3++ chances to defend over the top maybe u should change these things instead of changing the ratting ability of the area.. once an alliance is established new alliances really cannot be motivated to take 1 month to conquer a constelation.. honestly i do not support these changes and your just getting more ******ed as u make up more crap....
Camios Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:26:00 - [109] Some considerations. Having space with several differences in value is good Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good People fighting over resources is good People not fighting and moving to empire because they can't fund their war effort is not good In order to have "small fights",we need a 0.0 populated by small independent entities. But small entities can't survive without being able to fight sov and pos warfare, because in order to live in 0.0 you need some sort of space asset for refitting, do logistics, production... I'm not asking for small groups to win the big game, I am just asking for small groups to be able to survive in the shade.
Kronos Hopeslayer Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:27:00 - [110] Edited by: Kronos Hopeslayer on 25/03/2011 21:28:47 This is CCP throwing in the towel over fighting lag in massive fleet battles. The major power blocs use 100's to even 1000's of extra pilots from smaller pet alliances to make the huge blobs we see today. The major power alliances themselves could care less about ratting because they use high end moons to keep afloat. These smaller pet alliances however have become successful due to raking in the isk from players farming anoms, and when these anoms go so will the smaller alliances. Thus removing the huge blobs, and CCP can go back to making stupid things like incarna... 0.0 will be come like it was pre-dominion, and that is a ghost town outside of major trade/ratting hubs. The major powers that control the best moons won't move, or even bother to try to take better ratting systems. All those systems below .45 will empty out, and only will have upgrades if it has a high end moon worth cyno-jamming to protect. The only conflict we will see on dotlan will be pets who happen to be in good systems being kicked out by their master alliances. So 0.0 will go back to the North being what it has been before and after dominion, the drone region will see some renters leave, but to be honest botters won't care too much if they go from making 5bil a month to 3bil a month. The south will not see much change other then smaller alliances moving from crappy .4 and below systems back to NPC space or else where. Fountain, Cloud Ring, Geminate will stop being a battleground since no one will want it any more. The South West will be the only place showing any sort of conflict, and once that dust settles Eve 0.0 will become stagnant, and empty again.

Merrik Talorra Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:27:00 - [111] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Then CCP Greyscale needs to have his head examined. Seriously. This hurts the players, not the alliances. If you're looking to break up the big power blocs, you won't. I know I'm looking forward to grinding crap anoms to pay for things when I'd much rather be out doing PvP. You know, that thing we do in null sec from time to time
justin666	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:28:00 - [112] Originally by: Tadari Edited by: Tadari on 25/03/2011 21:04:18 To make a long story short: This is bull****. If there would be a dislike button here.. i would hammer it down through the middle of the earth.. First decission now: no PLEX for Japan.. have to spare my Isk now, I think BTW: Didn't like missions - but I did them for ISK.. dont really like anos.. but I do them.. for just one reason.. ISK = Fun in PVP.. no Isk = no PVP.. no PVP = boring game.. this guy has it spot on..... EVERYONE here does these sites to fund pvp.. no question about it and blowing this income to bits is SUCH a bad move in every single way how on earth are you even thinking of this???.. i just dont understand how ccp hire muppets doing these sort of things and most people in this thread are right.. there going to be loads and loads of people going back to high sec to make the isk NEEDED to fund the current 0.0 wars and what gets me most is this line from the ccp dumbhead saying this.. let us know in the comments if there are any other areas in need of some love.. omfg and yes i know i have posted 4 times in this thread and i never done this before because this change is so f++cking bad.. listen to players for once ffs
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:28:00 - [113] Originally by: Camios Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident **ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro motherers in high sec get through mass market PVP. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
060606	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:29:00 - [114] This is mad I do not see why this would cause massive fail in alliances. No action should be taken with out a vote from its members since this could ruin peoples game time and make alot of people leave eve.
fire elf Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:31:00 - [115] claps Well Done CCP! U are gonna make 0.0 look good ? quess what.. your doing the opposite ... Well Done is all I can say.
Azaydius Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:33:00 - [116] So for corporations with very few useful anomaly systems, what is to stop hostiles from leaving an AFK cloaked covops camping inside their anomalies, causing them to never de-spawn and effectively shutting down said corporation's ability to make any isk from their upgraded systems? Not to mention this will change nothing about how wars are handled, those who can field the most supercapitals will still dominate the game. This change will probably do nothing except increase the amount of people who use bots and send many people to the "fun" of hi security mission running. Dreddit - Exploding hilariously on a daily basis! (It's what we do)
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari draketrain Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:37:00 - [117] Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 25/03/2011 21:39:23 OHHAI, this change would not change anything (just look at low sec trololololoo), most likely even would make things worse for small/new alliances. im not really interested much about anomalies, not even doing them, but this blog just doesnt make sense. how about first fixing all those anomalies which are not even worth doing? who wants to rat frigates in low sec. i hear there's 9000 isk bounty on one frigate. lets go guys.
Pax Selvetica	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:37:00 - [118] Originally by: Azaydius So for corporations with very few useful anomaly systems, what is to stop hostiles from leaving an AFK cloaked covops camping inside their anomalies, causing them to never de-spawn and effectively shutting down said corporation's ability to make any isk from their upgraded systems? You Sir, are a genius. Switching training to Stealth Bombers as we speak.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:37:00 - [119] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Alice Katsuko A player whose income comes from running anomalies below Havens/Sanctums won't be able to afford to PvP in anything above a battlecruiser. On a high-loss campaign, they might soon wind up flying unrigged T1 cruisers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never lived in nullsec. The ISK per hour from lower-end anomalies is so pathetically small that most pilots would be better off jump cloning back to Empire for some awesome mission-running. We afforded faction fit pimp **** before sanctums, you know. -Liang Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system. The number of players who can derive decent income from belt ratting in a system with bad truesec is fairly small; it's certainly smaller than the number of players who can derive decent income running Sanctums/Havens, if only because players who run anomalies don't compete with players who rat in belts. There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs. Basically, CCP is arguing that by nerfing the income of individual players in certain regions, they will create incentives for players to fight over those systems.
Wiu Ming Void Angels Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:38:00 - [120] Cache cleared.

Bloodhands Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:38:00 - [121] I'm strange, I kinda like the idea of true sec actually working like it used to work. CCP finally figured out they fk'd up null sec when they removed true sec from the equation and are trying to fix it. However, as many others have said, they need to make the crappy null sec still desirable. One option would be better ore in crappy space, or more chances of incursions in bad null sec. Or, how about what all of null sec was extremely happy about when it was announced and royally ****ed about when it was removed before even being given was the treaties. Allow large power blocks to be blue with people in specific areas of space for logistics and home protection, but be neutral to each other in other areas. Branch and Tenal residents aren't going to reset tribute residents because they couldn't get to there home if they did. Same goes for Period Basis. However, if you were to allow someone to be blue in a few key constellations for travel, and neutral in the rest of eve that would clear up many issues. Take the NC for example, do you really think that Pure Blind residents want to be blue to Geminate residents? Simple answer is no. However they are because the only option is blue or neutral. There is no in between to allow someone to be blue in some regions or constellations. Make the changes to true sec, but also let people pvp. ______________________
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:40:00 - [122] Originally by: Weaselior Originally by: Klam I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change. We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional. I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person. i like it Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why.
Ceras Phoenix	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:41:00 - [123] I just spent like 15 minutes trying to figure out how you could make a situation in which nullsec is populated by tens/hundreds of smaller alliances and corporations, and everything I came up with still resulted in, "Well if you just set a large enough number of people blue and agree to work together, big power blocs will still control what they want to control." Sov nullsec is not designed for "the little guy." The entire notion of owning space and the mechanics behind taking and controlling it are so far skewed towards large groups of players that there is literally no way to change it short of erasing untold years of design philosophy. Supercapitals as a class of ships would HAVE to disappear in order for small groups to have a chance of competing with alliances and coalitions. It's absolutely mindblowing what they think they can accomplish by changing something like this. All this change means is that areas with low truesec are suddenly far more valuable, and are far more worth defending. Defense always being easier with large numbers, it's even more important to be part of a large coalition to ensure you can defend your low truesec. If anything, this punishes small groups, because now even if the major powers shift towards deep nullsec, high nullsec is worthless, so you don't even get anything for your troubles if you do manage to capture the space. The only thing I can think of is to make lowsec somehow claimable on a corporate level. That'd allow all the yarrr pirates and smaller groups to have regions they could have some control over and defend while leaving nullsec to the larger player groups. Small guy has a goal and a place to fight for and the big groups do, too. As Mittens said in the roundtables over and over, everything about human instinct says we should group up to protect each other. Given how hostile EVE is, there's every incentive for the DRF and DC and NC to all exist and nothing CCP can do is going to change that. They're just going to leave a rubble of stupid gameplay behind them while they try to artificially force us to play in smaller groups. It's not going to happen. A much better option would be to slightly nerf 0.0- -0.2 (or -0.3) to not spawn sanctums and only spawn sanctums and to have the very deep nullsec (-0.7- -1.0) spawn super sanctums. Or just have escalations/faction spawns from anomalies in deep nullsec or something. A few people have mentioned this and it's worth repeating. This is a massive mistake on CCP's part that achieves none of their goals and punishes thousands of average nullsec players who are trying to finance their gameplay. I can't believe it got far enough to make it to a devblog, but I would urge CCP to reconsider this, as it accomplishes none of your goals, and screws a lot of people out of trillions of isk worth of opportunity cost.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:42:00 - [124] Originally by: Alice Katsuko Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system. And what is your point there? That you might need to go a system over from your station to do your ratting and plexing? Oh wait, you're busy putting up a station in that system too.... Quote: There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs. While many alliances said they had ship replacement programs, I always found that unless you were sucking the FC and/or alliance leader off you weren't gonna be getting anything at all replaced. So basically: no they didn't. Quote: Basically, CCP is arguing that by nerfing the income of individual players in certain regions, they will create incentives for players to fight over ~~those~~ more valuable systems. Thought I'd fix that for you. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Mcrager	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:42:00 - [125] For once i will post with my main on the forums . ccp listen closely , this change is possibly one of the dumbest things i have seen in eve history. why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec? there is a reason its profitable , its dangerous. i would make more isk running missions in relative high sec safety than i would be living out in 0.0 after this change. i hope this becomes a threadnaught and something or someone hits you over the head and you notice how bad this idea is.
Ashaai	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:43:00 - [126] This is the same account as Ceras Phoenix, but bugger, wrong character. Guess I have to biosmass that alt when I get back home.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:45:00 - [127] Originally by: Mcrager why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec? It isn't now, it wasn't before, and it won't be then. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that CCP is adding plexes to 0.0 as well as nerfing high sec mission running. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:50:00 - [128] Originally by: Klam Originally by: Weaselior Originally by: Klam I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change. We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional. I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person. i like it Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why. our space is really good
DeLaRefe	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:50:00 - [129] Most ******ed idea ever. You want people to move? Re-shuffle tech moons. Nerfing 0.0 plexes will only make average player A LOT less interested in 0.0 and perhaps in eve in general.
Florestan Bronstein Amarr Taishi Combine	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 - [130] only difference will be which systems will be available for rent and which will be reserved for own use.

Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 - [131] Originally by: Master Gotama Originally by: Cailais Originally by: ukiyo e Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision. Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it? Your post makes 0 sense. C. hi, you must be new here. in EVE, people attack you to see your ship explode. people defend space because it is valuable. see the difference?? 2006. The argument here is why people attack 'space' - i.e with the aim of conquering a system. If that system has limited perceived value then it aught to follow that it wont be attacked with the intent of capturing that space. If the attacker has no financial motive or desire to gain that space then obviously its completely irrelevant what the value of that space is. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Anitta Blake BSC LEGION Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 - [132] so ccp thinks we will fight over Havens and Sanctums guys get a grip one of the biggest cap fights so far this year was in a 0.2 system Battle Summary for Uemon, 2011-02-14 19:04 - 02:44 22 Titans lost + 11 Supercarrier add to that 500+ other ships killed so want made Uemon so special that 1200+ would want to fight over suffering lag, black screens for hours only to load in new clone with a loss mail. a outpost NO its low sec you can take a NCP station oh must the Havens and Sanctums no you can upgrade NCP space so what was it all over well only one thing that matters to 0.0 alliances that Uemon has one Technetium moon. Moons make power blocks strong not a few Sanctums this is not the FIX you are looking for CCP
Leelo dallasmultipas	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:55:00 - [133] Uhm, this is Bull#$%&? Yeah,total BS CCP, come on. This is going to cause more conflict, to be sure, but it'll just be more of the BLOB and more of the AFK Campers. Which is ****. The "less valuable" space will not be more accessible to newer alliances, no, they wont want it, it'll be useless... So instead of making nullsec more accessible and more diverse, you'll make it unpopulated... Please tell me that you aren't looking to fill up Empire more than it already is? There is wisdom in saying: "Don't fix something that isn't broke", so leave well enough alone leave 0.0 with upgrades and sanctums. THE WHOLE POINT OF 0.0 IS THAT IT IS UPGRADEABLE.... "CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies." I AM NOT.
Zonomar Krait Corp Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:56:00 - [134] This is a poor choice by CCP to downgrade much of current nullsec. Enhance the lowest sec systems, do not nerf any.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:56:00 - [135] Originally by: Weaselior Originally by: Klam Originally by: Weaselior Originally by: Klam I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change. We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional. I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person. i like it Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why. our space is really good LMFAO ... oh that's awesome. Thanks for the reply.
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:57:00 - [136] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mcrager why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec? It isn't now, it wasn't before, and it won't be then. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that CCP is adding plexes to 0.0 as well as nerfing high sec mission running. -Liang You either: 1- Are a goonswarm member, with ship reposition of doom policy. 2- Are a macroer with 5 accounts running BELTS 23.5/7 3- Fund yourself selling plexes 4- Are a corp leader or alliance director 5- Are Greyscale's alt. 6- Live in -1.0 Some math: -0.2 to 0.0 systems with an average of 10 belts gives you 10 to 15 battleships every 20 minutes, with low bounties. You therefore make between 3 to 5 mil isk every bounty cycle. On high-sec doing missions you can do double that with an cookie cutter raven. If you use a faction BS, grind LP for BPC's and an alt with a noctis you can easelly do 1 plex every two days with very little actual grind. Belt ratting on true -0.2 to 0.0 WAS far less profitable than missioning, STILL is far less profitable than missioning and WILL STILL BE far less profitable than missioning. Damn son, unless you're belt ratting alone on -1.0 systems, even that is still less profitable than high sec missioning. Here is a bit of advice, for real. Don't argue with that. I've never seen SO many people agreeing on something on these forums, and you are trying to swim against the current.
Pyrostasis Caldari TDK Industries Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:58:00 - [137] As a CEO of a small corp thats currently just getting its feet wet in 0.0 in a smaller alliance I can say that this will have the exact opposite effect of what you are planning. Currently we've been throwing everything we have into getting setup out here, getting our logistics to empire setup and solidifying our areas of space and now you throw a wrench in all of that. All the money we just threw into this area is now more or less worthless. This change will as others have said do more to flat out kill smaller alliances and corps in 0.0 than the enemies we've been fighting. Well played CCP you got the kill mail on quite a few "small frys" today.
Tito Sajic Secret Squirrel Readiness Group Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 21:59:00 - [138] April First is fast approaching...
Mina Scalleto	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:00:00 - [139] Haha of course I don't support this. The MANY sound reasons why have been posted. But honestly why even have 5 pages of unsupport when the reality is that ALL of this will fall on deaf ears. When we get another dev blog stating "We hear what your saying and this is what we're doing to meet at a point that makes everyone satisfied.", wake me up. Some guy working at CCP that sits behind a screen looking at isk numbers, that doesn't play the game like the vast majority of subscribers, is probably getting a big pat on the back for some "revolutionary" idea he thought up. How about asking the CSM what should be done instead of telling your fanbase "How it's going to be, period."?
Khamal Jolstien Caldari Sick Tight Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:02:00 - [140] Originally by: Mina Scalleto Haha of course I don't support this. The MANY sound reasons why have been posted. But honestly why even have 5 pages of unsupport when the reality is that ALL of this will fall on deaf ears. When we get another dev blog stating "We hear what your saying and this is what we're doing to meet at a point that makes everyone satisfied.", wake me up. Some guy working at CCP that sits behind a screen looking at isk numbers, that doesn't play the game like the vast majority of subscribers, is probably getting a big pat on the back for some "revolutionary" idea he thought up. How about asking the CSM what should be done instead of telling your fanbase "How it's going to be, period."? Don't ask the CSM, ask the players. The CSM was silent when asked aboutt jump bridge removal and are no where near representative. This dev blog demonstrates an absolute failure in design that even students wouldn't make. CCP, hire better devs. Originally by: McKinlay When you get on the batphone and the only people left in the phone book are Aeternus and BLAST it might be time to hang up.

Ishina Fel Caldari Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:02:00 - [141] Hmmm. You know, Greyscale, I don't really /dislike/ this change per se. I am simply not convinced it will have the effects you want to achieve. Remember that the three largest forces that govern player behavior are the following: a.) The path of least resistance. If a player wants to make money, and available nullsec doesn't look like it's worth it, he will not start a fight over it. That would be too much of a hassle. No, he'll just run missions or hunt wormholes instead. b.) Force of habit. You've lived in this station for years. You paid to have it constructed, paid for all the upgrades and those of the system as well, put up a dozen POSes, your entire corp's assets are here, each planet is full of PI installations, every member has all their ships here. Even if the system suddenly sucks, people will be loathe to leave. c.) Boredom. In nullsec, a war is not started over resources. No, the big powerblocks clash because both sides want to blow **** up for entertainment. Because ratting and mining all day is tedious, and PvP gets the heart racing. That's the driving force of conflict. All I can see your proposed change achieving is to entrench the big powerblocs even more firmly into their space, because small entities need to invest even more effort into raising capital to pay for an invasion (because the ISK/hour ratio of their space sucks) and the defender has to spend even less time to raise capital to defend (because their space's ISK/hour output is phenomenal). In fact, in the time they save, they will grow bored and go out in fleets, stomping the small entities into space-dust and further hampering their efforts to raise and maintain capital. You will get not conflicts over resources, but rather one-sided steamrolls. - Signature? What signature?
Xeneda	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:03:00 - [142] Unclaimed space is all that will remain apart from the few systems actually worth holding and upgrading... WTF CCP. GIVE US A BREAK FROM YOUR STUPID IDEAS.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:03:00 - [143] Edited by: Furb Killer on 25/03/2011 22:03:16 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Camios Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident **ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro motherers in high sec get through mass market PVP. -Liang Probably trolling, but anyway: The only way the sov nullsec we are talking about here was better than mission running before dominion was exploration. Nice and fun, if you want 0.0 to be an empty wasteland, an entire 0.0 region cant support more than a handful of people continiously running exploration content. The vast majority has to survive on belt ratting and anomalies. The systems we are talking about here have horrible belt ratting too that doesnt come close to lvl 4 missions, and now with this change the same for anomalies. So the average ammount of people a certain ammount of space can support goes down by at least a factor 10. Everyone else is better off running high sec missions. Next, how would this possibly generate conflict? Because all those people want the good systems? Lets take the NC as example. We have alliance A, alliance A wants better space. Now alliance A (1k people) can attack the NC (50k people). Only chance they have is that NC laughs themselves to death. So alliance A got horribly outblobbed, didnt achieve **, and isnt anything further. What they will do however would work: Alliance A joins a large powerblock (so most likely NC or DRF atm), and says: hai guys, we like some space. Powerblock says: we have no space, but look there, they got nice space, they only got 10k pilots, we'll take it, then you can live there. The TL;DR, if you add more reason for people to shoot each other, they will band together more to protect themselves against people who shoot them. Because in the end it is all nice that you got a reason to shoot someone, but that also means 349,999 people got a reason to shoot you.
Tex Raynor	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:06:00 - [144] One of my NC officials asked us in alliance mail to literally rant on this thread since it apparently "is aimed directly at us the NC, the North". Although proud member of WI., I fully support this change. It brings value to systems we control other than their geographical location. - Tex Raynor
javer 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:08:00 - [145] Originally by: Furb Killer Never go full ****. Serious this is even by :CCP: standards ridiculous. Quote: Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players, for several reasons: to act as genuine filler so the earlier upgrades in some systems aren't empty; to give newer players resources they can use without much competition; and to give people running anomalies a little more safety from marauding enemies. 1. That is no reason they stay when you get more upgrades, why not just always 8 sites that increase in usefulness with higher level upgrades for example. 2. That is no reason to put 80% useless. 3. Yes because it is really safety that they first go looking in hubs and ports for our tengus. If they are that **ed they arent a danger, everyone knows only havens and sanctums are actually used by targets of roaming gangs. Quote: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Anyone who can tell me how much systems fall into each band? On first look this would mean 25% of all space is absolutely useless after this change (0.0 to -0.25), but i think more than 25% of 0.0 falls into this category. Creating an empty wasteland, good job CCP. Quote: Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space Yep, I wouldnt be surprised if we do that since all our space is suddenly useless. Quote: In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals If by more conflicts you mean some short blobs to evict all smaller alliances since we need now more lebensraum, yes. Quote: Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec You actually think they will be allowed to take the useless space? It just becomes buffer zone for us, even if they take it, useless space is kinda useless. Quote: Coalitions will be marginally less stable LAWL, you are truly idiotic. Serious go speak with Hardin (current CVA executioner), since he explained it best. But it comes down to simple fact: the more things you add to give us 'conflict', the more we band together to protect ourselves against it. In the hypothetical situation we would want other space (i am just a grunt, so dont take anythin for granted i say), we can do two things, ask our allies for better space (either from them or blob some poor alliance), or we can attack our allies, which CCP assumes we will do. Even if we completely ignore the BFF part and that we like hugging each other, what would be a better choice: Outblob some poor people with 50k group to get some space, or reset our BFFs to fight a 49k group then to take their space. Yeah was thinking that already, we stay BFF. Quote: 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) Hello CCP, welcome to jump drives/bridges, you know those things you added long time ago to your game. +1 and im old enough that my funds isn't derived of moon goo or ratting any more beside who/what the heck did consequence analysis on this design plan? whoever it was needs a serious kicking followed by re-education to gm? maybe he would land on par with current customer (dis-)service represen.. -------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience**.
EI Digin Caldari Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:08:00 - [146] As a member of a large, successful alliance that holds a region with both high and low truesec, I can safely say that I didn't want those sanctums anyways. We have so many systems that we can't possibly have a member in every sanctum, scattered around the entire region. Now that there are more high-level sanctums inside of a single, worthwhile system, we can all pack together into the rich constellations, making it easier to sc**** up home defense fleets, and limiting the amount of random solo/small group pvpers floating around now-worthless pipes, who have to travel many jumps through unpopulated systems only to get slaughtered by a 50 man gatecamp. I will enjoy the upcoming sov fights that people will bring to us, because they have nowhere profitable to live. Furthermore, I will enjoy the tears that come from alliances that live in "filler" space that is now worthless, because now not every single system in nullsec can be immensely profitable. I feel bad for all of the blood, sweat, and isk people have put into worthless systems though. Such a waste.
Katsura Kotonoha Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:09:00 - [147] Thumbs up. Not a drastic enough change, but it's a step.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:10:00 - [148] Originally by: Liang Nuren We afforded faction fit pimp ** before sanctums, you know. I didn't. Spin it any way you want it - it's easier, safer, and more profitable to just have a jump clone back in empire than it is to run bad anomalies in 0.0, let alone try to take better (LOL) space from alliances that are both larger and better funded. Is it possible to kick someone out of their better space and take it? Yes, of course. But just going back to Empire is not only easier, but probably more lucrative anyway. P.S. Nerfing players' personal incomes only makes them less inclined to risk ships. Enjoy even more incentives to fly in huge, risk-free blobs. ________________ Originally by:** CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
VeloxMors	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:11:00 - [149] Originally by: DeLaRefe Most ****ed idea ever. You want people to move? Re-shuffle tech moons. Nerfing 0.0 plexes will only make average player A LOT less interested in 0.0 and perhaps in eve in general. I second this. This seems like one of those drug induced ideas nobody gave ANY thought to whatsoever before posting. What about all the isk we blew upgrading current systems under the current functionality? What is wrong with the current system? What is this ACTUALLY trying to accomplish? All this would do is force people to abandon their current systems, fight for a few days/weeks/months over new ones, then everyone will settle into their new space, and all it will have done is wasted players' time and isk. FFS CCP, there's plenty of broken crap in this game to fix, why are you wasting resources on ** like this?
Vivid1	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:12:00 - [150] I hope you (ccp) have something coming out in our "less desirable" system's or your going to be causing alot of havac for my "small corp" who just recently cambe back to null partly because of what you just took away. I suggest a new thinktank.

Elzon1 Caldari Shadow Boys Corp White Angels.	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:12:00 - [151] Edited by: Elzon1 on 25/03/2011 22:13:26 I thought you guys were just going to change the isk/drop value of the sites, not completely drop them. Its obvious most renters in 0.0 will do a mass exodus back to high sec. Most people who were happy with the amount interesting things happing in 0.0 will have to move back to a situation of mind numbing boredom. You may not think it, but stuff like this will in fact lose you a lot of accounts. I'm not talking about the whole mass threat of leaving, but its more a matter of fact and I have seen it happen many times. I hate it when developers waste their time like this. Now you will have to completely drop what you were about to do and rework it only change the isk/drop values. After reading the blog I knew there was a tsunami of rage on the way. This isn't about a few little whiners here or there, this is the vast majority of 0.0. You accomplished the goal of getting a ton of people out to 0.0, please don't ruin it. So basically CCP, bad move. I live in those greener pastures, but this doesn't make me happy at all. Not to mention after all of those renters with crappy true sec leave 0.0 the rent for those still there will rise dramatically or more likely we will be kicked out and replaced by the controlling alliances pet carebears. I hope this is a joke CCP. If not, please tell us the deadline so we can start moving our stuff out. I don't know where, I don't know when... but something awful is going to happen xD
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:13:00 - [152] Edited by: Cailais on 25/03/2011 22:14:09 Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that the current status quo is a 'flat' universe: the same in all locals so there is no value in moving to better ground. CCP Greyscales blog however also promotes a 'flat' universe in that it is unchanging. There is, perhaps, value in moving ground and chasing the higher value systems but only once. When the major powers have settled on the latest isk faucet they will simply become entrenched and EVEs conflicts will stagnate again. Sadly in the stampede a lot of smaller entities are likely to become squeezed out. Stagnant and eternal (i.e they never deplete) ISK faucets seem a poor choice in this case. If those faucets depleted however and new faucets could be discovered through exploratory efforts: then we would have a dynamic and volatile universe. Not a flat one. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:14:00 - [153] Originally by: Cailais Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that the current status quo is a 'flat' universe: the same in all locals so their is no value in moving to better ground. CCP Greyscales blog however also promotes a 'flat' universe in that it is unchanging. There is, perhaps, value in moving ground and chasing the higher value systems but only once. When the major powers have settled on the latest isk faucet they will simply become entrenched and EVEs conflicts will stagnate again. Sadly in the stampede a lot of smaller entities are likely to become squeezed out. Stagnant and eternal (i.e they never deplete) ISK faucets seem a poor choice in this case. If those faucets depleted however and new faucets could be discovered through exploratory efforts: then we would have a dynamic and volatile universe. Not a flat one. C. First useful criticism in the thread tbh. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Sadaris Gallente 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:18:00 - [154] Early aprils fools right? I got a better fix for the isk facet of sanctums/havens make them gated so caps/supers cant **** thmem 23/7
Colonel Kuntshlapper	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:18:00 - [155] If you want to make the majority of Null Sec worthless this is a great idea. There are many things wrong with Null Sec. Blobs, over powered super caps, moon goo, etc. Player owned Null Sec stations are worse than High Sec ones, no missions, poor refineries. But instead of fixing any of that you want to nerf anomalies, great, now most of null will be just like most of low sec, completely useless and uninhabited. Perhaps you could just delete them from the server and use the extra processing power to handle the influx of mission running alts into high sec hubs.
Katsura Kotonoha Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:22:00 - [156] Originally by: Colonel Kuntshlapper If you want to make the majority of Null Sec worthless this is a great idea. There are many things wrong with Null Sec. Blobs, over powered super caps, moon goo, etc. Player owned Null Sec stations are worse than High Sec ones, no missions, poor refineries. But instead of fixing any of that you want to nerf anomalies, great, now most of null will be just like most of low sec, completely useless and uninhabited. Perhaps you could just delete them from the server and use the extra processing power to handle the influx of mission running alts into high sec hubs. What's wrong with blobs, supercaps, moongoo?
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:23:00 - [157] Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 25/03/2011 22:23:31 Alrighty. Let's go point by point in more detail. Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Alice Katsuko Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system. And what is your point there? That you might need to go a system over from your station to do your ratting and plexing? Oh wait, you're busy putting up a station in that system too.... That doesn't change the fact that the proposed changes will reduce the number of players that low-value systems can support, since those systems will have anomalies with are currently functionally worthless, leaving only belt ratting as a viable source of income. Merely because a Sansha Hub now has a different set of collideable objects does not make it any more valuable. The belt rats in systems where true-sec is above -0.2 are not terribly valuable to begin with. So the number of players in regions with low-value systems will have to decline, or those players will have to spread out to occupy more systems. Instead of creating conflict by packing lots of alliances in a small space, this change actually incentivizes alliances to effectively spread out to support their existing numbers. We might see a bit of short-term conflict, but in the long run things will either stay the same as alliances physically occupy low-value systems currently under their nominal control, or will actually become more static since now individual players (and by extension new alliances) will have no interest in taking over low-value systems. Originally by: Liang Nuren Quote: There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs. While many alliances said they had ship replacement programs, I always found that unless you were sucking the FC and/or alliance leader off you weren't gonna be getting anything at all replaced. So basically: no they didn't. That probably means you should have moved to a better alliance. Point stands. An alliance with access to high-end moons and other alliance-level ISK faucets is already in a superior position relative to other alliances, since it can leverage those ISK faucets to keep its members in the fight by either replacing losses entirely, or providing ships at reduced cost to alliance members. However, currently alliances without those ISK faucets, or without large-scale ship replacement programs, can still compete successfully since their individual players have good revenue streams which are not affected significantly by player density. A Military-5 system can support dozens of players running anomalies simultaneously, since anomalies re-spawn instantly, which means that multiple players can team up for anomalies knowing their their income will not be significantly affected by the presence of other players, since as soon as they finish an anomaly, it immediately respawns. That same system can only support a few belt-ratters, however, since belt ratting is a solo activity where the presence of other players quickly begins to cut into profits. Belt-ratting is good income; anomalies below Haven-level are not. Therefore, the proposed changes will significantly tilt the balance of power in favor of established alliances who can afford ship-replacement programs, or who occupy high-value space. Alliances residing in space with few or no high-value systems who cannot afford will be consistently outgunned and outnumbered, since their space will not support more than a few players, unless their members don't mind hopping back to Empire for some mission-grinding. Originally by: Liang Nuren Quote: Basically, CCP is arguing that by nerfing the income of individual players in certain regions, they will create incentives for players to fight over ~~those~~ more valuable systems. Thought I'd fix that for you. True. However, alliance conflict isn't driven by anomaly access to begin with, and it's unlikely that this will change.
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:26:00 - [158] Boost to true sec. How will this affect delve and fountain btw? Also, not boost for current 0.0 powerblocks? Have you guys even looked at the drone regions? Of the top 10, only 1 region outside drone regions is there. Deklein. I told you 4 years ago that **ty 0.0 space needed a boost. With this change you just the gap between **ty 0.0 and good 0.0 bigger. And guess who lives in the good 0.0 space? Yeah ofc the small guys gonna take on the big guys now.
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:27:00 - [159] CCP, Seriously, tell me this is some kind of twisted april fools joke. This will have a dramatically opposite effect as to what you claim your goals are. I am an alliance leader of what was a small alliance. When dominion came out we took it to heart. We wanted something more than NPC 0.0 and we wanted a bigger chunk of the pie. We ended up in providence. We had no moons. We had **ty tru-sec. But we worked our asses off upgraded our space and made it ours. We were not part of any power block. We did not swim in a sea of blues. We played the game because we love to pvp. Sanctums bairly give the pilots enough isk to pay for the ships needed to lose them on a daily basis. We have since made some friends grown and moved into a much nicer region of space. This was your original intention was it not? To get us interested and to make us want more? We have grown a lot in the past year or so. We have made some new friends and we fought with them to conquer a new region. We have a couple moons. But not enough to justify the space soley based on the moons. We again busted our asses and upgraded our space so that we could afford our glorious battle steeds. In comes CCP to essentially ruin the game for nullsec residents. It's become painfully obvious that no one at CCP cares about the pilot in nullsec. CCP keeps claiming that they want to make 0.0 interesting. Guess what CCP, Plex's are NOT ING INTERESTING. Anomalies are NOT ING INTERESTING. Missions NOT ING INTERESTING. They are a means to an end NO ONE cares about any of the storyline/roleplay aspects behind them. The ONLY reason we come to 0.0 and we upgrade our space is so that we can afford the basic pvp ships to roam around and explode into each other on a nightly basis. You take away our income. You take away the reason we play the game. You claim that eve is a sandbox. Yet everything I have read about many of the upcoming changes in nullsec seems to be built around the idea that somehow having multiple alliances working together to build an empire is wrong. So rather than embracing the sandbox. You choose to in it. I hate to break it to you CCP, look at the real world. Look at the political relationship between the world powers. It's not much different than that in eve. It's how humans work. Will always work, and no matter how many times you tell 0.0 residents to bend over and take it like a prison *** you will not change this. I do not subscribe to this game because I find anything in PVE to be fun. The only reason I do PVE is to pay for my pvp habit. Which the current system was a really nice balance. I could spend a night a week doing sanctums/havens for a couple hours and then go enjoy eve for a week. But since CCP is hellbent on ruining the user experience in nullsec. I think its probably time to finnaly cut the ties and unsubscribe, and as im sure any alliance leader out there knows the amount of personal drain this game has, and to have everything you worked for thrown in the garbage bin. It's quite disheartening. So on that note. FIRE CCP GREYSCALE Easy Co.
Kateryne Minmatar Kat's Discount Weapon Emporium NISYN Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:29:00 - [160] I **ing love this change. It means that the big, rich alliances need to focus their efforts more yes, but it also opens up the opportunities to hyper boost sanctum systems and make EVEN MORE ISKIES. It then frees up the cheaper space for alliances that want sov for other reasons to claim a couple of systems here and there, not full blocs but enough to slap up some POS and have a laugh from. I am not in a large alliance, i am not in possession of an isk sink, i am not a lv4 mission ***, i am a nobody who is at Fanfest and has spoken to various Dev's and understands better than the forum warriors that CCP aren't a reckless bunch of idiots who do nothing but screw over your so called '1337 pee vee peeh alliunsh'. Thankyou for you time.

Master Gotama	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:30:00 - [161] Okay, weÆll take this one step at a time... First off, here is your argument: Originally by: Cailais If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? FALSE. FYI, large alliances/powerblocs allow their pilots to ** and pillage neighboring systems/regions that are not aligned because theyÆre bored. As far as IÆm aware, NRDS doesnÆt prevail in most of 0.0. Originally by:** Cailais If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it? See above explination. You still need to defend your space even if said large alliance isnÆt going to squash you and take all your stuff. ItÆs a bit hard to operate in 0.0 w/o a decent home defense feet. And a pack of condors w/civilian rail guns just donÆt cut it. See?!?
FantaKraut	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:32:00 - [162] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Cailais Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that the current status quo is a 'flat' universe: the same in all locals so their is no value in moving to better ground. CCP Greyscales blog however also promotes a 'flat' universe in that it is unchanging. There is, perhaps, value in moving ground and chasing the higher value systems but only once. When the major powers have settled on the latest isk faucet they will simply become entrenched and EVEs conflicts will stagnate again. Sadly in the stampede a lot of smaller entities are likely to become squeezed out. Stagnant and eternal (i.e they never deplete) ISK faucets seem a poor choice in this case. If those faucets depleted however and new faucets could be discovered through exploratory efforts: then we would have a dynamic and volatile universe. Not a flat one. C. First useful criticism in the thread tbh. Dynamic Moon minerals... Use the current sanctum/haven setup as a baseline improve from there. or **** over every nullsec pilot. good to see CCP thought this one through.
PDP Kordal Gallente Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:32:00 - [163] This is the worest IDea I have seen in 6 years CCP This is Crap CCP 1. We want 0.0 to work better, more people in 0.0 etc, more battles (but spread out battles). The Big alliances will be fighting over small pockets of space. Incoming for supporting the said battles will drop majorly. So the grunts will not be able to fight in the end. As replacing that 200mil fleet BS would take months to replace. More lag and more crappy 0.0 life 2. We want to differentiate 0.0 space so some is better than other space (to give something to fight over). You have a system for this already... belt ratting, better 0.0 systems get more chance of good drops. You will only be impacting the grunts that rat to replace ships. Alliances do not live of sanctum isk. 3. We want newer corps/alliances to be able to get a foothold. How or why would anyone want 0.0 to start out in. U couldn't support the already ex*****ve SOV systems already in EVE. Why would they move out if u can get way more incoming running lvl 4's???? Without the extra cost of SOV bills. The only thing I can see here is that CCP wants to "reduce lag in fleet battles due to the fact no one will be able to afford a replacement ship. so no one will join... or 300 X 300 t1 frig battles over sov??? Back to the drawing board CCP.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:33:00 - [164] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 22:35:31 Originally by: Terianna Eri I didn't. As a noob with 5-10M SP, I lost a badger with many billions (HG crystal set, a bunch of Pith stuff, a bunch of DG stuff, tons of T2/best named back when that was expensive **) in the cargo hold. I ratted that up in a Vexor and Myrm. I also took the time to spend most of my time roaming and PVPing. I really don't know what you were doing wrong. Quote: But just going back to Empire is not only easier, but probably more lucrative anyway. Easier yes.... but not more lucrative. Quote: P.S. Nerfing players' personal incomes only makes them less inclined to risk ships. Enjoy even more incentives to fly in huge, risk-free blobs. Seems like nerfing players' personal income lowers the amount of ISK in the economy which drives the prices of everything down. -Liang Ed: Originally by:** Furb Killer The only way the sov nullsec we are talking about here was better than mission running before dominion was exploration. No. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:34:00 - [165] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Camios Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident **ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother**ers in high sec get through mass market PVP. -Liang Marginally better, if you were unmolested for extended periods of time. And if you had one guy per system NPCing, instead of the half-dozen a system can support now.
aycee F.R.E.E. Explorer	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:34:00 - [166] ITT: mad nc & drone farm bots because they have to farm longer to get their nyx
Ay Liz Sacred Templars RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:35:00 - [167] Hell.. Nobody would want a -0.0 to -0.2 system anymore except for a few botters.. Small alliances (aka pets, the big boys will still roll over anything smaller no matter how bad you make those systems) that live in such space have basically only havens and sanctums as a viable income source.. Everyone who doesn't have a mission running alt in highsec will have a bloody hard time funding his PvP. And personally, if i had to choose between bending over and become a pet of a big alliance for literally worthless space or staying in empire.. Well, i wouldn't even have to think about it. Looking at this thread i wouldn't be the only one constantly annoying caldari navy agents.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:35:00 - [168] This is how it should have been since the sov upgrades were introduced. If you aren't happy that your space is now crap then fight for better space or stfu and go back to empire.
Dregek Galaxy Punks En Garde	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:35:00 - [169] thoughts on blog
Colonel Kuntshlapper	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:37:00 - [170] Quote: What's wrong with blobs, supercaps, moongoo? The NC/DC has too much of all of them But seriously, the moon goo rebalance was supposed to do two things, drive more conflict and remove bottlenecks in T2 production. Worked really well. Supercaps went from under powered to overpowered and almost removed caps (especially dreads) from the game. There is only one counter to super caps, more super caps. Blobs break the server and make me wait 10 mins for my guns to cycles. I don't see how concentrating all of the pilots in 0.0 into smaller areas can do anything other than make that problem worse.

Kittamaru Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:37:00 - [171] looks at Calander Uhm... CCP... was this blog a week early? I mean... April Fools isn't for another 7 days...
Cresalle	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:37:00 - [172] So basically what we're being told is that now that it's nearly impossible for a 'newcomer' to take space from the sov blobs you're going to nerf the **** out of all the 'newcomer' space and isolate the player-level income to space that is already firmly in the grasp of the invincible million-man armies. I'm going to try really hard not to be sardonic here. In the future I would appreciate it if you would submit this kind of plan to the CSM for review at least 6 months prior to beginning work on it. You do not understand sov. You do not understand player-level income. Apparently you do not understand alliance-level income either. You do not understand the reasoning behind the movements of the different groups in the game and you still seem to be laboring under the severely deluded opinion that the 'little guy' (or even the 'big guy') can actually make any kind of strategic progress against the sov blobs. Nulsec is a few big dogs snarling at one another and a load of fleas scraping around the edges. The proposed changes are basically a flea-dip. And I don't even run anoms.
Rexthor Hammerfists Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:41:00 - [173] Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 25/03/2011 22:41:45 The idea is right, im glad to see that ccp wants to see more local conflicts and a more diverse landscape. But i believe there have to be a number of changes before local conflicts have a hope of success. Currently The 3-4 blocs can control so much space because its a simple and quick operation to mow any indipendent sov holders down that nest in "their" space a few regions away. The work and isk it takes to build up something via sov and the ease for a bigger capfleet to come from regions away kicking it over will repress any local conflicts. Same with jumpbridges btw, tho capmovement is a worse thing imo. Also for more independant alliance to survive without renting, some smallish changes would help. As example pos rights that make it harder to steal pos hangar contents. The best way yet, combined with restricted cap and fleet movement, is a sov system based on occupance. If a small alliance has the willpower to stay in a system or constellation and a coalition from regions away does not - no 50 supercarrier blob making a 10minute appearance should sway the outcome. -
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:44:00 - [174] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Alice Katsuko Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system. And what is your point there? That you might need to go a system over from your station to do your ratting and plexing? Oh wait, you're busy putting up a station in that system too.... Not every alliance owns a whole region, you know. Some of us don't have another system over we can go. Originally by: Liang Nuren Quote: There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs. While many alliances said they had ship replacement programs, I always found that unless you were sucking the FC and/or alliance leader off you weren't gonna be getting anything at all replaced. So basically: no they didn't. Fly with less terrible alliances?
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:49:00 - [175] Originally by: Cresalle So basically what we're being told is that now that it's nearly impossible for a 'newcomer' to take space from the sov blobs you're going to nerf the **** out of all the 'newcomer' space and isolate the player-level income to space that is already firmly in the grasp of the invincible million-man armies. I'm going to try really hard not to be sardonic here. In the future I would appreciate it if you would submit this kind of plan to the CSM for review at least 6 months prior to beginning work on it. You do not understand sov. You do not understand player-level income. Apparently you do not understand alliance-level income either. You do not understand the reasoning behind the movements of the different groups in the game and you still seem to be laboring under the severely deluded opinion that the 'little guy' (or even the 'big guy') can actually make any kind of strategic progress against the sov blobs. Nulsec is a few big dogs snarling at one another and a load of fleas scraping around the edges. The proposed changes are basically a flea-dip. And I don't even run anoms. Quoted for motha-funking truth. Easy Co.
Karl Shade Entropy associates	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:50:00 - [176] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Not every alliance owns a whole region, you know. Some of us don't have another system over we can go. So take it.
Fulou	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:50:00 - [177] If this change goes live, i'm seriously jumping into a hulk to join the lag fast in empire, if i don't hang up my Pilots license at all. Its hard enough to make iskies as it is as a small fish out here, so the poor space gets nurfed and the good space which is controlled by whales gets a boost, so they can afford to kick my ass twice as fast....thanks CCP, well thought out there. The power of not listening to your paying customers. FYI, this will not make it easier for new alliances to get sov space, it will make it easier for people to kick them out again, genius! Ibis roam anyone? I have a nice t1 railgun to try out.
Falkor1984	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:50:00 - [178] Nice way to keep what was bad about Dominion (stupid sov system) and to trash what was good about Dominion (ability to upgrade systems). Excellent work, CCP
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:52:00 - [179] Anything that makes one part of space different from another is a step in the right direction. That is all. "A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."
Querns	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:53:00 - [180] Hey, so I ran a few database queries to see which regions would be affected the most positively by this change. These queries are making one large assumption: regions with pirate sovereignty like Venal, Fountain, Delve, etc which have broken truesec are not having their broken truesec status considered for anomaly qualities by this change. http://pastebin.com/nejK4smN Since the drone regions are horrible, this shows that Goons live in the best 0.0 space in eve~

Claire Auscent	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:53:00 - [181] Why must there be a nerf to the majority of 0.0? It seems better (and I'm sure someone posted it above) to leave things the way they are with anoms and only boost the >-.5 systems to make them worth fighting over. Move the techgoo if you must, but don't go messing with individual's chances at earning ISK outside of superfun(tm) missions. This is terribad CCP. You can do better.
gutten Wrecking Shots Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:55:00 - [182] The answer to all of our problems with this game.....http://www.swtor.com/...thats what im going to be doing... sorry CP tired of wasting time taking something over, upgrading systems, spending countless hours trying to improve stuff for my corp for it to be made worthless in one patch..... TBH its very simple. Lone players play for themselves, not for there corporations or alliances. Sure we all have good people who will help out by giving a little isk but in the end players will not rat hours to support there corps, they will rat to give themselves isk and that is all. most players in this game freak over 10% tax. ATM Allainces make isk from 1 thing, moongoo.....A lone 200 man corp wanting to pvp and have some small ship replacement say a 15% for incentive, be able to drop towers, claim sov, lose sov, reclaim sov.....run staging towers ect.. will need at least 5 to 6 bil per month of steady income......how many corps do you know of that can get that from tax and still pvp?
Sigras	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:58:00 - [183] I have a question Is everyone upset because 14 months ago CCP gave everyone an isk faucet and now theyre putting a flow meter on it? I mean if you want, we could go back to the time when there were no sov upgrades, how would you like that? That being said, I dont think these changes are going to have the effect CCP intends, as I know for a fact that large powerblocks couldnt care less if their members are able to make isk or not.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:59:00 - [184] This is the best you guys could come up with? I can understand wanting to make some space more valuable than other space in null sec and thus generate competition. First of all you acknowledge that these changes will only make larger coalitions 'marginally less stable'. If your goal is for a marginal change perhaps that is the first and foremost issue. Secondly the logic that is being used to arrive at that conclusion is ridiculous and way off base. 1 Nobody is going to face off against the big power blocks over a handful of systems with anomalies that are actually worth the ammo cost. 2 Even if renters/new alliances wanted to wage war against the big bad alliances of 0.0 these changes will make it less of a possibility due to the disparity of options for income generation among multiple corps. You're cutting the legs out from under the corps and alliances that are just venturing into null sec. Does CCP really expect that taking away sources of income from the fledgling alliances and giving it to the superpowers is going to catalyze some kind of change in 0.0?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:59:00 - [185] "0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change" 70% off null sec is like . They will become usless , it should spawn at least 1X Haven.
Tactalan	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:59:00 - [186] Congratulations, you've just completely ****ed up a load of our alliance's long term plans. A totally clueless nerf yet again.
Seraphina Amaranth	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:00:00 - [187] Cautiously support. Keep iterating though - nullsec pilots still need a decent source of income, even if the alliances still have moons.
stupid monkey Caldari Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:01:00 - [188] ok... so now that space is worthless there is no point in bothering to invest in it... so.. WTS - iHUBs, SOV upgrades (all types 1-5), pos mods, those outpost upgrades I got waiting in high sec to be moved to 0.0 etc etc oh and while im at it... WTS - 2 35-40mill sp pvp chars and one 10mill sp indy char and... WTB - copy of BF3
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:03:00 - [189] Originally by: Sigras I have a question Is everyone upset because 14 months ago CCP gave everyone an isk faucet and now theyre putting a flow meter on it? I mean if you want, we could go back to the time when there were no sov upgrades, how would you like that? This is how I view the change and whines. Quote: That being said, I dont think these changes are going to have the effect CCP intends, as I know for a fact that large powerblocks couldnt care less if their members are able to make isk or not. I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Querns	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:05:00 - [190] Reposting this on new page: http://pastebin.com/nejK4smN (the percentage of systems in a region which are unaffected or improved by the change) and asking a question to anyone who knows: Will regions with broken truesec like Fountain and Delve use their broken truesec value to determine anom quality, or will it fall back on system truesec?

Venus Gospel Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:08:00 - [191] Originally by: Karl Shade Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Not every alliance owns a whole region, you know. Some of us don't have another system over we can go. So take it. And how, precisely, do you propose a small alliance is supposed to do this when the space around them is held by much larger alliances with mutual defence pacts? A 400 man alliance against 5000 or more? 'So if you can't fight well enough, leave!' I hear you say. But it's not simply a question of skill. As it stands now with reinforce timers and supercaps 0.0 is a numbers game as much as a skill one. And smaller alliances simply don't have the numbers to take on allainces 10 times their size solo, one's who can muster dozens of supercapitals. The defending, larger, alliance will know exactly when their system comes out of reinforce, and even if then entirety of the smaller alliance turns up and only 1/5th of the larger they'll still be outnumbered 2-1. It's a no-win situation. If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether. It's not going to make combat more dynamic, it's simply going to drive out all the smaller alliances and reduce 0.0 to a wasteland where only thousand plus member alliances can suceeed. That won't improve 0.0. It'll cripple it. 0.0 will become a series of periodic clashes between massive alliances, and nothing in between. 100% against this change.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:09:00 - [192] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 25/03/2011 23:09:17 Oh and another problem, AFK cloakers. Now whines will be X10 , prepare for it. YOU SHOULD REMAKE MOON MINING !!!!!!! This is where the real problem is.
Pax Ratlin Gallente Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:09:00 - [193] Edited by: Pax Ratlin on 25/03/2011 23:09:18 Originally by: Querns Reposting this on new page: http://pastebin.com/nejK4smN (the percentage of systems in a region which are unaffected or improved by the change) and asking a question to anyone who knows: Will regions with broken truesec like Fountain and Delve use their broken truesec value to determine anom quality, or will it fall back on system truesec? Nice but what percentage of regions will have more adversely effected systems rather than positively. Looking at Vale three times more systems will lose sanctums and havens than gain them.
Astomichi	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:09:00 - [194] Way to go CCP. Cut off isk for normal humans, do nothing against the hordes of belt-ratting bots. Are you trying to encourage people to turn to macros?
Mylor Torlone	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:10:00 - [195] Originally by: Liang Nuren I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems. -Liang No, you haven't.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:10:00 - [196] Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 25/03/2011 23:11:25 Originally by: Sigras I have a question Is everyone upset because 14 months ago CCP gave everyone an isk faucet and now theyre putting a flow meter on it? I mean if you want, we could go back to the time when there were no sov upgrades, how would you like that? That being said, I dont think these changes are going to have the effect CCP intends, as I know for a fact that large powerblocks couldnt care less if their members are able to make isk or not. That's precisely the reason why so many folk are ticked off. The large alliances make most of their ISK from moon goo, which CCP apparently thinks is perfectly balanced and working as intended if their comments so far at Fanfest are any guide. Individual pilots used to make their ISK from belt ratting or from hopping back into Empire to grind missions; Dominion changes simply allowed pilots to fund their PvP habit in nullsec. Lower-tier anomalies, which is basically anything below a Haven/Drone Patrol, are basically worthless. The mere fact that someone at CCP thinks a pilot would willingly run them, or that they can support a nullsec pilot, is downright frightening. In addition, by removing Havens and Sanctums from over half of nullsec, CCP has made the current military upgrades installed in those systems, which cost billions of ISK in aggregate and are a complete pain to install since they require a regular freighter to haul, worthless overnight. Nullsec has a higher population now than it did prior to Dominion; there aren't enough belts for those pilots to rat in, so those pilots will have to disperse or start mission-grinding in Empire.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:11:00 - [197] Originally by: Mylor Torlone Originally by: Liang Nuren I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems. -Liang No, you haven't. Yes... I really have. :) -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Querns	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:12:00 - [198] Originally by: Pax Ratlin Edited by: Pax Ratlin on 25/03/2011 23:09:18 Originally by: Querns Reposting this on new page: http://pastebin.com/nejK4smN (the percentage of systems in a region which are unaffected or improved by the change) and asking a question to anyone who knows: Will regions with broken truesec like Fountain and Delve use their broken truesec value to determine anom quality, or will it fall back on system truesec? Nice but what percentage of regions will have more adversely effected systems rather than positively. Looking at Vale three times more systems will lose sanctums and havens than gain them. Just take the percentage and subtract it from 100. In Vale of the Silent, 11% of the systems aren't being nerfed, so 89% of the systems in Vale are being nerfed.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:13:00 - [199] Originally by: Venus Gospel If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether. Small alliances have always been in 0.0 - even before Dominion. They'll be there after this change too. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Ravora	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:13:00 - [200] THIS IS THE FING WORST IDEA CCP EVER HAD!!!!!* If this gets real, i'll quit all my accounts... and 'll not be the only one -.-

Stefan Sidor	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:13:00 - [201] Edited by: Stefan Sidor on 25/03/2011 23:15:21 Edited by: Stefan Sidor on 25/03/2011 23:14:34 Edited by: Stefan Sidor on 25/03/2011 23:13:00 CCP must be joking. Did they ever played there own game? >Small alliances have always been in 0.0 - >even before Dominion. They'll be there after this >change too. No they will leave, anos are their only income.
Aphatasis	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:14:00 - [202] 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) Nothing of this will realy happen! 1. Who should try to get better space if there is NO BETTER SPACE that's conquerable by alliances that just have the option to have crappy space or no space! 2. Guys @ CCP: Do u realy know about the ways conflicts will come up in eve ? Better True Sec space is the last think ANY alliance is setting as priority! 3. There is only one way to get into Nullsec as a "newer Alliance": Beeing PET of anyone! 4. Do u realy think any coaltion is giving a **** about the ways there member are carebearing? 5. Stagingsystems will be selected by strategic location and not by TrueSec! Sry CCP but you make EVE atm not to more Sandbox! You don't get it was is needed to prevent EVE from becoming a stable system of two or maybe at least three powerblock and a happy happy fluffy carebearland what Hello Kitty is about! Getting more and more disappointed about the ways EVE go! Why don't just try to make things like this: http://i.imgur.com/kfypF.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Dw9pa.jpg All will go well! You loose about 5k-6k Subscriptions but i'm sure at least every third one in one of the two giant powerblocks will add an additional account to get a seperated character just for looting and salvaging!
Mylor Torlone	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:14:00 - [203] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mylor Torlone Originally by: Liang Nuren I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems. -Liang No, you haven't. Yes... I really have. :) -Liang Doubt it. Even if you have, it just proves there are clueless people out there with misplaced priorities. You just like getting attention by disagreeing with common sense.
MadEyeBunny	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:15:00 - [204] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Venus Gospel If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether. Small alliances have always been in 0.0 - even before Dominion. They'll be there after this change too. -Liang Yes in NPC 0.0 Most of the little ally won't be able anymor to pay the SOV-Bills -.-
Woodiex3	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:15:00 - [205] Lol wonder which ccp employee will get a bonus after this change when logins drop by x% salvaging in the latest patch makes it almost pointless this change is to force ppl back to high sec not to get ppl into 0.0. amount of character sales about to rise. GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec
Pax Ratlin Gallente Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:17:00 - [206] Originally by: Querns Originally by: Pax Ratlin Edited by: Pax Ratlin on 25/03/2011 23:09:18 Originally by: Querns Reposting this on new page: http://pastebin.com/nejK4smN (the percentage of systems in a region which are unaffected or improved by the change) and asking a question to anyone who knows: Will regions with broken truesec like Fountain and Delve use their broken truesec value to determine anom quality, or will it fall back on system truesec? Nice but what percentage of regions will have more adversely effected systems rather than positively. Looking at Vale three times more systems will lose sanctums and havens than gain them. Just take the percentage and subtract it from 100. In Vale of the Silent, 11% of the systems aren't being nerfed, so 89% of the systems in Vale are being nerfed. No because some systems will stay the same, at least that's how i understand it. Systems with a truesec rating of -0.46 to -0.65 would have 4 Havens & sanctums with a fully upgraded ihub? Or have i gotten this totally wrong and it's even worse than i feared?
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:18:00 - [207] A quick 'counter blog' post with my generic thoughts on Greyscales dev blog. For those who are interested in such things C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:19:00 - [208] Originally by: Woodiex3 GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec This. If asked i'll say that i don't want this change to see the light of day, but a small part of me wants to see it, just to see the amount of facepalms on CCP's headquarters. Yeah, i'm one of those people who saw 2012 and laughted like it was a Monty Python movie. CCP Greyscale should change his name to CCP MichaelBay ____________ I like woman because breasts
zuckas	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:22:00 - [209] Well hurray, high sec is now more profitbale to me thn 0.0 CCP you are dumb ****s, did you know that? You want to make more conflict in 0.0 by making risk free high sec more usefull then most of 0.0? Guess what before these changes -1.0 is way more valuable then -.01, all this change does is hurt the little guy and send him back to high sec to run level 4 missions. There is almost 0 reason to control crappy 0.0 systems after this change. Yep the small alliance can now afford to fight the big alliance to take that good space? how so? the little guy cant afford to fight the big alliances as it is how is nerfing them to hell and back going to make him able to take that good space? One of the worst ideas ccp has had and from what i am looking at will have the reverse effect to what they want to see form it. Some idiot at ccp decided they wanted more people running level 4's in high sec then in 0.0 thats the only logical reason for these changes is if thats what htey wanted.
Kronos Hopeslayer Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:22:00 - [210] Ya know all the complaining in this thread won't change much, but your credit card will. http://www.swtor.com/ Let CCP keep the bots, soul crushing lag and nerfed nullsec.

Tommy Blue Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:23:00 - [211] CCP, dont you remember 0.0 wars BEFORE the sov change? when systems were based solely on truesec? I dont remember ANY wars over better truesec. You really think that is going to change this time? If you are going through with this change, at least have the -0 to -.2 systems (the lowest) have what all systems can have now. Its pretty bad as it is, so it should only get better from this. Also, remember lvl 4 missions in highsec. The lowest truesec in 0.0 should make more isk than the best lvl 4. ALWAYS.
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:24:00 - [212] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mylor Torlone Originally by: Liang Nuren I've seen more than one war in 0.0 started over a couple of good ratting systems. -Liang No, you haven't. Yes... I really have. :) -Liang No, You have not. --- Yes, before dominion the isk faucet did not exist. But the entire **ing point of this was to make pilots interested in 0.0 It worked! My alliance embraced the change and worked its ass off to get out here. We also invested billions of isk in both time and the mods themselves with the expectation that we were making an investment into our future. Only to find out that CCP is **ing us in the ass. So will CCP refund the isk spent on the upgrades currently in place prior to their "bait and switch?" Also will the cost of sov be modified to reflect the real world value of the space. Currently why would anyone pay 200+ million isk a month for anom's that are bairly worth more than the ammo used to shoot them. If ccp wants to change the dynamics in 0.0, and break up the larger power blocks. The ONLY way to do this is to change moons. Not to screw over the little guy. The moons should be dynamic! Say you have a tech moon, That tech moon should only have so much Tech that can be mined before it becomes depleated. Say 90 days worth at max capacity for good measure. After the moon has been mined dry it would dynamically spawn on another unclaimed moon somewhere in eve. This would force players to actually survey the moons from time to time. It would also stop one or two powerfull alliances from sitting on all of the tech moons and swatting down anyone else who tries to take one. Just an idea. But either way. I'm sure CCP will push this through due to the overwhelming support i'm seeing here today. Easy Co.
Stefan Sidor	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:25:00 - [213] *Let CCP keep the bots, soul crushing lag and nerfed nullsec. THIS!
Elrinarie Gallente Wraith.Wing Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:30:00 - [214] honestly, all this is really going to do is make it harder for the non-established lower rank alliance people to be able to make a sustainable amount of money in 0.0. Where they have no rights to setup their own moon mining arrays, and need sanctums as a way to replenish lost ships that don't get covered via alliance reimbursement. most rating spaces aren't done because of security status of the system, they are done because of strategic locations IE dead end systems with 1 gate in. I am not sure who thought this was a good idea, but it really won't accomplish what you think it will. --------------------- Creator of another Mining Calculator
Hiro Naga	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:34:00 - [215] buff the better truesec systems (-.5 or better) leave the crap systems alone You're not going to create more player conflict by making the majority of 0.0 less profitable than L4s in high sec.
Azaria Okaski	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:35:00 - [216] well i live in one of the systems that is going to be effected. if this change goes though i will have lost the only thing that keeps me interested in this game, isk. im not part of a major alliance. so i don't have accsess to wikket sites. we managed to upgrade our systems now there going to be junk. no isk= no pvp boats.... no pvp boats means im not going on roams. also meaning i lsot enjoyment in eve. if this change goes through i see myself letting my 2 accts going inactive. ccp i think your doing it wrong
Deliceous EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:35:00 - [217] Hmm will be interesting. I hear that there was a lot more planned in Dominion's ôupgrade your space optionö than what was release. Why not limited those upgrades to the levels depending on the level of null sec. So as we add to the Upgrading system platform, and we also slowly removed the Homogeny of all systems. A you probably have get the feeling from the posts most players are concerned about loosing what they already have, than the game mechanics you are proposing. Why not try adding secondary tier 2 Upgrades that produce more Havens, Hords or Sanctums that not only required level 5 military Upgrade to be installed but also have a Low Sec level requirement. You might be able to even play with this a bit possibly allowing: Tech 2 Upgrades that allow us to customize our Area. --> the loot table to be pushed towards Blueprints vs Concord Isk Items, -->Chance of Sleeper encounter or Modified Incursion -->Chance to have out of NPC area Sanctum or Haven/Hord -->Chance for increase Hauler Spawns û We love trit in Null sec -->Better chance of officer Spawns -->Better Chance of an escalation -->Better Chance of Anomalies containing high end named ore. ->Chance for Anomaly spawning on top of an AFK Cloaker resulting in him Decloaking. For Industry ->Chance Modify the Composition Belts that are ie like allow us to make that Spodumain rock in the Small hidden Belt into a Veldspar or Hemorphite depending on the on the level of up grade. ->Increase the chance that the rats that show up will be a hauler spawn -> (My favourite) A chance the new belts spawning (after flipping a belt) will spawn where the AFK Cloak is resulting in him De-cloaking him. ->Chance the Belt Spawning is Named ore ->Chance of no rats in belt ->Chance New Flipped belt will be 1 Upgrade Higher than the mining Index would normally allow ->Increase Chance the Belt holding an Officer Spawn ->Higher change of Gavametric sites being found in system
Jennifer Weir	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:36:00 - [218] Edited by: Jennifer Weir on 25/03/2011 23:38:18 What is this I don't even... -5 accounts if this even makes it to Sisi. 4srs. No giving assets, no posting around crying about it. Just gone. Edit: I hate missioning as a general rule. Fly here, kill this, fly back. That's boring. Anoms are barely tolerable as is. I don't even PLEX my accounts, I pay cashmoney. I even buy PLEX to sell sometimes. But this... this is BS. Way to encourage botting CCP o7
Rayzer Blade	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:38:00 - [219] Tossing in my two cents CCP, think it over. It might have looked good on paper, but you took a wrong turn. This isn't how null works at all. You're hitting the grunts who will leave in the blink of an eye, when they can't afford new ships for the gf's anymore. The ally leaders look for the moons, if something.
Tiny Montgomery	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:40:00 - [220] #1 This thread is hilarious #2 CCP stick to your guns. Remember what happened with that Mothership thread last year. Listening to the whiners didn't exactly help the game did it?

JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:42:00 - [221] Originally by: Woodiex3 GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion.
Randem Salvo	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:42:00 - [222] Nerf Hi-Sec instead, mission runners thrive on pain, they are all masochists.
Kentai Samica	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:47:00 - [223] Nice going CCP, yet again focus all the isk into the hands of the super large and powerful. Renters will still rent, there is no way to take and hold sov with the big guys around. Nnow it will be almost impossible to "save" some isk to mount your own sov war one day with all your time just going into covering the rent. Break up the giant blue power blocks. Maybe charge sov based on how many systems you hold and how many blues are in the connecting systems, but again focusing the isk into 10% of the space will only make the isk divide worse.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:48:00 - [224] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 23:49:08 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Woodiex3 GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion. Can I please see a screen shot of a whole bunch of consecutive 25M ticks in high sec? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:56:00 - [225] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/03/2011 23:49:08 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Woodiex3 GL trying to convince ppl to make 7mil/tick in 0.0 compared to 25mil/tick in high sec THIS !!!!! If the tick in hi sec was 4mil then it would be a diffrent discussion. Can I please see a screen shot of a whole bunch of consecutive 25M ticks in high sec? -Liang Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp.
nulab jones Assisted Genocide	Posted - 2011.03.25 23:59:00 - [226] so let me get the right. Less chance of sanctums = less people in 0.0, except in the case of -1.0 system where there are more people? Sounds like less chance of people moving from gate to gate to resupply ammo, moveingloot or new ships, but more people in a handful of systems connected by JB's. UM FFS even less chance of finding a roaming target for solo or small gang PVP and more chance of finding a frikking giant blob since all the people are focused into a singular system. Say good be to Black ops since the majority of players will all be on a few systems, i'm not jumping a faction fitted Black ops BS in there with 45 ppl active and running sites, however it was fun when there where 5 in a random system. Yay for CCP once again making the only way to play eve is the giant BLOB/Alliance
Sim Sala	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:00:00 - [227] Edited by: Sim Sala on 26/03/2011 00:02:48 CCP, you gotta be ****ing kidding me. You are destroying the gameplay for the people in smaller alliances. Good luck getting new costumers :(
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:00:00 - [228] Yet even more evidence to support the claim that CCP no longer has a fucing CLUE how there game works. Well done. Lets Nerf nullsec isk making to cause more fites. Orly? You will only send carebears back to lv 4 mission hubs and cause less fights as pilots will be starving for isk. Also if you think alliances fight over sanctums you are an idiot Greyscale. How about CCP DEV's start PLAYING their game before they start changing *** they do not have a clue about or personal experience. Owait I forgot you guys cant join 0.0 alliances without giving them free sh!t and skewing the game to their favour. Oops. Did I say that out loud? Oh Yes I fuc*ing did.
Garrix LaCrioux	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:01:00 - [229] Originally by: Venus Gospel Originally by: Karl Shade Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Not every alliance owns a whole region, you know. Some of us don't have another system over we can go. So take it. And how, precisely, do you propose a small alliance is supposed to do this when the space around them is held by much larger alliances with mutual defence pacts? A 400 man alliance against 5000 or more? 'So if you can't fight well enough, leave!' I hear you say. But it's not simply a question of skill. As it stands now with reinforce timers and supercaps 0.0 is a numbers game as much as a skill one. And smaller alliances simply don't have the numbers to take on allainces 10 times their size solo, one's who can muster dozens of supercapitals. The defending, larger, alliance will know exactly when their system comes out of reinforce, and even if then entirety of the smaller alliance turns up and only 1/5th of the larger they'll still be outnumbered 2-1. It's a no-win situation. If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether. It's not going to make combat more dynamic, it's simply going to drive out all the smaller alliances and reduce 0.0 to a wasteland where only thousand plus member alliances can suceeed. That won't improve 0.0. It'll cripple it. 0.0 will become a series of periodic clashes between massive alliances, and nothing in between. 100% against this change. Precisely. Or maybe it's a 2-3 year plan.... The smaller alliances will no longer be able to maintain any sort of foothold in 0.0 much less grow and become able to compete with large alliances for territory. Mission hubs like Motsu will over flow with missioners retreating from null sec and crash. Null sec will continue to be dominated by monstrous alliances and combat will shift to record breaking fleet sizes which will also crash nodes and cause horrendous lag for everyone involved. Members of the large alliances will begin leaving due to the frustrations of only large scale fleet battles and 15 minutes per action lag. Large alliances in null sec will slowly erode away and fall apart. Working as intended?
Cyxopyc Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:03:00 - [230] I like the idea of making profitability of system upgrades dependent on the system's real security status. But three things. 1) It should have been done that way in the first place. You could have also made no havens or sanctums spawn due to upgrades at that time. And now this change would be improvements to some systems (-0.3 to -1.0). 2) System upgrades cause quite a few things to spawn but you only mention anomalies. Because of this I fear you haven't thought out this change very far. Please apply more thought. 3) This will further focus which systems people rat in to make isk allowing 1 cloaked ship able to even more effectively disrupt isk making. Cloaking should also be changed at the same time. == Support fixing the EVE UI

Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:05:00 - [231] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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) CCP, you couldn't have gotten it more wrong. There is little that I can write that hasn't already been addressed cough, moons by the professional posters above, but I will re-iterate: stop hurting the individual players' ability to put ships into space and make interesting times for their mates and their opponents. I will also re-ask this: Will the sovereignty bills charged in the lesser quality space be inline with the benefit that the system provides its "owners?" Lastly, I will ask another question that I have posed in other threads: As things stand currently, being charged by a high-sec law enforcement entity to hold and upgrade space in lawless regions is absurd from a role play standpoint. What is the in-game justification for implementing these charges?
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:07:00 - [232] Oh I also forgot to add this little note Do you guys even pay attention to what is happening in your own fcking game? In the past 4 months more supercapitals and subcapitals have been destroyed EVER. In the games entire HISTORY. And you say there are not enough fights? WTF is wrong with you?
Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:08:00 - [233] Edited by: Orakkus on 26/03/2011 00:08:22 Is this the place where I say.. "WTF? Do you play Eve?"? To be honest, I actually had to take a drink or two because the illogical reasoning was so profound as to defy reality. You sure this isn't some of you devs, drunkenly gathered around some beer, that was spiked by some really bad weed? Sorry CCP Greyscale, you should not be excited about making these changes. These changes will make the systems that smaller alliances could get to less valuable, meaning that their members will have to work harder to get isk and with less isk available, they will lose more fights. Thanks CCP Greyscale, you have just made 0.0 even less attainable, and less available to those who wanted it. Yippee! Pro-tip: Please play Eve Online. I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:08:00 - [234] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp. So then your ISK comes from market PVP? I don't think we'll be seeing any more "25M" ticks if both the mission changes and sanctum changes go forward. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:12:00 - [235] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Obviously tick is "tick" + mission rewards + lp. So then your ISK comes from market PVP? I don't think we'll be seeing any more "25M" ticks if both the mission changes and sanctum changes go forward. -Liang So the tick will be now 22mil/hr . It is still waymore than 7.
Monkey M3n GK inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:14:00 - [236] Why is it that only the major power block kids are complaining in this thread?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:15:00 - [237] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 00:16:04 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 So the tick will be now 22mil/hr . It is still waymore than 7. I doubt very much the changes will be that insignificant. Some talking with my corpmates on vent has lead me to the opinion that we're basically going to see high sec L4s nerfed to just above L3 levels. -Liang Ed: Head on over to Missions & Complexes to check out the changes and the discussion of the implications. We're talking almost 70% reductions in high sec LP here. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Tadari	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:16:00 - [238] At least.. we do have more conflict now. But the conflict seems to happen not between alliances but instead between CCP and the players
ChronoSphere Sturmgrenadier Inc Sturmgrenadier Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:19:00 - [239] I'm gonna say that the reason grayscale is quoting to do all this is BS, and the actual reason is because they want to remote the ISK sink. -------------- ~Admiral, Commanding Officer Sturmgrenadier, Inc. Join Sturmgrenadier today!
Sim Sala	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:22:00 - [240] The players at the Fanfest really should protest against this ****.

Jennifer Drama	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:26:00 - [241] Originally by: Monkey M3n Why is it that only the major power block kids are complaining in this thread? Yeah, I wasn't convinced at first either, but I'm sold now. Likin' the changes CCP!
Master Hu Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:31:00 - [242] CCP: Again you prove that you don't understand the game or your customers, what they want or how they play. You give 1 person complete autonomy to make changes on their own without any discussion or repercusion. This idea sucks donkey balls.
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:31:00 - [243] Originally by: Monkey M3n Why is it that only the major power block kids are complaining in this thread? not quite sure what you mean about major power block kids. am i one? "Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players, for several reasons: to act as genuine filler so the earlier upgrades in some systems aren't empty; to give newer players resources they can use without much competition; and to give people running anomalies a little more safety from marauding enemies." A littlebit more safty? What do you mean ccp? If someone roaming goes to look for npc'ers, and you know the best sites in there are hubs, then you wont be looking for sanctums right? Anyway, everyone who does do npcs in 0.0 will always warp out when someone enters your local. If you dont then you are **ing ****ed. Also high end players? I had 3 month old players doing havens/sanctums together in drakes. Is a 3 month old char regarded as high end?
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:32:00 - [244] Look at all those haters, holding vast tracts of low-truesec space. Anyone who says this won't reshuffle 0.0 is either stupid or has an agenda.
The Offerer	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:32:00 - [245] Originally by: Tadari At least.. we do have more conflict now. But the conflict seems to happen not between alliances but instead between CCP and the players A conflict is when both sides have some arguments that are more or less equally powerful. I'm deciding whether or not I'm going to pay for this game. Make it bad enough and you can kiss my sub goodbye. I don't see any possibility of a conflict there. Whatever you do, CCP, I'm not spending a single cent on PLEX so I can afford to PvP freely.
Karl Shade Entropy associates	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:32:00 - [246] Originally by: Venus Gospel And how, precisely, do you propose a small alliance is supposed to do this when the space around them is held by much larger alliances with mutual defence pacts? A 400 man alliance against 5000 or more? 'So if you can't fight well enough, leave!' I hear you say. But it's not simply a question of skill. As it stands now with reinforce timers and supercaps 0.0 is a numbers game as much as a skill one. And smaller alliances simply don't have the numbers to take on allainces 10 times their size solo, one's who can muster dozens of supercapitals. The defending, larger, alliance will know exactly when their system comes out of reinforce, and even if then entirety of the smaller alliance turns up and only 1/5th of the larger they'll still be outnumbered 2-1. It's a no-win situation. If this change goes through a lot of small alliances will be forced to leave 0.0 altogether. It's not going to make combat more dynamic, it's simply going to drive out all the smaller alliances and reduce 0.0 to a wasteland where only thousand plus member alliances can suceeed. That won't improve 0.0. It'll cripple it. 0.0 will become a series of periodic clashes between massive alliances, and nothing in between. 100% against this change. It's certainly a numbers game as much as a skill one and aquiring decent territory is very much about more than pvp skill. It takes logistics, diplomacy, patience and a great deal of balancing your numbers to avoid overcrowding while being strong enough to hold a few systems. No, you won't be able to just grab a system right away, but neither will the other small parts of that napblock, just wait until it's crumbling, then grab or find allies elsewhere that offer you better systems. It's always been that way, and it should be that way.
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:32:00 - [247] You guys are restoring my belief in 0.0 playerbase.
Ohfor Godsake	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:34:00 - [248] Grade A ******ed CCP, well done.
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:35:00 - [249] Originally by: Tiligean Originally by: Orianda well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars.... but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor.... so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!! You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC. You are right, it is infallibly stupid that players who live in 0.0 space and spend billions of isk fighting to keep it should be richer than empire mission runners who are bundled with blankets and have padded hangars with billions in ships that never go pop unless they get suicide ganked. My density meter off the charts captain!
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:36:00 - [250] Edited by: Royaldo on 26/03/2011 00:37:59 Edited by: Royaldo on 26/03/2011 00:37:40 Originally by: Vuk Lau You guys are restoring my belief in 0.0 playerbase. CCP wanted more people to come to 0.0 They gave us system upgrades for all those useless 0.0 systems. And suddenly we had more players than ever in 0.0 which resulted in bigger blobs than ever. And now its seems like everyone thinks this was a bad thing.

fatherted1989 Red Horizon Inc	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:38:00 - [251] utterly ******ed.
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:39:00 - [252] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Camios Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident **ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother**ers in high sec get through mass market PVP. -Liang And you would know this from personal experience from your empire high chair right??
ChriSSiwaU	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:41:00 - [253] "LOL! CCP you have no clue about nullsec." this! is CCP living in empire? go and live 2 months in nullsec, noobs ^^
Zalyz S'venfirion	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:48:00 - [254] Theres only one effective way of increasing fights/encourage nomadic behaviour and nerf the power blocks: Make the logical change of moons being depletable. Moons are endless ISK printing machines. Moon resources are the source of Coalition's strength. - ALL of them. And lets be honest, where in the universe would there be something that is ever replenishing??! This would result in: Giving money to the little grunts out there in 0.0. Taking money away from the big blocks. Which in turn would result in more fights, smaller power blocs, less blobs (possibly, not surely) to actually matter. Anyhow... The change wont work. overall: uber-fail!
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:48:00 - [255] Originally by: Ascendic Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Camios Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident **ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro motherers in high sec get through mass market PVP. -Liang And you would know this from personal experience from your empire high chair right?? Is this where I point out that I live in low sec and have done most of my recent PVE in 0.0? -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:50:00 - [256] Originally by: Ascendic Originally by: Tiligean Originally by: Orianda well.. actually... boost the quality of systems with low truesec (-0.6 to -1.0) will cause mor wars.... but nerf system with a bad truesec (0.0 to -0.4) will cause a massive exodus of players to the Hi-Sec... because they cannt afford PVP anymor.... so this Idea is PURE CRAP!!! You are right. How dare anyone consider PVP in anything less than a T2 or Meta 4 fit HAC. You are right, it is infallibly stupid that players who live in 0.0 space and spend billions of isk fighting to keep it should be richer than empire mission runners who are bundled with blankets and have padded hangars with billions in ships that never go pop unless they get suicide ganked. My density meter off the charts captain! Depends. Are players fighting to get rich? Or fighting because players love fighting? Wars are expensive. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Camios Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:50:00 - [257] Maybe no war was started by a ratting dispute. But in the future wars will be fought over low truesec system, if this is what counts. Of course, this will happen only if controlling a single system makes sense, that is if small indepentent entities can survive in 0.0. Large coalitions could just redistribute population internally and nothing will change.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:51:00 - [258] If it isn't clear to the majority of folks here, CCP, those enterprising souls, wants their customers to buy more GTCs and fluff up their cash flow. Want that tier 3 battleship hull with 3x large rigs and all the trimmings? Buy a GTC for RL scratch and sell it for pixel gold! Is that Tech 3 hull and five subsystems gonna run ya half a billion w/o even buying modules and rigs? Pick up a handy GTC! From a business perspective, this makes some sense. Until it doesn't.
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:58:00 - [259] BTW, this change reminds of me of the static complex's.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:07:00 - [260] Originally by: Liang Nuren some words It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are. To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend. This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you. This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)

Iree	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:09:00 - [261] Hmmm, quite a few complaints. But you know i must be missing something. A lot of people here dont like that they will make less Isk, which i suppose is fair (or unfair as the case may be). So when the change goes through... why not go take someone else's richer space? Then you'll be fine right?
Spc One Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:10:00 - [262] Edited by: Spc One on 26/03/2011 01:14:35 Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. Exactly. In pvp fights ppl loose alot of ships. Sanctums and havens are there to get isk and get replacement ship asap and pvp again. If sanctums and havens are removed from 0.0 - 0.3 then it's pointless to be in 0.0 i'd rather go do level 4 missions in high sec. You'll also see a huge drop in pvp-ing since players will need more and more and more time to make isk for new ship they just lost. ____________________________________________________________________________ Angel 0/A
Silk75 Bad Kitty Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:11:00 - [263] Edited by: Silk75 on 26/03/2011 01:13:36 Edited by: Silk75 on 26/03/2011 01:12:09 :CCP Greyscale: I sat immediately to your left in the 0.0 panel at fanfest and heard no mention of these pve changes, why? Why do you want to imperil the incomes of the ordinary pilots in corps and alliances and yet still purport to want to benefit from the large fleet fight aspect of eve through glossy videos of large expensive 0.0 fleet fights taking place?
David Hassan	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:13:00 - [264] This is ****ed. All this will do is make eve a pay to win** game, as you will have to buy plex to be competitive with anyone that already holds all the goldmines. The only thing I can see this changing is that every -1.0 Truesec system will have covert Hot droppers living in them 24/7. It will probally open up null to new alliances also, as anyone that has been in null previously will either move to empire and run level 4s or quit playing. FREE ABATHUR
Sidrat Flush Caldari Eve Industrial Corp	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:15:00 - [265] Please reinforce the nodes of the top two tier tru sec system/constellation if that's what you're really after. This change doesn't affect the necessity for/of blobbing hopefully that has been addressed in your discussions both previous and future. View The Eve Industrial Organiser Site
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:18:00 - [266] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Ascendic Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Camios Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident **ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother*ers in high sec get through mass market PVP. -Liang And you would know this from personal experience from your empire high chair right?? Is this where I point out that I live in low sec and have done most of my recent PVE in 0.0? -Liang So you admit that you dont have a fucing clue? Thank you.
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:18:00 - [267] Originally by: Royaldo BTW, this change reminds of me of the static complex's. Exactly. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Lord Calimari	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:19:00 - [268] Originally by: Iree Hmmm, quite a few complaints. But you know i must be missing something. A lot of people here dont like that they will make less Isk, which i suppose is fair (or unfair as the case may be). So when the change goes through... why not go take someone else's richer space? Then you'll be fine right? Ummm ya I guess you are missing something... The whole point is the Rich (those who have these high end systems) will be able to afford to defend their space using supperior ships and anyone that does NOT have these high end systems will not be able to afford strong enough ships to take them, nor will they be able to replace their loses as effectively, so once again the poor get poorer and it will be even harder for others to take these high end systems without having the finances to do it. I love PVP, but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore, I will end up in high sec running missions, until I eventually get bored of doing that over and over and eventually stop playing all together. And if I hear correctly and there nerfing them too.... then I guess I will be bored very quickly indeed. Worst change EVER by ccp...
fatherted1989 Red Horizon Inc	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:20:00 - [269] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Liang Nuren some words It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are. To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend. This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you. This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire. this. a lot of us simply don't have the :effort: or know-how to extract the isk you do from the system - sanctums for us = a battleship = another fight we can participate in and contribute to the story of EvE nullsec.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:23:00 - [270] Originally by: Ascendic So you admit that you dont have a fucing clue? Thank you. Your reading comprehension is really terrible. But hey, go ahead and think that. -Liang -- Eve Forum **** Extraordinaire On Twitter

cpu939 Gallente Strategic Syndicate -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:23:00 - [271] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. -Greyscale yes for you guys to learn how we play the game and not to make expected consequences the bases for your changes. your idea of the null sec nerf is wrong! if your idea is to make true sec better buff it give it 6 high sites or 8 but leave the rest alone. 01010011 01110100 01110010 01100001 01110100 01100101 01100111 01101001 01100011 00100000 01010011 01111001 01101110 01100100 01101001 01100011 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01001101 01100101 01
Taize Kal	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:25:00 - [272] Originally by: Lord Calimari Originally by: Iree Hmmm, quite a few complaints. But you know i must be missing something. A lot of people here dont like that they will make less Isk, which i suppose is fair (or unfair as the case may be). So when the change goes through... why not go take someone else's richer space? Then you'll be fine right? Ummm ya I guess you are missing something... The whole point is the Rich (those who have these high end systems) will be able to afford to defend their space using supperior ships and anyone that does NOT have these high end systems will not be able to afford strong enough ships to take them, nor will they be able to replace their loses as effectively, so once again the poor get poorer and it will be even harder for others to take these high end systems without having the finances to do it. I love PVP, but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore, I will end up in high sec running missions, until I eventually get bored of doing that over and over and eventually stop playing all together. And if I hear correctly and there nerfing them too.... then I guess I will be bored very quickly indeed. Worst change EVER by ccp... Lol, ok. So why are you making money currently? So you can buy good ships and not invade someone? And last time i checked a pretty standard ship for fleet pvp was the drake, your not going to tell me you cant afford one of those right? Plus have you ever tried living in lowsec and pvp'ing. I lasted a week before going inactive. So i moved to wormholes and you must know that those places are just money printers basically. Is there any particular reason you cannot do any of this?
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:26:00 - [273] I'm surprised at how incredibly short sighted some people are. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:28:00 - [274] Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 01:34:34 Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 01:33:53 Smaller entities will not be able to control low truesec systems obviously, insuring that the bigger alliances are perpetually making much more isk than they are. How are these small alliances supposed to fund their PVP against the bigger entities now? Originally by: Monkey M3n Why is it that only the major power block kids are complaining in this thread? Well considering most major power blocks already have the good truesec systems, and will continue to hold them, especially with the increased funding they will get from them, it doesn't even really bother the big alliances much anyways. It just hurts the little guys that will be stuck with the leftover systems no one wants.
Xanatia Vengeance Imperium Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:37:00 - [275] Major Alliances generally hold a number of valuable R64 moons, and use the income from these moons to keep all the sov upgrades payed for, jump bridges fuelled, and manage all the other little things that make alliances tick over. Corporations within Major alliances generally hold a number of the less valuable moons, and use the income from them to fund any pet projects they might have. Indicidual pilots within major alliances generally rely on income from ratting or mining to afford their ships, and while most major alliances have ship replacement, after a loss from PvP you are still out of pocket. Smaller Alliances, tha don't have the numbers or hitting power of the major alliances can only generally survive in 0.0 by aligning themselves with a major alliance. this usually takes the form of renting space. and normally this is space that the large alliance doesn't want to develop themselves. they will usually keep the valuable moons for themselves, so smaller alliances are generally funded by the individuals within the alliance through direct taxation. While i can see the intent of he changes, and to a certain extent agree with them, major alliances will not see a significant reduction in their income, if any. Corporations in those alliances will not see a significant reduction in their income, if any. Individuals within the alliances will see a significant reduction in their income. as will smaller renting alliances. If living in 0.0 becomes unaffordable to many, then they will simply move on, major alliances with a stable and predictable income will just maintain their space, and tr to make the best of the changes that they can. the only people that will be hurt are the small people, and by that i mean, small alliances, and individuals within large alliances
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:37:00 - [276] CCP, can you waste your time on attempts to fix actual problems, instead of wasting your time in making this game worse. Seriously, how have you guys run this company for so long. You are terrible.
Lady RAWR	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:42:00 - [277] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. CCP Greyscale is the terrible. He is going to ruin this game, he should go play World of Warcraft and leave us alone. Good thing the new Star Wars game is coming out. We can all go play that instead of EVE now.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:42:00 - [278] Edited by: mkmin on 26/03/2011 01:44:50 /me has no motivation to undock again until CCP responds that it was a stupid idea and isn't going to happen. edit: anybody else notice in a recent interview with an MMO site a dev said "star wars games always suck"? Hmm... strategically trying to dissuade your users from jumping ship (while giving them incentive to do so)?
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:43:00 - [279] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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) Expected consequences (rebutting CCP Greyscale's expectations): Some Alliances will immediately no longer want to to pay the sov/upgrade bill for the space they have already fought for. In the short term there will be more fighting as small alliances get kicked from their good truesec systems by the bigger alliances. In the long run, less fights will happen once this reshuffle has settled in. Newer alliances will be able to take low quality sov space because the big boys don't want it anymore, but they won't because they'll get the same benefit from moving to NPC 0.0 where they won't have to pay for sov. Coalitions may have a little bit of internal struggle as they decide who should get what space, then settle down again. Alliances will have to make different choices about what systems they use and what they use them for, only because the rules have just been changed again. They won't have to choose more carefully at all. Further consequences: Macro use and RMT will increase as established players with passive income won't be effected, but newer/active players who make isk to support their PvP habit by ratting will have to find other ways to make ISK (the mere prospect of grinding Hubs and below is depressing). Honestly, I can see this being a serious blow to the PvP area (nullsec) of EVE - a PvP game at its heart. At Alliance level who cares? Alliances live off moongoo. This will hurt the average player who makes their ISK by ratting, the kind of player who is active. Raph Koster on macros: "Looking at what parts of your game players tend to automate is a good way to determine which parts of the game are tedious and/or not fun." Ratting is not something people do for fun (at least, not after the first time you've run a sanctum). To relax perhaps (like mining), but the main reason most people decide to spend their time ratting is to make ISK. Simply removing that reason (ie making the amount of ISK made from ratting poor truesec systems sufficently low), people will either choose to not do it (go to empire, and PvP less), or automate it (ie marco). That is unless they're in a big alliance which has access to good truesec. What really shows that this is a terrible idea is that people who are bitter enemies in game are all agreeing that this will not have the "expected" outcomes. We can all agree that better truesec systems should be more sought after, but completely removing the only cosmic anomolies worth doing from poor truesec is definitely not the way to do it
Herr Nerdstrom Caldari Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:44:00 - [280] The isk earning potential with low risk is already why so many people are not interested in joining 0.0. So how does reducing earning potential in 0.0 help attract new players there? I must admit that in reading this devblog I really have no idea what CCP is thinking. 0.0 should be upgraded more so that it provides unique opportunities and a balanced risk/reward that makes going to 0.0 a worthwhile venture. As it stands now, many alliance pilots just go to highsec to make isk, and these proposed changes will only further that. How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game?

Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:46:00 - [281] At least right now the smaller entities can go ahead and grab a few systems, and get a stable source of funding for their PVP. After these changes, the only systems they will get are ones with garbage anomalies, greatly limiting their PVP abilities.
John Maynard Keynes	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:48:00 - [282] I hope that this blog is a bad joke. While the idea is not wrong, the implementation is simply stupid. What will happen? Since Havens and Sanctums are the only anos that give you a bit more money than L4 missions, no one will live in space with bad true sec. Not even the small alliances you try to support. The people will simply farm L4 missions instead. The rest of 0.0 population will be squeezed in fewer systems so that blobbing becomes even easier. How it would work! Leave the sanctums/havens as they are for systems with 0.0 to -0.2 and improve them for systems with lower true sec.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:53:00 - [283] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Liang Nuren some words It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are. To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend. This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you. This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire. Originally by: Dev Blog In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Here are some observations: - The dev blog states that there is currently a limit of 4 Sanctum/Havens (2 Sanctum/2 Haven) from sov upgrades for all 0.0. - The dev blog states that -0.0 to -0.249 will have no Sanctums or Havens spawned by upgrades (but that they will continue to "naturally" spawn from exploration) - The dev blog states that -0.250 to -0.449 will have 4 - 2? = 2? Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -0.450 to -0.649 will have 4 - 1 = 3 Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -0.650 to -0.849 will have 4 + 1 = 5 Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -8.50 to -1.0 will have 4 + 6? = 10 Sanctums/Havens. - Previous dev blogs state that they are adding many more plexes to 0.0. It might end up looking something like this (pure speculation): - 0.000 to 0.249: 0/0 - 0.250 to 0.449: 1/1 - 0.450 to 0.649: 1/2 - 0.650 to 0.849: 2/3 - 0.850 to 1.000: 5/5 - Lots more plexes in 0.0 - ???? with regards to high sec missions. Some agents are undoubtedly going to see a 70% drop in rewards. Who knows about the rest as people spread out? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Lord Calimari	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:55:00 - [284] Originally by: Taize Kal Originally by: Lord Calimari Originally by: Iree Hmmm, quite a few complaints. But you know i must be missing something. A lot of people here dont like that they will make less Isk, which i suppose is fair (or unfair as the case may be). So when the change goes through... why not go take someone else's richer space? Then you'll be fine right? Ummm ya I guess you are missing something... The whole point is the Rich (those who have these high end systems) will be able to afford to defend their space using supperior ships and anyone that does NOT have these high end systems will not be able to afford strong enough ships to take them, nor will they be able to replace their loses as effectively, so once again the poor get poorer and it will be even harder for others to take these high end systems without having the finances to do it. I love PVP, but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore, I will end up in high sec running missions, until I eventually get bored of doing that over and over and eventually stop playing all together. And if I hear correctly and there nerfing them too.... then I guess I will be bored very quickly indeed. Worst change EVER by ccp... Lol, ok. So why are you making money currently? So you can buy good ships and not invade someone? And last time i checked a pretty standard ship for fleet pvp was the drake, your not going to tell me you cant afford one of those right? Plus have you ever tried living in lowsec and pvp'ing. I lasted a week before going inactive. So i moved to wormholes and you must know that those places are just money printers basically. Is there any particular reason you cannot do any of this? Did you not read my last post... "but if my combat pilot cannot sustain the ISKs I need to replace my loses I will not PVP anymore". This is the point, how can I fight them if I cannot replace my ships. Also you obviously don't live in 0.0, about 75% of PVP is simply to "kill" people and pad your kill board stats and have fun doing it. And lets assume i was making ISK to invade someone, thats the whole freaking point ---- If I "can't" make the ISK to get good ships, how the hell do I invade them. Would you use a drake to fight a faction fit Loki???? You missing the basic point... T1 ships are fine for PVP if your fighthing equivilant ships... but who in their right mind is gonna go up against a T3 faction fit gang using T1s unless you drastically outnumber them. Your comment about wormholes is actualy the same argument were all using about doing missions instead of anoms, so in one hand you are agreeing with us but then in other hand you argue against us... pick a side.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:55:00 - [285] Originally by: Malcanis Brace for incoming tears, as people explain how nerfing something the game didn't even have 15 months ago will be the END OF EVERYTHING. Honestly though, this change does make sense; it's actually something close to the system that was originally expected. It's going to shake up renter-space like crazy, though. The idea is not bad... However turning tha majority of 0.0 space useless is kind of pointless. Take providence, I don't think that NCDot and friends have significant income sources besides the anomalies. Without them Provi would become useless. Why would someone want to hold space without sanctums and havens? Those are the only two anos that are more profitable than lvl 4 missions.
Kalia Masaer Amarr Border Defense Consortium	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:56:00 - [286] Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 26/03/2011 02:05:04 I will give the example of Providence, pre-dominion it was next to worthless because of its poor true sec rating and no one really cared about it as it also didn't have any number of moons of any real value. The alliances living there succeeded because they were dedicated but not overly powerful when you started comparing them to any major powers, and spamming POS's was something that dedicated people could beat less dedicated but more powerful people at. Post Dominion crushing sov in a few systems for a major power group against a weaker group became an insignificant time commitment. Also space that had formerly been worthless suddenly became valuable to the major powers in the galaxy as something that could be rented out or sold because of the infrastructure improvements. Ironically this leads to the opposite of what CCP intended a more peaceful galaxy dominated by super powers, because they do not wish to be at constant war so their renters will actually be willing to rent the territory they have claimed. Renting is the real alliance financial well now. These changes will not really repair the situation but they will help a little bit. What needs to happen again is it must become difficult to fight a weaker more dedicated enemy willing to put in the time to win, there needs to be some space with virtually no value to rent out but is 0.0 where sov can be claimed so that there is a formative place for fresh alliances to develop and possibly eventually challenge existing powers. Us people in CVA liked having Providence worthless because we could run NRDS without anyone caring about our space, but Dominion suddenly added a huge Sov bill but we got none of the benefits because neutrals collected most of it, Our space suddenly became worth something so people actually wanted to take it, but it wasn't worth so much that it could provide the isk needed to fight space with better moons. Dominion was a cruel joke to us sadly.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:59:00 - [287] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Liang Nuren some words It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are. To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend. This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you. This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire. I feel its also worth pointing out that I have never been shy about telling people how to grind less and make more. Maybe you could try listening instead of ****ing about how it's the end of the whole ***ing world... -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Homshar Chal	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:59:00 - [288] All that has been said is very true. As casual player, less than 15 hours per week, I want to come on, make some isk and return to my family. Participate in alliance or corp activities when able. I pay for the game and expect to play. If you nerf the game as expected it will be near to impossible for those like me to make any isk in order to play. Only those with a big enough power base will be able to grab the most valuable (and rare) systems. You will only concentrate power and wealth.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:00:00 - [289] Incredibly bad idea. "damper on conflict" Your kidding right? We have been engaged in wall to wall PVP for six months straight with no breaks, 3-5 fleets per day per timezone. If you don't see conflict, your not looking. I think what you really mean is you don't like large coalitions. Coalitions are the result of constructive meta-gaming and really the only way to establish security for an alliance, especially in the face of destructive meta-gaming. Diplomacy, and collaboration are a natural result of any game that attempts to simulate a strategic conflict. Attack and limit the scope and desire for people to collaborate and you attack lots of reasons to play this game--ie the clash of empires. Normally this is not a problem in wargaming as one side eventually wins, or victory is settled by points and conditions, and the board is reset or boxed up and put in the closet. Eve just goes on forever--or until we stop paying. I get why this is a problem-how like real life that Eve has unresolvable consequences. This is central to the game you created and don't expect to change it just by tweaking sov, anomalies, or something else because when you get right down to it, the security and strength a coalition offers players, corporations, and alliances is worth far more than anything you can or would be able to take away. Seb
fatherted1989 Red Horizon Inc	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:04:00 - [290] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Liang Nuren some words It may surprise you but most people are not as SUPER ELITE GOOD AT MAKING ISK WITH EVERY POSSIBLE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY that you are. To those of us who are not good at the market or turning LP into isk, and dont have a lot of time to PVE, anomalies are a godsend. This should be obvious to someone as "knowledgable" as you. This change flat out completely ruins my ability to reliably make decent isk in 0.0. This is not negotiable. The only rational option to make isk at that point is to return to empire. Originally by: Dev Blog In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Here are some observations: - The dev blog states that there is currently a limit of 4 Sanctum/Havens (2 Sanctum/2 Haven) from sov upgrades for all 0.0. - The dev blog states that -0.0 to -0.249 will have no Sanctums or Havens spawned by upgrades (but that they will continue to "naturally" spawn from exploration) - The dev blog states that -0.250 to -0.449 will have 4 - 2? = 2? Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -0.450 to -0.649 will have 4 - 1 = 3 Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -0.650 to -0.849 will have 4 + 1 = 5 Sanctums/Havens - The dev blog states that -8.50 to -1.0 will have 4 + 6? = 10 Sanctums/Havens. - Previous dev blogs state that they are adding many more plexes to 0.0. It might end up looking something like this (pure speculation): - 0.000 to 0.249: 0/0 - 0.250 to 0.449: 1/1 - 0.450 to 0.649: 1/2 - 0.650 to 0.849: 2/3 - 0.850 to 1.000: 5/5 - Lots more plexes in 0.0 - ???? with regards to high sec missions. Some agents are undoubtedly going to see a 70% drop in rewards. Who knows about the rest as people spread out? -Liang liang via dotlan crosscheck just how MUCH of 0.0 falls into that 'no sanctums for you' category - added plexes will not in any way accommodate for the pilots without a way to casually earn isk

Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:04:00 - [291] -Liang How do you see the screen and post with Greyscale's **** in your mouth?
gw777	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:05:00 - [292] 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) So... ccp makes everything more even in an attempt to make things better for new alliances to come in... then turns around and makes them even more uneven... WTF make up your minds The anoms are not even the part keeping people out of 0.0 it is the insanity of the current sov mechanics that prevent people from moving in. most people need a HUGE fleet to take a good system currently, and even that requires several days minimum to take control(usually more like a week to a month for a good/Key station system). Any coalition, if it really wants to, can prevent ANY small alliance from controlling their 0.0 without their say so and this new mechanic change just makes the space that they might have a better likelihood of getting that much worse and the major coalitions will still hold onto them even if they dont make money off them just to keep smaller alliances out of their hair I don't know but it looks like CCP is just hurting the individuals or smaller groups on this one not the coalitions really at all
Subuotah Amarr Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:06:00 - [293] Hello? CCP? Anyone at home? Take the brains out of the mixer!
Dhaul Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:10:00 - [294] Keep trollin' and trollin' and trollin'
Snyderm	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:11:00 - [295] So as a 0.0 living player, I would have to either compete with 100 other players for a few havens/sanctums, or go back to highsec. As far as I can tell, you are just making 0.0 support fewer players. I need my own source to make pvp ships. The smaller scale pvp ops that I truely enjoy in this game are not reimbursed by any alliance. Its up to me to fund my pvp habit. Out of necessity, this change would require me to live in highsec to make money. How is this good for 0.0? Because Gallante are the Washington Generals of EVE.
Likin11 Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:12:00 - [296] Originally by: gw777 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) So... ccp makes everything more even in an attempt to make things better for new alliances to come in... then turns around and makes them even more uneven... WTF make up your minds The anoms are not even the part keeping people out of 0.0 it is the insanity of the current sov mechanics that prevent people from moving in. most people need a HUGE fleet to take a good system currently, and even that requires several days minimum to take control(usually more like a week to a month for a good/Key station system). Any coalition, if it really wants to, can prevent ANY small alliance from controlling their 0.0 without their say so and this new mechanic change just makes the space that they might have a better likelihood of getting that much worse and the major coalitions will still hold onto them even if they dont make money off them just to keep smaller alliances out of their hair I don't know but it looks like CCP is just hurting the individuals or smaller groups on this one not the coalitions really at all Well if you can't beat em, join em. And +1 to what seb said.
Jitizen	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:12:00 - [297] epic threadnaught of negative comments and CCP does not post a WORD in it's defense. my acct runs out in may IDK if I'm gonna keep going since my alliance will probably fall apart.
Kalia Masaer Amarr Border Defense Consortium	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:14:00 - [298] A formative alliance needs to bring 100 ships to kill a station in the time a 10 super carriers can which a major alliance can field effortlessly. It is truly laughable to think there is any room for any alliance to claim space without the backing of one of the major powerblocks, with the current sov mechanics which you can't kite into your timezone and that take an eternity to do without a massive fleet, super carriers or dreads, the dreads of coarse likely won't survive. Then once the system is claimed try and hang onto it, against 200 man+ fleets often including super caps. No null-sec has no room for the independent little alliance anymore, the only way to get in is to be a serf with virtually no way to gain power without getting slaughtered because you are getting to powerful.
Xuallus Arkanum Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:17:00 - [299] This has to be a joke, they can't possibly be that stupid...
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:17:00 - [300] proof positive... CCP employees ******s as devs.


CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:18:00 - [301] 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

fatherted1989 Red Horizon Inc	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:24:00 - [302] i have to ask how you guys ever even came to this idea? do you since the T20 incident literally not have any guys playing in nullsec enviroments?
Jitizen	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:24:00 - [303] wow CCP responds IR impress.
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:25:00 - [304] Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 02:35:27 Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 02:29:26 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 But there have been many great points raised in this thread, many with seemingly no possible rebuttals. Can you at least try to refute them, so that we can try to understand better what you seem to understand that no one else does?
Aquestria Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [305] 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 Well ****ing duh!?
Gastarbajter	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [306] HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAH You CCP Grayscale is a fracking idiot. You are always dead on 0.0 predictions. Maybe you should all just flip the switch on the server and end our misery than kill this poor game slowly... How are alliances going to get space? You can't get more than 200 people in a system without ****ting up the server. Idiots
Trey Gar	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [307] This would be such a bad idea
Dark Damus	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:31:00 - [308] This Change is the biggest Bull**** in the CCP live
mowie2	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:37:00 - [309] because eve is really about grinding isk all day long and fighting alot less
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:37:00 - [310] 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 The range of issues in nullsec, should not include punishing everyone who came to nullsec based on the promises given during dominion.. I am all for shaking things up in 0.0, but not by punishing anyone. You need to take what we currently have and build upon it. The fact of the matter is a lot of players have invested billions on billions of isk into their infrastructure and that there is not any way that you can take that away without causing a major backlash. I for one am prepared to cash in all 4 of my accounts. I'm sure I am not alone. Why not increase the quality of the sanctums and havens based on trusec.. using 0.0 as the baseline and going upwards. But i would rather see there be sites that are larger and more valuable than sanctums, perhaps with the new ai, that get progressivly better based on trusec. just sayin... Carrots work a lot better than sticks. Easy Co.

Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:38:00 - [311] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Proof that CCP is actually listening to players... Just to clarify my perspective. I see the goal of this to be sound (more conflict, more access to 0.0 for new alliances), it's the method being suggested to achieve that that won't work. Not only will it not work, I can see it working against the intended outcomes.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:43:00 - [312] Originally by: CCP Greyscale figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here. push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. -Greyscale I don't give a s**t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now...
Thundren	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:44:00 - [313] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. 10/10
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:50:00 - [314] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17 Originally by: Amber Villaneous Originally by: CCP Greyscale figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here. push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. -Greyscale I don't give a s*t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now... The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes. -Liang Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against* the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Garrix LaCrioux	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:53:00 - [315] Originally by: Kalia Masaer Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 26/03/2011 02:05:04 These changes will not really repair the situation but they will help a little bit. What needs to happen again is it must become difficult to fight a weaker more dedicated enemy willing to put in the time to win, there needs to be some space with virtually no value to rent out but is 0.0 where sov can be claimed so that there is a formative place for fresh alliances to develop and possibly eventually challenge existing powers. And how is a fresh alliance to grow and challenge existing powers in space with no value? Utilizing what resources?
stupid monkey Caldari Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:58:00 - [316] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17 Originally by: Amber Villaneous Originally by: CCP Greyscale figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here. push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. -Greyscale I don't give a s*t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now... The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes. -Liang Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against* the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game. well well find out then... cause I believe said changes will cause most of 0.0 to become an empty wasteland and those that used to live there either let their accounts go inactive or mass move to high sec. basically all those smaller alliances that, since dominion, been able to grab a few systems here and there, working their asses off to do so. and then spend billions to get the infrastructure up so they can use their space will rage quit. When a group of people has to LEAVE their space, (that they fought for, pay sov bills for and payed to upgrade) just to make enough isk to buy the ships they need just to defend their space says to me that something is broken.
Gragnor The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:59:00 - [317] Kudos for acknowledging response from members. The number one reason for a lack of large scale null sec pew pew is the immense lag fest. Eve has regressed in this regard over the last two years. The second issue is bots. You have to find a solution to botting. It undermines the eve economy. I just heard a story about 1,000 accounts getting banned for botting. If true; well done. Another issue is risk/reward. The risk of being in null sec does not match the rewards. I can run level 4's in empire and make more isk/hour than in null sec. The principal reason for so much anger in these forums is that the risk of being in null sec is not matched by the rewards. The lack of understanding and awareness of this by CCP Devs simply astounds everyone. Next issue is that there are now so many alternative sources of income in eve that a relative re-ranking is needed. Active sources of income such as mining and ratting should be buffed and nerfs for Moongoo and Planet crap. However, fourth issue cannot be resolved until second issue is eradicated. We also need to think through supercaps online. The mainstay of any fleet should be a battleship not a capital ship. The prevalence of supercapitals and titans is really preventing newer players from enjoying the game. Dreads are now defunct with supercaps. Dreads should be the principle mechanism for killing capitals and structures. The last issue is the perennial; sovereignty warfare suck dead dogs *********. Stations should be destructible. That more than anything will create an immense fight. If you kill a station anything in it is destroyed. A pilot in a ship simply remains there and all he can do is undock.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:00:00 - [318] Originally by: fatherted1989 liang via dotlan crosscheck just how MUCH of 0.0 falls into that 'no sanctums for you' category - added plexes will not in any way accommodate for the pilots without a way to casually earn isk About a third - 982 systems. The biggest losers are Pure Blind, Providence, and Cloud Ring. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:00:00 - [319] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 02:51:17 Originally by: Amber Villaneous Originally by: CCP Greyscale figure out whether or not we're still happy with both the direction and the details here. push through changes we're confident in despite (expected) negative feedback. -Greyscale I don't give a s*t whether or not you are happy with the direction and details, I am the customer not you. Well, I am a customer for now... The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes. -Liang Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against* the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game. You have already been shown to be sucking Greyscales cok so go troll someone elses post.
Xiang Zhu Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:03:00 - [320] Put me down on the please don't do this list. How about re-evaluating. I don't like the idea of gutting the majority of your nullsec player base. There have been several decent ideas about what changes can be made instead. I opt for the keeping of status quo for the higher truesec systems (or at the most a slight nerf) and work on making lower truesec more desirable. I would not go overboard with that either, perhaps less than what's originally proposed but still a buff so that it's still something worth shooting for, or fighting over as you think will happen. Then, look at your missioning income and align it on some level with income generated from the less desirable nullsec spaces. Also take into account that most alliances will continue to do most of their sov fighting over high end moons because that's what really pays their bills. I don't know what to suggest to fix your game, but I don't think this will help with anything but alienating your playerbase that has already devoted a lot of time and many resources to better themselves and their home.

Mortania Minmatar Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:05:00 - [321] Looking through the database, there are: 3524 systems with negative security. 1635 are between -0.0 and -0.25, about 46.4% 738 are between -0.25 and -0.45, about 20.9% 554 are between -0.45 and -0.65, about 15.7% 414 are between -0.65 and -0.85, about 11.7% 183 are between -0.85 and -1.00, about 5.2% I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.
Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:08:00 - [322] don't listen to the hordes of NC alts. these upcoming changes will be for the best!
stupid monkey Caldari Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:08:00 - [323] Originally by: Mortania Looking through the database, there are: 3524 systems with negative security. 1635 are between -0.0 and -0.25, about 46.4% 738 are between -0.25 and -0.45, about 20.9% 554 are between -0.45 and -0.65, about 15.7% 414 are between -0.65 and -0.85, about 11.7% 183 are between -0.85 and -1.00, about 5.2% I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. not to mention that most of the -0.5 to -1.0 are generally grouped together... so ENTIRE regions of -0.0 to -0.25 will become worthless while other regions become OMG gold mines
Denetric	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:10:00 - [324] CCP, really are you that out of touch? I PVP because I can pay for it, how does making it harder for me to make isk ratting going to increase my desire to PVP? All this means is each loss takes longer to replace. Wow you guys just don't have a clue...
Qel'Droma	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:10:00 - [325] Originally by: Xiang Zhu Put me down on the please don't do this list. How about re-evaluating. I don't like the idea of gutting the majority of your nullsec player base. There have been several decent ideas about what changes can be made instead. I opt for the keeping of status quo for the higher truesec systems (or at the most a slight nerf) and work on making lower truesec more desirable. I would not go overboard with that either, perhaps less than what's originally proposed but still a buff so that it's still something worth shooting for, or fighting over as you think will happen. Then, look at your missioning income and align it on some level with income generated from the less desirable nullsec spaces. Also take into account that most alliances will continue to do most of their sov fighting over high end moons because that's what really pays their bills. I don't know what to suggest to fix your game, but I don't think this will help with anything but alienating your playerbase that has already devoted a lot of time and many resources to better themselves and their home. Agreed.
John Haldane	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:14:00 - [326] Well, this is a terrible idea, even if it is easy to implement. You're once again making safe missions in high-sec more valuable than 0.0, screwing up the risk/reward ratio. Frankly, these changes look like they'll hurt the people you claim to be helping -- small alliances without high-end moons or a lot of existing assets. I'm having a hard time believing (a) that the problem you describe exists, and (b) that this fix will solve that problem. Taking on (a): There seems to be a good deal of conflict going on at the moment. The NC and the DRF are going at it hammer & tongs, with something like a trillion ISK in supercaps killed so far. Pandemic Legion is fighting in Pure Blind. The Deklein Coalition and IT have just finished a long brutal fight, and various parties are lining up to fill the vacated space. What conflict are you looking for and not finding? And for (b): many have pointed out here, the proposed changes will ensure that large alliances control an even greater share of the economic power. Prior to the last set of changes, the large players settled those regions. They're not going to leave them. Meanwhile, those of us who grind our ISK will end up running missions in high-sec when we need new hulls. Meanwhile, you'll have cut botting income... well by half, perhaps. Per bot. The whole point of the upgrades mechanism was to make marginal-trusec systems viable to live in, encouraging more people to move to 0.0. You'll have more accurate numbers than I do, but it seems to have worked. Why do you want to encourage people to move out again? Meanwhile, the message you're sending to small- and mid-sized alliances is: all that money you spent on sov upgrades? Wasted. Y'all should have done L4 missions with your time instead. Leave 0.0 to the big boys with the moon goo or the bot networks. Tell us true, Greyscale: Are you really excited about these changes? I'm not. They screw over the mid-level pilots without changing the balance of power in the larger scheme of things.
WhyAmIPoor	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:16:00 - [327] 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 You suck.
lmao 2cat	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:19:00 - [328] If your goal is to make the game more mobile, good job! All of the best regions are DRF, and with the thousands upon thousands of extra drone kills that are going to happen due to them being flooded with more Drone Hordes dropping alloys... their mineral production is going to be completely off the charts. Supercap production is going to explode, and in the favor of the people who already control the best regions in the game. This is literally the worst, most asinine change you could have possibly conceived. Do you people even play the game?
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:20:00 - [329] Originally by: Panda Name don't listen to the hordes of NC alts. these upcoming changes will be for the best! Umm, you do realise that ev0ke, Intrepid Crossing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC right? Sure, a large portion of the people commenting here are from NC members, but a large portion of nullsec residents are NC members. This has nothing to do with what side you're on in nullsec, it's about making sure that nullsec is worth inhabiting.
Aeternus IV	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:21:00 - [330] This is quite a bad idea. The only people who seem to support it are either High-Sec trolls or players who already live in the "soon-to-be" best space. I would also love some confirmation on one thing. Even if CCP does bring out this horrendously ill-thought idea, please please confirm that you are also leaving the regions with broken true-sec alone, because if you're going to fck up, you might as well fck up in the biggest way possible. Nothing like completely improving you're game alts space while simultaneously making your opponents space worthless ehh CCP? Here's an idea, and I know it might sound incredibly ridiculous to all you game developers, but how about NOT nerfing the 0.0 that you've tried ohhh sooo haarrd to make better. This change won't accomplish any of the goals stated by CCP. For F*ck's Sake, I mean really... I hope whoever thought of this idea is sterile, this world needs less morons, not more.

Raidek Minmatar Bad Kitty Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:22:00 - [331] This is a terrible idea. I'm all for space being better then each other but making alliances suffer because of a design change after they devoted a lot of long term planning towards what they accomplished since dominion is pretty much ****. The idea of space being unique and not the same is great, this solution is not.
DingoGS	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:26:00 - [332] I would swear that the economic analysis during the fanfest said that everything was "pretty normal" and the game was just in need for some "isk sinks", not a isk production nerf. Maybe CCP should listen their economists, economists love ships being blown up so people have to replace them often, makes the game better according to their own economists. And lets face it, where are more ships blown up, highsec or nullsec?, where does that money come from? This seems a crazy idea thought by one guy that thinks its cool to make big changes without analyzing them.
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:26:00 - [333] I have spent most of the better part of my day reading this thread. Frankly I am one of those in a smaller alliance in Vale who if this change went through would have to leave for empire or find a larger alliance to join. I am rather loyal to my alliance so leaving them is not an option to me but cloning to empire every other day to do missions is not all that appealing. I believe that every system in 0.0 should have at least 1 Sanctum and 1 Haven...build up from there for the lower trusec systems. I hope that CCP takes this into consideration seeing as this has been a rather popular suggestion on this thread and Greyscale did state they would reconsider this change. Finally I would like to point out that right now a large portion of players in nullsec don't PvP not because they are afraid to lose a ship or can't afford to replace them but because of the lag. Simply put...fix the lag...make that priority one over all else. Don't make any major drastic changes like this until that is done. With lag fixed there will be more fights and more players in those fights. More ships will be lost, more ISK cycled through the system and in the end you get another ISK sink that could very well balance out the economy again. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!
Hazrdis	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:28:00 - [334] Personally I think, at worst make the lowest levels have 1 sanctum and 1 haven, so that they are not completely useless. Make higher levels obviously much more useful. I understand wanting to make something valuable other than moon goo, and I'm sure alliance memberships will lean on leadership a bit, but are you really expecting a 3000member alliance to survive on say 30 sanctums? If it comes down to doing missions to make money or spending hrs upon hours every day running around trying to find sanctums etc in expensive ships, I won't be able to play, I don't have the time. I won't be able to pvp a lot, because I won't have ships, and I won't have ships because I want to pod myself after doing an hr of sanctums as it is let alone 3 hrs to match the income of 1 hr. I think alliance membership has gone up seeing as it is affordable to be out and fighting, but it would go back down with this. Yeah alliances survived before these changes, but are alliances the same now?
lmao 2cat	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:31:00 - [335] Also thanks for letting us pay billions of isk upgrading systems that will never spawn any worthwhile anomaly.
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:36:00 - [336] think of making a diffrence, by NOT nerfing, but by offering better space not making the current space be fail!!!! you want to remove botting.. how the hell are folks going to be botting less for example if they earn less in their space.... 1 H self ratting in good system or 3H unattended bot ratting and pvp all day what i want.. hmm waht would be the choise ;-) now i stfu and go to bed, its getting late, 440am :P o7
Cooper Wylde	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:45:00 - [337] What about iHUB upgrades. Or are those just now collectors items that we wasted time flying out in freighters. are you guys really this dumb or is this because the CSM is full of people who don't set foot out of 0.5 space.
firefighter4	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:47:00 - [338] this is the worst idea ever to do to 0.0 ccp you guys really need to rethink this over
luav II	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:47:00 - [339] i guess 0.0 will be vewy vewy quiet during weekdays if they push this through
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:48:00 - [340] Originally by: Aeternus IV For F*ck's Sake, I mean really... I hope whoever thought of this idea is sterile, this world needs less morons, not more. Best post to this point, cuz I said so. +1 insert gay meme here

Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:51:00 - [341] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Thanks for listening, CCP Greyscale. I sincerely hope that you rethink your current plans for nullsec. The problems with your proposals have been extensively documented in this thread. At the same time, folk have pointed out numerous times where the true problems with nullsec lie (hint: look at moon goo). Concentrating geographically nullsec ISK faucets should be rather obviously an awful idea, after the debacle which is now unfolding as a result of you concentrating Technetium in the hands of the Northern Coalition. Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Would it be possible to get a more-detailed list of the problems you perceive in nullsec as it is? I like the idea of encouraging conflict and breaking down giant powerblocs while allowing more alliances to set up shop in nullsec. So do many other players who live in nullsec, no doubt. Most of us also [hopefully] understand that significant changes may have to be made at times for the health of the game as a whole, which may inconvenience some players or entites. However, I have two major problems with your current proposals. (1) The proposals show a frightening misunderstanding of how nullsec truly works. For example, suggesting that players run anomalies below Havens, or that they would do so because those anomalies are somehow 'safer' is ludicrous, so the idea that players would want systems which spawn no Havens or Sanctums is exceedingly silly. (2) As a consequence of the above, your current proposals would be counterproductive: if right now a small alliance can get into nullsec by renting or aligning with a larger entity and upgrading its low-value system to be useful, under the proposed changes that small alliance would be stuck farming Hubs for miniscule profits at best, and would most likely be simply locked out of nullsec altogether. So rather than foster conflict and attract new alliance, your proposals would actually drive players out of nullsec. All of this has been discussed in greater detail in earlier posts. It took me about half an hour of thought to figure out why the above changes are problematic. I find it hard to believe that no-one at CCP thought of the many negative and counterproductive effects your proposed changes will have.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:53:00 - [342] Grayscale, i'm sorry, i believe that this sort of change was proposed without much thinking. Not only was it a mistake, but it was a very unresponsible thing to do. I respect the work you guys do, but this has "poorly thinked" written all over it. Not only it enraged your playerbase, it gave the wrong idea of the quality of your guys work. Now a lot of people were led to believe that you guys do in fact like to change things without thinking too much about it. I do not expect this change to be implemented on the way it was originally proposed, because everyone here pointed out with a lot of solid arguments that the changes proposed will not achieve the consequences you guys wanted. It will, in fact, do the exact opposite. Big alliances will stay big (and grow bigger), botters and macroers will continue botting and macroeing COMPLETELY unaffected and, completely the contrary of what you want, small alliances will have an even harder time estabilishing a foothold. And acording to the consequences you said you expect to happen, you don't want any of this to happen. If you guys want to affect the income source of the big dogs, you shouldn't look to anomalies, you should look toward moons. Also, i noticed that this dev blog was posted toward the end of today's fanfest exhibitions. Expect a major roar this next afternoon. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Rex Augustus Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:54:00 - [343] This proposed change, and I hope to GOD that it's only a proposed change, will, as many others have mentioned, screw over the smaller corps, alliances and individual players. Nullsec wars have nothing to do with the truesec values of the system, and everything to do with moon income. We don't even give a damn about the content of the belts for the most part. We go from the absolutely -awesome- change in removing the Learning skills, to this tripe? Listen to the new folks coming in on the CSM. Odds are pretty good you're going to get some -very- experienced nullsec residents and leaders showing up in this. You're not creating new conflict between the players. You're creating new conflict between the players and CCP. A conflict that will result in $$$ leaving for good.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:55:00 - [344] Originally by: Mortania Looking through the database, there are: 3524 systems with negative security. 1635 are between -0.0 and -0.25, about 46.4% 738 are between -0.25 and -0.45, about 20.9% 554 are between -0.45 and -0.65, about 15.7% 414 are between -0.65 and -0.85, about 11.7% 183 are between -0.85 and -1.00, about 5.2% I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. The initial idea is sound, though I think the 'bands' should be reconsidered. I: -0.0 to -0.149 II: -0.15 to -0.399 III: -0.4 to -0.649 IV: -0.65 to -0.849 V: -8.5 to -1.0 Would make more sense I guess.
sappy mcsap	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:05:00 - [345] this is totally going to make more people fight tons more drama! o wait you wanted pvp? yah thats not gonna change with this gl :P
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:10:00 - [346] Power bloc tears, best tears.
Van Ketris	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:15:00 - [347] I think the most important thing I could point out on this issue is the key note of allowing entry by smaller alliances with less 0.0 experience or power. From my viewpoint, and others, it's things such as consistant anomalies regardless of true-sec or moons that encourages this move. If you know you can get your members into a better situation than high-sec, and that they can keep busy and afford pvp, then you are much more likely to make that plunge and survive. The power blocks in null won't go away with a change like this, and those who get hurt the most are people who were willing to live in less valuable systems, but knowing it was still of good value to their individual members. Especially smaller corporations who were able to join an alliance and live in a low-belt, low true-sec system. Those corps often have different ideals than the alliance or larger corporations. These groups grow in good situations with anoms allowing them to recruit from good space in a larger group, and someday maybe create their own alliance having made friends/allies and grown. If it's no longer viable to live in low true-sec systems you'll find alliances relying more on their large corps, and members needing to join those corps to get access to the valuable space. We can argue how viable living in these new 0.00-0.2 systems will be, but I think it's apparant that below havens/sanctums any income made will be significantly less than other means. Taking away any sort of reliable isk necessary for growth for combat pilots in these systems. So some 740+ systems are now not possible homes for weaker groups who need all the help they can get. Not to mention power blocks care more about holding a given spot on the map than the sov of the systems. Look at the old IT area, lots of unclaimed systems, but if you tried to claim sov they shut you down fast.
Hordak Zann	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:15:00 - [348] I'm sorry, this is Buit. This pretty much takes away any chance smaller alliances have against larger ones. Oh wait, moon goo?? Right, all the larger alliances have them under their thumbs. It will also make people leave 0.0 for empire where they'd earn better isk grinding Level 4's. I say keep it the way it is and live and let live.
Lt Al3x3i ROMANIA Renegades	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:16:00 - [349] Edited by: Lt Al3x3i on 26/03/2011 04:18:46 so now u want as to go to npc space like venal stain curse a??? **** sov who it gona give a crap for space like -0.1 -0.7 space??? Pac pac
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:17:00 - [350] Edited by: Proats on 26/03/2011 04:20:17 Originally by: Marconus Orion Power bloc tears, best tears. Power blocs have the ability to take the valuable regions from any of the small or mid-sized entities easily, or already control those regions anyway. Why would they have any selfish reasons to care about these changes?

Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:17:00 - [351] Originally by: Marconus Orion Power bloc tears, best tears. You clearly have no idea what you are saying when you say that. The Power Blocks don't and will never give a damn if this change goes through because this will do nothing but give them even more ISK off Havens and Sanctums. The power blocks have the lower true sec systems. The ones this will effect are the smaller alliances who are pets, rent or are guests of the larger alliances and don't have systems with the lower sec status. Seriously...people...get a clue. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:33:00 - [352] Edited by: Ascendic on 26/03/2011 04:33:10 Originally by: Liang Nuren The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes. -Liang Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game. Orly? Let us see said evidence or feel free to STFU. How does that cok taste?
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:35:00 - [353] Originally by: Ascendic Edited by: Ascendic on 26/03/2011 04:33:10 Originally by: Liang Nuren The customer is not always right. See the Supercap changes. -Liang Ed: Actually, the amount of evidence against the customer being good at MMO balancing is pretty enormous. And yes, the balancing of the game is what continues to make it a functional game. Orly? Let us see said evidence or feel free to STFU. How does that cok taste? Ignore that person. A lot of people already are ignoring it. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:40:00 - [354] Please, CCP, stop and think of the children. Won't anyone think of the children? Seriously, I'm glad Greyscale and CCP are listening. I understand the attraction of the elegance of this solution. As I'm devs often think "oh, we should have designed it this way." But it's too late...you already have a universe. I could see this working had it been designed with valuable systems located to also make them inconvenient to get to and also to take (pre-jump bridge, pre-super moms). But starting with what you have now, it doesn't make sense. This will kill nullsec, because like tech moons, the big alliances will just keep the income for themselves and lock everyone else out. Actually, if CCP made -0.01 the baseline and buffed everything else, then you could potentially encourage the upwardly mobile to take space while keeping nullsec vibrant. It's kind of like trying to improve a neighborhood by cutting off the electricity to all the average houses, but adding really nice kitchens to the better houses...you might think that would encourage people to move into the nicer houses, but the people in the average houses already would have been in the nicer houses if they could...so now they are just sitting in the dark thinking about tanks. I would hope the tech moon debacle would make you think twice about concentrating resources too tightly so that only giant alliances can thrive...the whole beauty of dispersed isk faucets is that it encourages lots of smaller scale sov wars. I understand that Dominion made things too homogenic (not the word I'm looking for, but it's late, and that's the name of a Bjork album so hopefully it will resonate with CCP) but don't swing things so far the other way. Fix the truesec bugs in areas like Delve, fix the tech moons, fix the bugs with entrapment arrays, make anoms (and escalations) more variable and interesting so that anoms other than Haven/Sanctum level are profitable, THEN revisit this idea.
Ransom Note	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:42:00 - [355] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. He's the only one.... If these changes go ahead they will make the training plan that I've had in place for the last 6 months completely worthless. I have a gesture that will show my displeasure at this but I can't render it in ASCII. Rest assured it's unbelievably course.
Donovin Orly Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:46:00 - [356] CCP, First of all I want to say thank you for trying to make a better game for us to enjoy and trying to create some more war for us to revel in. With that said... please do not do this, I strongly doubt it will cause the reaction you hope for but instead make the game less accessible for new players/corps. It seems to me that you put a lot of work into getting people out into 0.0 and you have been successful this idea seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction.
Joseph Smith	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:48:00 - [357] Edited by: Joseph Smith on 26/03/2011 04:49:23 i don't see how this will help the small guys, all its going to do is concentrate the wealth into the hands of the already powerful. I'm sure my alliance will still charge rent on the crap system and if you don't pay i'm sure we will remove you, others will take there place. So at the end of days the little guys will get screwed harder and the giant power block will still be giant power blocks.
lilpday	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:49:00 - [358] this is DUMB this will hurt all the small self made allainces all the small pvp fleets and anything small it will creat blobs in the main systems and just make it so only capital pilots can pvp again..... this is very disapointing
Xiang Zhu Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:50:00 - [359] TL;DR Please fix lag (like really fix it and not 'tweaks') and other really stupid bugs before implementing poorly thought out changes that will make this game less fun.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:52:00 - [360] Originally by: Proats Power blocs have the ability to take the valuable regions from any of the small or mid-sized entities easily, or already control those regions anyway. Why would they have any selfish reasons to care about these changes? Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi You clearly have no idea what you are saying when you say that. The Power Blocks don't and will never give a damn if this change goes through because this will do nothing but give them even more ISK off Havens and Sanctums. The power blocks have the lower true sec systems. The ones this will effect are the smaller alliances who are pets, rent or are guests of the larger alliances and don't have systems with the lower sec status. Seriously...people...get a clue. "Alliance living in **** region, you are to stay blue with us and be a nice buffer to keep us safe while we farm Sanctums all day, cool?" "What incentive is there for me to do that?" "So we can still be friends!" "So you want me to be a buffer while you get fat and rich?" "Yes. Remember, I allow you to exist. You can go to high sec and farm missions... oh wait. Those are nerfed too so you have to be a buffer for me." "Well now there is no incentive to be blue with you." "Sure there is. You get to tell people that we are friends. That is all the incentive you need. Pass me another turkey leg..." "How about we switch regions. We will take the good one and you take the **** one. After all if we are frie.." COUGH! COUGH!! "HORRIBLE IDEA! We were here first so no point in changing now. Pass that gravy over. Now get you ass back on those gates and make sure if a non-blue comes though, you let us know so we can get our ships safely out of the Sanctums. MOVE IT!" So why should an alliance who lives in a 'not so great' region want to stay blue with an alliance living in a 'great' region?

Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:00:00 - [361] Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 26/03/2011 05:00:34 Originally by: Kerosene Edited by: Kerosene on 25/03/2011 16:59:31 Ghetto Quote from Blog: * 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) On all 5 of them points I'd like to say 'my arse'. 1. Alliances don't base their location on the number of sanctums available. 2. Why? Do you think people fight over sanctums? 3. People won't move because of the change (see points 1 and 2 above) so why would alliances get a better foothold? 4. Coalitions will be less stable why? 5. Not while jump bridges exist. You think you over estimate the power of anomolies. They are a nice-to-have, not a reason for living somewhere. edit: typo I second and will add this: the shiny titans don't just get made by moon goo. Renters that rat in these spaces help pay for sov and payment to power blocs to build those titans as protection, ships and such. So conflict would decrease if their is less money coming in from renters, then pvpers on ship replacement plans under the major blocs will not have the isk flow backing up to go out and fight. By reducing the isk flow you are asking for an isk vs isk war and I will gladly play hello kitty if you nerf sanctums and havens.
Rellikmad	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:01:00 - [362] Seems Greyscale is the only one excited, Personally not a good idea. For many of us time is limited enough so to make those changes will hurt the PVP. And if your out in null sec there is no lack of fighting. If you think it will produce more conflict for prime space, "FIX THE LAG FIRST", this in it self would produce more fighting,,,,,,,,,,
Tugin Spank	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:02:00 - [363] I'll make this short and sweet....if this change goes through you will lose 3 subscriptions to your game. Most people in 0.0 grind isk in order to support PVP (atleast I do) it sucks grinding isk as it is and if CCP is going to make that grind harder well I'm done with your game. What happen to hey we want to get more people into null sec...I understand you're trying to make these changes to help the little guys. Like cough Dominion cough yeah I remember that was supposed to help out the "smaller" entities, well I can't see much change. So if this goes through you can bet you still won't see those little guys and you will lose subscribers over it also. CCP please get in touch with your player base before you just throw garbage like this out
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:05:00 - [364] It is funny to see people tear up about not having Sanctums and haves to farm in every region 23/7. I do have some suggestion though. Make sic costs for upgrades and bills be relative to the amount of members in an alliance. That way if the area is not that great, you won't be paying out the nose for a small alliance. Maybe even have the true sec factored in as well. That being said, the cost to member ratio should include blues as well so we don't have a tuck ton of micro alliances in a coalition. If a small time alliance wants to make in null sec without joining some super coalition, in some craptastic region, they should not be having to devote all of their income just to pay for sov upkeep and have nothing left to defend against evil neighbors.
Glacius Prime Gallente Knights of the Old Code Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:09:00 - [365] LoL CCP, where do you get these ideas??? We spend to much time already grinding like morons so we can afford to PvP... I lost my last ship due to lag!, now you wanna take my sunctum away. AWESOME! We spend months to put the upgrades up!!! now the system will be useless? So what? I'm gonna go fight the blue next to me so I can farm in his system? Fail! EPIC fail! (good thing we did not put the station up) Guess its back to high sec then. But all the renters will follow, so it will be crowded also... Really CCP, if you want more fight, fix the fu***** lag! Don't force me to get the gay drake out to join the cta and wait 45 mins to jump a gate!
Vlakorados Imminent Ruin Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:11:00 - [366] 10/10 This is a great way to sell more plex. But should nerf missions t oh wait...
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:14:00 - [367] Originally by: Vlakorados 10/10 This is a great way to sell more plex. But should nerf missions t oh wait... +1
Tony Swift	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:14:00 - [368] Originally by: Wiu Ming Edited by: Wiu Ming on 25/03/2011 21:38:51 Originally by: Renan Ruivo Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 25/03/2011 18:46:20 This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift. Quote: CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies So CCP Greyscale is excited about screwing people over?! This puts my confidence on CCP staff at such a high level.. Couldn't have said it better myself. Agreed. Definitely not liking the direction things are going. Dislike.
El Mauru Amarr Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:20:00 - [369] I think a lot of players underestimate the alliance level decisions based on ratting space. CVA and similar entities on the one side and Bob (everybody remembers the whining about bob-space and the officer spawns?) on the other were an example of how this theorem worked out pretty well. I'd gladly give away parts of my ratting income if it means a more dynamic political landscape again and less of the grey paste it is now (been to Provi lately? compare the range of targets...)- especially with the 2nd tier (force projection) changes in mind. That being said, the people fearing that the casual grunt will now return to hisec mission running for isk might have a point. I'll wait on my judgment until I see the second part of the changes coming up. The amount of negativity in this thread should give CCP a hint to not leave us in the dark for too long though.
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:27:00 - [370] Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 26/03/2011 05:28:32 "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". I'm sorry but this was enough for me. When's Bioware coming out with Star Wars??? I think they care about their player base. I'm sure their petitions are treated with respect not CCP copy and paste answers. Oh you were in lag, our logs don't show this. Good day to you sir!

Ki Rathos Minmatar Urban Mining Corp AAA Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:28:00 - [371] Alright , I am not generally the ranting, bching type. However, this is a bad idea. Few things I would like to point out. 1. Dominion was supposed to be awesome, and break up the large power groups to allow for smaller guys to get in. Flip side we are still renting as a small guy I can attest to this.I actually formed up an alliance that was running well, and we just couldnt find space. If we could find it we couldnt take it. And our puny 200 man fleets were easily squashed by much larger fleets. Maybe PVP fail, but the point is that the power blocks have shifted very very little. Its internal gankage, or oh st I didnt pay the bill that kills these guys. 2. The good money comes from moons, which are rarely found in good systems. Should you be renting they are dominated by the alliance you have to pay to hold any 00 in the first place. Try and take the moon and you are removed. 3. It takes a sustained fleet of LOTS of stuff to even attempt sov in any 00 system, and if you are low on caps , it takes hours. Allowing your enemy to take their time , field up the fleet and come remove you, or your SBU, or pretty much anything. 4. My corp is a broad based industrial corp (we will mine your hull for goods if we can). We currently rent a soon to be crap system, where we have spent TONS of isk to upgrade. Military upgrade came fast, its the first thing we focused on. And its been easily maintained, indy upgrade, having to have essentially everyone mine , all the time hasnt been maintained. As it requires to much to defend against any roaming gangs, in a renter alliance where they DONT want you to be organized. I have more, but basically , if you want 00 to more "vivid" then make the upgrades count, and make them transferable if you take a system, not start from scratch. Dont nerf whats there , reward the guys putting the effort in. Half of 00 is already hardly upgraded, as the big alliances just take sov , then dont upgrade because they dont need the bill. They just want to hold the space. Redistribute the moon goo, and FFS make PI worth a bit more than just stuff from the planet. If your going to tie it into Dust cool, but mining should not be the only activity that increases industrial level. I for one, am producing all the pos fuel and goods for tech 2 production off the planets in my system. My corp is doing the same, and we get no reward other than fueling our pos at home and some occasional t2 stuff to sell. Other things to think about. 1.POS mechanics stink for roles rights etc - yes i know the code is touchy and your all afraid to mess with it. Been around a while 2. Logistics suck - if you remove JB , it will probably be good, except for one thing, most likely the big alliances will pull back into their own already highly profitable 00 sec, or set up close to empire to block routes to more 00 sec. Want to make it better, find a way to kill the huge power blocks. 3 Standings are a mess most times. Hard to maintain, and a pain to deal with. Necessary in a way. Heres an idea, you want an isk sink, penalize shooting blue with isk fine. Clear up overview setup to be less complicated at the same time so you can hide blue (could see an issue here with rr though, could be tricky) Additions welcome, comments too
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:29:00 - [372] 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 Of course its not being well received, its not a constructive change to the game and cannot achieve the goals you state. Be careful of doing stuff because you think it will lead to a better future, didn't work to well for SOE and SWG.... Newer alliances will not gain an easier foothold in 0.0, you don't seem to understand 0.0 politics. The change you propose means that the big alliances will need more space to service the same amount of pilots. This means absolutely no opening of space to new alliances. New alliances who do not have the ability to build or purchase supercapitals and replace them on a regular basis cannot gain a foothold in 0.0 without the permission of a larger alliance that has them. Believing they can is just foolishness. More time spent making the same amount of money they make now means less time to conduct combat operations against other players, which means less conflicts not more. Whether they have to work in 0.0 under your lower bands or choose to go back to empire to run missions to make the money it means less time in the field to fight opponents. While those with tremendous moon resources offer replacements for ships, those without such options each pilot is responsible for his own ship and being able to field it. Lowering his earning potential means more time in pve and less time in pvp. (This goes with your mission changes to, keep agent quality.....stop dumbing down the game that's what killed SWG for SOE). Your proposed changes makes some Regions worthless....Providence for example. 95% of providence would be in band 1. It is not a strategic chokepoint like Geminate so one has to wonder how it would make it, perhaps Aralis will return and retake it for CVA. To achieve your goals you need to make it more enticing to come out to 0.0. You need higher population, only with more people will you get more conflicts. To entice more folks you need to create a system whereby a 0.0 system can support as many people as the best mission running systems in Empire. Everything you propose in this blog goes counter to that and thus will fail to achieve your objectives. I don't dislike the fact of tying anoms to true sec I just dislike how your doing it, even the worst 0.0 system when upgraded should be able to have at least 1 haven/sanctum/horde. I'd leave what exists now as the baseline for band 1, and then increase from there by band as you planned. This ensures all 0.0 space is better space than Empire and keeps folks interested. Next triple or quadruple the amount of anoms given per level upgrade. Double static belts. As systems can accommodate more people you will in time see shrinkage of empires. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. [orange]Your signature is to
Claire Auscent	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:29:00 - [373] Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time. QFT This is what CCP should do.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:31:00 - [374] I'm not an anomaly grinder and not affected by this change, but I don't get why you are going for these all or nothing solutions where they aren't really necessary. It just **es people off and isn't making the game any better. Such solutions are warranted when there is a fundamental difference between the different areas of space, but I don't see that to be the case here. Let me explain what I mean. Take the WH space and DED sites in exploration as an example. WH space is fundamentally different from all other areas of space, so it makes sense to have rewards that only appear there. You want that, you go to a WH. Still differences in what you can get based of the WH level, but with increased rewards you get increased challenges. With DED sites the differences between areas is significant, but nothing to warrant total differentation. Ofcourse you can have a system where there is a clear line between different security areas(lvl 1-3 high/ 4-5 low/ 6-10 0.0). Basicly have it so that every DED site can only available in one security area. No exceptions allowed. Inevitably you end up nerfing people and remove a lot of the fun from the game at the same time. A alternative way of doing things would be to use an overlap system, something you seem to be going for yourselves, where you have specific sites for each sec rating, but also overlap at the edges(lvl 1-4 high/4-6 low/ 6-10 0.0). One of the benefits of these kind of models is that it offers better rewards to more people while still giving clear advantages to people living in more dangerous areas. It also gives people a taste of what they can expect if the can move to other areas. As a highsec dweller, you mostly get to do those easy low level sites, but inevitably there comes a time when they notice that they would much rather be contantly doing those lvl 4 sites or even better and harder sites. You can either choose to keep hunting the few ones that appear in highsec or start taking risks and move to the areas where comparable sites are the norm instead of an exception. The same will happen later to the lowsec dwellers and their eyes turn to 0.0 or they settle for less because they prefer lowsec rules over 0.0. Again clear differentation in what you can normally find, but if you're lucky you can get a taste of what awaits you in other areas. A system that is more interesting, rewarding, enjoyable and quite fitting for the chance based nature of exploration. At this point it should be quite obvious how this design, that you have adopted in other areas of the game, would fit the current anomaly changes. The all or nothing solution is even worse here though, since true sec doesn't affect the rules of the space or how secure that space actually is in any significant way. Player owned 0.0 is 0.0 in terms of actual security no matter what the truesec is, so while it makes sense to have truesec affect the level of rewards, it makes no sense to say that large areas of it will be ** from now just because. This especially since anomalies are designed to provide the basic income for individual pilots in that area and anything not competative/better than lvl4 missioning isn't worth doing. You're making the game worse and less interesting, in my opinion at least, by using such clear cut limitations on what sites can spawn in what truesec or not. This especially since you could have just made it so, that the chances of getting better sites is higher with better true sec. Again differences are good, but is such drastic differences really good for the players or the game or even necessary considering you could have just made truesec a modifier in site type chance? You also have the fundamental problem that if developing the bad space and fighting for it isn't worth it for the current occupants, it's going to be just as worthless for newcomers. It makes more sense for them to gather resources longer in empire and go straight for the decent space. No point fighting over crap.
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:44:00 - [375] And...this is why I don't go to fanfest anything because the game you love will one day be destroyed by a newbie (SOE Experience).
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:54:00 - [376] Originally by: Marconus Orion snip "HORRIBLE IDEA! We were here first so no point in changing now. Pass that gravy over. Now get you ass back on those gates and make sure if a non-blue comes though, you let us know so we can get our ships safely out of the Sanctums. MOVE IT!" So why should an alliance who lives in a 'not so great' region want to stay blue with an alliance living in a 'great' region? Probably because if that blue alliance was there first, they were there first because they were able to take that space for themselves. The smaller alliance got the 'not so great' space because they were blue to the other alliance and it suited the bigger alliance for them to be there. As it currently stands the small alliance has the option to try and take the better space from the bigger alliance asking for the gravy (as you put it), but that option wasn't appealing before, isn't appealing now, and won't be appealing in the future for the simple fact that they will get squashed. Making the space that the small alliance occupies even worse won't change this dynamic at all, it will only put the small alliance out even more.
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:57:00 - [377] Originally by: Claire Auscent Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time. QFT This is what CCP should do. That is the opposite of nerfing. I think some people would go haywire on CCP if they tried that.
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:01:00 - [378] Greyscale, you are an idiot, a totally incompetent idiot, a fool, a moron. You are stupid beyond belief. You fail yet again to have even the most basic understanding of the changes you are proposing. IÆve looked at your explanation and rational for the changes, and it is obvious that you are unable to process a thought to completion. How else could you possibably manage to come up with something that will have the opposite result to that which you desired: Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space Now this is true; itÆs called Hi-sec. In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Why? The power-blocks already own all the Tech moons, and now they will own all of the anomalies as well??! All you are going to do is make them even more entrenched. If you want to fight a war you need one thing; ***ING RESOURCES TO PAY FOR THE CONFLICT. You are proposing to take all the resources from the smaller alliances and put them into the hands of the power-blocks, thereby making them unassailable. Is this honestly too complicated for you to understand? Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec* Sure they will, because no one will want the space as it is valueless. And after one week said alliance will discover this too and promptly move back to Hi-sec where they may actually make a living. Two billion of upgrades for a ***ing Hub?!?! GTFO. Coalitions will be marginally less stable* ??????????? Your an idiot. A true idiot. The coalitions have even more resources and more reason to stay together now. And where is anyone else to go? As said before, back to Hi-sec. 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) No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The power-blocks will just claim great stretches of useless empty space that no one wants and keep them for whatever purpose they need. Their lives will be even easier. Here is the actual result of your moronic changes: 1) The rich get richer, more entrenched, more stable and more unassailable. The rest have nothing with which to fight them or indeed each other. 2) Conflict dies right across nul-sec. There is no one living there, and no one wants it anyway 3) A great stretch of nul-sec, entire regions in fact, is about to be turned into Low-sec. You remember Low-sec Greyscale? That completely useless bit of space between Hi and Nul where no one lives and no one wants as there is nothing and no reason to be there? (this is the clincher for me û a complete working demonstration of GreyscaleÆs changes, and the fool canÆt see it.) Here is an original thought for you Greyscale, STOP **ING AROUND WITH THAT WHICH IS WORKING, AND START FIXING THAT WHICH IS BROKEN: - POS DESIGN, FACTION WARFARE, LOW SEC, THE **ING UI, ETC. Ah forget it. Who wants my stuff.
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:06:00 - [379] Originally by: Desert Ice78 Here is an original thought for you Greyscale, STOP **ING AROUND WITH THAT WHICH IS WORKING, AND START FIXING THAT WHICH IS BROKEN: - POS DESIGN, FACTION WARFARE, LOW SEC, THE **ING UI, ETC. Ah forget it. Who wants my stuff. I will hold your stuff ;)
Sa'Shena Amarr Nomad LLP Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:11:00 - [380] Redistribute the Truesec in 0.0 so that constellations in Fountain and Delve aren't so completely and outrageously stacked while an entire region like Pure Blind, Providence, Geminate or Cloud Ring are so utterly beyond worthless as to make holding them more of a hindrance than anything else.

Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:13:00 - [381] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/03/2011 06:16:03 Originally by: Sem Nan Originally by: Claire Auscent Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time. QFT This is what CCP should do. That is the opposite of nerfing. I think some people would go haywire on CCP if they tried that. You mean people that understanding dumping massive amounts of raw ISK into the economy is a bad idea? Originally by: Sa'Shena Redistribute the Truesec in 0.0 so that constellations in Fountain and Delve aren't so completely and outrageously stacked while an entire region like Pure Blind, Providence, Geminate or Cloud Ring are so utterly beyond worthless as to make holding them more of a hindrance than anything else. I was thinking about that... but I don't know how much good it would really do. I think if massive napped coalitions weren't so common, it'd encourage local warfare. But with them... it might discourage it even more by providing "county seats" from which big alliances could rule and rent out nearby "slums". -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:17:00 - [382] Originally by: Nikgah Plz Originally by: Desert Ice78 Here is an original thought for you Greyscale, STOP **ING AROUND WITH THAT WHICH IS WORKING, AND START FIXING THAT WHICH IS BROKEN: - POS DESIGN, FACTION WARFARE, LOW SEC, THE **ING UI, ETC. Ah forget it. Who wants my stuff. I will hold your stuff ;) Actually, if someone at Fanfest can now find Greyscale and punch him in the face....I want a picture too.. (I am also quite angry right now)
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:17:00 - [383] 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 NOOOOOOOO, please don't listen to these fools that are whining. Half of them probably didn't even play before dominion. CCP I applaud you for having the balls to do this, this is honestly the best change to 0.0 you guys have come up with. Dominion changes making each system equally valuable was just an awful idea in the first place. Please don't think that the only reactions to this are negative, their are swaths of players that think this is a necessary change. Honestly this is the best patch news I've heard since Stackless IO and the need for speed stuff. I can't remember thinking of a more necessary change to 0.0 than this. Hey *****s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Now no one can say, "yea just bring more people in, we can throw them in insert random constellation here* and they will be happy mindlessly farming sanctums." The guys that live there will have to be creative People lived in **ty 0.0 space before the dominion changes. Before Sanctums, the **tiest truesec, providence, was the most populated region in the game, so CCP, please don't listen to all these people, who have become spoiled by the ease of isk making.
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:21:00 - [384] Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 06:22:30 Honestly, I actually think greyscale could be right with the whole coalition thing. I can't wait to see how really a BFF the NC is, when their D-teams and C-teams come whineing, "we need better ratting space can we have some of your true sec." Go ahead Razor, you ready to share some of branch yet? Hey NC pet alliances, check it out: tenal Pure Blind
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:24:00 - [385] Honestly, I just can't leave this - it's just a terrible way to invoke the kind of scenario you are promoting, and what we all want. A far better solution (one of my CSM campaign platforms) is more NPC nullsec with good agents and low end moons, particularly around Empire->Nullsec entrance points. What I can see this doing is providing a space for small alliances to occupy. Small alliances can occupy space under very specific conditions: They are sponsored by a bigger alliance They stay "under the radar" of the bigger alliances They are hard as nails PvPers with an independent income source Point one is the standard pet/useful ally scenario and won't change. Point 3 is only really available to a select few and also won't change. Low value NPC nullsec allows groups to occupy space while staying under the radar of bigger alliances. Ask anybody who has tried to remove a group from NPC nullsec - it's a PitA. If a small alliance makes the odd roam into the big alliance's space and stays little more than a nuisance it's just not worth the big alliance's time to bother removing them. Small groups get more access to nullsec, more PvP gets to happen, more ships go boom, = win. Please don't make it harder for small groups to get into 0.0
Ariman Mintanu	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:24:00 - [386] Ok, let's be a little more honest, CCP. tl;dr When a group wants to achieve a certain goal with it's clients, it uses money. If a cell phone company wants less data usage on smart phones, they charge overages and fees. If a government wants to stop smoking, they tax the hell out of it. On the flip side, a group can offer incentives to encourage an action. You guys built the largest MMO server out there and you have an in house economist, so you know this. Dominion was based on this understanding. MMO's are fun because more time spent = more power. That's the underlying rule for the whole system. The proposed changes go counter to this. Living in Null-sec takes less time and effort for the same amount of power (isk, alliances, e-peen, etc). Risk has little to do with it. Right now you will pretty much always have a net positive greater than high-sec (macro-economics is fun!). With the changes, there is no longer a good chance of a net positive greater than high-sec can offer (more on that below). These changes are not going to make the game more fun because it takes time to get powerful enough to be competitive in null-sec, but moving to null-sec will now result in an decrease in your net gain. So you spend lots of time to become more powerful so that you can... be forced to spend even more time than you would have otherwise? No, because that's not fun. Let's look at options. No large alliance is going to allow your corp to muddy up their now even more valuable space and you can't live on Hubs. High sec stuff like invention and missioning means risking going through border systems frequentily. That leaves mining and PI (both of which only require the occasional freighter hop to HS or to a 0.0 station to sell. Even a medium-large corp can pull that off twice a month). Low true-sec means no ABC except for the occasional signature, so you're better off in high sec for that too, from an isk stand point. That leaves PI. It's immensely more profitable in null-sec as it is. But not everyone likes it. Still there'd be more incentive now. Here's where the honesty part comes in. There are system-wide issues in the eve universe right now. CCP is delving into console gaming with Dust. There's been promise of integration with the EVE server. This of course means that there has to be a lot of PI going on for there to be any enjoyment in those console games. Your proposed changes would encourage null-sec PI on paper. You also have an inflation problem. PLEX and trit prices have jumped by around 15% in 4 months. Your economist has probably told you this is bad. He's probably also told you that you can't touch your production base (high sec / minerals) because that would cause a spike in prices eve-wide (which is also why we still have bots and macros. The economy needs them. You banned 1000 accounts because they were starting to overwhelm the economy) So what do you hit? Low-sec is an isk sink as is, so nothing to do there. You can't touch high-sec. Nerf null-sec! Make the power blocs fight harder (lose more ships) while injecting less money into the system! Problem solved. And you may get a PI boost to boot. You also impact the minimum number of players possible: small alliances in null-sec. /tl;dr Summary: 1) You can direct people by making things more or less expensive. 2) In MMO's, time = power. Being able to spend less time for more power makes things valuable. 3) Proposed changes interfere will make most 0.0 less valuable, therefore the game is less fun. 4) Changes would help fix some serious system-wide issues and long term econ stability. 5) Changes have few serious system-wide side effects and only affect small percentage of players. I know "for the good of the community" doesn't sound as good as "more fun and excitement!" but at least acknowledge why you're considering these changes.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:25:00 - [387] ITT: Coalition members in good true sec space are praying that their buddies in ****ty true sec space will still want to be BFF so they don't become a target.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:30:00 - [388] Originally by: progodlegend Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 06:22:30 Honestly, I actually think greyscale could be right with the whole coalition thing. I can't wait to see how really a BFF the NC is, when their D-teams and C-teams come whineing, "we need better ratting space can we have some of your true sec." Go ahead Razor, you ready to share some of branch yet? Hey NC pet alliances, check it out: tenal Pure Blind So to summarise, is what you're saying that smaller and newer alliances will no longer be able to sustain themselves in the lower value systems? Is this not the opposite of Greyscale's objective?
Sverre Haakonson Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:32:00 - [389] Edited by: Sverre Haakonson on 26/03/2011 06:33:02 You make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This has nothing to do, to get more wars. To initiate a war, everyone has to gather ressources. If the existing sov holders have an advantage that their pilot have more ISKthan than you strenghen the big blocks.
Prologick	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:34:00 - [390] Quote: Ghetto Quote from Blog: * 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) 1. These alliances will just get back to high sec to run missions and JC back to null sec to PvP or just don't PvP because of the hassle of getting ships etc. jumped down. 2. Less people with not enough money to waste ships in one place = Less PvP. PvP costs money, not makes money. 3. Newer Alliances won't be wanting any space in null sec, since the space is crap and they're better off roaming while making money in high sec or staying in NPC null sec. 4. Coalitions won't be affected, they'll just rake in moon goo while members mission for money in high, ready to JC back to null at a moments notice. Also, Coalitions will just Titan Bridge all over the place from low-sec, leaving null sec even more empty and newer alliances even more vulnerable. 5. No they won't. Anything above -0.5 sec is useless and won't get developed. How did CCP come to the conclusion that less money and less people in null sec magically results in more PvP and conflict? How did CCP come to the conclusion that by making space useless it would become desirable to own? Why practically force said New Alliances be forced to bot belt rats to make any form of decent income to PvP with? Most ******ed Devlog I've read in a while, that's for sure.

Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:35:00 - [391] Originally by: progodlegend Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 06:22:30 Honestly, I actually think greyscale could be right with the whole coalition thing. I can't wait to see how really a BFF the NC is, when their D-teams and C-teams come whineing, "we need better ratting space can we have some of your true sec." Go ahead Razor, you ready to share some of branch yet? Hey NC pet alliances, check it out: tenal Pure Blind And what exactly are those "D-teams and C-teams" supposed to do against the gigantic supercap fleets of the main NC while ratting in hubs?
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:36:00 - [392] Originally by: Marconus Orion ITT: Coalition members in good true sec space are praying that their buddies in **ty true sec space will still want to be BFF so they don't become a target. Coalition members in good true sec space are already the sponsors of those in **ty space, and have far more supercaps than the smaller alliances. So the sov grind will be a whole lot easier for them, and their newer members in the big alliances will have a whole lot easier time replacing their ships than those in the 'pet' alliances. Still not seeing how this will benefit the small alliances.
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:37:00 - [393] also he said branch, then link tenal. and coalition, http://killboard.nullisecunda.com/?a=kill_related&kll_id=21299 yeah nulli secunda is totally alone. period basis, querious, catch, impass, feythabolis on in this fight
Calandari Retribution. Inc. R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:38:00 - [394] Yet another reason why ccp has a serious lack of thinking power .... to many terds floating to the top(time to flush the toilet). Whats going on are they hiring all the ******ed programmers from WOW. After having to fight with GM over fubared hot patches. I think these GM's need to spend time in game learning the game mechanics and experiancing their Nerfs. Thats pretty much all i want to say for now
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:41:00 - [395] Originally by: progodlegend 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 NOOOOOOOO, please don't listen to these fools that are whining. Half of them probably didn't even play before dominion. CCP I applaud you for having the balls to do this, this is honestly the best change to 0.0 you guys have come up with. Dominion changes making each system equally valuable was just an awful idea in the first place. Please don't think that the only reactions to this are negative, their are swaths of players that think this is a necessary change. Honestly this is the best patch news I've heard since Stackless IO and the need for speed stuff. I can't remember thinking of a more necessary change to 0.0 than this. Hey *****s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Now no one can say, "yea just bring more people in, we can throw them in insert random constellation here* and they will be happy mindlessly farming sanctums." The guys that live there will have to be creative People lived in **ty 0.0 space before the dominion changes. Before Sanctums, the **tiest truesec, providence, was the most populated region in the game, so CCP, please don't listen to all these people, who have become spoiled by the ease of isk making. Go to hell and die on a fire. Last i checked the place where you live has at least 4 -0.92 systems, so you're hardly qualified to judge what impact this change will have on the higher true-secs.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:51:00 - [396] Originally by: Silk75 Edited by: Silk75 on 26/03/2011 01:13:36 Edited by: Silk75 on 26/03/2011 01:12:09 :CCP Greyscale: I sat immediately to your left in the 0.0 panel at fanfest and heard no mention of these pve changes, why? This is quite telling... I think this shows he knows the fallout from this, but there must be a business reason they are pushing forward with it. Hurray for lack of transparency.
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:53:00 - [397] Originally by: Sem Nan Originally by: progodlegend 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 NOOOOOOOO, please don't listen to these fools that are whining. Half of them probably didn't even play before dominion. CCP I applaud you for having the balls to do this, this is honestly the best change to 0.0 you guys have come up with. Dominion changes making each system equally valuable was just an awful idea in the first place. Please don't think that the only reactions to this are negative, their are swaths of players that think this is a necessary change. Honestly this is the best patch news I've heard since Stackless IO and the need for speed stuff. I can't remember thinking of a more necessary change to 0.0 than this. Hey *****s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Now no one can say, "yea just bring more people in, we can throw them in insert random constellation here* and they will be happy mindlessly farming sanctums." The guys that live there will have to be creative People lived in **ty 0.0 space before the dominion changes. Before Sanctums, the tiest truesec, providence, was the most populated region in the game, so CCP, please don't listen to all these people, who have become spoiled by the ease of isk making. Go to hell and die on a fire. Last i checked the place where you live has at least 4 -0.92 systems, so you're hardly qualified to judge what impact this change will have on the higher true-secs. Yea, and I lived in provi before dominion, and spoke out against the changes then to. It doesn't matter where we live right now, I would still be supporting this patch. I would have no problem living in provi with the old space, it is not as hard to make isk in ty true sec as people think. You guys asking what to do when all the big alliances own all the best space? Welcome to EVE pre dominion, or EVE., figure out a way to beat them, or deal with it, ***. You guys just can't do anything without someone holding your hand, and you don't know what to do. I can not believe that NC people are saying, "but what do I do they have more than I do." That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face.
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:54:00 - [398] Wow! Absolutely love the change, and the carebear tears even more. ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
Florestan Bronstein Amarr Taishi Combine	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:00:00 - [399] Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 26/03/2011 07:03:26 Introducing a chance to get a drone site instead of your usual pirate faction's haven/sanctum (make it depend on truesec if you have to) would also reduce the ISK faucet and probably keep players at least a little more happy. Originally by: Herr Nerdstrom How about adding some upgrades in this 'flexible upgrade system' that will actually help the pilots who play the game? Instead of nerfing sanctums already in existence, how about leaving all as is, and improving the quality or payout of sanctums in better truesec systems (via a new upgrade would be fine)? This won't affect the average pilot's ability to buy more pvp ships, but will further entice the better systems, and have a rebalancing at the same time. EyjoG: "We need more ISK sinks" You: "I know, let's increase the inflow of ISK!"
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:02:00 - [400] Originally by: progodlegend You guys asking what to do when all the big alliances own all the best space? Welcome to EVE pre dominion, or EVE., figure out a way to beat them, or deal with it, *****. You guys just can't do anything without someone holding your hand, and you don't know what to do. I can not believe that NC people are saying, "but what do I do they have more than I do." That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face. So it was broken before, then they fixed it, and now they're breaking it again. And you agree with it because you used to play when it was broken and you got on by with it. Sorry, i am still not convinced that this patch would bring a welcome change to anybody but the ones who already have it all. Big blocks hold all the good moon goo, and now they will ALSO hold all the good ratting sites. ____________ I like woman because breasts

Raukho Evoke. Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:04:00 - [401] It's like the world outside the richer get richer and the poorer are ****ed. Without moongoo reallocation and JB nerf this does nothing for creating more dynamic in 0.0.
I Legionnaire Origin. Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:07:00 - [402] I fully support the proposed changes. Do it, screw the haters.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:11:00 - [403] Originally by: progodlegend I can not believe that NC people are saying, "but what do I do they have more than I do." That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face. I'm in the NC, and I have access to some of the best truesec in the game - a whole constellation of it. I, and my alliance, will have such an advantage if this change comes through we'll be laughing all the way to our wallets. But I am still opposed to this change because the desired effect (more small alliances getting access to nullsec, and more conflict) has happened already with Dominion, and will be destroyed by this change. There have been piles of small alliances filling up space that would otherwise be emtpy if it weren't for the changes to allow upgrading systems. Those players are occupying nullsec instead of holding nullsec (for alliance moon income) and missioning in highsec. If players spend time in nullsec, it makes for more opportunities for them to be shot, otherwise people would have to explicitely wardec them and hunt them in empire (and using terrible mechanics that allow for neutral RR). More people moving to nullsec means more targets for PvP. This is especially true for those who "just can't do anything without someone holding [their] hand".
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:11:00 - [404] Agreed, this is only the tip of the iceburg. Moon reallocation is still a serious need, the JB one i'm not too worried about as much, though maybe 1 jb per system would be interesting to look at, haven't thought about it enough though. The moon changes are absolutely necessary, I'd rather have dyspro and promethium back the way it was just slightly nerfed, at least then it was spread all across of eve.
Lusulpher Sinister Elite	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:13:00 - [405] Originally by: Raukho It's like the world outside, the richer get richer and the poorer are more **ed. Without Moongoo reallocation and JumpBridge nerfing this does nothing for creating more dynamic in 0.0. fypft. CCP has made the CORRECT move reducing inflation from static anomalies, unfortunately, by how much, and where, should come after a full evaluation after fixing the powerblocs' inflated income streams. They don't need to live on rent when they can grab the Tech moons. All the renters are the bufferzone to protect the moons. And you chose this to fix inflation... Fix Moon distribution Fix Jump Bridge ranges Fix Cyno mechanics Fix Supercap stockpiling Fix Treaties Fix Sov EHP incentives AND then tweak individual player inflation. You're using a saw when you need several scalpels.** Creative Customer Person 7
IMTHAT HNIC	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:17:00 - [406] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: progodlegend I can not believe that NC people are saying, "but what do I do they have more than I do." That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face. I'm in the NC, and I have access to some of the best truesec in the game - a whole constellation of it. I, and my alliance, will have such an advantage if this change comes through we'll be laughing all the way to our wallets. But I am still opposed to this change because the desired effect (more small alliances getting access to nullsec, and more conflict) has happened already with Dominion, and will be destroyed by this change. There have been piles of small alliances filling up space that would otherwise be emtpy if it weren't for the changes to allow upgrading systems. Those players are occupying nullsec instead of holding nullsec (for alliance moon income) and missioning in highsec. If players spend time in nullsec, it makes for more opportunities for them to be shot, otherwise people would have to explicitely wardec them and hunt them in empire (and using terrible mechanics that allow for neutral RR). More people moving to nullsec means more targets for PvP. This is especially true for those who "just can't do anything without someone holding [their] hand". There were piles of small alliances filling up space before the dominion changes, the difference now is that the major alliances have an interest in booting out those small alliances, and filling them with renters or pets, because that space is just as valuable as theirs. Dominion simply made it harder for smaller alliances to survive, and these changes are going back to some of those things that made it easier for them to grab some space. The NC blueing small alliances and throwing them into random constellations is not the same thing as small alliances being able to expand out in null-sec, that is just major alliances taking what was once space not worth caring about, and giving it to renters. You guys don't rent the systems for isk, you rent the systems for bodies in fleets. Renting is renting, however you want to look at it, doesn't have to be for isk.
Migrator Soul Minmatar Low Sec Pharmacies Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:18:00 - [407] Congrats Greyscale, for alienating quite a chunk of your playerbase by this proposed change, if you indeed do try to implement it. I am a member of one of those small alliances you want to "help get into the game." I can tell you, quite honestly, that your idea will really cut our isk making ability to the point where we can't afford to hold sov. Way to hold a gun to our heads, while sucking off the super goons. But hey, I am sure I would love to pay for a game I can't pvp in. >.>
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:29:00 - [408] Originally by: Migrator Soul Congrats Greyscale, for alienating quite a chunk of your playerbase by this proposed change, if you indeed do try to implement it. I am a member of one of those small alliances you want to "help get into the game." I can tell you, quite honestly, that your idea will really cut our isk making ability to the point where we can't afford to hold sov. Way to hold a gun to our heads, while sucking off the super goons. But hey, I am sure I would love to pay for a game I can't pvp in. >.> More people who didn't live in 0.0 before dominion, or have forgotten about it. 180mil a month is literally 4 hours worth of belt ratting in the **tiest of true sec systems. There you just payed for sov in that system. Considering all the pos's that were used to hold sov in provdence pre dominion, and all the isk and time (that could have been spent ratting) it took to fuel those, there was literally no problem paying for all that predominion in ty provi. The prevailing message in this thread is, "I can't play this game without a sanctum to myself" Which is absolutely ****ed, and just shows you how much having the dominion changes for this long has screwed up this game.
Lord Rapture Amarr TunDraGon Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:30:00 - [409] because equal anomalies is boring and no fights! clearly IT are still at the peak of their glory with 200 titans farming sanctums non stop and clearly NC and Drone Russians have not lost dozens of titans and supercarriers. it's just a big happy new eden where everone is getting rich right? o wait...
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:30:00 - [410] Originally by: Marconus Orion Power bloc tears, best tears. I find this funny. So instead of the work and effort to create and maintain an opposing power block along with the joy of combat, strategy, and intel gathering necessary to taking down a power bloc. You would rather just sit back and cheer on CCPs dismantling of them via new game mechanics? Letting CCP do all the work seems to lack any satisfaction. Do you call your mommy to settle all your fights in RL too? And before you start whining that taking out a major power is impossible ... I seem to remember a large power bloc that was recently wiped out. One that some thought would be around till they shut off the servers for good. This was accomplished by dedicated players, not sudden and disruptive game mechanic changes buy unseen game gods. If you want to bust up power blocs, join another power bloc and start some pew pew.

Estimated Prophet	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:35:00 - [411] CCP's balancing reminds me of someone driving a car with broken steering, only hard lock to the left or hard lock to the right; over the top buffs or nerfing to oblivion. Here we are, over-nerfing poor quality 0.0 systems into uselessnes. At a bare minimum a fully upgraded -0.01 system should spawn a single haven, and preferably a sanctum. Do that and these changes suddenly become a lot more palatable.
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:37:00 - [412] Originally by: progodlegend Hey ****s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Originally by:** progodlegend That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face. Wait a ****ing minute. This from the guy that abbandoned his bros in Provi when the fight came, and joined the very napfest that killed providence. . . Did you type that with a straight face?
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:43:00 - [413] any buffs for low sec ?>
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:43:00 - [414] Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 26/03/2011 07:43:20 Originally by: Patient 2428190 Wow! Absolutely love the change, and the carebear tears even more. Mining and missions is probably next...gj jinxing yourself and removing other options for you to have in game besides pvp -2 oh and -3 if you use officer mods where you think those come from. I'll give you a hint, grandma doesn't bake them for you.
Afrounter	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:43:00 - [415] Absolutly support the changes. For those who say there will be less ppl to kill, its almost impossible to catch ppl in santums. If belts > anoms then more people will be in belts. And it is a lot easier to catch ppl in belts than having to scan out santums 1st.
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:45:00 - [416] Originally by: Lev Aeris Originally by: progodlegend Hey ****s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Originally by:** progodlegend That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face. Wait a ****ing minute. This from the guy that abbandoned his bros in Provi when the fight came, and joined the very napfest that killed providence. . . Did you type that with a straight face? haha yea, thats EXACTLY what happened....... you are totally right. I typed it with a totally straight face for a reason.
HaVoK023 FW Scuad E C L I P S E	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:45:00 - [417] You are killing small/medium alliances who live under a powerfull one renting or with standings. The big blocks dont fight because better systems with better anomalies... they do this for Technetium moons, pvp and fun. Big coallitions will increase their numbers even more this way.. all members into those small/medium will go to bigger alliances with better systems. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. Please LISTEN THE NULLSEC PLAYERS
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:46:00 - [418] Originally by: Afrounter Absolutly support the changes. For those who say there will be less ppl to kill, its almost impossible to catch ppl in santums. If belts > anoms then more people will be in belts. And it is a lot easier to catch ppl in belts than having to scan out santums 1st. -1 for not knowing how to play, search probing and comment when you have a looked at the youtube video that CCP has provided months maybe almost a year ago buh bye!
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:55:00 - [419] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 08:01:06 You know, i'm sick and tired of hearing the 3% of the posters in this thread who think this is a good idea. The sole argument these people make is that the game used to have no havens and sanctums before dominion. Because we didn't have it then, we will be OK if CCP take them away. A long time ago we also had NO Strategic Cruisers! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!! A long time ago we also had NO Titans! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!! A long time ago we also had NO Planetary Interaction! So its OK TO REMOVE IT!! A long time ago we also had NO AVATARS! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!! A long time ago all we had were a few ships per race, and the biggest and baddest one around was the battleship. We also did not have the trinity engine. So it's OK to remove all that and go back to 2003. It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY. Changing for the sake of change is a good thing and it needs no argument to favor it. Get a ****ing clue. ____________ I like woman because breasts
damnjita	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:02:00 - [420] Edited by: damnjita on 26/03/2011 08:03:29 I don't usually post but it just seem to me CCP's thought process runs itself off the track more often than not. CCP is massively out of touch if they think the massive power blocks that exist now are going to fight over singular ratting systems. Eve isn't a bunch of small alliance looking to move up in the world, its carved up with planning of the major powers. This will only hurt the smaller alliances who get the scraps. Anyone play this game or ever look at the sov map?

progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:05:00 - [421] Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 08:10:25 Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 08:07:21 Originally by: Renan Ruivo You know, i'm sick and tired of hearing the 3% of the posters in this thread who think this is a good idea. The sole argument these people make is that the game used to have no havens and sanctums before dominion. Because we didn't have it then, we will be OK if CCP take them away. It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY. Changing for the sake of change is a good thing and it needs no argument to favor it. Get a ****ing clue. I agree, lets make EVE easier for everybody. Since its obvious that your opinion is "the more isk people have, the better this game is", and yes that is what you are arguing, why don't we just do what is done on the test server, and seed everything for 100 isk in all stations, even 0.0. That way we can PVP all the time, and not have to worry about making isk. I mean honestly thats what everyone wants right, constant PVP, Call of Duty style. Also, when we die, we should respawn in the same ship we were just in one system over, that way, you can quickly jump back into the system, and REJOIN THE PVP. Yes, lets focus on making things easier for everybody. Also, this sentence is just epic to read, "It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY." I read it to myself and then my head hurts.
Sannye	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:06:00 - [422] Originally by: Afrounter Absolutly support the changes. For those who say there will be less ppl to kill, its almost impossible to catch ppl in santums. If belts > anoms then more people will be in belts. And it is a lot easier to catch ppl in belts than having to scan out santums 1st. Clueless beyond belief... are you hired by CCP? What will happen (again) is that everyone will move 1 charecter to empire, and farm level 4 missions. Dont think for a second, that belt rats in ALLREADY CRAPPY systems are going to hold more than 1 pilot. You will empty the 0.0 space as it was pre-dominion. Someone shouldnt have smoked that weed at CCP HQ
Cyberus Caldari Final Destination.	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:10:00 - [423] Loled! Yesterday i has an discussion with an mate about CCP move to figth bots and macro where we land at point that i have stated that CCP have no any clue about how the ppl play they game what could result in unwanted changes about mineral price. Well this dev blog only prove my statment that i'm 100% rigth! ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use one that will display - Fallout
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:10:00 - [424] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 08:11:18 Originally by: progodlegend Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 08:07:21 Originally by: Renan Ruivo You know, i'm sick and tired of hearing the 3% of the posters in this thread who think this is a good idea. The sole argument these people make is that the game used to have no havens and sanctums before dominion. Because we didn't have it then, we will be OK if CCP take them away. It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY. Changing for the sake of change is a good thing and it needs no argument to favor it. Get a ****ing clue. I agree, lets make EVE easier for everybody. Since its obvious that your opinion is "the more isk people have, the better this game is", and yes that is what are you arguing, why don't we just do what is done on the test server, and seed everything for 100 isk in all stations, even 0.0. That way we can PVP all the time, and not have to worry about making isk. I mean honestly thats what everyone wants right, constant PVP, Call of Duty style. Also, when we die, we should respawn in the same ship we were just in one system over, that way, you can quickly jump back into the system, and REJOIN THE PVP. Yes, lets focus on making things easier for everybody. Also, this sentence is just epic to read, "It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY." I read it to myself and then my head hurts. Oops. Sorry, i wasn't born in an english speaking country, so that fact makes any argument that comes from me less valid. Care to write your entire post in portuguese for me? Pointing out typos does not wins you any points. ____________ I like woman because breasts
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:13:00 - [425] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 08:11:18 Originally by: progodlegend Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 08:07:21 Originally by: Renan Ruivo You know, i'm sick and tired of hearing the 3% of the posters in this thread who think this is a good idea. The sole argument these people make is that the game used to have no havens and sanctums before dominion. Because we didn't have it then, we will be OK if CCP take them away. It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY. Changing for the sake of change is a good thing and it needs no argument to favor it. Get a **ing clue. I agree, lets make EVE easier for everybody. Since its obvious that your opinion is "the more isk people have, the better this game is", and yes that is what are you arguing, why don't we just do what is done on the test server, and seed everything for 100 isk in all stations, even 0.0. That way we can PVP all the time, and not have to worry about making isk. I mean honestly thats what everyone wants right, constant PVP, Call of Duty style. Also, when we die, we should respawn in the same ship we were just in one system over, that way, you can quickly jump back into the system, and REJOIN THE PVP. Yes, lets focus on making things easier for everybody. Also, this sentence is just epic to read, "It doesn't matter that removing them will NOT make life EASIER for NOBODY." I read it to myself and then my head hurts. Oops. Sorry, i wasn't born in an english speaking country, so that fact makes any argument that comes from me less valid. Care to write your entire post in portuguese for me? Pointing out typos does not wins you any points. No your argument being totally ** makes it less valid, which I pointed out before I corrected your grammar. And honestly, I thought you were an American (probably from my state), based off the typo, so actually, kudos to some pretty good English.
Grol Blacknova	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:16:00 - [426] The proposed changes are broken. They will not accomplish their stated goals and will only serve to further consolidate the power base of the already-powerful and make it harder for the up-and-coming to develop the resources needed to compete. Like a lot of folks in 0.0 I rat so that I can afford to have the real fun of PVP. I'm a sort of unwilling half-bear. What you're proposing simply means I'd end up having to spend more time ratting, or out in high sec, and less time fighting and enjoying the game. Furthermore it won't provide meaningful incentive to move, because it will provide such a power differential for those that already own the more desirable space as to create the issue that the new anoms were attempting to remedy: Blocks of unassailable power that cannot be competed against and therefore present a static and boring nulsec. -1 Nuff said.
Vance Black Caldari ORIGIN SYSTEMS	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:16:00 - [427] Go for it ccp. Remember the cold war missle nerf? The quantum rise nano nerf? The huge volume of tears they created. You guys didn't flinch back then, don't start now! The more tears, the better the change \o/ --------------------------------- Your clone is mine
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:19:00 - [428] Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:22:48 Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:21:42 Sorry progod but did you just claim with a straight face you can make 40M per hour belt ratting in a crappy truesec system? Lol, rule number one of trolling: make it believable. Even in a perfectly chained system you can forget coming near that, not to mention only a fraction of the people living in 0.0 could be supported by that, and perfectly chained will never happen (not only because too many idiots cant chain, but also one belt ratting still happened and I roamed arround the first thing i did when i didnt get kills was ruin their chains: kill a few frigs and you are done. Then progod, did you seriously say the NC C/D team would 'rebel' against the A/B team? I am probably now in the C-team or something, lets see what we can do after this (remember i am just a grunt): Ask the A/B team for some of their better space, which they can either give or not, looks like a risk-free choice. Invade the A/B team and be literally outnumbered 25 to 1, when they stop laughing they kick us back to empire (alternative: enough C/D alliances do it, and only result is DRF overrunning) Invade some regions in the hands of a smaller coalition, one with broken truesec preferable, I hear delve is nice this time of the year, then we can actually easily outnumber the current holders. Now what is the most viable option to get space for us? Increasing or decreasing the NAP? Indeed, increasing it. Related, I asked Trebor about wtf this crap is, guess what, CCP decided to skip CSM on this and never informed them about anything either. Anyone remember the dev blog about how much CCP cares about CSM? LOL
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:19:00 - [429] Originally by: progodlegend And honestly, I thought you were an American (probably from my state), based off the typo, so actually, kudos to some pretty good English. Oh.. well. Thanks :) See, now i can't make any flamed arguments. Damn you. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:22:00 - [430] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 08:22:29 Originally by: Furb Killer Related, I asked Trebor about wtf this crap is, guess what, CCP decided to skip CSM on this and never informed them about anything either. Anyone remember the dev blog about how much CCP cares about CSM? LOL You see, my mother taught me something that i still hold close to my heart to this day: "Son, if you need to hide it from me, that is an indication that whatever it is, it's wrong. And you know it." ____________ I like woman because breasts

Sa'Shena Amarr Nomad LLP Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:23:00 - [431] Originally by: Sa'Shena Redistribute the Truesec in 0.0 so that constellations in Fountain and Delve aren't so completely and outrageously stacked while an entire region like Pure Blind, Providence, Geminate or Cloud Ring are so utterly beyond worthless as to make holding them more of a hindrance than anything else. I was thinking about that... but I don't know how much good it would really do. I think if massive napped coalitions weren't so common, it'd encourage local warfare. But with them... it might discourage it even more by providing "county seats" from which big alliances could rule and rent out nearby "slums". -Liang The whole thing is that as it stands, as someone in a smaller alliance with Sovereignty in both Fade and Cloud Ring, this sort of a change would remove -any- chance of even limited alliance independence from the major local powers. The fact is an alliance like mine can, under the current system, afford through some seriously tedious work to pay to improve our Supercapital assets, to pay for limited ship replacement and to turn otherwise bleak Truesec systems into viable ISK generators in the absence of R64's. With this change, any alliance of similar size forced to live in, for example, the ENTIRE REGION of Cloud Ring would not only be unable to afford the above, but would barely (And I do mean barely) able to scrounge together the money to afford costs on Sovereignty itself, let alone upgrades for the chronically underdeveloped (And never again viable) systems. After all, the entire new Upgrade system was DESIGNED as an ISK sink to counter the increased ISK generated by the people living in these systems. Readjusting Truesec and Moon distribution would by and large generate the kinds of sweeping demographic changes that Greyscale is looking for better than turning systems small alliances hold and have already put in a great deal of time, effort and in game currency into making tolerable for living (If not living well) into exactly what you are describing, giant space slums where only those funded by deep pockets in Empire could hope be bothered to hold Sovereignty, if they would be held at all.
CHAOS100 The Ankou Raiden.	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:33:00 - [432] What a great change. Now nobody will be ratting in any systems in a region except for 5 system which will have 10 large bubbles on the gates. gg ccp. Everyone knows wars were start over ratting space. Make it more difficult to make isk will surely win over the 0.0 population. --------------
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:36:00 - [433] Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:22:48 Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:21:42 Sorry progod but did you just claim with a straight face you can make 40M per hour belt ratting in a crappy truesec system? Lol, rule number one of trolling: make it believable. Even in a perfectly chained system you can forget coming near that, not to mention only a fraction of the people living in 0.0 could be supported by that, and perfectly chained will never happen (not only because too many idiots cant chain, but also one belt ratting still happened and I roamed arround the first thing i did when i didnt get kills was ruin their chains: kill a few frigs and you are done. Then progod, did you seriously say the NC C/D team would 'rebel' against the A/B team? I am probably now in the C-team or something, lets see what we can do after this (remember i am just a grunt): Ask the A/B team for some of their better space, which they can either give or not, looks like a risk-free choice. Invade the A/B team and be literally outnumbered 25 to 1, when they stop laughing they kick us back to empire (alternative: enough C/D alliances do it, and only result is DRF overrunning) Invade some regions in the hands of a smaller coalition, one with broken truesec preferable, I hear delve is nice this time of the year, then we can actually easily outnumber the current holders. Now what is the most viable option to get space for us? Increasing or decreasing the NAP? Indeed, increasing it. Related, I asked Trebor about wtf this crap is, guess what, CCP decided to skip CSM on this and never informed them about anything either. Anyone remember the dev blog about how much CCP cares about CSM? LOL You were in paxton, I used to rat in G7aq and make 40-50 mil an hour easier after like 20 minutes of setting up chains. Step your bear game up bro, I know you are a good pilot :). Though quite honsetly, that was before the changes to mission running drop tables that crashed the prices of a lot of named modules, which may change the isk I made up a little bit. Most the isk came from loot and salvage. Shouldn't be too big an issue, would just have to look at again. Most your isk comes from dropped guns and tank mods anyway, so that should still be the same.
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:43:00 - [434] Originally by: progodlegend Edited by: progodlegend on 26/03/2011 07:46:37 Originally by: Lev Aeris Originally by: progodlegend Hey ****s, giant coalitions are not a game mechanic, there are corps, and alliances, you choose who you want to blue after that. Stop thinking that you are entitled to blues 5 regions in every direction and that CCP should only be doing things to preserve your ability to add as many blues as you want. Originally by:** progodlegend That is the most hypocritical statement I have ever seen, I can't even imagine how your mind can come up with that comment and say it with a straight face. Wait a ****ing minute. This from the guy that abbandoned his bros in Provi when the fight came, and joined the very napfest that killed providence. . . Did you type that with a straight face? haha yea, thats EXACTLY what happened....... you are totally right. I typed it with a totally straight face for a reason. Not to mention, what you said, even if it were true, has nothing to do with what i'm talking about. I look forward to you trying to find a way to make isk without anomalies,s well as trying to accomplish other mundane task, such as tieing your shoes. I'm surprised you could even find the reply button. It has relevance. Your past actions are contrary to the content of your soap boxing (Trolling). Since you seemed to overlook this in your orgasmic spasms of Nerd Rage, I lived in Nullsec long before dominion, before upgraded anomalies. As far as my motor skills and tieing my shoes... My hands are a bit arthritic from years of industrial electrical work so you might be right about that.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:45:00 - [435] Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO Strategic Cruisers! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!! No more risk free bonuses? Cool. Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO Titans! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!! ** SuperCapitals-Online. Originally by:** Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO Planetary Interaction! So its OK TO REMOVE IT!! This will not be missed. Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago we also had NO AVATARS! So its OK TO REMOVE THEM!! My ship is my avatar. There is no game play with avatar anyways. So until there is, why have them? Originally by: Renan Ruivo A long time ago all we had were a few ships per race, and the biggest and baddest one around was the battleship. Every race also has a craps ton of ships that are not used because the newer ones outclass them in every way. So the battleship will be with flying again ehh? Cool. I like your expansion. Where do I sign?
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:47:00 - [436] Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:49:43 Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:49:24 Honestly while I still have very strong doubts about your rounding (I still like you though, but it is like the people saying they earn 100M/hour running missions, usually they count only the best possible situation and forget all the time sinks arround it). G7A has something like 20 belts (at least WAAAAYYYYY more than average), that would then be enough for one pilot, and it is the best truesec system in providence, way better than those falling into the lowest category from this dev blog (which is roughly 30% of the 0.0 systems). If you look at that constellation the only similar system was FSW. Then you can have two people making ISK at a time in an entire constellation, only way this decreases blobs is because people just move to high sec.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:49:00 - [437] Originally by: Klam Edited by: Klam on 26/03/2011 07:37:46 Originally by: Marconus Orion Power bloc tears, best tears. I find this funny. So instead of the work and effort to create and maintain an opposing power block along with the joy of combat, strategy, and intel gathering necessary to taking down a power bloc. You would rather just sit back and cheer on CCPs dismantling of them via new game mechanics? Letting CCP do all the work seems to lack any satisfaction. Do you call your mommy to settle all your fights in RL too? And before you start whining that taking out a major power is impossible ... I seem to remember a large power bloc that was recently wiped out. One that some thought would be around till they shut off the servers for good. This was accomplished by dedicated players, not sudden and disruptive game mechanic changes by unseen game gods. If you want to bust up power blocs, join another power bloc and start some pew pew. 1. Most of what I've seen in this thread IS NOT a cry for a nerf to power blocks but rather an objection to giving them INCREASED resources while making it more difficult to form a competing entity. 2. Even you realize that a power block will not be brought down by anything less than a competing power block yet part of the stated intent of these proposed changes is for smaller newer fresher alliances to have somewhere to go in null sec not to force them into yet more coalitions Greyscale, if your goal is to cause more conflict and competition in 0.0 to keep it from becoming stagnant you might consider other approaches. Limitations on the number of entities an alliance and (separately) a corp can set high standings for thus limiting the number of official allies Base resources such as moon goo on the strategic development of the system much like the industrial development affects the asteroid belts. Maybe limitations on the number of member corps per alliance should be looked at if huge alliances are the problem Consider a bonus to production based on industrial development *Perhaps take another look at sov and ihub upgrades and think about limiting the number of areas each system could be upgraded in forcing alliances to chose carefully which systems would be used for military, which for production, and which for resource harvesting. Granted I've never run an alliance but I can imagine a ton of ways to generate more flavors of competition other than to give the big conglomerates MORE resources to make them more of a target.
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:10:00 - [438] Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:49:43 Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:49:24 Honestly while I still have very strong doubts about your rounding (I still like you though, but it is like the people saying they earn 100M/hour running missions, usually they count only the best possible situation and forget all the time sinks arround it). G7A has something like 20 belts (at least WAAAAYYYYY more than average), that would then be enough for one pilot, and it is the best truesec system in providence, way better than those falling into the lowest category from this dev blog (which is roughly 30% of the 0.0 systems). If you look at that constellation the only similar system was FSW. Then you can have two people making ISK at a time in an entire constellation, only way this decreases blobs is because people just move to high sec. Thats true, but doesn't mean that you should be makeing 100mil isk an hour in the first place for doing no work other than pressing f1 and eft'ing a decent fit. Furb killer post are still the best post, (I miss the citadel forums :( )
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:16:00 - [439] I don't like the idea of a cap on the number of corps in an alliance or the number of blues. The formula for sov cost should involve the true sec of the system and total number of alliance members and blues. This should equate to where someone in a huge coalition would be paying more for sov per person than a small alliance setting up shop in some craps region.
Sharles Bovary	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:22:00 - [440] отвечу по русски , вы идиоты аномалек и так не хватает а вы собираетесь их еще уменьшить?? Пришлите мне пожалуйста че у вас там в Исландии такое выращивают забористое что вас так уносит , пожайлуста

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:22:00 - [441] I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
P3po	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:24:00 - [442] Yes, make craps with anomalies but dont change Technetium monopol by NC .... sure thing !
Cheekyhoe	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:26:00 - [443] Well done CCP you've lost it at last. Seriously you should make it so it's harder to maintain the lower tier systems but nerfing them is just making life harder for everyone. Wasn't the plan to encourage smaller alliances into null sec and to allow a whole 500 man alliance to live in a single system. Even now you can barely get a 50 man corp in 1 system let alone 500 and you want to nerf it... well done CCP well done now take the horse out back and put 2 in it's head.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:30:00 - [444] Originally by: Malcanis I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. QFT
Flistir	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:33:00 - [445] Originally by: Malcanis I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. This.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:48:00 - [446] Originally by: Malcanis I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. It is not wrong to take our cheese away or to redistribute it. It is just stupid to nerf 0.0 beyong high sec. Why is low sec so scarcely populated? Because the income does not justify the risk. With this nerf of 0.0 the same will happen with the 0.0 with bad true sec. Or are they also planing to nerf lvl 4 missions significantly? Then again,it would make sense.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:48:00 - [447] However I would suggest the following tweaks to the change to soften the blow just a little. (1) Modify the maintenance costs for ihubs according to system trusec. Apart from recognising the existing investment that many players have out in to a system that is now devalued, it should still be at least marginally worthwhile to upgrade even a poor system. This would stop regions like Providence from becoming completely uneconomic. (2) Keep the faction spawn rate constant in a level 5 upgraded system. Even if a system has poor tru-sec and doesn't get many sanctums and havens, there should at least be a decent chance of faction cruisers or even frigates. (3) Keep the escalation chance rate constant. Even if people arent getting those fat 8/10s & 10/10s from sanctums and havens, some 6 & 7/10s frm the lesser anomalies will keep things worthwhile. (4) Even the lowest tru-sec systems should have a chance at a haven. Allow a 50% chance of a single Haven spawning each time the top anom in a class E system is cleared. (5) As a priority, we NEED to be able to have multiple outposts in a single system. Again, this should be linked to tru-sec; allow up to 5 stations in the worst tru-sec, 4 stations in the next worst, up to only a single station in the best systems. That will give a real value to low tru-sec systems, and it will also make their sov costs better value (if one set of sov costs allows 5 stations, the per unit cost falls). This will encourage and enable players to create genuine wealth rather than be forced to merely fountain ISK into an already overburdened economy. It will also help to adjust the unclimbable disadvantage 0.0 industry has over hi-sec. In short: dont reverse these changes, but refine them, and follow them through to their proper conclusion. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:48:00 - [448] Originally by: Flistir Originally by: Malcanis I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. This. I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. I see fewer folks making it to 0.0, that means less traffic through low sec. Missions that are rerouted to low sec will be ignored and they'll just do another mission even accepting less income. The flaw in the system is that 0.0 systems cannot support the numbers needed to make alliances claim only a small amount of space. Increase belts, anomalies, sites in a system and raise sov cost is about the only way you can get them to take less space, but its late in the game and they already have their massive fleets so even if they retreat slightly you'll need their permission to remain nearby, and you might even be raided regularly by them so their pvpers have something to shoot.
Woodiex3	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:51:00 - [449] Lol is this game really going to go down this road of mircotransactions. lets start with 0.0 and plex to pvp. you force me after buying a subscription then to buy a plex to buy chit then you can just F OFF
James Tiberius Kirk	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:52:00 - [450] Alliances operate on the moon goo level. Typically, power blocks want more valuable moon goo, so their leaders can make more money. Money sources for the regular players are just byproducts of this policy. Dominion introduced sanctums to the masses. Probably the single most valuable change to the average joe of null sec. Suddenly even worthless regions such as Pure Blind or Providence became more valuable. This didn't change a thing about power blocks however. As they couldn't care less about anything other than moon goo. Moon goo changes made technetium extremely valuable. So valuable in fact, that prices are still rising and no one knows when its going to stop. That, is what alliances care about. Fast forward today, CCP wants more movement in null sec. An admirable goal. A goal that I support all the way. The changes they announce to achieve this however, couldn't possible be more out of touch with the reality. To keep it short; people will whine. After sometime they will adapt, and ratting will become the main source of income for the better part of the whole null sec. This will mean there will be A LOT more bots in belts, and a lot more high sec missioner alts. Making alliance more unstable is an absurd claim by CCP. This update, proves, that has already been known. CCP doesn't play their game, they don't understand its mechanics and they don't care about that they don't. Overall, these changes will be nothing but flamebait and bot justification. Well done CCP.

Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:52:00 - [451] Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 09:52:32 Originally by: progodlegend Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:49:43 Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 08:49:24 Honestly while I still have very strong doubts about your rounding (I still like you though, but it is like the people saying they earn 100M/hour running missions, usually they count only the best possible situation and forget all the time sinks arround it). G7A has something like 20 belts (at least WAAAAYYYYY more than average), that would then be enough for one pilot, and it is the best truesec system in providence, way better than those falling into the lowest category from this dev blog (which is roughly 30% of the 0.0 systems). If you look at that constellation the only similar system was FSW. Then you can have two people making ISK at a time in an entire constellation, only way this decreases blobs is because people just move to high sec. Thats true, but doesn't mean that you should be makeing 100mil isk an hour in the first place for doing no work other than pressing f1 and eft'ing a decent fit. Furb killer post are still the best post, (I miss the citadel forums :( ) I think there was a disturbance in the force when a thousand (well not that many anymore on cit forums) cried out in joy when they heard i wouldnt post there again because i left :P
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:54:00 - [452] Originally by: El'Niaga I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. Because the agents in hi-sec will see a decline in quality, and the agents in lo-sec will see a corresponding rise. Couple that with a widespread reduction in ISK generation in much of 0.0 and it is obvious lo-sec and, to a lesser extent W-space, just got a relative huge boost. Lo-sec and W-space are the prime ares for piracy. These changes are therefore a piracy boost QED. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:58:00 - [453] Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 09:59:40 Wait they put dynamic agent quality also in low sec? Just when i thought they couldnt get more ******ed they nerf the few low sec mission hubs remaining. Luckily i still got a high sec lvl 4 combat agent from a corp that has no other lvl 3 or lvl 4 combat agents in a 0.5 system somewhere in edge of high sec, so I should be fine. Btw as long as low sec hunting of mission runners is so easy and risk free I wouldnt expect any increase in them, it is too easy to shut down an entire system.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:58:00 - [454] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: El'Niaga I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. Because the agents in hi-sec will see a decline in quality, and the agents in lo-sec will see a corresponding rise. Couple that with a widespread reduction in ISK generation in much of 0.0 and it is obvious lo-sec and, to a lesser extent W-space, just got a relative huge boost. Lo-sec and W-space are the prime ares for piracy. These changes are therefore a piracy boost QED. Won't work will lead to less subscriptions. It shows a lack of understanding human nature. The principle reason the majority hang in empire is they are casual players, they don't believe that they can make enough in low sec or 0.0 to replenish their ships. Changing what they make in empire only means they make less because it doesn't change the fact they can't replace their ships now that they make less isk. In the end I bet more give up in disgust then make it to low sec or 0.0.
Nocturrne Solace	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:00:00 - [455] VERY bad idea. We already have a hard enough time making enough isk to support our PVP. Most of us living in 0.0 will have to go back to highsec. Oh wait... you messed up highsec with incursions as well. WTF? This will just favor big power blocks, like the Russian bot masters. PVP is the only interesting thing left in Eve. If you nerf 0.0 isk making, many people will go play other games.
Rick Starkiller	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:03:00 - [456] This Update is great CCP !!!! PLS PLS PLS PLS PLS PLS PLS DO IT !!! Don't listen to all those whiners!!! Your Idea is GOOD !!! Don't make anything half-heart !!! Just do it !!! People will adapt !!! This Change is a good Change !!!
Bacchanalian Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:07:00 - [457] The tears in this thread are amazing. More devblogs like this please. The only line of that devblog that made me so much as raise an eyebrow was the bit about making plexers safer. ____________________ GM Sunshine > oops Neurotica > Hate to see a GM in your gang say 'oops'
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:09:00 - [458] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: El'Niaga I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. Because the agents in hi-sec will see a decline in quality, and the agents in lo-sec will see a corresponding rise. Couple that with a widespread reduction in ISK generation in much of 0.0 and it is obvious lo-sec and, to a lesser extent W-space, just got a relative huge boost. Lo-sec and W-space are the prime ares for piracy. These changes are therefore a piracy boost QED. Won't work will lead to less subscriptions. It shows a lack of understanding human nature. Given that subscriptions have remained flat or declined since system upgrades were introduced, I am not convinced by this argument. If we want EVE's PVE to be instrumental in attracting and retaining subscriptions, then the answer is not to make it into an ever-bigger ISK fountain, but to make it fun, challenging and interesting. That's a drum I've been banging for years. What if we completely replaced the anomaly generation from upgrades with rat-specific Incursion style events? Put in a level 5 upgrade and get a near permanent Guristas/Angel/Blood incursion style event? (Not necessarily a full on cyno-jamming thing, but something like an incursion in how you have to fight tough NPCs to beat it and get the reward) Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Aradia Gospel	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:09:00 - [459] Absolutely horrible idea systems are already crowded enough as is for sanctums and such and now your going to remove a ton of sanctums so people will have to huddle together for the warmth of isk. I would rather freeze to death then have to share a sanctum with 20+ pilots no point in this ccp as was mentioned the rich will be richer the poorer will have to move back to high sec to make isk to even have a good fight. when you put these upgrades in and changed how sov was to be held it was to encourage more 0.0 player base now that you got the 0.0 player base you decide you don't like us here and want to outright frustrate us to the extent of quitting eve all together. The only thing that i will have interest in seeing as a result of this is how fast eve crumbles and see how fast the player base dwindles because of your idiocy.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:11:00 - [460] 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. The formula for sov cost should involve the true sec of the system and total number of alliance members and blues. This should equate to where someone in a huge coalition would be paying more for sov per person than a small alliance setting up shop in some craps region. That would be another way to cap the number of blues albeit less directly it could potentially work just as effectively. The whole idea was to make some suggestions and hopefully find a better solution. Originally by: Malcanis Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! An excellent suggestion there on moon materials. I agree let the alliance make choices but those choices have to carry weight. Perhaps a sliding scale of some kind. The greater the amount of moon resources harvested the fewer combat anomalies would spawn or vice versa. Limit the scale to each constellation and you have another reason for alliances to try to take new territory. By taking a few systems in a constellation controlled mostly by an opposing alliance you could reduce the value of their moon harvesting by running more anomalies and ratting or the other way around. Or make moon materials deplete or something. Or introduce Sansha Incursions to hit POS facilities in 0.0. By all means shake up the status quo!

Darth Maddin	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:11:00 - [461] Opposite Day?! 1st April ?! NOT WANTED U realy forgott why u did those changes on Dominion ? 0.0 is Fun - Missionrunning not Why the heck i should make some "Hubs" or "Yards" ? I can't pay 6 bio with 50 men for a -0.5 System. How shall i fight with 50 men each with 10m skillpoints against 50 SC /titans + 300 of BCs just to get a Haven O.o? Why the cheat i should do more pvp if i can't make money to get pvp ships ? Why the cheat i should buy Gametime for 3 Accounts, if i cant have fun with my BS/Marauder/Carrier in some havens/sanctums to make next day some awsome PvP with a 150mio ship? Seems after this patch i have to Missionrun the whole day. Thanks much CCP. -3 Accounts Missionrunning sucks and i sweared my self i don't do it again. I won't do it... So see u soon in Rift.... o/ PS: Somebody wana have my Carrier or Dread ? Seems i can't use it in Highsec.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:12:00 - [462] 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 Dear CCP, the idea itself is not bad!!!! You just shouldn't nerf any 0.0 system below the high sec income levels! So you either leave 0.0 with bad true sec as it is and buff those with lower true sec, or do it as described in the block but nerf lvl 4 missions significantly!
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:15:00 - [463] Let me make one thing clear to all you would be 0.0 players... This game is not here for everyone to have fun and run around laughing and circle jerking eachother in sanctums. And it sure as hell doesnt revolve around every system and every player being equal. If it were we would all get full L5 toons and only fight other fleets with the same amount of players in logi and supercaps... Im not so sure that CCP remembers that this game was designed to favor the bold and the most aggressive players who can take the fight to another level twice as fast as the other chump. Same with all the systems... Why the hell should each system have the same number of everything? Nah, F that noise. Grow up, grow a pair or get left behind in the -0.01 system. Im sure CCP had a dilemma when they fixed the nano *gotry... Why should anyone be able to stop them from nuking 75% of 0.0? I call favoritism to the carebear. CCP, i urge you to remember that you arent here to hold peoples hands. So quit groping people and let them fend for themselves. =) GG and Good Fight. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**
P3po	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:23:00 - [464] I wouldnt give a fck if i live in Delve or Fountain, have 90% of the region -0,5 and lower etc. this thing wouldnt really change a thing for me. This change just make few regions (like Providence) completly useless. No valuable moon, no valuable ores (not like mining is profitable anyway), no valuable rats ..... how can alliance survive ISK wise in that place ? Turn into industry alliance and just manufacture ****load of ships and sell ?
The Schnatterinchen	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:24:00 - [465] Originally by: Darth Maddin Opposite Day?! 1st April ?! NOT WANTED U realy forgott why u did those changes on Dominion ? 0.0 is Fun - Missionrunning not Why the heck i should make some "Hubs" or "Yards" ? I can't pay 6 bio with 50 men for a -0.5 System. How shall i fight with 50 men each with 10m skillpoints against 50 SC /titans + 300 of BCs just to get a Haven O.o? Why the cheat i should do more pvp if i can't make money to get pvp ships ? Why the cheat i should buy Gametime for 3 Accounts, if i cant have fun with my BS/Marauder/Carrier in some havens/sanctums to make next day some awsome PvP with a 150mio ship? Seems after this patch i have to Missionrun the whole day. Thanks much CCP. -3 Accounts Missionrunning sucks and i sweared my self i don't do it again. I won't do it... So see u soon in Rift.... o/ PS: Somebody wana have my Carrier or Dread ? Seems i can't use it in Highsec. dito NOT WANTED whats next ? pay a ransome 50$ to CCP to get 100 Havens per Month in the System u want it O.o? sorry but fail... -me
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:27:00 - [466] Originally by: P3po This change just make few regions (like Providence) completly useless. No valuable moon, no valuable ores (not like mining is profitable anyway), no valuable rats ..... how can alliance survive ISK wise in that place? that would be the problem of the players in the alliance who inhabit it. CVA did it before and were quite successful. i suggest something like that. i dont think alot of you remember pre-anomaly... 0.0 was still a good place to make money from rats. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??
P3po	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:29:00 - [467] Edited by: P3po on 26/03/2011 10:29:31 You mean the times of Dark Glitter golden age, when you made TONS of isk from mining it ? Providence is awesome, every system with ice belts have DG in it. Thats long time gone mate. Also they had quiet loads of industrialist .... thats one possible way of making ISK, since you can still anchor CSAA even in low sec security ..... oh, good idea for you CCP, nerf that too :) When you are at it :)
Lisa Valenheim	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:34:00 - [468] I'm sure it's been said before but want to add my 2c. No 0.0 should be lower income than high sec lvl 4 missions, for the love of god. Anything that makes you grind more to be competitive = bad. That's why WoW is so full of fail, let's not go down that road. B4 "Fly cheaper ships" : Yes, because that's what the people who own the good systems who you are trying to invade will be flying. Sure they will. Also known as "rich get richer, poor . . ." And b4 "lrn2trade" : "Bite me, I dont want to play Trader Online."
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:39:00 - [469] Originally by: Lisa Valenheim Anything that makes you grind more to be competitive = bad. That's why WoW is so full of fail, let's not go down that road. B4 "Fly cheaper ships" : Yes, because that's what the people who own the good systems who you are trying to invade will be flying. Sure they will. Also known as "rich get richer, poor . . ." to your first sentence... not true. wow is full of fail because any time the players whine about something the devs fix it until they stop getting bugged about it. another reason is because its a very casual game in comparison... you dont respawn on the other side of the map with all your ** intact in eve. to your second sentence, you fly what you can afford to lose based on how much you can spend, how much your corp or alliance can reimburse you and how much you trust that FC not to ram your ship into a wreck. its up to your leadership to secure a way to make your ships affordable as well as your own, not CCP's. if your alliance is not prepared to take on bigger and better equipped alliances and coalitions in 0.0 then back to hi-sec. if you dont like it, leave them. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:41:00 - [470] 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.


P3po	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:41:00 - [471] Yes, but you have to admit that alliance like NC which is producing hundreds of billions every month with minimum effort just from POSes got it slighty easier :)
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:45:00 - [472] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Morning all, I think there was another point but I've forgotten what it was; I'll come back later if I remember. Possibly not giving in to the dark side and letting the carebears dictate how patches are released? <3 ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:45:00 - [473] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: P3po This change just make few regions (like Providence) completly useless. No valuable moon, no valuable ores (not like mining is profitable anyway), no valuable rats ..... how can alliance survive ISK wise in that place? that would be the problem of the players in the alliance who inhabit it. CVA did it before and were quite successful. i suggest something like that. i dont think alot of you remember pre-anomaly... 0.0 was still a good place to make money from rats. I remember pre-dominion null. I loved it. But it supported a much smaller population. CVA Providence was populated not because of its isk fountains, it was populated because it was the only NRDS region in the game, and it was a small gang pvp wonderland. This whole change first assumes that nullsec is all now equal. Even just considering cosmic anomalies and ignoring all other resources...this is not true. The type of rats (tank range ewar type) effect it at a certian level. True sec still has an effect on the frequency of Faction Spawns and the chances of getting an escalation from a CA. Null is More equal than it was before Dominion. It is far from being totally equal though. Try running a CA in Angels, Guristas, and Blood space...then tell me that null is all the same. I in no way think that all null should be the same monagamous sprawl. I don't think can fix that by making vast tracks almost worthless again. Yes you could still make isk there, but it would be 3 pilots per constellation vs having 10 in a dominion system. By all means, give the lower truesec systems superior resources, but please don't do it with Nihilistic methods. Put away the nerf bat, get out the buffer. Wax on, Wax off ;)
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:45:00 - [474] Originally by: Malcanis If we want EVE's PVE to be instrumental in attracting and retaining subscriptions, then the answer is not to make it into an ever-bigger ISK fountain, but to make it fun, challenging and interesting. That's a drum I've been banging for years. What if we completely replaced the anomaly generation from upgrades with rat-specific Incursion style events? Put in a level 5 upgrade and get a near permanent Guristas/Angel/Blood incursion style event? (Not necessarily a full on cyno-jamming thing, but something like an incursion in how you have to fight tough NPCs to beat it and get the reward) I have to say I quite like the idea of being able to upgrade systems to have regular incursions - it suits the fundamentals of EVE (promoting co-operative and competitive play). However incursions are not listed as part of this change to cosmic anomolies, so as it stands this is still a bad idea. Also, Incursions are still PvE - game designer developed content. I think CCP have done a great job in recognising that no matter how good the PvE is it will never compete with PvP, and built the game around that. Honestly, the PvE content in EVE is pretty meh, but it well and truly makes up for it with huge amounts of player generated content. Bring the players to nullsec and you will get that player generated content, move them away from nullsec and the player generated content goes with them.
P3po	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:46:00 - [475] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Morning all, Just wanted to drop a few points to think about in here now that I've had some sleep. - 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. Ok, but for example the providence dont have any system with lower security than -0,43 .... so basicly they dont get any boost in whole region (like you mentioned in the blog having 6 sanctums in -0,8 -> -1,0 systems and such) only nerfing. Yes, i agree that for example whole Delve can have 500 sanctums online at same time in 250 systems. You change that it can have 500 sanctums but only in 100 systems. Thats fine, but it doest not work for the low sec status regions at all.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:47:00 - [476] Edited by: Marconus Orion on 26/03/2011 10:52:36 All of you that are saying you will be quiting the game, feel free to contract me your stuff. I promise to have fun with it. Also for those of you not keeping up on high sec mission running thinking they will be more profitable than crap null sec regions, you should know that players will now have to search high and low to find agents that have not been recently molested with mission runners to get the same ISK/hour you are thinking of. The more they are mission, the rewards keep dropping. The less an agent is used, the rewards go up. So your argument that high sec will be infinity more profitable is not applicable. Also a big LOL at those who think their unknown agent will not be found by those willing to look for better paying agents. I know many people who hate high sec mission runners who would love to advertise your agent location so it gets mission down to nothing. Hell there are some that would run missions from your agent just to grief your payout. Don't like them doing that to you? Go to low sec or null sec. War Dec them too. Oh wait, that means conflict right? This is a PvP game you know. Now low sec agents will become worth the risk due to a high payout. The juice will finally be worth the squeeze. The current null sec landscape is like 80% have vs. 20% have not. Not very balanced. Now imagine 20% haves vs. 80% have not. What makes for a more exciting fight? 4 battleship vs.1 cruiser or 4 cruisers vs.1 battleship? Sure troll my analogies if you want but there you have it. All these sanctum farming tears just reinforce CCP is taking a step in the right direction. Granted the step could use some tweaking, a step in the right direction none the less.
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:47:00 - [477] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Add more NPC Nullsec. New kids have a pool again, complete with unconquerable stations.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:47:00 - [478] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: El'Niaga I don't see how you think these changes or the mission changes will lead to a new age of low sec piracy. I bet it leads to less. Because the agents in hi-sec will see a decline in quality, and the agents in lo-sec will see a corresponding rise. Couple that with a widespread reduction in ISK generation in much of 0.0 and it is obvious lo-sec and, to a lesser extent W-space, just got a relative huge boost. Lo-sec and W-space are the prime ares for piracy. These changes are therefore a piracy boost QED. Won't work will lead to less subscriptions. It shows a lack of understanding human nature. Given that subscriptions have remained flat or declined since system upgrades were introduced, I am not convinced by this argument. If we want EVE's PVE to be instrumental in attracting and retaining subscriptions, then the answer is not to make it into an ever-bigger ISK fountain, but to make it fun, challenging and interesting. That's a drum I've been banging for years. What if we completely replaced the anomaly generation from upgrades with rat-specific Incursion style events? Put in a level 5 upgrade and get a near permanent Guristas/Angel/Blood incursion style event? (Not necessarily a full on cyno-jamming thing, but something like an incursion in how you have to fight tough NPCs to beat it and get the reward) If subscriptions have flatlined you have to understand the reason why that has happened. Niche expansions are fine, when complete, but we've not really had a robust expansion since RMR. It's a space game, we have not got any major ship stuff in years. Graphics is not the key, its a bit of eye candy, folks need new material. Instead CCP has a token group working on EVE, the rest of their developers are on other projects. Have been for about 2 years, you can tell in the way the game is being kept, in other words EVE's coasting and friction is bringing it to a hault. You have to understand that most gamers are casual gamers. They have 1-2 hours a day to play. Under the current confines of the game they feel safest in High Sec because they don't have to worry about replacing their ships as much. Incursions made empire less safe, thus it is natural to see a small drop off in subscriptions. To entice these people into 0.0 you need major shifts in 0.0. 0.0 systems cannot support medium populations, systems can barely support 10 people at a time. You need the ability for someone to log in and be able to get to mining or get to a high paying (haven/sanctum/horde) type event quickly. Then they could still afford to lose a ship maybe once a week maybe twice, but if they loose ships (and thus isk) faster than they can earn it they will never come to 0.0 and thus never travel through low sec. To revitalize EVE you need an expansion that introduces new ships, territory, etc on the scale of RMR or greater. It doesn't matter if the ships fit the same niches, just having different ones with slightly different bonuses will make a difference, it is another design flaw. There are however many other ship roles that are not filled currently.
Ide Pleco	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:49:00 - [479] 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 isn't the philosophy "risk vs reward"? if some areas of 0.0 become less profitable by removing sanctums and havens the players will mission in hi sec to get their income. the alliances won't suffer financially though may lose player numbers. there is virtually zero risk when hi sec missioning so it being more profitable than 0.0 seems absurd. some 0.0 systems will have no players in them and others will have large numbers going after the same anoms. this would mean that even in the best systems profitability would drop as players would be less able to complete sanctums solo or in pairs as others in the system would get pis*sed off. as the gang size increses the bounties are split and the profit drops. your spreadsheets have probably told you that sanctums and havens are the most run anoms (by far) and so you've decided to nerf the availability. the result of this is not more people doing hubs or yards it is people missioning or ending their subs as they, like me, can't stand missions. when this was originally announced i assumed that the better 0.0 would have improved number of sanctums available or they may get improved spawns or improved sites (similar to forlorn and forsaken hubs etc) it's not clear in military upgrades will allow sanctum spawns in the worse 0.0 or not in any case i think this is a bad idea which needs rethinking or scrapping i hope CCP Greyscale had a good weekend making many people have a bad one lol
Argus Sorn Star Frontiers Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:50:00 - [480] Edited by: Argus Sorn on 26/03/2011 10:55:17 Edited by: Argus Sorn on 26/03/2011 10:54:36 So, along with this can we get some update/clarification on the quality of pirates or "effective true sec" of pirate home regions? From everything I have seen the belt rats in these regions are indeed treated as if the system is -1.0. Will this apply the same for sanctums, etc? Personally, if this is indeed the case, a change in this should be rolled out along with the sanctum changes. Unless it is an NPC controlled solar system, the quality of the belt rats should be c/w whatever the true-sec of the system actually is. In other words, -1.0 quality belt rats would only de facto appear in NPC sov systems. This makes the NPC held regions/systems more interesting while in addition eliminating 'special' regions like Fountain and Delve. If CCP genuinely doesn't want all space to be the same, then changing the belt rat quality in pirate home space would be consistent with that goal. Overall the change is good, but CCP needs to be wary of changes that will make vast regions of 0.0 worthless as well. An upgrade 0.0 system, even a border system with basically 0.0 true sec should be desirable to those willing to take the risk. Perhaps one of the highest level anomalies in a fully upgraded border system, extending out to 5 in -1.0 systems, increasing every change of -0.2. I think that will still drive people out of those systems while not rendering them crap. Remember, you are unlikely to draw MORE people into 0.0, so you are just moving people around in theory. However, if you eliminate the financial incentives for a small, fledgling alliance to move into 0.0 (improved isk making through upgraded sov) you may draw people OUT of 0.0, and I am not sure that is good for the game. Lastly, remember why the upgrades were put into place. CCP wanted to make single systems worth inhabiting, they wanted to let people carve out their niche and be proud of the space they developed, NOT spread out over 20 systems with one ratter per system doing belts. While making -1.0 upgraded systems even MORE livable, I am not sure it is prudent to make -0.1 systems LESS livable. You want it to ALL be better than lowsec/empire. You want it all to be livable, viable space for SOMEONE. Lastly, one other valid option is to perhaps make it cheaper to upgrade -0.1 systems, at the same time perhaps it should be more expensive than it is currently to upgrade a -1.0 system. Overall I like the change, and I think CCP can come up with something everyone can support and get behind (well all but the most die hard whiner). It sounds like the high end, -1.0 end is a good deal, although it should perhaps be more expensive to upgrade, but that the lower end needs to some love. Remember, it is 0.0 too, and people should be rewarded for taking the risk of living there. And lastly, don't forget to do something about those -1.0 belt rat regions... that should only exist in NPC sov space. Thanks! Argus Sorn CEO - Star Frontiers

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.

jitadwella	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:42:00 - [511] Sounds like an AWESOME idea!!! Let's turn some of the most heavily inhabited regions into barren wastelands! Let's make it so that more than half of 0.0 is more risky and less rewarding than highsec! While we're at it, let's go ahead and remove a major source of income for grunts of the younger alliances, so that they have no hope of attacking major alliances holding higher truesec! Seriously, CCP? Seriously? Having all space equal is a bad thing, yes. Making large tracts of nullsec absolutely worthless wastelands is even worse. Many younger alliances have spent large chunks of their budgets upgrading their space with outposts and now you come and destroy everything they've done. Many regions won't even be worth putting sov in AT ALL with these changes. Who would pay for bills in Cloud Ring, where there's only 1 system that would even have havens/sanctums? Are you really expecting a group of 1 month old players to come in and throw down sov? After 1 or 2 months' training, literally no players use hubs or lower Cosmic Anomalies. After they've held Cloud Ring for two months, what do you expect this band of noobs to do? Attack titans with rifters? Of course not, they'll move straight back to Empire or join up with a bigger alliance, abandoning their space. Or, more likely, they'll never come out to nullsec to begin with. No large alliance with common sense will be allowing the huge swarms of recruits to join up, and no small alliance is able to conquer high truesec under the current Dominion system. Buff higher truesec, maybe SLIGHTLY nerf lower truesec. Add more ihub upgrades (incursions?), and maybe add some upgrades that will only work in certain levels of truesec (supercap docking?). Most importantly, CHANGE THE DOMINION MECHANICS to reward small risktaking entities! Literally nobody likes the current mechanics, ask NC, DC and DRF leaders, ask PL, ask Ev0ke/NCdot, and most importantly ask the small alliances whose space you are about to make worthless. As it stands, the system is far too defensive. It's fine and dandy to buff high truesec to the point where it's supervaluable, but make it possible to for a determined entity to capture!
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:43:00 - [512] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. True. But wasn't this one of the specific goals of Dominion? Increasing the carrying capacity of 0.0 systems. Quote: - 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. Also true. But, historically, the cost of living in that space was earned ELSEWHERE. Be it empire based industrial endeavors, pos production somewhere in lowsec, L4 in motsu or scamming in Jita. The space was claimed, but largely unoccupied as players were elsewhere earning the ISK to afford having their flag raised in Sov-0.0. Quote: - 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. Well, CVA did a good job of providing a 0.0-light experience by shielding its population from most harsh realities of nullsec. But apart from that, you always had to be the bully or be taken in under the wings of a bully. And this is not going to change. This should not be going to change. As an independant zerosec newcomer, to not be bombed back to Jita within hours, you have to occupy worthless space, in a strategically worthless spot that does not open a possible cyno-vector and be willing to be kill-farmed by your neighbors. Rare. Quote: - 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. So, back to pre-Dominion status, where a single entity claims 5 regions to have the 6 good systems? The idea of dominion was to break up the extremely large sov claims needed to sustain your members by making it much more expensive to own space, but at the same time increase the resources available in each system and rent out other systems within the range you can comfortably project your force. And for the system to have that sustainability, it needs to be constantly worked in. For that to be an interesting option, you need to be able to generate the ISK in one or two systems. In EVE 2011 we still have power blocks - but did we really think those would ever disappear? The entire vision of Dominion hinges on the 85% crap a region offers to be interesting on its own. Not be carried by the better 15%.
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:43:00 - [513] Originally by: AngusThermo Sir JOJO: This change will LESSEN the conflicts, How can there be any less then now, RLY go list all conflicts in eve atm, Wake up dude, there no conflict because there no reason to have one since all the space is Equal
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:46:00 - [514] Originally by: AngusThermo 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. correction. some 0.0 corps loose where they put their manhood, players that cant hack it and were going to quit anyway (and rightfully should, good riddance) quit. all the rest (corps and players) shuffle into other corps which float their boat and its like those unfit entities never existed except on some corp histories. as well as... roamers try and go gank those supers... omnom capital kills. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??
GKO	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:49:00 - [515] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 25/03/2011 18:46:20 This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift. Quote: CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies So CCP Greyscale is excited about screwing people over?! This puts my confidence on CCP staff at such a high level.. Hey Greyscale is normally a cool guy, just saying.... my guess is he was forced to publish this devblog because everyone else was drunk. So he maybe didnt read the devblog before releasing. @topic: well... now it is easier to place afk cloakers!
AngusThermo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:50:00 - [516] Originally by: SirJoJo Originally by: AngusThermo Sir JOJO: This change will LESSEN the conflicts, How can there be any less then now, RLY go list all conflicts in eve atm, Wake up dude, there no conflict because there no reason to have one since all the space is Equal I've been at war for the last 3 years. There has not been 1 week of "peace" so i would suggest you leave your worthless jita corp, and go find conflict. There's plenty around.
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:52:00 - [517] Originally by: AngusThermo Originally by: SirJoJo Originally by: AngusThermo Sir JOJO: This change will LESSEN the conflicts, How can there be any less then now, RLY go list all conflicts in eve atm, Wake up dude, there no conflict because there no reason to have one since all the space is Equal I've been at war for the last 3 years. There has not been 1 week of "peace" so i would suggest you leave your worthless jita corp, and go find conflict. There's plenty around. Plenty as in 2?
Slaman Snikovski	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:55:00 - [518] Originally by: AngusThermo Edited by: AngusThermo on 26/03/2011 11:45:32 Sir JOJO: 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. If the only reason you came down to 0.0 because it had more revenue than high-sec you should get back to carebear land and stay there. About time CCP made some changes that made the game more difficult instead of letting people who only care for they sanctums sit there all day making lots of money without risking anything. This game should be about getting better rewards for higher risks.
Scapogo Amarr Quondam Souls of the Universe corporation R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:55:00 - [519] Only thing you will achieve by this is that we will have many empty useless crap systems nobody will want. Not even some new alliance because they can make more isk in WH or Incursions. I hope you will think about this one more time and instead of nerf you will make better sec systems better without nerfing others. Ppl in crap systems will need rat longer and will have less time and isk for pvp. So result is oposite to your expectations. Thanks god there are other games.
AngusThermo	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:56:00 - [520] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: AngusThermo 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. correction. some 0.0 corps loose where they put their manhood, players that cant hack it and were going to quit anyway (and rightfully should, good riddance) quit. all the rest (corps and players) shuffle into other corps which float their boat and its like those unfit entities never existed except on some corp histories. as well as... roamers try and go gank those supers... omnom capital kills. That can happen, if the system isnt boubbled, cynojammed... If an alliance only have a few good anom systems, dont you think there will be more supers than one there? Chances for a roam to get tackle/people through the boubblecamp in time is = 0. You would have less conflict, because, you would loose each time. If you loose each time you roam, do you wanna roam ?

Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:57:00 - [521] Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 11:58:52 Originally by: AngusThermo I've been at war for the last 3 years. There has not been 1 week of "peace" so i would suggest you leave your worthless jita corp, and go find conflict. There's plenty around. i think you should check who you are talking to before you assume they are in a 'jita corp'. hes referring to the amount of major conflicts.. i dont know if you've noticed but there are 2 major sides of eve. DC/NC against DRF and Stain train. CCP is trying to open up the doors for more sides of the fight, not 2 gigantic cluster**s. oh and quit posting from some random toon... no battleclinic record ftl. trolled much? ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**
JeanLuc Blindtard	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:04:00 - [522] If you want to ad more conflict move the isk making index up instead of down. So keep everything as it is but add up more "large sum" isk making options in some regions of space. Dont just take peoples isk making everywhere, to make them fight for w/e is left. I cant go pvp for new space just so I can get a piece of space to rat to make isk for 30d plex now cant I? Isk is not just for pvp we pay sov/renter bills, (on my corp been like 3 bill atm) we also buy those 30 day PLEX to keep us alive... Most isk comes from ratters that are already talking about moving back to empire if our system going to loose the main isk making anoms. Overall turn out for my corp after changes: Most probably 6 or 10 people will go to empire back to lvl4's and salvaging. Some 3 or 4 will focus fully on pi in npc 0.0 space. Rest up to 40 members drop corp look for a 0.0 alliance arround the isk making pokets or a high/low sec war decking pvp corp/alliance... Current Corp closed. Overall turnout for me: 1 out of 3 accounts closed. remaining 2 account moved to empire for lvl4 mission runing and salvaging/looting. For more conflict (as if it was needed) I propose you make some kind of global event that will massively push isk into pokets of the dudes that run it but it wouldn't need a giant fleet to complete it. This event will be moving from region to region like 1 move a month or so, but it would be a giant magnet for people. Basically you can make it like a wormhole to a happy happy place where isk flows... A comet or something traveling through space and that holds massive amounts of t2 materials or some SHuT. Donno Sleeper mother ship that drops T3 modules and module bpc's travels arround eve been seen here an there drawing people to it... Theres more than 1 way to get people to fight each other why go for the r e t a r d e d way that wont work???
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:07:00 - [523] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins 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. You're about as obtuse as Grey. You can't fix the game in its current state. All Grey's blog proposes is a short term migration that will shortly be put down as the powers keep anyone from getting into 0.0 that doesn't pay them rent....they have the ships and manpower to do it. The only counter to that is to make sure they can keep the space they have and keep it. The create more space that is outside the range of their cap ships or limited paths...kinda like geminate between NC and DRF. Since they have their space it stands to reason most of them will be content, however those that aren't will move, opening up space. But the space will only fill if the systems can keep folks busy. Guess you weren't around when the Drone Regions opened up. It was a dynamic change to the game and they were quickly filled with groups fighting one another. Ultimately most of those don't exist anymore (TNT is still around see them post now and then, not sure if any of the other original Drone alliances survive). Those initial Drone Wars probably drug out for around a year maybe 18months. That's what they need if they want more conflict, only more space will be a dynamic enough change. That space though has to be able to support hundreds. Perhaps some lost tribes of humanity are there to to have some new npc 0.0.
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:07:00 - [524] [Continued] And, the power-blocks have for the most part shrunk. And I think there are more entities on the sov map than before. When I started my nullsec-life in 2007, a typical roam would hop from known ratting system to known ratting system, with large stretches of empty space with stargates inbetween (apart from the occasional cloaked early-warning-intel-scout). Nowadays, one still has ones favorite hostile population center to visit, but the space in between isn't empty. There are people living there, working their (small/rented) part of outlaw space. And its awesome. The possibilities to increase earning capabilities introduced with Dominion are: - hidden belts. Nice, and a decent income source I think (250 SP industry ftw), but problematic for small entities as protecting them requires huge resources. Also, once your neighbors figure out there are is helpless cash flying around in space, you get A LOT more frequent visits. - exploration. Here, the real earners are the escalations. And for those to be a reliable source of income, the pocket of space you need to somewhat control is much bigger. One can sneak into hostile space to run an escalation, and it probably still is a lot of fun; but if you being able to pay your concord bill relies on them, you have a problem. - anomalies. Out of the three options, the only one that does not leave you horribly exposed (exhumers) and works reliably if you aren't on good terms with your neighbors. But making owning bad space cheaper by lowering the infrastructure upkeep for them will just mean the big players move their costly infrastructure (jbridges, scap production) into bad space to save ISK while having the good systems too (I know because we would). PS/Disclaimer: ev0ke, providence, wah! I haven't ratted in years and my wallet will not care about this adaption one way or another.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:09:00 - [525] Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard If you want to ad more conflict move the isk making index up instead of down. So keep everything as it is but add up more "large sum" isk making options in some regions of space. Dont just take peoples isk making everywhere, to make them fight for w/e is left. I cant go pvp for new space just so I can get a piece of space to rat to make isk for 30d plex now cant I? Isk is not just for pvp we pay sov/renter bills, (on my corp been like 3 bill atm) we also buy those 30 day PLEX to keep us alive... Most isk comes from ratters that are already talking about moving back to empire if our system going to loose the main isk making anoms. Overall turn out for my corp after changes: Most probably 6 or 10 people will go to empire back to lvl4's and salvaging. Some 3 or 4 will focus fully on pi in npc 0.0 space. Rest up to 40 members drop corp look for a 0.0 alliance arround the isk making pokets or a high/low sec war decking pvp corp/alliance... Current Corp closed. Overall turnout for me: 1 out of 3 accounts closed. remaining 2 account moved to empire for lvl4 mission runing and salvaging/looting. For more conflict (as if it was needed) I propose you make some kind of global event that will massively push isk into pokets of the dudes that run it but it wouldn't need a giant fleet to complete it. This event will be moving from region to region like 1 move a month or so, but it would be a giant magnet for people. Basically you can make it like a wormhole to a happy happy place where isk flows... A comet or something traveling through space and that holds massive amounts of t2 materials or some SHuT. Donno Sleeper mother ship that drops T3 modules and module bpc's travels arround eve been seen here an there drawing people to it... Theres more than 1 way to get people to fight each other why go for the r e t a r d e d way that wont work??? No. EVE is meant to be harsh while still being playable. this means adapting. the nano*s did it. Sov warfare has done it countless times and will do it countless times more. and im sure that gallente pilots are hard at work theorycrafting to do it too =). at any rate, if CCP starts conforming to tears than this game will not be the same as it was. (although gallente does need reworking...) ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**
Viger	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:17:00 - [526] IMO, its a terrible way to try and force more conflict. You want more conflicts yet you are cutting players ability to make isk, isk that is used to purchase/replace pvp ships/mods. Prices will not go down just because some systems are not as profitable. Alliances don't rely on ratting for isk, a large number rely on moon goo, this is a nerf to the smaller corps and individuals, if you want to force conflict, change the moon goo set up, tie them to sov, etc. At Fan Faire yesterday it was started that you are tracking pos timers and such to help anticipate when battle are going to occur so you can help avoid lag, how many of those pos were moon goo types. That is driving a large number of the conflicts atm. If you want more conflict, look at changing the status system, don't give the ability to set someone to blue. If you want more conflict, change sov mechanism If you want more conflict, change moon goo The Gnomes explain that their business plan is as follows: Phase 1: Collect Underpants Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Profit
sc11232	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:20:00 - [527] Edited by: sc11232 on 26/03/2011 12:21:08 I hope you read comments, because you have got 20 pages of mostly negative comments. I have asked in my corp and noone was happy with the changes. Despite of us living in highest truesec systems that will improve ammount of anoms. It seems that results will be: 1) It wont achieve what you think it will achieve. 2) Many people will be unhappy. if you dont consider feedback provided in those forums after asking for it, then you are truly, ignorant.
Slaman Snikovski 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:23:00 - [528] If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict.
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:24:00 - [529] Edited by: Mioelnir on 26/03/2011 12:26:01 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins No. EVE is meant to be harsh while still being playable. this means adapting. the nano*s did it. Sov warfare has done it countless times and will do it countless times more. and im sure that gallente pilots are hard at work theorycrafting to do it too =). at any rate, if CCP starts conforming to tears than this game will not be the same as it was. (although gallente does need reworking...) True. But the 0.0-vision Dominion introduced relies on even the most crappy system being somewhat interesting ISK wise. So if that knob gets turned, other knobs need to be turned too. The removal of static 10/10s did not lead to a flat out ceasefire in 0.0. Neither did Dominion. And neither will the proposed change magically increase conflicts. Conquering a well of prosperity from you enemy is always nice, but it is rarely the goal (but a good enabler to force the other party into a fight). The two biggest factors behind large-scale wars were, are and always will be $YOU simply enjoying shooting people in the face and $YOU thinking the guy 3 jumps over is a ****** and needs to be tought a lesson. So to increase conflict, one needs to increase the population. People will then go on each others nerves, backstab, form alliances, betray alliances and shoot wildly on their own as egos start to clash.
AngusThermo	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:32:00 - [530] Edited by: AngusThermo on 26/03/2011 12:34:42 Originally by: Slaman Snikovski Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20 If you will get less money from a **ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict. Originally by:** sc11232 Edited by: sc11232 on 26/03/2011 12:21:08 I hope you read comments, because you have got 20 pages of mostly negative comments. I have asked in my corp and noone was happy with the changes. Despite of us living in highest truesec systems that will improve ammount of anoms. It seems that results will be: 1) It wont achieve what you think it will achieve. 2) Many people will be unhappy. if you dont consider feedback provided in those forums after asking for it, then you are truly, ignorant. If you live in high-sec what do you care for the changes? I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged. Highest truesec = best space availible, nothing about empire in his reply, where do you get that from? If you believe that you can "gun hoe" and grab a ratting system for kicks, you are sadly mistaken. You need sov before you can install upgrades, and you need to work to get the upgrades upgraded... It's not done overnight in a roam - it's only done by kicking out ALL the enemy pos, ihubs, flipping staions ... ect. It comes down to "who has the stamina" or "who has the isk to contiune to field correct setup fleet battleships". If you are in a poor system, how will you generate enough ISK to keep the campaign going? It's not a matter of one night - but months.

Abdiel Kavash Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:33:00 - [531] You want to make some areas of space better than other? That's fine. But don't do this by making 90% of the space absolutely crap. Quote: 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. So you're basically saying that in your views, 8 regions will be completely useless and not even worth fighting for? Sov upgrades are a good thing, as it doesn't matter what kind of space you conquer, you can always invest money into making it that much better. Say a new alliance grabs three systems, in a few weeks they can make these three systems as good (economically) as the core systems of a long-estabilished alliance. If the new system is implemented (which I serioualy hope not), the major powerblocks will sit on the best systems and barricade those so that nobody else will ever be able to get an Ibis in. And if someone tries to take over the "crappy" systems (read: 90% of EVE), they will end up with an income stream less than running level 4 missions in empire. How exactly are they supposed to compete with powerblocks having 8 sanctums in every system? You don't understand you don't need to bring conflict into 0.0. There is enough conflict going on without you messing with the game. You need to incentivize people to go out to 0.0 and fight in these conflicts. You won't do that by making sovereign space worse. If a sanctum can keep N people in ships as soon as they lose them in combat in the current system, the same will be true in the new one. But there will be way less sanctums - so less people across the universe will be able to fight and not have to grind NPCs all day. ...or is that the combat you want to bring to 0.0? Just a glorified empire with missioning hubs here and there, and leagues of useless space inbetween? --- Originally by: Sporked EVE IS DYING RUN TO THE HILLS! WE MIGHT HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS MMO! THEY MIGHT SHOOT AT US WHILE WE ARE BUSY HOLDING HANDS AND FROLICKING! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JeanLuc Blindtard	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:35:00 - [532] Originally by: Slaman Snikovski Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33 Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20 If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict. I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged. You're not verry smart are you?
1Of9 Gallente The Circle SOLAR WING	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:38:00 - [533] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. Greyscale, you truly dont understand how we play this game.. Alliances assign 1 system or at most, 1 constellation for each alliance corp. Entire alliance members dont just pile into 2 or 3 systems.. this is NOT how this game is been played. Having this implemented, will leave 80% of region empty and everyone packed into 20%, making it a nightmareish area to rat/mine in
InnerDrive Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:42:00 - [534] Edited by: InnerDrive on 26/03/2011 12:45:09 ok first of all i woud like to say that i allways hated the true sec. system. the folks your with dont allways deside to go live in those systems for various reasons wich causes insane frustration at times to be stuck in crappy systems. im a fan of conflict but true sec is just anoying. its going to lead again into the entire alliance packing up in the best systems because the rest is crap. we really need more distribution. if you really want 200 people to sit in the only -0.6 till -1 system go right ahead and implement this!!! One thing i woud add to 0.0 is : So we dont have to type the same jumpbridge password over and over again but lett the client remember it...
Schnapii	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:43:00 - [535] I just prayed to God and Chuck Norris answered that he is not happy about those changes. Cause he has to roundhousekick CCP for that! Who the cheat has drunken so much to create such a dev O.o?! The Idea to splitt the powerblocks down to some small dudes isn't that bad... But the way CCP want to try this, just would push their 'resource-control' to a maximum.
Bren Keilloram	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:48:00 - [536] I'm not an anomaly runner, but I want to post an alternative here: since developing a piece of space is still a pain (an so should be rewarded as such) and considering the CCP long history of nerfing stuff regardless of what payers want, I suggest an alternative: 1) for a low end system (0.0 to -0.2 as far as I can understand), fully developed, the number of anomalies/quality of them will be the same that it is today 2) in going from there to lower truesec (from -0.3 to -1.0) the number of high end anomalies will increase accordingly, but not only that: it'll also be increased the quality of the sanctums. I think it's time to introduce the hidden, forsaken and forlon sanctums variations and this may be a good time to do such a thing. Imho, this will help ccp to reach their goals about the whole anomaly revamping thing with the bonus to not **** off so many players.
Pawnee	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:48:00 - [537] in my wish list: No crappy Cosmic Anomalies and Signatures in 0.0 at all. As CCP Greyscale mentioned correctly, players are in 0.0 for Havens, Sanctums and Hordes, and some the good complexes 6/10+. I was disappointed years ago from some exploration sites, when CCP introduced it. I learned, there are exploration sites in 0.0, which have rewards worse than lvl4 missions in high sec or belt ratting. Scanning for such a site is extra time and in the end you find out, just ratting in this system would have been better. As result, nobody will do this exploration site again. When it spawns, it just wastes resources. New players, and you have to be very new - like only 2-3 months old - could still join older players or stay in low or high sec for this time. What will happen to the broken true sec standings in Pirate NPC regions?
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:49:00 - [538] Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard Originally by: Slaman Snikovski Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33 Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20 If you will get less money from a **ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict. I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged. You're not verry smart are you? his error was a mis-communication. yours was being an idiot... your post had absolutely no worth at all. comets... hmm i seemed to remember a troll about that recently. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**
luceron	Posted - 2011.03.26 12:58:00 - [539] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. True but you're talking about taking access to those anoms away from anyone that is not strong enough to take and hold the best systems in a region. (I think we've seen the way this works with the moon-goo system.) Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. I don't think you are saying anything other than there will be a clear and marked benefit for alliances that have the power to control the best truesec regions and/or systems in a region. Sure this is true, but that is basically the list of powers that currently control the high-end moon-goo. What about those of us that don't have the power or means to take high-end moons, what makes you think we will be able to take and hold "high end true-sec systems" Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. Again true, but not really the issue we are worried about. The concern is more along the line of how does this change affect the little guy. It's like saying we are going to tear down the mill where you guys work, but don't worry I'm sure some kids will play stick ball in the empty lot we leave behind. Great, but what about my lost wages. Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. Why is this view point ignored when considering the dynamic between small/medium size entities and the large high-end moon holders. Never hear anyone at ccp saying, "those powerblocs with all the high-end moons need to make room for up and coming entities at a faster rate." And some of those entities have been entrenched in their areas for a very long time. Keep in mind "the next crop of prospective alliances" have a better chance of taking space from those of us that live in "crappy systems". Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. Problem is that less organizations will be able to access that resource. In essence you're taking something that is as ubiquitous as rain and reducing it to 20% of it's current accessibility. Benefits the powerblocs, screws the rest. Join powerblocs?
JeanLuc Blindtard	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:02:00 - [540] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard Originally by: Slaman Snikovski Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33 Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20 If you will get less money from a ****ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict. I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged. You're not verry smart are you? his error was a mis-communication. yours was being an idiot... your post had absolutely no worth at all. comets... hmm i seemed to remember a troll about that recently. I was just pointing out there other ways to make people beat each other than taking the isk away. I dont really care what that might be.

Petronious Archeoptrix	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:03:00 - [541] Good evening all Guys and Gals at CCP, first thing is first. Don't mess with something that isn't broken, there are enough fights to go around for all of us, this seems to be why you think messing with the current system is the way to go, really it isn't. This mmo if I am correct is about space combat, including logistics, espionage and manny other facets to maintain interest, fix the biggest bug bear that all of us fight first LAGG it is everyones enemy that plays this game. Concentrate on it rather than messing with something that is established, again KILL THE LAGG and more people will be happier, I can't emphasise this enough bugger walking in stations or 3D characters - KILL THE LAGG, don't mess with mechanics, KILL THE LAGG. leave anomolies as they are, don't make whole areas waste lands, no one will go there if it isn't worth the effort, so leave it as it is, I'd recon that most think the same way and like I always say to you "KILL THE LAGG" thanks for taking the time to read my thaughts
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:07:00 - [542] Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: JeanLuc Blindtard Originally by: Slaman Snikovski Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:28:33 Edited by: Slaman Snikovski on 26/03/2011 12:26:20 If you will get less money from a **ty syste, HTFU and attack the neighbor who has better systems. Team up with others and take down larger entities who have better systems or moons. Need is a perfect way to generate conflict. I hope CCP will not give in to whiners who forgot that this game should be difficult and full of conflict, not people doing anomalies in 0.0 unchallenged. You're not verry smart are you? his error was a mis-communication. yours was being an idiot... your post had absolutely no worth at all. comets... hmm i seemed to remember a troll about that recently. I was just pointing out there other ways to make people beat each other than taking the isk away. I dont really care what that might be. true but the intention was not to make every system equal in the first place. why do we have truesec if it isnt making any difference, since nobody is belt ratting? thats the issue here. people have gotten too happy and comfortable with every 0.0 system being able to produce 4 high level ratting sites per hour. i say no. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??**
DanMck Amarr Rionnag Alba Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:13:00 - [543] Edited by: DanMck on 26/03/2011 13:14:41 Originally by: Scapogo Only thing you will achieve by this is that we will have many empty useless crap systems nobody will want. Not even some new alliance because they can make more isk in WH or Incursions. I hope you will think about this one more time and instead of nerf you will make better sec systems better without nerfing others. Ppl in crap systems will need rat longer and will have less time and isk for pvp. So result is oposite to your expectations. Thanks god there are other games. tbh this guy sums it up pretty well. why would some new alliance or corp risk moving or living in 0.0 for poor income when they can farm empire missions with little risk. also from a small 0.0 roaming perspective we are now back to whole constellations/regions of empty space. people will not use the pimp stuff to farm the poor ones either so less carriers/faction bs in space. Also people will base closer to true sec systems or fight over certain better regions ? great more focused lag in specific areas of the map. Ever thought that the crazy moon imbalance is a bigger issue than this ? CCP do you ever think before changes like this a quick vote from the member base might help to give you guys an idea of opinion? , rather than just listening to someone who is good at presentations.
Abramul Gallente StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:14:00 - [544] If you want to increase the number of small alliances, why not: - Remove sovereignty bills for constellation-and-smaller alliances. (Keep bills for strategic upgrades, except maybe cyno jammer) - Add smaller, cheaper versions of Ihubs and upgrades that are only usable if the owner holds a constellation or less. This might result in large alliances fragmenting to reduce sov bills, but is this really a bad thing? As far as anomalies go, I would favor increasing respawn time in low-grade systems; 4 sanctums and havens with a 1-hour respawn would probably be viable for a small corp, and 4-hour would probably work for maybe 5 guys in battlecruisers running as a group.
Woodiex3	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:17:00 - [545] eve 2014 update... ccp ship price update Titan $70 supercap $40 Carrier $10 Battleship pack of 5 $5 50% DPS increase for 2 hours $1 50% HP increase for 2huors $1 100% drop rate fot 2 hours $2 this is were its heading blogs like this are the start
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:20:00 - [546] Originally by: DanMck Edited by: DanMck on 26/03/2011 13:14:41 Originally by: Scapogo Only thing you will achieve by this is that we will have many empty useless crap systems nobody will want. Not even some new alliance because they can make more isk in WH or Incursions. I hope you will think about this one more time and instead of nerf you will make better sec systems better without nerfing others. Ppl in crap systems will need rat longer and will have less time and isk for pvp. So result is oposite to your expectations. Thanks god there are other games. tbh this guy sums it up pretty well. why would some new alliance or corp risk moving or living in 0.0 for poor income when they can farm empire missions with little risk. also from a small 0.0 roaming perspective we are now back to whole constellations/regions of empty space. i would think because it will give smaller alliances a place to get themselves a name and possibly better space when their friends have a new constellation or two free. the whole idea is not to make things easy for people getting into 0.0. just to give them an entry level type of space to start in. if the game were about making money the NC would be capitalizing on their tech moo..... nvm the whole game is carebear. gg u win. ______________________________ Is Frodo gonna have to choke a bltch??
qlko1	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:26:00 - [547] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. LOL exsited about what? Boosting macro-system-rent? Who'll take those -0.0 -0.2 systems? Only macro! Im CEO of small 0.0 corp. Do u know what u did? -40 ppl renting space in 0.0 and making small null pvp. Is that what u expected CCP? In ur opinion 0.0 ll be more interesting with macro users in 90% of 0.0 systems? Yeah! really great job! MORE NERF! MORE MACRO! MORE $$$ TO CCP POCKET!!! MORE!
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:38:00 - [548] Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara on 26/03/2011 13:39:12 Originally by: Woodiex3 eve 2014 update... ccp ship price update Titan $700 supercap $400 Carrier $100 Battleship pack of 5 $125 50% DPS increase for 2 hours $10 50% HP increase for 2huors $10 100% drop rate for 2 hours $20 This is where its heading; blogs like this are the start. This. And fixed those prices for you. CCP has to make a profit after all! [edit: engrish]
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:41:00 - [549] Originally by: Woodiex3 eve 2014 update... ccp ship price update Titan $700.95 supercap $400.95 Carrier $100.95 Battleship pack of 5 $125.95 50% DPS increase for 2 hours $10.95 50% HP increase for 2huors $10.95 100% drop rate for 2 hours $20.95 This is where its heading; blogs like this are the start. fixed again for accuracy ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:45:00 - [550] So many tears about paying rent to coalition overlords and now now Sanctums to farm. Stop paying rent to them and being a buffer FFS..

Tommy Blue Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:45:00 - [551] I'm going to say this again. The worst nullsec system in eve should still make you more money than the best level four missions.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:54:00 - [552] Originally by: Tommy Blue I'm going to say this again. The worst nullsec system in eve should still make you more money than the best level four missions. not every system is meant to rat in... what happens when its a system with 3 belts and -0.01?... the mentality that all 0.0 is good is quite unrealistic... it may have moons but as for ratting... lol. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
PZenia	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:17:00 - [553] Eve grown to such big sizes and every one from thouse 60k+ online (300k+ subscribed) needs "food" - i mean isk. So yes, no food - no fight. Actually borders for every true sec must be reconsidered. "You just cannot leave Iraq with NO Oil", make it less. Also it cannot be depended only on -0.8 - -1.0, rebuild eve map then. *Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec -b...s.it Never/Small alliances will be not able to surrvive on their own, they will probably join bigger "brothers" for thouse "better sistems", we will have bigger problems of lag and etc., becouse now every war "brother" take is theirs too. No neutrals. Regards
Nicram Starfall	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:19:00 - [554] Very good change CCP! Pilots to earn more in 0.0 will need to live closer to eachother, gathered in less systems, so makeing it safe will be much more important. One thing i would like to add. Since there woulbe like let say 3 very good (-0.9 and lower)system in one region. With few constant sanctrum it will be a gold mine both for players and corporations. Do some calculations. Lets assume that 5 players can grind in that system with averige of 15M per payout => 45 M per h => 225M from ratting per h from one system. that makes 25 M for corp and 200 M for players (if tax is at 11%) multiple it by 16 h per day. Then its 400 mil for corp and 3,2 bil for players exluding fraction loot and all that stuff. Why all those calculations? Easy to say. if someone want to disturb exact corp/alliance just put 3 cloaky alts in their gold mines. Easy to do, dont include to much efford and give empowered efect on making enemy weaker since lack of isk. Answer to that wouldbe creating way to counter 23,5h/day cloaky afkers. How? thats another story...
merce lolita	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:29:00 - [555] So i say hats off to cccp! Great changes and good for people who dont mind actually working and living in 0.0. In fact provi was just such a place before you changed sov and rewards making many allianes who got whipped up north or in deep 0.0 come down to provi and **** it. Thge presence of nc. and evoke ewok gangs zerging provi was the result of making provi economically viable at the cost of detroying cva which actually worked for years to build it up. The changes destroyed the game for builders in favor of supercap blobs which took over systems in days with new sov rules. How about continuing along and make it so super caps cant take out poses and stations in 7 minutes and traditional fleets and dreads becoming actually a part of eve again. And not just a game where who ever has the biggest supercap fleet wins period..
Allesgutes	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:38:00 - [556] i see a big fail by ccp in this
Aquintus Minerale	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:38:00 - [557] good job ccp.... at first you make crappy region's like providence or else less crappy that some smaller alliances could gain some isk in there and then, sometime later, you punch them in the face while you reduce such region's to what they were... ****ty regions with an iskincome that sucks at all while alliances like morsus mihi or razor have at least as much isk income like before because they hold good regions.... so good job ccp... punish smaller alliances for beeing small and throw cookie's to all the big alliances holding the good space were a smaller alliance would never ever gain any sov :-/ so again, good job ccp!
Hemmo Paskiainen Gallente Silver Snake Enterprise	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:40:00 - [558] CCP prob saw the plex usuage rise and got less $$ cause people farming too much sanctums. The thing that is actualy ****ed up is the ship costs;s vs effort to gain the isk. Thats out of balance. Again ccp show's that they dont even play eve in 0.0. I would like to invite devs into my corp to show them how it is going. Just send me a eve-mail Fix Black Ops: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1204416
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:44:00 - [559] Originally by: Aquintus Minerale good job ccp.... at first you make crappy region's like providence or else less crappy that some smaller alliances could gain some isk in there and then, sometime later, you punch them in the face while you reduce such region's to what they were... **ty regions with an iskincome that sucks at all while alliances like morsus mihi or razor have at least as much isk income like before because they hold good regions.... so good job ccp... punish smaller alliances for beeing small and throw cookie's to all the big alliances holding the good space were a smaller alliance would never ever gain any sov :-/ so again, good job ccp! why should CCP favor a region over another? there are other regions just as ty as prov. in fact some are being held by NC alliances. not everyone wins. it just means that the alliances who have crap systems will get all y when the pilots are broke. ofc the corps and alliances are rolling in ISK from moon goo though, all going for supers and whatnot. stop crying because you live in space... i lived in provi too. yea, it sucks but if "you pro bro" you will find everything you need in this game. if not, happens. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**
Gruntor Hawk	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:49:00 - [560] So....ccp strikes with the nerf bat once again,i think that yes high truesec space should spawn more anoms but lesser should still be able to spawn havens and ssanctums, what happens to all the military upgrades already put in for this reason, not to mention you are making much of 0.0 less profitable, wtf is this are you trying to make it more deserted then it already is? theres only several regions that you can find people in and if you do this these will become more deserted. its already proven that hisec missions make more money than sanctums for ex in sanctums one can make 45-60 mil an hour in a tengu in hisec missions this can be from 60-100 if you add in lp, so really all your doing is nerfing something already worse

Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:54:00 - [561] Here some more tip how to fix this broken game. Fix monngoo, To much ine the north, make carrpy regions with bad truesec have all the good moons. Dont place those regions to close to the good truesec regions. Atleat 4-5 reagions away. This make an alliance have to make a strategic choise, npc¦s or moons. Cuz good luck having renters in crappy regions when they can have the moons. Nerf the Jumpbridges. Make only so alliances that holds the JB can use it. Should be only allowed to place 1 JB per system, and you cant place a JB if an alliance dont control 1 constelation. Make it harder to make 1 empire for an alliance in 1 region, harder to keep, but the reward should be good aswell. JB¦s
DjDangle The Fraternal Association of Killer Squibs Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:55:00 - [562] I've ratted to make isk to pvp since i first started playing Eve 8 years ago. CCP has nerfed the income from ratting that many times i'm not even suprised at this. But alas i've never mined moons, researched some boring thing or built T2 items for people which is probably why im still sat looking at the pretty titan pictures wishin i had even a third of the isk to get one... (Oh the memories........)
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:55:00 - [563] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. Listen to this man CCP, he's 100% correct. This essentially makes every single system in pure blind useless. It would be like trying to grind anomalies in low sec or something. I didn't move to 0.0 because I LIKE to rat, I do it so I can pvp. Essentially this will force me to make jump clones out in venal or run missions on an alt because it would literally be the only way I could sustain pvping. It just seems idiotic to me to believe that pure blind alliance would attack deklien or tribute for better ratting systems. I mean seriously, let's use some common sense here CCP. ALLIANCE GOALS WILL NOT CHANGE AND WILL NOT BE EFFECTED BY "QQ NO SANCTUMS". What you will do is make life very, very difficult for a good majority of null seccers who just want to pvp.
Cabel Sunrunner	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:58:00 - [564] Although I agree that the space should not be all the same I really donÆt think that nuerfing the sanctums is going to have a positive effect on 0.0. If you really want to work on braking up the large blocks then: Rebalance the Moon Goo. Each region should have moons that are worth taking. A lot of the infrastructure for 0.0 is now supported by Moon Goo with a heavy advantage given to the organizations that own Tech moons. While your at it make Moon mining contingent on standings or Sov. For LowSec make it contingent on standings with an organization that is only found in that LowSec area (border patrol maybe?) Frankly IÆm tired of going deep into NPC 0.0 or LowSec to take high end moons. It makes no sense from a game play stand point. Why should an organization be able to control EVE resources 40 jumps from their Sov? Nuef the Supper Carriers. Sorry this is really causing a major damper to when where and what numbers alliances are willing to deploy ships. My solution is to make the Supper Carriers go into a siege like mode to be able to launch fighter bombers (ôFlight Operationsö maybe?). Let them keep the DPS just give us the chance to kill them when they do. Nuef the JBs. Restrict them to alliance only and limit max range in light years the entire network can be. Large alliances and coalition will not go away because of these changes it will just make it harder to coordinate their efforts. The Goons, Test, NC, PL will still be dominate players. To kill those coalitions you would have to take away Jaber, 2000 man capable TS2 servers, dedicated inner alliance coordination forums and the interpersonal relationships form over years of game play.
ShoreTay	Posted - 2011.03.26 14:59:00 - [565] The levels are utter fail in this thread is simply astounding. The status quo is a problem for many reasons: All 0.0 space has essentially the same profitability right now; there is no reason to fight for "better space" 0.0 is an incredible isk faucet, while missions are not. Most of the rewards from missions don't put any isk into the economy, while Sanctums are helping to pump like 800B a month into the economy Truesec is meaningless. CCP designed trusec to make certain space more desirable than others. Obviously moongoo ruined this plan, but sanctums still generate way more isk per month that even the best moongoo if they are properly farmed. All I seem to see in this thread is "whaaaaaa, I can't pay for 0.0 without my Sanctums, whaaaaaa." Good. Make allies, fight for better space, move, quit. I don't care. It shouldn't be so easy for everyone to make 50M an hour (I'm hoping this mission nerf is great). I don't live in 0.0. I won't really be affected from these changes, but I know that something needs to be changed.
padshiiangel	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:00:00 - [566] Hi dear CCP it's realy bad bad idea, no need do it. Just fix lag it's will be better.
Ignatius Gnarl Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:01:00 - [567] I can see the idea that in a desert, oases become flashpoints. But what we actually have is a desert (nullsec) next to a land flowing with milk and honey (hi-sec). Therefore there is no economic incentive to fight. Even right now, only the top end anoms are better than level 4s. When you factor in LP and the ease of selling loot/salvage in hi-sec, I'm dubious that in fact they are better. Plus you can run level 4s non-stop. The reality of nullsec is you might have to share anoms with other players, you might have to stop because of enemy activity, and you need to spend a lot of time doing strategic big fleet work. Nullsec should be made extremely valuable. A guy living there should be able to make more than a level 4 bear after allowing for: time spent hauling things much further distances, time spent defending against raiders, and time spent involved in major fights. Plus through in a bit more to compensate for the extreme risk of living out there. The crappiest nullsec needs to be better than the best hisec. Even now, there is pretty much zero economic incentive in terms of the average player to get out to nullsec or fight. Alliances fight over high end moons, and mostly people fight for the love of fighting. Proposed changes remove what weak economic incentives there are, whilst kicking away the means that allow people to fight for love. Utterly insane. What frightens me most is how can CCP think like this? It's almost like they made EVE by accident. They seem to have no idea how it works. Why doesn't Greyscale take a year out, roll a fresh character, and try to build a corp and get into nullsec. This is a serious proposal. I reckon if he did that, then next year we'd have much better thought through proposals. EVE does have many areas of broken gameplay. But until CCP gets a clue, they would be best confining themselves to technical fixes.
Aemmaria	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:02:00 - [568] Originally by: Vardec Crom What you will do is make life very, very difficult for a good majority of null seccers who just want to pvp. Satisfying desire of that type by full 100% leads to Counter Strike. Just saying. What we have here is an eternal problem of a dreaded level 4 benchmark.
Shannik	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:02:00 - [569] i think people wont share any sites like most of the more experienced players do with the sites atm, so this means the lesser skilled pilots will be put back in hisec again because noone wants to help em earn isk and share the wealth anymore. kudo's ccp for killing 0.0 population even more and making the hi sp players richer again and the change for the younger players to grow in the game even more difficult.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:03:00 - [570] Anyone else remember the old days when CCP used troll alts to announce bad ideas? Why didn't CCP Nohz announce this one? Do an eve-search on CCP nohz to see what I mean.

Kijo Rikki Caldari Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:05:00 - [571] I don't really know what's going on but I will say this change was a kick in the balls for us on timing alone. We just finished installing a level 5 upgrade to our home system and brought down a second for a neighboring one. Considering the truesec of the space we hold, that was a giant waste of money! Also reading the blog to me sounded like this: Quote: Expected consequences: People will buy more plexes and generate more real income for CCP
qlko1	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:05:00 - [572] CCP, make the vote, let's see what people think about this idea. U're making those changes for us, right? Maybe it's time to ask us about our point of view. VOTE!
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:05:00 - [573] Stop whine about the nerf. Look at the real world. No big empires (Hello USA, China and Russia) have 100% profitble land. Most of their "landmark" is pretty useless. SHould be the same in EVE. WAnt an empire? Be prepared to pay for the crapspace that comes with it. Dont wanna live in a crap region and pay for it? Well dont do it, live there anyway or move to better space.
padshiiangel	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:07:00 - [574] Originally by: qlko1 CCP, make the vote, let's see what people think about this idea. U're making those changes for us, right? Maybe it's time to ask us about our point of view. VOTE! good idea
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:11:00 - [575] Originally by: Ignatius Gnarl The crappiest nullsec needs to be better than the best hisec. Even now, there is pretty much zero economic incentive in terms of the average player to get out to nullsec or fight. Alliances fight over high end moons, and mostly people fight for the love of fighting. Proposed changes remove what weak economic incentives there are, whilst kicking away the means that allow people to fight for love. Utterly insane. What frightens me most is how can CCP think like this? It's almost like they made EVE by accident. They seem to have no idea how it works. Why doesn't Greyscale take a year out, roll a fresh character, and try to build a corp and get into nullsec. This is a serious proposal. I reckon if he did that, then next year we'd have much better thought through proposals. first paragraph... incorrect. ive said this before... just because it has a lower security status does not make it a better place to rat. it could have 3 belts... second paragraph... if CCP frightens you pick another game or go back to hi-sec. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
DjDangle The Fraternal Association of Killer Squibs Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:12:00 - [576] Originally by: qlko1 CCP, make the vote, let's see what people think about this idea. U're making those changes for us, right? Maybe it's time to ask us about our point of view. VOTE! agreed (Oh the memories........)
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:14:00 - [577] Originally by: ShoreTay The levels are utter fail in this thread is simply astounding. The status quo is a problem for many reasons: All 0.0 space has essentially the same profitability right now; there is no reason to fight for "better space" 0.0 is an incredible isk faucet, while missions are not. Most of the rewards from missions don't put any isk into the economy, while Sanctums are helping to pump like 800B a month into the economy Truesec is meaningless. CCP designed trusec to make certain space more desirable than others. Obviously moongoo ruined this plan, but sanctums still generate way more isk per month that even the best moongoo if they are properly farmed. All I seem to see in this thread is "whaaaaaa, I can't pay for 0.0 without my Sanctums, whaaaaaa." Good. Make allies, fight for better space, move, quit. I don't care. It shouldn't be so easy for everyone to make 50M an hour (I'm hoping this mission nerf is great). I don't live in 0.0. I won't really be affected from these changes, but I know that something needs to be changed. Absolutely something needs to change, but as you freely admit, you don't live in 0.0. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like. Like I said, this will in no way change Alliance goals. People aren't going to start sieging blues for better ratting systems, thats the facts. All this does is introduce an inconvenience to your average null sec player. As far as making 50 mil an hour from sanctums, yea, it's 0.0, you know, the risk vs reward doctrine? In my opinion it should be more profitable. If CCP wants to have more fights, this is not the way to do it, and every nullsec player will agree.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:19:00 - [578] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. This is sort of true. The number of anoms (just like the number of belts) dictates the maximum number of players a system can support, but does not usually affect their income, since as things currently stand, the number of players active in a system is unlikely to go above the system's carrying capacity. In my experience in Fountain, a typical Haven/Sanctum can support up to four or five players at a time without significant degradation of their income. A Drone Patrol/Horde can support approximately three players; for example: a carrier, a battleship/battlecruiser, and a Noctis salvager. So long as players cooperate, merely reducing the number of Haven/Sanctum spawns won't terribly degrade individual pilot income so long as pilots cooperate to run the one Sanctum their system has. However, eliminating Havens (nevermind Sanctums) altogether will have a very adverse effect on individual pilot income, since the next-best anomalies, Hubs/Drone Squads, are less profitable to such an extent that they cannot reasonably support a typical pilot who engages in regular PvP, especially alliance-scale PvP where ship loss is highly probable. So systems with no Havens whatsoever (almost 40% under the proposed changes) will at best be able to only support two or three pilots at a given time. This will not be an issue for small entities whose pilots can go back to belt ratting without coming into conflict, or for large entities whose space contains multiple systems in the best truesec bracket; however, regions such as Providence and Geminate are liable to lose significant portions of their populations because as things stand they will lose virtually all of their good anomalies, and will no longer be able to support current population densities. While it would be nice if those alliances moved to better space, most probably those alliances will simply start to bleed members since all of the good space is already occupied. Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Under your proposed changes, space at the lowest end of the bracket will not be upgradeable in any meaningful way. As I've said time and again, and as many other players can verify, the income from anomalies below Havens is so low that it's not worth installing the upgrades to get them. The new pilot can make more ISK belt ratting than running Hubs. So the carrying capacity of low-value space actually cannot be increased far as ratting goes. Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. This is a valid concern. However, the proposed changes remove many of the incentives for new alliances to move into areas such as Providence or Geminate or Cloud Ring, since the carrying capacity of those regions will be drastically reduced. It might not be a bad idea to reduce the value of 'newbie' regions, but that reduction should not be quite as drastic. Furthermore, as has been stated time and again, alliance-scale conflict more often revolves around moons, not the incomes of individual players.
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:19:00 - [579] Stop whine, everything cant be fair. Mostly northen people whining, wounder why...... You already have the moons, so should be all fair, or dont tell me only MM and Razor owns em
Sisinnius	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:20:00 - [580] Edited by: Sisinnius on 26/03/2011 15:25:31 Edited by: Sisinnius on 26/03/2011 15:21:52 Dear CCP Failscale it is becoming increasingly apparent that CCP has lost touch with what is going on in their own game. Maybe take a longer look at EVE and leave DUST for a bit to find out why... Since I have been in the game null sec has gone from digital toilet paper to 'where it's at' in EVE terms...There are far more smaller alliances already living in and investing in null sec that there ever was, either directly or through rental ('pet') agreements.. With respect to investment please remember the trillions of ISK that have been invested by alliances in upgrades, this will have the effect of killing smaller alliances who already have a foothold in crap-sec... Your pathological disregard to fix what is not broken is in stark contrast to your failure to deal what is wrong in EVE ....breathkaing in it's ignorance.... - Reduce genuine player income from grinding versus botting and RMT - Focus on LAG reduction On the botting/RMT point - what do you think about CCP being seen to nerf the honest player but not take a single action against botting or RMT. By the way botters dont care what their system is like as they operate on an ISK-over-time basis.....more powah to the botters, eh comrades ??? In terms of your perceived 'benefits': - Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space @ Or they wont cos they have good space already @ They will grab more crap-sec to compensate for their members and in doing so nerfing the the ability of your oh-so-loved fledgling null sec alliances to get a foothold @ hey will kick out renters or pets from decent space and transplant them to crap-sec or they return to high-sec - In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals @ Helllo, we're over here, [whistles], stop fiddling with DUST, remember us, we play EVE.... - Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec @ I think I have pointed out why the contrary will happen (what do you mean by a foothold, less money in crap-sec is not a one-way-ticket to station-ville, ihub-ville, upgrades-ville) - Coalitions will be marginally less stable @ I refer the honourable Failscale to my "have you looked at EVE recently" comment - 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) @ Rather annoyingly they already spent TRILLIONS upgrading systems only for them to be turned into large floating paper-weights EVE is currently more vibrant and better than it was a few years back, don't make it crash back, there will be an exodus fom the game if you break whats right with it and ignore what's wrong with it....

Commanders Heaven Gallente Advocated-Destruction	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:25:00 - [581] Can One of the DEVS please make me understand how on earth the smaller alliance BENEFITS from this? This will not make any of the powerblocks go away. You will only make people be more concentrated inn the best systems. Atm you actually have 0.0 at the spot were everyone can live of 1 to 3 systems, removing sanctums and heavens from higher sec 0,0 systems aint what you should do. The way to actually make this game work towards what you inteend it to do is if you nerf moon go. If you nerf moon goo, people will again actually have to grind a little for the isk. This is just terrible inn any way and it clearly shows how terrible you understand it is to play this game. You finally made 0.0 a living place for people who cant compete with the biggest blocs. and now your nerfing them to the point were holding 0,0 space with high sec rating is not worth it. Way to go. It's the members who make the corp, and not the other way around...
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:28:00 - [582] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. This is an interesting thought, and one I have not had time to consider. I suppose my biggest concern is that several regions will have virtually no good systems, and thus be able to support very few pilots, leading to less conflict. Assuming that this is not the case, and that the carrying capacity of most regions as a whole will not be adversely affected, this might not be as bad a change as I had feared. Again, thanks for keeping us informed.
Remorox Morne Attitude	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:29:00 - [583] Terrible changes that are going to hurt 90% of the 0.0 players. Pets are going to have absolutely no chance of making enough isk to pay for rent now that these 'changes' are going to put all of the 0.0 population in a handful of systems. I guess if you want to force everyone to high sec mission running to pay for 0.0 PvP your changes are good :/. Every mega alliance is going to cram all the good systems, and leave the **** systems for renters. Sure, small alliances will have more systems to NPC in, but you're going to make these systems so bad that it'll be impossible to compete with the isk/hr that can be made doing missions. GG. Here's to hoping 20 pages of complaints makes CCP reverse their shortsighted decisions.
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:36:00 - [584] What most of you whiners completly miss is that it cost to little to keep a large empire going. If we look at NC for an example. The Rome of NC is Morhus Mihi. Thats the center of NC and where all the riches is going. They also have the military power of nc with lots of supercaps and so on. To maintain their empire the cost is today ZERO. They move in smaller alliance who can live in the border regions and supply themself cuz of equal space. RAWR has the best moon probobly in the border egion as a fee to protect em. But that is not a major setback for the border alliances, they can rat like no tomorrow. But look at the roman empire, the border regions of their empire just was a giant isksink. It costed them a fortune to keep those borderegions under control, the price to have the better more richer regions safe. It was cost/benefit situation. Dont proect the outer borders and risk their incomerich regions to get raided, or defend them and live with the cost. Same thing should be in EVE. It has to cost a fortune to keep a larger section of space going. Either RAWR has to pay for someone to live in a ****ty space, by sharing moons or allow them to rat in better places, or ignore tose regions and live with hostile forces live closer to them. Good to see CCP is going back from easy mode to hardmode.
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:40:00 - [585] 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, - 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. Good morning Greyscale you moron. I see that a good nights sleep has not imporved your intelegence at least. Why do you find this so hard to get through your thick skull: As per your figures, 80% of nul sec will be useless, and 20% will be valuable; now who do you think will be controling the 20%? And anyone who wants to fight them for it, what are they going to use to finance the war? 80% of nul sec will move back to hi-sec and the power-blocks will be even more entrenched and richer... Please will you wake up and smell the coffee. Actually no, resign and leave us all alone. Go do your beancounting somewhere else.
Ed Rush Erasers inc. Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:43:00 - [586] HAHA :D GO CCP :D first get players to ihub systems etc.. upgarde... and then remove the benefits :D :D
Kimsemus H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:47:00 - [587] Edited by: Kimsemus on 26/03/2011 15:48:07 Why do you guys think this is a good idea? You put sanctums into 0.0 to make it more available for more people, now you're going to begin nerfing it, while buffing the number of lvl 4 agents in 100% highsec? I think I can see where your priorities are... (As if there was any doubt before)The alliance who are NOT the north already don't have access to the absurd amount of moongoo isk, so sanctum ratting pretty much is their only means of recourse, not that that even holds a candle to the zero-labor required isk farm that some of the moons are... Granted we own lower Catch and have some of the lowest truesec in the game, but this just kind of makes the south weaker, imo.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:47:00 - [588] my question is, will we see the same changes applied to high sec? if the risk:reward ratio for 0.0 is so far out of whack that drastic crap like this needs done then surely level 4 missions in high security space are even more out of whack? will rewards and bounties in high security missions, which are nothing more than private, guaranteed access anomalies, face the same idiotic changes? fair is fair and what is good for the goose and all that crap. this is just CCP's NGE, welcome to loosing a LOT of customers if these changes go live.
Jaggins Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:50:00 - [589] I have consulted the Oracle. She has given me a Black Prophecy about a Perpetuum of Knights from an Old Republic that exists a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Help us sensible Devs, you are our only hope.
Raimo Genos Occidere	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:52:00 - [590] 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 IMHO the direction CCP is taking with the outlined anomaly changes is good, don't listen to the carebear whines, if you think it will help 0.0 become a better place do it! (it could very well work) ---------- Prom4csm

Urgan Nagru	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:53:00 - [591] Originally by: Shannik i think people wont share any sites like most of the more experienced players do with the sites atm, so this means the lesser skilled pilots will be put back in hisec again because noone wants to help em earn isk and share the wealth anymore. kudo's ccp for killing 0.0 population even more and making the hi sp players richer again and the change for the younger players to grow in the game even more difficult. I completely agree with this, having the ability to upgrade systems, such as the one we had in Scalding Pass (-0.17) truesec, allowed us as a small corp to expand and make isk in an otherwise useless part of space that had recently been vacated. If the sanctums and havens had been nerfed we couldnt have survived there.
Schani Kratnorr Internal Revenue Service	Posted - 2011.03.26 15:53:00 - [592] Originally by: "CCP Greyscale" While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec. This is wrong and any changes you make based on it will be wrong too. Upgrades and anomalies specifically have nothing to do with stopping conflict in 0.0 space. In fact, having 'room' for more than two people in each system is making 0.0 potentially useful. By prematurely nerfing that because of the 'titan ratting'-isk-faucet-problem will just elevate something else to the forefront of the "most isk/hour"-que. The real cause of the lack of conflict in 0.0 (asuming there even is one,) is the fact that the game cannot handle a hundred people jumping into another hundred. The sov. Capture-the-flag type sov. warfare system is partially responsible because it forces the opposing sides into blob warfare by default. "Just get online, get in target system and wait guys!..." This kind of gameplay is booring and results in limited participation thus creating a set of "vicory conditions" for the side that cares the most. What we are seeing now is the emergence of a new middle class of multibillionaires who rake in tons of isk from bounties and often leave the loot to rot. These bllionaires are the cannonfodder in a super-capital arms race. The feb-march O2O system wars are the beginning of the kind of gameplay we kan expect to dominate 0.0 sov warfare. By effectively talking about nerfing the way upgrades effect isk/hour you are scewing the playing field further and not adressing the main problem - raw bounty payout. I seem to recall a while back when the bounty-to-loot ratio in missions was changed. the argument then was that it should require effort to "get your reward." The same approach is needed now more than ever. Just have a look at the source of most of the isk coming in to the system and realize how the players gravitate towards the place where they don't have to pick up scraps to get paid. Bounties go into wallet, and from there back into fun & games. If you change that, you change how people use and abuse sov. upgrades. That is just part of it though. Until you effectively re-design sov warfare the major players cannot effectively fight each other. In the long run, the erratic performance simply wont allow anything remotely interesting to take place. Some times both sides load (mostly,) and get a proper fight where tactics and individual skill mean something, but more often than not, you are stuck with the "three modes of EVE." Working // modules cycle as normal w. 0-10 sec. perceived delay. Rubber band // player experience changes dynamically from 'normal' to 'stuck' and back. Veteran blob warfare logistics pilots will have a good idea what I mean. You have to anticipate and stay one step ahead of the 'zerg-like' targeting by the opponent. The very action of coordinating your actions causes nodes to overload. So each "change of primary" is usually accompanied by an increase in the number of outstanding packets. This then results in "poor client performance," which in turn is what puts a "damper on conflict in nullsec." Soul-negating-lag // node cannot keep up, number of outstanding packets climb, player behaviour starts to compound the problem. So before you abuse you powers and use ****ty server code, isk faucets and uninspired sov.warfare design as a reson to nerf one of the many isk faucets, please consider the facts. Facts - Excluding cynoships, there are now only eight ships worth piloting when it comes to sov.warfare - The apocalyptic do-or-die nature of sov. results in lemming-behaviour, which in turn funnels players into single systems. Their numbers inevitably exceed the limits of any system you can design (and pay for at any given time.) - ISK-direct-into-wallet bounty payouts still dominate the "top ISK/hour guides." /TLDR: nerfing anomaly upgrades wont fix 0.0 warfare
Vincent Jarjadian	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:05:00 - [593] If you want to make lower truesec space better.... then leave the lower end systems as they are and make the higher end ones better than currently but for a higher sov cost for sanctums/havens. This might... give someone a reason to fight for better systems and keep the current systems as populated as before... As for giving new alliances the ability to get into 0.0 space without need for massive cap/supercap forces... Put in more space further out from empire which would require colonization... Large alliances cant control too large a space without leaving themselves open to attack... Or add in constellaitons which are not linked to other constellations and require some input from wormholes/cynos/JBs to get into. maybe even make it so you need to scan down the stargates within these constellations. Just dont nerf the space we use to pay for PVPing... Battleships and T2 ships and capitals are expensive toys to go pop in a few seconds... especially in the recent very laggy battles.
zealot shakree	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:12:00 - [594] Quote: 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 You are doing the right thing Greyscale. The majority of the negative feedback you are getting is from NC goons who realize that these changes actually have a chance at making half of eve no longer blue to them and idiots who either don't remember a time before anomalies or have only been playing for 15 months and will do or say anything to make sure they don't lose their precious anomalies. For those of us who have been around for longer then a year, its obvious that things get along just fine without anomalies, in fact one of the most densely populated a vibrant areas of eve pre-dominion was shock providence. For those of you who say this will just make low truesec systems a wasteland all I have to do is point to the fact that a 1500 man alliance functioned just fine in one of these "wastelands" before anomalies even existed. Its true that moon minerals are the main source of most high end alliances income, but the money that the grunts use to pay for pvp come from anoms, plexes, and gasp belt ratting, if you implement these changes the grunts will start pushing their alliances to seek better space if they aren't happy with the amount of income they are getting, which is exactly what you want. If they don't want to seek better space then they can start distributing riches they are receiving from the moons these grunts who are the ones who die protecting these assets instead of hording it. This is a much needed change and I hope you have the courage to go through with it, don't listen to predictably high percentage of negative responses from the NC and MM and their countless mindless goon pets as they are obviously being whipped into a frenzy via jabber, forums, ect. They have done no research and are simply whining about their anomalies being taken away or regurgitating baseless claims on what the effects of these changes will be in hopes that if enough of them cry they can effectively prevent these changes and maintain the status quo which is obviously not acceptable. I believe these changes are a step in the right direction but some other things will need to be done if you really want the effects you proposed to become a reality. Namely the high end moon distributions, spawning some more high end moons in southern space will be nice, all those moons in northern space wont last forever and it would be nice to watch NC actually have to stage an assault somewhere besides their backyard to maintain their moon goo flow. (can you imagine watching 50k ******s trying to deploy lol)
Ed Rush Erasers inc. Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:18:00 - [595] the ihubs should be removed along with them and the old sov system re-introduced imho. :D
Forumena Altair	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:19:00 - [596] Before Dominion wars were fought over rare moons. After Dominion wars were still fought over moons, not sanctums. After this "proposed" change, wars will STILL be fought over for moons. ITS THE MOONS STUPID!
shadowfire88	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:23:00 - [597] Originally by: Vincent Jarjadian If you want to make lower truesec space better.... then leave the lower end systems as they are and make the higher end ones better than currently but for a higher sov cost for sanctums/havens. So basically just just make eve ridiculously easy? +1 to the proposed changes.
Jennifer Weir	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:23:00 - [598] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - 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. Are you trolling us? You better be. Rich players are going to stay where they are. Poor players will go back to highsec to do L4s or just flat out quit because you took their fun away. Yeah, it sounds lame, but that's what you are doing. Large alliances are going to stay where they are. Small alliances are (even more) screwed and will likely go back to highsec/lowsec or just close altogether. I personally enjoy doing anoms and hate, HATE, HATE, missions and agents. Removing quality isn't going to make me hate agents less. Anoms let me fight 1 enemy consistently. I lose standing with 1 pirate faction. I'm ok with that. Missions have decline timers and a bunch of other really stupid **** I can't stand. Fly here, kill this, fly back, repeat. No. Nerfing even a few nullsec systems to make less than L4/5s is just so stupid that if I used the correct words to describe it this forum would replace it with *s. If you make this change you will see 5 canceled accounts from me right off the bat. I'm not gonna be like this other guys and say I'm gonna quit and then don't or just come back later. I quit another game just the same, and now I play EVE. I don't bluff, and I'm sure a lot of others don't either. If you do this I'm quitting and I'm not looking back. Period.
Kajan Tormen Minmatar Blood Money Inc. The Blood Money Cartel	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:26:00 - [599] Originally by: Malcanis I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. he said it better then I ever could, so I'm just going ahead and quote this. fully agree!
Webby McWebberson	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:35:00 - [600] will the broken true sec of Delve/Fountain be fixed or just business as usual? nerf moons. afk cloakers rock.

Orar Ironfist Veto.	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:43:00 - [601] 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 Your doing the right thing. Dont cave to whiners
Ancyker Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:47:00 - [602] Edited by: Ancyker on 26/03/2011 16:53:40 This is so fail. I think you got nullsec confused with highsec. Highsec is "safe" yet you can make almost as much as in null currently. So your change make you make less in over half of null than in highsec with more risk than highsec. What is this? Are you high? Do you really not see it? I can't believe this **. Here's some points for you: Alliances mostly only care about systems with good moons Only individual members care about havens and sanctums A large alliance isn't going to move leaving behind good moons just because a few members want more sanctums Space with crappy anoms will still be held by large alliances just because they can. That's by your design, if you want region sov you need a lot of systems Even if small alliances manage to take crappy space no one else wants, they won't be able to afford to keep it because you nerfed their income. Unless they want to run missions in highsec to pay for their nullsec ops. You just said "regional income is on average the same" ... so why make the change at all if nothing is really changing? If you want to "fix" nullsec then change the sov system or how moons work, not the anoms which really only the individual cares about. Doing it this way just **es off your customers that enjoy doing anoms in null.
zealot shakree	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:52:00 - [603] Originally by: Ancyker This is so fail. I think you got nullsec confused with highsec. Highsec is "safe" yet you can make almost as much as in null currently. So your change make you make less in null than in highsec with more risk than highsec. What is this? Are you high? Do you really not see it? I can't believe this ****. Just another dumb NC goon whining about his anomalies being taken away, Don't listen to the baseless emotional reactions of the mass of goon idiots who never even played eve pre dominion
Ancyker Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.26 16:54:00 - [604] Originally by: zealot shakree Originally by: Ancyker This is so fail. I think you got nullsec confused with highsec. Highsec is "safe" yet you can make almost as much as in null currently. So your change make you make less in null than in highsec with more risk than highsec. What is this? Are you high? Do you really not see it? I can't believe this ****. Just another dumb NC goon whining about his anomalies being taken away, Don't listen to the baseless emotional reactions of the mass of goon idiots who never even played eve pre dominion Test isn't in NC genius.
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:04:00 - [605] Originally by: Ancyker Originally by: zealot shakree Originally by: Ancyker This is so fail. I think you got nullsec confused with highsec. Highsec is "safe" yet you can make almost as much as in null currently. So your change make you make less in null than in highsec with more risk than highsec. What is this? Are you high? Do you really not see it? I can't believe this ****. Just another dumb NC goon whining about his anomalies being taken away, Don't listen to the baseless emotional reactions of the mass of goon idiots who never even played eve pre dominion Test isn't in NC genius. Yes you are, check that blue list again.
Im Blue	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:07:00 - [606] 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 so clearly you dont play eve. your understanding of what players want and what alliances want are so wrong its not funny. you ** people over with the now planned ty value upgrades after they have spend the time, effort and isk on them, you better be offering refunds and discouted **ing sov bills, to counter the stupid ideas on a none eve playing fool.
BlondieBC Minmatar Galactic Exploration and Missions	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:21:00 - [607] This change nerfs null sec, and does a relative high sec buff. This change will move more people back to income. CCP should have any null sec nerf balanced by a high sec nerf. Why not do one of the following: 1) Lower bounties, rewards, and LP of high sec missions and income by 25%. 2) Move all level 4 agents to low sec and null sec? 3) Limited the number of missions per agents per hour. For example, maybe one agent should only give a combined 15 missions per hour to all players. 4) Change loot table so no meta 3 or 4 loot is dropped in high sec.
apefaced	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:22:00 - [608] CCP GrayScale didn't even bother to make an avatar lol
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:29:00 - [609] Originally by: BlondieBC This change nerfs null sec, and does a relative high sec buff. This change will move more people back to income. CCP should have any null sec nerf balanced by a high sec nerf. Why not do one of the following: 1) Lower bounties, rewards, and LP of high sec missions and income by 25%. 2) Move all level 4 agents to low sec and null sec? 3) Limited the number of missions per agents per hour. For example, maybe one agent should only give a combined 15 missions per hour to all players. 4) Change loot table so no meta 3 or 4 loot is dropped in high sec. They are already making changes to mission running which are going to heavily nerf them, so read up next time.
Tommy Blue Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:30:00 - [610] Edited by: Tommy Blue on 26/03/2011 17:35:28 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: Tommy Blue I'm going to say this again. The worst nullsec system in eve should still make you more money than the best level four missions. not every system is meant to rat in... what happens when its a system with 3 belts and -0.01?... the mentality that all 0.0 is good is quite unrealistic... it may have moons but as for ratting... lol. Not as they are, but fully upgraded, the worst 0.0 system needs to at least support a ratting activity that nets more than the best lvl 4 misison (ISK per hour).

Tommy Blue Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:34:00 - [611] Edited by: Tommy Blue on 26/03/2011 17:34:02
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:34:00 - [612] Originally by: progodlegend Originally by: Ancyker Originally by: zealot shakree Originally by: Ancyker This is so fail. I think you got nullsec confused with highsec. Highsec is "safe" yet you can make almost as much as in null currently. So your change make you make less in null than in highsec with more risk than highsec. What is this? Are you high? Do you really not see it? I can't believe this **. Just another dumb NC goon whining about his anomalies being taken away, Don't listen to the baseless emotional reactions of the mass of goon idiots who never even played eve pre dominion Test isn't in NC genius. Yes you are, check that blue list again. Who is blue has nothing to do with who is part of the NC. TEST and Goons are not part of the NC. The panel is going on right now...I hope someone at the fanfest calls Greyscale out on this and asks about this thread. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!**
Sir Ota Amarr Attack Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:39:00 - [613] This is a huge step back and complete nonsense. This innovation will not cause wars, etc..., just force many people to go back to the empire. War of alliances are caused quite other reasons. Null sector will be almost empty.
Aiwha Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:43:00 - [614] This is great. People saying that alliances won't have their incomes affected by this, remember, if player's get disgruntled (by getting nerfed income) they'll either pressure their leaders to move to greener pastures, or find an alliance that holds better space. Tech moons are valuable, but if their truesec gets nerfed, you'll have to find your ratters a better place for personal income, as well as holding those precious moons. There's no such thing as overkill, only degrees of effectiveness.
Missm Uppet Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:43:00 - [615] Greyscale and those involved, please reconsider these changes or at least their presentation to all of us. As it stands, 0.0 is already an incredibly harsh environment to make ISK in for the average player. Or at least that is the general conception when compared with empire and other safe/easy forms of income. For a change this substantial, you at least need to backup your assumptions and conclusions with both more data and analysis. From my own experience in 0.0, I don't think you're going to be able to justify this kind of change even with more explanation because frankly I don't think you thought this out and took all things into consideration. At least consider encouraging a different reason to fight over space beyond income. There are plenty of non-ISK incentives in the realm of clout and vanity that have had little or no consideration from CCP in recent memory. Please reconsider the changes outlined in this devblog.
Grath Telkin Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:46:00 - [616] Dear sweet jesus its a great time to own delve.
Mya ElleTerego Amarr The Hull Miners Union Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:48:00 - [617] I will prolly get flamed in my alliance chat, as we live in in providence atm, but I think its a good idea. I still remember ratting in belts, and looking for plexs to make isk. Once upon a time you didnt make 50-60 mil isk per hour ratting in your carriers / SC, and gasp eve still existed. I do think its the wrong approach tho, I think ccp needs to revamp moon minerals, make sure the bottlenecks are shifted back to prom / dyspo which are much more evenly distributed than technetium which was a sham at the highest level. I also remember when ccp introduced dominion and anyone who had sov the old way found out they had about 10-200 Pos's they didnt need anymore, that didnt cause everyone to quit the game however, I sincerely doubt this would either. Then again, I wouldnt mind seeing half the carebears that farm isk in anom's quit the game. One of the critical things about this, and why its actually important to do, is that pre dominion most of the best systems weren't in perfectly situated dead end pockets, that allowed 10 min warning before hostiles showed up in your system and you had 20 large t2 bubbles on the gate, and jump bridges to ensure you could easily camp your enemies raiding party in like it was a joke. And farm in 99.9 % safety in your motherships in anoms and hulk herds in grav belts. Thats not what 0.0 is about. If you think it is, then you suck and are out of touch from real pvpers. Sitting in a 1000 man blob, black screened isnt pvp, its a byproduct of cowardice and disdain from pvp. Moving squishy carebears back into harms way is a good thing for pvp, and will encourage more small gang roaming parties. TLDR: CCP should perhaps shift thier rare space band to more of a -.9 to -1.0 band should be a good bit better than it is now, fully upgraded. -.6 to -.89 same as it is now, and progressively worse afterwards. Also shift moon mineral requirements for t2 production, and flood the market with more moon minerals in each region, not just 3 regions near tribute again........ That alone will encourage regular pvp, in small gangs, medium gangs, and fleets from large alliances trying to bash each others moons, and spread the wealth to all alliances in eve.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:49:00 - [618] Originally by: BlondieBC This change nerfs null sec, and does a relative high sec buff. This change will move more people back to income. CCP should have any null sec nerf balanced by a high sec nerf. Why not do one of the following: 1) Lower bounties, rewards, and LP of high sec missions and income by 25%. 2) Move all level 4 agents to low sec and null sec? 3) Limited the number of missions per agents per hour. For example, maybe one agent should only give a combined 15 missions per hour to all players. 4) Change loot table so no meta 3 or 4 loot is dropped in high sec. Wow this is worse than Greyscale's ideas. Nerfing games never works. You nerf to much you **** off to many people and you have a meltdown like SWG had when SOE burned it with the NGE. They are in essence also nerfing high sec with their removing of agent quality. (Yay more wasted skill points). ......check Fanfest stuff if you don't believe me. This is the cycle every game reaches, a series of nerfs and tweaks to existing game data to create a 'new' experience because they don't want to devote the resources necessary to create real new content. I still contend that if they want a dynamic conflict zone they have to make it so the null sec systems can support hundreds of people. Until they can comfortably support 100 per system or more then you will always see these large empires. The second thing they have to do is introduce new regions regularly. It keeps the game moving and nothing really changed dynamics as much as the introduction of the drone regions. Drone Regions were also well placed making what was an existing backwater...Geminate...a strategic chokepoint and the place of many battles and wars since. We need more of that. After its introduction there was wars over the drones for probably 2 years maybe 3 before they were finally consolidated. That's the kind of dynamic change you need. New regions leave the established groups mostly where they are, providing new outlets for those wanting to test the waters. You'd need some new rats of course, perhaps long lost tribes or maybe just maybe first contact with some alien species.... Reducing the income of players as they propose means the smaller/mid size alliances can never really aspire to unseat one of the big boys. They simply will never have the resources able to do so. Which means even if Grey's plan worked it would peter out in about 6 months after the shift occurs and new pets appear. Moons need some changing but I'd just be happy to see Tech made so it can be made with alchemy. If you make moon depletion like some suggest you'll find in time that no one will invest in empire building if it can be gone at a drop of a hat. More than anything EVE needs a big expansion even if rolled out in pieces that introduces a large number of new ships, equipment, etc. These will change strategic and tactical decisions. Mine Fields (anchorable bubbles, damage by race time, Space Demolition skill needed) Minelayer (Like current HICs but generate a bubble of mines, damage again by racial type) Mine Sweeper (Creates a safe bubble inside a minefield...remember to raise its bubble first...smaller bubble) EW Battleships (Why are the Caldari the only ones with a Battleship EW platform, surely the others would realize value of them) Drone Screening Vessel (Armed with rapid firing rockets/guns etc creates a zone of damage in a bubble that only damages drones/fighters/fighter bombers) Missile Screening Vessel (Similar to the DSV but damages missiles/torpedos in its bubble) Heavy Stealth Bombers (Can carry multiple bomb launchers) Subspace Disruption Fields (Webs in a buble) Subspace Interdictors (like the warp DICs and HICs we have now just do web like effect) etc The only thing it takes is CCP devoting sufficient resources to create such content which sadly I don't think they've been willing to do the last couple of years.
Meeogi Amarr	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:51:00 - [619] I think ALL high end moon goo should come from WH space. Wax on Wax off
Any Guy	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:52:00 - [620] Long time lurker, second time poster. CCP stop thinking silly thoughts. No-one likes this idea.

jitadwella	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:53:00 - [621] Originally by: Ace Frehley What most of you whiners completly miss is that it cost to little to keep a large empire going. If we look at NC for an example. The Rome of NC is Morhus Mihi. Thats the center of NC and where all the riches is going. They also have the military power of nc with lots of supercaps and so on. To maintain their empire the cost is today ZERO. They move in smaller alliance who can live in the border regions and supply themself cuz of equal space. RAWR has the best moon probobly in the border egion as a fee to protect em. But that is not a major setback for the border alliances, they can rat like no tomorrow. But look at the roman empire, the border regions of their empire just was a giant isksink. It costed them a fortune to keep those borderegions under control, the price to have the better more richer regions safe. It was cost/benefit situation. Dont proect the outer borders and risk their incomerich regions to get raided, or defend them and live with the cost. Same thing should be in EVE. It has to cost a fortune to keep a larger section of space going. Either RAWR has to pay for someone to live in a ****ty space, by sharing moons or allow them to rat in better places, or ignore tose regions and live with hostile forces live closer to them. Good to see CCP is going back from easy mode to hardmode. RISE, SEV3RANCE, RISE AGAINST THE SHACKLES! FIGHT THE HORDES OF SUPERCARRIERS! YOUR HUBS AND DENS WILL COMFORT AND AID YOUR BATTLE-WEARY WARRIORS AT DAYSEND, SHOWERING THEM IN RIFTER HULLS! (Seriously, am I the only one finding it ridiculously ironic that an NCdot of all people is saying that Pure Blind/Geminate residents can rise up and conquer Tribute?)
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 17:55:00 - [622] Ma'an - another nerf, why cant they buff the thing and give us the isk needed to go pvp without grinding and grinding. Or may be they could make it harder so that people can get caught in belts and anomolies and therefore hit and run gangs do have things to kill. the problem is this, rats in systems are too easy, there should be more chance to get caught in the belt or anomolly and therefore increase small town pvp. atm there is no point in spending time warping to system to system becuase as soon as you enter said ratters are aligned and are away. now make it so ALL ratters are warp scrambled by rats and problem solved. This is "nerfing of cosmics" so that it is dependent on truesec is so full of BS it honestly is laughable Nobody fights over true sec. usually having a good true sec is a bonus but when the day comes to someone saying "im fighting [said system] fleet up boys we have a high true sec to win - get to **** you bell-end. CCP ruined the game when you speed nerfed everything. You are on a loosing battle with this one and if it gets through good luck i think most people will be off to play another game that doesn't require quite the investment in time that this game does already.
Florestan Bronstein Amarr Taishi Combine	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:01:00 - [623] Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 26/03/2011 18:03:30 Originally by: StuRyan Ma'an - another nerf, why cant they buff the thing and give us the isk needed to go pvp without grinding and grinding. When you ask EVE players what makes EVE special "loss of assets upon death makes pvp meaningful" used to be a very common answer. Nowadays most forum posters seem to be concerned to make the impact of pvp losses as small as possible. Of course people are much more willing to pvp in some random WoW battleground where you respawn with full gear a few seconds after dying than in EVE where you have to spend a few hours grinding to replace your ship but is this really what EVE players want? Why don't they just switch their pvp activities to sisi if they are so concerned about having to replace losses and unfair fights?
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:06:00 - [624] Originally by: Mya ElleTerego Edited by: Mya ElleTerego on 26/03/2011 17:58:49 I will prolly get flamed in my alliance chat, as we live in in providence atm, but I think its a good idea. Consider yourself flamed
Paukinra Gallente Hard Rock Mining Co.	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:13:00 - [625] Originally by: Jaggins Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder. This, my corp rents its system, we cant move and we are in -.19 so we will just get kicked out form 0.0 for not paying our rent. And will just got back to high sec running lvl4s for isk when i dont get neough isk i wont go pvp so will get bored and cancel my sub. No, you cannot have my stuff [url=http://eve-kill.net?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=722354] [/url]
Rakamy	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:16:00 - [626] This is all well and good but you should have done it with moons as well......that will really light some fires under alliances/corps.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:17:00 - [627] Originally by: Paukinra Originally by: Jaggins Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder. This, my corp rents its system, we cant move and we are in -.19 so we will just get kicked out form 0.0 for not paying our rent. And will just got back to high sec running lvl4s for isk when i dont get neough isk i wont go pvp so will get bored and cancel my sub. No, you cannot have my stuff This is a concern I believe, its almost like CCP doesn't understand how the game is played. Current small/medium alliances are renters or owe allegiance to other alliances. They fail to pay or live up to obligations the big boys kick them out. If this is to much of a nerf hopefully the landlords will lower rents to help compensate.
Alana Gerardeau	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:18:00 - [628] This is total crap, CCP. I'm fine with making the lower truesec systems more profitable, but don't undercut the rest of nullsec. As it is, players in 0.0 - -2.0 systems don't get lots of faction or officer spawns. If you take away havens and sanctums, then you'll kill everyone's isk earning potential out in null. The long term impact will be that more corps won't be able to afford to settle in nullsec.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:26:00 - [629] Originally by: Florestan Bronstein Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 26/03/2011 18:03:30 Originally by: StuRyan Ma'an - another nerf, why cant they buff the thing and give us the isk needed to go pvp without grinding and grinding. When you ask EVE players what makes EVE special "loss of assets upon death makes pvp meaningful" used to be a very common answer. Nowadays most forum posters seem to be concerned to make the impact of pvp losses as small as possible. Of course people are much more willing to pvp in some random WoW battleground where you respawn with full gear a few seconds after dying than in EVE where you have to spend a few hours grinding to replace your ship but is this really what EVE players want? Why don't they just switch their pvp activities to sisi if they are so concerned about having to replace losses and unfair fights? I think you may find most people will be pvping on sisi if that is your menta
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:47:00 - [630] Originally by: Malcanis Utterly, utterly shameless CCP fellatio Get **ed. Forcing people who hold bad 0.0 space to move to empire to get anywhere near the same income is not a good change. It means fewer people living in 0.0, which means fewer people able to respond when roaming gangs come through, and fewer incentives to go out roaming anyway (since there's nobody out there to shoot). ________________ Originally by:** CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)

Kariva	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:48:00 - [631] BRAVO CCP You finaly found a way to reduce BLOBS. Fu.. off 80% of null sec inhibitants to high sec .... It's BRILIANT..... how did you get on it ...
IceBlade Rage Immortalis Silens Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:52:00 - [632] Bravo CCP, Bravo. One of your stated goals was to get more 0.0 space usable, so that more people would be in 0.0. This flies right in the face of that. These changes will force a lot of the smaller groups back into empire, because renters will not be able to pay for their systems, etc. Ratting systems don't cause conflicts. Moons and ideological differences cause that. Case in point, goons vs it, or the current nc vs drf.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:54:00 - [633] Originally by: Florestan Bronstein Short-sighted nonsense Because if people are already reluctant to PVP because losing their ship is actually a significant loss, making it take 3-4-5x longer to replace a ship is going to be GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for encouraging more PVP!!!! Or we'll just put all our guys into T1 cruisers!! 20 T1 cruisers is pretty good... Unless you compare it to the fleets of 20 HAC/20 T3 that currently everyone can support, thanks to system upgrades. Did you know that one fully upgraded system is already way worse than a decent level 4 agent? You can make about the same isk/hour all told (counting LP of course) but the 0.0 can support maybe 2-3 making that much, whereas a level 4 agent can support infinity people. Hell, if I wanted to just make a ton of isk, i'd live in Empire. I do my PVE in nullsec because it's more convenient, not because it's more lucrative. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
kasai zenpachi	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:02:00 - [634] The problem seems to me that ccp keeps adding to the game without fixing all the issues like lag. I tell you what we have tons of space low sec THAT NO ONE USES. why not make that useful by making low sec NPC 0.0 space OR making more plexes in low sec making them more valuable, so people will either move there or want to travel thru there. The mechanics of low sec sucks, try to adjust that and you will fix the problem, I can travel 30 systems thru low sec and see only 1-2 people every other system if that many.
Icarus Arcani	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:04:00 - [635] after a brief tally of the first 4 pages of comments its about 10:1 against in terms of posts. Doesnt account for the trollers ofc populist choices ftw!
Florestan Bronstein Amarr Taishi Combine	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:13:00 - [636] Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 26/03/2011 19:14:51 Originally by: Terianna Eri Hell, if I wanted to just make a ton of isk, i'd live in Empire. I do my PVE in nullsec because it's more convenient, not because it's more lucrative. many angry words but you don't address the point I am trying to make: pvp being "meaningful" (in the way outlined in my post) and pvp being frequent are design goals that oppose each other. imo that's common sense, not short-sighted. You may prefer frequent pvp over hurtful losses but as I wrote I distinctly remember reading a very different consensus in numerous WoW-bashing threads over the years.
Van Ketris	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:23:00 - [637] Right now ratting isn't really a reason for people to move around and seek better area's. I'm not necessarily against changing this, but I doubt you will get the intended results you are looking for. Right now we base our homes off of a few things, but most importantly for the majority of the middle of the road alliances it's about who will let you live where. You get the best space you can, and currently that allows you to compete financially on a member to member basis with anyone. If you change that, you will see smaller groups struggle to compete in the pvp arena while learning the ropes.
Sarrgon Caldari Avalonians United	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:30:00 - [638] To me, me the crappy 0.0 systems about worthless, how will they pay for their sov, SRP and such. They will never be able to take on the larger alliances / coalition, they will run out of ISK LONG before the larger alliances and coalitions that control the best space already. Only real way IMO to fix it is to make moongoo like PI. All moons, low sec, high sec or 0.0 anyone can mine from, multiple people per moon etc, like PI. Take away the huge ISK flow that only a few alliances really have. When newer / growing alliances / coalitions see that they can now compete with the larger established alliances / coalitions, they will be much more able to fight them and actually hope to win. But the newer alliances etc need to make good ISK in the crappy 0.0 systems to even try to make that a reality. All the answers we need are inside of us.
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:40:00 - [639] join the petition now! http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html
Van Ketris	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:50:00 - [640] Here's a perfect example for you to consider. Right now Romanian Legion (RL) lives in Esoteria in the AJG-MV constellation. They were happy with this space for ratting and even though they recently conquered Period Basis (PB) with the help of friends they decided to remain living where they were. With these changes you propose, you are indeed right, a group like this would most likely have moved to this higher true-sec space. However, what instead happened was they allowed nulli secunda, an up and coming, if not already arrived pvp alliance to move in. Also Vera Cruz, another newer, but upwardly mobile alliance who was living in 1 system, now got a decent chunk of space. The third part of the region is now in the hands of a few smaller alliances hoping to make a name for themselves in 0.0. With these changes RL will undoubtedly have to move to PB, and as I'm sure we all can guess the people who will get kicked out will be those few "weaker" alliances who could have used the profitable space to get on their feet. Esoteria Period Basis

Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:51:00 - [641] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 19:53:26 Well, i can only hope that this thread keeps growing in size to show CCP that everyone cares. But, according to the massive negative response the idea has received (And yes, different to other MMO forums, EVE's forums is known for having players who do know and care. Just look for threads about Suicide Ganking, AFK Cloaking and Gate Guns and you'll see what i mean.) we can gather one thing: The playerbase does NOT want any kind of null-sec system that has no havens and no sanctums. CCP Greyscale, please take that into account when you guys rethink this. Give sanctums and havens for -0.01 and work your way up. Small alliances ALREADY want to move (read: Expand) from the systems they're at, but because of the big power blocks, expanding takes time and study. The exact big power blocks that you will be helping with these changes. Make no mistake having MORE sanctums and MORE havens on their space helps them a lot, since you won't need to dilude the isk with a 5 man fleet running sanctums. Don't change the number of anomalies based on true-sec. Change the bounty of the anomaly rats based on true-sec.. I would start planning a move RIGHT NOW if sanctum battleships on a -0.95 systems were worth 1.800.000 ISK (Like they are in belts) instead of 1.200.000. My 65.536 cents. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Kongzhi Sung Gallente Marked For Elysium	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:53:00 - [642] Let me get this straight. You want players to move to nullsec, so you remove the best means for individuals to pay for doing it ? What are you people smoking? There will still be guaranteed lesser anomalies? Guess what: they are boring and the payoff is terrible. Ratting is doable, but more people in belts and more crowding means even less income, and oh yeah... boredom and frustration. If you want to nerf player income (because let's be honest, that's your most likely real goal here), how about using some finesse and forethought. People have burned vast sums of isk and (far more importantly) their TIME and effort making their homes worth a damn.. don't take a crap on us all now.
Lord Rapture Amarr TunDraGon Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:54:00 - [643] CCP's idea of making eve more interesting. Hey guys, lets force everyone to do more boring **** by making it pay less! surely this will lead to good fights and epic subscription growth?
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:01:00 - [644] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Malcanis Utterly, utterly shameless CCP fellatio Get **ed. Forcing people who hold bad 0.0 space to move to empire to get anywhere near the same income is not a good change. It means fewer people living in 0.0, which means fewer people able to respond when roaming gangs come through, and fewer incentives to go out roaming anyway (since there's nobody out there to shoot). Why wouldn't you compete for the better systems? To much hard work? C. the hydrostatic capsule blog**
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:06:00 - [645] Originally by: IceBlade Rage Bravo CCP, Bravo. One of your stated goals was to get more 0.0 space usable, so that more people would be in 0.0. This flies right in the face of that. These changes will force a lot of the smaller groups back into empire, because renters will not be able to pay for their systems, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that the people who have come in since then have been botters and appalling carebears. These people should be in highsec where they belong, not in 0.0. It's far to easy to replace ships now; losses should mean something. Making PVE in 0.0 worthwhile just encourages people to waste their time carebearing. Nullsec should be for PVP, not PVE.
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:06:00 - [646] Originally by: Renan Ruivo The playerbase does NOT want any kind of null-sec system that has no havens and no sanctums. The general consensus, at least to my understanding, is: - making truesec more meaningful again (it currently still affects regular belt rats and officer rates etc) is good - making systems more diverse is good - reducing the sustainable population density dominion brought to 0.0 is bad - having people earn their living in the space they live in is good - even the most uninteresting system should still be interesting enough to offset 0.0 and attract some players - the ressource reshuffle needs to be broader than just the elimination of some anomalies as a single magical fix What the mechanic that achieves this is called, who cares?
Matt Fairbanks I Heart Chaos Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:09:00 - [647] This is a great idea. I am very pleased with the direction that CCP is taking with this new change to null sec. As a null sec resident for the majority of my time playing Eve, I fully support this shift and hope that CCP continues with the direction it is taking.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:13:00 - [648] Originally by: Mioelnir Originally by: Renan Ruivo The playerbase does NOT want any kind of null-sec system that has no havens and no sanctums. The general consensus, at least to my understanding, is: - making truesec more meaningful again (it currently still affects regular belt rats and officer rates etc) is good - making systems more diverse is good - reducing the sustainable population density dominion brought to 0.0 is bad - having people earn their living in the space they live in is good - even the most uninteresting system should still be interesting enough to offset 0.0 and attract some players - the ressource reshuffle needs to be broader than just the elimination of some anomalies as a single magical fix What the mechanic that achieves this is called, who cares? Yup, i agree with that view. Like i said, i believe that Greyscale has his heart in the right place, but he's trying to tackle a Dramiel with a Warp Disruptor fit Drake. But tl;dr, its exactly the way i've put it. The playerbase does NOT want null-sec with no havens/sanctums. That's just bad ____________ I like woman because breasts
Daneel Trevize Black Viper Nomads	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:13:00 - [649] Decent pve rats and no local make w-space keep on trucking. Sucks to be you null guys!
xanavi Caldari I Heart Chaos Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:15:00 - [650] Originally by: Matt Fairbanks This is a great idea. I am very pleased with the direction that CCP is taking with this new change to null sec. As a null sec resident for the majority of my time playing Eve, I fully support this shift and hope that CCP continues with the direction it is taking. What he said. Ok, will you stop crying now Failbanks?

Sensaia The Wyld Hunt The G0dfathers	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:23:00 - [651] so is this in a way a promotion to more botters in the game so we can grind more isk in the lower parts of space, or in the space u currently own or rent or rent out to. but i see this change as just another disaster if its literal taken, there will be more out of Game cash infusion, GTC/ETC [which in a way will affect the ISK value on the ETC/GTC] sure more revenue for CCP but also as mentioned bfor more people that dont have RL isk and will go on the dark path the botter / RMT way. Its more difficult to come up with a solution that is balanced for everyone but that requires people at CCP to actually play EvE or demand what people in game actually think of such ideas bfor u blog about them with proud, and get a feeling of how things work
VOID SALES	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:24:00 - [652] I am not a fan of this change and though it only stated "anomalies" would be affected what about the other system upgrades? Why are one only getting nerfed or will they all get hit?
Silverskull7 Star Frontiers Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:25:00 - [653] Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi Originally by: progodlegend Originally by: Ancyker Test isn't in NC genius. Yes you are, check that blue list again. Who is blue has nothing to do with who is part of the NC. TEST and Goons are not part of the NC. Powerblock Map Now look closely, made by Czech Lion who's in NC. Back on topic though, This will bring greater balance with the NC having its tech moons and the south having better ratting space. As mentioned by CCP Greyscale more conflict with people wanting better space. This game is fundamentally about conflict and people knocking over other peoples sand castles. Its the core embodiment of what eve is. However how are you supposed to knock over someone sand castle when they're power block is so Huge? NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k That Numbers trend is going to continue with the NC having good space. So I welcome this change to bring more balance. Coalitions and NAP's are fine its part of human nature however silly big permanent NAP's are not fine and harm the Chaos and destruction gameplay that makes EvE EvE. I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC (in paticular the pet groups with crappier space) Jump Bridge changes whines are predominately NC as well.
Tormas Jarsoon Amarr Out-of-Space United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:32:00 - [654] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. ...i¦m also very exited about this change, exited that it¦s time to move back to empire to do incursions... Great Job CCP, once more you fail to go the right way...
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:33:00 - [655] Originally by: xanavi Originally by: Matt Fairbanks This is a great idea. I am very pleased with the direction that CCP is taking with this new change to null sec. As a null sec resident for the majority of my time playing Eve, I fully support this shift and hope that CCP continues with the direction it is taking. What he said. Ok, will you stop crying now Failbanks? Hehe. Of course you guys are for this change. You have Sov in some of the lowest security space in EVE.
Alexandrea Xi	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:34:00 - [656] So level 4's in high sec will be more profitable than 0.0 ratting. Yeah that's a good plan...
NeedTheFreeForNewShipMen	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:36:00 - [657] Originally by: Silverskull7 Edited by: Silverskull7 on 26/03/2011 20:28:35 Edited by: Silverskull7 on 26/03/2011 20:27:23 Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi Originally by: progodlegend Originally by: Ancyker Test isn't in NC genius. Yes you are, check that blue list again. Who is blue has nothing to do with who is part of the NC. TEST and Goons are not part of the NC. Powerblock Map Now look closely, made by Czech Lion who's in NC, I think test at the moment Back on topic though, This will bring greater balance with the NC having its tech moons and the south having better ratting space. As mentioned by CCP Greyscale more conflict with people wanting better space. This game is fundamentally about conflict and people knocking over other peoples sand castles. Its the core embodiment of what eve is. However how are you supposed to knock over someone sand castle when they're power block is so Huge? NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k That Numbers trend is going to continue with the NC having good space. So I welcome this change to bring more balance. Coalitions and NAP's are fine its part of human nature however silly big permanent NAP's are not fine and harm the Chaos and destruction gameplay that makes EvE EvE. I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC (in paticular the pet groups with crappier space) Jump Bridge changes whines are predominately NC as well. Maybe, as your graph shows, thats because there's more NC members than any other group? So of course alot of the whines are gonna come from the NC. There's more of them. Also this change sucks.
Emir Khan	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:36:00 - [658] so now ccp wants people to rather live in high sec than 0.0?? seeing as 90% of 0.0 will now be less profitable than level 4's ??? I'm pretty sure CCP will lose some subs if this goes onto tranq just saying...
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:38:00 - [659] Originally by: Alexandrea Xi So level 4's in high sec will be more profitable than 0.0 ratting. Yeah that's a good plan... This. 'Nuff said.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:41:00 - [660] All you are doing is ruining the game for 0.0 players as you are removing the major means to fund "conflict" as you call it. There is already conflict every day in 0.0. How about you guys actually listen to your player base and stop screwing things up? How about leaving things as they are and stop trying to make everyone play the game YOUR way? I love the hypocracy that this is a "sand box" where you can do anything you want....well no we can't because you keep trying to force us to play the game one way. I think since all you want is conflict then you should just remove everything from the game that's not PvP related, just give us a hangar full of new ships every day and say the game is nothing more than go out and shoot each other...that's where this is headed. CCP has now reached the "shoot the founders" phase of corporate development and needs to bring in a new management team that listens to the customer base. Sad...just sad.

Payne Valitea	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:42:00 - [661] Less ratting more pvp sounds good to me.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:43:00 - [662] Originally by: Kongzhi Sung Let me get this straight. You want players to move to nullsec, so you remove the best means for individuals to pay for doing it ? What are you people smoking? There will still be guaranteed lesser anomalies? Guess what: they are boring and the payoff is terrible. Ratting is doable, but more people in belts and more crowding means even less income, and oh yeah... boredom and frustration. If you want to nerf player income (because let's be honest, that's your most likely real goal here), how about using some finesse and forethought. People have burned vast sums of isk and (far more importantly) their TIME and effort making their homes worth a damn.. don't take a crap on us all now. This is a really great reponse...says pretty much everything I feel. Nice Job!!
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:44:00 - [663] Originally by: Emir Khan so now ccp wants people to rather live in high sec than 0.0?? seeing as 90% of 0.0 will now be less profitable than level 4's ??? Very few 0.0 systems are actually, if worked right, horribly less profitable then L4s. They just are not for more than one player at the same time. An agent sustains as many people as have standings for him as he generates everyone his own mission. Systems do not spawn every player his own belts. Anos were the compromise of a shared resource that while it does not scale like an agent, still provided a significant enough upgrade from the old status quo to be meaningful. It also requires upkeep in the form of daily effort to keep / improve further.
DeadlySPade Democracy of Klingon Brothers R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:45:00 - [664] man ccp has 0.0 backward.. when goons disbanded bob everyone when down there to destroy kenzuku. cause we wanted there rats.. um no everyone hated bob.. CCp logic tell me that the allies fought ww2 cause we wanted german trees so that we could make rocking chair to sit by the fire in are stone castle waiting for santa clause to come down the chimey....(i know it makes no sense... it ccp logic) I think If CCP really want to get 0.0 fought over there is only really one way to do it.. atm you have highsec in the middle and 0.0 around. Now to get people fighting simply put 0.0 where highsec is and high sec where 0.0... now on everyside is empire and everywhere in 0.0 is right beside each other.. and the ability to use empire to run around the center and attack the top=priceless Lazymen fight next door. no one want to travel across eve to go fight are closest enemy. put there home system in range of are supercaps and will blast the **** out of it every week.
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:46:00 - [665] Edited by: Dodgy Past on 26/03/2011 20:48:17 It's amusing to see an endless procession of the worst alliances in Eve sperging in this thread. Also all this 'I'll stop PvP'ing because I can't afford it' is a pack of lies, whenever I roam through these alliances space they don't want to PvP, only stay docked till they have 10 times your numbers. 30m or 100m isk/hr it won't make a difference. But maybe if they had to fight for some valuable space they'd value it more and actually be prepared to fight for it. As to the destabilisation thing, I'd love to see what this would do to the NC since I'm betting that the distribution of low sec space doesn't match entities opinion of their worth.
Muelle	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:50:00 - [666] WTF CCP... you just made me want to quit this game and stop paying for my two accounts because of your total ****ed move here. Nullsec was well balanced before, with everyone who can hold space long enough and build up the military level would get the same amount of sanctums/havens to make money equally. Now you just gone and **ed it all up for us making our months of building up the military level of systems utterly useless. You must be crazy to think that this will "reduce" blob warfare and provide a way for new alliances to move out to null. The coalitions will still blob and wipe out any new alliance who takes good truesec systems for their own, and will leave nothing but worthless space in 3/4's of all nullsec. Sounds fun, for noobie alliances to hold worthless nullsec space, cuz they'll get blobbed all the time and make less money than if they kept in empire like they were. I want to move back to highsec and mission now since it'll be more profitable. WTF CCP! You must not be thinking this through. do not implement this utterly stupid change or you will end up losing more accounts than you gain, and we all know that is why you're attempting this change.
Khayvaan Shrike New Eclipse Not Found.	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:53:00 - [667] I don't see how decreasing the main source ouf income for newcoming nullsec alliance and, at a personal level, for their pilots, will make them more willing to invade richer space.
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:55:00 - [668] So unless you pay rent or become a pet, once a small alliance settles in a unclaimed 0.0 space, one of the big boys from the blocks come and wipe them out. Now, you want to make 1/20th of the available space worthy of anything and you want the small alliances to try and take those instead. Sure, i guess that the big boys will just watch.. GET. A. ****ING. CLUE.
Torx Sigma	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:59:00 - [669] Originally by: Tormas Jarsoon Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. ...i¦m also very exited about this change, exited that it¦s time to move back to empire to do incursions... Great Job CCP, once more you fail to go the right way... I agree Tormas, you are not on the right way... There are people renting 0.0 systems which are not -0.5 or something like that. But they do pvp every time... With that new way, its nearly impossible to reimburse lost ships asap... Time to get back to high sec or better said time to stop playing eve. Time to play World of Tanks.
Sun Endex	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:03:00 - [670] Nice work CCP. Love the change! Dont liten to the **** space whiners that suddenly see that free isk and boting will not be as before.

Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:05:00 - [671] it's hilarious to see these terrible alliances complaining about this change. this change is a good thing, unless of course you are some NC pet who will suffer greatly because you will actually have to do things for yourselves! oh noes!
zealot shakree	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:07:00 - [672] Just another dumb NC goon whining about his anomalies being taken away, Don't listen to the baseless emotional reactions of the mass of goon idiots who never even played eve pre dominion Test isn't in NC genius. Yes you are, check that blue list again. Who is blue has nothing to do with who is part of the NC. TEST and Goons are not part of the NC. The panel is going on right now...I hope someone at the fanfest calls Greyscale out on this and asks about this thread. You are all part of the same coalition of terribad alliances that makes up a substantial portion of eve players, you are all blue to each other and the implementation of these changes is going to effect the stability of your loose band of rifter flying local spamming losers which is why the majority of negative feedback directed at these changes is coming from "NC" meaning NC + every crappy alliance who is blue to them A large portion of the negative feedback is also coming from people whining about losing their anomalies mostly because they either don't remember or never even experienced eve pre-dominion
qlko1	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:08:00 - [673] Originally by: Sun Endex Nice work CCP. Love the change! Dont liten to the **** space whiners that suddenly see that free isk and boting will not be as before. There ll be more boting than now. Real corps wouldn't rent worthless space, macro corps ll do it anyway. CCP is throwing out normal corps... so what do u expect?
The Offerer	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:11:00 - [674] Originally by: Silverskull7 NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k ... I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC Read what you wrote. Now read it again. Apply some logic. If you can't, ask a friend to help you out. If you still don't see the connection, then give up posting.
Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:18:00 - [675] Edited by: Panda Name on 26/03/2011 21:17:50 Originally by: The Offerer Originally by: Silverskull7 NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k ... I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC Read what you wrote. Now read it again. Apply some logic. If you can't, ask a friend to help you out. If you still don't see the connection, then give up posting. NC poster spotted. better move out from whatever to-be-crap system you live in currently, while you still are blued!
Klausan GK inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:22:00 - [676] Good job CCP, one of the best change in a long time.
IceBlade Rage Immortalis Silens Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:22:00 - [677] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: IceBlade Rage Bravo CCP, Bravo. One of your stated goals was to get more 0.0 space usable, so that more people would be in 0.0. This flies right in the face of that. These changes will force a lot of the smaller groups back into empire, because renters will not be able to pay for their systems, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that the people who have come in since then have been botters and appalling carebears. These people should be in highsec where they belong, not in 0.0. It's far to easy to replace ships now; losses should mean something. Making PVE in 0.0 worthwhile just encourages people to waste their time carebearing. Nullsec should be for PVP, not PVE. You're insane. 0.0 is not exclusively for PVE or PVP. I agree that losses should mean something, and they don't currently. However, whatever mechanic you use to make losses worth something should ENCOURAGE 0.0 entities to support a local industrial backbone.
zealot shakree	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:24:00 - [678] Originally by: Sem Nan Edited by: Sem Nan on 26/03/2011 20:57:33 So unless you pay rent or become a pet, once a small alliance settles in a unclaimed 0.0 space, one of the big boys from the blocks come and wipe them out. Now, you want to make 1/20th of the available space worthy of anything and you want the small alliances to try and take those instead. Sure, i guess that the big boys will just watch.. GET. A. **ING. CLUE. It's so simple that its frustrating. The higher the true-sec, the less players the system can acomodate. Take a look and SEE if a 300 men alliance can get on by with one system with 2 havens and 2 sanctums? It's working. Don't fix it. I personally witnessed a 1500 person alliance +hundreds of other blue players function perfectly well with less than 5 systems with truesec ratings no better than -.40 when there was no such thing as anomalies, everyone was belt ratting. If your space isn't good enough for you then guess what? Time to train up some pvp skills, figure out some fleet concepts put some pressure on your alliance leadership and leave your ty pocket and go get some better space. Quote: Let me get this straight. You want players to move to nullsec, so you remove the best means for individuals to pay for doing it ? What are you people smoking? There will still be guaranteed lesser anomalies? Guess what: they are boring and the payoff is terrible. Ratting is doable, but more people in belts and more crowding means even less income, and oh yeah... boredom and frustration. If you want to nerf player income (because let's be honest, that's your most likely real goal here), how about using some finesse and forethought. People have burned vast sums of isk and (far more importantly) their TIME and effort making their homes worth a damn.. don't take a crap on us all now. Let me give you a small amount of history since you probably haven't been around very long.. There once was a coalition of alliances that lived in providence under cva, they spent trillions of isk and years of time building up providence to be a neutral friendly home for any player that was willing to live under NRDS rules. CCP introduced dominion and all the time and isk they spent building up their sov. (which was done by anchoring heavily defended POS at this time), stations, logistics ect was all wiped out by any alliance who could put together a couple supercaps. They *ed and whined about it, and I think this whining is still going on to this day but in the end it was just tough and they had to suck it up and deal. Guess what, i'm pretty sure CCP or anyone else doesnt give a flying F* about your handful of system upgrades and ihubs
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:35:00 - [679] Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara Originally by: xanavi Originally by: Matt Fairbanks This is a great idea. I am very pleased with the direction that CCP is taking with this new change to null sec. As a null sec resident for the majority of my time playing Eve, I fully support this shift and hope that CCP continues with the direction it is taking. What he said. Ok, will you stop crying now Failbanks? Hehe. Of course you guys are for this change. You have Sov in some of the lowest security space in EVE. we would have the same outlook regardless. we arent carebear whiners who dont know how to survive when we get nerfed, thats why we own that space, scrub. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
Jai'Lei al'Thor	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:35:00 - [680] My thought is that sec status is supposed to show how lawless a system is. So instead of reducing number of sanctums or havens, truesec should increase the quality of those sites. Systems with lower truesec would have sanctums that spawned more ships per wave, with higher bounties. This way, the difficulty is increased, but also the reward. This seems to fit well into the general philosophy of risk vs reward.

Cyaron wars Fallen Angel's RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:39:00 - [681] Somebody ban this ****s from this game. Stop comming to us with some sick ideas. Show me 1 alliance that was taking space to do sanctums! This is just STUPID. Please avoid posting such craps. As 0.0 pilot I feel myself insulted. Once agains STOP BEING ****S!
ChYph3r Multiplex Gaming	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:41:00 - [682] CCP Devs = Failscade Talking to all of you is like clapping with one hand!
Meatypopsicle	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:42:00 - [683] CCP = total and utter ****ing idiots. There is less fighting over regions because you totally screwed up sov mechanics not because of how many sanctums exist. At the very least you need to refund wasted upgrades and change the upgrade cost to match the new benefits.
Kreshin High Flyers RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:43:00 - [684] CCP, If its working don't screw with it. The current system IS working. You have problems needing immediate attention in Eve. Completely changing the 0.0 game mechanic and SOV is not a valid idea and in fact is game destroying. Don't use a sledgehammer when a pair of tweezers is needed. Implement small changes over time to measure the results. Stop the insanity. ----------- Kreshin
ChYph3r Multiplex Gaming	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:44:00 - [685] Originally by: Kreshin CCP, If its working don't screw with it. The current system IS working. You have problems needing immediate attention in Eve. Completely changing the 0.0 game mechanic and SOV is not a valid idea and in fact is game destroying. Don't use a sledgehammer when a pair of tweezers is needed. Implement small changes over time to measure the results. Stop the insanity. Kreshin you said it perfectly Talking to all of you is like clapping with one hand!
Calistra Vacanos Gallente Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:45:00 - [686] Thanks for wasting my time CCP...WTF!!! as a hard core PVP'er do you honestly know how long it takes to replace a hellca??currently this is feasible running a few sanctums now and again but do you honestly think i'm gonna spend the rest of my **in life fighting over ty hubs..I think not...if this happens i'm quitting..I play this game to kill and have fun, not spend my in time ratting all the **ing time..whats the point!!!!...ohh!! i see; you want me to buy GTS'c ..hmmm...I think not!!! you get enough out of me!!..remember this..the majority of o.o pvp'rs do not own moon goo so what you will be left with is a game full of cowboys wiith no indians to do all the grind....eve will die!!! you will become poor!!!
Jason Nesmeth	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:47:00 - [687] Originally by: zealot shakree Guess what, i'm pretty sure CCP or anyone else doesnt give a flying F* about your handful of system upgrades and ihubs This is the core issue CCP just doesn't give a F*. Stop changing things for the hell of it. Let the game stabilize. Don't take away the source of income for PvPers in 0.0. You guy are so stupid I'm beginning to think you're government run...who else can choose the 100% incorrect choice every time?
Svenne009 Void Angels Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:47:00 - [688] It moments like this that make me wonder, does CCP even play this game in all it's diversity. And if they do, do they grasp the game experience of a "normal" player. This is gonna affect only the grunts of most alliances, because it's them who need to provide for their own ships, supply's, logistics .... Alliances only care about the moon-goo that pays for the alliance bills. So changing this will drive more chars out of 0.0 to be put in Empire/WH space to gather les riskfull isk for their pvp ventures. So way less people on a daily base in 0.0, less ratters, less easy targets, less reason to get roams going to get them .... So if y'r solution to the blob/lag fest is getting way less players in 0.0, I have to say - nice idea. But while doing that you create a 0.0 wasteland and force a lot of y'r customers to review y'r product and the support they get from the developers.
The Offerer	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:48:00 - [689] Originally by: Panda Name Edited by: Panda Name on 26/03/2011 21:17:50 Originally by: The Offerer Originally by: Silverskull7 NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k ... I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC Read what you wrote. Now read it again. Apply some logic. If you can't, ask a friend to help you out. If you still don't see the connection, then give up posting. NC poster spotted. better move out from whatever to-be-crap system you live in currently, while you still are blued! Nope. Highsec poster with a sense of logic. If that percentage of players in 0.0 space belong to one group, who exactly do you expect to post the most? Think about it.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:00:00 - [690] some of these posts are complete trolls. If you agree with this are you deluded? I think someone light Greyscales tampon becuase not enough people are funding their gameplay via credit card and thought "I know lets make it even more harder for them to have fun". ** this I have a wife and three kids to tender, do you really i think i can waste any more time "trying" to have fun whilst wasting time. Jesus man will you ing listen to us... Understand who the ** is playing your game and understand their demographics before you can release something as backward as what you are promoting. The game should be about having fun. make the AI more difficult, give higher bounties to higher truesec, make anomolies harder in higher truesec systems but dont affect the pay of them. lower truesecs should still give the shinys higher truesecs should give a lot more. "Eve is different becuase of the emotional attachment of the asset when your lose it", - agreed - BUT "Eve is a game" - WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO SPEND MORE TIME IN THE GAME TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME?

Torx Sigma	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:08:00 - [691] The problem is that ccp dont understand how nullsec works. 1st: No large alliance will change their space because of sanctums or havens. 2nd: There is no bigger chance for smaller corps/ alliance to get nullsec space. Why shoud any corporation rent or get a worthless system? The point is that CCP try to get the isk out of the game. I agree that it is to easy/ simple to reimburse a capital if its lost in a fight. I agree that there is to much isk in game. But that is not for all. There are smaller alliances/ corps trying to get nullsec space. Corp who pay a lot of isk for renting etc. They wont have a chance to pay for the systems if you chance the annos. Simple change market prices... years ago ccp put a monument if a titan was lost. Today 10 titans are lost in 2-3 days and nobody speaks about because every alliance can get one. Same on carriers or motherships. I think that this ships have to be unique ships which have to be much harder to reimburse. Years ago a battleship was a battleship, today bs`s are not worth to speak about. Simpele change the game to the old days. Make that a titan is a titan but do not such stupid things.
zealot shakree	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:09:00 - [692] Originally by: StuRyan some of these posts are complete trolls. If you agree with this are you deluded? I think someone light Greyscales tampon becuase not enough people are funding their gameplay via credit card and thought "I know lets make it even more harder for them to have fun". ** this I have a wife and three kids to tender, do you really i think i can waste any more time "trying" to have fun whilst wasting time. Jesus man will you ing listen to us... Understand who the ** is playing your game and understand their demographics before you can release something as backward as what you are promoting. The game should be about having fun. make the AI more difficult, give higher bounties to higher truesec, make anomolies harder in higher truesec systems but dont affect the pay of them. lower truesecs should still give the shinys higher truesecs should give a lot more. "Eve is different becuase of the emotional attachment of the asset when your lose it", - agreed - BUT "Eve is a game" - WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO SPEND MORE TIME IN THE GAME TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME? lol so far this is the most well based and logical argument AGAINST these proposed changes because this guys wife and kids are going to suffer for it. I totally change my position
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:10:00 - [693] Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 22:11:54 Originally by: Kreshin CCP, If its working don't screw with it. The current system IS working. i beg to differ. the current system may not have bugs or glitches... but it is not working as intended. Quote: You have problems needing immediate attention in Eve. Completely changing the 0.0 game mechanic and SOV is not a valid idea and in fact is game destroying. yes, because they didnt do that before quite a few times... CCP giveth and taketh the ** away for a reason. Quote: Don't use a sledgehammer when a pair of tweezers is needed. Implement small changes over time to measure the results. they arent trying to pick out your nose hair, hammers usually do the trick when putting carebears in line Quote: Stop the insanity. WhY sO SerIOUS? =3 in all fairness, i think people need to stop crying about drastic game changes and try to adapt. all you are doing is making yourselves look like helpless tweens... im not trying to troll but tbh, when did begging and pleading get you anywhere in this game. man up and take charge or be content. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:11:00 - [694] 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. This is BS.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:11:00 - [695] Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 22:12:45 Quote: I personally witnessed a 1500 person alliance +hundreds of other blue players function perfectly well with less than 5 systems with truesec ratings no better than -.40 when there was no such thing as anomalies, everyone was belt ratting. If your space isn't good enough for you then guess what? Time to train up some pvp skills, figure out some fleet concepts put some pressure on your alliance leadership and leave your **ty pocket and go get some better space. From the rest of your quote it is clear you are talking about providence, most likely LFA pocket. And good sir let me be the one who tells you: You are talking BS. Belt ratting was what was done to make some ISK when you had nothing better to do, but 90% of common grunts who lived in providence made their ISK with lvl 4 missions, either high sec or low sec. Always fun, especially considering the people claiming this will add better risk/reward stuff: Going from ty 0.0 to high sec for your ISK decreases risk and increases reward without anomalies. Quote:** and try to adapt And by adapting you mean making ISK in high sec instead of actually living in 0.0, that will make a better game :/
Silverskull7 Star Frontiers Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:12:00 - [696] Originally by: The Offerer Originally by: Silverskull7 NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k ... I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC Read what you wrote. Now read it again. Apply some logic. If you can't, ask a friend to help you out. If you still don't see the connection, then give up posting. Originally by: Silverskull7 I personally find it interesting that majority of the people whining about this change are from the NC (in paticular the pet groups with crappier space) Try not cutting off the "(in paticular the pet groups with crappier space)" bit, If you can't do this while quoting, ask a friend for help. Originally by: The Offerer Nope. Highsec poster with a sense of logic. If that percentage of players in 0.0 space belong to one group, who exactly do you expect to post the most? Think about it. Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo.
amarr try	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:12:00 - [697] 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. To break it down: Never ever will a small Alliance get space without consent of a big power block. EVER! (which is curently even difficult for medium size Alliance - on Top u need ISK - which u cannot get [poorer moonminz] and worse systems without ISK from taxes) So u get a System a Powerblock ASIGN you. Fight for Truesec? Stop joking - only the blocks can and they allready have what they want. As the rest of your train of thought: get sobber please -.- In the end the rich get richer and bigger; the small will be kept small and poor. And just because something is inhabitate it does not mean it's valueable (I offer a box for the homeless ... i mean ... they life in it ... same as a house - RIGHT? /s ) This basically cut every intention of small Alliances - and Corps - to get into 0.0 (and the corps will be in the Pet Allianze or RenterAlly ... so nothing will change - only the Income ... ) dori dori
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:16:00 - [698] Quote: Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo. Please for the love of god, we have had this again and again, but people keep coming back with this BS crap: Why would we possibly stop being BFF after this change? Because the guests want to rebel for better space? So then we can either fight with a few k vs the entire NC, or we can just stay BFF and invade delve, guess what the better choice is...
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:16:00 - [699] Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:17:47 Originally by: zealot shakree Originally by: StuRyan some of these posts are complete trolls. If you agree with this are you deluded? I think someone light Greyscales tampon becuase not enough people are funding their gameplay via credit card and thought "I know lets make it even more harder for them to have fun". ** this I have a wife and three kids to tender, do you really i think i can waste any more time "trying" to have fun whilst wasting time. Jesus man will you ing listen to us... Understand who the is playing your game and understand their demographics before you can release something as backward as what you are promoting. The game should be about having fun. make the AI more difficult, give higher bounties to higher truesec, make anomolies harder in higher truesec systems but dont affect the pay of them. lower truesecs should still give the shinys higher truesecs should give a lot more. "Eve is different becuase of the emotional attachment of the asset when your lose it", - agreed - BUT "Eve is a game" - WHY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO SPEND MORE TIME IN THE GAME TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME? lol so far this is the most well based and logical argument AGAINST these proposed changes because this guys wife and kids are going to suffer for it. I totally change my position thats my point - no one has ever tried to understand the community of eve, where they are from, how old they are, how long they play for in an evening what type of jobs they have, what stops them from signing in. (oh wait this type of ** stops me from signing in), CCP is coming from the point of view that most people can spend 8 hours a day on this game to be able to go out and experience the only (in my opinion) end game scenario which is PVP. I thought you wantmed more people in 0.0? now all your going to do is throw us all back to empire to do level 4's.... come to think of it - i suppose that is not a bad idea considering most systems can not support more that 800 in them unless its jita. If space is the issue and small guys not being able to have their piece the make more space.
Sage Eveo Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:26:00 - [700] Edited by: Sage Eveo on 26/03/2011 22:26:55 CCP, you can't be serious? Go check Pure Blinds (for example) pilot occupation prior to the Dominion changes; and compare that to now. You're nerfing the catlyst which has fueled the sustainability of these alliances, and their pilots. This hardly seems like a proactive manner to attract 0.0 residency, but rather a misguided understanding of what really fuels null-sec warfare in today's game. Trojan Trolls [TROLL] // Controlled Chaos <TROLL>

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:27:00 - [701] Originally by: StuRyan 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. This is BS. LOW SEC. LOW SEC. LOW SEC - buff that to allow small and medium alliances to live and you may be on to a winner.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:28:00 - [702] Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
The Offerer	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:28:00 - [703] Originally by: Silverskull7 Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo. Fine... whatever... but I hoped to live in nullsec. Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,... One thing I don't have is PvP (occasional war decs here and there, but meh...). No matter what block I end up in, I'm pretty sure I'll have someone to shoot at. After all, that much mentioned NC currently fights the biggest war so far in the game with dozens of Titans lost. Anyway back to my point. If the majority of space gets nerfed, how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable. Shame... I really liked this game.
Renol	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:31:00 - [704] Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 26/03/2011 22:16:35 Quote: Being a highsec guy I spose you wouldn't understand this potentially affects the NC BFF coaliton no longer being BFF. Thus you have a lot of NC guys whining trying to mantain the current status quo. Please for the love of god, we have had this again and again, but people keep coming back with this BS crap: Why would we possibly stop being BFF after this change? Because the guests want to rebel for better space? So then we can either fight with a few k vs the entire NC, or we can just stay BFF and invade delve, guess what the better choice is... Why NC complains most? Well it isnt that strange considering NC is largest group, DRF is next and has top 8 truesec regions. -1 for CCP on stuff and thinking NC BFF will ever result in anything less.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:35:00 - [705] Originally by: The Offerer Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,... how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable. Shame... I really liked this game. first paragraph... if you have all that you have a good base of ISK then and shouldnt have to worry about your wallet for awhile... second paragraph... ISK will still be easily attained in 0.0 as it was done before... alot of players made good isk ratting in belts well before the anomalies gained weight. in a good system (even .3 or .4) you can make 40ish mil an hour with bounties alone. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:37:00 - [706] Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:45:14 Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20 Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed. Yeah you are right - it is good to keep the game evolving but where as the nano nerf was to level the playing field - this null sec nurf is going to do nothing but create an endless pit of grinding. One in which i can see MANY MANY people going **** that. You can not even compare the nano nerf to this, if anything this nerf will further increase and welcome macro-ers and RMT-ing. I know what i would choose if it was to add more space so that more people had a chance of getting their own turf or this i would much rather see new space being developed. with new riches and new things to go at.... that would be an interesting and incredibly viable story line. edit: thinks ccp went into Damage control.
Reed Tiburon Caldari Future Corps	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:41:00 - [707] Originally by: Malcanis I'd also like to thank CCP for finally finding a way to boost lo-sec by making this change in connection with the dynamic agent quality change. I think we're about to see a new golden age of piracy and activity in lo-sec and for that I truly thank you. Well done CCP, it took some guts to make these changes, and I hope you follow through by making all the high-end income sources dynamic, competitive and conflictable. The recent devblogs are a major step towards the reversal of the "carebearisation" of EVE that we've seen over recent years, and genuinely give me hope that there are people in your game design team who understand that EVE is supposed to be about more then endlessly smooshing red crosses. Don't stop here. Moons MUST be next (as many posters in this thread have pointedly argued). Moon materials should also change dynamically, with a weighting towards worse tru-sec. Let the alliances make choices - rats or moons. And make an end to passive incomes! As you can see many are unhappy that you moved their cheese. All I ask is that you show a little faith in your players; they're more adaptable and resourceful than they pretend. Of course they're going to argue that it's wrong to take their cheese away, but at the end of the day, all will secretly admit that a game where everything is easy and everyone always wins isn't really much fun at all. QFT. Rat bounties have become far too much of an ISK faucet, and though it hurts, this needed to be done. And hopefully this will shake up the stagnant everybody-blue-NAP-fest that is nullsec today. Hold your ground on this one, Greyscale, don't let the whiners back you down.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:46:00 - [708] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: The Offerer Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,... how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable. Shame... I really liked this game. first paragraph... if you have all that you have a good base of ISK then and shouldnt have to worry about your wallet for awhile... second paragraph... ISK will still be easily attained in 0.0 as it was done before... alot of players made good isk ratting in belts well before the anomalies gained weight. in a good system (even .3 or .4) you can make 40ish mil an hour with bounties alone. Then either remove them completely, or don't touch them. I find it VERY convenient that a ****load of people who are favorable to these changes already live in good truesec, so you people are hardly qualified to judge these changes. The proposed change will make the poor poorer and the rich richier. Either remove it all, or don't touch it. Don't just take it from the small guys and leave it in the hands of the big dogs. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Xiang Jiao	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:47:00 - [709] I support this product and/or service.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:48:00 - [710] Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20 Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed. Yeah you are right - it is good to keep the game evolving but where as the nano nerf was to level the playing field - this null sec nurf is going to do nothing but create an endless pit of grinding. One in which i can see MANY MANY people going ** that. You can not even compare the nano nerf to this, if anything this nerf will further increase and welcome macro-ers and RMT-ing. I know what i would choose if it was to add more space so that more people had a chance of getting their own turf or this i would much rather see new space being developed. with new riches and new things to go at.... that would be an interesting and incredibly viable story line. adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high. this WILL level the playing field, believe it or not. it will make systems that have lower truesec more desireable instead of everyone being equal. this game is revolved around fluctuation and value... what is the value of a -1.0 system when i can do the same in a -0.0? its not meant to be even. its meant so that players will strive to work toward gaining good systems instead of having them handed to them. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:51:00 - [711] Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:52:04 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20 Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Stu, i believe you are focusing on what keeps you from signing in, however you leave out what keeps you playing and that is that CCP makes a good game, it will be no different when this update goes live. players will still play because they adapt or die. thats the way it is and has always been. people quit over the nano-nerf. EVE is still here and yet was drastically changed. Yeah you are right - it is good to keep the game evolving but where as the nano nerf was to level the playing field - this null sec nurf is going to do nothing but create an endless pit of grinding. One in which i can see MANY MANY people going **** that. You can not even compare the nano nerf to this, if anything this nerf will further increase and welcome macro-ers and RMT-ing. I know what i would choose if it was to add more space so that more people had a chance of getting their own turf or this i would much rather see new space being developed. with new riches and new things to go at.... that would be an interesting and incredibly viable story line. adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high. this WILL level the playing field, believe it or not. it will make systems that have lower truesec more desireable instead of everyone being equal. this game is revolved around fluctuation and value... what is the value of a -1.0 system when i can do the same in a -0.0? its not meant to be even. its meant so that players will strive to work toward gaining good systems instead of having them handed to them. You cant do the same in systems that havent been upgraded. and people are working to grind out upgrades so try again.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:52:00 - [712] Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 26/03/2011 22:53:15 Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: The Offerer Right now, I've got the skills, I've got my agents, Incursions, LPs, Datacores,... how can I expect to survive living in 0.0 space if my income is worse than now? There will be a point when I would get bored of highsec and finally make my move, but if the move is against my interest or makes me unable to get enough ISK to survive, then guess I'll stay where I am until the game becomes too boring to be playable. Shame... I really liked this game. first paragraph... if you have all that you have a good base of ISK then and shouldnt have to worry about your wallet for awhile... second paragraph... ISK will still be easily attained in 0.0 as it was done before... alot of players made good isk ratting in belts well before the anomalies gained weight. in a good system (even .3 or .4) you can make 40ish mil an hour with bounties alone. Then either remove them completely, or don't touch them. I find it VERY convenient that a **load of people who are favorable to these changes already live in good truesec, so you people are hardly qualified to judge these changes. The proposed change will make the poor poorer and the rich richier. Either remove it all, or don't touch it. Don't just take it from the small guys and leave it in the hands of the big dogs. we earned that space, we are still fighting and supporting our allies to prove that we deserve it, and lets not forget that most of nulli lived in providence or some other crap region some time along the line, and there is no reason you cannot make do with higher truesec status space. there should be more NRDS coalitions, it would make the game more diverse. walk in CVA's footsteps and open up the space for everyones enjoyment and charge the hell out of them for station services. all im saying is take the bad with the good and deal, it will make you a better player for it. edit: whining that eve is too hard will not. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**
Ki Rathos Minmatar Urban Mining Corp AAA Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:52:00 - [713] Man this post really exploded. -- Alright, we all see the needs for change , and I was kicking around some before finally falling asleep last night. So instead of griping lets post ideas to fix what needs fixed. Okay 1 - Moons - Make the good goo available elsewhere or spread it out more. Scientifically it makes no sense that only certain elements are available in moons, when moons technically could have split fromt he plant they orbit. Well thats one theory anyways. But you see where im going. Now the addition to that would be , if it came from the planet, either it should be depletable, or the planet should have some - or both. Change the way moon harvesting works, make it require work and effort more than set up pos- fuel - get the stuff - move to another pos (or sell outright) - make limitless isk. Moon upgrades for ihub ? probably not a good idea, but not a bad one to distribute the stuff more evenly. 2. Allow better way for little guys to attack or harm power blocks through asymtetrical warfare. AKA - NOT TAKING my 100 pilots against their 500. You want strategy, allow me to claim their sov temporarily, after a time if they dont respond or defend they dont keep it. SBU are a joke in how long they take to set up , and bashing an IHUB or a TCU gives even more time for people to respond then bashing a pos. Have their upgrades transfer , even only half, to the new holders. You want conflict, there you go. Allow ways beyond endless bashing to take sov. Open to ideas here. 3. I know big picture , sov will be tied to to planets, with Dust. I also now that in iterative developement these things can take time. Why not start implementing something deployed planet side that shuts of upgrades or something, see above, asymetric warfare. 4. POS mechanics fail for security. I mentioned some of this in my earlier post . 5. Different levels of upgrades maybe to do different things. Maybe upgrade the Ihub itself - example. IHUB takes a freighter to move, level 5 upgrades to freighter to move (all done ok with JB - maybe thats the bigger issue) For the cost size etc of all the stuff you ultimately put in , it should be like a mini station or something, add a corp hanger maybe i dont know. Killing one is like killing a station for small guys, just a thought. Anyways, if your gonna strip havens , allow the ability to add them back in. 6 Wanna get real crazy, allow the little guy to somehow upgrade low sec to something in between, to make it more worth it. Maybe only non station systems, would also make sense why they pay concord at that point (read that earlier and thought hmm , interesting point.) 7. If the havens go, the G0d@MN better to. Currently running my corp in a fully upgraded system for military. Cyno jammed etc. and yes unfortunately we rent because we have to not because i really wanted to. Its about the only choice you have given us, and most of the little guys Would be interested to see what the indy upgrades will be . What am I missing peeps. I complained last night lets fix it.
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:06:00 - [714] You need to do the opposite. At an average amount of sanctums is 2 and havens is 2. So we need more to spawn, especially for corps that only own a system or two.
Jack Oam	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:09:00 - [715] CCP dudes, as many people already said these changes will make majority of 0.0 a wasteland and this is ****ing obvious for anyone who lived there. Carebears (myself included) will just move out and seek income elsewere, loosing on the way billions they invested in upgrading their systems. This will make me(and many others) extremely unhappy and hurt, which will have a negative impact on the game/ccp income i assure you. Alliances will loose a lot of billions in rent->less ships to fight with. ==================================================================== I have another suggestion: Why not instead of nerfing to buff the 0.0. Take the current anomalies level and set it as a base, and increase the number of hi-end anomalies in hi-end space. In other words make hi-end 0.0 space more lucrative instead of making low-end 0.0 a desert. What will it acomplish? No bad feelings among players. More people in 0.0(more targets). Easier to replace killed ships->more pvp/local conflicts. And one other thing: please implement the space renting and sov transfer game mechanics already!
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:15:00 - [716] Originally by: Jack Oam CCP dudes, as many people already said these changes will make majority of 0.0 a wasteland and this is ****ing obvious for anyone who lived there. Carebears (myself included) will just move out and seek income elsewere, loosing on the way billions they invested in upgrading their systems. This will make me(and many others) extremely unhappy and hurt, which will have a negative impact on the game/ccp income i assure you. Alliances will loose a lot of billions in rent->less ships to fight with. ==================================================================== I have another suggestion: Why not instead of nerfing to buff the 0.0. Take the current anomalies level and set it as a base, and increase the number of hi-end anomalies in hi-end space. In other words make hi-end 0.0 space more lucrative instead of making low-end 0.0 a desert. What will it acomplish? No bad feelings among players. More people in 0.0(more targets). Easier to replace killed ships->more pvp/local conflicts. And one other thing: please implement the space renting and sov transfer game mechanics already! Ill be honest even post dominion there is so much wasted land STILL that this is what needs addressing... Like the more rats you kill the higher the upgrades, the unactive systems will spawn bigger and better shinys for a limitted period.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:17:00 - [717] Edited by: Sebastian Hoch on 26/03/2011 23:22:37 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20 Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Stu, adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high. Not if the new space is not contiguous with current Null sec and is thus apart from the existing power blocks and is out of jump range from current lowsec and Nullsec. Think about it. Seb
Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:21:00 - [718] CCP Greyscale you are so ing wrong that it feels ******ed to explain why exactly you are wrong proving that you are wrong is like proving that cat is not a bird Jesus christ have you even played the damn game?
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:23:00 - [719] Originally by: Sebastian Hoch Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:42:20 Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 22:38:04 Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Stu, adding space will only make the alliances that are well established bigger. if you think that new alliances will even have a shot at it you are high. Not if the new space is not contiguous with current Null sec and is thus apart from the existing power blocks and is out of Cyno range from current lowsec and Nullsec. Think about it. Seb ... why the ** even bother then? that makes you isolated and useless... out of cyno range.... win. GG. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**
Bung1	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:27:00 - [720] Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous, ccp has got it wrong, AGAIN. They seem to have placed a great deal of importance on Anoms. They are useful tools within the game, but that is all they are, a tool. It appears that ccp would like to see more conflict within 0.0, but having lived in various regions of 0.0 I see plenty of it going on all the time. I note a mention of the difficulty in small alliances getting a foot hold in 0.0. This has always been difficult for small alliances, and can only be overcome by those alliances or corps growing themselves to a size that would make them more attractive to larger alliances or coalitions. For a smaller alliance to move into 0.0 usually happens by way of renting. Without the anoms, the smaller alliance has limited avenues to make isk to pay the rent, as the host alliance will retain the moons, so CCP just killed off renters, so we can expect to see smaller alliances re locating back to high sec. I see earlier a mention of changes to moon goo and how it is distributed. Moon goo needs to be more evenly distributed, so that all racial regions have a share of all the racial goo's. Moons are the means that 0.0 alliances can afford to be in these areas. It costs an astronomical amount of money to live in 0.0, with the sov bills etc, not to mention, replacing ships lost in conflicts on a regular basis. The cost of Jump Bridges and system upgrades, not to mention the cost of an outpost, can only be done by large successfull alliances, who invest huges amounts of time ISK and energy into their respective 0.0 area. To suggest that these allainces are going to give it all up, and move to another area because they dont have anoms any longer is ridiculous in the extreme. I do not suggest I have the definitive answer to this situation, however I do know that I have personally invested a lot of time and money to play the game, not to mention the time and ISK in game to achieve the things that I have so far, but if I have to abandon my investments every few months to satisfy the wims of CCP, then I guess I would just be better off leaving and investing my money in another game. I would hope that some common sense will prevail here, and that these proposed changes are put on hold and a great deal more thought be put into this situation. As we all know, once the changes are made, and even if reversed at a later time the damage will have been done.

Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:37:00 - [721] Originally by: Bung1 Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous. you guessed wrong. and CCP is right on this one. if anyone thinks otherwise they have been coddled too long. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:39:00 - [722] Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 23:46:16 why is everything that CCP post a reaction. Why can you not think of something practively. Dominion was such a proactive upgrade and has given many people the chance to live in a system and play the game. This is nothing but a reaction to those people that say null sec is broken. The only thing that is broken in null sec is the endless sov mechanics and "territory" warfare. the thing is, if regions are static once you have settlers then what is the point in moving... Truesec certainly is not the answer. Remember dominion was suppose to support a large number of people living in a confined space - if you dont think this has happened then you are playing the game wrong. even now fully upgraded systems are a pain in the arse to live in becuase everyone wants the sanctrum or the heaven. You should make these spawn more in fully upgraded systems then may just may be people wouldnt need to spew terriotry so they could survivie. Moon goo....... ITS BSm currenltly there are only a limitted number of moons to cap that are worth the time and effort. and it is a funny pardigm that this is a static passive - you wonder why people dont move?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:41:00 - [723] Edited by: StuRyan on 26/03/2011 23:43:25 now there is a thought - sanctrum free regions no decent moons and a sov bill enough to kill the enjoyment of the game ..... worth having!
Retsil Evad Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:42:00 - [724] Does CCP have any clue as to how 0.0 alliances work? Have they lost that much touch with their user base? Are only the squeaky wheel of empire huggers being listened to while dismissing the existing null sec alliances as being greedy? This pile of dog doo that CCP is planning gets a big thumbs down. ============== Office use ONLY ============== BRING BACK EVE TV!!!!!!!
Strange Kid	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:43:00 - [725] Consequences: 1) There will be no incentive to move into nullsec as a low end renter since highsec missioning will make more isk than low end sites. 2) Nullsec will lose a good deal of the population. 3) Less ratter targets. Fix: Instead of removing sites from the low end systems, there could be a respawn timer on the anomalies depending on the truesec of a system. Let's say 3 hours for sanctums/havens in a high truesec and steadily improving from that. +pirate detection upgrades aren't worthless in low end systems +high end systems are still better +low end systems can support lone ratters but get worse when cluttered +incentive for ratters to be in nullsec, more pvp
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:47:00 - [726] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: Bung1 Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous. you guessed wrong. and CCP is right on this one. if anyone thinks otherwise they have been coddled too long. Yes he guessed wrong, but not too wrong. It might be not unanimous, but 20 pages of 10:1 against the change naturally gives that impression. Before you call us whiners, learn to read all the arguments that were raised and try to counter them .
Life Tilt Valor Inc. Valor Empire	Posted - 2011.03.26 23:59:00 - [727] 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 - 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. Just a note from your largest group that inhabits Outer Ring.....we want out. It ain't party central around here. But at this point why move? After this change, what is there in sov space for my pilots that they do not currently have? A name on a map and a Cyno jammer. This corporation, now an alliance has had the goal of opening up Nullsec to the new pilot since its inception, 3 years ago. The membership wants to hold space. It is ready to hold space. The options available at the entry level for Alliances of this size are few, even with how things stand now. The options, with your changes may increase, but will no longer make long term financial sense for my pilots. What is the point of moving them to the "end-game" of Player 0.0 if they have to put mission running alts in highsec to do it? For the middle-sized Alliances that do not play supercaps-online, is NPC 0.0 the intended end game? There should be a measurable and significant change when one moves from lowsec or NPC nullsec to holding sovereignty somewhere. Perhaps not necessarily at first, but as the system is upgraded, like they are now. I simply should not be able to mission and plex and mine and rat more effectively long term anywhere else. Its even fine if its a break-even situation for the pilots. Taking the steps to secure SOV and holding it successfully should NEVER be a downgrade.
Ancyker Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:02:00 - [728] Originally by: Life Tilt But at this point why move? After this change, what is there in sov space for my pilots that they do not currently have? A name on a map and a Cyno jammer. This corporation, now an alliance has had the goal of opening up Nullsec to the new pilot since its inception, 3 years ago. The membership wants to hold space. It is ready to hold space. The options available at the entry level for Alliances of this size are few, even with how things stand now. The options, with your changes may increase, but will no longer make long term financial sense for my pilots. What is the point of moving them to the "end-game" of Player 0.0 if they have to put mission running alts in highsec to do it? For the middle-sized Alliances that do not play supercaps-online, is NPC 0.0 the intended end game? There should be a measurable and significant change when one moves from lowsec or NPC nullsec to holding sovereignty somewhere. Perhaps not necessarily at first, but as the system is upgraded, like they are now. I simply should not be able to mission and plex and mine and rat more effectively long term anywhere else. Its even fine if its a break-even situation for the pilots. Taking the steps to secure SOV and holding it successfully should NEVER be a downgrade. qft
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:02:00 - [729] Originally by: Sem Nan Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: Bung1 Well reading the posts I guess its unanimous. you guessed wrong. and CCP is right on this one. if anyone thinks otherwise they have been coddled too long. Yes he guessed wrong, but not too wrong. It might be not unanimous, but 20 pages of 10:1 against the change naturally gives that impression. Before you call us whiners, learn to read all the arguments that were raised and try to counter them . ironically, my success ratio on battleclinic for all time is 10:1. <- fun fact (although its actually been higher since ive made my return a couple months back). i would like to see these people who are posting with one of their 2 alt toons to show who they really are and really play. and before you think im not reading all the arguments. i am. im just tired of shooting each one down over and over. there is more than one way of making ISK in 0.0, it doesnt revolve 100% around sanctums... be intuitive because i know plenty of people who make more isk than doing sanctums and dont need a high true-sec status to do it. As for botters and RMT, its against the rules. if CCP did or didnt do something based on the fact that it would have an increase of those activities then the RMTers win and we cannot have that. (that was to address the people trying to use that as an angle) if there is anything else i missed ill gladly clarify my stance on it when i wake up. til then cheers (and safe sanctuming while you still have them). ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
Iron Breaker	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:06:00 - [730] I am pretty new to nullsec, but everything out there costs a lot. Every pice of tec two gear is a million isk. No one is going to be able to afford to go to nullsec given the cost of replaceing lost ships and gear. Also, all the miners and builders will lose their coustiomers once everyone is broke. Most of the people I talk to feel this is a way for CCP to take some Isk out of the game so fewer people can pay for their accounts with PLEX.

shado20 EXTERMINATUS. Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:07:00 - [731] the only thing i have to say is, why was this not implemited the first time around! yes the better systems need to be BETTER than the rest. its a shame that if we hold one of thos -0.9 systems, its no better than the -0.1 and thats a shame! i see alot of negitive post here, CCP please dont lisen to them! no one likes it when you take away there candy and acuoly make players work for better space. this shuld also have a inpact on thos nasty bot runing players, as corps will want to move into the better space and thos pore bots will half to take the space no one wants. how to kill a 0.0 bot! - get 6 or more of your friends, get into a system with a bot and everyone take a belt. log off. wate 5 minits or more in rare cases. everyone logon at the same time using teamspeek to cordinate this. when you log on at the belt, if you have the bot at your belt, tackle it. have all your friends come to help you kill it in the 2 minits you have. easy as pie!
Zan Talos	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:24:00 - [732] OMG when did all these whiners start playing Eve, This is a perfect re-balance of 0.0 right now I know for a fact that with the current system there is ZERO reason for any alliance to move into "better space" because all you have to do is throw some isk at whatever space you own and bam! you pretty much got -1.0 space. This is very wrong making 0.0 into nothing but a nap fest of carebears. The only thing that the current changes will do is make the space like Pre-Dominion. Now lets looks at what we do get the keep and thats the ability to upgrade the systems some say up to Hubs for -.1 - (-).5 well yes you dont have Havens and Sanctums but you can still make 10mil an hour easy ratting hubs in a Hac or Command. So Really just stop complaining and adapt.
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:28:00 - [733] As others have pointed out, the problem isn't the central idea (truesec status should make a difference) but the way the banding works. The worst nullsec system when upgraded should still be better than sitting in Dodixie running level 4 missions. So the worst nullsec system should at least have 1 haven and 1 sanctum (when upgraded), and it should go up from there. But as I said before, the real problem is in the design of the anoms. Hubs are OK, everything below that is crap whatever your skill level or ship type. Entrapment arrays don't work. There's so much other stuff to fix first before you do this and make nullsec a ghost town populated only in great truesec systems by giant alliances and bots.
Melkie Element 115. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:31:00 - [734] **** Idea, not rebalancing just making an awesome place quite horrid
Col Ethix Amarr Element 115. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:33:00 - [735] 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 lmao are you kiding me ??? this wont effect coalitions... they rely on moon income 1. 2 newer alliance wont get a foothold due to the fact that larger alliances will hold the good space leaving no room for those "smaller" or "newer" alliance able to grow, they will jsut be easy pickings for the big dogs. 3 this may increase conflict yes but eves main power blocks SC NC and Russians will hold the most valued space in game. They've been holding current and some spaces for nearly 6 years now and you think this will change anything. I'm sorry your sadly mistaken. Thank You // Col Ethix E115 CEO
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:41:00 - [736] Originally by: Silverskull7 NC:52k, nearest powerblock DRF: 26k Who are DRF? for those of us who don't pay much attention to 0.0 politics, but now I want to know.
Tarasina	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:43:00 - [737] Originally by: Iron Breaker I am pretty new to nullsec, but everything out there costs a lot. Every pice of tec two gear is a million isk. No one is going to be able to afford to go to nullsec given the cost of replaceing lost ships and gear. Also, all the miners and builders will lose their coustiomers once everyone is broke. Most of the people I talk to feel this is a way for CCP to take some Isk out of the game so fewer people can pay for their accounts with PLEX. Being able to DOCK in a station in 0.0 is a problem. You are only guaranteed to be able to do that in NPC 0.0. In addition to gear costing twice or thrice the prices in Hisec. How does fewer ppl playing via PLEX change anything? PLEX = CCP already got the money anyway! What it would do for me is fewer accounts or no accounts at all if I couldn't play via PLEX (currently 2 accs). I don't live in 0.0 because solo, it is not worth it. Lowsec is much better for that. People making less isk means either more time grinding or more bots/RMT. At a certain point a game should be more fun than grind. If it is 8 hours of grind for 2 minutes of fun, I don't see the point in playing. The bigger the difference between time of "fun and games" and time invested to grind, the more ppl will leave or go to illegal means. I mean, people wading in isk would go out there and just shoot sheet up for no reason, you would have 100 times more PVP.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:48:00 - [738] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins ... why the **** even bother then? that makes you isolated and useless... out of cyno range.... win. GG. As long as you allow empires to exist they will keep weaker powers from developing and exploit them when they can. So you need a place or way in which new powers can grow outside of their dominance. Low sec does not work to incubate new alliances because moving from null to low means major changes in game play and there is no money to be made there. Players that want to live in nullsec join a nullsec corp/alliance. They don't join a low sec corp or alliance hoping to be strong enough to move to null in a year or so. So you have to make it so empires cannot exist, or you give the little guys a place apart from them to grow. Taking out empires from the game would be a major blow to the sandbox. Seb
Van Ketris	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:49:00 - [739] I like how nulli secunda, who just moved into what would become one of the best area's with this change is arguing loudest for it.
Ancyker Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:50:00 - [740] Edited by: Ancyker on 27/03/2011 00:56:11 If you really must do this, make the current system the baseline for -0.1 with -0.9 being about twice as good. I'd rather have the rats in the sanctums and stuff based on the truesec than have the truesec affect what sites are available. Shooting at 20k ISK cruisers is boring. While shooting at 500k battleships isn't that great either, it beats shooting at useless ships that take me longer to lock than to kill. Nerfing is not the way to go. ISK amount doesn't really matter much to be honest. What things are worth time wise is going to be constant, it will take a while for things to catch up but overall this changes nothing except makes things look cheaper. Less ISK means less buyers means prices go down... eventually. Short term this inconveniences a lot of people and for what? Cosmetics? You want a smaller number? Is that prettier? Things in EVE are like the value of gold in real life. The value of gold has remained relatively constant, while the value of money has decreased, so it takes more money to buy the same amount of gold. New changes that make it take more time to get the same amount will cause the value of the currency to increase while the value of items remains about the same. So what do these series of changes from CCP actually mean? The economy is going to be completely fcked for months while it adjusts. The time you spend now to get an item will be about* equal to the time you spend a year from now. But who wants that? Who cares really? See it this way (just an example): - Item X costs 100,000,000 ISK right now - Average player makes 10mil/hour - The income of players per hour is reduced by a factor of 10. - Average player now makes 1mil/hour - Months pass by ... economy adjusts - Item X now costs 10,000,000 ISK - What changed? Nothing. Just a (very large) inconvenience for all current players for a change new people joining a year from now won't even notice. Good time to horde liquid ISK, as if these changes to go into effect the value of ISK will increase. This is contrary to the expected outcome and how the real world works. In the real world, usually hording products secures your financial security. For example, your house (if maintained) increases in cost as the value of money decreases. Don't tell me this is for the new player either, I just joined about 6 or 7 months ago and had no issues getting started in EVE. I do like the ideas of no agent quality/dynamic agent quality and anoms based on truesec, I don't like the proposed way to implement those changes.

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.27 00:59:00 - [741] surely a *Recession* is bad for the game?
John Haldane	Posted - 2011.03.27 01:09:00 - [742] Greyscale - thanks for the reply. The thing about all the arguments advanced in your reply is that they ignore the extremely concentrated and clustered nature of low-trusec 0.0. It's not that some _systems_ get nerfed; it's that whole _regions_ get nerfed. Pure Blind has -one- -0.45 system. That's as good as it gets, for 85 occupied systems. How many people can we pack into those two sanctums? You also seem to be surprised that people are upset. Well, you've just reversed course from the Dominion changes, without any significant notice. What's more, you've also gotten people to sink a lot of ISK into immobile infrastructure that will never justify even its upkeep expenses. Even better, the people you claim to want to encourage are the ones you're screwing over. To you, all that's just another ISK sink -- but people actually worked to build all that. Naturally they're upset. It's hard to make good long-term decisions when the rules change without warning. Changing subjects slightly: What are you ACTUALLY trying to achieve with this change? Unlike others in this thread, I don't think you or CCP are stupid or ignorant. Therefore, I think your initial explanation was extremely economical with the truth. Shake off the shackles of the PR department and level with us.
Pedro Snachez Senex Legio	Posted - 2011.03.27 01:12:00 - [743] Hopefully I have been trolled, but I'll bite because I'm bored... Originally by: Zan Talos The only thing that the current changes will do is make the space like Pre-Dominion. So... make the space able to support a fraction of the current population, just like in Pre-Dominion. That sounds great The whole point of the anomaly system was to allow more people to live in less space in 0.0. These proposed changes essentially roll back that entire (good) concept while ripping off anyone who invested anything in a non -0.9 system. It's hard to promote conflict in 0.0 when nobody's living there. Originally by: Zan Talos Now lets looks at what we do get the keep and thats the ability to upgrade the systems some say up to Hubs for -.1 - (-).5 well yes you dont have Havens and Sanctums but you can still make 10mil an hour easy ratting hubs in a Hac or Command. So Really just stop complaining and adapt. Wow. A whole 10 mil an hour?! I, for one, can't wait to have to grind for 15 hours to T2 fit a HAC. Any space, even the worst truesec 0.0 in existence (which I happen to live in), should provide more income than level 4 missioning. CCP loves risk vs. reward, and these changes don't reflect any of that whatsoever. The idea of having to jumpclone out of 0.0 to make money to defend your 0.0 space is ridiculous. Alliances fight for and with moon goo. If CCP wants to shake things up, then they should make existing Tech moons deplete and new Tech spawn on other moons. If the new tech moon pops up in renter space or other space occupied by a less powerful alliance, then you have created strain as one friendly entity needs to exert control over another. As for Havens/Sanctums, the way you create friction between friendly entities is to create a "grass is greener" scenario. All 0.0 should be able to support as many people as it currently does. However, lower truesec should provide more wealth. Currently, all grass is equally green, and this system does not create any jealousy within power blocs. Conversely, implementing the current CCP plan makes a small minority of grass extremely green while completely eradicating ~60% of everything else. People in low-quality 0.0 should be able to live comfortably, certainly better than in highsec, but should look to their high-quality space-owning neighbors with some jealousy, thinking man, it must be nice to be able to fly those ships all the time... That's what CCP should be aiming for, in my opinion.
KaraflasXAM	Posted - 2011.03.27 01:15:00 - [744] This is so wrong it defies belief. Not only you openly admit that all the time and effort we spent upgrading systems goes to waste but at the same time you make hi-sec mission running more profitable than the vast majority 0.0 !!! More plexes will be the answer ??? You must be joking......
Redwind Thrawn	Posted - 2011.03.27 01:34:00 - [745] Lets see where this lands. CCP is gunna do it. I hope it works out. Count my vote for it won't work and a large population will leave. Good luck CCP.
Wokou John	Posted - 2011.03.27 01:39:00 - [746] If ccp truly want more conflict they should be injecting more isk into all of null-sec, not screwing over the majority players and especially the smaller alliances. We're going to have the ludicrous situation of heading out of null-sec to make isk. Whats the point of holding sov on systems if they have no value? Personally I don't have the time to spend 40 something hours grinding for a plex and more to the point why would I want to? Spend all the time I get to play eve grinding so I can buy a plex so I can grind some more Great job CCP
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.27 01:53:00 - [747] While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent! I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare. Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict.
Deumos	Posted - 2011.03.27 02:16:00 - [748] This is ludicrous i have been in 0.0 and if you restrict the systems that have sanctums the big alliances that hold the space they will just take those systems and i see no point going back to 0.0 really.I would much rather keep things as is but increase the amount of sanctums in the better systems currently to reward those that took the space.
Pedro Snachez Senex Legio	Posted - 2011.03.27 02:35:00 - [749] Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Yeah, but that was before sov costs and POS fuel went through the roof, making it much harder to spam sov and have enough belts to support residents. What has been said about CVA already in this thread was true of many 0.0 powers before the Dominion changes: Highsec mission alts were common for someone who wasn't already wealthy. Mission on the alt, log the main in to spend the alt's Highsec money. Now, people tend to do both with their main characters, meaning that people don't need multiple accounts or to jump back and forth between 0.0 and Empire to survive. Anomalies tie 0.0 residents to 0.0, and that's ultimately a good thing. The huge boom in 0.0 population (which I see nobody complaining about) post-Dominion was due to the ability of a small amount of space to provide good income for more people, especially those that didn't have fully-trained alts or secondary accounts. The issue I have with your argument is the fact that you have quotes around worthless. The truth is, upwards of 60% of all of 0.0 will not be worth the sov costs to hold. The possible income from the resources there would not be enough to even hold sov. Forget big power blocks or new alliances, if the math doesn't work then the math doesn't work. Period. People keep arguing about 0.0 being about goodfights, but that's bull. Goddfights happen because of good money. All the PVP gumption in the world won't make a ship appear out of thin air. Well-funded 0.0 residents fight and die in expensive ships, and if you make the real life time cost of making ISK in 0.0 skyrocket, then people will either move back to highsec or blob even harder to create situation in which they can't lose. The question is simply this: Should 0.0 residents of all sizes and locations have access to enough ISK to actually make it worth defending space, or are those who don't hold awesome truesec space there as Highsec-living tourists who jump out for a "good time" every couple of days? CCP wants more people to live and actually stay in 0.0, and this "fix" does the opposite.
Estimated Prophet	Posted - 2011.03.27 03:02:00 - [750] There's a major, fundamental difference between the real world and game worlds that CCP have missed, and I think is the root cause of the conflict here. In the real world, lack of resources drives conflict. If you don't have enough food, or water, or land to grow food, you die. So you go war to get it, or die trying. In game worlds, and EVE in particular, lack of resources stifles conflict. Lack of resources doesn't cause death, at worst it causes boredom; we fight for excitement, not survival. How many times have you heard these words in your Alliance chat/forums: "How do I make ISK so I can afford to PvP?" Look at Geminate; who's fighting? The NC vs the Drone Regions, two of the richest power blocks in the game. Before that? The Cluster**** vs IT. And that only happened after Goonswarm had been in Deklein long enough to recover from the financial disaster of a year ago. And now that the Goons have recovered financially, they're reimbursing all PvP losses, not just strategic operations. tl;dr: If you want to increase conflict in EVE you need to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor, not increase it.

Narf Commandude Minmatar Gladiators of Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.27 03:29:00 - [751] I don't like the idea, because it changes how I make money in nullsec. I don't think this will help new corps or alliances at all. Because giving them week systems to start in will not allow them to build strong fleets. Decreasing the number of anoms in the system will force us to bunch up into the few good systems that remain. (I'd be ****ed if i had to do 40 week anoms to make up for the 1 we could of had, but didn't have because it was owned by another corp in the alliance). Hope it works out.
ModeratedToSilence	Posted - 2011.03.27 03:43:00 - [752] Originally by: Zan Talos Now lets looks at what we do get the keep and thats the ability to upgrade the systems some say up to Hubs for -.1 - (-).5 well yes you dont have Havens and Sanctums but you can still make 10mil an hour easy ratting hubs in a Hac or Command. So Really just stop complaining and adapt. Currently I can make 60-70mil an hour with sanctums/havens. In empire I can make 40-50mil an hour running level 4s in an afk drone boat with no risk. 10mil an hour with the ever present risk of being ganked is simply not worth paying for the sov/upgraded need to make the 10mil per hour.
EnviromentalNightmare	Posted - 2011.03.27 03:53:00 - [753] Edited by: EnviromentalNightmare on 27/03/2011 03:55:55 Edited by: EnviromentalNightmare on 27/03/2011 03:54:30 Nice going CCP this will really help the small guys get established. Giant power blocks will still destroy the small guys, FFS the RMT russians even rent NPC stain out and deny access to the best mission systems for the majority of players in the area. Just the small guys wont have the isk to fight back So you deny the small guys a chance of making isk to grow and concentrate people into smaller areas. I can see the big guys getting bigger as people leave smaller group to join them for a chance at a decent system. Why not look at Moon Goo's endless isk stream and breaking up the giant powerblocks, not destroying the small guys.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:08:00 - [754] Originally by: Sarrgon To me, me the crappy 0.0 systems about worthless, how will they pay for their sov, SRP and such. They will never be able to take on the larger alliances / coalition, they will run out of ISK LONG before the larger alliances and coalitions that control the best space already. Only real way IMO to fix it is to make moongoo like PI. All moons, low sec, high sec or 0.0 anyone can mine from, multiple people per moon etc, like PI. Take away the huge ISK flow that only a few alliances really have. When newer / growing alliances / coalitions see that they can now compete with the larger established alliances / coalitions, they will be much more able to fight them and actually hope to win. But the newer alliances etc need to make good ISK in the crappy 0.0 systems to even try to make that a reality. Yep that's what CCP doesn't realize, and its not just the cost of SOV you need to figure, ship replacements, stockpiles, paying off the neighbors while you build (rent), etc. Your idea of moon goo changes is something that intrigues me that is an interesting way to take it. Indeed it could be a solution. Only problem is it would reduce demands for POSs
Tritium Solace	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:14:00 - [755] If CCP goes thru with this I will stop playing this game and they will not get my $$$ every month. Star Wars: the old republic looks pretty damn good. But before I emo-rage-quit due to CCP once again failing to understand what is good, let me make a few points: -I make my money exclusively thru Sanctums and Havens. Lesser anomalies give me LESS money than level 4 missions (with salvaging included). -Once the powerful alliances take over high true-sec systems the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and have no chance to fight the rich with 300 mil isk hellcats, maelstroms, and T3 ships. Never mind the capital ships. -The game will become way too tedious if I can't farm sanctums and havens and will in itself be the single reason why I will quit. -I haven't read all the pages here, but I'm sure you'll find a very hard time finding a player who lives out of 0.0 space who agrees with this idea. -Explain to me who is going to be powerful and rich enough to take on Pandemic Legion and their hellcats once everyone is not able to replace their PvP ships?!? -If you are trying to increase the value of isk, why not have an ISK cap instead - e.g. 30 bil isk wallet cap for an individual? Why must you once again meddle with game dynamics? I vote *NO* to this idea that CCP is presenting us. Maybe I should call it CCCP instead?
Morp p'LLoran Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:17:00 - [756] All you are accomplishing with this will be to encourage more empty systems in 0.0. Zero space is now more occupied with more targets than ever, cue 15 months ago where you have to travel through vast distances of empty space to get to the good ratting systems for some zero space pvp. Your original decision got more people into 0.0 and got more income into large alliance through renters that allowed bigger and more epic battles, it even led to more smaller alliance getting in through the renter, ally or buffer principles, since they could be given space will still allowing big alliances members the space to make isk. Your short-sighted and unwanted decision will reverse this trend and make 0.0 less interesting, * Standard COAD Disclaimer * All post I make represent myself, me and I only - and does not reflect my corp or alliance viewpoints
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:18:00 - [757] Pure stupidity. Who will take all the best space? The established, big alliances. So what happens to the small guy? Game over in null. No chance to compete whatsoever. It's so obvious I can't even **ing believe how stupid this move is. You wanted small alliances to come out and have a fighting chance? Here we are. Now you just ed us. Maybe we can turn into Pandemic Legion overnight and muscle our way back in...yeah, right. What an idiotic change. Small alliances that moved out to null just got killed by this. Do you really expect us to have a fighting chance under these conditions? How do they expect small alliances to form having less available high quality null? The moons weren't enough, you had to give the EVERYTHING. this and ** you CCP, for being as blind and stupid as that.
Captian Firelog Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:25:00 - [758] I am 100% against this new plan, I hope that CCP burns any plans to screw up anomalies what so ever. I hate that CCP has been catering to Empire noobs for years with mission running, and right when CCP gives the 0.0 boys something to cheer about we're screwed over in an instant gang bang. This is some crappy about face decision, stick with you're old plan it is keeping EVERYONE happy! Anomalies were never and never will be the problem of larger alliances and less 0.0 wars, that problem was created long ago with Jump Bridges and Capital ships. Don't screw with my anom's, I've been interested in The Old Republic!
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:34:00 - [759] And just like jumpbridge nerf, this is will be whined out of existance. CCP, you know you have to do it. The game needs it. Old Providence built all those outposts without sanctums and without moon mining. One of the poorest, worst regions in the game and it had the most player outposts out of any of them. You don't NEED santcums, your space wallet wants them. All this "I won't PvP because its harder to make ISK" is not true. People have PvPed with just a highsec mining alt in a Covetor to pay for their replacements. If you want to PvP, quit crying and plan your invasion of better space. ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
Kira Metari	Posted - 2011.03.27 04:49:00 - [760] I Think it's a great idea , and to celebrate it , all true sec should be re-randomized at the beginning of the patch .(moon goo too ?) On a more serious note , why not fix the sanctum's bounty rewards based on true sec ? 40M for -1.0 / 30M for -0.5 / 20M for 0.0 .

Luxotor Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.27 05:03:00 - [761] Please do not do this, CCP. From what I have been able to deduce, this changes only appear to benefit the bigger guys. So in essence, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I do not understand the reasoning behind this decision and I do not support it.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.27 05:23:00 - [762] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/03/2011 05:24:19 Risk vs reward - The ratio is way off as far as farming anomalies in nullsec goes as the risk is about as big as farming a lvl4 in hisec unless you are doing it wrong. If you want risky pve, try lowsec exploration or lvl5 missions... Seriously, reduced income is a good thing. Winning a battle needs to be meaningful, it has to hurt your enemy. If he can farm back his battleship in an hour, he is back in the fight instantly. Even a decisive victory is meaningless. This is not only a question of big alliance against the poor oppressed little guy, it is also a question of competition between small alliances. Getting away from the same old drowning the enemy in numbers tactics does only work when losses sting. CCP got that part right. Now moon goo money printing needs to follow suit, and we are going somewhere.
Harold Tuphlos	Posted - 2011.03.27 05:32:00 - [763] Once again CCP fails to properly manage expectations. Greyscale said that this is part of a larger series of changes to 0.0, and that they expect negative feedback from necessary parts of it. That negative feedbak could be limited by actually telling us in at least broad terms what the plan is; a lot fewer people in this thread would be upset, I believe, if Greyscale had said that they also planned to make trusec change/able. That is just an example, but it would give people reading a better idea of what the goal of the change is. As it sits right now, it looks like a buff to Goons (cue pubbie rage at the NC) and a nerf to small alliances that don't hold good trusec.
Shuarek Caldari Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.27 05:37:00 - [764] Triple the map.Then you can do whatever.
Eric Xallen	Posted - 2011.03.27 05:57:00 - [765] Greyscale, you newb. All this is doing is making it more big-alliance0centric. Large alliances already control the best space, and pass out the crap space at exorbitant rental fees to smaller guys who aren't big enough to take the space themselves. Dominion meant all space could be viable. Now, with this nerf, you're going to make large tracts of 0.0 barren again. Large alliances will lose renters all over the place, after they fail tor educe rental fees and corps can't afford it. Watch your metrics. I expect this nerf will show a net average of players leaving nullsec, especially the crappy regions. The major alliances will hold the best space still, as they always did, and places like Provi and Scalding Pass will become wastelands again. We've got a nullsec CSM, couldn't you at least have waited until these guys were settled and let them look at it? You show here you clearly do not understand what is going on in nullsec these days. Fail.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.27 06:21:00 - [766] Good change imo. There should be changes to true sec distribution as it is atm though. Much much less in regions with high number of tech moons, much much more in regions without. PS: Loving the NC tears in this thread.
progodlegend 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.27 06:36:00 - [767] Edited by: progodlegend on 27/03/2011 06:37:09 Originally by: Estimated Prophet There's a major, fundamental difference between the real world and game worlds that CCP have missed, and I think is the root cause of the conflict here. In the real world, lack of resources drives conflict. If you don't have enough food, or water, or land to grow food, you die. So you go war to get it, or die trying. In game worlds, and EVE in particular, lack of resources stifles conflict. Lack of resources doesn't cause death, at worst it causes boredom; we fight for excitement, not survival. How many times have you heard these words in your Alliance chat/forums: "How do I make ISK so I can afford to PvP?" Look at Geminate; who's fighting? The NC vs the Drone Regions, two of the richest power blocks in the game. Before that? The Cluster** vs IT. And that only happened after Goonswarm had been in Deklein long enough to recover from the financial disaster of a year ago. And now that the Goons have recovered financially, they're reimbursing all PvP losses, not just strategic operations. tl;dr: If you want to increase conflict in EVE you need to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor, not increase it. Lul tech moons. Honestly I'm surprised the NC is so against this, they have the tech moons to sustain their population as it is. If anything, it should be alliances like mine that are **ting their pants at this change, because the only thing we can do is rent space for decent income. After this, it will be impossible for us to rent out large amounts of space, and then we will truly have little to no way to combat the NC's tech moons. And to think, I actually still think these are good changes.
Darirol FEROX AQUILA Cold Steel Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.27 07:13:00 - [768] 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 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. and then someone places a cloaky afk noob ship in your 2 high end system and blocks all your sanctums with only 2 or 3 ships. for ever. and there is nothing you can do
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.27 07:15:00 - [769] Originally by: Pedro Snachez Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Yeah, but that was before sov costs and POS fuel went through the roof, making it much harder to spam sov and have enough belts to support residents. What has been said about CVA already in this thread was true of many 0.0 powers before the Dominion changes: Highsec mission alts were common for someone who wasn't already wealthy. Mission on the alt, log the main in to spend the alt's Highsec money. Now, people tend to do both with their main characters, meaning that people don't need multiple accounts or to jump back and forth between 0.0 and Empire to survive. Anomalies tie 0.0 residents to 0.0, and that's ultimately a good thing. The huge boom in 0.0 population (which I see nobody complaining about) post-Dominion was due to the ability of a small amount of space to provide good income for more people, especially those that didn't have fully-trained alts or secondary accounts. The issue I have with your argument is the fact that you have quotes around worthless. The truth is, upwards of 60% of all of 0.0 will not be worth the sov costs to hold. The possible income from the resources there would not be enough to even hold sov. Forget big power blocks or new alliances, if the math doesn't work then the math doesn't work. Period. People keep arguing about 0.0 being about goodfights, but that's bull. Goddfights happen because of good money. All the PVP gumption in the world won't make a ship appear out of thin air. Well-funded 0.0 residents fight and die in expensive ships, and if you make the real life time cost of making ISK in 0.0 skyrocket, then people will either move back to highsec or blob even harder to create situation in which they can't lose. The question is simply this: Should 0.0 residents of all sizes and locations have access to enough ISK to actually make it worth defending space, or are those who don't hold awesome truesec space there as Highsec-living tourists who jump out for a "good time" every couple of days? CCP wants more people to live and actually stay in 0.0, and this "fix" does the opposite. +1 On the old model of mission running on one toon (or Jump clone) and being a tourist in null, sure people made it work. Was it better than what we have now? I don't think so. Dominion gave players a reason to LIVE in null, not just visit. I like having living, breathing, self sustaining populations in null. The old skeleton crew model had its merits, but it was pretty boring, and had all the same problems of Mob A and Mob B hoarding. Put down the nerf bat. Rather than taking away from the game, have you considered adding to it? Growth vs amputation?
Raimo Genos Occidere	Posted - 2011.03.27 07:35:00 - [770] Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent! I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare. Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict. Extremely well said. Pay attenttion, CCP! (And the NC) ---------- Prom4csm

Superform Caldari Kickass inc Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.27 07:36:00 - [771] Quote: Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. this i only want to pvp... i would create conflict in 0.0 if i had more ships to fight with and could spend less time doing forced pve (which i detest) to pay for those ships alliances dont fight over sanctums they fight over moons.. for a dev to not understand this is the main driver that creates conflict is truly disturbing.. if you really wanted to spice up 0.0 you would increase the number of strategic tech 2 moons or have these moons spawn randomly (or get mined out etc) for periods of 2-6 months then increase the ability of the grunts to make money to afford ships to fight for and defend these moons if i cant run sanctums my income will drop and i wont be able to pvp so i cant understand how your solution will do anything but lessen conflict
Faith Astro	Posted - 2011.03.27 07:39:00 - [772] Now stop crying, we need these changes because otherwise the game comes to be like wow. Every one from 5 years can then play the game. there will be challenges, otherwise it's crap. The CCP finally makes something good, So you lazy people come into the battle.
Ruthless Erection	Posted - 2011.03.27 07:44:00 - [773] I'm sorry, but this is a crock of crap. You guys are screwing the kids who work their butts off. You guys should be making nullsec BETTER and worth it to be down there. Why do you ******s constantly screw with the GOOD things? You do what every other Game company does, you nerf the best things, and you make the game unbalanced. I'm sorry but if these changes happen, I'll be canceling my subscription to this game. It'll save me 15$ a month that I can spend on myself. Here's a suggestion, instead of farking over nullsec, why don't you fix bugs? Improve the game play's smoothness? Why not improve the game lag, and visual lag? Oh wait, that's something only real companies do, forgot, your just a bunch of foreign tards. Congrats, Like Blizzard, you've now started losing players. Real s'well job guys.
Caldrion Dosto Excrutiating Dirge Merciless.	Posted - 2011.03.27 08:15:00 - [774] 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 Do not cave to the care bears. this is a good and most of all needed change. Just do it allready.
kazzago	Posted - 2011.03.27 08:15:00 - [775] Hi guys, I especially like the fact that you sneak this ** in, while fanfest is going on - respect for your hardcore fans ! (** yeah ???). In case you are hangovered from the party at the top of the world, that was me being SARCASTIC. I dont' like the idea, because of all the reasons stated otherwise in this thread (mostly because that alliances is not in 0.0 for the sancts etc - but it's a way for me to earn the isk to be able to pay the fee for the corp). So you are not changing anything other than making it harder for individual players, adding additional "grinding hours" to the game, instead of action packed pvp'ing. Don't do it. Try to look in your bloody backlog instead, there should be plenty of bugs to fix instead.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.27 08:16:00 - [776] Worthless pets incapable of pvping whining about not being able to make as much isk per hour as skilled established pvp alliances (or blobbers). Maybe CCP should hand out 1st prize to all alliance tournament participants just so everything is fair and there are no losers.
Estimated Prophet	Posted - 2011.03.27 08:49:00 - [777] Originally by: progodlegend Edited by: progodlegend on 27/03/2011 06:37:09 Lul tech moons. Honestly I'm surprised the NC is so against this, they have the tech moons to sustain their population as it is. If anything, it should be alliances like mine that are ****ting their pants at this change, because the only thing we can do is rent space for decent income. After this, it will be impossible for us to rent out large amounts of space, and then we will truly have little to no way to combat the NC's tech moons. And to think, I actually still think these are good changes. You're right, the NC has enough Tech moons for this to be irrelevant to them. They also control space with low enough true-sec for this to be (I think) a net benefit to them. They're against it, not because they're acting out of self-interest (hard to believe in this game), but because it would fail to achieve it's stated goals, and actually harm the game as a whole by making it harder for new alliances to challenge the existing power blocks. Sure, they'll get an initial foothold easily enough, but the systems they'll get will be so poor (supporting 1-2 players at an income level less than running level 4 missions in high-sec) that they'll sustaining the growth needed to challenge the existing alliances. Meanwhile the existing alliances will be sitting on the best moons and the best systems, churning out super-caps as fast as they can, and growing richer and stronger at a much faster rate. The gap between the two is only going to grow at a much faster rate.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.27 08:54:00 - [778] Edited by: Furb Killer on 27/03/2011 08:55:38 Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. Sorry Clavius but pre-dominion, which wars were fought over ratting grounds exactly? And after these changes there will be indeed less incentive to fill the space with renters, so we have empty space, how is that better? Because lets be clear, it will just like pre-dominion be buffer zones, they definately wont allow independent alliances there. In providence the vast majority pre-dominion made their isk using lvl 4 missions, either in Ziriert or in high sec. Aditionally we wouldnt be able to support any kind of longer conflict without JC'ing back to high sec to make our ISK, is that how 0.0 should be? Because sure we managed to get our ISK while having ships in providence, but we definately didnt manage to do that in providence. Well by times I did that purely on ratting and exploration, but that was only possible due to no large conflicts going on, so no large expenses. Then why providence was populated and allowed for the large ammount of pvp, you should really talk to Hardin about this since he understands it. But it comes down to security -> more security = more pvp, less security = more NAPs + empty wastelands. Old providence had jump bridges everywhere connecting everything, allowing for reasonable response times against roaming reds and relative safe travel for the main inhabitants. More important every single system was cynojammed, also against black ops hotdrops. This provided safety for all pilots, safety attracts people, which allowed for the most diverse pvp environment in 0.0 ever. And that is something that CCP (and many others) just dont seem to be able to grasp -> increase reasons for conflict also means more people want to shoot us -> we band more together to protect ourselves -> larger NAPs. More security -> more people in 0.0 with less reason to NAP everyone in 30 region radius -> more pvp.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.27 08:54:00 - [779] Originally by: Estimated Prophet [...] it would fail to achieve it's stated goals, and actually harm the game as a whole by making it harder for new alliances to challenge the existing power blocks. Sure, they'll get an initial foothold easily enough, but the systems they'll get will be so poor (supporting 1-2 players at an income level less than running level 4 missions in high-sec) that they'll sustaining the growth needed to challenge the existing alliances. Meanwhile the existing alliances will be sitting on the best moons and the best systems, churning out super-caps as fast as they can, and growing richer and stronger at a much faster rate. The gap between the two is only going to grow at a much faster rate. Quoted for truth now, and shall be requoted if needed be in the future of this thread. Well pointed. ____________ I like woman because breasts
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 09:23:00 - [780] I have been very much against these changes for many of the reasons already stated (even though I rarely run anoms). The changes could work, but would require other changes alongside them. The real problem here is blobs and coalitions. All we need to do is look at recent history (IT saying screw it and dispanding pretty much because there was no point fighting against 2-3x your numbers - even when not fighting against the whole coalition). This is what needs to be fixed in eve. Remove the ability for such rediculous numbers and then changes like the ones proposed could actually work well. A 0.0 full of smaller alliances would make PVP a lot more fun, and give new alliances a chance to take on the established powers (to a point). If it were my choice, I would remove NAPs and limit alliance sizes (or at lease make them both cost a lot to sustain after a point based on the number of players in the alliance/NAPs - The costs should be not ISK, but require large amounts of logistics to sustain - and should grow exponentially). Fix things like this and then maybe people would be able to fight for systems. Right now there is no point.

Soldarius Caldari Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.27 09:50:00 - [781] Edited by: Soldarius on 27/03/2011 09:50:16 So let me see if I get this right. CCP will concentrate sanctums and havens in lower true-sec systems. The problem with this is that people who wish to finance their PvP through destroying little red crosses now must relocate in order to maintain their income level. No doubt many will simply quit nul and go back to losec for small-gang PvP, or back to missioning. With less PvP, there will be less need for ships. Manufacturers will leave nulsec because there won't be any opportunities to make isk by building cool things and selling to players. With less things being built, there will be less need for raw materials. Miners will quit nul and go back to high sec. A lot of nul is about to empty out. This change runs completely counter to CCP's stated goal of getting more people out to nul. Small alliances will not have the means to take space from alliances with better space. "He who controls the spice, controls the universe." Tech holding alliances will still have cash flow. This will have no direct influence on them. However, with their smaller partners unable to finance themselves in their current space, they will have to start spreading the wealth to members instead of buying more supers or dropping more station eggs. Otherwise, they will have to relocate or quit nul entirely. System with good moons and/or lots of belts will become more valuable. Best true-sec systems will of course become more valuable. Because of the sudden decrease in total sanctums/havens and the wrecks they produce, salvage will become harder to acquire in nul. Rigs will get harder to find and thus more expensive. You know how much Large Trimarks or Shield Extenders cost these days? You can buy an entire battle ship for the cost of a set of Large Trimarks. Without the personal income from sanctums and havens, players will need to rely on subsidies from the alliance in the form of more reimbursements. Big alliances without good true-sec may have to open up the alliance wallet and spread some moon-goo jew juice to their members instead of buying more supers or dropping more stations. Or, they can return to mission running alts in hisec, meaning they won't be around to fight for and protect their nul-sec space. In which case, what's the point? This won't do diddly to botters. They tend to belt rat. Personally, it won't make much of a difference to me. I make most of my isk from hisec trading. Edit: Oh snap! Top of page! Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
Thermoss Devlin Minmatar StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:08:00 - [782] Well, if CCP can't listen to this then they cannot adhear to anything. ------------- Hailgrains (?) hit, cut in crops! If one is to die, Another one is born.
Moebbius Caldari COLD-Wing	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:13:00 - [783] Not looking this idea at all. You want more conflicts but how do you finance the ships when you dont have an income from sanctums/havens. No income means no pvp ships means no conflicts
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:22:00 - [784] Edited by: SirJoJo on 27/03/2011 10:22:47 Originally by: Thermoss Devlin Well, if CCP can't listen to this then they cannot adhear to anything. NC dont represent all of EVE like it or not, your just the most loudly here because now all your pets space is not a goldmine anymore and you afraid they will look for other options
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:23:00 - [785] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:24:34 Originally by: UniqueOne I have been very much against these changes for many of the reasons already stated (even though I rarely run anoms). The changes could work, but would require other changes alongside them. The real problem here is blobs and coalitions. All we need to do is look at recent history (IT saying screw it and dispanding basicaly because there was no point fighting against 2-3x your numbers - even when not fighting against the whole coalition). If IT was unable to defend against the blobs then what hope does anyone else have? This is what needs to be fixed in eve. Remove the ability for such rediculous numbers and then changes like the ones proposed could actually work well. A 0.0 full of smaller alliances would make PVP a lot more fun, and give new alliances a chance to take on the established powers (to a point). If it were my choice, I would remove NAPs and limit alliance sizes (or at lease make them both cost a lot to sustain after a point based on the number of players in the alliance/NAPs - The costs should be not ISK, but require large amounts of logistics to sustain - and should grow exponentially). I think something around 1000 or 1250 players should be the limit before alliances/NAPs are charged for the extra players. When you consider how many of those would be able to turn up to a particular fight it should keep the fights at a sustainable size. -- Also note that special cases may need to be added for alt characters on the same accounts, they probably should not be included in the totals as they can not be used at the same time anyway. Fix things like this and then maybe people would be able to fight for systems. Right now there is no point. Nobody enjoys lag blob "fights" (or more to the point lack of fights). I live for the day when eve 0.0 becomes fun again. When newer alliances can compete on some level, and when lag is a thing of the past. It really doesnt require hardware changes, it doesnt require massive software changes, it just requires common sense and some reasonable limitations. Just in addition - Why not limit the damage blobs can do to a single target. Make weapon damage affect the other incoming damage. So the more people shooting at an object (and adjust by the sig radius), the less each shot does. Force fleets to spread out and actually make use of squads.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:50:00 - [786] Originally by: UniqueOne Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 09:50:41 I have been very much against these changes for many of the reasons already stated (even though I rarely run anoms). The changes could work, but would require other changes alongside them. The real problem here is blobs and coalitions. All we need to do is look at recent history (IT saying screw it and dispanding basicaly because there was no point fighting against 2-3x your numbers - even when not fighting against the whole coalition). If IT was unable to defend against the blobs then what hope does anyone else have? This is what needs to be fixed in eve. Remove the ability for such rediculous numbers and then changes like the ones proposed could actually work well. A 0.0 full of smaller alliances would make PVP a lot more fun, and give new alliances a chance to take on the established powers (to a point). If it were my choice, I would remove NAPs and limit alliance sizes (or at lease make them both cost a lot to sustain after a point based on the number of players in the alliance/NAPs - The costs should be not ISK, but require large amounts of logistics to sustain - and should grow exponentially). I think something around 1000 or 1250 players should be the limit before alliances/NAPs are charged for the extra players. When you consider how many of those would be able to turn up to a particular fight it should keep the fights at a sustainable size. -- Also note that special cases may need to be added for alt characters on the same accounts, they probably should not be included in the totals as they can not be used at the same time anyway. Fix things like this and then maybe people would be able to fight for systems. Right now there is no point. Nobody enjoys lag blob "fights" (or more to the point lack of fights). I live for the day when eve 0.0 becomes fun again. When newer alliances can compete on some level, and when lag is a thing of the past. It really doesnt require hardware changes, it doesnt require massive software changes, it just requires common sense and some reasonable limitations. IT could have mounted a defense, but they failed internally and made some really poor strategic choices--like putting most of their forces in a single station. They started losing when they got in a petty dispute with Evoke and did not look past a moon or two to support them as a buffer and ally. IT's CAP fleet with Evoke's HACS would have been a fearsome foe. Evoke aside, they had plenty of pilots, caps and supers, just not the will to fight. War is won with morale--in RL and in Eve--the best leaders, like The Mittani, understand this and wage war accordingly. Anyway I digress, but IT did not give up out of blob fear, they just did not care enough to undock. The sandbox means that every style of play is valid. So if a set of players want to be part of a galactic empire like citizens of Rome, who are you to say they should not play that way? Further, limiting alliance size will not change a thing unless you mean to limit standings which would really screw the game up. You can't make rules against people being friends and working together through Jabber. Blobs can suck because of lag, but numbers are and should always be a valid strategy. I know its widely perceived to those who do not fight large fleet engagements that blobs are masses of zerg like chaos and raw skilless displays of power, but that is not true. Large fleets are formed according to long debated and studied doctrines and we even sometimes shoot our own blues if they show up in the wrong ship in addition to trolling them relentlessly. There is more; you have to then apply each doctrine according to its strengths and weakness, coordinated with Caps, and according the objectives on the field. Its art and science. Its organization, collaboration, and leadership at its highest level in the game. Its a big pile of sand in the box. Seb
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:53:00 - [787] Ignore the haters CCP these changes are good, allow me to explain. 1. Santum macro / bots will have a harder time to make ISK 2. For those of you who keep saying "dont nerf individual income, nerf moon goo", well moon goo SHOULD be used to help members, this will make alliances actually use that money 3. Renters will go from "yay risk free space" to "yay **** ISK space", causing them to get disgruntled questioning whether its worth protecting their masters or not 4. Systems where good expensive ships are will be obvious 5. People dont fight over santums and truesec, its over grudges and I guess moon goo, this however will make pets / renters question their space, meaning you WILL see more combat since there will be less numbers to protect. 6. Losing a supercap will mean something, since not everyone will be able to get the good santums 7. Alliances will have to actually reimburse members with the ISK they make on moon goo or else they risk having inactivity This change is GOOD, dont listen to the NC / NC alts, they are aware this will encourage combat and thats the ONLY reason they are hating. This way alliances can deal with grudges themselves (moon goo etc) however players will question whether its worth being 'friends' and logging on for CTAs Epic change!! . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:54:00 - [788] Originally by: UniqueOne Just in addition - Why not limit the damage blobs can do to a single target. Make weapon damage affect the other incoming damage (some sort of spacial instability around the object), so the more people shooting at an object (and adjust by the sig radius), the less each shot does. Force fleets to spread out and actually make use of squads. Primary targets should have been removed a long time ago to make for fun fights. Currently, damage calculation is somewhat easy (idealised), since no gun needs to know about any other gun: 1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does 2.1) modify damage by target's resistances 3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage 4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0 This changes with 'primary stacking'. One now needs additionally: 2.2) determine number of people currently shooting the target 2.3) modify damage accordingly This is computationally insane for something that occurs as often in EVE as shooting something. So, we apply a time/memory tradeoff optimization and instead of recalculating 2.2) every time a gun shoots, we put in an attribute of the target that we can evaluate. So we have: 0.0) add additional counter attribute for every object in space 0.1) increment/decrement counter on module activation IF it is the first module of that player active on that ship 1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does 2.1) modify damage by target's resistances 2.2) modify damage by number of people shooting the target 3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage 4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0 0.2) decrement counter on module deactivation, if the module was the last of that player active on the target And now, still, we have an additional computation for every shot that is fired, more memory consumption for every object in space, plus more expensive set-up routines on module activation/deactivation that contain conditional jumps that we can't easily optimize out. And conditional jumps can kill the branch prediction/memory prefetch of the cpu, so instead of the 3 cycles the computation actually takes, this costs around 50 cycles until the CPU has set up all the caches again and start chewing away at full speed. It does not sound a lot, but with the scales of fleet fights in EVE in mind, this could easily drop the maximum number of players decently fighting on a reinforced node by a couple of hundred. And this in turn, does not benefit small entities. Small forces rely on strategy, cohesion and teamplay more than anything else to overcome bigger forces. And for that, the one crucial metric is the responsiveness of the game. All your skillpoints, fittings and strategy amount to nil if your ship doesn't react. It is nice that you would take less damage if the node was working, but since it isn't, guess what, you die.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 10:59:00 - [789] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:59:45 ^^^ Reply to Seb post above... I understand fully (and have been a part of) what you are saying, but it does not make it right. It also does not make it fun. The current blob methods of fighting create server lag and may as well be macros. Can you honestly say that you like to be in a 1000+ man fleet shooting the same target as 995 of them waiting 2 minutes between module activations? How is this fun for anyone? It works, but it is not fun in the slightest.
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:00:00 - [790] Oh and this feature is only a year old, whining about it makes no sense, all we saw in a year were more NAPs more blobs, more bots, besides friends stick together no matter what, so NC shouldnt be whining, even if their players have no ISK they will still be there Moon Goo WILL NOW be used to fund the alliance, no longer will it be used for RMT and other **** . Im not Bismaru, im better!

UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:04:00 - [791] Originally by: Mioelnir Edited by: Mioelnir on 27/03/2011 11:01:18 Originally by: UniqueOne Just in addition - Why not limit the damage blobs can do to a single target. Make weapon damage affect the other incoming damage (some sort of spacial instability around the object), so the more people shooting at an object (and adjust by the sig radius), the less each shot does. Force fleets to spread out and actually make use of squads. Primary targets should have been removed a long time ago to make for fun fights. Currently, damage calculation is somewhat easy (idealised), since no gun needs to know about any other gun: 1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does 2.1) modify damage by target's resistances 3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage 4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0 This changes with 'primary stacking'. One now needs additionally: 2.2) determine number of people currently shooting the target 2.3) modify damage accordingly This is computationally insane for something that occurs as often in EVE as shooting something. So, we apply a time/memory tradeoff optimization since a gun shoots more often than it is activated, and instead of recalculating 2.2) every time a gun shoots, we put in an attribute of the target that we can evaluate. So we have: 0.0) add additional counter attribute for every object in space 0.1) increment/decrement counter on module activation IF it is the first module of that player active on that ship 1.1) determine raw amount of damage the weapon does 2.1) modify damage by target's resistances 2.2) modify damage by number of people shooting the target 3.1) set target hp = old-hp - modified damage 4.1) blow ship up if hp <= 0 0.2) decrement counter on module deactivation, if the module was the last of that player active on the target And now, still, we have an additional computation for every shot that is fired, more memory consumption for every object in space, plus more expensive set-up routines on module activation/deactivation that contain conditional jumps that we can't easily optimize out. And conditional jumps can kill the branch prediction/memory prefetch of the cpu, so instead of the 3 cycles the computation actually takes, this costs around 50 cycles until the CPU has set up all the caches again and start chewing away at full speed. It does not sound a lot, but with the scales of fleet fights in EVE in mind, this could easily drop the maximum number of players decently fighting on a reinforced node by a couple of hundred. And this in turn, does not benefit small entities. And as you have noticed, this is more efficient the more cycles a targeted module stays active, since the setup costs now is constant and we only save ourself the calculation if the gun actually shoots. But in a fleet fight with high alphas and properly applied focus fire, the amount of weapon activations per module activations aren't actually that high, even with the stacking in place. Small forces rely on strategy, cohesion and teamplay more than anything else to overcome bigger forces. And for that, the one crucial metric is the responsiveness of the game. All your skillpoints, fittings and strategy amount to nil if your ship doesn't react. It is nice that you would take less damage if the node was working, but since it isn't, guess what, you die. The idea was meant to be in combination with the text quoted above it. Please read that. Any extra cpu usage will easy be offset by the smaller numbers due to the other changes.
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:15:00 - [792] Yes, it works if only small numbers of players are involved. But at the same time, it ensures that the node dies a horrible death if someone manages to rally a big number of players on grid, killing the node, denying the objective. Now, which option will our fellow eve players use.....
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:18:00 - [793] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 11:25:44 Originally by: Mioelnir Yes, it works if only small numbers of players are involved. But at the same time, it ensures that the node dies a horrible death if someone manages to rally a big number of players on grid, killing the node, denying the objective. Now, which option will our fellow eve players use..... Currenty we all know the answer to that. It is what the original post was about - forcing reduction in those numbers to a non-critical level. It is all about these 3 simple rules. How it is achieved needs to be debated. Originally by: UniqueOne Simple explanation: 1. Reduce numbers to non-critical cluster load levels. (I would expect a max of about 800-1000 players from 2 1250 player alliances/coalitions to be able to turn up at best) 2. Break up those numbers into smaller groups concentrating on multiple targets. 3. Enjoyment of the experience rather then mindless primary shooting.
NAILGRUNT	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:20:00 - [794] who ever hired ccp greyscale needs to fire his ass and get someone who actually KNOWS what Eve 0.0 is about. instead of pulling ideas out of thin air start fixing the damn game ccp
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:26:00 - [795] http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html Sign the petition and stop this nonsense! Boost the better true-sec systems not NERF the lesser systems, boosting will still make systems more wantable and you can have more persons in 1 system!, so you can pack more smaller allainces in a system/few systems!!! http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html sign now and make ccp change its mind!!!
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:30:00 - [796] Originally by: Kalle Demos Ignore the haters CCP these changes are good, allow me to explain. 1. Santum macro / bots will have a harder time to make ISK 2. For those of you who keep saying "dont nerf individual income, nerf moon goo", well moon goo SHOULD be used to help members, this will make alliances actually use that money 3. Renters will go from "yay risk free space" to "yay **** ISK space", causing them to get disgruntled questioning whether its worth protecting their masters or not 4. Systems where good expensive ships are will be obvious 5. People dont fight over santums and truesec, its over grudges and I guess moon goo, this however will make pets / renters question their space, meaning you WILL see more combat since there will be less numbers to protect. 6. Losing a supercap will mean something, since not everyone will be able to get the good santums 7. Alliances will have to actually reimburse members with the ISK they make on moon goo or else they risk having inactivity This change is GOOD, dont listen to the NC / NC alts, they are aware this will encourage combat and thats the ONLY reason they are hating. This way alliances can deal with grudges themselves (moon goo etc) however players will question whether its worth being 'friends' and logging on for CTAs Epic change!! Wow where do I begin. 1. There are not enough sanctums now in our space for Bots. Our guys are on top of these things constantly and we notice that. I don't doubt that there are bots hitting anomalies somewhere, but not where pilots are living. 2. In the NC, it already is. Moon goo goes to ship reimbursements, sov and system upgrades. My last alliance actually taxed corporations for these fees. The books are out in the open to review, no isk gets skimmed for the leadership. 3. Well maybe, but this will come to a shock to you, but the NC does not rent--or rents very little. The 'guest' alliances receive just as much support or more than we give. The NC model is successful because it welcomes smaller alliances as junior partners with a path to full partnership if they can prove your worth. It is a much less exploitive than what you see in most power blocks and why people really mean it when the type "BFF". 4. Yes, and as others have pointed out, you can shut off an alliances ISK faucet with just a few cloaky pilots. In our space we have about four systems the produce sanctums and at any given time half of them are usually camped by a hot dropper. We can agree this will make life very convenient for griefers--or is the the "fun" part of Eve you where talking about? 5. This makes no sense at all. Less of what to protect? How does less of anything mean more PVP? This might make large alliances drive out some pets from better space, but it won't give pets the juice to successfully challenge a powerful established alliance. 6. Wow, just wow. If you can average 50 mil per hour in a sanctum, a nyx hull will take 300 hours of your time to earn. I don't know about but 300 hours of my time is worth a hell of a lot. That is equivalent of 7.5 40 hour work weeks, or $3000 at 10$ per hour. If you play 12 hours a week. Six hours rating, and six hours PVP, it will take every isk of one years worth of sanctum grinding today to get a Nyx. Oh, and then you have to fit that beast while you pay for your weekly PVP grind. 7. My alliance already does, so do the blues around me. Sounds like some people are allowing themselves to be used--thats not the NC's fault. In fact thats really just a refined scam and we all know that the right of people to exercise their stupidity will never be interfered with by CCP. sigh, it will always be worth being friends because the security that being part of a large coalition brings is worth more than anything that can be taken away. I am not a rude guy, but you don't know what your talking about. Seb
Pax Ratlin Gallente Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:31:00 - [797] Originally by: Kalle Demos 1. Santum macro / bots will have a harder time to make ISK Your using a minor inconsequential by-product of a change to a game mechanic to justify it. Originally by: Kalle Demos 2. For those of you who keep saying "dont nerf individual income, nerf moon goo", well moon goo SHOULD be used to help members, this will make alliances actually use that money Yes the leadership of all alliances are evil money grabbing powermongers and the moon IS made of cheese Originally by: Kalle Demos 3. Renters will go from "yay risk free space" to "yay ** ISK Just because your too lazy to jump in a cloaky ship and go look for yourself and would rather just click a few buttons on Dotlan it dosn't mean we should destroy space", causing them to get disgruntled questioning whether its worth protecting their masters or not People don't hold space to protect their masters, they rent space because they have no alternatives therefore this will simply cause smaller and medium sized allainces to be LESS likely to move out to 0.0. Originally by:** Kalle Demos 4. Systems where good expensive ships are will be obvious Just because your too lazy to jump in a cloaky ship and go look for yourself like everyone else you want to destroy small and medium sized alliances ability to move out to 0.0? Originally by: Kalle Demos 5. People dont fight over santums and truesec, its over grudges and I guess moon goo, this however will make pets / renters question their space, meaning you WILL see more combat since there will be less numbers to protect. You'll see less combat because the richer alliances will get richer and the poorer alliances will get poorer and thus less likely to attack the power blocs Originally by: Kalle Demos 6. Losing a supercap will mean something, since not everyone will be able to get the good santums The fact you believe that Supercapitals are financed by Sanctum running pretty much says it all. Originally by: Kalle Demos 7. Alliances will have to actually reimburse members with the ISK they make on moon goo or else they risk having inactivity And all russians are belt ratting macro's and all chinese are RMT ice miners etc etc etc Originally by: Kalle Demos This change is GOOD, dont listen to the NC / NC alts, they are aware this will encourage combat and thats the ONLY reason they are hating. This way alliances can deal with grudges themselves (moon goo etc) however players will question whether its worth being 'friends' and logging on for CTAs Epic change!! Lets be honest the changes don't really effect the NC or it's renters, there pretty much too large for this to have a significant effect other than tripling the number of hi-sec mission running alts. The real reason people hate this proposed change is because it fails to achieve it's stated aims on the most basic and fundemental levels.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:39:00 - [798] Originally by: UniqueOne Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:59:45 ^^^ Reply to Seb post above... I understand fully (and have been a part of) what you are saying, but it does not make it right. It also does not make it fun. The current blob methods of fighting create server lag and may as well be macros. Can you honestly say that you like to be in a 1000+ man fleet shooting the same target as 995 of them waiting 2 minutes between module activations? How is this fun for anyone? It works, but it is not fun in the slightest. Well lag aside, which a entirely separate issue than what this thread is discussing, there must be something to like about being part of a large coalition, but almost everyone in Null sec is in one. BTW, a 1000 pilot force would probably be split between at least four fleets each with their own doctrine and calling separate targets and have command and control coordinating the fleets. So yes, there is something interesting about these fights. Lag sucks, and its always there for the really big flights we also have a lot of fights with a lot of people in local without serious lag issues. Seb
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:39:00 - [799] CCP, never go full ****. You've gone full **. Devs who have no idea how to play the game should be fired. Also if this idiotic game gets implemented I am going to petition the system I rat in because my alliance didn't fight so you could nerf our income. I will not stop petitioning until you change it or change the sec status of my system. The only time this change will work is if there're lots of -1 systems, but there aren't. In the majority of the south east systems are absolutely worthless. I just remembered something. The "We don't give a damn about the game" (18 months) full **** comment earned you some really bad publicity. You've forgotten what that tastes like, time to remind you once again, as you just never, ever learn.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:45:00 - [800] Originally by: Sebastian Hoch Originally by: UniqueOne Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 10:59:45 ^^^ Reply to Seb post above... I understand fully (and have been a part of) what you are saying, but it does not make it right. It also does not make it fun. The current blob methods of fighting create server lag and may as well be macros. Can you honestly say that you like to be in a 1000+ man fleet shooting the same target as 995 of them waiting 2 minutes between module activations? How is this fun for anyone? It works, but it is not fun in the slightest. Well lag aside, which a entirely separate issue than what this thread is discussing, there must be something to like about being part of a large coalition, but almost everyone in Null sec is in one. BTW, a 1000 pilot force would probably be split between at least four fleets each with their own doctrine and calling separate targets and have command and control coordinating the fleets. So yes, there is something interesting about these fights. Lag sucks, and its always there for the really big flights we also have a lot of fights with a lot of people in local without serious lag issues. Seb It is in some ways a separate issue, but it is also the reason the changes to anoms will not work. Without removing the blobs, the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks.

Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:51:00 - [801] Originally by: Pax Ratlin Lets be honest the changes don't really effect the NC or it's renters, there pretty much too large for this to have a significant effect other than tripling the number of hi-sec mission running alts. Then why are NC and 'random alts' the only one raging atm ;) . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:53:00 - [802] Quote: It was mentioned by CCP that the data does not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features. The discussion focused on introducing new features versus improving existing ones. CCP stated that once Incarna and planetary interaction with its link to Dust are fully implemented, focus will probably shift far more towards improvement of existing features. I would like to remind you all this is CCP we're talking about. So, clueless devs, are you boosting system sec status across the board or do you want us to petition our systems for lack of sanctums.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:56:00 - [803] This is the most ill thought out thing to come out of CCP in a very long time. Since when has an Alliance needed an excuse to invade his neighbour? We do it not because we covet their sanctums but because it's bloody good fun to be in epic battles. You're also going to re-create an inbalance where those in possession of the most valuable space will have greater resources with which to hold it therefore the consequences of this are likely to be the exact opposite to that which you intend. Across the galaxy there is only war.
Eric Xallen	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:58:00 - [804] I understand, i think, what they are trying to do. CCP want to break up the alliances a bit, and make nullsec less blobby and more contested. The problem is the way they go about it. People don't fight over sanctums, they fight over truesec already, over stations and tech moons and whatever else. By killing sanctums in bad space, they are actively reducing the small alliances income with doing not much to the large alliances income, in effect, the direct opposite of what they are trying to do. The two Big Blobs don't get their money from sanctums. NC's massive super blobs and lol just reimburse it isn't from sanctum ratting, its from tech moon imbalances which CCP refuses to address and didn't think about when they did it in the first place (or they did, and they were wrong, and haven't fixed it). The DRF regions don't get their money from sanctums either. Both alliances supplement their income from bots, which also don't use sanctums, they use decent nullsec system belts. None of these sources of income, one a complete imbalance and the other questionably against the EULA are actually being targetted by CCP. The only people they are actually punishing with sanctums are the individual players that are actually real players, not bots, and not alliances. NC and DRF already have their vast quantities of money and huge assets. Nerfing the middle-sized alliances income doesn't stop the blobs, in fact it forces people to join the rich alliances more than the others who now will be severely hampered in getting a solid income for any type of sov warfare. The intent i think is good, but the execution is going to take out exactly the wrong people. It should definately be rethought, and a deeper analysis of the problem needs to be done.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 11:58:00 - [805] Originally by: UniqueOne It is in some ways a separate issue, but it is also the reason the changes to anoms will not work. Without removing the blobs, the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks - making the proposed changes pointless. You need to fix the cause before changing the symptoms. NAP and Alliance mechanics needs a serious fix before all the other problems currently in eve can be fixed. Fix this problem and most of these other issues will fix themselves. Dude, I am sorry your alliance failcascaded and you lost your space. Its your leadership's fault--not yours. Though please stop trying to rationalize that failure as something that needs to change in the game. Just go back and read what you just wrote: " the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks" How exactly does it make sense that weaker groups should get game mechanics, that are based on their weakness, that let them win over stronger groups? Maybe sov should be based on how many ships you have destroyed in a particular system.... /sarcasm
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:03:00 - [806] Originally by: Super Whopper Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 11:57:20 Quote: It was mentioned by CCP that the data does not seem to support that polished quality sells better than new features. The discussion focused on introducing new features versus improving existing ones. CCP stated that once Incarna and planetary interaction with its link to Dust are fully implemented, focus will probably shift far more towards improvement of existing features. I would like to remind you all this is CCP we're talking about. So, clueless devs, are you boosting system sec status across the board or do you want us to petition our systems for lack of sanctums. Is this a stealth empire mission boost? Nah missions are being nerfed too. So only powerblocks have any chance at all in eve in the future.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:08:00 - [807] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:08:24 Originally by: Sebastian Hoch Originally by: UniqueOne It is in some ways a separate issue, but it is also the reason the changes to anoms will not work. Without removing the blobs, the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks - making the proposed changes pointless. You need to fix the cause before changing the symptoms. NAP and Alliance mechanics needs a serious fix before all the other problems currently in eve can be fixed. Fix this problem and most of these other issues will fix themselves. Dude, I am sorry your alliance failcascaded and you lost your space. Its your leadership's fault--not yours. Though please stop trying to rationalize that failure as something that needs to change in the game. Just go back and read what you just wrote: " the changes will not allow newer/smaller alliances to take the systems from the powerblocks" How exactly does it make sense that weaker groups should get game mechanics, that are based on their weakness, that let them win over stronger groups? Maybe sov should be based on how many ships you have destroyed in a particular system.... /sarcasm Firstly, the powerblock still has the advantage with more players to choose from. Only tactics would give the smaller entity a chance to win. This would just remove the pointlessness. Secondly, it doesnt stop the powerblocks from retaking the systems even if they loose them initially. More (and more fun) fighting is what we all want here isnt it?
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:09:00 - [808] Originally by: UniqueOne I believe the goals could be achieved in a way everyone is happy with, but I think the method needs to be debated. We all want to make PvP fun. Forcing these rules is very unsandboxy. Strong incentives would be a lot better. Let's look at, for example, an iHub. Let's say it has a force-level of 150, which means its stats were designed so the structure is reasonably defendable by intelligent defenders against an attacking force of 150 without supercaps. Now, if you attack with 750 people, you get a penalty of 5. If you succeed in destroying the iHub, and set up your own during the next 5 days, it takes 5 times as long as normal to online and for as long as you have sov in that system, it has 1/5th of the HP, and hostile SBUs online in 1/5th of the time with 5 times the HP. But if you conquer it with 100 people, it onlines 33% faster, has 33% more HP and hostile SBUs have 33% less HP and online 33% longer. There could be additional benefits for attacking two installations with less than the designed force at the same time. With a special balls of steel multiplier if you attack with less than 50% of the design parameters. Similar things can be designed for the defending force, encouraging defense with between 100 and 120% (you are the defender after all) of the attacking force. Bring a thousand people to defend a cyno jammer? Lose 2 levels of strategic index. Oh, that will take the jammer down by itself? Well, then you bloody well better don't bring a thousand people. And all this does not need to be real time. It would be entirely sufficient if that is computed from the stats of the fight 30 minutes afterwards. These would be per system penalties, and CCP would need to monitor this, so you don't blob with your main alliance and then hand it over uncontested to you alt alliance. Getting caught doing this incurs then an alliance wide penalty of 10 for all systems of every involved alliance for 50 days. As an alliance, you may chose to bring a gun to a knife-fight, but there will be consequences. And in some cases, those consequences may be worth it, but you cripple your infrastructure beyond help if you do it all the time. Your own infrastructure gets stronger from fighting small scale while your enemies' gets weaker by defending it large scale while if you have the numbers, always using twice the amount of people might be a sweetspot in tradeoff terms for you.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:15:00 - [809] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:15:48 Originally by: Mioelnir Originally by: UniqueOne I believe the goals could be achieved in a way everyone is happy with, but I think the method needs to be debated. We all want to make PvP fun. Forcing these rules is very unsandboxy. Strong incentives would be a lot better. Let's look at, for example, an iHub. Let's say it has a force-level of 150, which means its stats were designed so the structure is reasonably defendable by intelligent defenders against an attacking force of 150 without supercaps. Now, if you attack with 750 people, you get a penalty of 5. If you succeed in destroying the iHub, and set up your own during the next 5 days, it takes 5 times as long as normal to online and for as long as you have sov in that system, it has 1/5th of the HP, and hostile SBUs online in 1/5th of the time with 5 times the HP. But if you conquer it with 100 people, it onlines 33% faster, has 33% more HP and hostile SBUs have 33% less HP and online 33% longer. There could be additional benefits for attacking two installations with less than the designed force at the same time. With a special balls of steel multiplier if you attack with less than 50% of the design parameters. Similar things can be designed for the defending force, encouraging defense with between 100 and 120% (you are the defender after all) of the attacking force. Bring a thousand people to defend a cyno jammer? Lose 2 levels of strategic index. Oh, that will take the jammer down by itself? Well, then you bloody well better don't bring a thousand people. And all this does not need to be real time. It would be entirely sufficient if that is computed from the stats of the fight 30 minutes afterwards. These would be per system penalties, and CCP would need to monitor this, so you don't blob with your main alliance and then hand it over uncontested to you alt alliance. Getting caught doing this incurs then an alliance wide penalty of 10 for all systems of every involved alliance for 50 days. As an alliance, you may chose to bring a gun to a knife-fight, but there will be consequences. And in some cases, those consequences may be worth it, but you cripple your infrastructure beyond help if you do it all the time. Your own infrastructure gets stronger from fighting small scale while your enemies' gets weaker by defending it large scale while if you have the numbers, always using twice the amount of people might be a sweetspot in tradeoff terms for you. A very interresting idea. I like it! Maybe putting up your own iHub should not be allowed for an ammount of time beased on the size of the attacking force (over the base level) instead of a online time thing, but a bonus to online time of the defender putting another up?
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:28:00 - [810] Edited by: Mioelnir on 27/03/2011 12:33:43 Originally by: UniqueOne A very interresting idea. I like it! However, maybe putting up your own iHub should not be allowed for an ammount of time based on the size of the attacking force (over the base level) instead of a online time thing, but a bonus to online time of the defender putting another up? This could maybe also be used to remove the reinforced component to make swift/small attacks more viable. (and creating a nice new isk sink) Also indexes should not be wiped between iHubs. They should decay at a faster rate while none is online though. This way if you blob it, your indexes decay before you can replace the iHub, but if you stay within the limits, you loose next to nothing. I could see this causing systems to change hands a lot more, and much more fun fights. The only issue I can see is having blobs in surrounding systems as well. This sort of thing would need to be taken into account. maybe constellation-wide based attacker/defender stats? Obviously there would need to be a lot of implementation details that need to be fleshed out beyond the basic parameters I scratched upon. It would leave a coalition of three alliances that can field 500 people each the option to sacrifice for example strategic index 5 for 3 (the old sov level that doesn't decay) to blob the hell out of your enemy every once in a while, but would keep a coalition of three small alliances that can only field 100 people each competitive in the long run. If you only need to call upon 50-70 people as support, such a small alliance is as viable an ally as one that brings 500.

UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:29:00 - [811] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:40:57 Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:37:24 Originally by: Mioelnir Originally by: UniqueOne A very interresting idea. I like it! However, maybe putting up your own iHub should not be allowed for an ammount of time based on the size of the attacking force (over the base level) instead of a online time thing, but a bonus to online time of the defender putting another up? This could maybe also be used to remove the reinforced component to make swift/small attacks more viable. (and creating a nice new isk sink) Also indexes should not be wiped between iHubs. They should decay at a faster rate while none is online though. This way if you blob it, your indexes decay before you can replace the iHub, but if you stay within the limits, you loose next to nothing. I could see this causing systems to change hands a lot more, and much more fun fights. The only issue I can see is having blobs in surrounding systems as well. This sort of thing would need to be taken into account. maybe constellation-wide based attacker/defender stats? Obviously there would need to be a lot of implementation details that need to be fleshed out beyond the basic parameters I scratched upon. I really do like the basic idea man. Hope the devs are reading :) This would probably also remove the need to change anoms as systems should change hands more often lowerring the indexes. It would also encourage large power blocks to spread out a little and try to cut off attackers before they get to the system - meaning they need to live out of and hold pipe systems (only a good thing for more PvP).
Spurty Caldari V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:36:00 - [812] Whoops, posted in another thread about this. Here's the original post. The concept of upgradeable systems via iHubs isn't wrong, I see CCP are sort of getting religion on the 'upper echelons' of level 5 indexes, but reading this, they still miss a key factor, the original broken idea of _static_ truesec systems. One would think, the amount of rats dying and large numbers of people in local should bump up truesec (as players are making it safer for players, less safe for NPCs right?) Conversely, the lack of players living / ratting in systems / constellations should lower trusec values (rats have less predators). This idea is as old as the 'Predatory-Prey Relationships: The Fox and the Rabbit game'. It is 'player driven' content as well (Hey that stuff sounds cool, oh wait a minute ...). Its a bit redundant, but I'll say it anyway. Static content isn't player driven. If there were only 5 people playing your game, then it might 'drive' people to want to go invade someone for those resources, but the game is soooo much bigger than that game play style. The current disease to full out, total hell death mayhem in this game is overpopulation of alliances via political means. You see the 'odd' invasion happen once or twice a year. That's just not often enough, especially when there is no drive to build an alliance of space holding players to push out the current fat mass, when you can just, I don't know, like .. JOIN them? Hoppit!
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:37:00 - [813] Guys you are missing the point, sanctums were a risk free way for players to fund themselves to fight for their masters, while masters kept all the ISK and let it flow with moon goo. Making it harder for NUMBERS to make isk means it will losses mean something, alliances will have to decide on whether it is worth living somewhere or not and if it isnt they can either leave or invade the good areas. I mean really you guys are agreeing with CCPs decision anyway. Almost all comments are "smaller alliances are screwed" therefore the only way for smaller alliances NOT to be screwed is either invade leaders, demand better space or leave, how is this a bad thing? Besides theres more than one way to make ISK in 0.0 This change WILL make 0.0 less blobby as 'friends' will now have to make a choice in living in 0.0, either have **** space for friends, kill friends, demand better space or gtfo. How is this even a bad thing? . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:38:00 - [814] Originally by: UniqueOne Firstly, the powerblock still has the advantage with more players to choose from. Only tactics would give the smaller entity a chance to win. This would just remove the pointlessness. Secondly, it doesnt stop the powerblocks from retaking the systems even if they loose them initially. More (and more fun) fighting is what we all want here isnt it? Well if I have to spend a week moving my stuff, our corp POS's, and industrial base every month, because the rules make sov so fluid that space cannot be secured or controlled, this game will start to really suck bad. We would have to move into NPC stations and venture to fight into 0.0, for apparently no other reason than to fight. If space is not worth anything to hold, and can't really be held anyway, why live there and why bother to fight over it? Less security in Null means people will invest less isk and time on infrastructure in Null sec and will then be less interested in fighting over it--less PVP. I am in this game for PVP, but I also want to control the terms of engagement and be able to operate for a relatively secure base, and am willing to fight and work hard to keep that base safe, but if the rules change to make that impossible, why put yourself through that logistical nightmare? Seb
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:43:00 - [815] Edited by: UniqueOne on 27/03/2011 12:45:43 Originally by: Sebastian Hoch Originally by: UniqueOne Firstly, the powerblock still has the advantage with more players to choose from. Only tactics would give the smaller entity a chance to win. This would just remove the pointlessness. Secondly, it doesnt stop the powerblocks from retaking the systems even if they loose them initially. More (and more fun) fighting is what we all want here isnt it? Well if I have to spend a week moving my stuff, our corp POS's, and industrial base every month, because the rules make sov so fluid that space cannot be secured or controlled, this game will start to really suck bad. We would have to move into NPC stations and venture to fight into 0.0, for apparently no other reason than to fight. If space is not worth anything to hold, and can't really be held anyway, why live there and why bother to fight over it? Less security in Null means people will invest less isk and time on infrastructure in Null sec and will then be less interested in fighting over it--less PVP. I am in this game for PVP, but I also want to control the terms of engagement and be able to operate for a relatively secure base, and am willing to fight and work hard to keep that base safe, but if the rules change to make that impossible, why put yourself through that logistical nightmare? Seb You could always split your assets/clones into different stations? And if the idea in the threads above were active you could instantly put up another iHub (while if they have a larger then base size force, they would need to wait before they can - and if they don't then you can come with the right numbers and beat them - the larger alliances would still have the advantage, just not such a huge one - they also should have plenty of moon goo money to replace the hubs).
Tetragammatron Prime	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:52:00 - [816] 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 Don't give in to the NC tears. Much needed changes imo (along with making jump bridges only useable by owning alliance).
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:54:00 - [817] Look at all these noobs who think if they can't farm sanctums, havens or suck off moon goo there is no way to make isk in null sec.
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 12:56:00 - [818] Originally by: Kalle Demos Guys you are missing the point, sanctums were a risk free way for players to fund themselves to fight for their masters, while masters kept all the ISK and let it flow with moon goo. Risk Free? lol. You really have no idea what your talking about? I think a top skilled loki boosted scanner can be in warp to a sanctum 8 seconds after jumping into a system. Multi-Bilions of ratting ships go down in flames in sanctums every week. The weekly carrier gank along is probably in the double digits. When those ratters become high sec mission alts, I wonder where all those gankers will get game content from? Incursions? Originally by: Kalle Demos This change WILL make 0.0 less blobby as 'friends' will now have to make a choice in living in 0.0, either have **** space for friends, kill friends, demand better space or gtfo. Since challenging the local Power is not really an option, that leaves GTFO, or retool your financial model to stay ie high sec alts, or lots of mining if you can stand it. neither accomplishes what CCP says this change will do. OH, and I don't know what your talking about, about moon goo abuse. I see the books for moon goo income and expense for my alliance and every isk is spent or saved for the collective benefit of the alliance, mostly in ship reimbursements. People should not allow themselves to be taken advantage of in this way and should join a corp or alliance that will work towards everyones success and not just supply the alliance leadership with supers. Seb
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:02:00 - [819] Originally by: UniqueOne The larger alliances would still have the advantage, just not such a huge one. They also should have plenty of moon goo money to replace the hubs. You have obviously never had to deal with complex industrial logistics in Null. It is already a pain and a lack of sov security would make it impossible. Oh and forget putting down a CSAA, as if any two bit 200 man alliance come along and kill your super build by breaking sov, you would never put them down. Look, this is not even what this thread is on about, so this is my last post. If you want the last word, go for it. I am done. Seb
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:06:00 - [820] To counter the nerd-rage: * More knobs to tweak, so if it really is detrimental to EvE then it will be easy to balance for more sanctums/heavens. * Instead of having static anomalies, low truesec systems could have intermittent access to higher-level anomalies. * Adapt or die.

Sadron The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:13:00 - [821] Before the incarna the big question mark is what comes next after it. CCP has atm very hard incomming year and think they wanted more money and users short amount of time. If you think that this might be good idea, then you are 100% wrong. Yes you will have maybe extra 40000 new players coming in, but they stay max year and leave also. Lets look some of the regions : i.e. Providence? "Eve online" desert. It is messed up already and you want to make it even worse ? Atm many alliances are running so called "renter" policy what is just pulling many more corporations into 0.0 and it has worked fine. Some of the corporations never did PVP and will never do it. And with this thing they are now forced to leave. Many will lose the point of gameplay and in the end we have yes from your side more new players coming into the game, but with it you lose huge numbers of old players! Good job CCP of going one step closer to the end of EVE ONLINE !
Patri Andari Caldari Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:16:00 - [822] "While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec." Really? Did you think about that before you typed it? I have only been playing this game for about 4 years but I can not remember a more conflict laden period in 0.0 than the last 12 months. You do not have to justify your reason for making this change. It is your game to do with as you please. But...If you choose to offer up a reason please do not treat your customers like you think they are idiots. You want to reduce the sheer amount of isk coming into the game from Havens and Sanctums? Say so! Do not hide behind this fallacy that EVE has become "peaceful" Patri I'll Roshambo You For That Titan!
Shivalla Gallente Financial Removal THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:29:00 - [823] Changes are good. Need more conflicts. 0.0 has more than 1 way of making isk. Remember times when there was no anomalies at all. People still used to live well in 0.0. Stop whining. Just saying.
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:29:00 - [824] Originally by: Chris Bartlett Edited by: Chris Bartlett on 25/03/2011 18:42:58 Not to mention theres a massive amount of whining about AFK cloakers as of late. If only a few systems are worth ratting in, you can ****ing guarantee there'll be reds in cloaky rapiers or what have you sat there waiting for the opportunity to gank, risk free.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:32:00 - [825] By all means, please make this sort of change! Homogenization of space, force projection and general availability of materials and transportation are what are allowing the giga-block spam to dominate today's political landscape at the cost of eliminating medium-scale PVP from the game. Abundance needs to be curbed, as much as the whiny PVE crowd cry, complain and moan about it. Yes, it will make people poorer, but right now, people are too rich. Please don't cave into the whining, but make it less favorable to extremely low value truesec space than the blog level suggests. It's a great change to be made, but it does need to be made in tandem with other changes, and bots MUST be dealt with before too long to make it all work. 0.0 combat involves too much ISK flowing around; make people work for their ships again and bring back the wars of attrition.
Limonadka	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:44:00 - [826] You kill karibasov. We are against these changes. Zeros become extinct, and the war will not happen.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:48:00 - [827] I am strongly of the opinion that what ails Eve today are enablers; jump bridges, jump freighters, mass resource availability, and large scale ISK sinks are all contributing to create a no-shortage environment that greatly favors supercap spamming and hyper-inter-regional alliances and power block conflicts. These enablers need to be cut down, and the whiners need to be told to shut up and deal with it, since it will help everyone in the long run. Please don't cave in, Greyscale!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:49:00 - [828] Originally by: Sadron Atm many alliances are running so called "renter" policy what is just pulling many more corporations into 0.0 and it has worked fine. Providence was **-poor before Dominion yet was the most densely populated part of null. When/If CCP gets around to actually implementing Dominion as it was originally planned then we'll have a feudal/contract system to facilitate renting. Has nothing to do with them "having to leave", instead of getting ISK for an SC in a few days, they'll have to work for a week or two .. just like before. Instant gratification is an evil beyond measure is contrary to Eve's dogma of rewarding perseverance, patience is not a virtue it is a bloody requirement! Originally by:** Patri Andari Really? Did you think about that before you typed it? I have only been playing this game for about 4 years but I can not remember a more conflict laden period in 0.0 than the last 12 months... Let's see, we have had the ongoing Goon+Friends fetish with Sir Molle+Friends and PL throwing their fat/weight around. First was for control of the best region in Eve bar none (and the fetish thing), second was for moons and space to lease out and 'just because'. The only 'fights' worth mentioning since Dominion has been over moons or space to lease. Adding more variables to fight over can only increase conflict. Sanctums have fuelled the super-capital boom like nothing else, everyone have ISK to burn in absurd quantities with no real effort involved .. Any and all losses are replaced before they are incurred which makes a mockery of the whole harshness that Eve is supposed to embody, might as well have a resurrection system like WoW with ISK being infinite. Looking forward to seeing what else they are thinking about doing to make null more volatile. The stagnant scum filled status of those once vibrant waters is doing Eve no good.
Camios Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:50:00 - [829] Edited by: Camios on 27/03/2011 13:51:10 It is striking the fact that when you talk about change, the player affected always cry as it was a nerf. Is it a nerf for sure? No, it might be. Let the Grayscale team do their work, and push them to do the changes and to monitor the outcome. A wise attitude for the playerbase would be te stop whining, te read carefully devblogs and minutes before complaining and to begin being constructive. But the devs should do 2 things: 1. Motivate better the changes with data and graps in order to reduce player concerns. 2. FOLLOW the outcomes and react accordingly, always explaining to the playerbase why they do what they do. TL;DR: CCP go ahead but monitor the outcomes.
I'l Duce Minmatar Brutor Tribe	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:55:00 - [830] This change will cause instability but not because of the content of changes but because of change. Any static environment will cause stability after the initial adaptation and unstable environment causes chaos. So stop making static content and instead make the anomalies spawn/grow/evolve like PI resources.

Shivalla Gallente Financial Removal THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:56:00 - [831] Originally by: Camios Edited by: Camios on 27/03/2011 13:51:10 It is striking the fact that when you talk about change, the player affected always cry as it was a nerf. Is it a nerf for sure? No, it might be. Let the Grayscale team do their work, and push them to do the changes and to monitor the outcome. A wise attitude for the playerbase would be te stop whining, te read carefully devblogs and minutes before complaining and to begin being constructive. But the devs should do 2 things: 1. Motivate better the changes with data and graps in order to reduce player concerns. 2. FOLLOW the outcomes and react accordingly, always explaining to the playerbase why they do what they do. TL;DR: CCP go ahead but monitor the outcomes. This, and I would also want to point out, that there has been outcry for long time that there should be something done on the powerblocks and the general direction of game. And when there is a attempt to do this, playerbase just starts to shed its tears and cry like babies. CCP wants to do changes, but playerbase dont want the changes to affect themselves.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 13:59:00 - [832] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 13:59:32 Originally by: Shivalla This, and I would also want to point out, that there has been outcry for long time that there should be something done on the powerblocks and the general direction of game. And when there is a attempt to do this, playerbase just starts to shed its tears and cry like babies. CCP wants to do changes, but playerbase dont want the changes to affect themselves. Players want the game to be better, but they don't want it to hurt them. It's a catch 22; to fix the game, you need to hurt the ability of players to make money; that's one of the basic problems faced right now, and people hate the idea of the game becoming harder to play. The game will adjust to the changes, and the health of the game will improve once the runaway insanity that is eve's "economy" is brought out of the realms of insanity that it exists in today. Changes to sanctums MUST be made!
Weyoun Pegasus Battle Group	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:02:00 - [833] So this means that CCP wants us to all come to null-sec and buy PLEX to sustain or ship and POS maintenancecosts. Interesing idea to have us buy more PLEX. Needless to say I am against these changes.
Sannye	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:04:00 - [834] Originally by: I'l Duce This change will cause instability but not because of the content of changes but because of change. Any static environment will cause stability after the initial adaptation and unstable environment causes chaos. So stop making static content and instead make the anomalies spawn/grow/evolve like PI resources. Static content only happened, because the space (ihub's) cost Billions in rent to CONCORD each month. That is the killer - the flow of isk needed to support an alliance is now so huge, that you have to make iskmaking programs, or die. Sanctums came, because you can PAY and work to upgrade the systems - it's not something free, as many claim it is. It's upgradable because the dominion 0.0 policy was to get more pilots involved in EVE policy. It's a good thing. Let me turn the question around a bit for the dull witted. Why pay billions pr. month to pay SOV. for systems that cannot support your pilots? What's the point of having SOV if all the nerf's mentioned in this thread (moongoo, sanctums, jumpbridges, titans, motherships) are all removed? Noone will live in 0.0 if there' s not a CARROT for beeing there.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:06:00 - [835] Originally by: Sannye Originally by: I'l Duce This change will cause instability but not because of the content of changes but because of change. Any static environment will cause stability after the initial adaptation and unstable environment causes chaos. So stop making static content and instead make the anomalies spawn/grow/evolve like PI resources. Static content only happened, because the space (ihub's) cost Billions in rent to CONCORD each month. That is the killer - the flow of isk needed to support an alliance is now so huge, that you have to make iskmaking programs, or die. Sanctums came, because you can PAY and work to upgrade the systems - it's not something free, as many claim it is. It's upgradable because the dominion 0.0 policy was to get more pilots involved in EVE policy. It's a good thing. Let me turn the question around a bit for the dull witted. Why pay billions pr. month to pay SOV. for systems that cannot support your pilots? What's the point of having SOV if all the nerf's mentioned in this thread (moongoo, sanctums, jumpbridges, titans, motherships) are all removed? Noone will live in 0.0 if there' s not a CARROT for beeing there. Gee, I don't know, maybe they'd actually crank the costs down when people's faucets stop being adequate to pay for them? Oh wait, we're talking billions per MONTH when a single player can make 60 million in a couple hour session, and the system can support 10+ players operating 23/7. Your whine doesn't hold weight.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:07:00 - [836] im not sure if this has been said as i have had no time to read every thread but we at fanfest sat in a 0.0 round table and none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm would it be the case that he would not have left the room dry anyway as we had plenty of beer. it just goes to show that grayscales agenda is let fix nothing and hate on 0.0 player base
Serpentine Logic	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:09:00 - [837] I blogged about this, but you can skip to the: TLDR; I support this change, as long as you keep iterating on the nullsec isk supply (moon minerals etc). Would prefer not nerfing income generation for nullsec grunts any further though, ok? Yes, it will affect me; however, I believe it's for the good of the game so I will HTFU and adapt.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:12:00 - [838] Originally by: bloody johnroberts im not sure if this has been said as i have had no time to read every thread but we at fanfest sat in a 0.0 round table and none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm would it be the case that he would not have left the room dry anyway as we had plenty of beer. it just goes to show that grayscales agenda is let fix nothing and hate on 0.0 player base You clearly have no understanding of the source of the problems with the game. Going back to before, it comes down to how easy it is to accomplish certain things; movement of men, and movement of materials. The less time it takes to do something, the more people can move, and the faster they can move it. This simple fact makes it very easy to get extraordinarily large forces into one spot at one time. This is nice for defenders, but it's bad for gameplay; the natural progression path is to what we see today: get as many pilots in the biggest ships possible in the same place at the same time. This is what CCP is trying to contend with. To get rid of these problems, a scarcity problem needs to be introduced to the game's resources. It hurts individual players, yes, but lets face it; it's not something you weren't suffering through before the sanctums were introduced. People dealt with it then, and they can deal with inequality in the future. It generates conflicts, and makes people need to plan. It's damaging to the NC as an organization, and that is a good thing; power blocks are not good for Eve.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:21:00 - [839] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: bloody johnroberts im not sure if this has been said as i have had no time to read every thread but we at fanfest sat in a 0.0 round table and none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm would it be the case that he would not have left the room dry anyway as we had plenty of beer. it just goes to show that grayscales agenda is let fix nothing and hate on 0.0 player base You clearly have no understanding of the source of the problems with the game. Going back to before, it comes down to how easy it is to accomplish certain things; movement of men, and movement of materials. The less time it takes to do something, the more people can move, and the faster they can move it. This simple fact makes it very easy to get extraordinarily large forces into one spot at one time. This is nice for defenders, but it's bad for gameplay; the natural progression path is to what we see today: get as many pilots in the biggest ships possible in the same place at the same time. This is what CCP is trying to contend with. To get rid of these problems, a scarcity problem needs to be introduced to the game's resources. It hurts individual players, yes, but lets face it; it's not something you weren't suffering through before the sanctums were introduced. People dealt with it then, and they can deal with inequality in the future. It generates conflicts, and makes people need to plan. It's damaging to the NC as an organization, and that is a good thing; power blocks are not good for Eve. and these changes will affect that how you clearly have no idea of 0.0
Traska Gannel	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:23:00 - [840] Although the basic idea of making the lower true sec systems more valuable and attractive is a good one ... the current design seems to me to have significant issues. 1) The current design is primarily a nerf to the 0.0 economy and has little or no relation to making some systems more attractive than others. Look at the numbers ... systems with truesec < -0.65 will get better while every other 0.0 system gets worse. Then compare the total number of systems in each "band" ... they are not evenly distributed. Number of systems in the -0.9 to -1.0 is ~170 ... the number in -0.7 to -0.8 is ~398, number of systems in -0.3 to -0.4 is ~642. So the total of systems that are being improved (568) is less than the number of systems that are being nerfed in just ONE security band. The number in 0.0 to -0.2 is about 775. If this design is about a substantial nerf to the 0.0 economy which is quite clearly from these numbers the primary goal and impact then please state this clearly and don't obfuscate the issue by hiding behind some meaningless design goal of making lower true sec more attractive. THAT goal could have been achieved without such design decisions. What is the expected impact of this change? 2) Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs. Less ISK into the coffers of 0.0 corporations and their members will mean less PVP. It will take 2 to 3 times as much grinding to generate the ISK for replacement ships and modules. In many cases it may mean a migration back to hi sec alts running L4 missions to make ISK for PVP since anomalies will no longer be profitable time wise across a vast section of 0.0 space. In fact, some corporations may find those sections of 0.0 with low true sec not worth inhabiting (or as is the current case in most areas - renting). 3) There will be some upheaval as major coalitions move to take control of desirable systems. After this happens the situation will become even more static than at present. Valuable systems will be held by the large alliances and corporations that can field substantial super cap fleets. Smaller Alliances and corporations will be locked out and the least worthwhile of 0.0 systems will slowly be depopulated when they turn out not to be worth owning. In addition, the smaller alliances and corporations will no longer have access to anomalies as a source of income to build up reserves for PVP or to construct super caps. In conclusion, I think in the long run that the CCP design and vision will succeed in accomplishing the exact opposite of their stated goals. Since they are likely not unintelligent the most reasonable conclusion is that the objective of increasing conflict in 0.0 by differentiating systems is not the primary objective and instead the goal is to reduce the ISK influx into the game generated by the proliferation of 0.0 renter alliances which generate a significant amount of ISK by upgrading systems and running anomalies. Some of this activity may even be due to bots running anomalies but instead of eliminating this sort of problem or coming up with another solution, CCP appears to think that eliminating the anomalies themselves is the preferred way to address the issue ... I think that this design decision needs to be reconsidered.

Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:34:00 - [841] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 14:34:12 Originally by: Traska Gannel Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs. Think about what you're saying here for a second. Players are relying on anomolies to get the ISK they need to throw away expensive ships in a fight. This is one of the problems I'm tired of seeing. Ship losses need to hurt more than an hour or two of ratting to make up for the loss.
Shivalla Gallente Financial Removal THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:38:00 - [842] To all the whiners and crying nubcakes. HTFU!
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:44:00 - [843] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 14:34:12 Originally by: Traska Gannel Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs. Think about what you're saying here for a second. Players are relying on anomolies to get the ISK they need to throw away expensive ships in a fight. This is one of the problems I'm tired of seeing. Ship losses need to hurt more than an hour or two of ratting to make up for the loss. omg what are you saying if that is the case we would still blob but in rifters
NPC Corp Scout	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:46:00 - [844] This should be expanded to cover npc and unupgraded systems as well.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:46:00 - [845] Originally by: bloody johnroberts omg what are you saying if that is the case we would still blob but in rifters And thus the game would be fun again; small ships would matter, large ships would hurt to lose, and the ****-swinging contest of who can get the most supercapitals in system at the same time would no longer exist. Power creep sucks.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:48:00 - [846] Originally by: bloody johnroberts Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 14:34:12 Originally by: Traska Gannel Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs. Think about what you're saying here for a second. Players are relying on anomolies to get the ISK they need to throw away expensive ships in a fight. This is one of the problems I'm tired of seeing. Ship losses need to hurt more than an hour or two of ratting to make up for the loss. omg what are you saying if that is the case we would still blob but in rifters And that would be horrible because Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Althos Silverwing	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:48:00 - [847] Originally by: Phaershalee LOL! CCP you have no clue about nullsec. Exactly, I am in Nullsec not to farm Sanctums and Havens, though they are nice change, but I farm Grav Sites and Magnometric Sites. My alliance and Corp do all the Moon Mining and we produce what is needed to create our ships, this change will only push more and more players away because it will in essense destroy the fragile balance we already have. The Last 4 Wars that we have had placed against us were not over Moon Goo, Sanctums, or Asteroids, it was silly High Sec Corps who wanted to be able to Target our freighters and jump freighters coming into low sec and high sec systems. Get a ****ing clue CCP, this will only cost you in lost revenue from more and more players going over to other games. Who needs money, I just want a fleet of Hulks I Can control from one main ship and watch them bring me the ore i so love to look at.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:54:00 - [848] Originally by: Althos Silverwing Originally by: Phaershalee LOL! CCP you have no clue about nullsec. Exactly, I am in Nullsec not to farm Sanctums and Havens, though they are nice change, but I farm Grav Sites and Magnometric Sites. My alliance and Corp do all the Moon Mining and we produce what is needed to create our ships, this change will only push more and more players away because it will in essense destroy the fragile balance we already have. The Last 4 Wars that we have had placed against us were not over Moon Goo, Sanctums, or Asteroids, it was silly High Sec Corps who wanted to be able to Target our freighters and jump freighters coming into low sec and high sec systems. Get a ****ing clue CCP, this will only cost you in lost revenue from more and more players going over to other games. Wait, what?
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:56:00 - [849] Moar Isk = More fun PvP because of the more specialized ships that can be used and lost without requiring massive amounts of grinding to replace them. You think grinding isk is a fun activity ? I am seriously starting to believe that all the people that support this change have either 'support from 3rd party applications', more money in RL than sense, or are just trolling. You have a problem with SC's NERF THEM, have problems with lag deal with it by for instance requiring assets in different systems to be hit at the same time. On a final note I REALLY REALLY want to see how anything BUT the big players are going to hit systems that have a ton of SC's parked just inside the shields of death star poses ready to protect the handfull of truly important systems. If o2o is anything to go by NO ONE in his right mind will risk taking these kind of losses for a handfull of sanctums.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.27 14:59:00 - [850] Originally by: Armaos Moar Isk = More fun PvP because of the more specialized ships that can be used and lost without requiring massive amounts of grinding to replace them. You think grinding isk is a fun activity ? I am seriously starting to believe that all the people that support this change have either 'support from 3rd party applications', more money in RL than sense, or are just trolling. You have a problem with SC's NERF THEM, have problems with lag deal with it by for instance requiring assets in different systems to be hit at the same time. On a final note I REALLY REALLY want to see how anything BUT the big players are going to hit systems that have a ton of SC's parked just inside the shields of death star poses ready to protect the handfull of truly important systems. If o2o is anything to go by NO ONE in his right mind will risk taking these kind of losses for a handfull of sanctums. Actually, last time I checked, the number of dying ships has gone down, not up. The evidence does not appear to match your claims that easier access to happy carebear times results in more PVP. Too many people collect ISK for the sake of collecting ISK. Apparently yes, for a lot of people, grinding ISK is fun. I don't really enjoy it, myself, but there are an awful lot of people running L4s who never touch PVP, even with alt accounts. Super Capitals need a nerf, faucets need to be cranked down, and transportation needs to become more difficult. I know you won't like it, but hey, harden up; it'll be better in the long run.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 15:18:00 - [851] Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 15:25:40 Originally by: Kalle Demos Guys you are missing the point, sanctums were a risk free way for players to fund themselves to fight for their masters, while masters kept all the ISK and let it flow with moon goo. Making it harder for NUMBERS to make isk means it will losses mean something, alliances will have to decide on whether it is worth living somewhere or not and if it isnt they can either leave or invade the good areas. I mean really you guys are agreeing with CCPs decision anyway. Almost all comments are "smaller alliances are screwed" therefore the only way for smaller alliances NOT to be screwed is either invade leaders, demand better space or leave, how is this a bad thing? Besides theres more than one way to make ISK in 0.0 This change WILL make 0.0 less blobby as 'friends' will now have to make a choice in living in 0.0, either have **** space for friends, kill friends, demand better space or gtfo. How is this even a bad thing? From SHC, where people do know what they're talking about. Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!) B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums) C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now) D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now) E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now) Code: \| Region \| A \| B \| C \| D \| E \| \| \|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------\| \| The Spire \| 3 \| 9 \| 28 \| 18 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Cobalt Edge \| 7 \| 19 \| 19 \| 10 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Malpais \| 8 \| 22 \| 27 \| 34 \| 11 \| DRF (d) \| \| Perrigen Falls \| 4 \| 9 \| 39 \| 42 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Etherium Reach \| 6 \| 13 \| 37 \| 34 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| The Kalevala Expanse \| 6 \| 16 \| 19 \| 17 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Outer Passage \| 12 \| 22 \| 15 \| 28 \| 8 \| DRF (d) \| \| Oasa \| 12 \| 16 \| 24 \| 24 \| 8 \| DRF (d) \| \| Delve \| 16 \| 10 \| 20 \| 16 \| 8 \| PL(for sale)\| \| Tenal \| 27 \| 17 \| 9 \| 7 \| 8 \| NC \| \| Feythabolis \| 29 \| 28 \| 18 \| 6 \| 8 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Branch \| 17 \| 25 \| 25 \| 20 \| 7 \| NC \| \| Period Basis \| 9 \| 11 \| 6 \| 3 \| 7 \| ? \| \| Cache \| 17 \| 11 \| 6 \| 1 \| 7 \| DRF \| \| Deklein \| 7 \| 6 \| 22 \| 27 \| 6 \| NC/DC \| \| Fountain \| 43 \| 21 \| 14 \| 8 \| 6 \| NC/DC \| \| Querious \| 31 \| 15 \| 11 \| 12 \| 5 \| ? \| \| Insmother \| 37 \| 27 \| 30 \| 10 \| 4 \| DRF \| \| Omist \| 12 \| 18 \| 6 \| 3 \| 4 \| DRF \| \| Vale of the Silent \| 48 \| 46 \| 10 \| 11 \| 3 \| NC \| \| Catch \| 59 \| 15 \| 15 \| 8 \| 3 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Esoteria \| 30 \| 20 \| 15 \| 6 \| 3 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Paragon Soul \| 20 \| 6 \| 2 \| 1 \| 3 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Tenerifis \| 29 \| 28 \| 12 \| 10 \| 2 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Detorid \| 26 \| 39 \| 23 \| 6 \| 2 \| DRF \| \| Scalding Pass \| 30 \| 15 \| 10 \| 6 \| 2 \| DRF \| \| Geminate \| 26 \| 28 \| 13 \| 3 \| 2 \| NC \| \| Immensea \| 20 \| 29 \| 26 \| 9 \| 0 \| DRF \| \| Wicked Creek \| 22 \| 38 \| 15 \| 7 \| 0 \| DRF \| \| Tribute \| 27 \| 14 \| 6 \| 7 \| 0 \| NC \| \| Impass \| 21 \| 19 \| 7 \| 3 \| 0 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Cloud Ring \| 8 \| 2 \| 0 \| 1 \| 0 \| NC/DC \| \| Fade \| 2 \| 20 \| 5 \| 0 \| 0 \| NC \| \| Providence \| 68 \| 12 \| 0 \| 0 \| 0 \| Ev0ke \| \| Pure Blind \| 58 \| 5 \| 0 \| 0 \| 0 \| NC/DC \| As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty. Well done CCP, you're going to depopulate 0Here's the graph but easier to read.
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.27 15:32:00 - [852] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Armaos Moar Isk = More fun PvP because of the more specialized ships that can be used and lost without requiring massive amounts of grinding to replace them. You think grinding isk is a fun activity ? I am seriously starting to believe that all the people that support this change have either 'support from 3rd party applications', more money in RL than sense, or are just trolling. You have a problem with SC's NERF THEM, have problems with lag deal with it by for instance requiring assets in different systems to be hit at the same time. On a final note I REALLY REALLY want to see how anything BUT the big players are going to hit systems that have a ton of SC's parked just inside the shields of death star poses ready to protect the handfull of truly important systems. If o2o is anything to go by NO ONE in his right mind will risk taking these kind of losses for a handfull of sanctums. Actually, last time I checked, the number of dying ships has gone down, not up. The evidence does not appear to match your claims that easier access to happy carebear times results in more PVP. Too many people collect ISK for the sake of collecting ISK. Apparently yes, for a lot of people, grinding ISK is fun. I don't really enjoy it, myself, but there are an awful lot of people running L4s who never touch PVP, even with alt accounts. Super Capitals need a nerf, faucets need to be cranked down, and transportation needs to become more difficult. I know you won't like it, but hey, harden up; it'll be better in the long run. It all depends on what you define as PvP, the massive CTA's to protect strategic assets are not PvP in my book, FC's throwing hundreds of ships away when the result is already predetermined just by taking a look at the enemy's order of battle is not fun.( BC vs BS anyone ??? ). Roaming with a bunch of machariels and picking fights deep into enemy territory coming head to head with carriers supported by BS and the occasional SC on the other hand is something beautifull to behold. And you NEED this specialised squad for two reasons: a) to make it worthwhile for someone to come kill you and not just pos up. b) to have a chance vs the cap ships that are almost everywhere these days.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 15:44:00 - [853] Throwing away hundreds of ships means minerals are taken out of the market and used. Currently ship destruction may be down but after the summer holidays at least one entity goes on a rampage also ship destruction may be down but actual financial/mineral loss is much higher, unless you're saying losing a titan/super cap fleet is as easy to replace as a fleet of BC's/BS's. Therefore, you are simply wrong.
Daxation	Posted - 2011.03.27 15:44:00 - [854] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 27/03/2011 14:34:12 Originally by: Traska Gannel Many individual players rely on anomalies to pay for PVP ships. T2 fitted HACs, Recons, Command Ships and Battleships run 200 million ISK or more each (wide range but 100 to 250mil would be typical). Insurance only covers a fraction of the hull costs and none of the fittings. In addition, alliances depend on the tax revenues generated to cover the monthly costs of sov structures or to fund PVP ship replacement programs. Think about what you're saying here for a second. Players are relying on anomolies to get the ISK they need to throw away expensive ships in a fight. This is one of the problems I'm tired of seeing. Ship losses need to hurt more than an hour or two of ratting to make up for the loss. I think we need to go back to the times of where having a capital fleet was a rare thing. Why not increase the costs of building capital ships? Here's a fabulous idea, give titans their AOE Doomsday back. It'll be a counter towards blobs. Granted they'd need to put coded features in to keep a single titan from annihilating 20 battleships with a single DD.
JackBlasta Minmatar Use Of Weapons	Posted - 2011.03.27 15:48:00 - [855] Originally by: Soldarius Edited by: Soldarius on 27/03/2011 09:50:16 So let me see if I get this right. CCP will concentrate sanctums and havens in lower true-sec systems. The problem with this is that people who wish to finance their PvP through destroying little red crosses now must relocate in order to maintain their income level. No doubt many will simply quit nul and go back to losec for small-gang PvP, or back to missioning. With less PvP, there will be less need for ships. Manufacturers will leave nulsec because there won't be any opportunities to make isk by building cool things and selling to players. With less things being built, there will be less need for raw materials. Miners will quit nul and go back to high sec. A lot of nul is about to empty out. This change runs completely counter to CCP's stated goal of getting more people out to nul. Small alliances will not have the means to take space from alliances with better space. "He who controls the spice, controls the universe." Tech holding alliances will still have cash flow. This will have no direct influence on them. However, with their smaller partners unable to finance themselves in their current space, they will have to start spreading the wealth to members instead of buying more supers or dropping more station eggs. Otherwise, they will have to relocate or quit nul entirely. System with good moons and/or lots of belts will become more valuable. Best true-sec systems will of course become more valuable. Because of the sudden decrease in total sanctums/havens and the wrecks they produce, salvage will become harder to acquire in nul. Rigs will get harder to find and thus more expensive. You know how much Large Trimarks or Shield Extenders cost these days? You can buy an entire battle ship for the cost of a set of Large Trimarks. Without the personal income from sanctums and havens, players will need to rely on subsidies from the alliance in the form of more reimbursements. Big alliances without good true-sec may have to open up the alliance wallet and spread some moon-goo jew juice to their members instead of buying more supers or dropping more stations. Or, they can return to mission running alts in hisec, meaning they won't be around to fight for and protect their nul-sec space. In which case, what's the point? This won't do diddly to botters. They tend to belt rat. Personally, it won't make much of a difference to me. I make most of my isk from hisec trading. Edit: Oh snap! Top of page! any longterm player using sanctums to keep themselves in ships is a maroon of the highest order imho. Once you have a decent amount of capital build up, its better to trade and play the contracts market. Although we're talking about the NC here so I guess my advice is wasted on the hordes of knownothings such as yourself. Just quit whining ffs though
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:01:00 - [856] Originally by: Daxation Here's a fabulous idea, give titans their AOE Doomsday back. It'll be a counter towards blobs. Granted they'd need to put coded features in to keep a single titan from annihilating 20 battleships with a single DD. It is the price of minerals that determines how much super caps cost and they're not cheap already. The problem isn't cost of production, it's moon distribution. When PL were living in Venal they lost 8 titans and replaced them all immediately, because they were making more than they could lose. Now look at Providence and there's a MASSIVE problem. Originally by: JackBlasta any longterm player using sanctums to keep themselves in ships is a maroon of the highest order imho. Once you have a decent amount of capital build up, its better to trade and play the contracts market. Although we're talking about the NC here so I guess my advice is wasted on the hordes of knownothings such as yourself. Just quit whining ffs though Different play styles. How dare we! All you people out there mining, you heard it from some nub who thinks you should be doing something else because he says so. If I wasn't so tired I'd find the Picard facepalm picture.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:11:00 - [857] You are all missing the point. This change in some form and others will happen, period dot the end. The Dev Blog is fluff, do you think the investor's give a crap about "We're pretty happy with the increase in useful space, but having a densely populated nullsec is less important to us than having an interesting, vibrant and entertaining nullsec." Why? Eve Onlne is a business not your own little private game world. Investor's want to see revenue growth, flat income doesn't cut it. Less income for the average pilot is good for CCP's wallet, at least temporarily. 0.0 income will be nerfed, mission income will be nerfed, various other forms of income will be nerfed along the way. Then players who still wish to play and PVP and lose ships will have many alt accounts (money in CCP's wallet) to grind income sources. Botting will definately proliferate more widely (money in CCP's wallet) hence CCP doesn't give a damn about what you think about the current botting and willl do nothing about it, a paying acct is a paying acct. The other option will be to buy GTC's and sell PLEX to the limited market of moongoo holders, good true sec holders and Trader Online players (more in CCP's wallet). The limited market of PLEX buyers will cause the ISK value of PLEX to drop which will require more GTC/PLEX to generate the same amount of ISK (more in CCP's wallet). You are now thinking that after bit of time the player base will go to sh!t. No, it will not, sort of. People will unsub and leave but those accts will be replaced by the players that will open the alt accts noted above. Then, and i guarentee this is already planned by CCP, when that income stream flattens and is no longer growing you will see this on your login page: Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: Woodiex3 eve 2014 update... ccp ship price update Titan $700.95 supercap $400.95 Carrier $100.95 Battleship pack of 5 $125.95 50% DPS increase for 2 hours $10.95 50% HP increase for 2huors $10.95 100% drop rate for 2 hours $20.95 This is where its heading; blogs like this are the start. fixed again for accuracy And, finally when CCP has squeezed every last penny from EVE Online and there is no conceivable avenue for revenue growth, you will see EVE Online become a bastard child at CCP until one day it is not worth the effort to reboot the server. The good thing about that is it will most likely mean the end of DUST 666 as well. I'm sure I'm missing something but hey I'm just a dumb EVE player, at least until my subs expire in a few months, then i will cancel 3 keep 1 and pew pew on SiSi until they start charging for that. To make a long story short, stop thinking like an EVE Online character and think like an investor, that is what will drive everything CCP does or does not do and your opinion is meaningless. insert gay meme here
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:17:00 - [858] Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 16:25:17 Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 16:20:49 Have you seen EVE's subscription? It's dropped and investors do care about that. What doesn't the data compute again, CCP? We need more '18 months' blogs, because if CCP keep going like this the only thing that will be nerfed will be CCP themselves.
Trina Forrest Caldari Reliables Inc Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:28:00 - [859] The most amazing part of this is how disconnected CCP is with their game. This only hurts average players who rely on ratting to maintain their pvp ships/ gain isk for new ships. If this is a factor of creating "isk sink" that ccp was so concerned about then get rid of lvl 4 missions too. this will have negative side effects, not positive. 1) alt accounts will shrink, CCP openly admitted at their fan fest that more plex are entering the game then leaving. 2) New alliances will NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT in 0.0 as they will not have moon goo support themselves, the alternative WAS RATTING HELLO! 3) This will not destablize the north, as tech is what we give a ** about, the only ones who care about rats are the people who never see the benifits directly from tech. So yet again CCP has convinced so many they should start looking for a new MMO to play. Although I dont think the dev will be fired for being the messenger right away. I do think the loss of revenue will cause lay offs as people start to exit eve. Long term, I think he will eventually be one of the people to be let go as he was the escape goat for this massive piece of ** which is a dev blog. BTW there are like 3000+ more bugs in the game that could use decoding, how about you start there before ever mentioning another expansion, added content, or possible side projects again. Just to name 100+ you can start on you should refer to the unity patch notes. Those players actually KNOW whats wrong with your game, how about you hire them to make good decisions so your executives can continue to be clueless and collect pay checks.
Shivalla Gallente Financial Removal THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:34:00 - [860] Originally by: Trina Forrest The most amazing part of this is how disconnected CCP is with their game. This only hurts average players who rely on ratting to maintain their pvp ships/ gain isk for new ships. If this is a factor of creating "isk sink" that ccp was so concerned about then get rid of lvl 4 missions too. this will have negative side effects, not positive. 1) alt accounts will shrink, CCP openly admitted at their fan fest that more plex are entering the game then leaving. 2) New alliances will NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT in 0.0 as they will not have moon goo support themselves, the alternative WAS RATTING HELLO! 3) This will not destablize the north, as tech is what we give a ** about, the only ones who care about rats are the people who never see the benifits directly from tech. So yet again CCP has convinced so many they should start looking for a new MMO to play. Although I dont think the dev will be fired for being the messenger right away. I do think the loss of revenue will cause lay offs as people start to exit eve. Long term, I think he will eventually be one of the people to be let go as he was the escape goat for this massive piece of which is a dev blog. BTW there are like 3000+ more bugs in the game that could use decoding, how about you start there before ever mentioning another expansion, added content, or possible side projects again. Just to name 100+ you can start on you should refer to the unity patch notes. Those players actually KNOW whats wrong with your game, how about you hire them to make good decisions so your executives can continue to be clueless and collect pay checks. Dear lord what amount of tears you managed to pack into single post. Dude seriously, pull your head out of your *, and look at the big picture. A) Change B) Conflicts C) Eve is dying D) Has been for past 7 years. E) NC is crap. F) U mad?

CorryBasler Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:36:00 - [861] worst idea ever ccp... now all the carebear renters will want to leave
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:42:00 - [862] Originally by: Shivalla Dear lord what amount of tears you managed to pack into single post. Dude seriously, pull your head out of your ***, and look at the big picture. A) Change B) Conflicts C) Eve is dying D) Has been for past 7 years. E) NC is crap. F) U mad? You are mad, and so are CCP, literally. I used to have 6 accounts. Now I have three. If this change is implemented I will drop another one or two. So, there's one you missed: G) Lose subscribers. Did you look at the graph I linked or too busy trolling? The Space P0lice on Dotlan: 0 Systems. Empire alliance whining about changes that won't affect them. Keep trolling, though.
Limonadka	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:42:00 - [863] More isk, more pvp. No isk, no pvp.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:47:00 - [864] The NC says they care about their BFF in those regions that will get a nerf, but what they are truly worried about is renters/guests from giving them the finger on rent. That or finding better space and not being a free buffer zone for them. They could give two **s about how much money you are making as long as you are a nice buffer paying rent. Thats it. The change would mean some areas players will refuse to pay rent on because it will not be possible to make any decent money there if they have to pay homage to NC. Thus, the end effect will be less alliances will to be blue to them. Simply because being blue with them will have zero benefits. "You stay here and pay us rent and make sure no one interrupts me while I farm Sanctums all day, ok? And no, you can't come in our space to get some Sanctum action either. Go ratting in a belt renter! BFF right?" No self respecting alliance will want to be blue with that. Thus, the numbers NC are able to blob anyone with the 30 alliances totaling 49,227 blues they have(as of five days ago) according to their official list here. There will be less buffer to defend their extensive coveted jump bridge network that is here. They depend on that jump bridge network for logistics and power projection heavily. And before you think that people will still go to the destination via the gates, sure... some will. Others will log/afk/whatever but the same number of people willing to take gates will be less than those willing to take the jump bridges. That is a fact!** "But we need their jump bridges to be able to survive!" No you don't. Before jump bridges people lived out there before jump bridges and they didn't have jump freighters, covert blockade runners and covert bridges to get supplies in. They require more effort than the jump bridge network but it is feasible. So as the number of alliances willing to pay rent or leave for greener pastures happens, the number in their coalition goes down. Again, they absolutely do not care you will not be able to make the money they can. All they care about is you paying rent, being a buffer to protect them from enemies and you x'ing up to smash your ships on non-blues. True they will have the money, but the man power will go down. Ever seen 30 Rifters go after a single battleship? The battleship is worth a whole lot more but the Rifters will be too much for him. This is exactly what they don't want to happen. What they want is for any entity that wants to set foot in null to have to check in with them for their blessing. Granted that is not really the case now, but if you don't and settle anywhere remotely close they will drop on you with those 49k+ blues. That number will be far less without all the guests they have now because they will have left/went independent. So when the change happens and you still want to be BFF with the NC, just tell them in order to compensate for the change, you wont be paying rent anymore. See how they react. You not needing them is what they are scared of. Take this for what you want. Keep paying that rent and being a buffer for them as they farm Sanctums and drink Tech moon goo while you rat in a belt and watch for non-blues for them. Sounds more like a slave than a friend to me.
samoubica2008	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:48:00 - [865] i live in a -0.01 lowest null sec in eve dose that mean i get no anoms to nomnom though
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:52:00 - [866] this just is NOT a good idea. null is already tiered in terms of corps/alliances via moons. the lower the sec the better the resources. there is your big earning potential. so this change would only effect individuals. it would basically make it so that, short of being in a rare system, its not worth the extra losses for individuals to be in null: what the blog basically indicates is that the majority of nullsec will have the same individual earning potential as level 3 missions (low-end anoms) and that paying billions a month will only increase the number of the poor earning sites so that more people can come and earn crap... it just wont work. who as an individual would even bother? so, you;ll end up with a few systems highly populated and most of null empty. the power blocs that hold those few systems would have so much more ISK than normal alliances that they would only fight amongst themselves and newcomers wouldn't stand a chance. it's just all around a bad idea.
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.27 16:57:00 - [867] Originally by: Marconus Orion The NC says they care about their BFF in those regions that will get a nerf, but what they are truly worried about is renters/guests from giving them the finger on rent. That or finding better space and not being a free buffer zone for them. They could give two **s about how much money you are making as long as you are a nice buffer paying rent. Thats it. The change would mean some areas players will refuse to pay rent on because it will not be possible to make any decent money there if they have to pay homage to NC. Thus, the end effect will be less alliances will to be blue to them. Simply because being blue with them will have zero benefits. "You stay here and pay us rent and make sure no one interrupts me while I farm Sanctums all day, ok? And no, you can't come in our space to get some Sanctum action either. Go ratting in a belt renter! BFF right?" No self respecting alliance will want to be blue with that. Thus, the numbers NC are able to blob anyone with the 30 alliances totaling 49,227 blues they have(as of five days ago) according to their official list here. There will be less buffer to defend their extensive coveted jump bridge network that is here. They depend on that jump bridge network for logistics and power projection heavily. And before you think that people will still go to the destination via the gates, sure... some will. Others will log/afk/whatever but the same number of people willing to take gates will be less than those willing to take the jump bridges. That is a fact!** "But we need their jump bridges to be able to survive!" No you don't. Before jump bridges people lived out there before jump bridges and they didn't have jump freighters, covert blockade runners and covert bridges to get supplies in. They require more effort than the jump bridge network but it is feasible. So as the number of alliances willing to pay rent or leave for greener pastures happens, the number in their coalition goes down. Again, they absolutely do not care you will not be able to make the money they can. All they care about is you paying rent, being a buffer to protect them from enemies and you x'ing up to smash your ships on non-blues. True they will have the money, but the man power will go down. Ever seen 30 Rifters go after a single battleship? The battleship is worth a whole lot more but the Rifters will be too much for him. This is exactly what they don't want to happen. What they want is for any entity that wants to set foot in null to have to check in with them for their blessing. Granted that is not really the case now, but if you don't and settle anywhere remotely close they will drop on you with those 49k+ blues. That number will be far less without all the guests they have now because they will have left/went independent. So when the change happens and you still want to be BFF with the NC, just tell them in order to compensate for the change, you wont be paying rent anymore. See how they react. You not needing them is what they are scared of. Take this for what you want. Keep paying that rent and being a buffer for them as they farm Sanctums and drink Tech moon goo while you rat in a belt and watch for non-blues for them. Sounds more like a slave than a friend to me. This really should be posted on every page so people are aware of what NC are really worried about. After all this anom feature is ONLY a year old, and 0.0 pop has has less activity than pre domin, rolling back to old school isnt going to change anything. Also this change suggested will fix alot of issues, besies NC if they truly are your friend they will be your meat shield for free <3 BFF >.> Marconus Orion for CSM!! . Im not Bismaru, im better!
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:06:00 - [868] Originally by: Marconus Orion The NC says they care about their BFF in those regions that will get a nerf, but what they are truly worried about is renters/guests from giving them the finger on rent. That or finding better space and not being a free buffer zone for them. They could give two **s about how much money you are making as long as you are a nice buffer paying rent. Thats it. The change would mean some areas players will refuse to pay rent on because it will not be possible to make any decent money there if they have to pay homage to NC. Thus, the end effect will be less alliances will to be blue to them. Simply because being blue with them will have zero benefits. "You stay here and pay us rent and make sure no one interrupts me while I farm Sanctums all day, ok? And no, you can't come in our space to get some Sanctum action either. Go ratting in a belt renter! BFF right?" No self respecting alliance will want to be blue with that. Thus, the numbers NC are able to blob anyone with the 30 alliances totaling 49,227 blues they have(as of five days ago) according to their official list here. There will be less buffer to defend their extensive coveted jump bridge network that is here. They depend on that jump bridge network for logistics and power projection heavily. And before you think that people will still go to the destination via the gates, sure... some will. Others will log/afk/whatever but the same number of people willing to take gates will be less than those willing to take the jump bridges. That is a fact!** "But we need their jump bridges to be able to survive!" No you don't. Before jump bridges people lived out there before jump bridges and they didn't have jump freighters, covert blockade runners and covert bridges to get supplies in. They require more effort than the jump bridge network but it is feasible. So as the number of alliances willing to pay rent or leave for greener pastures happens, the number in their coalition goes down. Again, they absolutely do not care you will not be able to make the money they can. All they care about is you paying rent, being a buffer to protect them from enemies and you x'ing up to smash your ships on non-blues. True they will have the money, but the man power will go down. Ever seen 30 Rifters go after a single battleship? The battleship is worth a whole lot more but the Rifters will be too much for him. This is exactly what they don't want to happen. What they want is for any entity that wants to set foot in null to have to check in with them for their blessing. Granted that is not really the case now, but if you don't and settle anywhere remotely close they will drop on you with those 49k+ blues. That number will be far less without all the guests they have now because they will have left/went independent. So when the change happens and you still want to be BFF with the NC, just tell them in order to compensate for the change, you wont be paying rent anymore. See how they react. You not needing them is what they are scared of. Take this for what you want. Keep paying that rent and being a buffer for them as they farm Sanctums and drink Tech moon goo while you rat in a belt and watch for non-blues for them. Sounds more like a slave than a friend to me. do you have any clue of how a 0.0 alliance works jumpbridge removal will not change force projection we all use staging systems and we have titans to bridge us. why all the hate did we deny your application ???
Vuk Lau 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:07:00 - [869] Originally by: Kalle Demos Originally by: Marconus Orion The NC says they care about their BFF in those regions that will get a nerf, but what they are truly worried about is renters/guests from giving them the finger on rent. That or finding better space and not being a free buffer zone for them. They could give two **s about how much money you are making as long as you are a nice buffer paying rent. Thats it. The change would mean some areas players will refuse to pay rent on because it will not be possible to make any decent money there if they have to pay homage to NC. Thus, the end effect will be less alliances will to be blue to them. Simply because being blue with them will have zero benefits. "You stay here and pay us rent and make sure no one interrupts me while I farm Sanctums all day, ok? And no, you can't come in our space to get some Sanctum action either. Go ratting in a belt renter! BFF right?" No self respecting alliance will want to be blue with that. Thus, the numbers NC are able to blob anyone with the 30 alliances totaling 49,227 blues they have(as of five days ago) according to their official list here. There will be less buffer to defend their extensive coveted jump bridge network that is here. They depend on that jump bridge network for logistics and power projection heavily. And before you think that people will still go to the destination via the gates, sure... some will. Others will log/afk/whatever but the same number of people willing to take gates will be less than those willing to take the jump bridges. That is a fact!** "But we need their jump bridges to be able to survive!" No you don't. Before jump bridges people lived out there before jump bridges and they didn't have jump freighters, covert blockade runners and covert bridges to get supplies in. They require more effort than the jump bridge network but it is feasible. So as the number of alliances willing to pay rent or leave for greener pastures happens, the number in their coalition goes down. Again, they absolutely do not care you will not be able to make the money they can. All they care about is you paying rent, being a buffer to protect them from enemies and you x'ing up to smash your ships on non-blues. True they will have the money, but the man power will go down. Ever seen 30 Rifters go after a single battleship? The battleship is worth a whole lot more but the Rifters will be too much for him. This is exactly what they don't want to happen. What they want is for any entity that wants to set foot in null to have to check in with them for their blessing. Granted that is not really the case now, but if you don't and settle anywhere remotely close they will drop on you with those 49k+ blues. That number will be far less without all the guests they have now because they will have left/went independent. So when the change happens and you still want to be BFF with the NC, just tell them in order to compensate for the change, you wont be paying rent anymore. See how they react. You not needing them is what they are scared of. Take this for what you want. Keep paying that rent and being a buffer for them as they farm Sanctums and drink Tech moon goo while you rat in a belt and watch for non-blues for them. Sounds more like a slave than a friend to me. This really should be posted on every page so people are aware of what NC are really worried about. After all this anom feature is ONLY a year old, and 0.0 pop has has less activity than pre domin, rolling back to old school isnt going to change anything. Also this change suggested will fix alot of issues, besies NC if they truly are your friend they will be your meat shield for free <3 BFF >.> Marconus Orion for CSM!! HAHAHAHA quoting this cause its.....funny.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:13:00 - [870] Originally by: bloody johnroberts do you have any clue of how a 0.0 alliance works jumpbridge removal will not change force projection we all use staging systems and we have titans to bridge us. why all the hate did we deny your application ??? You going to have a titan on standby 23/7 in all of those systems waiting to open up a bridge for a single ship? Two ships? Wait, wait, what about a hauler? I call bull**** on you saying titans will slide in and do the exact same thing the jump bridge network is accomplishing right now. If they remain untouched, they will help yes, but it will not be anywhere close to what the network currently is. And for future note, I am for a nerf of jump bridges, not a flat removal. And, I am for an overhaul of resources in regions so residents are not required to have a jump bridge network or escort freighters non-stop every day. Anyways, continue with your, "We will have titan pilots mimic the the same network and be on 23/7 willing to bridge any blue that comes along even if they are in a frigate!" argument. Go ahead, please convince me you have titan pilots on standby and will do this non-stop... Don't forget about those cyno pilots on standby too...

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:15:00 - [871] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 27/03/2011 17:22:31 Originally by: Sannye ... Sanctum system was introduced to compensate for moon reshuffle and removal of statics .. had nothing to do with bills (roughly equivalent to Sov POS maint. costs). Sov bills were however meant as a way to restrict the infinte sprawl we were/are seeing, it was assumed that costs would become so high that entities would naturally stop expanding once the threshold was reached .. Sanctum system eliminates that threshold making the only limit how many idiots one can get to farm all day, but with human intelligence decreasing that number is quite substantial. Originally by: bloody johnroberts .. none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm Because of impotent emo-rage like we are seeing here on the forums. Roundtables normally work by one having a rough plan for what needs to be raised, were they to mention an emo topic the roundtable would effectively have ended. Originally by: Armaos Moar Isk = More fun PvP... Explain why it becomes more fun when all risk, consequence and challenge is effectively removed by unlimited ISK being available at all times and everyone are flying optimal ships 23/7. Originally by: Evelgrivion Actually, last time I checked, the number of dying ships has gone down, not up... On the up side, the militias have been seeing an influx of high SP/ISK players who are fed up with bore-sec and are looking to get their mojo back -> Lot more quality engagements happening in lala-land. Comment on blog: Are the people behind these ideas going to look over the distribution of the super-systems? There is a handful of areas that will become rather poor to say the least, but 1-2 systems will go a long way to creating a solid core for settlements. PS: Get rid of the bloody moons already!
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:20:00 - [872] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Sannye ... Sanctum system was introduced to compensate for moon reshuffle and removal of statics .. had nothing to do with bills (roughly equivalent to Sov POS maint. costs). Sov bills were however meant as a way to restrict the infinte sprawl we were/are seeing, it was assumed that costs would become so high that entities would naturally stop expanding once the threshold was reached .. Sanctum system eliminates that threshold making the only limit how many idiots one can get to farm all day, but with human intelligence decreasing that number is quite substantial. Originally by: bloody johnroberts .. none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm at fanfest round table on 0.0 Because of impotent emo-rage like we are seeing here on the forums. Roundtables normally work by one having a rough plan for what needs to be raised, were they to mention an emo topic the roundtable would effectively have ended. Originally by: Armaos Moar Isk = More fun PvP... Explain why it becomes more fun when all risk, consequence and challenge is effectively removed by unlimited ISK being available at all times and everyone are flying optimal ships 23/7. Originally by: Evelgrivion Actually, last time I checked, the number of dying ships has gone down, not up... On the up side, the militias have been seeing an influx of high SP/ISK players who are fed up with bore-sec and are looking to get their mojo back -> Lot more quality engagements happening in lala-land. fixed for you:))
Kievan Ariskana Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:23:00 - [873] Probably said (more then) a few times: Quote: Expected consequences Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space Aren't they always looking for better places to settle? even without these fail changes? Quote: In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Look at the list a few post above me. What localized goals should they expect in Pure Blind, Providence, Fade and Cloud Ring? Also looking at the "true sec" ratings on Dotlan I see most of Nullsec isn't much better then Low Sec. Quote: Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec Adding more nullsec gives a better chance to this...for a time. Also changing the Sov Mechanics could improve this Quote: Coalitions will be marginally less stable Why would they? Only thing that probably changes are the jump bridge routes which will fck logistics up for a week Quote:* 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) This is what Jump Bridges are good for. Originally by: Super Whopper Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!) B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums) C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now) D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now) E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now) Code: \| Region \| A \| B \| C \| D \| E \| \| \|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------\| \| The Spire \| 3 \| 9 \| 28 \| 18 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Cobalt Edge \| 7 \| 19 \| 19 \| 10 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Malpais \| 8 \| 22 \| 27 \| 34 \| 11 \| DRF (d) \| \| Perrigen Falls \| 4 \| 9 \| 39 \| 42 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Etherium Reach \| 6 \| 13 \| 37 \| 34 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| The Kalevala Expanse \| 6 \| 16 \| 19 \| 17 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Outer Passage \| 12 \| 22 \| 15 \| 28 \| 8 \| DRF (d) \| \| Oasa \| 12 \| 16 \| 24 \| 24 \| 8 \| DRF (d) \| As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty. Well done CCP, you're going to depopulate 0.0 Quote: 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Is it me or does this look like CCP's stealh nerf to fight the Ruskies for their systems. Rebalancing those high-end true-sec systems seems to be a better choice, not killing 4 regions mentioned earlier. Personally I am still waiting for the removal of all Tech 1 Meta 0 modules from loot drops.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:26:00 - [874] Originally by: Super Whopper From SHC, where people do know what they're talking about. ... As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty. They weren't empty before. They won't be empty after. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Shivalla Gallente Financial Removal THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:27:00 - [875] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Shivalla Dear lord what amount of tears you managed to pack into single post. Dude seriously, pull your head out of your ***, and look at the big picture. A) Change B) Conflicts C) Eve is dying D) Has been for past 7 years. E) NC is crap. F) U mad? You are mad, and so are CCP, literally. I used to have 6 accounts. Now I have three. If this change is implemented I will drop another one or two. So, there's one you missed: G) Lose subscribers. Did you look at the graph I linked or too busy trolling? The Space P0lice on Dotlan: 0 Systems. Empire alliance whining about changes that won't affect them. Keep trolling, though. No no, I am not whining at all. I support this change completely. And I think you should indeed cancel your subscriptions. And sell all the chars aswell, to support your ISK making. Trolling, well, that might be
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:31:00 - [876] Originally by: Furb Killer Sorry Clavius but pre-dominion, which wars were fought over ratting grounds exactly? .. Then why providence was populated and allowed for the large ammount of pvp, you should really talk to Hardin about this since he understands it. But it comes down to security -> more security = more pvp, less security = more NAPs + empty wastelands. Old providence had jump bridges everywhere connecting everything, allowing for reasonable response times against roaming reds and relative safe travel for the main inhabitants. More important every single system was cynojammed, also against black ops hotdrops. This provided safety for all pilots, safety attracts people, which allowed for the most diverse pvp environment in 0.0 ever. And that is something that CCP (and many others) just dont seem to be able to grasp -> increase reasons for conflict also means more people want to shoot us -> we band more together to protect ourselves -> larger NAPs. More security -> more people in 0.0 with less reason to NAP everyone in 30 region radius -> more pvp. I get this completely, the part you missed: Originally by: Clavius XIV I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. The real question: is a uniformly and completely populated 0.0 that encourages renters in every system to a superpower and makes any sov warfare escalate to super-block warfare more desirable than a more diverse 0.0 where there are some highly populated areas held by/rented by the most powerful alliances and some wastelands where less powerful groups fight over the scraps? I can see arguments both ways. Certainly if you goal is just to get the maximal number of pilots in 0.0 you will have more people in 0.0 with the current renter model. If the goal is a diverse and vibrant 0.0 with smaller level sov conflicts that don't automatically escalate into super block warfare -- variable value space combined with mechanics that make it "generally not worth the bother" for powerblocks to get involved is the way to go.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:33:00 - [877] Originally by: Liang Nuren They weren't empty before. They won't be empty after. just like low-sec, right!
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:34:00 - [878] Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet. To get the numbers i took: <-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums -.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums -.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum -.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra -.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3 If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are DRF 30% loss across 15 regions PL 26% loss on one region NC 57% loss across seven regions CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region DC 48% loss across 3 regions Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:34:00 - [879] The inteligence in this thread reminds me of this. Good time for a Spaceballs clip regardless! ... you know your going to watch the whole clip, and possible any related ones.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:42:00 - [880] Originally by: Cyrus Doul Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet. To get the numbers i took: <-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums -.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums -.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum -.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra -.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3 If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are DRF 30% loss across 15 regions PL 26% loss on one region NC 57% loss across seven regions CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region DC 48% loss across 3 regions Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region yeah, i was just looking at pureblind (http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#sec) and figured out it would be worthless as a whole. how about this - we call all 0.0 to -0.4 systems "low sec" and get it over with. they would be about as popular.

Shivalla Gallente Financial Removal THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:46:00 - [881] Originally by: Cyrus Doul Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet. To get the numbers i took: <-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums -.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums -.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum -.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra -.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3 If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are DRF 30% loss across 15 regions PL 26% loss on one region NC 57% loss across seven regions CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region DC 48% loss across 3 regions Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region Very good math! Awesome! And now we all know why NC is so ****ed. Suprisingly nobody from Evoke has been cryin that much.
Illectroculus Defined Chooch Inc. Twilight Federation	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:48:00 - [882] I wholeheartedly support these changes, I remember living in northern catch & providence back before Dominion and at no time did I find myself thinking that I needed piles of high end anomalies to make money. And back then that was the most populated 0.0 region in the game. Now.... I'd also love to see the Sov Fees and effort required to raise indexes linked to the truesec status, so if you have crappy systems you can pay less to concord for those upgrades and work a little less hard to raise indices. Vote Illectro for CSM6! Supporting the New Generation of Eve Players
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:54:00 - [883] Originally by: Shivalla Originally by: Cyrus Doul Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet. To get the numbers i took: <-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums -.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums -.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum -.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra -.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3 If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are DRF 30% loss across 15 regions PL 26% loss on one region NC 57% loss across seven regions CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region DC 48% loss across 3 regions Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region Very good math! Awesome! And now we all know why NC is so ****ed. Suprisingly nobody from Evoke has been cryin that much. Providence has 3 systems with ratting over 10k per day kills. only one of them is owned by evoke. the other two are the ewoks (renters). Also I bet evoke is holding the space so CVA can not. And finally provi had never really been about the ratting. More so it was the proximity to high sec to bring mins in and build supers to sell. Its not the alliances that are going to be complaining as much as it is the single members. no one is going to want to live in <.5 as the level 4 missions that your empire alliance has are worth the same.
Merkus Letifer Gallente Everset Dropbears Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.27 17:56:00 - [884] Edited by: Merkus Letifer on 27/03/2011 18:00:56 Edited by: Merkus Letifer on 27/03/2011 17:58:03 So...Grey, Was it all lost as soon as we started forming coalitions in EvE? Blues are going to be blues...gray is gray, red is red!!! Nothing will change that, unless you set us a trap right? Please, tell us really! Who told you to post such a travesty! It's beyond repair now... Anyone else up there sober enough to tell us the real reasons behind this whole mess. And how are you going to fix 0.0 once again? Was it, or is it really necessary to start messing with the little sheep's only income to try to "inflict change" on the big a** power blocs? Hit the reset button. I for one am all about second chances. And when all else phails, "well we still have our o accounts!!" 07
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:02:00 - [885] this is not about 1 0.0 alliance its every 0.0 alliance is affected and the only ones that are saying yes to these poorly thrown together (FIXS) are empire corps i have a suggestion lets nerf mission running in low sec see that hate mails rolling in
tempuskai Hooded Underworld Guys Order Of The Unforgiving	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:02:00 - [886] So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then......
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:09:00 - [887] Originally by: tempuskai So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then...... That doesnt even make sense, besides theres more ways to make isk in 0.0, botting isnt the only way . Im not Bismaru, im better!
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:10:00 - [888] I like how the thread has now reached the point where 3-4 people are spamming meaningless walls of text. Everyone who has anything real to say has said it. Now it's just 3-4 people making noise. Thread ended with some pretty clear opinions about 10 pages ago, anything else is just noise.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:11:00 - [889] Originally by: tempuskai So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then...... Don't feel bad. you will start seeing the large alliances shrink too as corps realize they can not make anywhere near as much. not just from all their crap systems. But from that the few good ones that they will have will be so overpacked its still not worth it on a single player basis. This patch seems to be made to make all small groups leave since level 4 and safe is worth as much if not more then 0.0 like yours. The end goal of this is to make super manufacturing even more worthwhile then it already is. And moon goo doesn't change. On another thought i guess we could all break out hulks. If our ratting is getting nerfed we can at least make the disparity between drone space and every were else much much closer by mining and dropping min values though the floor.
Blitzzer	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:18:00 - [890] Not happy, this will not work. Null sec population is growing, and trust me, is anthing but boring! This will just create large areas of empty space as corps leave as its not worth staying in poor income/hight risk/large hassle space! I hope that this patch does not go ahead as is!

Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:22:00 - [891] Originally by: Cyrus Doul The end goal of this is to make super manufacturing even more worthwhile then it already is. And moon goo doesn't change. On another thought i guess we could all break out hulks. If our ratting is getting nerfed we can at least make the disparity between drone space and every were else much much closer by mining and dropping min values though the floor. but since all those players aren't making as much they aren't replacing ships as often. again, this is a BAD idea, and will resulting in most of null being as used as lowsec. it may even attract more folk to lowsec considering they then wouldn't have to worry about sov/upgrade/outpost costs. common null == new lowsec. ftl.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:33:00 - [892] Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Cyrus Doul The end goal of this is to make super manufacturing even more worthwhile then it already is. And moon goo doesn't change. On another thought i guess we could all break out hulks. If our ratting is getting nerfed we can at least make the disparity between drone space and every were else much much closer by mining and dropping min values though the floor. but since all those players aren't making as much they aren't replacing ships as often. again, this is a BAD idea, and will resulting in most of null being as used as lowsec. it may even attract more folk to lowsec considering they then wouldn't have to worry about sov/upgrade/outpost costs. common null == new lowsec. ftl. Yeah i get ya. If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public Ive got most the pages locked cause google doesn't have individual cell locking like real excel. but if you play with the green fields in the control page then go look at the ship of your choice you can see what it cost to build at the bottom of the Price Column
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:38:00 - [893] Originally by: Cyrus Doul If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/
Jita Bloodtear	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:49:00 - [894] Because you locked my thread. because it was receiving too much support. I'll come here and simply state it. This is a fail change. This is the lazy easiest way out. This is a big disappointment to 0.0 alliances. All that you stated in planning to accomplish here... will never happen. You want to nerf ISK sources, and that's a noble goal. So let's do it, let's make this change, BUT let's remove level 4 missions from empire and place them solely in lowsec. --------------------------- Full Explanation of the Industry Index System
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:50:00 - [895] Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Cyrus Doul If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/ Yeah. but that thing doesn't allow for customization of the production of the parts. It just buys them off market then runs it though the print. A built from purchased mins avatar at component me 0 with a me 100 avatar print only cost 36 billion like your capital power generator says it cost 7.2 billion. built from mins it is 5.7 a unit. when you need 500 units that's a discrepancy of 750 million in that part alone... Also this sheet is actually more of a copy of my production sheet that I use. thats why on the actual ships there are rows like have and in build...
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:53:00 - [896] OH FFS! CCP please make an unequivocal statement that the EVE universe is OMG not real! That CCPhf is OMG a real business! That ALL changes to the EVE universe (the not real part) are based on and will be made in accordance with a business plan (the real part). Then lock this ridiculous and meaningless threadnought, our thoughts and opinions of the EVE universe (the not real part) have nothing to do with CCphf's (the real part) investor's bottom line. There threadnought nullified ended squashed have a nice EVE day.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 18:56:00 - [897] Originally by: Jita Bloodtear Because you locked my thread. because it was receiving too much support. I'll come here and simply state it. yeah i thought that was BS. how is a petition any different than a suggestion? if lots of people sign it then its obviously a good idea. as for level 4's.... lets not. the only thing all of this is going to accomplish is making RMT botters that much richer relitive to the rest of us, since our access to isk will be that much lower. to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:00:00 - [898] Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Jita Bloodtear Because you locked my thread. because it was receiving too much support. I'll come here and simply state it. yeah i thought that was BS. how is a petition any different than a suggestion? if lots of people sign it then its obviously a good idea. as for level 4's.... lets not. the only thing all of this is going to accomplish is making RMT botters that much richer relitive to the rest of us, since our access to isk will be that much lower. to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general. I was just going to say that. Am talking to some friends in nulli right now and they answered this doesnt effect us. we get our isk from mastercard. Either though GTC or RMT. This whole thing could still be a money draw from ccp. I'm good at financials but i think we would more need Akita T or one of the other market people to give response in this regard.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:03:00 - [899] Originally by: Arnakoz to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general. Just like printing a whole bunch of money is better right? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:05:00 - [900] Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Cyrus Doul If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/ Yeah. but that thing doesn't allow for customization of the production of the parts. It just buys them off market then runs it though the print. A built from purchased mins avatar at component me 0 with a me 100 avatar print only cost 36 billion like your capital power generator says it cost 7.2 billion. built from mins it is 5.7 a unit. when you need 500 units that's a discrepancy of 750 million in that part alone... Also this sheet is actually more of a copy of my production sheet that I use. thats why on the actual ships there are rows like have and in build... you can change the PE/ME - its near the picture of the item on the individual item sheet. you can't change the prices (yet). but to a degree you shouldn't need to, as since you could have otherwise sold those mats for the prices used, the profit for the end item is still the profit. as for the shopping list, i agree. i requested that he add an export feature, so we could dump the info into an excel spreadsheet and perform our own magic on it. though, something that checks API for items owned like eveHQ PRISM wouldn't be a bad idea. just not sure who all would be willing to give a website that info. but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it!

Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:18:00 - [901] Edited by: Cyrus Doul on 27/03/2011 19:24:58 Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Cyrus Doul If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/ Yeah. but that thing doesn't allow for customization of the production of the parts. It just buys them off market then runs it though the print. A built from purchased mins avatar at component me 0 with a me 100 avatar print only cost 36 billion like your capital power generator says it cost 7.2 billion. built from mins it is 5.7 a unit. when you need 500 units that's a discrepancy of 750 million in that part alone... Also this sheet is actually more of a copy of my production sheet that I use. thats why on the actual ships there are rows like have and in build... you can change the PE/ME - its near the picture of the item on the individual item sheet. you can't change the prices (yet). but to a degree you shouldn't need to, as since you could have otherwise sold those mats for the prices used, the profit for the end item is still the profit. as for the shopping list, i agree. i requested that he add an export feature, so we could dump the info into an excel spreadsheet and perform our own magic on it. though, something that checks API for items owned like eveHQ PRISM wouldn't be a bad idea. just not sure who all would be willing to give a website that info. but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it! Fair enough. Didnt notice that part. But yeah when I made this sheet I didnt know about that page. the other one that I had seen sorta sucked. And neither had a shopping list which is what i really really wanted. The whole thing started for just a Wyvern then I sorta got bored at work one day and cloned it while I had no tickets to work on. oh and when i say with the min values that's what it cost. the Min values i use are from what if you were to go to jita and buy the mins to make a part, not base min if i pulled it out of an asteroid.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:21:00 - [902] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Arnakoz to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general. Just like printing a whole bunch of money is better right? i see what you did there. you compared eve with the real world! as if it too has multiple forms of currency, complicated import/export laws and is based on regional resources! i'm sticking with what i said. this nerf will make low end null sec worse off than lowsec currently is. i'm not sure how anyone sees this as good. especially considering how many already whine about lowsec.
CN111	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:22:00 - [903] GREAT NEWS ccp , great changes... so you kick us all in the but because this change will affect the small alliances and corps, bots will be unaffected, big alliances will get bigger. very good ideea... I am amazed , this games gets nicer and nicer, great way to rebalance indeed
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:25:00 - [904] Originally by: Arnakoz but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it! lolz, that's totally bull**. At least stick to saying something remotely true. -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Jonas Nysut Caldari The Resistance Movement	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:35:00 - [905] Dear CCP, this is a very very bad idea. You guys are failing to understand what drives nullsec space etc. If you want to create more conflict for resources then you need to buff more systems with better/new resources to fight over. Also you should make it easier for industrial alliances to upgrade their I-hubs by making it easier to maintain the industrial index instead of it dying straight away of someone don't mine in it for a few hours :S Also the upgrades are too massive for the i-hubs and should have bpos so we can build them out in space rather than having to ship them to empire, you could have concord sell the parts needed to build them to create an isk sink, as long as the parts can fit into a jump freighter rather than a normal freighter, as this is what is stopping alot of new alliances from upgrading their systems to maximum levels. Honestly ccp, you need to make moons run out of minerals and then respawn various mins after a certain time etc. That way you will create more conflict over moon resources etc if they change locations, or adding new resources like say hidden moons that have to be scanned out etc. Also why don't you put some more 0.0 space out there? if you think that 0.0 is becoming too crowded then add some more space for ppl to go fight over them! Regards, Jonas
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:40:00 - [906] Originally by: Liang Nuren lolz, that's totally bull****. At least stick to saying something remotely true. -Liang how do you figure? lowsec is mostly unused why? because the earning potential is low and the risk is high. that would be the exact same case if this change were implemented. actually worse, considering people could earn the same/more in lowsec, and not have to pay SOV/outpost costs. so how exactly do you surmise it to be inaccurate? as for the ISK/money printing biz. i'm sure neither of us are economists (though, one of use has a graduate level education in mathematics...) so maybe we just agree to disagree here.
William Loire State War Academy	Posted - 2011.03.27 19:54:00 - [907] Posting in another EVE players have gone soft and have no clue thread. This is an excellent change to create more conflict. If Greyscale and team were to instead buff the best null systems then the isk faucet into the game would grow AGAIN helping further inflation, thus that is not a reasonable option. However regions like providence that are, sha'll we say, complete and utter **** do deserve to have there Dominion fees downgraded, or have there truesec rebalanced.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:08:00 - [908] Originally by: Arnakoz how do you figure? lowsec is mostly unused why? because the earning potential is low and the risk is high. that would be the exact same case if this change were implemented. actually worse, considering people could earn the same/more in lowsec, and not have to pay SOV/outpost costs. so how exactly do you surmise it to be inaccurate? TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true. Quote: though, one of use has a graduate level education in mathematics... Wait what... how did you know... ?!? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Gibbo5771	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:28:00 - [909] Sucks tbh, the NC will just use there mass numbers to overrun any space they want...not that its not already happening
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:36:00 - [910] Originally by: Liang Nuren TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true. currently. but wouldn't the nerf make that untrue? i've ratted just the low end anoms, when i first moved to null, and the earnings were horrid - like 3-5/m hour. about the same as level 3's. and considering they are also moving level 4 missions to low sec, i think my assessment to be even more true: the common null sec systems will become what lowsec systems currently are.

Christopher AET Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:44:00 - [911] Well the reasons have been stated many times over so i will suffice to state that I do not support this idea.
Raven Kumamato	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:47:00 - [912] Good change, keep it coming. The amount of isk that could be farmed in safer than empire cause of intel channels solo in any 0.0 system is way too high (personally did 175 mil/h) - with a proper fleet for farming up to 250 mil/h. True sec will matter even at anom upgrade 5 and fights will be over it, small ganks will be able to break down income for Mr Average of your most hated enemy.
Abramul Gallente StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:47:00 - [913] As far as low-end sites go, I've gotten 15-20m/hour (not counting loot/salvage) in a poorly fitted Typhoon running low-end sites. It's possible to make fair ISK in them, although not sure how it compares to L4s. My main ojection to this is that I don't believe it would accomplish the stated goals; as I suggested earlier, adding a sovereignty discount and cheaper upgrades available only to sub-constellation alliances in low-end space might help with this. (Optionally, only apply the discount if the holding alliance gets a given number of NPC kills per week)
Vaporize Gallente United Kings R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.27 20:58:00 - [914] Edited by: Vaporize on 27/03/2011 21:05:38 Oh bubba noooooooo........
Quicktime Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:05:00 - [915] Nobody would read 31 pages of comments but couple of points. CCP do not play this game. Don't expect them to know the life of a player. CCP is looking at how many people are paying for this game in isk and attempting to reduce it. CCP will keep nerfing / reducing the amount of isk a person can generate until they get the number of isk paying players down to a number they feel is acceptable. CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they.
All Allies	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:07:00 - [916] Along with every single other pilot who has replied to this post, I firmly contest the proposition to remove these sites from space. It makes the rich richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappears, the same as what happens in national economies during a major recession or depression. The permanently poor will ultimately leave Eve and go find some other game, which will cost CCP income. Who's the idiot that thought this was a good idea? Is that Greyscale? Lose that guy if he can't do better than this.
Sannye	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:08:00 - [917] Originally by: Raven Kumamato Good change, keep it coming. The amount of isk that could be farmed in safer than empire cause of intel channels solo in any 0.0 system is way too high (personally did 175 mil/h) - with a proper fleet for farming up to 250 mil/h. True sec will matter even at anom upgrade 5 and fights will be over it, small ganks will be able to break down income for Mr Average of your most hated enemy. Where, and how can you possible get 175 mill pr hour ratting? What is this - let's make up numbers as we go?? Even with tengu/carriers you wont make a fraction of what you made up there by dooing sanctums/heavens.
Abramul Gallente StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:09:00 - [918] Edited by: Abramul on 27/03/2011 21:11:31 Originally by: Quicktime CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they. You do realize that CCP gets cash for every GTC/Plex introduced to the game, right? They're still paying; they're just arranging for someone else to front the cash in exchange for their time. (Naturally, 'time as currency' does give an advantage to bots, but the RMT problem would probably be worse without PLEX.)
Any Red	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:11:00 - [919] CCP, your players do NOT want this change. NONE of them.
TorTorden Amarr	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:14:00 - [920] Edited by: TorTorden on 27/03/2011 21:15:09 Originally by: Abramul Originally by: Quicktime CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they. You do realize that CCP gets cash for every GTC/Plex introduced to the game, right? They're still paying; they're just arranging for someone else to front the cash in exchange for their time. It is actually the most expensive way to pay for the game as well with it being at least a 1.5 $ last I checked over a regular 1 month sub. From a purely MoAr monies point of view the 12 month subcribers should be ccp's least favorite customers Originally by: Any Red CCP, your players do NOT want this change. NONE of them. Thats still not a reason to not do it ------------------------------------------------ There is no such thing as good or evil. Just an egotistic struggle for self empowerment. ------------------------------------------------

VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:15:00 - [921] Props to CCP & Greyscale for the proposed changes. Ignore the 'BFF' plebs rantings on this one; maybe in future their membership will consist of more than empire carebears moving to 0.0 to get a higher 'isk per hr' rate by chain running sanctums till their eyes bleed....
Internet Knight The Kobayashi Maru	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:19:00 - [922] CCP, we love you. We really do. Especially those guys in QA, they never get enough love. We're on page 31 here. We have one or two dedicated fanatics towards your stance and still many are complaining about it. I'm undecided. I like nearly everything else that Little Things Are Little has presented. Clearly this isn't something so Little. I've seen some comments about changes to missions. I seem to have missed the devblog outlining those changes. I hope someone can link the blog to me. I think, ultimately though, as long as even "bad" high-truesec 0.0 is more profitable than missions, then the changes are fine. If not... I live in W-space. How will this affect me? I don't have system upgrades. Honestly, I haven't had time to run the anomalies. I just run PI and import ice fuel while I keep my skills training. What a waste of W-space, right? But I am a small entity. If suddenly all the 'good' W-space anomalies were removed from the spawning pool in my system (and we all know that W-space isn't exempt from the idea of 'good' and 'bad' anomalies), I'd be very much disappointed and would look for somewhere else to live. So you're right, people will have a reason to move on. But who would move in to take my place? If there's no reason to live there instead of somewhere else, why live there? I've lived in 0.0 for years. Frigate and cruiser rats are mostly useless. If you're removing battleship spawns from certain areas of nullsec (except in belts and "random" anomalies), there should be another reason to live there. Battleships in bad 0.0 are still fairly rare and still have the crappiest bounties, am I not mistaken? Combine that with your proposed changes to anomalies and you effectively remove ratting reasons for moving into (even temporarily) bad truesec. Greyscale, you're on the right track as far as encouraging conflict (aside from the fact that consolidating large alliances into fewer systems encouraging blobbing) - you mentioned ISK income per persion and sustainable population. You're increasing the sustainable population in good truesec while not necessarily increasing the ISK income per person. But in removing "really good" anomalies from bad truesec, you're effectively reducing the ISK income per person and therefore drastically reducing the sustainable population there. If you drastically increase the sustainable population in good/low truesec systems while not affecting ISK income per person per amount of time (or perhaps also increasing that), that will also encourage consolidation and therefore encourage conflict. If you don't adjust the sustainable population in bad/high truesec systems while also not adjusting ISK income per person (eg, keep them as is), you will still encourage new alliances in. The idea here is that new alliances will continue recruiting new people. As they recruit new people, they will fill and need to move to stay consolidated. Perhaps there might be a way to show ISK generation in each truesec tier before sov upgrades compared to today. You can show expected changes to those numbers after the changes. I think it would be in your interest to show how your changes will still be able to sustain the current level of population in the bad/high truesec and the better/low truesec will be able to sustain more people. ---
VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:20:00 - [923] Originally by: Any Red CCP, your players do NOT want this change. NONE of them. lol how the **** can you speak for all the playerbase? Being part of the NC 'Shortbus' crew isn't representative of most....
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:24:00 - [924] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/03/2011 21:24:56 Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Liang Nuren TBH, 0.0 makes more ISK than low sec even if you don't pay the sov or upgrade costs at all. I've lived in both and I know this to be true. currently. but wouldn't the nerf make that untrue? i've ratted just the low end anoms, when i first moved to null, and the earnings were horrid - like 3-5/m hour. about the same as level 3's. and considering they are also moving level 4 missions to low sec, i think my assessment to be even more true: the common null sec systems will become what lowsec systems currently are. No, historically - before Dominion. -Liang Ed: And if you were making 3-5m/hr ... I don't even. I made more than that as a 3M SP noob belt ratting in a Vexor. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Internet Knight The Kobayashi Maru	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:25:00 - [925] If you still think it's a good idea to remove good anomalies from sov upgrades in bad/high truesec, then perhaps a good idea would be encouraging "good" random anomaly spawns from alternative means. The anomalies are inhabited by pirates, right? Pirates want population, right? Drones want to kill humans, right? So encourage "good" anomalies according to how much population is in the system - perhaps not pod pilots, but rather through PI. With more structures on the planets in the system, you will get better and better chances of good anomalies spawning in system. Every X chance (100%?), it's a guaranteed spawn... so if you've got tons of people in system running PI, you might get something like 369% chance (lol) for a total of 3 or 4 spawns... haha :P Furthermore, a negative chance would be added for each anomaly of that type already in system through another method (pretty much only includes escalation and sov upgrades right now, no?). That would discourage using this as a method of creating ever additional sites in good/low truesec and therefore encouraging PI in the outlands and encouraging population to live there and encouraging trade. This also allows you to circumvent sovereignty to encourage people living in hiding rather than showing that they are there. In my experience, people hiding their assets tend to create far more local conflict than people not hiding their assets. It also allows for bigger alliances to rely more on their pets for their PI products. Pets will need to use PI so that their ratters don't complain amount site spawns, whereas bigger alliances assumably have a larger PI product requirement. It encourages trade and therefore market conflict. It encourages smaller conflict whereby enemies of larger alliances do indeed have smaller targets to hunt - the supporters of the larger alliance. So, in my opinion, hold off on anomaly changes until you can push this through too, and then do a double whammy. Of course, the exact chance percentage is something that would need to be fine tuned on several occasions thereafter, but it seems like an excellent compromise. I see it as a win/win compromise situation. ---
End User	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:30:00 - [926] My proposal: Depletion Depletion and Depletion pirate factions get sick of being vaporized so they move to areas where less NPC killing happens. true-sec changes accordingly. make 1 haven the bare minimum. moons have more then one kind of goo and what ever you harvest should deplete and move to other moons so that the amount of any given moon product remains static but the location changes based on a depletion system. this would make it more difficult to constantly control the static moons and would mean that more exploring for good moons is required. belts and mining sites deplete similarly. heavily mined areas will have less high end ores and more low end ores. still always some high ends available but not so nice. drug clouds? should still be regional maybe no change required. leave planets alone the local depletion mechanic is fine and sets PI apart. true-sec status in null should be dynamic as pirate factions move to greener pastures. why? because the least utilized space will become the most valued space. the most crowded and built up areas will deplete, people will have to move around. it's unlikely that an equilibrium will ever be reached because people will always prefer to consume resources in defensible pockets. This creates a constant demand for moon scans it means that the little guy has a chance to sit on a good moon undetected for a while. then epic politics would happen when someone does a moon scan and finds out what you are sitting on etc etc. another implication is that each type of 0.0 resource (moon goo minerals pirates etc) would be unrelated to each other so that in a system where nobody does anything but rat there is a good chance that mining will become more profitable and so on.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:30:00 - [927] Originally by: Quicktime Nobody would read 31 pages of comments but couple of points. CCP do not play this game. Don't expect them to know the life of a player. CCP is looking at how many people are paying for this game in isk and attempting to reduce it. CCP will keep nerfing / reducing the amount of isk a person can generate until they get the number of isk paying players down to a number they feel is acceptable. CCP dose not care about the player base that plays the game for free, why should they. Well, although both of us agree that this is a bad idea, i figured i should clear this out. No matter how many people play with ISK, CCP gets the same amount of money as they would if everyone had an credit card subscribed to their accounts. If all the 360.000 accounts in EVE paid with PLEX, CCP would still get the same revenue. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:41:00 - [928] DEATH TO THE NC
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:52:00 - [929] Why should worthless pets such as FCON, DH etc make just as much isk as high tier alliances? Being able to belt rat, plex in your system and do a few average anomalies is fine and how it should be (and how it was). If their members need more isk then they should be sharing their moon goo profits amongst their membership instead of hoarding it for the IC to buy personal super caps.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:56:00 - [930] Originally by: Super Whopper Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 15:26:58 Edited by: Super Whopper on 27/03/2011 15:25:40 Originally by: Kalle Demos Guys you are missing the point, sanctums were a risk free way for players to fund themselves to fight for their masters, while masters kept all the ISK and let it flow with moon goo. From SHC, where people do know what they're talking about. Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!) B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums) C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now) D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now) E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now) Code: \| Region \| A \| B \| C \| D \| E \| \| \|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------\| \| The Spire \| 3 \| 9 \| 28 \| 18 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Cobalt Edge \| 7 \| 19 \| 19 \| 10 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Malpais \| 8 \| 22 \| 27 \| 34 \| 11 \| DRF (d) \| \| Perrigen Falls \| 4 \| 9 \| 39 \| 42 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Etherium Reach \| 6 \| 13 \| 37 \| 34 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| The Kalevala Expanse \| 6 \| 16 \| 19 \| 17 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Outer Passage \| 12 \| 22 \| 15 \| 28 \| 8 \| DRF (d) \| \| Oasa \| 12 \| 16 \| 24 \| 24 \| 8 \| DRF (d) \| \| Delve \| 16 \| 10 \| 20 \| 16 \| 8 \| PL(for sale)\| \| Tenal \| 27 \| 17 \| 9 \| 7 \| 8 \| NC \| \| Feythabolis \| 29 \| 28 \| 18 \| 6 \| 8 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Branch \| 17 \| 25 \| 25 \| 20 \| 7 \| NC \| \| Period Basis \| 9 \| 11 \| 6 \| 3 \| 7 \| ? \| \| Cache \| 17 \| 11 \| 6 \| 1 \| 7 \| DRF \| \| Deklein \| 7 \| 6 \| 22 \| 27 \| 6 \| NC/DC \| \| Fountain \| 43 \| 21 \| 14 \| 8 \| 6 \| NC/DC \| \| Querious \| 31 \| 15 \| 11 \| 12 \| 5 \| ? \| \| Insmother \| 37 \| 27 \| 30 \| 10 \| 4 \| DRF \| \| Omist \| 12 \| 18 \| 6 \| 3 \| 4 \| DRF \| \| Vale of the Silent \| 48 \| 46 \| 10 \| 11 \| 3 \| NC \| \| Catch \| 59 \| 15 \| 15 \| 8 \| 3 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Esoteria \| 30 \| 20 \| 15 \| 6 \| 3 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Paragon Soul \| 20 \| 6 \| 2 \| 1 \| 3 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Tenerifis \| 29 \| 28 \| 12 \| 10 \| 2 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Detorid \| 26 \| 39 \| 23 \| 6 \| 2 \| DRF \| \| Scalding Pass \| 30 \| 15 \| 10 \| 6 \| 2 \| DRF \| \| Geminate \| 26 \| 28 \| 13 \| 3 \| 2 \| NC \| \| Immensea \| 20 \| 29 \| 26 \| 9 \| 0 \| DRF \| \| Wicked Creek \| 22 \| 38 \| 15 \| 7 \| 0 \| DRF \| \| Tribute \| 27 \| 14 \| 6 \| 7 \| 0 \| NC \| \| Impass \| 21 \| 19 \| 7 \| 3 \| 0 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Cloud Ring \| 8 \| 2 \| 0 \| 1 \| 0 \| NC/DC \| \| Fade \| 2 \| 20 \| 5 \| 0 \| 0 \| NC \| \| Providence \| 68 \| 12 \| 0 \| 0 \| 0 \| Ev0ke \| \| Pure Blind \| 58 \| 5 \| 0 \| 0 \| 0 \| NC/DC \| As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty. Well done CCP, you're going to depopulate 0.0 Here's the link but easier to read. They weren't empty pre-Dominion, they won't be if this change goes through.

thedeathxx Caldari Tz Industries RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:57:00 - [931] so basically drone region will be a top region again, and russians will dominate all eve. (personally ill learn russian or quit eve) there will be even more bots doing belts ( since belt ratting will not be affected ) there will be less players arround, since not everyone has a creditcard and gtcs are too expensive at local stores (at least thats my problem) regions that are most of the times empty will be totally deserted since everyone will team up for the "big fishes". most of the people that have a plex subscription will quit. people that are funding their pvp eforts by selling plex wownt sell any more since no one has isk to buy them... I guess no-one from ccp actually plays this game except gm that just log ingame... because you like to screw this game for most of the players
Raven Kumamato	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:59:00 - [932] Originally by: Sannye Where, and how can you possible get 175 mill pr hour ratting? What is this - let's make up numbers as we go?? Even with tengu/carriers you wont make a fraction of what you made up there by dooing sanctums/heavens. Marauders can do 3 to 4 sanctums per hour, thats 105 to 140 mil isk plus salvage and loot on the go with Marauder boni. Fleets of 10+ guys with Zealots/ Muninns and High Alpha BS can finish a sanctum in 3 to 4 minutes incl. warping to next one.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.27 21:59:00 - [933] Originally by: Abramul ...as I suggested earlier, adding a sovereignty discount and cheaper upgrades .. Actually a good idea, something to differentiate various parts of space. Question is how you do it without reinforcing the trend of one colour (read: entity) to rule them all. Originally by: Quicktime Nobody would read 31 pages of comments but couple of points.... If you really cared you would have followed it from the start Originally by: Sannye What is this - let's make up numbers as we go?? Even with tengu/carriers you wont make a fraction of what you made up there by dooing sanctums/heavens. That's because the Tengu/Carriers are noobs that do not understand how to grind properly. 2nd-3rd best sites yield the optimal ISK over time in bounties and salvage .. rats are smaller but go down hard and fast. When grinding you don't actually want those big-digit BS that take 2-3 minutes to kill when you have a half value BC that drops in 15secs. Originally by: All Allies Along with every ... Perhaps you should try reading some of the posts before making such a claim? If you disregard the OMG-sky-is-falling emo posts it is probably about 50/50 at this point. Originally by: Liang Nuren No, historically - before Dominion. This is probably one of most ignored facts in this whole thing, that a recent change (plex spawning) is under evaluation. I made more null belt ratting pre-dominion in 3 months during an invasion (ie. constant combat ops)(RIP FIX ) than I did running 4's and inventing for a whole year .. found fun in the pew in low/FW and haven't looked back - ISK be damned.
Influentialistic Teleportificationisalism	Posted - 2011.03.27 22:06:00 - [934] Originally by: Internet Knight If you still think it's a good idea to remove good anomalies from sov upgrades in bad/high truesec, then perhaps a good idea would be encouraging "good" random anomaly spawns from alternative means. The anomalies are inhabited by pirates, right? Pirates want population, right? Drones want to kill humans, right? So encourage "good" anomalies according to how much population is in the system - perhaps not pod pilots, but rather through PI. With more structures on the planets in the system, you will get better and better chances of good anomalies spawning in system. Every X chance (100%?), it's a guaranteed spawn... You would need to have it only work for active structures... collectors actually collecting, factories actually making stuff... etc. Otherwise someone might make 200 trial accounts, train them all to CC upgrades and planetary management 5, and then throw down as many buildings as possible, and then forget about the trial accounts. But I like the idea.
Abramul Gallente StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.27 22:13:00 - [935] Edited by: Abramul on 27/03/2011 22:13:38 Originally by: Influentialistic Teleportificationisalism If you still think it's a You would need to have it only work for active structures... collectors actually collecting, factories actually making stuff... etc. Otherwise someone might make 200 trial accounts, train them all to CC upgrades and planetary management 5, and then throw down as many buildings as possible, and then forget about the trial accounts. But I like the idea. "Each level in this skill improves the quality of command facility available to you, in turn allowing for a greater number of connected facilities on that planet. Cannot be trained on Trial Accounts." But agreed, you'd want to ignore NPC corp, inactive account, and otherwise abandoned CCs.
Cercetatoru	Posted - 2011.03.27 22:24:00 - [936] CCCP Greyscale: "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" So the reason u`re giving to move them is to nerf theyr system where they have spend lots of time,effort and isk to build upgrades,stations,etc Why not just delete all upgrades and rest and let unclaimed sov everywhere? or even better,move all players in jita with theyr assets so they start fighting over again? or just delete database so we all start from scratch? REALY,when u add something to a game,u think for months or years before patching to make sure its good,u dont add something then change it completly after a while Who will pay all the isk (isk=time,REAL LIFE TIME) back to players for theyr stuff build in a system that will become useless? And u`re thinking at "new alliances" that will come in 0,0 but what about the ones that are new at the present moment and are in 0,0 in some space that will become useless?
Hideki Tsutomi	Posted - 2011.03.27 22:39:00 - [937] Terrible idea. Guess it's time for me to make a level 4 mission runner because I'll make more isk anyway.
Jack BingKaria	Posted - 2011.03.27 22:45:00 - [938] So CCP forces everyone to start mining....... Lets be honest, ccp has no clue about their own game and no clue, what amount of isk and players numbers it even takes to conquer something. This change is making it almost impossible for new alliances to even start in 0.0 And does CCP really not figure out, that its the damn upgrades, that makes the 0.0 less dynamic? Dont they understand, people cant afford nonstop new upgrades? Dont they understand, people wont keep moving? Dont ccp understand, that the smaller the alliances are, the tougher all the above is?
Nikita Keriget	Posted - 2011.03.27 23:02:00 - [939] The poster who mentioned the inherent conflict between meaningful losses and isk grinding was onto something. For those who don't want to grind isk, how about if CCP seeded stations with everything for sale for 100 isk? Neither does anyone want to spend hours grinding to afford a rifter. So most can agree it should be somewhere between those extremes, but where? Here's a question for people - how many hours should it take to earn enough isk for a T2 fit HAC? Second, a question from an uninformed empire dweller - I hear people talking about alliances making a bunch of money off of moon mining and being able to build a bunch of supercapitals that cost a ton of money - couldn't they use some of that money to fund ship replacement programs? I guess that leaves regions with both no good moons and poor sec status in the cold, though. Although when starting to play Eve I heard about CVA in Providence and it sounded like a cool place I wanted to visit one day, and then I learned it got taken over. Finally, just because a change does or does not benefit someone doesn't make it a good or bad change for the game. There are miners in high-sec who would like Concord to prevent suicide ganking, mission runners who would like L5s in high sec, industrial corps who'd like to stop wardecs, etc. Everyone would love CCP to boost their mode of gameplay, and likewise is opposed to any nerf. I'm not saying this change is good or bad, because I'm not familiar with this part of the game and I'm not going to pretend to be. But just because a bunch of people who makes a lot of money doing something are opposed to it being nerfed, doesn't make it a bad change. Rock to CCP: Paper is overpowered, nerf it. Scissors is fine. I really am interested in how much grinding people think a T2 equipped HAC should require. If CCP is reducing the rate of flow of this isk faucet, presumably they feel like the current amount of time is too low.
Aquana Abyss	Posted - 2011.03.27 23:21:00 - [940] I'm very late to the thread apparently so probably wasting my time posting. All I want to say is Greyscale and the CCP Game designers have made 0.0 worse fun for players probably since about when you brought in POS. You don't appear to listen to any player feedback on 0.0 and repeatedly show you don't have a clue about why certain groups attack some but become friends with others. Ok, yes, it is all because of Sanctums.

Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.27 23:39:00 - [941] Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 27/03/2011 23:41:29 Originally by: Jack BingKaria So CCP forces everyone to start mining....... Well, not really. If people generally have less ISK income, then they can't afford current mineral prices. Mineral prices will fall and there will be a period of recession until market stabilises again. They actually want you to sell PLEXes if you want to PvP, which, at least in my case, will never happen.
Goyathla	Posted - 2011.03.28 00:07:00 - [942] Hi, Umm, <-- 0.0 pilot here Sanctums and Havens are for the little guy in 0.0, not for the big alliances. The big alliances fund the major ops from moon goo, heck see the hundred or so other people who mentioned that. For some positive influence on 0.0 add to the spaces with very negative true sec, don't be an ass to the people you are trying to help and take away what they have come to expect as their way of making isk. The changes proposed will not enact any of the goals you have cited as reasons for making these changes. If you truly listen to your paying clients get your heads checked ~Goya
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.28 00:13:00 - [943] Originally by: Nikita Keriget The poster who mentioned the inherent conflict between meaningful losses and isk grinding was onto something. For those who don't want to grind isk, how about if CCP seeded stations with everything for sale for 100 isk? Neither does anyone want to spend hours grinding to afford a rifter. So most can agree it should be somewhere between those extremes, but where? Here's a question for people - how many hours should it take to earn enough isk for a T2 fit HAC? Second, a question from an uninformed empire dweller - I hear people talking about alliances making a bunch of money off of moon mining and being able to build a bunch of supercapitals that cost a ton of money - couldn't they use some of that money to fund ship replacement programs? I guess that leaves regions with both no good moons and poor sec status in the cold, though. Although when starting to play Eve I heard about CVA in Providence and it sounded like a cool place I wanted to visit one day, and then I learned it got taken over. Finally, just because a change does or does not benefit someone doesn't make it a good or bad change for the game. There are miners in high-sec who would like Concord to prevent suicide ganking, mission runners who would like L5s in high sec, industrial corps who'd like to stop wardecs, etc. Everyone would love CCP to boost their mode of gameplay, and likewise is opposed to any nerf. I'm not saying this change is good or bad, because I'm not familiar with this part of the game and I'm not going to pretend to be. But just because a bunch of people who makes a lot of money doing something are opposed to it being nerfed, doesn't make it a bad change. Rock to CCP: Paper is overpowered, nerf it. Scissors is fine. I really am interested in how much grinding people think a T2 equipped HAC should require. If CCP is reducing the rate of flow of this isk faucet, presumably they feel like the current amount of time is too low. So from one side you state that you don't have a first hand experience of living in 0.0 thus you are unqualified to offer an opinion on the proposed changes and then you turn and support the proposed changes on the assumption that the people who are complaining are making loads of money....Yeah, nice try. The following info is provided free of charge.: If the system you have access to has a bad true sec value, even running the belts and hoping for a faction spawn will not take away the fact that basically you are generating laughable isk. Remember this is the GRINDING part NOT the FUN ONE. The difference between hubs and havens is going from 3M per Tick to 9M and that is with a 2xlarge sentry damage rigged domi with t2 sentries + 2 omnies with maxed drone skills albeit with BS only at IV. In effect why even bother with bad 0.0 ??? Lvl4's are the KING !!!! BTW salvaging, looting, selling or manufacturing from loot collected doing missions is trivial. [ I am not even counting the LP rewards here ] Let's be honest the more abandoned/seldom visited space the more 'bots' the proponents of this idiocity can run. \o/ PROFIT !!!!! \o/ PS. Don't forget....OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND !!!!
Nikita Keriget	Posted - 2011.03.28 00:50:00 - [944] Originally by: Armaos Originally by: Nikita Keriget The poster who mentioned the inherent conflict between meaningful losses and isk grinding was onto something. For those who don't want to grind isk, how about if CCP seeded stations with everything for sale for 100 isk? Neither does anyone want to spend hours grinding to afford a rifter. So most can agree it should be somewhere between those extremes, but where? Here's a question for people - how many hours should it take to earn enough isk for a T2 fit HAC? Second, a question from an uninformed empire dweller - I hear people talking about alliances making a bunch of money off of moon mining and being able to build a bunch of supercapitals that cost a ton of money - couldn't they use some of that money to fund ship replacement programs? I guess that leaves regions with both no good moons and poor sec status in the cold, though. Although when starting to play Eve I heard about CVA in Providence and it sounded like a cool place I wanted to visit one day, and then I learned it got taken over. Finally, just because a change does or does not benefit someone doesn't make it a good or bad change for the game. There are miners in high-sec who would like Concord to prevent suicide ganking, mission runners who would like L5s in high sec, industrial corps who'd like to stop wardecs, etc. Everyone would love CCP to boost their mode of gameplay, and likewise is opposed to any nerf. I'm not saying this change is good or bad, because I'm not familiar with this part of the game and I'm not going to pretend to be. But just because a bunch of people who makes a lot of money doing something are opposed to it being nerfed, doesn't make it a bad change. Rock to CCP: Paper is overpowered, nerf it. Scissors is fine. I really am interested in how much grinding people think a T2 equipped HAC should require. If CCP is reducing the rate of flow of this isk faucet, presumably they feel like the current amount of time is too low. So from one side you state that you don't have a first hand experience of living in 0.0 thus you are unqualified to offer an opinion on the proposed changes and then you turn and support the proposed changes on the assumption that the people who are complaining are making loads of money....Yeah, nice try. The following info is provided free of charge.: If the system you have access to has a bad true sec value, even running the belts and hoping for a faction spawn will not take away the fact that basically you are generating laughable isk. Remember this is the GRINDING part NOT the FUN ONE. The difference between hubs and havens is going from 3M per Tick to 9M and that is with a 2xlarge sentry damage rigged domi with t2 sentries + 2 omnies with maxed drone skills albeit with BS only at IV. In effect why even bother with bad 0.0 ??? Lvl4's are the KING !!!! BTW salvaging, looting, selling or manufacturing from loot collected doing missions is trivial. [ I am not even counting the LP rewards here ] Let's be honest the more abandoned/seldom visited space the more 'bots' the proponents of this idiocity can run. \o/ PROFIT !!!!! \o/ PS. Don't forget....OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND !!!! My apologies Armaos, I did not mean to say that I support the proposed changes. I was trying to express that someone whose method of generating isk is threatened will understandably be opposed due to self interest. Look at the thread in Missions and Complexes where all the L4 mission runners are freaking out about dynamic agent quality.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:01:00 - [945] Greyscale, What everyone is saying is farming level 4 missions needs a massive nerf. Hard! Farming level 4 missions in the safety of high sec should not be better than the worst region of null sec for income. Bring on the high sec mission runner nerf with dynamic agent quality. The more a specific agent is ran, the potential profit keeps going down, and down... Forcing players to spend time looking for agents that are currently doing nice payouts. Notice someone keeps farming the same agents as you and causing the income to keep going down? War dec them or higher someone to do the dirty work for you. Viola! More conflict in high sec. The agent quality should be allowed to be pushed out to low sec. Thousands of players want to farm missions in high sec. Fine. Let them and watch the possible income of high sec agents drop and low sec agents go up. Then, if players want to make the really good money, they will have to venture out into low sec to get those agents. Who's payout will be really high. Viola! Low sec boost in traffic. Pirates will love it. High sec players will work together to be able to survive out in low sec (We know this is possible because of Incursions, thank you!) and we get more conflict. Those high sec players who like flying with each other now form a corp and live in low sec. Later as they grow, they like the idea of growing into an alliance and making a mark on the map.... They look towards null sec. Conflict! Conflict! Conflict! Conflict! This is what it is all about. Do not back off on your nerf as some power blocks are screaming. All they are worried about is their precious sanctums and being best friends forever.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:36:00 - [946] Edited by: Super Whopper on 28/03/2011 01:36:54 Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat They weren't empty pre-Dominion, they won't be if this change goes through. They were mostly empty back then, as they will be again. Most of the people who lived in those regions ran lvl 4 missions to support their pvp habits. Originally by: Shivalla No no, I am not whining at all. I support this change completely. And I think you should indeed cancel your subscriptions. And sell all the chars aswell, to support your ISK making. Trolling, well, that might be Crying that others might be making more money than you, that's what it comes down to. Originally by: Cyrus Doul TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are DRF 30% loss across 15 regions PL 26% loss on one region NC 57% loss across seven regions CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region DC 48% loss across 3 regions Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region All those people used to farm lvl 4 missions. Now that CCP want to move lvl 4's to low sec will mean those people will have to find something else to do, like macro mine or run lvl 3's. When CCP realise that people have switched from lvl 4's to lvl 3's they'll nerf those too, until there's nobody left in the game. At the end of the day CCP have been bleeding subscribers. Incarna is just a desperate attempt at getting people into the game. That attempt will fail, because CCP have no clue what goes on in the game that is EVE, so, it's not their game, it's OUR game. If it's their game let them play it, after all a couple of devs and executives are enough to keep all their investors happy and the servers running. If CCP don't start listening to us, their players, even more will quit and will find other games to play. Sony also thought, in their arrogance, they could get more people to SWG by making sweeping changes to the game. The game is now a wasteland and CCP also want to achieve that kind of epic fail. This is why the data computes that subscriber numbers are down.
Wu Phat	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:39:00 - [947] Will if you don't want to rat you can always BUY A PLEX , right CCP. Want more people buying isk legal or.... not?!?
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:45:00 - [948] Originally by: thedeathxx so basically drone region will be a top region again, and russians will dominate all eve. (personally ill learn russian or quit eve) there will be even more bots doing belts ( since belt ratting will not be affected ) there will be less players arround, since not everyone has a creditcard and gtcs are too expensive at local stores (at least thats my problem) regions that are most of the times empty will be totally deserted since everyone will team up for the "big fishes". most of the people that have a plex subscription will quit. people that are funding their pvp eforts by selling plex wownt sell any more since no one has isk to buy them... I guess no-one from ccp actually plays this game except gm that just log ingame... because you like to screw this game for most of the players Don't tell anyone but thousands of accounts have been cancelled over the past few months. As I said, I've dropped three and several years ago I only had one, I will be going back to that one. Originally by: Kalle Demos Originally by: tempuskai So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then...... That doesnt even make sense, besides theres more ways to make isk in 0.0, botting isnt the only way Why don't you go bot in NC territory and see how long you last? Botting isn't the only way, coming out with nonsense for some is.
Halarach Amarr Genos Occidere	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:49:00 - [949] Edited by: Halarach on 28/03/2011 01:53:42 To make 0.0 more fun, interessing and populated you must incite to pvp ccp. Stop speaking about high-end sanctum runners jesus christ. Missioning/ratting is boring as hell and there is nothing to learn, no fun to have, how can you call that high-end. So you must make it easier to pvp by making it so we don't have to grind hours to pay for a vaga, and by nerfing terrible things like the dramiel which makes affordable t2 ships like, say, the crusader, totally obsolete and useless nowadays. Basically we want 0.0 to be like providence was until dominion. Small roaming gangs everywhere, great opportunities to solo etc. I think you know that, and that's a bit what this change is about but it won't have the expected effect tbh.
Lili Lu	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:54:00 - [950] Supercarriers, Drakes, Technetium, coalition blobs or small RMT entitities with renters. None of these get fixed fast enough or at all. Now a CSM that is controlled by the same coalition blocks. Honestly the game is getting boring after 5 years of being here anyway. It's a shame, I was sorta looking forward to Incarna. Now I hardly log in anymore. And noone can have my stuffs.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 01:56:00 - [951] Originally by: Halarach To make 0.0 more fun, interessing and populated you must incite to pvp ccp. Stop speaking about high-end sanctum runners jesus christ. Missioning/ratting is boring as hell and there is nothing to learn, no fun to have, how can you call that high-end. So you must make it easier to pvp by making it so we don't have to grind hours to pay for a vaga, and by nerfing terrible things like the dramiel which makes affordable t2 ships like, say, the crusader, totally obsolete and useless nowadays. Basically we want 0.0 to be like providence was until dominion. Small roaming gangs everywhere, great opportunities to solo etc. The average empire carebear doesn't understand the broken sec status in Delve, nor do they understand the imbalance in moon distribution. They only see people out there making more than they are, which fills them with jealousy. That is what CCP are relying on to support these changes, not rational thought and understanding of the game, because CCP don't understand the game. If they understood the game they've made they'd have rebalanced moons already.
Lord Biscuit	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:01:00 - [952] Maybe you should leave Jovian space and see what really happens in 0.0 space in the rest of Eve. Last time I checked, people attacked space because they didn't like who lived there for some reason or another. Never know any 0.0 alliance at any time to attack any region for "better rats".
Adria Eqviis Dark Shadow Industries Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:01:00 - [953] I came back from some RL issues, and when I saw this I couldn't think of anything other than the picard facepalm.
Nikita Keriget	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:09:00 - [954] Originally by: Halarach Edited by: Halarach on 28/03/2011 01:53:42 To make 0.0 more fun, interessing and populated you must incite to pvp ccp. Stop speaking about high-end sanctum runners jesus christ. Missioning/ratting is boring as hell and there is nothing to learn, no fun to have, how can you call that high-end. So you must make it easier to pvp by making it so we don't have to grind hours to pay for a vaga, and by nerfing terrible things like the dramiel which makes affordable t2 ships like, say, the crusader, totally obsolete and useless nowadays. Basically we want 0.0 to be like providence was until dominion. Small roaming gangs everywhere, great opportunities to solo etc. I think you know that, and that's a bit what this change is about but it won't have the expected effect tbh. You said we shouldn't have to grind hours to pay for a vaga - how long should it take?
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:17:00 - [955] Originally by: Lord Biscuit Maybe you should leave Jovian space and see what really happens in 0.0 space in the rest of Eve. Last time I checked, people attacked space because they didn't like who lived there for some reason or another. Never know any 0.0 alliance at any time to attack any region for "better rats". LIES!! AAA removed CVA for their superb systems, not because they stabbed them in the back. Also when BoB/IT went on their winter campaign it was because they wanted NC's ratting space, boredom had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:38:00 - [956] Originally by: Raven Kumamato Marauders can do 3 to 4 sanctums per hour, thats 105 to 140 mil isk plus salvage and loot on the go with Marauder boni. Fleets of 10+ guys with Zealots/ Muninns and High Alpha BS can finish a sanctum in 3 to 4 minutes incl. warping to next one. A fleet of 10+ guys running sanctums? Is the game you're playing called lala land online? Originally by: Hirana Yoshida 2nd-3rd best sites yield the optimal ISK over time in bounties and salvage .. rats are smaller but go down hard and fast. When grinding you don't actually want those big-digit BS that take 2-3 minutes to kill when you have a half value BC that drops in 15secs. Havens and Hubs earn more than Sanctums? A 240k BC that takes just as long to kill as a 1m bs is not only half of 1m bs but also more worthwhile? Maybe you mean the 140k BC's that can be two-shotted, good to know 140k is half of 800k or 1m. Conclusion: You need to go back to primary school, basic maths is beyond you.
Estimated Prophet	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:50:00 - [957] Edited by: Estimated Prophet on 28/03/2011 02:50:20 Originally by: Cyrus Doul -.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3 Originally by: DevBlog but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. Shouldn't that be "-.9 to -1.0 at +6 for 5 and 5"?
Soren Oboro Gallente Solaris Operations Forever Unbound	Posted - 2011.03.28 02:56:00 - [958] Leave Anomalies and Null Sec alone / Singed
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 03:09:00 - [959] Originally by: Lili Lu Supercarriers, Drakes, Technetium, coalition blobs or small RMT entitities with renters. None of these get fixed fast enough or at all. Now a CSM that is controlled by the same coalition blocks. Honestly the game is getting boring after 5 years of being here anyway. It's a shame, I was sorta looking forward to Incarna. Now I hardly log in anymore. Can i have your stuffs? ____________ I like woman because breasts
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 03:13:00 - [960] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Lili Lu Supercarriers, Drakes, Technetium, coalition blobs or small RMT entitities with renters. None of these get fixed fast enough or at all. Now a CSM that is controlled by the same coalition blocks. Honestly the game is getting boring after 5 years of being here anyway. It's a shame, I was sorta looking forward to Incarna. Now I hardly log in anymore. Can i have your stuffs? What stuffs? It's too busy frothing at the mouth over things it knows nothing about to have stuffz.

Tariana Eve	Posted - 2011.03.28 03:15:00 - [961] Damn it! this is my first post. CCP: Leave it alone! work on fixing the current bugs instead of changing things like this. Seems like you guys are so into making the game look pretty but very ineffective. I seems like is done to truly get rid of your older players. Or maybe they dont care about their loyal customers?
Kellanari The 5th Freedom Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.28 03:30:00 - [962] On the plus side, this will make it easier to get pitchfork gangs to attack fleets as they have to defend the 1 sanctum system that whatever alliance has. Moar pew for me is good, and I do still remember how to chain rats in belts so my income won't be totally screwed.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2011.03.28 04:06:00 - [963] I bet 90% of the people screaming about the unfairness of this change were also screaming at CCP Nozh for saying that the proposed supercarrier changes were a bit OTT and needed re-thinking. Game design by mass hysteria is stupid. Signature removed.
deadeye mike	Posted - 2011.03.28 04:24:00 - [964] First of all this is a really bad idea as stated by so many others in this thread. the trolls who agree are not worth listening to. If this goes ahead as many have said most of null sec will not be worth having people in. If you are dead set about this use the Ihub's to alter the true sec of a system so if on a ihub there is 9 slots this could upgrade a -0.01 system to the -1 that you so want people to fight over. the second option could be all null sec calls a truce with each other for a month and we **** and pillage high sec and really give the high sec carebears something to complain about insurance for high sec ganking. (this option would not cost 0.0 alliances much, mods and the first ship, insurance will cover the rest) CCP listen to us if you go through with this it will be a major mistake as only the small individual player will be affected not those looking for fights.!!!!!!!!
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 04:34:00 - [965] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus I bet 90% of the people screaming about the unfairness of this change were also screaming at CCP Nozh for saying that the proposed supercarrier changes were a bit OTT and needed re-thinking. Game design by mass hysteria is stupid. So let's all just sit and keep our mouths shut, because as we all know CCP doesn't screw things up. oh wait.. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 04:39:00 - [966] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Ophelia Ursus I bet 90% of the people screaming about the unfairness of this change were also screaming at CCP Nozh for saying that the proposed supercarrier changes were a bit OTT and needed re-thinking. Game design by mass hysteria is stupid. So let's all just sit and keep our mouths shut, because as we all know CCP doesn't screw things up. oh wait.. While I laugh every time I watch that, it doesn't change the fact that game design by mass hysteria is stupid. ;-) -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 04:49:00 - [967] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 28/03/2011 04:53:30 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Ophelia Ursus I bet 90% of the people screaming about the unfairness of this change were also screaming at CCP Nozh for saying that the proposed supercarrier changes were a bit OTT and needed re-thinking. Game design by mass hysteria is stupid. So let's all just sit and keep our mouths shut, because as we all know CCP doesn't screw things up. oh wait.. While I laugh every time I watch that, it doesn't change the fact that game design by mass hysteria is stupid. ;-) -Liang Agreed. However, ignoring the public reaction would be even more stupid. The single most valid argument here is that the proposed changes would simply not achieve the desired effects. They would, in fact, do the exact opposite. Power blocks would become even more entrenched, controlling even more concentrated resources and small alliances would have an even harder time settling in. People used to get by before dominion, but thats not whats in discussion here. CCP Greyscale wants to clean his house by using a bucket full of mud. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 04:58:00 - [968] Edited by: Super Whopper on 28/03/2011 05:02:21 Originally by: Liang Nuren While I laugh every time I watch that, it doesn't change the fact that game design by mass hysteria is stupid. ;-) -Liang We should let CCP and their data compute it, because last time CCP computed anything they came out with their 18 months comment, lots of bad publicity and a sharp drop in subscriptions. The last people who have a clue on how to implement change in this game it's CCP. For years idea's have been put forward on how to change the game for the better e.g. moon rebalancing, lvl 4 mission rebalancing, finishing work on FW and WH's, rebalancing guns, etc. but CCP just can't grasp it. No matter how often they're told by CSM and players they just keep on computing. Sony also computed, how did that work out for them? If total epic fail (death of every MMO) is a good business plan then CCP need to keep going down this road. In a few years and the death of EVE and WoD (CCP are CCP and will be CCP) they'll be able to say: "We didn't want that company anyway". Originally by: Renan Ruivo Agreed. However, ignoring the public reaction would be even more stupid. The single most valid argument here is that the proposed changes would simply not achieve the desired effects. They would, in fact, do the exact opposite. Power blocks would become even more entrenched, controlling even more concentrated resources and small alliances would have an even harder time settling in. People used to get by before dominion, but thats not whats in discussion here. CCP Greyscale wants to clean his house by using a bucket full of mud. If you look at subscriptions you'll see that there was a sharp rise when CCP released Tyranis. Since then we've had a decline. While people got on just 'fine' before anomalies there weren't this many people playing. Go back to those days and people will leave for other games, especially those who can't pay for the game through any other mean than Plex. Clever? Only if losing money is clever as a business model.
S'pht'Kr h'Narhl	Posted - 2011.03.28 05:17:00 - [969] Someone mentioned leaving the changes as is and also adding a new way to add sanctums to bad space I like that idea. Incursions come to take people away from empire, pirate factions come to take people away from your planets, and you go kill them...
Lord Zorana	Posted - 2011.03.28 05:17:00 - [970] instead of removing something in order to make ppl fight, y not instead add something? as i remember the old fixed 10/10's used to cause a lot of intrest in certain sections of space so why not bring them back.

Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 05:24:00 - [971] Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 28/03/2011 05:25:22 Originally by: Lord Zorana instead of removing something in order to make ppl fight, y not instead add something? as i remember the old fixed 10/10's used to cause a lot of intrest in certain sections of space so why not bring them back. Because static stuff have a nasty habit of getting monopolised. The right question is: Instead of nerfing income of a nullsec grunts in order to make them fight (if you see any logic in that), why not boost it instead so they can actually have something to fight with? Or even better... leave it alone and let the players deal with it.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.28 05:35:00 - [972] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 28/03/2011 05:25:22 Originally by: Lord Zorana instead of removing something in order to make ppl fight, y not instead add something? as i remember the old fixed 10/10's used to cause a lot of intrest in certain sections of space so why not bring them back. Because static stuff have a nasty habit of getting monopolised. The right question is: Instead of nerfing income of a nullsec grunts in order to make them fight (if you see any logic in that), why not boost it instead so they can actually have something to fight with? Or even better... leave it alone and let the players deal with it. kinda like tech moons right? no, what needs to happen is CCP needs to not listen to players' bias and make the damn game harder. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.28 05:48:00 - [973] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 28/03/2011 05:25:22 Originally by: Lord Zorana instead of removing something in order to make ppl fight, y not instead add something? as i remember the old fixed 10/10's used to cause a lot of intrest in certain sections of space so why not bring them back. Because static stuff have a nasty habit of getting monopolised. The right question is: Instead of nerfing income of a nullsec grunts in order to make them fight (if you see any logic in that), why not boost it instead so they can actually have something to fight with? Or even better... leave it alone and let the players deal with it. kinda like tech moons right? no, what needs to happen is CCP needs to not listen to players' bias and make the damn game harder. Good for you. Oh wait, you're not alone on this game. Oh wait, your position is not the majority position either. Yeah....
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 05:57:00 - [974] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins kinda like tech moons right? no, what needs to happen is CCP needs to not listen to players' bias and make the damn game harder. Indeed, CCP need to make the game really hard and losses need to hurt badly. That way EVE can be turned into a hard core game for a hard core community of gamers. When the game's dropped from 40k online to less than 10 you will realise how bad your idea is.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:02:00 - [975] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Agreed. However, ignoring the public reaction would be even more stupid. The single most valid argument here is that the proposed changes would simply not achieve the desired effects. They would, in fact, do the exact opposite. Power blocks would become even more entrenched, controlling even more concentrated resources and small alliances would have an even harder time settling in. People used to get by before dominion, but thats not whats in discussion here. CCP Greyscale wants to clean his house by using a bucket full of mud. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the changes won't accomplish their goal ... but I have seen a crap ton of people knee jerking. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:15:00 - [976] Edited by: Desert Ice78 on 28/03/2011 06:24:09 Edited by: Desert Ice78 on 28/03/2011 06:18:07 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. Thats 40% of nul-sec. And we both know that havens can only support a modest sized corporation of maybe 10 to 15 ratters (an I'm being VERY generous with that figure.) So thats another 20%. So, 60% of nul-secis about to be depopulated and turned into a barren wasteland. You were looking for evidence of this being bad (the stated goal being to make nul-sec more interesting, vibrant and dynamic)?? Greyscale NOW wants me to attack my formerly blue buddies for their one scantum (because I sure as hell am not attacking WN for their -0.75 sec system; my drake against their Super-blob?!?!?)..... Naaa, I'll just go back to hi-sec and run level 4 missions; more ISK, safer, less hassle, got a market there too.
rantuket Caldari SPORADIC MOVEMENT Merciless.	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:21:00 - [977] I hope that this was a pipe dream and someone accidentally published a draft...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:22:00 - [978] Originally by: Desert Ice78 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. lolwut. are you freaking serious? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:25:00 - [979] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Desert Ice78 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. lolwut. are you freaking serious? Yes, you telling me you've never run one???
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:39:00 - [980] "wah wah I'm going back to high sec to do lvl4" Why not WH/low incursions? Or low sec lvl4/5, 0.0 missions? Same reason you spend only a very small portion of the large amount of isk you generate atm through sanctum farming on pvp.

Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:44:00 - [981] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat "wah wah I'm going back to high sec to do lvl4" Why not WH/low incursions? Or low sec lvl4/5, 0.0 missions? Same reason you spend only a very small portion of the large amount of isk you generate atm through sanctum farming on pvp. Maybe I will, maybe I'll just unsub my accounts, or maybe I'll afk cloaked in Jita for the next two years. The point (if your subtle enough to be able to get it) is that Greyscale has proposed changes for stated reasons, the net result of which will be the exact opposite of said reasons.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 06:57:00 - [982] Originally by: Desert Ice78 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Desert Ice78 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. lolwut. are you freaking serious? Yes, you telling me you've never run one??? I'll take the high ground here and ask: What are the things that the two of you consider to be the basic for the null-sec player? ____________ I like woman because breasts
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:17:00 - [983] Good example of how small alliance should go is Convicted. Move to npc space. Take over moons from weaker opponents. Take over good isk generating location possible (old goon pocket in syndicate). Build up membership and numbers before trying to get into a bigger 0.0 alliance or continue doing your own thing. Unfortunately they ended up in NC but there are many others who have done it and still doing it. Not carebears though. They'll just whine on the forums wanting all the benefits of 0.0 while avoiding conflict and even demanding CCP make things in their favor.
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:23:00 - [984] Renan, Your a nul-sec alliance, its meant to be the "elite" aspect of the game, and every player is in time supposed to graduate into it. With the end-game senario that it's meant to be, it should be risk v reward; maximum risk, maximum reward. Living in nul-sec, with all the risk, and now zero reward?!?!? How are you meant to sell that to anyone; I'll get the same reply everytime...meh, i'll do level 4's instead. I am frustrated Renan, because that is so bloody obvious to me, and yet has somehow managed to escape Greyscale.
ChromeStriker	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:35:00 - [985] Originally by: Desert Ice78 Renan, Your a nul-sec alliance, its meant to be the "elite" aspect of the game, and every player is in time supposed to graduate into it. With the end-game senario that it's meant to be, it should be risk v reward; maximum risk, maximum reward. Living in nul-sec, with all the risk, and now zero reward?!?!? How are you meant to sell that to anyone; I'll get the same reply everytime...meh, i'll do level 4's instead. I am frustrated Renan, because that is so bloody obvious to me, and yet has somehow managed to escape Greyscale. ok look at it this way... maximum risk = maximum reward... so the deeper into null you go, the higher the risk so the anom's give higher rewards! and the wonderful renters that are given "SAFER" pockets have oh low and behold lesser rewards Looks Like CCP Have done well to me
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:45:00 - [986] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Desert Ice78 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. lolwut. are you freaking serious? Consider drone anomalies. A Drone Squad (Hub-equivalent) yields approximately 5 million ISK in alloys and takes an average-skilled pilot who does not have access to a carrier or marauder or other rather expensive ship approximately twenty minutes to complete (including scanning and salvaging/looting). A Drone Patrol (Haven equivalent) yields approximately 20 million ISK in alloys and takes that same pilot approximately thirty or at most forty minutes to complete. A Drone Horde (Sanctum equivalent) yields approximately 26 million ISK in alloys and takes approximately forty minutes to complete (Sanctums are worth more because drone faction spawns are worthless). So in terms of simple ISK per hour, a Drone Squad is significantly inferior. However, a Drone Squad takes more effort to run than a Drone Patrol or Horde, since its spawns consist mostly of numerous frigates and cruisers; Drone Patrols and Hordes have smaller spawns consisting of more-valuable battleship-sized rats. The situation is similar for regular anomalies, although I do not have access to bounty data on them at the moment. As can be seen from the above, the income from anomalies below Havens/Sanctums is rather low. A pilot running nothing but Sansha Hubs or Drone Squads can look to make perhaps twenty million ISK per hour, assuming he is not interrupted by hostiles. That same pilot can make rather more running missions in Empire, in much greater safety and with rather less effort, even if the proposed changes to missions go through. While belt rats in high-truesec space are not terribly valuable, belt ratting will actually yield more income than running Hubs or Drone Squads, assuming there are enough belts. So no sane alliance will bother installing military iHub upgrades if the best anomalies it can hope for are Hubs or their equivalent. Since we can disregard the existence of anomalies below Haven level, as most pilots do not and will not run them, pilot income in space without Havens or Sanctums will have to come from belt ratting, or from Empire jump clone/alts. Only a small number of players can belt rat in a system at once; the income from running level 4 missions will be reduced once level 4 missions are nerfed. Therefore, the proposed changes will have three effects: Space with mostly high truesec systems (above approximately -0.4) will revert to its pre-Dominion state of relative uselessness. It will be able to support a small number of local pilots; all other pilots living in that space will have to make their ISK elsewhere, as they had been forced to do before Dominion. This will make PvP more costly and less convenient on an individual level, reducing conflict. Alliances living in space with mostly high truesec systems will not be able to challenge large powerblocs since they will not be able to support the large player densities necessary to field fleets of any decent size. Corollary to that, players living in that space will not be able to afford high-quality PvP ships due to a reduction in income sources. This will reduce conflict and further solidify the positions of existing power blocs which will now have access not only to high-end moons for alliance-level income but also good anomalies for player-level income. There might be some reshuffling of systems and constellations, but we will not see any major changes in the nullsec landscape. Nullsec conflict on the small scale has been driven by player boredom, which has to be funded by various PvE activities; the big conflicts are driven by moons. The first NC alliance to reset its neighbors like CCP so desperately wants will be crushed and its space divvied up.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:51:00 - [987] Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 28/03/2011 07:51:56 Originally by: Desert Ice78 Greyscale NOW wants me to attack my formerly blue buddies for their one scantum (because I sure as hell am not attacking WN for their -0.75 sec system; my drake against their Super-blob?!?!?)..... Nah, I'll just go back to hi-sec and run level 4 missions; more ISK, safer, less hassle, got a market there too. This summarizes one large part of what's wrong with Greyscale's thinking. Reducing the income of individual pilots, and then expecting them to go out and risk their ships more often in more frequent conflicts is silly. Expecting them to reset their neighbors, especially against 10:1 or worse odds is sillier yet. I'm sure that not all the members of the Northern Coalition get along all the time; but none of them are stupid enough to declare war on the others, because they all know that they will be blobbed into oblivion. So much for breaking up coalitions.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:55:00 - [988] Originally by: Desert Ice78 Renan, Your a nul-sec alliance, its meant to be the "elite" aspect of the game, and every player is in time supposed to graduate into it. With the end-game senario that it's meant to be, it should be risk v reward; maximum risk, maximum reward. Living in nul-sec, with all the risk, and now zero reward?!?!? How are you meant to sell that to anyone; I'll get the same reply everytime...meh, i'll do level 4's instead. I am frustrated Renan, because that is so bloody obvious to me, and yet has somehow managed to escape Greyscale. Pretty damn arrogant to assume that 0.0 is the end game of Eve. IMO, the end game of Eve is when you graduate from the blob mentality of 0.0 into the solo/small gangs of low sec. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Signal11th Versatech Co.	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:55:00 - [989] All this really does is hurt the "average Jo" 0.0 dweller like myself. I get to play enough during the week but only enough I get to do one thing at at time e.g earn isk for pvp or actually out on roams. I hate running sanctums/havens and all that stuff but when your stuck in the arse end of nowhere it's the only way of making isk if your based soley on combat. The sites are clogged up anyway with the big boys in the carriers etc so even when I get chance to make isk 50% there's already someone in it. Basically CCP want to turn me into a mission runner for some reason, my guess (tongue in cheek) is that they realise they will never fix the lag in 0.0 so have decided to make 0.0 unprofitable for the average player so in the end all of us will leave to become high sec carebears leaving only in CCP's exact words "high end players" only in 0.0. What they should have done is make all 0.0 systems have "more sites" so this will tempt more people in 0.0 (especially if you make sites around the entrance pipes more valuable) this will increase pvp as more people drift in trying to make a fast buck. Bah what do I know. Really not a great idea Greyscale, I would stick to looking at pron and daydreaming about nailing Bjork.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:58:00 - [990] Originally by: Alice Katsuko Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Desert Ice78 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. lolwut. are you freaking serious? Text I don't know, there are people here who swear on their mothers and their mother's uncles that they used to make MORE money on true 0.0, with their alliances and corps that had 20 blues on local at any given time, than it was possible to make ALONE on HIGH-SEC doing Level 4 missions with high quality agents. I can't argue with that.... i simply don't know how to explain why a telephone is not a water bottle. ____________ I like woman because breasts

Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 07:58:00 - [991] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 07:59:16 Originally by: Renan Ruivo I'll take the high ground here and ask: What are the things that the two of you consider to be the basic for the null-sec player? You need to make enough ISK to fund your killing of **. When I was living in 0.0, I trivially made enough ISK from belt ratting (even out in ** truesec Syndicate) to afford pirate implants + pimped out HACs/Recons. Anyone telling me that they can't make ends meet without Sanctums can kiss my ass. -Liang Ed: Its worth noting that I didn't PVE much then so its not like it was a big grind or anything. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:02:00 - [992] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:03:21 Quote: As can be seen from the above, the income from anomalies below Havens/Sanctums is rather low. A pilot running nothing but Sansha Hubs or Drone Squads can look to make perhaps twenty million ISK per hour, assuming he is not interrupted by hostiles. That same pilot can make rather more running missions in Empire, in much greater safety and with rather less effort, even if the proposed changes to missions go through. While belt rats in high-truesec space are not terribly valuable, belt ratting will actually yield more income than running Hubs or Drone Squads, assuming there are enough belts. So no sane alliance will bother installing military iHub upgrades if the best anomalies it can hope for are Hubs or their equivalent. If you're making 20M ISK/hr running Sansha Sanctums, you're doing it very, very, very wrong. You can belt rat for more than that with a T1 fit T1 cruiser. I know - I've done it. -Liang Ed: Furthermore, what you're claiming flies directly in the face of what far more reputable people have been saying on the forums since Dominion was introduced. I've seen claims - and screen shots - of people pulling 80-120M ISK/hr out of Sanctums. That's PVP free ISK, btw, because remember that in high sec you're going to be making most of your ISK off market PVP. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:02:00 - [993] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 07:59:16 Originally by: Renan Ruivo I'll take the high ground here and ask: What are the things that the two of you consider to be the basic for the null-sec player? You need to make enough ISK to fund your killing of **. When I was living in 0.0, I trivially made enough ISK from belt ratting (even out in ** truesec Syndicate) to afford pirate implants + pimped out HACs/Recons. Anyone telling me that they can't make ends meet without Sanctums can kiss my ass. -Liang Ed: Its worth noting that I didn't PVE much then so its not like it was a big grind or anything. Question: How many hours a day do you play eve?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:05:00 - [994] Originally by: StuRyan Question: How many hours a day do you play eve? I played Eve from 10pm to 12am my time today. I was on off/on for my market alt totaling about an hour. I'd say I never log on before 8pm Pacific and rarely log off before midnight. I play 5-6 days/wk. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:09:00 - [995] That sucks. Like really ? You really think that turning true sec 0.0 down to -0.25 totally worthless junk of space is bright idea ? Oh well .. you can find my isk making chars in the local level 4 mission hub in hi-sec. See ya around o/. And as added benefit those attacking my pvp alts remaining in 0.0 cant do **** about my income source anymore. As it was standing currently 0.0 anoms did about 10% better than hi sec lev 4 missions if you were good at it. You know, jam a carrier or mom in them plus few gank BS vs dual/tripleaccounting faction fitted marauders in hi sec.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:13:00 - [996] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan Question: How many hours a day do you play eve? I played Eve from 10pm to 12am my time today. I was on off/on for my market alt totaling about an hour. I'd say I never log on before 8pm Pacific and rarely log off before midnight. I play 5-6 days/wk. -Liang How many hours do you spend ratting in crap truesec systems?
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:19:00 - [997] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 28/03/2011 08:21:14 Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:03:21 If you're making 20M ISK/hr running Sansha Sanctums, you're doing it very, very, very wrong. You can belt rat for more than that with a T1 fit T1 cruiser. I know - I've done it. -Liang Ed: Furthermore, what you're claiming flies directly in the face of what far more reputable people have been saying on the forums since Dominion was introduced. I've seen claims - and screen shots - of people pulling 80-120M ISK/hr out of Sanctums. That's PVP free ISK, btw, because remember that in high sec you're going to be making most of your ISK off market PVP. Not everyone can pull 120m/h out of sanctums. Believe me, only a few can. And even then, only when you're alone. And you're saying that you could afford to lose pimped out hacs while belt-ratting on true 0.0. Sorry, i have only your word on that, and i cannot believe it. I never lived on null-sec pre dominion, but i know people far more reputable to me than you are, that needed to run missions on high-sec to afford their PVP life on providence. I know it because their alts ran missins with me to help me out. You're trying to tell me that pre-dominion you could rat for less than one hour per day, on crappy belts, and not only that was enought to afford your costs, but that was more profitable than high-sec missioning. Prove it. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:21:00 - [998] Originally by: StuRyan How many hours do you spend ratting in crap truesec systems? Why don't you just ask the question you intend to "final blow" with? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
bombre4life	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:21:00 - [999] 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 I fully support these changes.
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:22:00 - [1000] Originally by: Automa I think that the number of -0.9 to -1.0 is very small indeed. I also think the number of -0.0 to -0.25 is very large. VERY LARGE. CCP's state that they... 1. We want 0.0 to work better, more people in 0.0 etc, more battles (but spread out battles). 2. We want to differentiate 0.0 space so some is better than other space (to give something to fight over) 3. We want newer corps/alliances to be able to get a foothold. Yeah. And what these proposed changes do is opposite to this goals. I agree with other posters in that what these changes are doing is nerfing the income of an average nullsec grunt, while leaving the big alliances unaffected. The poor get poorer, and relatively rich get richer because of that. You make small and new corps/alliances life harder because they consist of precisely those average pilots and are unable to reap good benefits out of sov mechanics and upgrades anyway. (Ive been there) If you want to help small corps/alliances, then improve life in the -0.0 .. - 0.25 range, DON'T nerf it! If you want to give big alliances stuff to fight for, then change the space that they inhabit, not everywhere else! Change the upper end of the spectrum. For the life of me I don't understand why game designers repeatedly think that doing something to A is going to create changes in B. Are you guys stupid or too immersed in your own fantasy world to see clearly? Honestly scrap this idea and think it over. Quote: Isn't the solution obvious? As other posters have said, leave -0.0 to -0.25 alone and buff -0.75 to -1.00 to be better. That will give you the difference you seek whilst not nerfing the income for a huge number of 0.0 pilots personal income. This.

Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:25:00 - [1001] Originally by: Liang Nuren I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the changes won't accomplish their goal ... but I have seen a crap ton of people knee jerking. -Liang If their goal is to send isk making chars back to hi sec running level 4 missions then I'm quite confident this change will accomplices that quite spectacularly. You know - like it was before dominion. If I read the devblog correct then about 70 % of 0.0 space will give less isk/h than level 4 missions in hi sec if one knows what hes doing. Belt ratting is all nice and good ofc, but it has very low population cap before the system is way too crowded, besides getting good isk from that needs reasonable amount of belts and good enough true sec as well. Plexes are also sometimes good pay but have same problem as belt ratting - not high enough population cap.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:26:00 - [1002] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan How many hours do you spend ratting in crap truesec systems? Why don't you just ask the question you intend to "final blow" with? -Liang Because this is how you research - I want to know how many hours you spend playing the game ratting to be able to afford a ship to pew pew. I would like to know this for now (ie post dominion) and before (ie Pre-dominion). I then want to summarise and say to hell with truesec no one ever fights over truesec, If that was the case the Cloud Ring would be empty and a host of other regions.
Hermosa Diosas	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:29:00 - [1003] I have to say im a totally disappointed that CCP do NOT HAVE A CLUE about their game, and how nullsec and alliances work. This is pretty dumb founding. Do you really think that sov holding alliances care about sanctums and havens? They have JUST been introduced, they managed damn well without them before. These are just goodies for the players to make isk, that is all. Alliances DO NOT depend one single bit on these. Infact the care that much that they rent almost all systems out at even more silly prices! and they will continue to do so, even if they get a little nerfed. Alliances do not fight over true sec of systems, never have never will. They fight over MOONS! yes thats it MOONS! and this is where ALL the money comes from for alliances mainly. You have to neft moongold not bloody anomolies thats for 0.0 players to make isk, for ships and stuff. Also do you not realise that doing this, doesnt help small alliances or corps? you have done absolutley nothing to help small alliances get into 0.0 at all. The large entities still hold the region and the stations! Small alliances cannot hold sov, because the larger alliances with thier 200 super cap fleet comes in and removes them in an instant. They cannot form logistics, because they cant get through 0.0 without getting slaughtered and they cant make JBS cos they cant get sov. Seriously do you have even a little clue? Unless you drastically change how 0.0 works, small alliances will never have the chance in 0.0 ever! Without either paying stupid amounts of rent, or getting killed constantly. So onto moongold, you have to do something about this! and one solution is randomise the moons on a monthly basis. Stop having constant flow of moongold! Every month the minerals change, so the powerblocs dont just have massive income and become invincible, where they can build super after super after super, and lose without ANY CONSQUENCE! its ridiculous. This means that they will have to go out and search for those moons, and of course this will cause more of the pvp you want in 0.0, because everyone will want to find those moons! Even smaller alliances will then have a chance to make some isk for at least a month! YOU HAVE TO REMOVE/CHANGE THE CONSTANT ISK MAKING MACHINE THAT IS MOONS! The same alliances have controlled eve 0.0 for years now, and will continue to do so for ever, because they have a massive advantage over all others. I see eve just becoming a chinese server again, I mean its pretty much russian server as it is!! And yes some alliances have died, but only to other big alliances, or fail cascade, but the same old people just get recycled into the other big alliances. YOU MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CONSTANT ISK MAKING MACHINE! THAT IS MOONS! Also do not allow supers to insured!
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:30:00 - [1004] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Not everyone can pull 120m/h out of sanctums. Believe me, only a few can. And even then, only when you're alone. The funny thing about it is that high sec income is that high sec scales in a similar manner. Some people can do pretty well... but most don't appear to be able to do it - even though I've spent years telling them in detail how to. Quote: And you're saying that you could afford to lose pimped out hacs while belt-ratting on true 0.0. Sorry, i have only your word on that, and i cannot believe it. I never lived on null-sec pre dominion, but i know people far more reputable to me than you are, that needed to run missions on high-sec to afford their PVP life on providence. I know it because their alts ran missins with me to help me out. You never lived in null sec pre dominion. I did - and so did a very large number of people. Lots of them afforded pimped out nano HACs (and nano battleships before then too!) based purely off ratting income. You don't have to believe me, except to examine whether you really believe all those people had high sec mission alts. The answer is no, if you're curious. Quote: You're trying to tell me that pre-dominion you could rat for less than one hour per day, on crappy belts, and not only that was enought to afford your costs, but that was more profitable than high-sec missioning. Prove it. I'm not sure how you expect me to prove it 2 years down the line? The API doesn't even keep records that far back. But, if you stop and think about it you'll find that it actually makes a ton of sense. If you've got an hour and you cruise through all the belts a couple times (or better yet wander through a few systems), you'll make X ISK. However, in high sec, you can fit only 1 or 2 missions in that same time slot, and there will be some time left over as you can't run another mission. And then there's the time it takes to sort/sell your loot, and then convert/haul/sell your LP - both of which are PVP activities. Whereas in 0.0, you've got a direct ISK flow. Notably, a direct ISK flow that has proven to be bad for the game economy. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:31:00 - [1005] Originally by: Zey Nadar If you want to give big alliances stuff to fight for, then change the space that they inhabit, not everywhere else! Change the upper end of the spectrum. Touch the big power blocks?!? WHAWHAWHAT??? BLASPHEMY!! NI! NI! NI!!! NI!!!!!!! NNNIIIII!!!!!
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:37:00 - [1006] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:39:43 Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:37:57 Originally by: StuRyan I then want to summarise and say to hell with truesec no one ever fights over truesec, If that was the case the Cloud Ring would be empty and a host of other regions. You guys keep tossing about Cloud Ring, yet its never really been empty. Sure, its been quiet on occasion with smallish 0.0 alliances making a living, but completely deserted? Never. Come to think of it... maybe that's what they're trying to add back to the game? -Liang Ed: Also, laugh my ass off at anyone who wants to tell us all how elite 0.0 pros are, and then threaten to head back to high sec to make their ISK. What, low sec scares you? Originally by: Hermosa Diosas YOU MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CONSTANT ISK MAKING MACHINE! THAT IS MOONS! Can you please show me how moons introduce new ISK into the game economy? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:39:00 - [1007] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Renan Ruivo Not everyone can pull 120m/h out of sanctums. Believe me, only a few can. And even then, only when you're alone. The funny thing about it is that high sec income is that high sec scales in a similar manner. Some people can do pretty well... but most don't appear to be able to do it - even though I've spent years telling them in detail how to. Quote: And you're saying that you could afford to lose pimped out hacs while belt-ratting on true 0.0. Sorry, i have only your word on that, and i cannot believe it. I never lived on null-sec pre dominion, but i know people far more reputable to me than you are, that needed to run missions on high-sec to afford their PVP life on providence. I know it because their alts ran missins with me to help me out. You never lived in null sec pre dominion. I did - and so did a very large number of people. Lots of them afforded pimped out nano HACs (and nano battleships before then too!) based purely off ratting income. You don't have to believe me, except to examine whether you really believe all those people had high sec mission alts. The answer is no, if you're curious. Quote: You're trying to tell me that pre-dominion you could rat for less than one hour per day, on crappy belts, and not only that was enought to afford your costs, but that was more profitable than high-sec missioning. Prove it. I'm not sure how you expect me to prove it 2 years down the line? The API doesn't even keep records that far back. But, if you stop and think about it you'll find that it actually makes a ton of sense. If you've got an hour and you cruise through all the belts a couple times (or better yet wander through a few systems), you'll make X ISK. However, in high sec, you can fit only 1 or 2 missions in that same time slot, and there will be some time left over as you can't run another mission. And then there's the time it takes to sort/sell your loot, and then convert/haul/sell your LP - both of which are PVP activities. Whereas in 0.0, you've got a direct ISK flow. Notably, a direct ISK flow that has proven to be bad for the game economy. -Liang Correct me if i am wrong but dominion was introduced to allow people to live in a confined space - doesn't the proposed change mean that people are gonna space out again becuase there truely isn't enough good Truesec to fight over. AND AGAIN - NOBODY EVER FIGHTS FOR TRUESEC... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding - however I am open to the thought of facing tougher AI to make it more difficult to make isk.... everyone knows sanctrums are a endless pit of isk and if in the right ship you can do them very easily, make them harder. Not reducue the amount of opportunites.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:46:00 - [1008] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:46:51 Originally by: StuRyan Correct me if i am wrong but dominion was introduced to allow people to live in a confined space Which it did. Quote: doesn't the proposed change mean that people are gonna space out again becuase there truely isn't enough good Truesec to fight over. It means that they'll bunch up more in some areas and spread out more in others. This helps these expected outcomes happen: # 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 # 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) Quote: AND AGAIN - NOBODY EVER FIGHTS FOR TRUESEC You keep saying that, but history shows you to be wrong. First off, I've been there when we fought over better space. Second, the fact that everyone keeps shouting about how the "Big Boys" are just going to take the best true sec systems puts lie to your claim. Quote: ... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding So you're basically suggesting FPS Eve? Because all the other parts of it would simply cease to exist (or be meaningful) if what you're suggesting was ever allowed to happen. Maybe you guys have become too carebear and lazy out there in 0.0 space basking in the incredible ISK fountain. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:51:00 - [1009] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 28/03/2011 08:53:05 Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Renan Ruivo Not everyone can pull 120m/h out of sanctums. Believe me, only a few can. And even then, only when you're alone. The funny thing about it is that high sec income is that high sec scales in a similar manner. Some people can do pretty well... but most don't appear to be able to do it - even though I've spent years telling them in detail how to. Quote: And you're saying that you could afford to lose pimped out hacs while belt-ratting on true 0.0. Sorry, i have only your word on that, and i cannot believe it. I never lived on null-sec pre dominion, but i know people far more reputable to me than you are, that needed to run missions on high-sec to afford their PVP life on providence. I know it because their alts ran missins with me to help me out. You never lived in null sec pre dominion. I did - and so did a very large number of people. Lots of them afforded pimped out nano HACs (and nano battleships before then too!) based purely off ratting income. You don't have to believe me, except to examine whether you really believe all those people had high sec mission alts. The answer is no, if you're curious. Quote: You're trying to tell me that pre-dominion you could rat for less than one hour per day, on crappy belts, and not only that was enought to afford your costs, but that was more profitable than high-sec missioning. Prove it. I'm not sure how you expect me to prove it 2 years down the line? The API doesn't even keep records that far back. But, if you stop and think about it you'll find that it actually makes a ton of sense. If you've got an hour and you cruise through all the belts a couple times (or better yet wander through a few systems), you'll make X ISK. However, in high sec, you can fit only 1 or 2 missions in that same time slot, and there will be some time left over as you can't run another mission. And then there's the time it takes to sort/sell your loot, and then convert/haul/sell your LP - both of which are PVP activities. Whereas in 0.0, you've got a direct ISK flow. Notably, a direct ISK flow that has proven to be bad for the game economy. -Liang Correct me if i am wrong but dominion was introduced to allow people to live in a confined space - doesn't the proposed change mean that people are gonna space out again becuase there truely isn't enough good Truesec to fight over. AND AGAIN - NOBODY EVER FIGHTS FOR TRUESEC... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding - however I am open to the thought of facing tougher AI to make it more difficult to make isk.... everyone knows sanctrums are a endless pit of isk and if in the right ship you can do them very easily, make them harder. Not reducue the amount of opportunites. Like i said. Saying that before dominion things were like this or like that is an invalid. The only thing that this argument proves is that things worked in a way then, so if they remove now things will go back to be the way they were before. And they completely ignore the fact that Dominion came to improve upon that. And on that same merit, you should either remove sanctums and havens completely, or not touch them at all. You cannot possibly want me to believe that taking away resources from small alliances and condensing them on the hands of the big ones, is supposed to help the little guys and create trouble for the big ones. I find this very offensive to my intelligence even.. Originally by: Liang Nuren Second, the fact that everyone keeps shouting about how the "Big Boys" are just going to take the best true sec systems puts lie to your claim. -Liang The argument is not that they will take this space. The argument, is that they already own it. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:54:00 - [1010] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:55:20 Originally by: Renan Ruivo Like i said. Saying that before dominion things were like this or like that is an invalid. The only thing that this argument proves is that things worked in a way then, so if they remove now things will go back to be the way they were before. And they completely ignore the fact that Dominion came to improve upon that. The fact that Dominion came to improve upon what was before does not imply that it cannot be improved on - or that it didn't go too far. Quote: And on that same merit, you should either remove sanctums and havens completely, or not touch them at all. I don't see the logic in that. You should expound upon it. Quote: You cannot possibly want me to believe that taking away resources from small alliances and condensing them on the hands of the big ones, is supposed to help the little guys and create trouble for the big ones. I find this very offensive to my intelligence even.. Then maybe you should put your thinking cap on. The smaller alliances have always lived on the fringes of space where the big alliances didn't bother with. Right now, thanks to Dominion, that space doesn't really exist. -Liang Ed: Looks like my timer's up for the night. Deliberately unplugged the laptop to make sure I went to bed instead of arguing with all the wrong people on the internet all night. :) -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:55:00 - [1011] Silly question... Which is more important to CCP? Subscriptions? or the hope that this change might make more conflict in 0.0? (more then already exists?) Maybe I don't know SOV mechanics before Domininon... maybe there was a more dynamic SOV landscape... Before Dominion I was a high sec miner/mission runner. What I do know is that since Dominion I've had a great time in null-sec with the conflicts that have been going on... so much so I was able to convince 3 RL friends to start playing that stuck with it. They all also grabbed a second account during one of the "power of 2" promotions (one went crazy and has 3). They play Eve casually, at most 2-3 times a week. But when on they gather some isk via sanctums/havens then go and PvP either roaming or CTAs. They don't pay for their accounts with isk. They save that for pew pew. These guys could care less what power blocs are dominant ... they just like to pew pew when RL allows. This change will kill these guys. They will find something else to do with their time. And likely with their subscription money. Tolling around high-sec isn't appealing. Dominion was supposed to get more casual players into 0.0 ... it did that. This change will at least for my group of RL friends erase that gain. Some clearly have the opinion here that casual players shouldn't be allowed to enjoy null-sec. And they are cheering on this change to rid null of people who didn't enjoy it before Dominion. Somehow, we are unworthy to enjoy Eve. I disagree. If, CCPs new mantra for 0.0, "it's only for the most elite not the casual". Then, I hope you elite folks enjoy less people in 0.0 and eventually EVE. Most of us who've gotten a taste of 0.0 will find something else to do instead of high-sec. ---- Two more big points that I'm going to add again... 1) Power blocs can fall without this change. Off the top of my head, since Dominion... CVA (hell providance has switched hands many times since dominion), Goon got ****d from the inside out and then had to move, IT/BoB got the boot, Geminate has been on fire a few times, PL has gone on more then a few campaigns of devastation clearing out what some thought were strong alliances. I guess my point is: What more does CCP really expect out of this? What's the measuring stick for "not enough conflict, we need to mix things up" ? 2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.28 08:57:00 - [1012] Originally by: Klam 2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own. CCPs original plan for the Supercaps was very different. But the 0.0 players - just like you - argued differently. CCP listened to you then... unfortunately. They should have told you to HTFU, and I hope they'll do it this time instead of caving in. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:02:00 - [1013] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 28/03/2011 09:02:56 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Klam 2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own. CCPs original plan for the Supercaps was very different. But the 0.0 players - just like you - argued differently. CCP listened to you then... unfortunately. They should have told you to HTFU, and I hope they'll do it this time instead of caving in. The thing i see on these discussions on this thread is exactly this. Its coming down to personal opinions on what should happen. You hope they don't cave in. I (and a overwhelming number of people) do. We all pay the same amount of money. What do we do? ____________ I like woman because breasts
Im Blue	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:03:00 - [1014] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Klam 2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own. CCPs original plan for the Supercaps was very different. But the 0.0 players - just like you - argued differently. CCP listened to you then... unfortunately. They should have told you to HTFU, and I hope they'll do it this time instead of caving in. ccps idea is the one we have. they changed that idea half way through, players screamed and they reverted back to the original plan. these changes wont effect alliances or wars, it will only effect players income and small to mid sized corps that ahve no moon income. it only hits the small guy, not one allliance will give a crap about it eitherway
Ryans Revenge Gallente Drunken Wookies BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:06:00 - [1015] This has the completely opposite effect realisticly.. Big alliances use moon goo. Small alliances/corps use anomalies. You've just killed off the smaller corps income. Well done.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:07:00 - [1016] Originally by: Liang Nuren Quote: ... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding So you're basically suggesting FPS Eve? Because all the other parts of it would simply cease to exist (or be meaningful) if what you're suggesting was ever allowed to happen. Maybe you guys have become too carebear and lazy out there in 0.0 space basking in the incredible ISK fountain. There's a BIG difference between negligible re-spawn such as WoW's armor damage/repair and the full ship/implant loss that is Eve PvP. As it stands now Isk Grind Time is still greater then PvP time for these casual pilots when they loose ships. They aren't as elite at making isk as you, probably never will be. They need to fit time in between other pursuits in RL for Eve. Does that mean they can't PvP in your vision of null sec? Sure sounds like it. Seems silly in my book as these guys are easy prey for someone like you. Loose them and there's less to shoot.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:09:00 - [1017] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/03/2011 08:46:51 Originally by: StuRyan Correct me if i am wrong but dominion was introduced to allow people to live in a confined space Which it did. Quote: doesn't the proposed change mean that people are gonna space out again becuase there truely isn't enough good Truesec to fight over. It means that they'll bunch up more in some areas and spread out more in others. This helps these expected outcomes happen: # 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 # 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) Quote: AND AGAIN - NOBODY EVER FIGHTS FOR TRUESEC You keep saying that, but history shows you to be wrong. First off, I've been there when we fought over better space. Second, the fact that everyone keeps shouting about how the "Big Boys" are just going to take the best true sec systems puts lie to your claim. Quote: ... people wanna be able to do passive stuff so that they can log in and go pew pew, not endless grinding So you're basically suggesting FPS Eve? Because all the other parts of it would simply cease to exist (or be meaningful) if what you're suggesting was ever allowed to happen. Maybe you guys have become too carebear and lazy out there in 0.0 space basking in the incredible ISK fountain. -Liang Liang your spewing what i am saying. People want to go out and be able to pew pew , this change is gonna do nothing but make it incredibly hard to afford to pew pew. You have pigeon holed 0.0 dwellers as lazy - GTF, since when does lazy come into having fun. Thats the argument it suppose to be fun let me say it one more time - it is suppose to be fun. where is the fun in endless grinding - not everyone has the chance to play for 40 hours a week !!! I wish you would stop making the comparison to empire dwellers - Many of them have no need to make isk quickly other than to pay for accounts. I need isk to pew pew, take that away and i will give it a go for a few weeks. But if everytime i sign in i am CTA-ing, roaming or defending i loose a ship the isk will run out and ill hang up the subscriptions. In the passed, pre-dominion i was paying for isk by way of GTC just so i could go out and have fun. I got a family to look after now so as much as i like the game this change will do nothing but make it even more of a grind. And that is not being lazy, this is coming from an average guy who has a family and plays in 0.0 because its good to blow ****, loose it and be able to do it all over again. When it gets to the point where i cant do that anymore ill be hanging time on 0.0 and playing other avenues in the game.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:13:00 - [1018] Edited by: Klam on 28/03/2011 09:16:15 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Klam 2) CCP history on unthoughtful changes to "improve" conflicts in recent memory points squarely at the Mothership -> SuperCarrier change. Talk about killing the small alliances' chances to hold their own. CCPs original plan for the Supercaps was very different. But the 0.0 players - just like you - argued differently. CCP listened to you then... unfortunately. They should have told you to HTFU, and I hope they'll do it this time instead of caving in. Sigh ... You missed the point. Or I presented it wrong. Yes, we all know that the Super change went badly due to BOTH player and dev input. That's been beaten to death. My point is making a change in Eve to do X often has the impact of Y. Doesn't matter the intentions. That's what happens in Eve. This is another change they are hoping to cause X, but most of us expect Y. We are afraid it's going to happen again. And for the record I wasn't rallying on the super change. Whole thing seemed silly to me. The old Mom had a purpose, just not one for giant fleet fights.
Hermosa Diosas	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:19:00 - [1019] Originally by: Ryans Revenge This has the completely opposite effect realisticly.. Big alliances use moon goo. Small alliances/corps use anomalies. You've just killed off the smaller corps income. Well done. This ^^ ITS MOON GOLD THAT NEEDS TO BE SORTED!!
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:24:00 - [1020] Originally by: Liang Nuren Ed: Also, laugh my ass off at anyone who wants to tell us all how elite 0.0 pros are, and then threaten to head back to high sec to make their ISK. What, low sec scares you? It's said to be better nowadays with unprobeable T3 missionrunning, but I have not tried that one yet as 0.0 anoms in their current form were sufficient for covering my expenses getting about ~10% better income off them than from hi sec level 4 missions (~90 to 120 mil / h). I stopped doing low sec when the new probing system was introduced same as all other low sec missionrunners who had a clue (a while before T3 were in game). Before dominion I was funding myself with hi sec level 4 missions and had only pvp/capital alts in 0.0. On average I do 5 level 4 missions per hour. Average LP payout is a bit under 5000 LP in hi sec. I rarely decline level 4 missions although I have enough alts / chars to not have sit idle if I get few I really dont like in a row. That is with faction pimped Nightmare/Golem/CNR/Nighthawk (whatever happens to be the best tool for the mission) and running two accounts. Ofc factiom pimp is applied only where it makes sense (i.e., damage) and keeping in mind to not be attractive gank magnet. In case of low sec in particular in my experience it stinks as rewards are smaller than alliance controlled 0.0 and risks are higher. It usually does not make economic sense to be there. Lev 5 missions and the FW missions are said to have made low sec more attractive but I cant comment on that as I have had no need to go find out. I mean why jerk around in low sec when you can skip the zoo and instead head out to NPC 0.0 if you are already willing to risk your skin and T3 cruiser. Doing missions in anything other than unprobeable (or at least hard to probe) T3 in low sec is just asking for trouble ofc. The way I see the current change is that it just nukes to current population density support that 0.0 has. So the local population will either "starve" or have to find new ways to support themselves. The easiest way of avoiding starvation is to spread out as each system just supports somewhat less people than before. Meaning that current big alliances will need more territory. Holding territory is not that expencive still unless you install cyno jammers. So I expect nontrivial number of smaller alliances to be expelled from the 0.0 as actual holders of said space (the ones with the mothership blob) will need more room for their own members. That will not be sufficient so some people will have to send their isk making alts somewhere where game can support the population densities at higher level. In the case of pew-pew iskmaking characters this is more often than not NPC missions.

Camios Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:41:00 - [1021] I do think that anomaly changes are quite good and anyway they can be tweaked, and after all ratting anomalies are only one form of income (there are also mining sites and complex, and those are worth a lot), but I am quoting this for truth: Originally by: Hermosa Diosas Originally by: Ryans Revenge This has the completely opposite effect realisticly.. Big alliances use moon goo. Small alliances/corps use anomalies. You've just killed off the smaller corps income. Well done. This ^^ ITS MOON GOLD THAT NEEDS TO BE SORTED!!
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:41:00 - [1022] Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent! I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare. Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict. Well said Clav! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services http://internetspacewars.blogspot.com/
Kenjie94	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:54:00 - [1023] CCP what weed you are taking? òSome alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space we dont want those space anyways!!! òIn the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals eve lost 40+ TITANS and 50+ Super Carriers plus hundreds of carriers and dreads!!! on 1st quarter of 2011 alone!!! FIX LAG FIRST IF YOU WANT MORE CONFLICTS!!! òNewer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec I REALLY BELIEVE THAT CCP ARE TAKING SOME WEEDS!!! òCoalitions will be marginally less stable BFF FOR EVAHHHHH!!! 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) THE DEVELOPER WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR GAMES!!! FIX LAG FIRST!!!
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 09:56:00 - [1024] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent! I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare. Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict.[/quote] Well said Clav! Just wanted to highlight and say that it will be worthless to everyone.
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.03.28 10:06:00 - [1025] Anomaly changes have to come.. this is a weak start, hopefully those upgrades get nerfed to oblivion sooner rather than later. -
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.03.28 10:34:00 - [1026] Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Originally by: Liang Nuren Ed: Also, laugh my ass off at anyone who wants to tell us all how elite 0.0 pros are, and then threaten to head back to high sec to make their ISK. What, low sec scares you? It's said to be better nowadays with unprobeable T3 missionrunning, but I have not tried that one yet as 0.0 anoms in their current form were sufficient for covering my expenses getting about ~10% better income off them than from hi sec level 4 missions (~90 to 120 mil / h). I stopped doing low sec when the new probing system was introduced same as all other low sec missionrunners who had a clue (a while before T3 were in game). Before dominion I was funding myself with hi sec level 4 missions and had only pvp/capital alts in 0.0. On average I do 5 level 4 missions per hour. Average LP payout is a bit under 5000 LP in hi sec. I rarely decline level 4 missions although I have enough alts / chars to not have sit idle if I get few I really dont like in a row. That is with faction pimped Nightmare/Golem/CNR/Nighthawk (whatever happens to be the best tool for the mission) and running two accounts. Ofc factiom pimp is applied only where it makes sense (i.e., damage) and keeping in mind to not be attractive gank magnet. In case of low sec in particular in my experience it stinks as rewards are smaller than alliance controlled 0.0 and risks are higher. It usually does not make economic sense to be there. Lev 5 missions and the FW missions are said to have made low sec more attractive but I cant comment on that as I have had no need to go find out. I mean why jerk around in low sec when you can skip the zoo and instead head out to NPC 0.0 if you are already willing to risk your skin and T3 cruiser. Doing missions in anything other than unprobeable (or at least hard to probe) T3 in low sec is just asking for trouble ofc. The way I see the current change is that it just nukes to current population density support that 0.0 has. So the local population will either "starve" or have to find new ways to support themselves. The easiest way of avoiding starvation is to spread out as each system just supports somewhat less people than before. Meaning that current big alliances will need more territory. Holding territory is not that expencive still unless you install cyno jammers. So I expect nontrivial number of smaller alliances to be expelled from the 0.0 as actual holders of said space (the ones with the mothership blob) will need more room for their own members. That will not be sufficient so some people will have to send their isk making alts somewhere where game can support the population densities at higher level. In the case of pew-pew iskmaking characters this is more often than not NPC missions. Your whole problem is that you are focusing on two things: 1) maximizing isk from shooting NPC's 2) being safe Shooting NPC's was a poor mans (or PvP-centered players) option. Now it's the other way around, and the whole "being safe while making isk" mentality now plague this game. At least when I started this game, having people hunt you while you belt rat was a nice chance to get a fight. Me and my friends flew with PvP fits and shot belt-rats inbetween roams, make isk and possibly get fights was damn nice. That has completely died off. A decent 'fix' to this would be to drasticly reduce NPC bounties, from all sources, and look at means to increase the value of low- and nullsec mining. -
FellRaven Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 10:36:00 - [1027] My immediate response is what an idiot you are and how out of touch with the game realities you are. YOU NEED TO FIX SOV WARFARE - that's it fix the Sov Warfare mechanics and you'll have conflict these changes you propose are totally meaningless. You have stated that you want more people in 0.0 well why don't you look at 0.0 population distribution and then ask yourself why that is. In the Jita Park Corner section I've already proposed some solutions for you but I'll put them here as well. Deep 0.0 needs to be accessible to attack, the north already has this because of Venal, and the south has Stains but there is nothing similar in the west of east. The east Drone lands is where the issue really hit home because of the sheer size of the space there with very few entry points. Sov Times - you pick the best time for you plus or minus 3 hours. That is so lame there are three timers so for now lets just randomise it. (We can fix the whole Sov Machanics latter)
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.28 10:38:00 - [1028] Edited by: StuRyan on 28/03/2011 10:45:16 Or just get rid of Local in Null sec. Its a pitty Wormholes take so much time to scan down and get going in, i'm sure most small corps and alliances can get a hold of their own space in a WH. I am a firm believer that adding space on a periodic basis will cause conflict, new space, new shinys and new space to conquer. If anything make sov make sov bills exponential so that the more space owned the more expensive it is. [not sure how it does it atm but i believe it is a static increase between # of systems owned] ?
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.03.28 10:53:00 - [1029] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent! I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare. Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict. Well said Clav! Agree. -
DahMoustacheMan DMM	Posted - 2011.03.28 10:56:00 - [1030] This is a relayed text msg for Mr Norman Adolf Greyscale: Norm, we have received worrying reports from your neighbouring roommates in our community psychiatric sheltered housing. The continual noise from your pacing up and down, and wall banging is upsetting Beryl downstairs (you know she suffers from stress induced incontinence). Gary in Room 734b says that he saw you babbling nonsense about null sex and other unmentionables into your television screen again. You were also warned several times last week about smoking "herbal substances" inside the building as well as impersonating game developers online (you know what trouble you caused with Hello Kitty Online last time). In light of all this disturbing behaviour,Nurse Janice will be contacting you to arrange an emergency appointment for a blood test to check that you have been taking all your medications.as agreed with your care team. Until she contacts you, please step away from your mouse immediately. This is for your own good. Dr. P. Issedoff.

Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.28 11:02:00 - [1031] Sanctums are stupid, they should go from the game. introduce some other PVE content instead. 0.0 shouldn't be a carebearing heaven with 0 risk BUT! even the worst 0.0 system should be as profitable (if not better) as a good agent in hisec. why? risk vs reward. I'll post longer version later if I have time
luzhisheng	Posted - 2011.03.28 11:05:00 - [1032] ban all bot. thats what you need to do. nerf nullspace? joke. ccp develop team doing more and more footle now.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 11:11:00 - [1033] Originally by: Misanth Your whole problem is that you are focusing on two things: 1) maximizing isk from shooting NPC's 2) being safe Shooting NPC's was a poor mans (or PvP-centered players) option. Now it's the other way around, and the whole "being safe while making isk" mentality now plague this game. At least when I started this game, having people hunt you while you belt rat was a nice chance to get a fight. Me and my friends flew with PvP fits and shot belt-rats inbetween roams, make isk and possibly get fights was damn nice. That has completely died off. A decent 'fix' to this would be to drasticly reduce NPC bounties, from all sources, and look at means to increase the value of low- and nullsec mining. Well thats what you do when making isk. You maximize isk and minimize the risk. Then you take that isk and go have fun with it. Mining is btw way too easy to disrupt with few well placed cloakers and small black ops gang. It's not that I particularly care about shooting NPC's for my isk. I do what it takes to get my isk for having fun. I started as a miner but switched into shooting NPC's at 2006 as it got better than mining around second half of 2006 per account. I had only single account back then. For various reasons, like introduction of exhumers and especially after opening of drone regions. Nowadays I would have to spend half a year skilling up rest of my accounts for mining if thats what it would take to make isk. From reliable consistent income sources shooting NPC's is still quite luractive, not only the "poor mans way" of getting isk. There are things that can give you better rewards but the rewards are usually either not consistent (like complexses) or have some other issues (like trading). Just grinding away at NPC is very predictable way of making isk. Well as preditable as mining actually. But yeah I'm carebear. I do not pvp. I blob. Minimise risk, maximise propability of sucsess, play to win. This is EVE afterall, a dark unforgiving place. No need for chivalry and duels. When you have overwhelming superiority you apply it and be done with it. And afterwards I have fun with all the little personal projects that float my boat in EVE. Be it then building another station, a supercapital or find a way to squeeze out that last per cent of still-cost-effective-effectivity from empire missionrunning. Someone needs to build all these sand castles so other people would have something to knock over afterall ;)
missminer69	Posted - 2011.03.28 11:34:00 - [1034] I really do not think it is the space that someone fights over, it is the values and belief. e.g. Capitalism versus Statism. NC versus DRF. What the game needs is more new space on a perodic basis with new shinys. That to me is what will help the small guys get on the map but as it happens what about WH-ing. Killing peoples methods to ISK is what will end the game for many people as I believe there are few that can spend Hours upon Hours grinding isk. Again this comes down to researching the player base and understanding those that play the game in 0.0.
Wabs	Posted - 2011.03.28 11:46:00 - [1035] 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 i totally agree with this! fix it! good job in pushing thru even with the negative response, its better in the long term...
Tariana Eve	Posted - 2011.03.28 11:54:00 - [1036] Sweet! CCP suppose to be God's, they can do it, so leave the game as is BUT ADD more stuff to it, more rats more opportunities space around instead of nerfing just certain areas.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:06:00 - [1037] Edited by: Super Whopper on 28/03/2011 12:12:15 Originally by: Clavius XIV While 0.0 should be more lucrative than empire due to the risks, the main draw of 0.0 is the ability for players to strike out into the unknown and make their mark on the cluster without the shackles of Concord, not its ISK value. There was plenty of conflict in 0.0 before anomalies went in and there will be plenty in "worthless" regions if the proposed changes go through. There are small groups fighting all over New Eden to be the top dog in some backwater lowsec system. Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. So counter arguments based around being unable to afford PvP have little merit from where I sit. I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. These people will still (as-always) be at the mercy of the big powers knocking over their sand-castles. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? They could grab this "worthless" space that supposedly no one would want and save on rent! I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Unfortunately the double edged sword of making all space desirable rental property, is that you reduce the diversity and quality of conflict in 0.0. The best conflicts are ones in which both sides are in the same class, and where numbers on both sides allow it to be playable. Sov battles between two renters of neighboring superpowers will inevitably escalate into full block warfare. Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict. So right. People move out to 0.0 to mine veldspar, because it's unavailable in high sec When a 10k man entity has the choice to fight over sanctums or moons they're going to choose sanctums, because you can really fund a cap fleet with ratting.
FellRaven Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:08:00 - [1038] 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 After all CCP have such a good record in pushing through game enhancing changes, SOV system anyone.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:08:00 - [1039] Originally by: Wabs 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 i totally agree with this! fix it! good job in pushing thru even with the negative response, its better in the long term... I agree too. CCP, don't fix guns, don't fix moon imbalance, don't fix the super cap problem (which was created by you), don't fix PI, don't work on WH's, don't work on FW, don't fix BO's, don't fix any of the problems in the game, nerf 0.0 instead. When enough people have left shareholders will show you lot the exit.
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:16:00 - [1040] Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Well thats what you do when making isk. You maximize isk and minimize the risk. Then you take that isk and go have fun with it. Mining is btw way too easy to disrupt with few well placed cloakers and small black ops gang. Exactly what I'm talking about. The mentality. Since you are aware of how mining degraded massively around 2006, then you should also know that missioning was worse than beltratting, and beltratting was worse than mining (ahead of that point, that is). Look at it this way: PvPers can't mine, they can't produce, they can play the market but obviously not very effectively. They can run exploration sites if they expand a wee bit on their skills. CCP have stated "PvP is not a profession", so the primary income for a combat pilot, should and will be to shoot NPC's in the face. Shooting NPC's in the face should be lowest on the carebear scale. Right now, the only profession that is reasonable for a PvPer, have been made to a safe haven for carebears, and in the same wim, it killed off beltratting which was a great source for fights (both in offense, and defence). Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath It's not that I particularly care about shooting NPC's for my isk. I do what it takes to get my isk for having fun. ..snip/etc.. From reliable consistent income sources shooting NPC's is still quite luractive, not only the "poor mans way" of getting isk. ..snip/etc.. But yeah I'm carebear. I do not pvp. I blob. Minimise risk, maximise propability of sucsess, play to win. This is EVE afterall, a dark unforgiving place. No need for chivalry and duels. ..snip/etc.. Exactly what I'm talking about. You, and the people with your carebear mentality, have taken over the only reasonable isk source that was for combat pilots. Not only that, CCP have made it completely blobtastic and supersafe. It's damn hard for a small group of people to enter an upgraded, usually crowded, system, probe and hit dscan same time to try pin which anomaly they are in. For what it was worth, beltratting was never great income. It had the odd faction spawns, and officers (while they were still soloable in subcaps), but apart from that it was also a great combat ground. Nerfing anomalies to oblivion would do nothing against carebears, they have other aspects in this game they can thrive on. And combat pilots would go back to the belts. -

Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:20:00 - [1041] Originally by: Tariana Eve Sweet! CCP suppose to be God's, they can do it, so leave the game as is BUT ADD more stuff to it, more rats more opportunities space around instead of nerfing just certain areas. that's what i said. i'm all for a tiered system, but this is the wrong direction. the bare minimum people (individuals) should be able to make in null should be just above what they would make in hi/lowsec. the alliance does have to pay for SOV and upgrades afterall. so, make officers not span at all in -0.4 and below and have them spawn very frequently in -1.0... plus, make the average earnings maybe 50% higher in those systems. as for the pre-dominion comments: i didn't play back then, so correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that ship insurance was better, most of null was fairly empty and thus had less risk and there were less operation costs (alliances currently pay for SOV, upgrades, outposts, jammers, etc) and there weren't so many $$$$$ toys to be had.
Nelios Ran Caldari New Eden Regimental Navy Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:22:00 - [1042] This will definately have a negative affect on smaller alliances. Ratting is a huge income source for the small groups as we don't get to have the uber-value moons. Which means, nerfing this will reduce the overall income a corp/alliance can generate to pay for upgrades, rent to landlords, POS fuels. There is a whole slew of things that become out of reach to a small group. This will not generate conflict, it will turn people from 0.0 more and will help to keep population living in high sec because they can do lvl 4 missions all day and not actually risk anything but make enough money to do what they want. Thanks, Nelios Ran Chief Executive Officer New Eden Regimental Navy Executor of Rebel Alliance of New Eden NERN Portal
Jenn aSide	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:25:00 - [1043] I think this idea is all wrong. 2 things might fix it. A) keep the SITEs as they are, but change the value of the rats. For instance (in angel space) in "good" truesec space you'd get malakims and cherubims in a sanctum, in "bad" true sec system, only commander and warlords. Sanctums would still be viable, but people would still have a reason to pursue better space. or B) Fix the damn "filler" sites, make more on the level of the "Forsaken" anoms (Forsaken Hub and rally points are the ONLY non-haven/sanctum anoms worth doing). The filler sites are just taking up space (pun intended), make them less useless somehow and it makes taking away the good stuff more palatable. oh, and C) learn how your own game works ccp. Anoms let individual players play in 0.0, because we don't get access to our alliance's moon goo.....
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:28:00 - [1044] Originally by: Misanth Exactly what I'm talking about. You, and the people with your carebear mentality, have taken over the only reasonable isk source that was for combat pilots. Not only that, CCP have made it completely blobtastic and supersafe. It's damn hard for a small group of people to enter an upgraded, usually crowded, system, probe and hit dscan same time to try pin which anomaly they are in. so you're effectively saying that them playing smarter shouldn't be rewarded? that people who are just like "weeee pew pew weeeeee" and ignore all other aspects of the game should be the ones to get the rewards? look, the simply fact of the matter is that people who have more ISK will win. there is no way to change that. how do you get more isk? you do isk-making activities; a.k.a. what we've dubbed carebearing. to me the entire point of null is acquire space which can make you massive amounts of isk, but you have to defend. which sounds exactly like the status quo. alliances grow, they need new space, they go after the nearest neighbor whom they dislike. no matter how the dynamic changes this will be the simple truth. at some point this will even happen within the NC. i know some of you would like that sooner than later, but maybe try finding a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for you.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 12:47:00 - [1045] Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Misanth Exactly what I'm talking about. You, and the people with your carebear mentality, have taken over the only reasonable isk source that was for combat pilots. Not only that, CCP have made it completely blobtastic and supersafe. It's damn hard for a small group of people to enter an upgraded, usually crowded, system, probe and hit dscan same time to try pin which anomaly they are in. so you're effectively saying that them playing smarter shouldn't be rewarded? that people who are just like "weeee pew pew weeeeee" and ignore all other aspects of the game should be the ones to get the rewards? look, the simply fact of the matter is that people who have more ISK will win. there is no way to change that. how do you get more isk? you do isk-making activities; a.k.a. what we've dubbed carebearing. to me the entire point of null is acquire space which can make you massive amounts of isk, but you have to defend. which sounds exactly like the status quo. alliances grow, they need new space, they go after the nearest neighbor whom they dislike. no matter how the dynamic changes this will be the simple truth. at some point this will even happen within the NC. i know some of you would like that sooner than later, but maybe try finding a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for you. I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like). But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it.
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:05:00 - [1046] Edited by: knobber Jobbler on 28/03/2011 13:10:11 Poorly thought out CCP. Your proposals show just how little you play the core game i.e. internet spaceships. Of all the changes that would help 0.0 and new corps get in there this is about the worst. Its even worse that some of the half baked dumbass ideas we see on the forums. 1. These changes will severely hurt the more casual 0.0 resident and really harm the smaller corps. 2. These changes will encourage botting and RMT, which you should be spending your resources on combating. I don't think you realise CCP that many people are 1 step away from doing the botting and RMT thing because of you're complete inaction over it. 3. This will just mean alliances go and take the better space and stay there just like they do now. In the short term your changes will just shift a few power blocks around but in the long term the same people in the same alliances will control the best space. You'll just have to do this again next year. 4. This won't help smaller groups get a 0.0 foothold. There is crappy space already they can go and live in. They'll have even less chance of getting any decent space if you make these changes and they certainly won't be able to make much money in them since you're going to nerf there income. 5. Nerf wormhole income. Where do you think all the non botted supercapitals are made? 6. Smaller alliances will still get squashed if they are near a bigger alliance. CCP Greyscale, do you realise that smaller organisation need those anomolies to make money? Do you realise that large ones power themselves using moongoo? Do you realise that the only way to make money for ships in 0.0 for the average player is anomolies and Sanctums? Do you realise the risk vs reward factor? This isn't high sec carebear land where I face no risk but can make 50m per hour doing AFK missions? I can actually get killed in 0.0 and you want to nerf where I live? If you're going to screw up 0.0, at least add in some more ISK making content as I don't want to ever run missions ever again.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:06:00 - [1047] Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:11:31 Originally by: Super Whopper I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like). But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it. eh, ... ok. i'm not sure where you are going with that, or what it has to do with the topic at hand. maybe you;re trying to say that the mere fact that you can log on to play is CCP winning for you?? if so, then you're probably good with people just playing like "hey, CCP give me lots of ISK please!" and them doing it. but rather, they have to "[find] a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for [them]." much like i suggested. but if you're talking about my specific lack of activity over the past few months: i play occasionally, but started an entire new career recently, in software, when my education is in structural engineering. so eve hasn't been high on my priorities. i fiond a few minutes here and there to troll the forums, but playing takes larger chucks of time than i've had. now that i'm more comfortable with my work i'm getting back into it though. i'll be sure to say hi if i see you edit: besides, i'm still not sure how, in either case, it has to do with the topic of this thread.... ?
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:11:00 - [1048] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. But CCP doesn't understand this as none of them actually play EVE. To busy eating pickled fish and thinking of cool things to do that don't involve internet space ships.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:16:00 - [1049] Originally by: knobber Jobbler Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. But CCP doesn't understand this as none of them actually play EVE. To busy eating pickled fish and thinking of cool things to do that don't involve internet space ships. someone in this thread mentioned that "printing isk" would be a bad idea. they may be right to some degree. but to a degree i also agree with you here. losing a ship should cost a player of a few hours of grinding to replace, as incentive to win. but on the other hand, making ISK too easy to come by would make getting titans and the likes too easy, and make it feel like there isn't much of an end goal. and if loosing ships doesn't hurt, then mining tears wont even be as fun. TBH, i think the rate of income presently is just right. losses hurt, but don;t take weeks to replace (depending on the ship, of course) ... so plenty of room for pew AND tears.
Iohet Nolafew	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:20:00 - [1050] Edited by: Iohet Nolafew on 28/03/2011 13:20:34 So some areas get some negatives, but there are other resources in those regions that are better than regions that gain from this. Balance is good.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:20:00 - [1051] Originally by: Arnakoz Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:11:31 Originally by: Super Whopper I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like). But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it. eh, ... ok. i'm not sure where you are going with that, or what it has to do with the topic at hand. maybe you;re trying to say that the mere fact that you can log on to play is CCP winning for you?? if so, then you're probably good with people just playing like "hey, CCP give me lots of ISK please!" and them doing it. but rather, they have to "[find] a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for [them]." much like i suggested. but if you're talking about my specific lack of activity over the past few months: i play occasionally, but started an entire new career recently, in software, when my education is in structural engineering. so eve hasn't been high on my priorities. i fiond a few minutes here and there to troll the forums, but playing takes larger chucks of time than i've had. now that i'm more comfortable with my work i'm getting back into it though. i'll be sure to say hi if i see you edit: besides, i'm still not sure how, in either case, it has to do with the topic of this thread.... ? If you have no idea what it's got to do with the topic at hand why did you say "winning it for us?" You've, obviously, never been to 0.0 and are just making claims based on reading things, rather than empirical evidence. You're obviously jealous of those who run sanctums, so, why don't you stop being jealous and join them?
Wingshard Order of the Sable Shield	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:28:00 - [1052] Originally by: Clavius XIV Providence was far and away the most populated and developed null-sec region pre-Dominion, with crap NPCs and moons, and there was plenty of PvP action to be had. You should also point out that it was the least contested 0.0 region and fell over on the first confrontation with a powerblock. Originally by: Clavius XIV Clearly Providence residents did not have access to the riches that anyone with sov and an ihub does now. Despite it being one of the consistently most violent regions residents still managed to replace ships. You seem to forget that most of the forces that were defending that sovereign space were random people that liked the nrds and joined up. It was not always CVA loosing their ships, and everyone is able to replace his losses with time. Providence allowed this time due to sheer number of players that enjoied NRDS space and felt bloodthirsty for a change. Originally by: Clavius XIV I guarantee that if you make vast tracts of 0.0 "worthless" in the pre-Dominion Provi sense, you will still have people staking a claim there. The difference will be there will be much less incentive for powers to fill that space with renters after knocking the sand-castles over. Wait, wait. You say big alliances wont place renters in that space because its worthless? I say they will give up their worthless space and fill it with even more renters to not pay the sovereign fee by themself. Originally by: Clavius XIV So called "little" corps/alliances in this thread worry they won't have a chance in null sec because they won't be able to make their rent? It is also upkeep, TCU, I-HUB, Upgrades,.. cost. Basicly you tell people to invest several billion isk in a nicely upgraded system that after this nerf will support even less people at the same time than now AND can be knocked over by a bigger entity anytime? Not reasonable at all. Originally by: Clavius XIV The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees. Or maybe that a system with only 5 belts and a truesec below -0.2 suddenly can support people living in it? Oh of course that cant be it. Originally by: Clavius XIV Lots of "worthless" space allows what some may term "cripple fights" and encourages gathering of coalitions of the same "class" rather than a superpower that can maintain balance with other superpowers and it's sea of renters. Yes NAPs and power blocks will always remain in a sandbox game, but all space being equal value (combined with the ease of projecting power, and the ability to knock over empires in a fortnight) encourages power blocks to grow as long as they can find renters to fill their conquests. A lot boils down to effort you need to take something. The supercapital age favors the once with more, and once taken the i-hub fortification will make loosing with super capital support very hard. Even when the space is undesireable, renters will stil live there just at lower cost and with super capital backup. Originally by: Clavius XIV Making space "worthless" to top tier power blocks encourages the formation of more independent middle and low tier blocks. Mix that with making projection of force more difficult and you have things going in the right direction as far as encouraging variety in 0.0 conflict. I completely disagree. Why should anyone claim so called "worthless" space that you have to PAY FOR on a CONSTANT BASIS and also have to UPGRADE BEFORE ITS EVEN A BIT USEFUL for SEVERAL BILLION ISK (not counting freighter for i-hub transport) be desired by anyone? Hold in mind that this system cant be upgraded fully of the bat (for hub anomalys as example) and even after all those isk put inside it wont support 10 people. There will be no variety, there will be no conflict over those.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:33:00 - [1053] Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:33:47 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Arnakoz Edited by: Arnakoz on 28/03/2011 13:11:31 Originally by: Super Whopper I, too, would like to find a way of playing EVE without ever having to log on, because logging on involves CCP doing it for me (providing me with tools to play the game the way I feel like). But it seems you have found a way of doing exactly this. Do tell how you do it. eh, ... ok. i'm not sure where you are going with that, or what it has to do with the topic at hand. maybe you;re trying to say that the mere fact that you can log on to play is CCP winning for you?? if so, then you're probably good with people just playing like "hey, CCP give me lots of ISK please!" and them doing it. but rather, they have to "[find] a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for [them]." much like i suggested. but if you're talking about my specific lack of activity over the past few months: i play occasionally, but started an entire new career recently, in software, when my education is in structural engineering. so eve hasn't been high on my priorities. i fiond a few minutes here and there to troll the forums, but playing takes larger chucks of time than i've had. now that i'm more comfortable with my work i'm getting back into it though. i'll be sure to say hi if i see you edit: besides, i'm still not sure how, in either case, it has to do with the topic of this thread.... ? If you have no idea what it's got to do with the topic at hand why did you say "winning it for us?" You've, obviously, never been to 0.0 and are just making claims based on reading things, rather than empirical evidence. You're obviously jealous of those who run sanctums, so, why don't you stop being jealous and join them? again, completely lost. i've lived in null about 10 months now. first in atlas space now in NC space. every post i've made has been against this change for that very reason. plus i think it will make most of null the new lowsec; unused. and when i say "winning it for us" i mean all of the people who are like "yes! this change must happen to break up the NC!" i'm saying that CCP is the one winning their fight for them, because at that point they don;t even need to log in for it to happen. we clear now? edit: going to work now. bye!
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:38:00 - [1054] LOLProvidence. The only reason nobody wanted it was because it was absolute and utter ** space. Now it'll go back to being that ** space but as there're sov bills and rent on stations to be paid I wonder who will want it. I certainly wouldn't want to waste my time on worthless belts and ore, especially as there're no moons in Providence worth having.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:41:00 - [1055] Originally by: Arnakoz again, completely lost. i've lived in null about 10 months now. first in atlas space now in NC space. every post i've made has been against this change for that very reason. plus i think it will make most of null the new lowsec; unused. and when i say "winning it for us" i mean all of the people who are like "yes! this change must happen to break up the NC!" i'm saying that CCP is the one winning their fight for them, because at that point they don;t even need to log in for it to happen. we clear now? edit: going to work now. bye! I thought you meant that Sanctums are what is 'winning the game for us'. I humbly apologise.
Snyderm	Posted - 2011.03.28 13:43:00 - [1056] Here is what I think is going on. CCP is acknowledging that soverignty war lag fests are breaking their game. They can't deal with the sheer number of players that participate. They simply can't fix it. The way to avoid the problem is to make the average 0.0 system support fewer players. In this manner they can get rid of a lot of the poorer players that fly battleships and battlecruisers. When a fight breaks out, an alliance will have less of the poorer masses to call to their aid. They want the "useless" systems occupied by poor, inconsequential alliances that do not contribute to soverignty war lag. In essence they will be an extention of low sec. In greyscales response post, he admitted that what they are going to implement will not be liked or even accepted by the 0.0 community. This is because they feel they have no choice but to destroy the population changes since dominion. They wanted people to leave their comfy noob corps and join alliances and 0.0. These proposed changes are an admission that they were wrong. They cannot get eve to function the way they envisioned and designed it to be. In other words, it is time for us to go back to our noob corps so CCP can get some sleep. Because Gallante are the Washington Generals of EVE.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.28 14:09:00 - [1057] Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 14:13:10 Originally by: Snyderm Edited by: Snyderm on 28/03/2011 13:52:44 CCP is acknowledging that soverignty war lag fests are breaking their game. They can't deal with the sheer number of players that participate. They simply can't fix it. Possible solution? How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.28 14:10:00 - [1058] Originally by: Signal11th All this really does is hurt the "average Jo" 0.0 dweller like myself. I get to play enough during the week but only enough I get to do one thing at at time e.g earn isk for pvp or actually out on roams. I hate running sanctums/havens and all that stuff but when your stuck in the arse end of nowhere it's the only way of making isk if your based soley on combat. The sites are clogged up anyway with the big boys in the carriers etc so even when I get chance to make isk 50% there's already someone in it. Basically CCP want to turn me into a mission runner for some reason, my guess (tongue in cheek) is that they realise they will never fix the lag in 0.0 so have decided to make 0.0 unprofitable for the average player so in the end all of us will leave to become high sec carebears leaving only in CCP's exact words "high end players" only in 0.0. What they should have done is make all 0.0 systems have "more sites" so this will tempt more people in 0.0 (especially if you make sites around the entrance pipes more valuable) this will increase pvp as more people drift in trying to make a fast buck. Bah what do I know. Really not a great idea Greyscale, I would stick to looking at pron and daydreaming about nailing Bjork. This The plans put forth in the blog will not aid in getting any new alliances/corps out to 0.0. Some will leave it and the blocks will rent to new ones but that just shifts the shells doesn't change anything. Only by increasing 0.0 population by making a system sustain more than a half dozen to a dozen folks at a time will you see more combat. Make the systems support 100 or 200 or 500 each. Then as more folks come out that gives more targets. More targets means more conflict. I have a suspicion that some of the loudest voices in this threat in favor of Greyscales blogs are actually alts of CCP employees. That or they have no clue themselves of how things work in 0.0. Nerfs coming to missions to from fanfest. So I have to wonder what else will they nerf, nerfing never works. Every company that gets into the nerfing cycle ends up losing more and more folks as they nerf what people like. Time to break the cycle and build things up no nerf them as this blog proposes.
Edgar Druin	Posted - 2011.03.28 14:26:00 - [1059] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies ... Then Greyscale is an idiot. Our small alliance holds upgraded space that will no longer produce the anomalies that we're the reason we upgraded. I assume you'll refund us the cost of that upgrade. :sarcasm: The space we hold can no longer support the (small) number of people trying to use it, which means we can't earn enough to pvp, which means we go back to empire to mission ... no interest in that ...
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.28 14:36:00 - [1060] Originally by: Edgar Druin Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies ... Then Greyscale is an idiot. Our small alliance holds upgraded space that will no longer produce the anomalies that we're the reason we upgraded. I assume you'll refund us the cost of that upgrade. :sarcasm: The space we hold can no longer support the (small) number of people trying to use it, which means we can't earn enough to pvp, which means we go back to empire to mission ... no interest in that ... http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=372359&view=recent look at all that pvping

Synderq	Posted - 2011.03.28 14:47:00 - [1061] Did CCP reply to this torrent of abuse, lol?
Aphrodite Skripalle Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:06:00 - [1062] Fix alchemy and dont nerf sanctums. ¦nuff said.
Edgar Druin	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:08:00 - [1063] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=372359&view=recent look at all that pvping Work project ... some of us actually have to pay bills and take work when they can get it, not live off mommy and daddy. And when it wraps next month, I would have returned, but this change makes it's less and less likely.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:32:00 - [1064] Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle Fix alchemy and dont nerf sanctums. ¦nuff said. I'm for this but I thought the one guy earlier in the thread had an interesting change for moons. Make them like PI. Moon materials can be mined, processed etc on moons. Opens up the field, drops the cost of t2 items in the future ( or should but to be fair would take 6-9 months to really kick in). Its something I hadn't considered before.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:34:00 - [1065] Originally by: Synderq Did CCP reply to this torrent of abuse, lol? Yeah, it was a case of "We're pretty daft for not understanding the game but we're going to implement some stupid change anyway, because we're CCP and we're good at not thinking before we do things." Like we didn't know CCP are daft and have no clue.
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:48:00 - [1066] Originally by: Arnakoz so you're effectively saying that them playing smarter shouldn't be rewarded? that people who are just like "weeee pew pew weeeeee" and ignore all other aspects of the game should be the ones to get the rewards? look, the simply fact of the matter is that people who have more ISK will win. there is no way to change that. how do you get more isk? you do isk-making activities; a.k.a. what we've dubbed carebearing. to me the entire point of null is acquire space which can make you massive amounts of isk, but you have to defend. which sounds exactly like the status quo. alliances grow, they need new space, they go after the nearest neighbor whom they dislike. no matter how the dynamic changes this will be the simple truth. at some point this will even happen within the NC. i know some of you would like that sooner than later, but maybe try finding a way of winning that doesn't involve CCP doing it for you. Super Whopper already gave you a reply to that.. but right, I'll be nice and add this; I'm curious what you mean by "them playing smarter", since they didn't have this option before and have done nothing to deserve it either. It's essentially CCP giving them a safe location to make isk, let's call it a "sanctum" or a "safe haven". This is coming from someone who's done most in EVE. I started off scamming and stealing, went to beltratting, missioning, played the market, mined, done exploration, production, PI and tried making my living from WH's. I am now billionarie in the hundreds. Of all of this, and through the years, there's only two ways of making money that has been way too easy and way too powerful. One of them was the static DED-plexes, and the other is the upgraded anomalies (you could probably mention moon mining here too). My main focus has always been PvP, and through the years small scale combat has taken a hit badly, while carebear activities have been boosted massively. The "bad" about people making money too easy, is that money loses value, and essentially that hits production, etc. If you know basic economy you'll understand why this is not good at all. Obviously I want carebears to have good means for income, which is why I among other things really think CCP need to focus on mining. I'd love to see industry and production to expand, and they could use their own expansions tbh. -
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:54:00 - [1067] If CCP boosted mining somehow and allowed me to make as much with mining as I do with trading and ratting I'd go back to mining.
MuppetSlayer	Posted - 2011.03.28 15:55:00 - [1068] This is quite possible the dummest idea I have ever read. Thousands of us have invested huge amounts of time, effort and isk to develping 0.0. More new people are moving out to 0.0 than ever before. What do CCP Do? Make all high sec agents give out max quality missions. Nert 0.0 anomiles making the vast majority of a lot of regions worthless. Moon goo is unaffected so the alliance HC's are happy and the grunts get screwed. I must say CCP, even more so than usual, is doing the opposite of what the people who live in 0.0 want.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 16:04:00 - [1069] Originally by: MuppetSlayer This is quite possible the dummest idea I have ever read. Thousands of us have invested huge amounts of time, effort and isk to develping 0.0. More new people are moving out to 0.0 than ever before. What do CCP Do? Make all high sec agents give out max quality missions. Nert 0.0 anomiles making the vast majority of a lot of regions worthless. Moon goo is unaffected so the alliance HC's are happy and the grunts get screwed. I must say CCP, even more so than usual, is doing the opposite of what the people who live in 0.0 want. Petition the system and demand your money back. I'd recommend everyone do that.
skewbamatt	Posted - 2011.03.28 16:09:00 - [1070] What a joke really! By going by the new format the only place for instance in pure blind for a Haven or a Sanctum is EC-P8R. Like anybody in there right mind will rat there. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/EC-P8R Basically by doing this the players like me who can't sit in front of the computer 10 hours a day playing internet spaceships that like to pvp and care nothing about mission running and industry are screwed! Only positive is maybe this will drive prices down because isk will be harder to come by

UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.28 16:25:00 - [1071] Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 16:28:26 Originally by: skewbamatt What a joke really! By going by the new format the only place for instance in pure blind for a Haven or a Sanctum is EC-P8R. Like anybody in there right mind will rat there. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/EC-P8R Basically by doing this the players like me who can't sit in front of the computer 10 hours a day playing internet spaceships that like to pvp and care nothing about mission running and industry are screwed! Only positive is maybe this will drive prices down because isk will be harder to come by Indeed. System security levels (and moons) really need to be redone before this would have any hope of working (and will need to be reevaluated constantly to match demand). There needs to be enough good systems to fight over at all times compared to alliance numbers and player numbers. How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2011.03.28 16:50:00 - [1072] Okay CCP, let me explain you how to make space more interesting because you obviously have no clue how to design a game: Stable Wormholes(travel big distances and NO i dont mean JITA - AMARR HIGHWAY) Anomalies(buffs for some time, makes better ships with better or additional bonus) Skilltime decrease(just 1-5% in a certain category) Voila.
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.28 16:53:00 - [1073] Edited by: omgdutch2005 on 28/03/2011 16:53:38 Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ? If so --> http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now! in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1 Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM! Thank you Omgdutch2005 IEGEX Alliance Director p.s. mail to your corp mates/allaince mates!! dont be shy! sign up!
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:02:00 - [1074] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Alice Katsuko Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Desert Ice78 Lang, you know as well as I do that a hub cannot support one player in nul-sec (ignoring that you paid a bil to get that hub in the first place), never mind a corporation or alliance. lolwut. are you freaking serious? Text I don't know, there are people here who swear on their mothers and their mother's uncles that they used to make MORE money on true 0.0, with their alliances and corps that had 20 blues on local at any given time, than it was possible to make ALONE on HIGH-SEC doing Level 4 missions with high quality agents. I do make at least as much or more ISK in what you'd call true nullsec than I could make running level 4 missions, with over twenty other active blues in local. Good anomalies generally take less effort to run than most missions, since you usually don't have to worry about triggers, acceleration gates, and other such nonsense, and since any hostiles are announced in intel channels and can't just pop into your little corner of deadspace with little warning. More importantly, I don't have to clone jump to Empire to make IS, which makes life much easier since I can participate in more PvP. Pilots who lived in high truesec systems with few belts usually funded their PvP through datacore farming or Empire mission running unless their system was practically uninhabited. The Dominion sovereignty system allows pilots to fund their PvP locally rather than remotely, and this actually encourages low-scale conflict since it's much easier to put together a roaming or a defense fleet on the spot when half of your pilots aren't scattered all over Empire.
Alice Katsuko Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:15:00 - [1075] Originally by: UniqueOne Originally by: skewbamatt What a joke really! By going by the new format the only place for instance in pure blind for a Haven or a Sanctum is EC-P8R. Like anybody in there right mind will rat there. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/EC-P8R Indeed. System security levels (and moons) really need to be redone before this would have any hope of working (and will need to be reevaluated constantly to match demand). There needs to be enough good systems to fight over at all times compared to alliance numbers and player numbers. Yes. The idea itself of adjusting nullsec so that there is some more variety between different systems isn't actually bad. The problem is that CCP basically is trying to do this with the least effort possible by bootstrapping new changes on top of a system which was never designed to handle them. In order to make nullsec distinguishable based on truesec again, truesec levels need to be adjusted all across EVE, and the truesec brackets need to be rethought. While difference is good, entire regions should not be rendered worthless for the individual player. While on this topic I would like to note that alliances were not and will not be significantly motivated by the truesec of a system when choosing who to attack. However, corporations and individual players do consider the value of an alliance's space when deciding which alliance to join. This is because corporations and thus individual players, especially those belonging to renter alliances, have bills to pay, and ships to buy, and they are not going to join up with an alliance whose space cannot let them do this. This is why we've seen posts where folk predict that players will leave alliances with poor space in droves -- a player who cannot fund his PvP habit, and a corporation which cannot pay its dues for upkeep of suddenly-useless iHub upgrades is inevitably going to start looking for a new home.
Mad Ilya hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:26:00 - [1076] too drunk from FF to notice it's not april 1st?
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:27:00 - [1077] Originally by: Mad Ilya too drunk from FF to notice it's not april 1st? Lol! Give it a few days... How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:33:00 - [1078] 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale

Kalissa Sacred Templars RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:38:00 - [1079] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale In other words, we don't care how much you complain we're going ahead with it cos we're CCP so we must be right.
Nurgl3	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:48:00 - [1080] CCP, "Dont bite the hand that feeds" The people who want to pvp go to 0.0 to PvP and if you want to make things so start alliances are able to break out of highsec make NPC sov space more valuable, make supers less of a "WIN button" and make dreads less of a liability and more of an asset to those same starter allainces (as to the rest of eve) -there is no reason why a super should be able to tank as much as they do while doing that kind of dps any other game tanks and dps are separate departments.. (its for a reason) drop the tank on them and make them rely on outside reps rather than a passive tank. -make dreads tank slightly better while in siege and have a cool down like the titan dd where they cant move and they don't tank as well(or maby atall) as pre siege cycle. again making them rely on outside reps and support to keep them on field.I know dreads going into siege is supposed to be when they are able to get destroyed. but for the sake of the game its time to mix things up cause as it is siege or no siege they die. -make dreads do even more damage to ships greater than carrer's and dreads in size. (sence they dont do much for dps to ships smaller than cap size this would make them more viable as a response to supers and with a slightly buffed(read don't ****ing OP them k thanks) tanks they may beable to take a super down befor a responce is mustered. -think about how supers must be produced... you have to have sov.. and hold it to cook one.. ie if your not already in 0.0 player sov space you have to pay the people you would be fighting to get one... no so much for the war of attrition eh.. AND YES THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS ARE THE POWER BLOCK PILOTS.. Because we understand the implications that this change could bring and when those who are not initiated to SOV warfare begin to move into it. they will see that it is not easy to do if you struggle on the logistical and financial side of it. also idk how CCP thinks this will change things. I do see how this might help a certain alliance gone defunct. codenamed Brother... who recently failed again... by making the changes proposed by CCP greyscale would allow a brother v4 to make another comeback into Eve (is it 4 or 5 now i don't remember) i think its likely that codename brother doesn't want to have to have pets or as many Corps of players to keep happy.(Brother has a history of mistreatment of its band of merry men and associates with no regard of the political circumstance to come from it) by making it harder for large power blocks such as DRF, THE NC, and The Coalition of the unwilling less able to support the player base they do Brother would have a better chance at regrouping (will less pilots and likely no pets) with out the need of political ties to others in the eve community. IE if you don't have to rely on others for help you don't have to play nice with anyone. Brother sucks at politics and Fail cascaded because of bad leadership. i cant wait for Brother v10 (cause they will fail do to leadership more so than conflict.... there is no change that CCP could make to change the way players behave. I Really hope for the sake of EVE that CCP will stop Clowning around and look at thier game engine and infrastructure rather than player base. because you can fix one and still make profit if you jack with us(the player base) you will likely start to loose subscriptions. a

El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.28 17:53:00 - [1081] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale You are an idiot.... You don't understand the game that is clear. This will not lead to more into 0.0 it will lead to less. You wanted more folks out in 0.0 and they spent billions on upgrades and stuff and now you pull the rug out from under them. So now your telling them, oh your spent billions and well we don't want you to stay there so since you aren't moving around and attacking people we are going to take away what you paid for so you make even less and thus have less chance of surviving any attack on any power block. Idiots. You thought Dominion would break up the power blocks. You thought wrong. Your wrong about this to but by the time you figure that out you'll just nerf something else. What evaluation process did you use? Some focus group that's never played the game or been in 0.0? Some group that has no clue about what motivates wars and battles?
Melkie Element 115. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:00:00 - [1082] In the words of my man cheeseburger eddy . . . This is baby back bull****!
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:01:00 - [1083] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Care to share your models with the rest of us? I've getting very sick of the "take our word for it." Do they also account for all the casual players that will leave null sec? And likely leave your game as they don't want to go back to high sec? You remember, those new casual players you enticed into null-sec with dominion and thought to keep around with the learning skill change. The problem is that simply "monitoring the situation" won't solve the subscription drop you will likely have over this. Once casual players leave over something like this, they don't come back. So much for the "Sandbox." To paraphrase EQ's old tagline. "Your in CCP's world now. Your actions don't mean jack in the long run."
WoodieRens Garemoko	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:07:00 - [1084] Come on gray admit it you want to reset 0.0 this is what its all about. it as fk all to do with more pvp you really wiling to gamble with the 0.0 subscribers ? plz post how this will create a better 0.0 ? or is this grayscale an hacked dev account ?
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:16:00 - [1085] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale I wonder, why do you even bother giving us the ability to comment ??? You could have ended the Dev Blog with: THIS DECISION IS FINAL. NO DISCUSSION. So we would not have wasted our time with this thread. The only "positive" thing that can come out of this is that we will get to see the quality of the new CSM......
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:18:00 - [1086] Edited by: Furb Killer on 28/03/2011 18:25:28 Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale I take it those were the same causality models that predicted that Dominion sov system would be a boost to small alliances? You wouldnt recognize a correct model if it slapped you repeatedly in the face. How freaking hard is it to understand: When you add more reasons for conflict people defend against that by forming larger powerblocks. Only way this would decrease NAPs is by an exodus to high sec, decreasing the overall 0.0 population. But luckily CCP will continue to monitor it and adapt if needed, kinda like iterating huh, something CCP always promises and never does... Quote: The only "positive" thing that can come out of this is that we will get to see the quality of the new CSM...... Considering the old CSM was never informed of this, and the devblog was conveniently placed right after the 0.0 fanfest discussion, I dont think ccp really cares about the opinion of the CSM.
Starkiller Adams	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:26:00 - [1087] YOU ****S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are going to turn my alliances work into getting our own constilation in fountain into a worthless action. You clearly dont know what the hell your doing nor do you care about small alliances. Most of my corp has been homeless for a **ing year now your going to take away our new BMW and give us a god dam Geo Metro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no lie after we poured billions into upgrading our systems!!!!!!!!!!!!!if this crap goes through im done with eve 30.00 bucks a months richer i'll be
minek nevezzelek	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:29:00 - [1088] Originally by: Starkiller Adams YOU ****S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are going to turn my alliances work into getting our own constilation in fountain into a worthless action. You clearly dont know what the hell your doing nor do you care about small alliances. Most of my corp has been homeless for a **ing year now your going to take away our new BMW and give us a god dam Geo Metro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no lie after we poured billions into upgrading our systems!!!!!!!!!!!!!if this crap goes through im done with eve 30.00 bucks a months richer i'll be Can i have your stuff?
Morp p'LLoran Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:35:00 - [1089] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Civil manner? How about a big FU for making EVE a more boring place again, with less 0.0 players and less pvp. Your so-called response is a barely disguised slap in the face for your customers. If you are SOOOOO SURE that you and your so-called model is right and all your customers are wrong, then please right another dev-blog to show hoe 'dynamic' o.o space holding was before the changes, how 'static' it was after the changes (good luck on trying to fudge that data) and how 'dynamic' o.o space holding will be after the change. PS Please also tell us if you are going to give the popular lvl 4 missioning systems their own servers to support the coming lag-fests with the exodus back to empire. * Standard COAD Disclaimer * All post I make represent myself, me and I only - and does not reflect my corp or alliance viewpoints
Amras Arnatuile Element 115. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:41:00 - [1090] Instead of wasting time on this why don't you fix gallente??? They are obviously broken. New Star Wars MMO is coming out soon, time to go play that instead.

Donovin Orly Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:46:00 - [1091] And here I thought the end of the world wasn't supposed to come until 2012.
Skilo the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:50:00 - [1092] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Arrogance killed many Companys and games!!! Not listening to customers killed many Companys and Games !!! Screwing customers and destroying months of "work" killed .... you got the picture Keep up the good work Soon (tm) .... soon
Muppets Biatch	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:51:00 - [1093] There is a report button next to each post. Why not ask everyone to press the report CCP Greyscale post button and see if we can have Internal Affairs investigate this idiot to see which other MMOPG he has been employed by to make players leave EVE. If say the makers of Star Trek online wanted to hurt this game and try and get people to leave then bunging this idiot a few grand seems like the way to go.
Nurgl3	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:52:00 - [1094] Originally by: Amras Arnatuile Instead of wasting time on this why don't you fix gallente??? They are obviously broken. New Star Wars MMO is coming out soon, time to go play that instead. Hey hey. they are Working as intended. they just are useless as hell.. just like most of 0.0 after CCP Greyscales new "fix" to 0.0 warfare. did you know that being useless is an intended function of most Gallente ships. I wonder how much space the powerblocks will be forced to take up in order to keep the playerbase the have? hip hip horray "Brother" v4 is comming soon!!!
Minerus Prime	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:53:00 - [1095] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale You my friend are an Idiot. Have you ever even played Eve, yet along lived in 0.0?
Tasha Voronina Caldari Caldari Navy Reserve Force	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:56:00 - [1096] You've got to know something is wrong when there are (almost) no more replies after a statement like that. But, we'll wait and we'll see what good comes of this (simple logic outlined in this thread suggests 'little' as the answer). "Nerf-bat" doesn't quite describe the tool used anymore. Unless of course overall income levels (from isk funnels) across the whole game are significantly reduced, in which case, well, there's no telling really what will happen. I'll finish this with as good a quote as I can summon up from the fanfest stream: "Predictions are always hard, especially when they concern the future" (if anyone remembers better what Dr Eyjo (pardon the (mis)spelling) said, I'd welcome corrections). --- Sig will be updated shortly
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.28 18:57:00 - [1097] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Just be sure to not be so quick to reverse the change. There will be many BFF that will try and hold their breath as long as possible trying not to do any conflict to skew the results. If they still refuse to fight, amplify the nerf more or introduce more incentives to fight your local neighbors. Thanks for not caving into the bears. <3
Woodiex3	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:01:00 - [1098] this is how this dev's came up with this. database search... subscribers in 0.0 40,000 accounts players buying plex with isk 50,000 accounts players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts (internal debate takes place) "to many free loaders in 0.0" solution remove the isk projection... subscribers in 0.0 27,000 accounts players buying plex with isk 5,000 accounts players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts - players buying plex with isk in 0.0 kept to a minimum. "we dont want them" numbers spell it out.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:03:00 - [1099] CCP, this is the dumbest sh*t I've ever heard. If you do go through with these absolutely nonsensical and generally opposed changes, I will discontinue my subscription. Simple as that.
SizeDoesMatter	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:08:00 - [1100] Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:13:02 Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57 CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread aren¦t against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff ! But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems. What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based. And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already) This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space. problem solved. home in time for tea and crumpets. i tell ya, iam wasted here.

Aquana Abyss	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:12:00 - [1101] Greyscale, If you'd outlined the issues, your plan for tackling those issues and then a way to review it properly afterwards that would be fine. However you (And CCP in general) have what seems to be a dart at a board approach to developing the game with regards 0.0 then forget about it until the next dart throw lands there. You systematically add more and more road-blocks and hurdles to what was essentially "player-driven" content without ever properly consulting (or listening to as in this case) the players. May I just enlighten you with a basic fact of Eve: MORE HURDLES AND EFFORT REQUIRED IMPLIES LESS PEOPLE WILL DO IT! The mess that is current 0.0 and sovereignty with everything so static is BECAUSE you made folks pay a shedload of ISK (which is actually playing time for a lot of people) just to stick a flag on the map saying "we are here" - A feature that people used to be able to do effectively for nothing except some POS fuel. I remember pointing out back then that the more you make people "invest" in a system the more they will stay put in that system and ruin the dynamism of 0.0, however like all other sensible comments then and now - we get ignored. I stopped paying my subs a year or two ago now and only play using PLEX because I dont think you're worth my real money; it is a shame because I did love the game, but your bumbling foolish manner of developing certain areas of the game and then making them worse like with 0.0 going all the way back to introducing POS Sov, but then ignoring other poorly developed areas of the game(mining, POS, FW etc) that badly need attention makes me believe your game is in the wrong hands and on the slippery slope to failure. You personally are behind some of the worst changes, your communication is awful and you should probably move aside for someone at CCP with some better, fresher ideas. But thats just my feedback. Not that you care.
Muppets Show	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:13:00 - [1102] Originally by: SizeDoesMatter Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57 CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread aren¦t against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff ! But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems. What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based. And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already) This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space. problem solved. home in time for tea and crumpets. i tell ya, iam wasted here. Sack CCP Greyscale and employ this guy
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:14:00 - [1103] Originally by: SizeDoesMatter Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:13:02 Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57 CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread aren¦t against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff ! But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems. What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based. And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already) This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space. problem solved. home in time for tea and crumpets. i tell ya, iam wasted here. This Also changes that run counter to player wishes and then arrogance in delivering the message was what killed SWG.....so I'd find some humility before its brought to you.....
amarrian clone	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:16:00 - [1104] its going to cause even more lag by moving ratters into certain pockets that is even worth making isk in and also dooming empire dwellers by having hundreds more people in them and constant complaints even with the agent qualities going away. but still cluster **ing the 0.0 pve players into low true sec spaces wont be good and that is also forcing pvpers who want to kill these bears to be spamming systems with their numbers and pet alliance will demand better space and while non-pets wont allow that because they are the "top dogs" and they want things for them of course. just dont understand what you are trying to do, if u allow any 0.0 space to be upgraded fully that would make anyone be tempted to go into 0.0 make a home and start a life doing whatever it is. the ONLY upside i see of this is having noobie alliance having control over worthless space and not have anyone try and take it from them caus eof how **ty it is even w/ all lv 5 upgrades in it. theres my rant...lol
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:18:00 - [1105] Can we get a petition started to scrap this idea? I think anyone who plays EVE can agree that removing the only good isk making feature of the vast majority of nullsec is a crappy idea.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:22:00 - [1106] Originally by: Woodiex3 this is how this dev's came up with this. database search... subscribers in 0.0 40,000 accounts players buying plex with isk 50,000 accounts players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts (internal debate takes place) "to many free loaders in 0.0" solution remove the isk projection... subscribers in 0.0 27,000 accounts players buying plex with isk 5,000 accounts players buying plex with $ 10,000 accounts - players buying plex with isk in 0.0 kept to a minimum. "we dont want them" numbers spell it out. If this was the reason given then it would make some sense. This isn't the reason they have given. And the logic is flawed anyway. *PLEX doesn't fall out of the sky, it's created when people pay CCP real $$. So these "free loaders" already paid.* Maybe the real issue is the trust fund fools out there flooding the market with PLEX. I'm not talking about a hard working guy who sells some plex from time to time because he doesn't have the RL time to earn the isk in game. I'm talking about the people who bulk buy PLEX. It's our fault the casual player that CCP can't manage it's budget? But again this isn't the official reason given... it is to promote more dynamic 0.0 space... even though thanks to SOV mechanics taking SOV is a long process.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:22:00 - [1107] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale At this point it's hard not to call you all hypocrites, and say that what you really want is to help the big coalitions. Ok then, i'll wrap up and scrap whatever plans i had as a independent, small alliance and join one of the big five. That's all for today. ____________ I like woman because breasts
skewbamatt	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:26:00 - [1108] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale You are an idiot.... You don't understand the game that is clear. This will not lead to more into 0.0 it will lead to less. You wanted more folks out in 0.0 and they spent billions on upgrades and stuff and now you pull the rug out from under them. So now your telling them, oh your spent billions and well we don't want you to stay there so since you aren't moving around and attacking people we are going to take away what you paid for so you make even less and thus have less chance of surviving any attack on any power block. Idiots. You thought Dominion would break up the power blocks. You thought wrong. Your wrong about this to but by the time you figure that out you'll just nerf something else. What evaluation process did you use? Some focus group that's never played the game or been in 0.0? Some group that has no clue about what motivates wars and battles? Exactly! we have spent a good chunk of isk fixing up a certain system and for what now? NOTHING! Might aswell went to Jita handed it out to the noobs.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:27:00 - [1109] The tears after that second post from Greyscale are the most divine yet! Please keep them coming. NOM NOM NOM !!!
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:31:00 - [1110] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Ok then, i'll wrap up and scrap whatever plans i had as a independent, small alliance and join one of the big five. I'm sure many are thinking of doing that. Just remember, that is more hungry Sanctum farmers fighting over the same Sanctum. Conflict! Do you honestly think they will just let all of you guys pour into the ranks and dilute the local resources and not care?

Sai Kilshe	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:42:00 - [1111] Going with the predominant sentiment here. Every argument you've presented is not backed up by the facts you present. This will NOT help smaller alliances get in to 0.0 This will NOT encourage more warfare (do you really think it's lacking?). This will NOT decrease the power blocks that have evolved. This WILL encourage people to go further in to "illegal" botting - but then, CCP might not mind the additional income from additional accounts, eh? This WILL encourage people to buy more plexes to convert to isk since their time spent in game is limited and they can only spend so much time doing non-fun things to fund the few precious hours of FUN they get when they get thrown into lagfest/slideshows that you continually pretend don't exist. But, of course, more plexes bought = more income for CCP, right? Decrease income in-game = increase income out of game. Shame with all the lip service you give to being against botting and RMT that you're just against it when the RL coin doesn't go into YOUR pocket. The decision to go forward with this program shows a real disconnect reality and the player base that has supported you for literally years and years.
Skilo the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:42:00 - [1112] Edited by: Skilo on 28/03/2011 19:45:05 Here are some numbers for you Dev blog date 25-03-2011 38 pages in 3 days!!! New Record CCP? During the last 3 days and including Fanfest you had time to in your words "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 player" "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" "we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above" "Have a nice weekend everybody, and I'll try and get back to you with more info next week" Then after the Fanfest weekend and with a serious look "we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above" Soo you did that TODAY!!!! OMG How can CCP pay you to loose 1 FULL DAY with us?!?!?!?!?! You took 1 FULL DAY to read 38 pages make a new evaluation and say Screw this let's keep what we plan... i'm still #"%#$ from the partys!!!
Svenne009 Void Angels Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:45:00 - [1113] Quote: We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Do you even grasp the ammount of players we are talking about here? You may not have noticed, but ALL major + small alliances who reacted here are against the change. Thats a massive ammount of y'r playerbase you are gambling with. So we can asume you are ignorant or just don't care about this big and enterprising part of y'r playerbase. Thats bad, either way.
TorTorden Amarr	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:49:00 - [1114] Edited by: TorTorden on 28/03/2011 19:50:54 I honestly suspect ccp of releasing this blog as a primer. Like a minister suggestion a 3$ gas tax increase just to set of a lot of flame and rage so swallowing the real plan of a 0.5$ increase to be announced after a few months. (edit) Speelinng plobrems. ------------------------------------------------ There is no such thing as good or evil. Just an egotistic struggle for self empowerment. ------------------------------------------------
Tiligean	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:58:00 - [1115] Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00 With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released. How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums? Because I'm wondering what you did to make that (averaged) 75m isk/hr that you can't live without now? Or did you make do with less than 75m isk/hr? How ever did you survive with less? And if the average rate of isk/hr on a Sanctum is 75m, what's a haven? 50m? what's a hub? 20m? what's a port? 10m? Seriously. Everyone here is frothing at the mouth because CCP is going to reduce the number of systems where you can make 75 million ISK/hr. Seriously?
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.28 19:58:00 - [1116] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale id liek to see this data tbfh. as a mid sized corp that dosnt have access to decent moons and living in 0.0 this is gonna hit hard. we have already noticed a drop in tax income since the anom respawn time was bumped to 6mins, and we currenty have 2 systems being shared between our corp and both aparently are having 1 sanctum removed due to this change. we fund our pvp replacments from our tax income, players pay most and we take the insurance costs away from them. this change is only going to slow down our ambissions and hinder us doing the same thing as your stated goals are. you have no **ing idea imho about this changes and how they will effect a massive number of players. i might be wrong but im not taking the word of ccp for it. prove it share your information or as many peopel in this thred have already stated, i call you on your bull**
Black Craig	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:00:00 - [1117] CCP What the hell you guys doing? Speechless! All I can say CCP FIRE Greyscale before he single handed destroys EVE. If you want to make something better FIX the LAG! That will make people happy. You guys remember anything about that making customers happy?
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:01:00 - [1118] Edited by: Widemouth Deepthroat on 28/03/2011 20:01:05 Next up; jump bridge nerfs. NC bend over and take it!!!!
SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:02:00 - [1119] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Good stuff. keep up the good work at making eve a little harder and about conflicts
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:04:00 - [1120] Originally by: Tiligean Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00 With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released. How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums? Because I'm wondering what you did to make that (averaged) 75m isk/hr that you can't live without now? Or did you make do with less than 75m isk/hr? How ever did you survive with less? And if the average rate of isk/hr on a Sanctum is 75m, what's a haven? 50m? what's a hub? 20m? what's a port? 10m? Seriously. Everyone here is frothing at the mouth because CCP is going to reduce the number of systems where you can make 75 million ISK/hr. Seriously? I mined in querious before the change. I wasnt really making 75 million though more like 55. Maxed out hulk mining M B C ores, (A doesn't exist in Querious, or at least where i was.) Afterwards I switched to ratting with two carriers. Both with sentry damage upgrades. and a third account with a pair of capital shield tranfers in a dessy cleaning. Made about 100 mil per hour.

SirJoJo	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:05:00 - [1121] Originally by: Black Craig CCP What the hell you guys doing? Speechless! All I can say CCP FIRE Greyscale before he single handed destroys EVE. If you want to make something better FIX the LAG! That will make people happy. You guys remember anything about that making customers happy? usually having some arguments helps your case, most of all the arguments made by ppl against the changes have been nothing but smack and whine, some few ppl hav made good post but only few, your post are exactly the kind of post thats absolutely worthless and not helping anything,
Siradas Amarr Nulli Secunda Holding Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:12:00 - [1122] I lived in provi pre dominion and had no problem making isk what are you ALL *****ING ABOUT?
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:14:00 - [1123] This is the worst idea CCP have ever come up with. Someone needs to lose their job...
Siradas Amarr Nulli Secunda Holding Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:15:00 - [1124] Originally by: Lord Lightcloud This is the worst idea CCP have ever come up with. Someone needs to lose their job... All the RMTers who farm sanctums all day?
Nurgl3	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:16:00 - [1125] Originally by: Siradas I lived in provi pre dominion and had no problem making isk what are you ALL *****ING ABOUT? LOL how many people where living there compaired to now.
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:17:00 - [1126] Originally by: Siradas Originally by: Lord Lightcloud This is the worst idea CCP have ever come up with. Someone needs to lose their job... All the RMTers who farm sanctums all day? You.
Siradas Amarr Nulli Secunda Holding Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:17:00 - [1127] Edited by: Siradas on 28/03/2011 20:18:10 Originally by: Nurgl3 Originally by: Siradas I lived in provi pre dominion and had no problem making isk what are you ALL *****ING ABOUT? LOL how many people where living there compaired to now. Alot more were living there compared to now probbly and I make isk of complexes and exploration
Ransom Note	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:18:00 - [1128] Greyscale - take your gaming model and ram it up your chuff.
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:18:00 - [1129] Ok so let me get this straight: -We just got through paying billions for upgrades and hundreds of millions a month for the same. -The main advantage to doing this is that we got sanctums and havens where the average joe can make a bit of isk. -We have been through hell out here fighting off pirates, griefers, afk cloakers, momship blobbers, and every other asshat who likes to harass and annoy us in our space. -Now we need to go and attack some other guys deeper in nullsec in order to be able to make that same bit of isk? -Or, we could just go back to empire and run L4 mishes, and save the sov bills, and make more isk than we currently are making in our 0.0-0.2 systems? How is this supposed to encourage more people to live in nullsec, dare I ask? CCP, if you don't like botters ratting sanctums and making huge isk then fix the botting problem! This nerf undermines every reason we have for taking on the massive hassle that is nullsec. unbelievable. Petition this people.
Tiligean	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:23:00 - [1130] Originally by: Cyrus Doul ...(sic) I made about 100 mil per hour. Originally by: Tania Russ we got sanctums and havens where the average joe can make a bit of isk Yeah, geez, I really feel for your average joe only making 100 mil per hour.

Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:23:00 - [1131] Guys guys if we want to have cool new turrent models apparently we need to give up our sactums and havens
Tegho Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:26:00 - [1132] The anomaly system was designed to bring people out to null sec, which it clearly has done. Now you're planning to remove a large portion of the anomalies that are available to run? And you expect everyone to go where? Yes, lower security systems should be better. The better change would be to scale up the bounties paid on NPCs, as you go farther down in security level. <insert witty comment here>
Lady RAWR	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:30:00 - [1133] Is this really the best idea and update you can think of? Terrible when looking at everything else you could fix/improve. Good thing the new Starwars game comes out soon.
Target Painter Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:31:00 - [1134] Totally nerf the mostly legit ratting in anoms (since H-bot's sanctum runner is bugged) while leaving the more heavily botted belt ratting alone! Awesome plan CCP, A+, bang up job.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:31:00 - [1135] Originally by: Tegho The anomaly system was designed to bring people out to null sec, which it clearly has done. Now you're planning to remove a large portion of the anomalies that are available to run? And you expect everyone to go where? Yes, lower security systems should be better. The better change would be to scale up the bounties paid on NPCs, as you go farther down in security level. but that would mean they have to spend more than 5 mins fixing something and anyone thats played teh game knows tahts not the ccp way
sylvester stallowned Trotters Independent Trading	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:33:00 - [1136] Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11 Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad... Remove Jumpbridges too please <3
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:34:00 - [1137] Edited by: Lord Lightcloud on 28/03/2011 20:34:23 Originally by: CCP Greyscale we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. -Greyscale How can you possibly think that....?
Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:34:00 - [1138] Originally by: sylvester stallowned Love this change! nullsec carebare risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad... Remove Jumpbridges too please <3 no then we will go gank your high sec carebear ass for isk
Pyrostasis Caldari TDK Industries Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:37:00 - [1139] Originally by: sylvester stallowned Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11 Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad... Remove Jumpbridges too please <3 Hell yeah then everyone can simply go back to empire and make isk safely chain running 4's and you see a significant drop in overall 0.0 participation. The power block will still exist, but both sides will see a reduction in overall players as they move back to empire. For those that want pvp and targets to shoot this is pretty much a bad idea and its not even close. Less people in 0.0 = less targets to shoot = less kill and less pvp. Less people making money = less people buying ships = less ships to shoot. That power block is still going to be a power block, the smaller guys just wont be able to field ships
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:37:00 - [1140] Originally by: CCP Greyscale ... Good call. Implement and tweak as needed. By the way, could you kick people around you so we can get some preliminary data/blogs on what else is being worked on to fix the atrocity that is Dominion? For instance, is the null industrial sector going to get a boost so we can wean alliances off Jita? PS: Just don't mention bridges until you are ready (read: medicated) and you should be fine .

Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:38:00 - [1141] Don't forget moongoo needs serious attention too.
ADMIRAL ALLEXCAT	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:40:00 - [1142] HELLO FRIENDS! FROM WHAT I'VE OBSERVED HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME GREAT GENIO OF CCP WALKED LOOKING (FOR LACK OF CREATIVITY) THE PAST ADMINISTRATORS GREAT GAMES! AND ARE REAPING IDEAS OF GUIDELINES, WITH THE PLAYERS. READY IT SEEMS THAT THIS LAUNCHED THE GREAT STONE THAT WILL SINK A BEAUTIFUL GAME! START MAKING LIST OF ADDRESSES OF YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN IN THE NEAR FUTURE GOOD GAME ONLINE! EVE GOES THE WAY OF A SPACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE GREAT GAMES ALONGSIDE MANY OTHERS WHO ENDED UP! HOW MUCH MORE IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO OBTAIN FUNDS, DESTROYS THE MEANS BY WHICH WE GET! SORY FOR BAD INGLES! YES PLAY EVE IM BRASIL!
sylvester stallowned Trotters Independent Trading	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:46:00 - [1143] Originally by: Pyrostasis Originally by: sylvester stallowned Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11 Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad... Remove Jumpbridges too please <3 Hell yeah then everyone can simply go back to empire and make isk safely chain running 4's and you see a significant drop in overall 0.0 participation. The power block will still exist, but both sides will see a reduction in overall players as they move back to empire. For those that want pvp and targets to shoot this is pretty much a bad idea and its not even close. Less people in 0.0 = less targets to shoot = less kill and less pvp. Less people making money = less people buying ships = less ships to shoot. That power block is still going to be a power block, the smaller guys just wont be able to field ships There will always be things to shoot in 0.0, if this change reduces the blobs and spreads out 0.0 population then its for the better IMO Still the change that really needs to be made is removal of JB's.. more traffic = more fun ;)
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:48:00 - [1144] Originally by: Tegho The anomaly system was designed to bring people out to null sec, which it clearly has done. Now you're planning to remove a large portion of the anomalies that are available to run? And you expect everyone to go where? Offhand I would say they expect any mid/high SP pilots busting ass trying to forge a new 0.0 alliance to quit and join an established powerblock and everybody else to go home. The only thing I can think of is that major alliances will not be able to charge rent for such systems because the profits are so low nobody would pay anything for them. Of course the consequence of that will probably just be that larger alliances/blocks would rather not take any isk for the systems just so they could beat the ever loving hell out of the residents.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:48:00 - [1145] CCP: Here's an awful idea Playerbase: 30 pages of generally articulate feedback why the idea is awful in many different ways and will accomplish the opposite of what it intends to do AND reverse the entire point of the Dominion expansion (getting people into 0.0) CCP: nope we know better and we're doing it anyway Playerbase: would you like to explain why CCP: no I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
AngusThermo	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:49:00 - [1146] Well, I actually just needed this arrogant answer from Greyscale. You cant have my stuff, but im off to a game that treats the players with less arrogance and contempt. It really looks like Grayscale is not CCP but hired by another gaming company, to scare as many vet's away as possible. I'll proberly not be missed, since Im one of the lucky few that have enough isk. It's not what it's about, but the approach that CCP is having in this matter is destructive to our alliance as a whole. The resons for the change are all utter crap - all of them are made up, and lies. A gaming company that lies to it's players is garbage, and i will not be a part of it. /peace out.
Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:51:00 - [1147] Originally by: sylvester stallowned Originally by: Pyrostasis Originally by: sylvester stallowned Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 28/03/2011 20:34:11 Love this change! nullsec carebear risk free isk generation needs a nerf so bad... Remove Jumpbridges too please <3 Hell yeah then everyone can simply go back to empire and make isk safely chain running 4's and you see a significant drop in overall 0.0 participation. The power block will still exist, but both sides will see a reduction in overall players as they move back to empire. For those that want pvp and targets to shoot this is pretty much a bad idea and its not even close. Less people in 0.0 = less targets to shoot = less kill and less pvp. Less people making money = less people buying ships = less ships to shoot. That power block is still going to be a power block, the smaller guys just wont be able to field ships There will always be things to shoot in 0.0, if this change reduces the blobs and spreads out 0.0 population then its for the better IMO Still the change that really needs to be made is removal of JB's.. more traffic = more fun ;) Clearly your an idiot it would just cram high sec enterences and cluster people into the systems with sactums jump off a bridge plz
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:54:00 - [1148] No, you cannot have my stuff. Yes, my four subs will not be renewed. That is all.
Argus Sorn Star Frontiers Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.28 20:57:00 - [1149] Greyscale, Any comment on how the 'effective truesec' in pirate controlled space will affect this mechanic? Am I a noob in thinking that this still exists for belt rats (my experience has made it seem so). Any thoughts on eliminating that mechanic entirely? Seems that it should only apply to the NPC owned systems anyway. Argus Sorn Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale CEO - Star Frontiers
sylvester stallowned Trotters Independent Trading	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [1150] Originally by: Starkiller Adams Clearly your an idiot it would just cram high sec enterences and cluster people into the systems with sactums jump off a bridge plz Clearly your alliance was a lot more fun when they lived in syndicate...

LittleGee	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [1151] "The CSM are an invaluable stakeholder that help ensure CCPæs focus on the current issues and concerns of EVEæs most valuable person, the player." ... and so were they consulted in this major game change? No. CSM where are you? Please tell me you are furiously communicating your disgust at lack of involvement in this and considering your resignations in recognition of the fact that CCP are blatant hypocrites by sidestepping you and us in this way. Remind me again why we were all encouraged to vote for our opinions to be represented if they in turn are not included in major game changes. "we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner" - what was wrong with the previous 30+ pages of well articulated numerous reasons given? Do they not count? You may as well said "carry on as you all were, it won't change a damn thing but if it makes you feel a little more valued as customers, please feel free to post away" Why give people the ability to express opinions and even refer to their representatives as "invaluable stakeholders" if you are not prepared to consider the possibility that this volume of experienced players MIGHT JUST HAVE VALID POINTS and that the few of you MIGHT JUST HAVE MESSED THIS UP. As for "civil manner"...hah. Funny.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:00:00 - [1152] Thanks for holding the course, Greyscale. I hope you'll closely monitor the situation and revisit the decision in a few months for fine tuning. Iterate. Iterate. Iterate. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:02:00 - [1153] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale How can you be serious? This really is the daftest idea ever in eve. All you'll do is encourage rmt and bots. Alliances fight over tech moons. At best all you'll see is pvpers making high sec mission running alts. Until you deal with bots and rmt your going to hurt the average eula abiding player who'll have to work harder for isk which will help the dishonest botter in claiming null sec space as isk is not a problem for them. I really hope the csm fight you every inch of the way on this. Oh and while you have the nerf bat out, do something sensible with it and nerf wormhole income.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:04:00 - [1154] Originally by: Tiligean Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00 *With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after* Dominion was released. How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums?... That's a fair question. Before Dominion, I used to go belt ratting, find the occasional exploration complex and when Apocrypha hit, clear out a w-space system every now and then. But another main generator or in-game ISKies was GTCs sold on this site. The expense of needing the right ships and various conflicts surrounding me and my corp kept my null-sec earning low enough that I opted to put RL cash into one of my main forms of entertainment. After Dominion, I was able to earn some decent ISK in a fully upgraded, but relatively poor true-sec null-security system and then subsequently in another fully-upgraded system with another corp. When not fighting in various campaigns, I was able to re-charge the wallet using sanctums and a minor amount of belt ratting. I didn't need to rely upon GTCs nearly as much. I also learned to diversify my earning sources, splitting activities between null and high-sec. In the future, I can see much more empire-based activity if null-sec income potential dries up. And that is one of the reasons why this change bothers me. I like null-sec life. I like playing and interacting with my null-sec corp mates at all levels of the game. PvP. PvE. Whatever. Spending a larger portion of my time in high-sec trying to earn ISK so that I can maintain a hangar of fun and functional ships is not a fun prospect for me. Neither is purchasing more GTCs to fund things. I believe CCP is interested to see how many null-sec focused players opt to supplement their ISK generation with RL cash. I appreciate CCP's interest in RL profit, but not at the expense of my continued playing enjoyment. I also feel for those entities (big AND small) who have invested billions upon billions of ISK into a style of play that could be pulled out from underneath in a single game design change. All of those TCUs, IHUBs, upgrades and even Outposts put into areas of space that will be rendered worthless relative to current valuations. Was there risk in installing all of this infrastructure? Sure! But I bet that people were looking at which blob might attack them next rather than the blindside from CCP which makes their surrounding space a pile of burning dung. Very ty treatment of your customers CCP. Very **ty, indeed.
Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:04:00 - [1155] Can we keep sanctums and havens if u take the drake out of the game?
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:05:00 - [1156] Originally by: Malcanis Thanks for holding the course, Greyscale. I hope you'll closely monitor the situation and revisit the decision in a few months for fine tuning. Iterate. Iterate. Iterate. I know you are in favour of this change, yet you make an argument against it, I wonder if it is intentional or not (dont tell me you seriously think CCP is going to iterate).
Kalain ap'Sulen Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:06:00 - [1157] Just a quick follow up to my original statement on page one. ** You CCP. You right in the Goat ass. Quando ami flunkus morti.**
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:09:00 - [1158] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale All the faith in the world doesn't make your model accurate nor will it save your job when the power blocks expand and it's realized you've only made things worse. Maybe your successor will have more sense and a clearer understanding of the social dynamics of the sandbox.
nubos	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:09:00 - [1159] So when are premium accounts with 2x faster training for 30$ per month coming? Along with Item Mall and another stuff for draining money out of people? Maybe you should make your game f2p for greater profits?
TV Evangelist Imminent Ruin Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:09:00 - [1160] **ing **ed ****ing cumguzzling *gots CCP

omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:10:00 - [1161] Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ? If so --> http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now! in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1 Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM! Thank you Omgdutch2005 IEGEX Alliance Director
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 - [1162] Originally by: Terianna Eri I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting. i use nlnn as a visual representation
Aeron Kinkade	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 - [1163] Got a comment here..... Call me what you will for it. But really CCP!? Why must you constantly be messing with stuff? Just when things settle down and people get adjusted to the "NEW BETTER" changes that are made. If that's what you want to call them. Incursion is nice but yet a good example. It took forever to launch and when it did it was dragged out for so long it was nuts. Patch after patch. Yet, has anyone ran the incursions? They are beyond sickening. Instead of messing with null sec CCP how about you fine tune those incursions you made us wait so long for. There are major balancing issues there. Of course what do I know. I'm still considered by the old and dusty a new guy.
Kimentor Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:12:00 - [1164] You have to love a company that makes a statement that enrages it customer base, see's 33+ pages of hatred, and then does whatever they want anyway. Guess they don't think having paying customers is important. Pretty soon this game will be filled with just Jita alts and russian bot runners in the belts.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:14:00 - [1165] Originally by: knobber Jobbler ... I really hope the csm fight you every inch of the way on this. Yeah, there's little surprise why CCP Greyscale snuck this change in with the chaos of FanFest and the changing of the guard with the CSM. Originally by: knobber Jobbler Oh and while you have the nerf bat out, do something sensible with it and nerf wormhole income. Christ, why nerf a decent means of earning some scratch. Worm holers work hard for their ISK and don't need CCP messing with yet another aspect of the game that might generate some sort of enjoyment. CCP's nerf bat is already swung too often in a daft manner. And, no, I do not live in w-space.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:14:00 - [1166] Originally by: Kalain ap'Sulen Just a quick follow up to my original statement on page one. ** You CCP. ** You right in the Goat ass. Why Goat? Also to the guy a few posts ago, have we seen CSM Response on this yet? The thing is pretty much stacked NC / DC and they have the most to lose while their reds get maybe half the loss. I looked on Assembly hall and speakers and I'm not really seeing anything... How much your region is getting screwed Supercap markup - i.e. How much profit per build.
Hermosa Diosas	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:15:00 - [1167] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Really? You dont think 39 pages of negativity, warrants a rethink? Nice one..
TommyMc88 Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:15:00 - [1168] Terrible blog for a terrible idea. Fail.
nubos	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:18:00 - [1169] Edited by: nubos on 28/03/2011 21:18:45 Originally by: Tiligean Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00 With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released. How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums? Because I'm wondering what you did to make that (averaged) 75m isk/hr that you can't live without now? Or did you make do with less than 75m isk/hr? How ever did you survive with less? And if the average rate of isk/hr on a Sanctum is 75m, what's a haven? 50m? what's a hub? 20m? what's a port? 10m? Seriously. Everyone here is frothing at the mouth because CCP is going to reduce the number of systems where you can make 75 million ISK/hr. Seriously? there were much less people in 0.0 and people mostly made their isk via agent 4 running in empire/nullsec, plexing and hunting in npc region or in systems with low true-sec. (I don't count bots, they won't suffer just make less money per hour)
Aeron Kinkade	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:21:00 - [1170] Oh and another side note here..... CCP...WHY DON'T YOU WORK ON HIGH SEC SOME FOR A CHANGE INSTEAD OF KILLING THE ONLY GOOD PART OF THIS GAME? IT'S DULL REPETITIOUS AND BORING UP THERE. BRING SUPER CAPS AND CAPS BACK INTO HIGH SEC. GIVE IT A CHALLANGE AGAIN. INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. ADDING NEW USELESS CRAP AND MESSING WITH THE GOOD STABLE PARTS! HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN WHERE YOU STARTED OFF AT? WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN EVE FIRST LAUNCHED BEFORE YOU GOT ALL BIG AND RICH!!!??? And no you can not have my stuff either. You say you listen to the player base so start acting like it. That is all.

Lord Arbalest Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:22:00 - [1171] Edited by: Lord Arbalest on 28/03/2011 21:23:57 Lovely to see how you treat your customer's opnions Greyscale. A pillar and role model to all those who want to become leading business people and soak in how to treat customers. I also enjoyed how you addressed and explained the many well structured and accurate points your player base made to prove how terrible this idea could be. Really handling this whole situation well, I have no doubt EVE's subscriptions will rise with you leading this new approach to customer care. __________________________________ Please Support MOTD In Corp Chat!
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:37:00 - [1172] this some sick april fools 1st of april joke?
PorkCleaner	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:45:00 - [1173] CCP Greyscale: I think you are forgetting a very important game issues on 2 counts. 1) This is a game and not a real life economy/military scenario. It is not about all about the efficiencies and best way to achieve your game objectives. Aside from the debatable logic as seen by the numerous responses, this proposal will have an effect on "HOW MUCH FUN I WILL HAVE PLAYING THE GAME". People like the Sanctums because they are fun and not because they are profitable. You do this and you take away the fun - remember this is a game and there is no logical justification for taking fun out of a game. 2) Listen to your customers. I am really tired of your attitude towards us. I respect your intelligence in 'game design' but I don't think you have ever run a business. If I were your Boss, I would be thinking really hard about 'personal development' plans. Sorry if this is hard, but your last response was 'over the top'.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:47:00 - [1174] Originally by: omgdutch2005 this some sick april fools 1st of april joke? I hope so. But usually don't they announce extended dt's with more then four days advanced warning for biggish patches like this? April is Friday... How much your region is getting screwed
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:50:00 - [1175] Originally by: Tiligean Edited by: Tiligean on 28/03/2011 19:58:00 With all the rage here, I want to know one thing - and I'd love to hear it from someone who lived in nullsec both before and after Dominion was released. How did you make ISK before Dominion gave you Sanctums? Because I'm wondering what you did to make that (averaged) 75m isk/hr that you can't live without now? Or did you make do with less than 75m isk/hr? How ever did you survive with less? And if the average rate of isk/hr on a Sanctum is 75m, what's a haven? 50m? what's a hub? 20m? what's a port? 10m? Seriously. Everyone here is frothing at the mouth because CCP is going to reduce the number of systems where you can make 75 million ISK/hr. Seriously? Pre-Dominion I ratted in a torp raven. Made roughly 25-30 mil an hr before the nerf to torp range. After that as an individual pilot in a smaller renting alliance times were tough and eventually I had to move back to empire being unable to replace enough ships fast enough to participate in mandatory CTA's. Dominion was a second chance at sustainable life in 0.0, for me and I'm sure many others. With the current status of populations in 0.0 being a small alliance w/ few sov systems 4 afk cloaky reds can shut down pve in a system literally for days. This weekend has been one of those. If you venture out to mine or go do anoms/belt ratting solo you get jumped by bombers and a falcon. If you take a whole group out to anoms you get hot dropped and if you try to fight them they just stay cloaked up. So when we ARE able to clear havens and sanctums it ends up almost making up for the time the system is being camped by forces you can't force into a fight. With that resource being gone I expect individual combat pilots to be forced out of null sec as losses mount and between hostile incursions/afk black ops camps and the upcoming nerf income for individual combat pilots is reduced to nearly nothing.
Shimokurasaka Therapy. R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:50:00 - [1176] You guys are making a horrible decision.
JitaBUGz TheGreat	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:51:00 - [1177] Originally by: Locii Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale id liek to see this data tbfh. as a mid sized corp that dosnt have access to decent moons and living in 0.0 this is gonna hit hard. we have already noticed a drop in tax income since the anom respawn time was bumped to 6mins, and we currenty have 2 systems being shared between our corp and both aparently are having 1 sanctum removed due to this change. we fund our pvp replacments from our tax income, players pay most and we take the insurance costs away from them. this change is only going to slow down our ambissions and hinder us doing the same thing as your stated goals are. you have no **ing idea imho about this changes and how they will effect a massive number of players. i might be wrong but im not taking the word of ccp for it. prove it share your information or as many peopel in this thred have already stated, i call you on your bull** Increase tax's if that is what funds ur guys pvp.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:52:00 - [1178] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 28/03/2011 21:54:05 I might also suggest that you put some thought into your customer feedback beyond "oh they're just mad we're taking away their sanctums, ignore them, they'll get over it," since that's the only thing I can think of that would justify (hah) the amount of communication we're receiving. AND MAYBE EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING SO THAT US PUNY NON GAME DESIGNER MORTALS HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IN THE WORLD YOU'RE THINKING, THAT MIGHT BE GOOD TOO I mean obviously the "no you're wrong and we're right because we're right" is a good way to convince a six year old but when dealing with, I dunno, 12 year olds (and the 20-30 year olds that fund your company) that maybe providing some actual reasoning and thought could be a good idea just sayin throwin it out there think about it (seriously can you please explain what led you to this conclusion) P.S. dont get discouraged at least you're not at the Bioware level of handling feedback ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Zemkhoff	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:55:00 - [1179] now D-team alliances get D-level space
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 21:56:00 - [1180] i have realised why ccp grayscale is applying this nerf its because he is a spy for wow as he looks like a wow avatar i expect to see the wow link at the end of his next post

Kijo Rikki Caldari Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:09:00 - [1181] WoW doesn't need EvE's less than 3% marketshare.
CorryBasler Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:10:00 - [1182] Edited by: CorryBasler on 28/03/2011 22:13:29 yep confirming its about time to cancel my alt account's subb's since i just have them to run anoms while i pvp on the main account most of catch will be utterly useless and most of the renters we have now will want to leave for better space EDIT: Also this will make for better carebear killing pvp though, just find the systems with -.5 and below then afk cloak their till something gets fed up and starts ratting anyways, then uncloak and kill :-)
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:14:00 - [1183] Yeah i wont cancel, but i'll let two of my accounts expire. Not complaining, but that's that. I won't be able to afford them any longer. ____________ I like woman because breasts
VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:14:00 - [1184] Edited by: VIncent Vance on 28/03/2011 22:15:01 Excellent work Greyscale, keep up the good work. The rivers of tears flowing from the north can only be considered good omens. Now, we need to once and for all move those lvl4s to losec, that should solve the empire/nullsec risk vs reward disparity that certain posters are trotting out as an excuse to continue their compulsive 0.0 carebearing rut.
Acris Vlame	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:19:00 - [1185] We'll I guess we could all buy PLEX instead, nice of CCP to have created that option for us, I mean alright it makes them more money if this happens but I am sure that is an unfortunate side of trying to get more dynamic gameplay, not the prime intent.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:20:00 - [1186] Originally by: VIncent Vance im a clueless idiot / so desperate for attention i'll troll a 99.5% unanimous thread fyp ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:21:00 - [1187] So how are the refunds for Ihub upgrades going to work exactly?
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:22:00 - [1188] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: VIncent Vance im a clueless idiot / so desperate for attention i'll troll a 99.5% unanimous thread fyp d-team alliance gets d-team space...deal with it
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:28:00 - [1189] Originally by: Galerak So how are the refunds for Ihub upgrades going to work exactly? This. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Kijo Rikki Caldari Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:29:00 - [1190] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: VIncent Vance im a clueless idiot / so desperate for attention i'll troll a 99.5% unanimous thread fyp d-team alliance gets d-team space...deal with it d-team game developers get d-team playerbase. They're trying to deal with it by getting you chums to buy more plex, lol.

Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:30:00 - [1191] They don't do refunds for that kind of thing. Your corp/alliance has already reaped the benefits of the ihub and upgrades.
Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:39:00 - [1192] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat They don't do refunds for that kind of thing. Your corp/alliance has already reaped the benefits of the ihub and upgrades. not if we have only had them for a ****ing weeek
ShadowsMirror	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:41:00 - [1193] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. You took the words right out of my head. Without the ability to run a haven a few times a week, my income will seize & any 0.0 incentives will quickly dissapear. It would be back to running level 4 missions on an alt account. Ccp dont understand how 0.0 works for the casual player, at the very least they should provide more incentive, it is silly
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:44:00 - [1194] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat They don't do refunds for that kind of thing. Your corp/alliance has already reaped the benefits of the ihub and upgrades. I disagree. The upgrades are a long term investment in a system. The purpose of that investment will be voided by the upcoming changes. If ccp is going to change the rules of the game and reverse their previous changes they should compensate for misleading the residents into purchasing equipment that does not work as stated, intended or advertised.
Basil Wenclas	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:49:00 - [1195] Not that CCP gives a flying ** about me or any other average joe, but I have two accounts, and I only am able to pay for Eve via plex, as I am too broke in RL. This change is going to most likely prevent that from happening. I'll be down to one account at most, or none at all most likely. There are plenty of posts that eloquently describe what is wrong with these changes, and how they will negatively affect the playerbase, so I really won't say more on that, just a thank you for making this a ty **ty way to end my eve 'career'.
Corin Nebulon hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.28 22:51:00 - [1196] Greyscale you should really ask for someone to handle public relations for you. Your last post really reads like "F*** ff eve community. We know better then you." Have you ever considered to make the changes in a way, that they have less impact? Just to see if the changes at least show a tendency to the behavior you predicted? But no, in good old fashion the nerf hammer is applied. Without even considering that the negative outcomes may, by far, outweight the positives. And afterwards this will take another 2 years until you realise and admit your failure and another 2 years to get it balanced again...sigh* Sometimes following the development process of this game really is saddening.
VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.28 23:03:00 - [1197] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: VIncent Vance im a clueless idiot / so desperate for attention i'll troll a 99.5% unanimous thread fyp lol I used to be a member of one of your 'shortbus team' alliance neighbours till the 99.99% carebear outlook of most of the members prompted me to quit. And you suggest I should just support this due to the other "99.5% unanimous" sheep like yourself? .....hmmm actually I guess being a sheep is a requirement for being a full time NC drone. The only thing I can say in favour of WTF is that they weren't quite as fail as your lot lol
VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.28 23:08:00 - [1198] Originally by: Corin Nebulon Greyscale you should really ask for someone to handle public relations for you. Your last post really reads like "F*** ff eve community. We know better then you." Have you ever considered to make the changes in a way, that they have less impact? Just to see if the changes at least show a tendency to the behavior you predicted? But no, in good old fashion the nerf hammer is applied. Without even considering that the negative outcomes may, by far, outweight the positives. And afterwards this will take another 2 years until you realise and admit your failure and another 2 years to get it balanced again...sigh* Sometimes following the development process of this game really is saddening. lol tbh I think the likes of yourself (and RZR) are scared ****less that you may have to actually personally fight for your space as alliances in the near future, instead of the mega-coalition nodebreaking blobs full of buffer z-team filler you've been acustomed to for a long time now. You guys had it once, you think you'll still have it when the chips are down?
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.28 23:21:00 - [1199] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale The data you have is what you pulled out of your arse. You have no data, you're a liar.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.28 23:22:00 - [1200] Originally by: Corin Nebulon Greyscale you should really ask for someone to handle public relations for you. Your last post really reads like "F*** *ff eve community. We know better then you." Considering the level of maturity displayed by 'the community' in this thread I'd say its pretty amazing that they even bother to respond at all. Its alright to be angry about something that concerns you, but the inability to communicate in a socially acceptable form displayed by a majority in here is simply not acceptable. Being taken seriously does depend a lot on the way you voice your opinion, but thats just my 2 cents.

John Haldane	Posted - 2011.03.28 23:33:00 - [1201] CCP Greyscale: That's it? You won't even explain the decision further? I didn't expect you'd say "oh, we never thought of that", but I did think you'd at least refute some of our concerns. Or mention any other reasons you'd make this change, and make it in such a coarse-grained way. Or something. A graph to support your contention that there's not enough war in 0.0. A macroeconomic crisis that we haven't noticed. An adopted child living in Deklein, maybe. Not "That's nice. Keep yelling; we're not listening anymore. Bye." The original issue pales before that want of tact and consideration. I'm appalled.
Duncan Dixson	Posted - 2011.03.28 23:35:00 - [1202] I am all for this change. Yes there will be some personal pain for some, yes it is change and change is scary, yes it will change the isk dynamic of the average NC peon. It is however a step in the right direction and shows a willingness to do what is necessary to start improving Nullsec. WELL DONE CCP. STICK TO YOUR GUNS AND DO NOT CAVE TO THE WHINERS.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:00:00 - [1203] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 00:04:06 Originally by: Terianna Eri CCP: Here's an awful idea Playerbase: 30 pages of generally articulate feedback why the idea is awful in many different ways and will accomplish the opposite of what it intends to do AND reverse the entire point of the Dominion expansion (getting people into 0.0) CCP: nope we know better and we're doing it anyway Playerbase: would you like to explain why CCP: no You're out of your mind if you think there were 30 pages of "generally articulate feedback". The knee jerk reaction was so awesome that there were 15 pages of feedback before anyone thought to finish reading the dev blog and realize that they weren't taking away all sanctums/havens in > -0.8 space. Originally by: Dev Blog 1. Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space 2. In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals 3. Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec 4. Coalitions will be marginally less stable 5. 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) So let's break the whining down: - "I just upgraded my system and now it's going to be worthless!" -> Confirms #1, #5 - "The big guys are just going to kick everyone out of the good space!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3, #4 - "Everyone will leave 0.0 and go to high sec because there's better ISK there!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3 - "Man screw that worthless space! Nobody would even bother conquering it!" -> Confirms #1, #2, #3 I could go on, but basically this whole thread boils down to a bunch of "Elite 0.0 Pro PVPers" (read: massive ***ing carebears) that have a massive ISK faucet and they don't want to let go despite the fact that it is destroying the game. So instead they're going to go back to high sec* where it's nice and safe. It's even better because they don't seem to comprehend the difference between raw ISK faucets and items traded for ISK. Protip: the reason high sec mission bears make such good ISK/hr these days is because there's so much damn ISK flowing into the economy. Quote: I wish there were a middle finger emote. This is disgusting. Indeed. :looks at you: -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:10:00 - [1204] Heads up, next January the Dev awards will be on. Highest coveted award will be "Dev That Caused the Most Whine" award. CCP Grayscale is winning so far. Someone at CCP can one up this guy, I know it!
Wicked X North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:15:00 - [1205] Edited by: Wicked X on 29/03/2011 00:15:40 Good work CCP Greyscale. The proposed changes are a step in the right direction. Resistence from the big coalitions is to be expected, i hope this wont stop you,because your changes have a good chance to make 0.0 better and more fun again. I am looking foward to seeing some 0.0 alliances basing there success on quality rather than pure numbers again, hardly any of those left.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:16:00 - [1206] Did I just see a piece of sky falling? .. oh wait, it was just raven poo. How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:17:00 - [1207] Originally by: Liang Nuren stuff I honestly only see one outcome. 1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases. 2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats. 3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed. I invite anyone to refute these points. Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:19:00 - [1208] Originally by: oldmanst4r Originally by: Liang Nuren stuff I honestly only see one outcome. 1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases. 2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats. 3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed. I invite anyone to refute these points. So nothing is going to change then? How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:22:00 - [1209] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 29/03/2011 00:22:31 Originally by: UniqueOne Originally by: oldmanst4r Originally by: Liang Nuren stuff I honestly only see one outcome. 1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases. 2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats. 3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed. I invite anyone to refute these points. So nothing is going to change then? Yeah, i'll pay 2b in upkeep for a system that cannot generate enought revenue to pay for itself. Oh wait. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Benjamin Hamburg Gallente Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:22:00 - [1210] 1) Place high-end moon in higher ss systems. (Or raise the ss of systems where high-end/rare moon are) 2) Create new upgrades to lower security status of a given systems. At least... If you don't do that, don't expect small alliance to be able to hold claim on good ss systems. Also don't expect reducing the blob doing it. Blob will be worse, as players will gather in fewer systems.

Sem Nan	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:24:00 - [1211] I have only one thing to do about this latest devblog. :facepalm:
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:30:00 - [1212] Originally by: oldmanst4r I honestly only see one outcome. 1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases. 2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats. 3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed. I invite anyone to refute these points. Easily. Your point #1 confirms their goals: - Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space - 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) It implies: - People will all bunch up in a few overcrowded systems. - Vast tracts of space will be empty. - Big guys will immediately smash a bunch of small guys to seize the best systems. - Small alliances will come take space that is now vacant, and the "big guys" aren't too interested in this space. This confirms: - Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec - Coalitions will be marginally less stable - In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Your point #2 confirms: - Nothing. We aren't going to have 10000 people in one system running anoms. Thus, it isn't realistically going to happen. Your point #3 confirms: - Nothing. It's complete bull**. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Zephyr Decole	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:34:00 - [1213] Sooo...turning the game into even more of a job for those living in the 0.0 <> -0.2 band is supposed to retain subscribers how? We now have: -Unplayable lag fights -Insanely high sov bills -A grinding process to make isk that makes picking herbs in wow look like fun -Developer hours being poured into allowing us to walk around in a station (welcome to Hello Kitty Island: Adventures in Space) rather than fixing core game functionality (don't tell me the team working on the station walking feature could not be better used fixing old and broken aspects). -A company that does not listen to player feedback -Strong suspicion of GM favoritism/corruption in several previous incidents If there are any game studios out there looking to start a new IP now is the time. Take what makes EVE fun, leave out what makes it a job, and I would imagine you have a goldmine on your hands.
Illiet	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:44:00 - [1214] So how would this change make top alliances look for new places if their income won't change? They just improve rent for good systems =)
Kijo Rikki Caldari Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2011.03.29 00:51:00 - [1215] Originally by: Liang Nuren Easily. Your point #1 confirms their goals: - Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space - 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) It implies: - People will all bunch up in a few overcrowded systems. - Vast tracts of space will be empty. - Big guys will immediately smash a bunch of small guys to seize the best systems. - Small alliances will come take space that is now vacant, and the "big guys" aren't too interested in this space. This confirms: - Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec - Coalitions will be marginally less stable - In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals What makes you think it will be worth the effort to take worthless systems that cannot even sustain a small alliance? What makes you think coalitions will suddenly become less stable? If anything, this looks to strengthen them by forcing allies to cluster closer together. With what looks like more time spent in highsec to make the isk necessary for the smaller guys to sustain their war/defense efforts, including jumpclone cooldown and traveltime, what makes you think there will be more conflicts? I foresee alot more conservatism among the pvpers who will see a reduction in isk in their home systems. Couple with just the fact that when a fight does go down, you're more likely to have available pilots stranded in highsec so even less pvp occurs. Personally, I foresee alot less pvp for myself, which is sad, I just jumped back into it and its been great for the month I've been back. I've gotten more kills in a month than my entire 3 year career. But I'm not gonna waste my time jumping down to highsec and spending hours grinding level 4 missions to make up for shiplosses, just to travel around vast tracks of deadspace in 0.0 looking for a fight for over an hour before finally finding an engagement that lasts for 5 minutes and has a chance of forcing you to go back to highsec for another day. That's a ******ed waste of 15$.
Spazz21 Amarr Angha Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:13:00 - [1216] Sorry, I didn't go through the first 40 pages. Just the first and last. I don't see how this will really do much other then make parts of null completely worthless. It seems as it will merely shift the population of ratting and will end up saving alliances money as the systems become higher income so they can dump the crap systems that has no good moons and no logistical value. Pvp: Sure this might be good for pvpers as there will be more people ratting, but it also might not as there will also be more ratters in the system that can still blob up on the enemy, should they decide to catch someone ratting. Money: Well since a lot of systems will probably lose all value, if there is no cyno/JB in that system and no good moons, and alliances can safely drop those systems and keep the other ones and still be paying same monthly fees for the ones kept. Since there is more people in one area, they are getting more moneys worth for a system. So I can't really imagine this reducing the amount of isk for players or alliances. New Alliances: Even with alliances dropping sov, a new alliance still wouldn't be able to join in without being blue. They'll just get hot dropped by 200 Super Carriers the next day. And why would a small alliance or corp want that system if it ain't worth **? Would be better off staying in High and do missions/incursions and just do roams into Null. Compacting Null: If no one is going to use these systems, then those systems are going to be essentially a time delay in travel. If they hold of no to very little value, then CCP might as well delete those systems. I thought the idea of having sov upgrades was to give people more money to buy more stuff so they can blow more stuff up and have more stuff to be blown up. The idea I got from CCP watching Fanfest, they like it when ** blows up. So why compact it into smaller clusters? Seems as CCP is trying to kill off Null then get more people into them. =/
Sir Ota Amarr Attack Force	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:29:00 - [1217] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Very clever idea was here.... That's all for today, -Greyscale May be you are right. Yes, i understand, ccp wants money for PLEXes, etc, and because of this wants to cutdown income of nullsec citizens and wars of alliances. I understand, but i want to suggest slighty another math in this "briliant" change. It look almost like yours, but your model makes systems below -0.4 totaly worthless. In my plan systems below -0.4 - is good place for nullsec "newcomers". ss 0 = 0 level 5 anomalies ss -0.1 = 1 heaven ss -0.2 = 2 heavens ss -0.3 = 2 heavens + 1 sanctum ss -0.4 = 2 heavens + 2 sanctums ss -0.5 = 3 heavens + 2 sanctums ss -0.6 = 3 heavens + 3 sanctums ss -0.7 = 4 heavens + 3 sanctums ss -0.8 = 4 heavens + 4 sanctums ss -0.9 = 5 heavens + 4 sanctums ss -1 = 5 heavens + 5 sanctums (yeah "totaly six additional high anomalies" (c) you) PS just for information 80% of my nullsec friends will leave nullsecs after this change.
nulab jones Assisted Genocide	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:31:00 - [1218] Edited by: nulab jones on 29/03/2011 01:35:22 Seems like a ploy to sell more gtc and plex by making it harder to make the isk to fund pvp. You seem to forget we need the isk to buy the plex, cos im sure as hell not using real money to buy a haircut, tattoo, new shirt or even pay for game time (did that for 3 years, so more more of my real money for CCP) in the future. 4 accounts paid with plex from running sanctums in a crappy system (cant afford the rent on a good one), maybe 1 or 2 after this change. Well done CCP
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:39:00 - [1219] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale way to be so chicken ** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are **ing them.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:46:00 - [1220] Originally by: Skaarl way to be so chicken ** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are **ing them. Spend more time around the bitter-vet train, and you'd come to realize that the only way CCP can fix the problems with the game is to address their root causes of economic overabundance and too great of ease in region to region transportation. All I want to see happen in regards to the Sanctum Nerf is the Jump Bridge nerf, capital ship cyno spool timer, and some small scale manufacturing infrastructure apart from starbases introduced at the same time.

Tom Aran Caldari LOST IDEA	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:48:00 - [1221] after initial migration the 0.0 will be more stagnant than ever. with SOV mechanics and defenders now caged in a couple of systems, young and upcoming alliances will have no chance winning those high end systems. anyway, you can be sure belt-botting will become even more popular. good jjob cpp. you are ruining your own game
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:48:00 - [1222] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Starts packing cancel subscription %%* SWG all over again.
nulab jones Assisted Genocide	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:49:00 - [1223] Originally by: Skaarl way to be so chicken ** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are **ing them. Kinda funny they pushed this one through when our so called stake holder CSM is also in limbo and not active
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 01:57:00 - [1224] Originally by: nulab jones Originally by: Skaarl way to be so chicken ** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are **ing them. Kinda funny they pushed this one through when our so called stake holder CSM is also in limbo and not active What's really funny to me is how this thread is largely 40 pages of people whining about not being able to make as much money as they want, which is literally the entire point of making this change - to reduce the influx of money flowing around.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:10:00 - [1225] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: nulab jones Originally by: Skaarl way to be so chicken ** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are **ing them. Kinda funny they pushed this one through when our so called stake holder CSM is also in limbo and not active What's really funny to me is how this thread is largely 40 pages of people whining about not being able to make as much money as they want, which is literally the entire point of making this change - to reduce the influx of money flowing around. no, the point to this is to make more conflict in 0.0. if you had lived in the populated areas of 0.0 that are actually going to be most effected by this you will realize that it will decrease that significantly as the population in the crap areas will drop significantly. and it benefits the droneland russian isk sellers as they have the most truesec of anywhere.
Ghengis Yamamoto Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:12:00 - [1226] Originally by: Nikgah Plz Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Starts packing cancel subscription %%* SWG all over again. Yep the arrogance and keeping the course sure reminds you of SWG. If this impacts the game as much then they won't have time to reevaluate, as the game will be gone within 3 months back to about what it was 3-4 years ago. Then its just a slow death. EVE's players are pretty resilient but there are limits, this could well be getting close to it when taken as part of the whole, notice they've been to afraid to post their other change details...
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:14:00 - [1227] Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto Yep the arrogance and keeping the course sure reminds you of SWG. If this impacts the game as much then they won't have time to reevaluate, as the game will be gone within 3 months back to about what it was 3-4 years ago. Then its just a slow death. EVE's players are pretty resilient but there are limits, this could well be getting close to it when taken as part of the whole, notice they've been to afraid to post their other change details... Remind me again how this is like Star Wars Galaxy? CCP is modifying something that didn't even exist prior to 2009, and last time I checked, Eve was feeling quite healthy before then.
Malidia	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:27:00 - [1228] This is only going to end badly, what you are doing is just putting more isk in the pockets of the already rich players as they will have priority over these systems as they tend to have power and control, the average person will lose what now provides him a means of making a decent ammount of isk and enables said person to do what they like in the game therefore keeping it intresting.
Ghengis Yamamoto Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:28:00 - [1229] Edited by: Ghengis Yamamoto on 29/03/2011 02:29:14 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto Yep the arrogance and keeping the course sure reminds you of SWG. If this impacts the game as much then they won't have time to reevaluate, as the game will be gone within 3 months back to about what it was 3-4 years ago. Then its just a slow death. EVE's players are pretty resilient but there are limits, this could well be getting close to it when taken as part of the whole, notice they've been to afraid to post their other change details... Remind me again how this is like Star Wars Galaxy? CCP is modifying something that didn't even exist prior to 2009, and last time I checked, Eve was feeling quite healthy before then. SOE gave promises of several changes to the game before April 2005. They then scrapped all the vetted material that was well received, rewrote the code and released the CU in April 2005. Subscriptions dropped. They once again started talking about things the playerbase wanted, leading them on. Then in November 2005 they revealed the NGE which dramitically changed the game, within 90 days they had lost half their playerbase. The changes were announced 2 weeks before they went live. There was much outcry about them. SOE didn't care, LA didn't care. They glorified themselves and said its this way we are preparing for the new players we'll get, if you don't like it get out. That's what Jon Smedley and Julio Torres told the playerbase, Greyscales arrogance is on the same level. Words can stir folks hearts and have to be chosen more carefully. Smedley and Torres claimed the same that their focus groups and models showed this was the path, they were wrong. The greatest benefactor of SOE's screwup and telling their playerbase they didn't want them was CCP and EVE. Those same 90 days saw EVEs population more than double, many of those people still play EVE. Players will put up with a lot but giving them something and then yanking it away after they've invested so much work into it, kills games. That's what happened with SWG, the changes in April 2005 significantly nerfed several aspects of the game, the changes in November 2005 killed most aspects of the game which also significantly nerfed pvp. There are parallels here, only time will tell if it is as bad. But I would suggest CCP change the tone of their posts, the tone Smedley and Torres used more than anything else is what galvanized the playerbase against SOE and they have never really recovered. No game they've launched since could be considered a success, nor any game they've acquired.
Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:30:00 - [1230] You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server.

zenoph	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:34:00 - [1231] This is the problem with CCP, they jump the gun and implement stupid changes without consideration and then realise it was a dumb mistake later on. For once listen to the players and maybe you can get it right.
Or Well	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:38:00 - [1232] I can has CONCORD killmailz? Srsly. Implement an ingame mechanic to allow players to take out CONCORD SBUs and lower LowSec systems ratings. I'd be down
Ghengis Yamamoto Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:40:00 - [1233] Originally by: Lord Zoran You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server. This
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:43:00 - [1234] Originally by: Kijo Rikki What makes you think it will be worth the effort to take worthless systems that cannot even sustain a small alliance? Two things: - The space has always supported small alliances. - The space will be even better still because it can be upgraded. Quote: What makes you think coalitions will suddenly become less stable? If anything, this looks to strengthen them by forcing allies to cluster closer together. Because you'll have all these people all jammed together trying to run the same PVE content. The space will get over populated, and there will be incidents. Eventually incidents add up and either someone will leave (much more likely they'll be shown the door really) or it'll break out into open warfare. It would hardly be the first time. Quote: With what looks like more time spent in highsec to make the isk necessary for the smaller guys to sustain their war/defense efforts, including jumpclone cooldown and traveltime, what makes you think there will be more conflicts? Ok, sure, some of you 0.0 carebears are going to show your true colors and head back to high sec. We get that. Fine. When current people in space compress and all of the 0.0 "pro elite" carebears head back to high sec, there'll be tons of empty space - space that small alliances are going to snap up and big alliances won't give a ** about - especially areas like Pure Blind, Providence, Cloud/Outer Ring, etc. Quote: I foresee alot more conservatism among the pvpers who will see a reduction in isk in their home systems. Amusingly, lowering the amount of ISK flowing from 0.0 will force the price of everything in Eve down. Quote: Couple with just the fact that when a fight does go down, you're more likely to have available pilots stranded in highsec so even less pvp occurs. You mean the 0.0 pro elite PVPers that all run and hide and dock at the first sign of a red 10 systems out? Yes, great loss I'm sure. Quote: Personally, I foresee alot less pvp for myself, which is sad, I just jumped back into it and its been great for the month I've been back. I've gotten more kills in a month than my entire 3 year career. So you spent 3 years bearing it up, went to 0.0 and got ~30 kills, and now you're telling us about how awesome the PVP in 0.0 is? :yawn: Quote: But I'm not gonna waste my time jumping down to highsec and spending hours grinding level 4 missions to make up for shiplosses, just to travel around vast tracks of deadspace in 0.0 looking for a fight for over an hour before finally finding an engagement that lasts for 5 minutes and has a chance of forcing you to go back to highsec for another day. That's a **ed waste of 15$. I guess its your choice to do it the stupid way. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:43:00 - [1235] Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto Originally by: Lord Zoran You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server. This I don't really think much of your "if you stop coddling me, it will be your downfall!" argument. The game has been growing too easy for too long, and making ship losses sting is an important step in fixing the game's problems. A large part of the game's power creep comes from the smaller stuff being too cheap to bother with.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:47:00 - [1236] Originally by: Spazz21 New Alliances: Even with alliances dropping sov, a new alliance still wouldn't be able to join in without being blue. They'll just get hot dropped by 200 Super Carriers the next day. And why would a small alliance or corp want that system if it ain't worth ***? Would be better off staying in High and do missions/incursions and just do roams into Null. That seems really unlikely considering that the big guys have no reason* to drop 200 supercaps on them. Its much more likely that they'll be faced with 1-2 leeroying supercaps and constant roaming gangs. Actually, sounds a bit like the old Providence come to think of it. Wait, what's that? Providence is one of those worthless places? Interesting. Quote: Compacting Null: If no one is going to use these systems, then those systems are going to be essentially a time delay in travel. If they hold of no to very little value, then CCP might as well delete those systems. I thought the idea of having sov upgrades was to give people more money to buy more stuff so they can blow more stuff up and have more stuff to be blown up. The idea I got from CCP watching Fanfest, they like it when ** blows up. So why compact it into smaller clusters? Seems as CCP is trying to kill off Null then get more people into them. =/ You're wrong. The space simply won't stay empty. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:49:00 - [1237] Originally by: Lord Zoran You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server. It have been just over 1 year. As CCP Greyscale said they've given things time to settle down and find their new equilibrium; now unhappy with the results they are shaking things up. Adapt or die.
Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:49:00 - [1238] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto Originally by: Lord Zoran You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server. This I don't really think much of your "if you stop coddling me, it will be your downfall!" argument. The game has been growing too easy for too long, and making ship losses sting is an important step in fixing the game's problems. A large part of the game's power creep comes from the smaller stuff being too cheap to bother with. Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way.
Ghengis Yamamoto Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:50:00 - [1239] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto Originally by: Lord Zoran You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server. This I don't really think much of your "if you stop coddling me, it will be your downfall!" argument. The game has been growing too easy for too long, and making ship losses sting is an important step in fixing the game's problems. A large part of the game's power creep comes from the smaller stuff being too cheap to bother with. There were fanboys that cheered SOE's changes as well, didn't stop the fact that pulling the rug out from under popular features killed the game combined with the arrogance of the developers and CEOs involved in the decisions there. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:50:00 - [1240] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 02:50:04 Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: CCP Greyscale ... way to be so chicken ** about this topic that you wait until after fanfare so you dont have to look your customers in the eye and tell them you are *ing them. Actually, this was posted during Fanfest: Originally by:* Dev Blog reported by CCP Greyscale \| 2011.03.25 16:36:21 \| Comments Fanfest information says that Fanfest was from March 24-26. Disregarding that many people from Fanfest are still over there, there was still plenty of time for you to go smack a dev if you felt it was problematic. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:53:00 - [1241] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 02:53:19 Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto There were fanboys that cheered SOE's changes as well, didn't stop the fact that pulling the rug out from under popular features killed the game combined with the arrogance of the developers and CEOs involved in the decisions there. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. The NGE changes were designed with the intent of improving revenue by making the game more accessible and desirable. These changes are just the opposite; they will make the game harder. The journey you take to get what you want in Eve is more important than the end itself. The easier it is to get anything, the less you value it. If you're looking for an evening of quick fun, there are a million casual games on the market. I don't play eve for a quick fix; Eve's value is in the long term impact and long haul implications of everyone's actions. The less those actions mean, the less long term appeal eve has.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:55:00 - [1242] Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. I guess you don't play sports. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 02:59:00 - [1243] Edited by: Cyrus Doul on 29/03/2011 03:00:12 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. I guess you don't play sports. -Liang I play sports, that is something that you devote time to so you can have things like getting scouted happen. Pretty sure there's no NHL of EVE. How much your region is getting screwed
Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:00:00 - [1244] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. I guess you don't play sports. -Liang LOL u are comparing internet spaceships to sports?
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:03:00 - [1245] Originally by: Lord Zoran Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. I guess you don't play sports. -Liang LOL u are comparing internet spaceships to sports? Eve is very competitive; a sports comparison is apt.
Mr DurkaDur	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:05:00 - [1246] Originally by: Nurgl3 CCP, "Dont bite the hand that feeds" The people who want to pvp go to 0.0 to PvP and if you want to make things so start alliances are able to break out of highsec make NPC sov space more valuable, make supers less of a "WIN button" and make dreads less of a liability and more of an asset to those same starter allainces (as to the rest of eve) -there is no reason why a super should be able to tank as much as they do while doing that kind of dps any other game tanks and dps are separate departments.. (its for a reason) drop the tank on them and make them rely on outside reps rather than a passive tank. -make dreads tank slightly better while in siege and have a cool down like the titan dd where they cant move and they don't tank as well(or maby atall) as pre siege cycle. again making them rely on outside reps and support to keep them on field.I know dreads going into siege is supposed to be when they are able to get destroyed. but for the sake of the game its time to mix things up cause as it is siege or no siege they die. -make dreads do even more damage to ships greater than carrer's and dreads in size. (sence they dont do much for dps to ships smaller than cap size this would make them more viable as a response to supers and with a slightly buffed(read don't ****ing OP them k thanks) tanks they may beable to take a super down befor a responce is mustered. -think about how supers must be produced... you have to have sov.. and hold it to cook one.. ie if your not already in 0.0 player sov space you have to pay the people you would be fighting to get one... no so much for the war of attrition eh.. AND YES THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS ARE THE POWER BLOCK PILOTS.. Because we understand the implications that this change could bring and when those who are not initiated to SOV warfare begin to move into it. they will see that it is not easy to do if you struggle on the logistical and financial side of it. also idk how CCP thinks this will change things. I do see how this might help a certain alliance gone defunct. codenamed Brother... who recently failed again... by making the changes proposed by CCP greyscale would allow a brother v4 to make another comeback into Eve (is it 4 or 5 now i don't remember) i think its likely that codename brother doesn't want to have to have pets or as many Corps of players to keep happy.(Brother has a history of mistreatment of its band of merry men and associates with no regard of the political circumstance to come from it) by making it harder for large power blocks such as DRF, THE NC, and The Coalition of the unwilling less able to support the player base they do Brother would have a better chance at regrouping (will less pilots and likely no pets) with out the need of political ties to others in the eve community. IE if you don't have to rely on others for help you don't have to play nice with anyone. Brother sucks at politics and Fail cascaded because of bad leadership. i cant wait for Brother v10 (cause they will fail do to leadership more so than conflict.... there is no change that CCP could make to change the way players behave. I Really hope for the sake of EVE that CCP will stop Clowning around and look at thier game engine and infrastructure rather than player base. because you can fix one and still make profit if you jack with us(the player base) you will likely start to loose subscriptions. a This and the now 6+ pages of players (who know this game well) letting you know this is a bad idea. Also the 1,000+ players who spent around $1,000 to be more involved with the development of EVE Online last weekend, were notified of this "expected negative feedback" -CCP Greyscale, right?
Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:10:00 - [1247] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Lord Zoran Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. I guess you don't play sports. -Liang LOL u are comparing internet spaceships to sports? Eve is very competitive; a sports comparison is apt. This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:10:00 - [1248] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:12:15 The Star Wars NGE comparisons are completely baffling. All these 40+ pages of whining are about tweaking a feature that didn't even exist two years ago, because the tweaks will make the game a bit harder. This is utter madness! Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally. Ad Hominem
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:17:00 - [1249] Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally. You really, really, don't want to get into this kind of comparison with me. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:20:00 - [1250] Originally by: Lord Zoran You cant implement something and then just do a complete turn around and remove it. If you had considered the implications properly prior to introducing sanctums etc then it wouldnt have mattered but now 2 years later you realise the error and want to take it away the same way as in a further 2 years down the line you will realise how this was the final straw and caused the decline of your game while you turn off the last server. The world (and the game design team on this game) needs more people with the balls to say, we done ****ed up. We're fixing it, even if it causes butthurt. The power scaling of Eve's endgame and economy is busted. It needs fixing. This is as good as any a first step. Moongoo hopefully is next. I'll take jump bridges after that (not gone, just nerfed). Following that, a good look at capital force projection. I remember when you flew a HAC because it was balls out. It was good, but not so good that you didn't lose one. Losing one hurt. We need that back.

Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:21:00 - [1251] Greyscale seems set in his ways at destroying what 0.0 has become since dominion to roll it back to pre-dominion levels. Sadly they aren't rolling everything back to pre-dominion. SuperCaps are still devastating ways to project power. I don't see "small alliances" holding their own against some of the muscle that has grown of that change. Those of you posting for this change. I ask that you come forward and stop hiding behind alts. Some of you have been posting quite a bit of "oh no big deal I used to make X pre-dominion" from an alt in NPC corps. Show who you really are and who you are aligned with, till then your posts don't hold much weight.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:22:00 - [1252] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 29/03/2011 03:23:11 Originally by: Evelgrivion The journey you take to get what you want in Eve is more important than the end itself. The easier it is to get anything, the less you value it. If you're looking for an evening of quick fun, there are a million casual games on the market. I don't play eve for a quick fix; Eve's value is in the long term impact and long haul implications of everyone's actions. The less those actions mean, the less long term appeal eve has. QFT. We've seen so many vets go inactive lately exactly because the game took this utterly wrong direction of players being fed everything with a silver spoon. Just look around, faction battleships and t3 cruisers everywhere. Supercap spam to the point that you rarely find a 30 man corp that doesnt have one. Battlecruisers the entry level for pvp or you can just get out. People are barely 5 months in game and they fly around in HACs and faction cruisers for pvp, they cant even use t2 turrets yet but afford the ships without trouble. Losses need to sting again, replacing a HAC within 2 hours is completely ridiculous, replacing a faction battleship within two days is ridiculous. Seriously, people will still have the god damn silver spoon in their mouth, just they are so spoiled already that they complain there isnt enough caviar on there so half can be dropped to the floor without a second thought.
Kijo Rikki Caldari Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:22:00 - [1253] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kijo Rikki What makes you think it will be worth the effort to take worthless systems that cannot even sustain a small alliance? Two things: - The space has always supported small alliances. - The space will be even better still because it can be upgraded. upgraded to what? crappy plexes that require running multiple times to make barely enough to cover the cost of a bc? Quote: Because you'll have all these people all jammed together trying to run the same PVE content. The space will get over populated, and there will be incidents. Eventually incidents add up and either someone will leave (much more likely they'll be shown the door really) or it'll break out into open warfare. It would hardly be the first time. fair enough. this moon goo i keep hearing about would probably mean big alliances dont necessarily need to run them. Quote: Ok, sure, some of you 0.0 carebears are going to show your true colors and head back to high sec. We get that. Fine. When current people in space compress and all of the 0.0 "pro elite" carebears head back to high sec, there'll be tons of empty space - space that small alliances are going to snap up and big alliances won't give a ** about - especially areas like Pure Blind, Providence, Cloud/Outer Ring, etc. And uh, what are they gonna do for isk, run the three belts in their crappy systems with 250k rats for hours and hours? Quote: Amusingly, lowering the amount of ISK flowing from 0.0 will force the price of everything in Eve down. We'll have to see if the deflation matches the wage loss so to speak. Quote: Quote: Couple with just the fact that when a fight does go down, you're more likely to have available pilots stranded in highsec so even less pvp occurs. You mean the 0.0 pro elite PVPers that all run and hide and dock at the first sign of a red 10 systems out? Yes, great loss I'm sure. Yeah, so sorry we're not idiots to go up against ya in our ratting ships. Look, when we do the thing, we go for station, bubble it up, and try catching the ratters trying to dock, or we do belt blitzes. So knowing how it works, its no wonder these pro pvp'ers know what to do when you jump in, because we know what you're doing. Quote: Quote: Personally, I foresee alot less pvp for myself, which is sad, I just jumped back into it and its been great for the month I've been back. I've gotten more kills in a month than my entire 3 year career. So you spent 3 years bearing it up, went to 0.0 and got ~30 kills, and now you're telling us about how awesome the PVP in 0.0 is? :yawn: Wow you make lots of assumptions. Do you realize how little I play this game? I played in 0.0 with IAC the first time I played for a few months, then carebeared the second time I reupped my account, again for only a few months. Third time I tried FW for a few months and now on my 4th try I'm back in 0.0. So far this try has been better than the previous 00 and FW combined. Quote:** I guess its your choice to do it the stupid way. -Liang Yeah, I don't feel smart paying for plexes or a second account to be successful at a game.
Stosh Redwood	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:23:00 - [1254] CCP trolled all of you. Happy April Fool's morons.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:32:00 - [1255] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:12:15 The Star Wars NGE comparisons are completely baffling. All these 40+ pages of whining are about tweaking a feature that didn't even exist two years ago, because the tweaks will make the game a bit harder. This is utter madness! Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally. Ad Hominem Is that really an ad hominem though? Liang was the one to say that EVE is comparable to a sport. He was just implying what it takes to be a sport... idk if 14 hours is the best amount of time to practice though... How much your region is getting screwed
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:34:00 - [1256] Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:12:15 The Star Wars NGE comparisons are completely baffling. All these 40+ pages of whining are about tweaking a feature that didn't even exist two years ago, because the tweaks will make the game a bit harder. This is utter madness! Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally. Ad Hominem Is that really an ad hominem though? Liang was the one to say that EVE is comparable to a sport. He was just implying what it takes to be a sport... idk if 14 hours is the best amount of time to practice though... How much your region is getting screwed Yes, its an ad hominem. And yes, Eve is comparable to a sport. And no, it doesn't take 14 hours/day to replace the losses from 1 hour of PVP. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Namoaa	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:35:00 - [1257] Omg this a bad idea. Useless Space is Useless for all players.
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:36:00 - [1258] Yeah, I really hope this is an April Fool's joke. The problem is that I agree with the basic concept of making some space better than other space. The problem is the belief that alliances will start looking for better space. You have to think of this at the individual, corp and alliance level. Let's say you are part of a small corp with sov in one -0.15 system. You've worked hard to get the upgrades in--spending hours scanning for wormholes, pooling isk to get the upgrades in, paying huge amounts of rent and sov bills every month as you work to improve the systems, and struggling daily to keep the military index up as you recruit from highsec with promises of great anoms. Your alliance has meanwhile worked even harder to build an outpost and drop it in the middle of one of its two constellations. Only a couple of the alliance's systems have decent truesec, but again through hard work most systems are upgraded and shared. You fight hard to keep reds out of the systems, and join CTA of your neighboring powerbloc landlord to try to improve your lot further. What's the reaction when all that is taken away by CCP fiat? "Let's go get better space?" "Let's go back to highsec mission running where we can make more isk than any of these systems we worked so hard for?" No, I think it will be just what my reaction is--put your multiple accounts on hold, and maybe, maybe return to Eve someday, maybe not. Please, CCP, stop and say this was an April Fool's joke. Implement changes reducing bad truesec systems slightly, and buffing better truesec, but keep the worst UPGRADED nullsec system better than running level 4s in highsec...
baby cyv	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:38:00 - [1259] bad idea. ccp new nerf op in action?
Abigail La'Fey Gallente Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:43:00 - [1260] As the CEO of a medium size renting corp, I have to say. This idea blows chunks.

Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:45:00 - [1261] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:12:15 The Star Wars NGE comparisons are completely baffling. All these 40+ pages of whining are about tweaking a feature that didn't even exist two years ago, because the tweaks will make the game a bit harder. This is utter madness! Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally. Ad Hominem Is that really an ad hominem though? Liang was the one to say that EVE is comparable to a sport. He was just implying what it takes to be a sport... idk if 14 hours is the best amount of time to practice though... How much your region is getting screwed Yes, its an ad hominem. And yes, Eve is comparable to a sport. And no, it doesn't take 14 hours/day to replace the losses from 1 hour of PVP. -Liang He never said it takes 14 hours to replace the loss. Thats what he believes makes it qualify as a sport. He doesnt fit any of the four types of ad hominem's provided by Evelgrivion's source Abuse doesn't work. he was qualifying the sport, not saying something irrelevant though possibly true to get the audience to agree with him. Circumstantial doesn't work as hes not saying you are disposed to say its a sport because of an action Tu Quoque doesnt work because he already admitted to not playing the 14 hours it takes to qualify as a sport Association maybe works, because some people would say its a sport, and you say its a sport, so you must be some people. But that is usually only used if there is an actual functioning group isn't it?
Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:48:00 - [1262] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:12:15 The Star Wars NGE comparisons are completely baffling. All these 40+ pages of whining are about tweaking a feature that didn't even exist two years ago, because the tweaks will make the game a bit harder. This is utter madness! Originally by: Lord Zoran This does explain why you and liang are so for this change if after all you really want to sit at your computer for 14 hours a day and call it a sport. Most of us have girlfriends and stuff and play EVE recreationally. Ad Hominem Is that really an ad hominem though? Liang was the one to say that EVE is comparable to a sport. He was just implying what it takes to be a sport... idk if 14 hours is the best amount of time to practice though... How much your region is getting screwed Yes, its an ad hominem. And yes, Eve is comparable to a sport. And no, it doesn't take 14 hours/day to replace the losses from 1 hour of PVP. -Liang please explain your reasoning.
Commander Hold	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:51:00 - [1263] I think it easy to say that 90% of the people are trying to tell you ccp, this is a stupit idea. There is some 10% saying this is great. Those 10% most likely live in empire, and have not spent much time in 0.0. 0.0 is expensive not just to hold but to keep safe. One of our systems cost almost 1.1 billion isk to maintain each month. On top of that we have spent massive amount of time to upgrade and keep the system. We have lost a huge amount of ships to reds and neuts. My corp is made up of older players with familys for the most part. We work everyday we spend time with our kids. We dont have time to grind 3 or 4 days for a ship. The cost of minerals have already hit most of us as well as the cost of pos fuel. When trit starts costing you almost 4.0 isk pu costs of ships skyrocket. We need those sactums and havens to keep our space without them our major isk role is gone and there is no point holding low end 0.0. Im here to have fun not grind day in and day out. You take FUN out of a GAME then why play. If this goes through Im pulling my accounts. This is to much and ccp you have finally gone to far, your killing the game.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:56:00 - [1264] Originally by: Commander Hold I think it easy to say that 90% of the people are trying to tell you ccp, this is a stupit idea. There is some 10% saying this is great. Those 10% most likely live in empire, and have not spent much time in 0.0. 0.0 is expensive not just to hold but to keep safe. One of our systems cost almost 1.1 billion isk to maintain each month. On top of that we have spent massive amount of time to upgrade and keep the system. We have lost a huge amount of ships to reds and neuts. My corp is made up of older players with familys for the most part. We work everyday we spend time with our kids. We dont have time to grind 3 or 4 days for a ship. The cost of minerals have already hit most of us as well as the cost of pos fuel. When trit starts costing you almost 4.0 isk pu costs of ships skyrocket. We need those sactums and havens to keep our space without them our major isk role is gone and there is no point holding low end 0.0. Im here to have fun not grind day in and day out. You take FUN out of a GAME then why play. If this goes through Im pulling my accounts. This is to much and ccp you have finally gone to far, your killing the game. Actually, those 10% either already live on the best available space, are goons (ship reposition program) or are alts that can't be traced. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 03:57:00 - [1265] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:57:55 Originally by: Commander Hold I think it easy to say that 90% of the people are trying to tell you ccp, this is a stupit idea. There is some 10% saying this is great. Those 10% most likely live in empire, and have not spent much time in 0.0. 0.0 is expensive not just to hold but to keep safe. One of our systems cost almost 1.1 billion isk to maintain each month. On top of that we have spent massive amount of time to upgrade and keep the system. We have lost a huge amount of ships to reds and neuts. My corp is made up of older players with familys for the most part. We work everyday we spend time with our kids. We dont have time to grind 3 or 4 days for a ship. The cost of minerals have already hit most of us as well as the cost of pos fuel. When trit starts costing you almost 4.0 isk pu costs of ships skyrocket. We need those sactums and havens to keep our space without them our major isk role is gone and there is no point holding low end 0.0. Im here to have fun not grind day in and day out. You take FUN out of a GAME then why play. If this goes through Im pulling my accounts. This is to much and ccp you have finally gone to far, your killing the game. Is your small sovereign group existing independent of one of the main 0.0 sovereignty holding power blocks? Unless you're not playing by the blues game, these sovereignty issues don't hold much merit. Work on finding a better agreement, find a larger group to broaden the spread of sovereignty costs, or change play styles. If all you're in it for is to say "I have sovereignty to farm sanctums in," I see a fundamental issue in your pursuits; why are you doing it, besides to make money for the perceived fun of seeing your wallet blink upwards? Moreover, 1.1 billion a month is not much money, in the grand scheme of things.
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:03:00 - [1266] Look, if CCP nerfs your favorite ship that makes you sad. If CCP makes the space you live in more valuable and so other players come in and steal it from you, that makes you sad but it's part of the brutal Eve life. If CCP took space you were living in and made it less valuable, that would annoy you but maybe you'd move. The issue here is that if CCP takes space you spent huge amounts of isk and hours of time to upgrade and makes it worthless (and make no mistake, due to lameness of hub and below anoms those systems will be empty) then you wonder why you are spending time and money here.
Ghostscorpion	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:03:00 - [1267] CCP, THIS IS A STUPID IDEA
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:06:00 - [1268] Originally by: Commander Hold If this goes through Im pulling my accounts. This is to much and ccp you have finally gone to far, your killing the game. It isn't killing the game, it is (hopefully) killing your carebear playstyle.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:06:00 - [1269] CCP have just heavily boosted the NC, the drone regions and nerfed everywhere else. Then they, in their utter stupidity, claim this will cause conflict. A few years ago it didn't cause conflict and it won't cause conflict now. But CCP don't know anything about the game, so, they don't remember. Also CCP don't remember how many people played EVE four years ago. They want to remember that again. Brace for NGE, CCP's utter contempt for the CSM and the players will only lead to the death of the game.
Tepanyaki	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:12:00 - [1270] Hmm. I don't reply to game design issues much, as I really like Eve. This one though made me think a bit. I'm pretty sure that people who live at a certain income level will want to maintain that. Many PvP players shoot at bounty generating NPCs in order to make ISK, because it's an easy transition to PvP from that sort of PvE activity. So the question will become: How do I maintain my current income level in the face of the changes? I fear the answer is to leave 0.0 space and mission in high sec space. The consequence of that is to remove players from their 0.0 clones and take them into safe mission running, where they can only jump back out every 24 hours. It is a whole different game from docking up, grabbing a PvP ship and going after marauders in your space. Secondly, I don't believe this will be a buff to mining. Mining assumes protected space to mine in, and if large numbers of folks depart 0.0 to run missions, the miners will be vulnerable. Tanks on mining ships have not gotten any bigger, so the light, fast marauders directed by a cloaky scout will find them easy prey. So much for an alliance starting out. Of course, some alliances will move. But to do so, they will have to cut unfavorable deals with the alliances suddenly "blessed" with the good space. That will not sit well with the general 0.0 population, I'll bet. Finally, if CCP is truly confident in this change, come up to the board and show your work. Where are the numbers to back this up? The last statement by CCP indicated an almost patronizing confidence in knowledge not held by the player base. I grant that, but would also stipulate that the wisdom of many thousands of testers will quickly find the flaws in most any plan. In other words, if you know something we don't, please sing out. I'm certain you would have a rapt audience.

mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:13:00 - [1271] hmm... so... it's confirmed? Time for everyone to pile back out of 0.0 and quit the game? CCP has just laid a big "** you" out there. If CCP's going to continue to say " you" and render so many peoples' hard work useless, I'm not sure how badly I want to keep giving them my money. Guess what folks, EVE is being divided into 2 games. Supercaps online and lvl 4's online. You want any other game, you can just ** off. When does SWTOR come out again?
Lynn Deniera Caldari The Foreign Legion Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:18:00 - [1272] Quote: * Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec quoting for future reference - carry on.
Garrix LaCrioux	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:22:00 - [1273] Originally by: UniqueOne Originally by: oldmanst4r Originally by: Liang Nuren stuff I honestly only see one outcome. 1. Large coalitions will immediately seize all space that can be upgraded decently in order to support their gigantic whining member bases. 2. Everyone who comes to 0.0 will join the power-blocs because they are the only alliances who have upgraded systems with decent trusec stats. 3. CCP will declare 0.0 carebear land and add CONCORD protection because everyone is NAPed. I invite anyone to refute these points. So nothing is going to change then? um.... CONCORD protection.... i mean CONCORD "protection"
Shuckstar Gallente Hauling hogs	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:28:00 - [1274] Shocker CCP Greyscale never been to null sec and about to ruin 0.0, oh well back to lvl4 missions to pay for pvp ships to use in null sec Get a clue ccp before you ruin the game completely. You are going to fast! Wait five minutes and try again.
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:28:00 - [1275] Originally by: Lord Zoran please explain your reasoning. He's just a troll. He doesn't have a sense of logic and reason. Btw, his biggest argument in this discussion is that he's a CEO of a lowsec pirate corp with description "PVP corp. Deep lowsec/NPC 0.0. No Sov Bull****." That, my friend, makes him an expert in the field of nullsec life and game economy.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:30:00 - [1276] Well... 1. "0.0 has to few people so lets make the crap part of it livable" 2. "0.0 has to little conflict so lets make the crap parts of it crap again" 3. "where did all the people go?" There will be no more space for the "new small alliances" with this change than there is today. Powerblocs and coalitions won't be affected and unless you are removing the ability to field uneven numbers/gear with the defenders nothing will change with the ability for the larger ones to demand rent. Basically what is going to be done is a nerf to small alliance viability as renters (only thing open for most of us sadly). Nothing else will be acomplished by this. As for the argument they are removing something that wasnt' there before. True. But 0.0 population is A LOT higher now than it was pre dominion since you can actually support a small alliance in 2-3 systems. With this change you will need 6-8 systems for a 1-200 man alliance.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:45:00 - [1277] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Originally by: Lord Zoran please explain your reasoning. He's just a troll. He doesn't have a sense of logic and reason. Btw, his biggest argument in this discussion is that he's a CEO of a lowsec pirate corp with description "PVP corp. Deep lowsec/NPC 0.0. No Sov Bull**." That, my friend, makes him an expert in the field of nullsec life and game economy. Ah yes, I justify my posts and somehow I have no sense of logic or reason. What's that? Someone's taking away your silver spoon and you're going back to empire to carebear it up? Sounds about right tbqfh. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:48:00 - [1278] Edited by: Galerak on 29/03/2011 04:56:30 Edited by: Galerak on 29/03/2011 04:56:01 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Ghengis Yamamoto Originally by: Lord Zoran I don't really think much of your "if you stop coddling me, it will be your downfall!" argument. The game has been growing too easy for too long, and making ship losses sting is an important step in fixing the game's problems. A large part of the game's power creep comes from the smaller stuff being too cheap to bother with. I think this is the first piece of actual insight from the supporters of this change. However the large alliances who make the majority of their profits from moon materials will afford to be able to replace their pilots ships while the small alliances will not. I highly doubt this will cause a significant impact in either ship prices or the game's long term problems, specifically the stagnation of 0.0 due to huge power blocks. Either way time will tell. Certainly increasing the value of a system based on it's true sec status is a good idea. Striping the majority of 0.0 of the income individual pilots use to replace ships and stay competitive and active in 0.0 combat is not.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:48:00 - [1279] Originally by: Liang Nuren Two things: - The space has always supported small alliances. - The space will be even better still because it can be upgraded. Bull**. -Head to NPC sov where there are no stations or upgrades and tell me how many people are living there compared to any other sov space. - is , even if one stinks slightly less than the other. Sounds really exciting to get to pay billions per month for the privleage of lvl 3 mission income. Quote:** Because you'll have all these people all jammed together trying to run the same PVE content. The space will get over populated, and there will be incidents. Eventually incidents add up and either someone will leave (much more likely they'll be shown the door really) or it'll break out into open warfare. It would hardly be the first time. Just like people are jammed together in NPC 0.0? People will be moving to highsec, because nobody's going to pay billions of isk to upgrade sov to lvl 3 mission income. Or if they do they will realize they sold their souls to CCP to be ** on and cancel their accounts. Quote:** Ok, sure, some of you 0.0 carebears are going to show your true colors and head back to high sec. We get that. Fine. When current people in space compress and all of the 0.0 "pro elite" carebears head back to high sec, there'll be tons of empty space - space that small alliances are going to snap up and big alliances won't give a ** about - especially areas like Pure Blind, Providence, Cloud/Outer Ring, etc. That's ing stupid. There will be no room for small alliances in 0.0 because the regions you are listing might as well be completely removed from the game. They will have no value. And saying "I've got my toys so you can't have any" is a ing *** thing to say. And to say the way anyone else plays the game is wrong is an *** thing to say. Seriously, who the do you think you are? Quote: More *** drivel about how there is only 1 right way to play the game, and if you don't own a R64 moon it's your own fault and you should just kill yourself. This is one of the stupidest ing moves CCP will ever make. I cancelled my accounts once because of CCP's dumbass drama bull, and resubbed when it looked like CCP might actually give a ** about the people who are sending their kids to college. CCP, you might claim to give cheaters 3 strikes, but you will only get 2. If I have to cancel my accounts again, it's permanent. It's pretty safe to say the same will be true for everyone else being forced out of 0.0.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 04:57:00 - [1280] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 04:59:30 I really don't understand why you guys are discussing anything with Liang. It's a troll that intends to troll only. It probably lives somewhere in the Drone regions or the NC and is seeing its own income boosted, while everyone else is getting nerfed even more. The sports comparison shows Liang is just as clueless as CCP. It is supporting the changing of the rules so one side gets a heavy boost while everyone else is burdened with crippling handicaps. If Liang wanted wars it'd propagate the nerfing of the NC moons, but it's not. It's only for nerfing everyone else's income. Again, Liang is an NC troll, ignore it. Here's what a corp member showed me. Apparantly it's from some other forum. It's a really good representation of what's going to happen. Link: 0.0 After CCP anomaly change. CCP are bankers: boost the wealthy, screw the poor.

Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:00:00 - [1281] anyone who disagrees with the carebears/NC is a troll, grub, child molester etc.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:00:00 - [1282] Originally by: Galerak Originally by: Evelgrivion I don't really think much of your "if you stop coddling me, it will be your downfall!" argument. The game has been growing too easy for too long, and making ship losses sting is an important step in fixing the game's problems. A large part of the game's power creep comes from the smaller stuff being too cheap to bother with. I think this is the first piece of actual insight from the supporters of this change. However the large alliances who make the majority of their profits from moon materials will afford to be able to replace their pilots ships while the small alliances will not. I highly doubt this will cause a significant impact in either ship prices or the game's long term problems, specifically the stagnation of 0.0 due to huge power blocks. Either way time will tell. Certainly increasing the value of a system based on it's true sec status is a good idea. Striping the majority of 0.0 of the income individual pilots use to replace ships and stay competitive and active in 0.0 combat is not. Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:04:00 - [1283] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat anyone who disagrees with the carebears/NC is a troll, grub, child molester etc. Not living in the north and farming for PLEX makes me a carebear. Those stupid carebears, going to work earn a wage so they can pay for their game time. CCP should write their employer and have their income cut Bad troll is really good at saying stupid things.
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:05:00 - [1284] Edited by: oldmanst4r on 29/03/2011 05:05:58 Originally by: Liang Nuren Your point #1 confirms their goals: - Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space - 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) It implies: - People will all bunch up in a few overcrowded systems. - Vast tracts of space will be empty. - Big guys will immediately smash a bunch of small guys to seize the best systems. - Small alliances will come take space that is now vacant, and the "big guys" aren't too interested in this space. This confirms: - Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec - Coalitions will be marginally less stable - In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals They aren't going to start looking for better space, they are going to instantly seize any of the good space they don't have. The idea that there will be all this empty space is ridiculous. Have you been in 0.0 lately?? There aren't that many fully upgraded military systems now, yet most alliances still hold huge tracts of sov that they don't use, or only use for moon mining. That won't change. The only difference will be, that in what unclaimed space there is, new alliances won't be able to make any money. Because they won't be able to make any money, they will simply get smashed by gigantic roaming gangs of bored NAPers, won't be able to replace their ships, and so will leave or join a coalition. Newer alliances will have a harder time getting a foothold in null AND things won't change for the coalitions. Why? Because their are more overall frigging anoms. They will just do all their farming in the low tru sec sytems with a bajillion anoms and it won't have any effect, whatsoever on their strategic systems. They aren't going to move their strategic systems closer to the low trusec systems which they already own and farm anyway. In fact the only difference will be that the average coalition member will, in fact, be RICHER than before, because he'll be able to pop into the 10 sanctum/haven area and farm his ass off. Which brings me to my next point: Originally by: Liang Nuren Your point #2 confirms: - Nothing. We aren't going to have 10000 people in one system running anoms. Thus, it isn't realistically going to happen. I never said anything about 10000 people running anoms in one system. I said that every player who wants to move to 0.0 will have a choice, join the NAPfest and be able to comfortably make money and pvp the masochists. Or join the masochists, be poor, and spend all your isk pvping infinite-isk NAPfests with no way to replace your ships outside of jump-cloning to high-sec and running missions in Motsu all day! Guess what most will choose??? Originally by: Liang Nuren Your point #3 confirms: - Nothing. It's complete bull**. It was a joke. Train reading comprehension to II please. Originally by:** CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:06:00 - [1285] Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. The billions a month R64's earned a few years ago were a figment of our imagination You haven't been playing long, that is obvious.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:08:00 - [1286] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. The billions a month R64's earned a few years ago were a figment of our imagination You haven't been playing long, that is obvious. Those billions didn't come out of nowhere. I'm not saying that holding a moon isn't a path to getting a lot of money, I'm just saying that the money that pays for the moon materials comes from faucet sources like ratting and mission running.
Prijan Zhodane	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:08:00 - [1287] A wonderful failure... It's unfortunate that you are so out of touch with the game CCP. I find it hard to believe you can't see that this type of change will lead to vast tracks of useless space, more bots and completely exclude new alliances who don't have much capital. No longer will they be able to afford to move into nullsec as the only space open to them will be non-haven/sanctum space therefore upgrading and doing anything with your failed sovereignty mechanics will be un-needed and a drain on isk to impliment. All my accounts have been cancelled, unfortunate it ends this way CCP. You basically have told the community that you no longer care what our opinions are, perhaps the drop in income will tell you about how much a failure this is. I would strongly recommend that you reconsider this, this was one game that I always enjoyed playing as it was always new and different and the devs actually cared about the community. Now you've proven that you'd rather throw the majority of the 0.0 community under the bus in favor of more bots, macros and highsec mission *****s that never go into 0.0 You used to say how you wanted to populate 0.0, this change will cause a mass exodus from 0.0. Truly unfortunate...
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:11:00 - [1288] Originally by: Prijan Zhodane A wonderful failure... It's unfortunate that you are so out of touch with the game CCP. I find it hard to believe you can't see that this type of change will lead to vast tracks of useless space, more bots and completely exclude new alliances who don't have much capital. No longer will they be able to afford to move into nullsec as the only space open to them will be non-haven/sanctum space therefore upgrading and doing anything with your failed sovereignty mechanics will be un-needed and a drain on isk to impliment. All my accounts have been cancelled, unfortunate it ends this way CCP. You basically have told the community that you no longer care what our opinions are, perhaps the drop in income will tell you about how much a failure this is. I would strongly recommend that you reconsider this, this was one game that I always enjoyed playing as it was always new and different and the devs actually cared about the community. Now you've proven that you'd rather throw the majority of the 0.0 community under the bus in favor of more bots, macros and highsec mission ****s that never go into 0.0 You used to say how you wanted to populate 0.0, this change will cause a mass exodus from 0.0. Truly unfortunate... In the long run, it might be better to not* have more people in 0.0. It will mean fewer people to join large scale blobs, and it will reduce the number of non-combatant money grinders whose activities exacerbate the cash and material influx problem that's been worsening for the last few years.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:12:00 - [1289] The only ones leaving 0.0 will be carebears who didn't and couldn't fight for their space anyway. They belong in high sec (although they still have access to "end game" content if they want it).
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:13:00 - [1290] Originally by: mkmin Originally by: Liang Nuren Two things: - The space has always supported small alliances. - The space will be even better still because it can be upgraded. Bull**. -Head to NPC sov where there are no stations or upgrades and tell me how many people are living there compared to any other sov space. - is , even if one ** stinks slightly less than the other. Sounds really exciting to get to pay billions per month for the privleage of lvl 3 mission income. Comments: - What's that? There's small alliances there? That confirms exactly what I just said? God forbid. - If you got L3 income while you were in NPC sov 0.0, you were doing it very wrong. Quote: That's **ing stupid. There will be no room for small alliances in 0.0 because the regions you are listing might as well be completely removed from the game. They will have no value. And saying "I've got my toys so you can't have any" is a ing *** thing to say. And to say the way anyone else plays the game is wrong is an *** thing to say. Seriously, who the do you think you are? You are flat wrong. The space will not stand empty. It never has, and it never will. Quote: Rage and poor reading comprehension Not gonna bother responding to it. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:15:00 - [1291] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 05:16:46 Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!) B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums) C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now) D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now) E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now) Code: \| Region \| A \| B \| C \| D \| E \| \| \|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------\| \| The Spire \| 3 \| 9 \| 28 \| 18 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Cobalt Edge \| 7 \| 19 \| 19 \| 10 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Malpais \| 8 \| 22 \| 27 \| 34 \| 11 \| DRF (d) \| \| Perrigen Falls \| 4 \| 9 \| 39 \| 42 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Etherium Reach \| 6 \| 13 \| 37 \| 34 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| The Kalevala Expanse \| 6 \| 16 \| 19 \| 17 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| I would like to remind you all. CCP are REALLY HEAVILY boosting drone regions. Area's totally getting ****d by CCP: \| Immensea \| 20 \| 29 \| 26 \| 9 \| 0 \| DRF \| \| Wicked Creek \| 22 \| 38 \| 15 \| 7 \| 0 \| DRF \| \| Tribute \| 27 \| 14 \| 6 \| 7 \| 0 \| NC \| \| Impass \| 21 \| 19 \| 7 \| 3 \| 0 \| CAAASEROL \| \| Cloud Ring \| 8 \| 2 \| 0 \| 1 \| 0 \| NC/DC \| \| Fade \| 2 \| 20 \| 5 \| 0 \| 0 \| NC \| \| Providence \| 68 \| 12 \| 0 \| 0 \| 0 \| Ev0ke \| \| Pure Blind \| 58 \| 5 \| 0 \| 0 \| 0 \| NC/DC \| Fade, Providence and Pure Blind...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:16:00 - [1292] Originally by: Super Whopper I really don't understand why you guys are discussing anything with Liang. It's a troll that intends to troll only. It probably lives somewhere in the Drone regions or the NC and is seeing its own income boosted, while everyone else is getting nerfed even more. Yes, just because I don't agree with you I must be a troll. The reason they're arguing is because they feel the need to lash out. /shrug Quote: The sports comparison shows Liang is just as clueless as CCP. It is supporting the changing of the rules so one side gets a heavy boost while everyone else is burdened with crippling handicaps. Your complaint quite justifies my comparison with sports. You wouldn't complain so much if Eve weren't so competitive. Quote: If Liang wanted wars it'd propagate the nerfing of the NC moons, but it's not. It's only for nerfing everyone else's income. Again, Liang is an NC troll, ignore it. What? I've complained about that numerous times. But, that has nothing at all to do with this change. It is a separate issue. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:17:00 - [1293] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 05:18:54 Originally by: Super Whopper Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!) B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums) C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now) D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now) E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now) Code: \| Region \| A \| B \| C \| D \| E \| \| \|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------\| \| The Spire \| 3 \| 9 \| 28 \| 18 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Cobalt Edge \| 7 \| 19 \| 19 \| 10 \| 14 \| DRF (d) \| \| Malpais \| 8 \| 22 \| 27 \| 34 \| 11 \| DRF (d) \| \| Perrigen Falls \| 4 \| 9 \| 39 \| 42 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| Etherium Reach \| 6 \| 13 \| 37 \| 34 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| \| The Kalevala Expanse \| 6 \| 16 \| 19 \| 17 \| 10 \| DRF (d) \| I would like to remind you all. CCP are REALLY HEAVILY boosting drone regions. Unlike the basic premise of the Sanctum nerf, this is something of a massive problem. The drone regions are the worst source of second hand materials of all, and are the single biggest enabler of modern super capital spam. To make sure things don't get thrown thoroughly out of whack, a massive truesec nerf will be needed in the Drone Regions. Whats more, the entire premise of the Drone Regions needs to be rethought. There are too many minerals coming out of that chunk of space, which is widely believed to be predominantly controlled by RMT elements. Supercapitals are one of the most popular purchase items for people who actually buy things with cash for Eve.
Prijan Zhodane	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:18:00 - [1294] Originally by: Evelgrivion In the long run, it might be better to not have more people in 0.0. It will mean fewer people to join large scale blobs, and it will reduce the number of non-combatant money grinders whose activities exacerbate the cash and material influx problem that's been worsening for the last few years. Except this is against the PR that CCP was dishing out a few months back, they WANT the massive 1000v1000 man fights, they did ad campaigns on massive ship fights and why EVE is so good, despite it all being laggy as hell even if the node was ref'd. The non-combatant money grinders, I assume you're meaning the bots and macro ratters, tbh this will have no effect on them, they run belts, they don't do anoms. This change won't hurt them the slightest and the issue of inflation will still be there after CCP lays waste to nullsec.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:20:00 - [1295] Originally by: Prijan Zhodane Originally by: Evelgrivion In the long run, it might be better to not have more people in 0.0. It will mean fewer people to join large scale blobs, and it will reduce the number of non-combatant money grinders whose activities exacerbate the cash and material influx problem that's been worsening for the last few years. Except this is against the PR that CCP was dishing out a few months back, they WANT the massive 1000v1000 man fights, they did ad campaigns on massive ship fights and why EVE is so good, despite it all being laggy as hell even if the node was ref'd. The non-combatant money grinders, I assume you're meaning the bots and macro ratters, tbh this will have no effect on them, they run belts, they don't do anoms. This change won't hurt them the slightest and the issue of inflation will still be there after CCP lays waste to nullsec. I'm not so sure that they don't run anomolies, and I've never been a fan of hyper-blobbing. CCP's PR statements may say it's desirable, but as a player, they are not what I want.
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:24:00 - [1296] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 03:57:55 Originally by: Commander Hold I think it easy to say that 90% of the people are trying to tell you ccp, this is a stupit idea. There is some 10% saying this is great. Those 10% most likely live in empire, and have not spent much time in 0.0. 0.0 is expensive not just to hold but to keep safe. One of our systems cost almost 1.1 billion isk to maintain each month. On top of that we have spent massive amount of time to upgrade and keep the system. We have lost a huge amount of ships to reds and neuts. My corp is made up of older players with familys for the most part. We work everyday we spend time with our kids. We dont have time to grind 3 or 4 days for a ship. The cost of minerals have already hit most of us as well as the cost of pos fuel. When trit starts costing you almost 4.0 isk pu costs of ships skyrocket. We need those sactums and havens to keep our space without them our major isk role is gone and there is no point holding low end 0.0. Im here to have fun not grind day in and day out. You take FUN out of a GAME then why play. If this goes through Im pulling my accounts. This is to much and ccp you have finally gone to far, your killing the game. Is your small sovereign group existing independent of one of the main 0.0 sovereignty holding power blocks? Unless you're not playing by the blues game, these sovereignty issues don't hold much merit. Work on finding a better agreement, find a larger group to broaden the spread of sovereignty costs, or change play styles. If all you're in it for is to say "I have sovereignty to farm sanctums in," I see a fundamental issue in your pursuits; why are you doing it, besides to make money for the perceived fun of seeing your wallet blink upwards? Moreover, 1.1 billion a month is not much money, in the grand scheme of things. 1.1b will be soon if you live in any border region. Imagine trying to belt rat that. Lvl 4 missions pay more. Joy. I'm slightly confused about the carebear comments on this thread. If you don't carebear, how do you buy ships? Not through moon Goo as this goes towards ship reimbursment and paying for system up keep.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:24:00 - [1297] Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails.
Killin Kittens	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:27:00 - [1298] Well, with Greyscale's official "meh, we're doing this because we're excited to ** our paying customers" attitude, two of my subscriptions are now reduced to one month instead of the 6 months they were at... I'm curious if they are going to come to their senses is all. That and I need time to get things in order to transfer this $hit to some masochist that's actually going to stay and do the level 4 cheesegrater masterbation routine. (you know... mildly amusing... but mostly painful). Personally, I would rather be out PVP'ing in 0.0 but if all I have is 5mil per hub to pay for replacement gear... screw that... more time on the grind for less PVP action? Why am I paying for that? I could have the same fun for free slamming my fingers in a door. The third account I had in the oven has been flat out canceled. No sense paying more money to a game developer if their attitude is "we love screwing our players and refining the grind for the little fish!" And I know there's going to be the moron's that say "fine, leave. you're not doing it right then" or "go take better space!". Those opinions are great... if you're one of the larger corps that don't give a rats ass about changes like these. Your income has always been secure... and is still secure with these changes as you still have the good systems under your sov. But unless my 40 man corp can somehow turn against and convince/defeat the alliance holding that good territory to give it up to us... there is little else for resources out in 0.0 now that makes financial sense to continue PVP. Oh... and by the results from some of the last battles with titan's and supercarrier pop action with 400+ crusier's and support vessels in tow... our 40 man group has really good odds at challenging those corps that hold the good territory... so don't be stupid and say "just go take better space". I might as well make the Easter Bunny grow ... it takes the same amount of magic and it's more amusing. Let's paint the big picture. My starting corp was brought out with the changes CCP put out there... they wanted more "little guys" out there to fight. We came... we upgraded our rented space from one of the big guys so they wouldn't ritan squish us... we spent billions, and we're PVP fighting... having a good time. CCP comes in and says... "hmmm... not enough fighting, we don't care what time and resources you've spent... that's not our concern... you have to move and fight... with less cash now... this is exciting for us to watch!" So... we as a paying player base say... "sure CCP... we're sorry we didn't fight enough. We could have fought with more if we weren't spending billions on upgrades and production and making replacement ships... you know, all the stuff you created to get us out here... putting up with the crap POS action and shoddy UI... but now we have to move again... leave all this behind and do it again... in "better" space because you've made it that way and that's what you want to see." If we do this... but we don't get it right, the results you wanted don't happen... you'll nerf it again... you'll ** us excitedly and bring out something else that will amuse you to watch... We'll be expected to comply... because you made it that way, or die... you don't care... this is exciting isn't it? Just a little change and hundreds of hours of effort is worthless... gamers like it when hours of work and effort is made worthless... that makes them happy... we know... we projected it! This will be fun won't it? Who's playing who? And I'm paying for this? I've done the grind. I've made and spent my personal billions in this game and I see how CCP works now. All BS, no evidence to back the BS with... ignore the player base... so exciting! Well... I'm excited to say my cash will be leaving for some other game system if these changes go through. I'm not about to do more grind for the stuff I want to do. I wonder if the dev's have a subscription fee they pay to play and screw with us?
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:31:00 - [1299] Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point. This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires. Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted. Originally by: CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:33:00 - [1300] Originally by: oldmanst4r Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point. This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires. Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted. There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:33:00 - [1301] Originally by: Galerak Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails. I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff. Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation.
Prijan Zhodane	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:36:00 - [1302] Originally by: Killin Kittens Well, with Greyscale's official "meh, we're doing this because we're excited to ** our paying customers" attitude, two of my subscriptions are now reduced to one month instead of the 6 months they were at... I'm curious if they are going to come to their senses is all. That and I need time to get things in order to transfer this $hit to some masochist that's actually going to stay and do the level 4 cheesegrater masterbation routine. (you know... mildly amusing... but mostly painful). Personally, I would rather be out PVP'ing in 0.0 but if all I have is 5mil per hub to pay for replacement gear... screw that... more time on the grind for less PVP action? Why am I paying for that? I could have the same fun for free slamming my fingers in a door. The third account I had in the oven has been flat out canceled. No sense paying more money to a game developer if their attitude is "we love screwing our players and refining the grind for the little fish!" And I know there's going to be the moron's that say "fine, leave. you're not doing it right then" or "go take better space!". Those opinions are great... if you're one of the larger corps that don't give a rats ass about changes like these. Your income has always been secure... and is still secure with these changes as you still have the good systems under your sov. But unless my 40 man corp can somehow turn against and convince/defeat the alliance holding that good territory to give it up to us... there is little else for resources out in 0.0 now that makes financial sense to continue PVP. Oh... and by the results from some of the last battles with titan's and supercarrier pop action with 400+ crusier's and support vessels in tow... our 40 man group has really good odds at challenging those corps that hold the good territory... so don't be stupid and say "just go take better space". Let's paint the big picture. My starting corp was brought out with the changes CCP put out there... they wanted more "little guys" out there to fight. We came... we upgraded our rented space from one of the big guys so they wouldn't ritan squish us... we spent billions, and we're PVP fighting... having a good time. CCP comes in and says... "hmmm... not enough fighting, we don't care what time and resources you've spent... that's not our concern... you have to move and fight... with less cash now... this is exciting for us to watch!" So... we as a paying player base say... "sure CCP... we're sorry we didn't fight enough. We could have fought with more if we weren't spending billions on upgrades and production and making replacement ships... you know, all the stuff you created to get us out here... putting up with the crap POS action and shoddy UI... but now we have to move again... leave all this behind and do it again... in "better" space because you've made it that way and that's what you want to see." If we do this... but we don't get it right, the results you wanted don't happen... you'll nerf it again... you'll ** us excitedly and bring out something else that will amuse you to watch... We'll be expected to comply... because you made it that way, or die... you don't care... this is exciting isn't it? Just a little change and hundreds of hours of effort is worthless... gamers like it when hours of work and effort is made worthless... that makes them happy... we know... we projected it! This will be fun won't it? Who's playing who? And I'm paying for this? I've done the grind. I've made and spent my personal billions in this game and I see how CCP works now. All BS, no evidence to back the BS with... ignore the player base... so exciting! Well... I'm excited to say my cash will be leaving for some other game system if these changes go through. I'm not about to do more grind for the stuff I want to do. I wonder if the dev's have a subscription fee they pay to play and screw with us? ^this
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:36:00 - [1303] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: oldmanst4r Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point. This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires. Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted. There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players. -Liang Reduced cash flow is an equal opportunity molester of power blocks both large and small. The big alliances will be affected by these changes in the same way the smaller ones are; each member will have to put out more effort to make ISK if they don't have access to sanctums.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:40:00 - [1304] wow... Threadnaught! First let me make it clear that I barely if ever run anoms, and never because I need the income. I have plenty of ISK coming in from other (all legit) means, and my alliance has access to some of the best truesec around, so these changes will actually benefit me significantly. I'm in two minds about the changes, because nullsec should be harsh. I can see that a lot of space (ie low value) will become uninhabited like it was before, so there will be a lot more 'wilderness' space to hide in again, rather than the urban sprawl that has come out of Dominion. But I still have a couple of major concerns as I will detail below: This will remove large ISK Drains, which will cause inflation. Player/Dev contract Point 1. IHub upgrades and Sov bills are a major ISK drain that takes cash out of the economy. If it is no longer economically viable to upgrade ~45% of nullsec (anything between 0.0 and -0.25), players will either chose not to or go bankrupt. If, as CCP Greyscale has said, there would be the same amount of worthwhile anomolies that are concentrated around low truesec, theortically the same amount of ISK will be coming into the economy. So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad. Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me). My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point. The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community. On a seperate note, I'd like to point out to the NC haters who are saying that "it's just the NC carebears who are complaining" that ev0ke, -A-, NC., Intrepid Crossing, Solar Wing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC, but all have members expressing their concern/disapproval of these changes for a multitude of reasons.
Sexy Mirkin	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:42:00 - [1305] Simply judging by the massive emorage displayed here proves this is a good idea. Sure big alliances don't depend on anomalies but lots of individual pilots have come to depend on them. This will serve to destabilize current structures proven by all the people whining. If they can't make the isk they need where they are they may have to move somewhere where they can. People leaving corps and alliances enmasse, or corp or alliances themselves attempting to move is obviously destabilizing. Anything that hurts the blob, and encourages smaller gang pvp is a good thing. I fully support these changes, CCP is finally taking steps in the right direction.
Sexy Mirkin	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:44:00 - [1306] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: oldmanst4r Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point. This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires. Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted. There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players. -Liang coalitions are made up of players, therefore weakening the players weakens the coalition.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:47:00 - [1307] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Galerak Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails. I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff. Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation. Remember what happened to mineral prices when lag got so bad that nobody was fighting? Mineral prices hugged the insurance floor for about a year. This time people will stop fighting because why bother paying sov for something that has less value than highsec? No sov = nothing to defend or raid = no more small gang PVP. Having all of 0.0 upgradeable to be worth MORE than highsec got people out there. More people = more conflict. CCP's too **ing stupid to see that. Wonder how far subscription rates are going to drop with this up compared to the ** up last year, and how many of the people leaving this time will make it permanent.
Schmell Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:47:00 - [1308] Well done. It was bots in 50% of nullsec, now it will be bot in every system
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:49:00 - [1309] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 05:50:51 Originally by: Sexy Mirkin Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: oldmanst4r Actually, I believe I can condense my objections to this change into one point. This change will exacerbate the difference between large coalitions and small alliances because the members of the large coalitions will be able to support themselves from 0.0 pve much better than those who are not. Since all low trusec systems will be only owned by large coalitions you will see a drastic increase in the concentration of anoms within player empires. Therefore, wealth will be even more heavily concentrated in the hands of large null coalitions. This will obviously "weaken" them, as CCP has so prophetically asserted. There is an enormous difference between weakening a coalition and weakening its players. -Liang coalitions are made up of players, therefore weakening the players weakens the coalition. Kinda. While obviously hurting any part of the whole will hurt the whole, killing (or even seriously annoying the whole!) is an entirely different matter. Coalitions are political groups, and nothing is really going to break those political groups except boredom and "social friction" between them. Smashing them all together in a few really awesome regions is one way to increase social friction. And yes, I'm aware that it creates a big gulf between the "haves" and "have nots". But, that gulf has always existed. It always will exist. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:54:00 - [1310] Creating space nobody wants goes a long way towards making sure that power blocks have no vested interest in holding it. However, this doesn't mean a thing if it's easy to make sure that nobody can have it. The force projection nerfs must arrive at the same time.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 05:57:00 - [1311] Originally by: Imigo Montoya wow... Threadnaught! First let me make it clear that I barely if ever run anoms, and never because I need the income. I have plenty of ISK coming in from other (all legit) means, and my alliance has access to some of the best truesec around, so these changes will actually benefit me significantly. I'm in two minds about the changes, because nullsec should be harsh. I can see that a lot of space (ie low value) will become uninhabited like it was before, so there will be a lot more 'wilderness' space to hide in again, rather than the urban sprawl that has come out of Dominion. But I still have a couple of major concerns as I will detail below: This will remove large ISK Drains, which will cause inflation. Player/Dev contract Point 1. IHub upgrades and Sov bills are a major ISK drain that takes cash out of the economy. If it is no longer economically viable to upgrade ~45% of nullsec (anything between 0.0 and -0.25), players will either chose not to or go bankrupt. If, as CCP Greyscale has said, there would be the same amount of worthwhile anomolies that are concentrated around low truesec, theortically the same amount of ISK will be coming into the economy. So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad. Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me). My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point. The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community. On a seperate note, I'd like to point out to the NC haters who are saying that "it's just the NC carebears who are complaining" that ev0ke, -A-, NC., Intrepid Crossing, Solar Wing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC, but all have members expressing their concern/disapproval of these changes for a multitude of reasons. There is a reason why we've seen a drop in players but CCP can't get it through their thick skulls, even when they have an economist working for them, creating all those pretty QEN's.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:02:00 - [1312] Originally by: Super Whopper There is a reason why we've seen a drop in players but CCP can't get it through their thick skulls, even when they have an economist working for them, creating all those pretty QEN's. The CCP economist was an economics teacher. Not an economics policy maker. Fanfest also made it pretty clear that nobody on the developer side listens to him much anyway. And I'd bet money that he doesn't actually play the game. Pretty graphs are neat, but it's looking like the devs that actually play the game must all live in good truesec and spawn their own super caps. Otherwise how could they be so ****ing clueless.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:02:00 - [1313] Originally by: Imigo Montoya So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad. The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system. Quote: Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me). The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole. Quote: My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point. The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community. Two things: - They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it. - Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:03:00 - [1314] Edited by: Darth Gustav on 29/03/2011 06:06:20 Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Sandbox Rules: 1) No micturating in the sandbox. 2) No micturating on the patrons. 3) See rules #1 and rules #2. Once upon a time, CCP called its customers thieves, claiming anybody who took advantage of the Ghost Training TM "bug" was actually stealing from CCP. All this despite marketing propaganda stating this as a "unique feature." Now, the same company that called us thieves is now stealing from many of us. Because that's what this is - just another giant bait and switch. Observe the logic of this comparison: Then Quote: CCP > Once set to train, your character continues to train regardless of whether or not you are subscribed. We think this is a neat feature that will get us a bunch of subscriptions. Come see for yourself. CCP > Nah, we were just kidding. You can't train for free. That was a bug. And really, you were stealing from us anyway, admit it! We won't admit that it was ever a feature, or that this was even mishandled. A threadnaught will form, but we don't really mind. Now CCP > Once upgraded, your system will be just as good as all the other systems, regardless of true sec! This will encourage people to go to nullsec, which our network models indicate will be beneficial to Tranquility. Go ahead, see for yourself! CCP > Nah, we were just kidding. Your junk ass systems can't really support such good ratting. In fact, our network models now show us that there are too many people in nullsec and it was cheating for them all to set each other blue! And, no, you won't get the ISK back for your initial investment. Go ahead, make a civil threadnaught for all we care. This is not a knee-jerk post. I have read this thread, considered the repercussions, cancelled my subscription (citing CCP Greyscale's proposed change as my reason) and carefully crafted this well-thought-out (if I do say so myself) response. GF's while they lasted, fanboys.
HypeRDemoN	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:07:00 - [1315] imho, theres just not enough systems for any kind of change to have any affect.
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:09:00 - [1316] Originally by: Imigo Montoya ... You raise some fair points about the game design aspects of it, but as someone who's paid this sub for nearly 8 years now, its ***ed, and it NEEDS to be fixed. Not just infini*ISK in nullsec. Moons, lvl4s, a bunch of stuff. Less ISK == more fun.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:14:00 - [1317] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale ** civil. Civil isn't making the trillions of isk and thousands of man-hours that the players put into upgrading sov into garbage. Civil isn't saying "wanna go to 0.0? Join an official CCP sponsored alliance. Wanna become an official CCP sponsored alliance? Too ing bad. Wanna rent from one? Too ing bad, there's nothing to rent." Your economist that you ignore all the time said at fanfest that players make better economic predictions than CCP does. No ing wonder if you think this is a good idea. /amazed you didn't use the CCP Nohz troll alt to announce this **-over.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:26:00 - [1318] Originally by: Liang Nuren The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system. I seem to recall something saying that the overall number of high end anoms would stay the same. Either way, large tracts of space that were having ISK thrown down the drain will no longer have that ISK spent. That could very easily tip the Source/Drain balance. Originally by: Liang Nuren The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole. Yes, this is true. However in a game where choices and actions have consequences, changing the consequences of the choices after the action has been taken is a bad idea and will make for a lot of disgruntled players. In the short term this could lead to a massive drop in active players. The long term effects of that could be very perilous, especially considering how much this is a multiplayer game. WoW can have the same appeal on a pirate server with stuff all players because of it's high amounts of static PvE content, but EVE is very much a multiplayer game that needs players to provide content (and is so much better for it). Originally by: Liang Nuren Two things: - They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it. - Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though. -Liang For the ~45% of poor trusec (0.0 to -0.25) they are completely taking that away - people install the expensive ihub upgrades to get havens/sanctums, not the rest of the trash. For the rest of truesec they are modifying it. So the trusec system went from being (pulling numbers out of the air simply to illustrate a point here, bare with me) 70/30 in favour of lower trusec pre-Dominion to being 54/46 instead - poor trusec got the anoms, but not the faction spawns/high grade BS rats in the belts so not entirely even. This change will go to making it 80/20 in favour of good trusec (low trusec now gets better belt rats and more anoms). Wouldn't it be better to ease the change a little so that low end systems get at least some decent anomolies from upgrades (65/35)?
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:30:00 - [1319] Originally by: mkmin Originally by: Super Whopper There is a reason why we've seen a drop in players but CCP can't get it through their thick skulls, even when they have an economist working for them, creating all those pretty QEN's. The CCP economist was an economics teacher. Not an economics policy maker. Fanfest also made it pretty clear that nobody on the developer side listens to him much anyway. And I'd bet money that he doesn't actually play the game. Pretty graphs are neat, but it's looking like the devs that actually play the game must all live in good truesec and spawn their own super caps. Otherwise how could they be so ****ing clueless. Obviously Mr. Economics Teacher knows enough about economics to make purty graphs. These nerfs to the majority of EVE are either because devs are clueless, which means they should be fired, or they're idiots, also should be fired. I think it's a combination of both, which is why they are not discussing it with the CSM and are implementing it without consultation with their players. Once again CCP have proven that the CSM are meaningless. They will discuss AF fourth bonus but not sweeping changes to the game. Thus, they should be FIRED. I honestly hope the CSM refuse to discuss anything but CCP's arrogance and stupidity when they fly to Iceland.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:39:00 - [1320] Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: Corin Nebulon Greyscale you should really ask for someone to handle public relations for you. Your last post really reads like "F*** *ff eve community. We know better then you." Considering the level of maturity displayed by 'the community' in this thread I'd say its pretty amazing that they even bother to respond at all. Its alright to be angry about something that concerns you, but the inability to communicate in a socially acceptable form displayed by a majority in here is simply not acceptable. Being taken seriously does depend a lot on the way you voice your opinion, but thats just my 2 cents. Fuk Ovv

Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:47:00 - [1321] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Galerak Originally by: Evelgrivion Moon Goo is only as valuable as market demand for materials; the reason why Tech 2 Moon Goo is worth so much is because there is high demand for it. It doesn't create any inherent wealth in and of itself. Money ultimately pools into the coffers of industrialists, and moon goo is one of the bigger places it can end up. The net income for moon holders will decrease as the amount of ISK added to the economy shrinks, and a new equilibrium will set in. That being said, I'm not a fan of moons. So the value of t2 materials will go down due to lack of demand for t2 ships. The lack of demand stemming from the INCREASED combat this change is supposed create? Assuming there is a lack of demand from this change, the change itself will have failed in its purpose. If combat does actually increase the demand for t2 ships will remain the same or increase accordingly and thus the profits from moon goo held by the power blocks will remain essentially unchanged. Your logic fails. I never said it would outright increase the amount of combat taking place, but let's assume for a moment that it does. Even if the demand goes up for material, if there's no money out there to pay for it, there will become a cap on how much people can actually pay for the stuff. Tech I stuff will increase in popularity, Jump Freighters will become much more valuable assets, and at the same time, the cost of everything will go down in proportion to the reduced amount of ISK. My logic does not fail - the logic in the posts hasn't list absolutely everything about the subject needed to derive a complete conclusion. At the end of the day, other than the fact that the number of places where you can create extremely large quantities of ISK will be reduced by this change, everything in these threads is pure speculation. You didn't say it... it was in the dev blog as one of the expected consequences. You might start by reading that.
Ado Rotcod	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:53:00 - [1322] Wohoo way to destroy individual players wealth. The big guys will still collect the rent, just more for systems that spawn sanctums and same for all the others and the small guys will have to npc longer to make the same isk or leave there smaller alliances and join one of the big boys. Even bigger blobs and less overall people in nullsec is my guess
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 06:55:00 - [1323] Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:56:15 Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:55:35 Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. Seconded. Difficult = more work. Thats what it means. Thats what all the crapsack world attitude means. Having eve life more difficult is not going to make me fight more pvp, I can tell you that. If I get bored, I will stop subscription. The biggest fail of this CCP plan is that they think this will make alliances fight more over territory..
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:00:00 - [1324] Originally by: Imigo Montoya ...For the ~45% of poor trusec (0.0 to -0.25) they are completely taking that away - people install the expensive ihub upgrades to get havens/sanctums... Which says what about Sanctums exactly? The infinite easy money that the system upgrade represents has injected ludicrous amounts of ISK into the system. Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere. Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance. Would yield a nice real world equivalent of small/few financial centres and a whole swath of agriculture/manufacturing areas. Add ways to disrupt either (no, not AFK cloaking ) and you have scorched earth option, attrition, supply chain breaks and what not (dependent on force projection changes). Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot.
steejans nix Amarr 0beron Construct	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:03:00 - [1325] CCP's way of fixing lag, instead of getting the job done by coding they just reduce the number of people that can afford to fight in the big battles so often, next thing will be a return to the old DD, one push of the button and 200 players die reducing the numbers on grid. Btw another small guy that will prob have to get a alt running lvl 4 or FW missions, if so many of us need to get lvl4 or FW missions to fund 0.0 doesn't that show a inbalance there, if we can't pull the isk needed out of 0.0 to fight for it then it is a sad job, making high sec more worthwhile than a lot of 0.0 has broken the ( already broken) game.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:05:00 - [1326] Originally by: Zey Nadar Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:56:15 Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:55:35 Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. Seconded. Difficult = more work. Thats what it means. Thats what all the crapsack world attitude means. Having eve life more difficult is not going to make me fight more pvp, I can tell you that. If I get bored, I will stop subscription. The biggest fail of this CCP plan is that they think this will make alliances fight more over territory.. Personally I don't have such an issue with difficulty, it's boring grind that I have a problem with. PvE is the boring grind in whatever form it comes in, PvP (which is much more difficult) is the only continually fun aspect of this game.
skewbamatt	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:09:00 - [1327] ^i agree 100%^
Abdiel Kavash Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:20:00 - [1328] CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? --- Originally by: Sporked EVE IS DYING RUN TO THE HILLS! WE MIGHT HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS MMO! THEY MIGHT SHOOT AT US WHILE WE ARE BUSY HOLDING HANDS AND FROLICKING! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
qlko1	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:22:00 - [1329] Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? I agree with that ^
Starkiller Adams Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:24:00 - [1330] Edited by: Starkiller Adams on 29/03/2011 07:24:32 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Imigo Montoya So same ISK coming in, less ISK going out = more ISK in the economy = inflation = bad. The number of potential sanctums is dropping quite dramatically. I wouldn't really expect the same ISK input to the system. Quote: Point 2. I've had this discussion with Ernest Adams before (the Game Designer and co-founder of the International Game Developer's Association, not the baker) and his position is that the game mechanics are a effectively contract between dev and player and should be changed only under the most dire of circumstances and preferrably with player consent. In fact he's writing a thesis on the topic (I'm sure he'd be interested in consulting in this case - well worth the investment if you ask me). The problem is that players are proven to be very bad at balancing, and taking away someone's silver spoon will always **** them off. They will never, ever give you consent to fix the game. They'll demand boosts elsewhere, even though it will always result in massive amounts of boosting of everything to get the same result. In a complex system, that kind of boosting is very dangerous and radically destabilizes the whole. Quote: My position was that the devs should make the choice that is best for the game, but I was referring to things like player imbalances (eg benefiting older players "just because"). I can very much see his point. The changes made in Dominion were the dev's offer, and purchasing of upgrades and paying of bills by players was the acceptance. To completely take that away from large numbers of those (mostly small) alliances without any compensation would be a major breach of trust between the developer and community. Two things: - They are not completely taking that away. They are modifying it. - Obviously, Dominion is not working out as they had originally envisioned it --- or they have discovered that how they originally envisioned it was fatally flawed. Expecting uninformed players who don't understand the basics of the economy to grasp that is asking a bit much though. -Liang your a republican arent you

Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:26:00 - [1331] Originally by: Starkiller Adams your a republican arent you Not even a little bit. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Iseult Kross	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:27:00 - [1332] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Zey Nadar Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:56:15 Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/03/2011 06:55:35 Originally by: Lord Zoran Games by definition are supposed to be easy not like a second job... Im not going to spend 3 days grinding belts to recover from the loss of a single PVP ship just so i can replace it and lose it again within a matter of hours and im sure the majority of the 0.0 community feels the same way. Seconded. Difficult = more work. Thats what it means. Thats what all the crapsack world attitude means. Having eve life more difficult is not going to make me fight more pvp, I can tell you that. If I get bored, I will stop subscription. The biggest fail of this CCP plan is that they think this will make alliances fight more over territory.. Personally I don't have such an issue with difficulty, it's boring grind that I have a problem with. PvE is the boring grind in whatever form it comes in, PvP (which is much more difficult) is the only continually fun aspect of this game. Ya and the PvP in this game is fun because there is actually something at stake. If you lose your ship and and are able to replace it without any trouble, where is the risk? Can't afford losing pimped out t3's or whatever it is that you need mass amounts of isk for, then fly something you can afford until you're good enough to not die so often. Or alternatively figure out another way to make money, although at first this might actually take some effort, again making those shiny ships you worked so hard for seem all that more significant when they go pop.
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:29:00 - [1333] This is a much better idea* to make a loss hurt as hell and create a huge isk sink since you think there is too much in game CCP. Let us DESTROY OUTPOSTS. Drops according to the contents of the individual and corp hangars, clones destroyed, you in station when it blows up ? You DIE. You cancelled your sub and left your **** in a Station that got blow up ? TOO BAD. NPC Stations should REQUIRE positive standings BEFORE allowing you to dock. Anyone else up for TOTAL WAR ? * An old one i should add.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:31:00 - [1334] That isn't an isk sink since only minerals and whatever ships etc are destroyed.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:39:00 - [1335] Originally by: Iseult Kross Ya and the PvP in this game is fun because there is actually something at stake. If you lose your ship and and are able to replace it without any trouble, where is the risk? Can't afford losing pimped out t3's or whatever it is that you need mass amounts of isk for, then fly something you can afford until you're good enough to not die so often. Or alternatively figure out another way to make money, although at first this might actually take some effort, again making those shiny ships you worked so hard for seem all that more significant when they go pop. The PvP is fun regardless. The extra kick of meaningful loss is just very tasty spice. Besides, it doesn't really matter whether you have a million ISK spare or 10 billion (I've experienced both) - in nullsec losing a ship is a hassle simply from a logistical perspective. More noobs in nullsec means more fights can take place. As my colleague from ev0ke has stated most systems on a roam are populated, which makes for more fights. I would be very interested to see CCP's "causality model", and see how much hard data is backing it up. In particular I'd like to know what metric CCP is using to measure "conflict". Were more ships destroyed before Dominion, or after it?
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:42:00 - [1336] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat That isn't an isk sink since only minerals and whatever ships etc are destroyed. I stand corrected.
Carniflex StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:44:00 - [1337] Originally by: CCP Greyscale We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. Yup. That sound like black ops, electronic attack frigates, motherships, "fixing" the cross corp pos lab use (it's what close to 4 years by now?) and follow up revision of faction warfare. Sad thing is I will have to start again dragging my corpmates up to level 4 standings (with connections 3 it takes 30 level 4 missions split in half for a character to reach L4Q18 agent, without connections skill 40 missions) and answer to questions like "what should I use to cash in my LP". So yeah - my model of 0.0 space predicts this change will not be a good one. But whatever, you guys have obviously made up your mind. Under positive scenarios it will not be as catastrophic as the new probing system was to low sec mission running before T3's were in game. People will adabt as always. It's just not a good change.
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:44:00 - [1338] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere. Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance. Fantastic. I'm living in nullsec because I wanted PvP, and now I'm forced to take a shovel and dig the rocks? It's like buying a ticked for the biggest, scariest roller coaster just to be transferred to a kiddie merry-go-round. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot. Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:56:00 - [1339] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo. Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h. Don't some miners earn more solo?
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 07:57:00 - [1340] Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 08:01:15 Originally by: Darth Gustav Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo. Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h. hmm... that's still one dps ship. I know that Guristas space have bad loot and salvage, but never thought it was that bad.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:00:00 - [1341] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Fantastic. So you want something for nothing? Once upon a time PvP meant sweat as well as blood .. it has become 'meh' at best with all the revenue streams available. Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums... Raises hand Although not in Sanctums, the one size down yields much better ISK/hour .. double bonus for more cruiser sized modules which has better ISK/m3 and being able to run them in a PvP fit HAC/T3. In short: Your grinding/ratting leaves something to be desired.
Pineapple Bill	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:01:00 - [1342] I have taken some time to calm down and post, at first i was very upset and just wanted to post a your a f*cking moron to CCP. But I have calmed down a bit so here we go. CCP if your goal is to generate more conflict in 0.0, then this is not the way to do it. Your purposed changes will increase the grind time for the people that do PVP in 0.0, we will have to grind much longer to generate the isk to replace our ships, which means less PVP in null sec. This change will not generate conflict over the better null sec systems, the large power blocks will just take them all for there members so there people can replace ships, how does that help the smaller alliances? Many of the smaller alliance or corp that rent space will lose there income to rent that space, and not to mention have to grind for more hours to generate the income required for PVP, so much for small corp/alliance ship replacement programs. By the look of the purposed changes it seems a little one sided, you are nerfing the PVE but not the industry, if you are going to make changes you should make them balanced, IE... the same systems that will not get havens or sanctums will not spawn ABCS,M ore in them either, and the systems that get 2 and 3 times the havens and sanctums also get 2 and 3 times the ABCS,M ore as-well. Seeing as the changes will be making the rich richer and the poor poorer might as well, even it out so your not just nerfing the PVE people, the only right and proper thing to do. If you truly want to improve null sec and get more conflict there, i would suggest the following. Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. I think the above changes would permote a vibrant null sec, with a thriving population. Speaking of fixing things, how about fixing POS's, list bellow. Anchoring/unanchoring queue. Onlining queue. Ability to set better members access to the POS Ability to let all blues use the POS. A fitting window to drag and drop mods. Ability to set Owner to POS. I think most everyone that lives in null sec would agree the changes you purpose are not going to permote any conflict with the null sec alliances, the only conflict I see it causing is more conflict with your paying subscribers. Thanks, Currently a paying subscriber, and null sec dweller.
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:02:00 - [1343] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 07:49:34 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Instead of climbing the walls and screaming like children, enter a dialogue to give those poor areas some benefit unavailable elsewhere. Supercharged mining upgrades or increase to general industry outputs for instance. Fantastic. I'm living in nullsec because I wanted PvP, and now I'm forced to take a shovel and dig the rocks? It's like buying a ticket for the biggest, scariest roller coaster just to be transferred to a kiddie merry-go-round. Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Don't know who the moron was who convinced everyone that it is their Goddess given right to be able to make 100M/hr minimum in Eve .. whomever it was should be shot. Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. You are using the wrong ship. BS+ would net you close to 60M/H without taking into account loot/salvaging or corp tax using only one account. Gallente carrier will earn you more..
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:10:00 - [1344] Originally by: Pineapple Bill Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy.
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:24:00 - [1345] 0.0 isnt about being fair, it isnt about "hi lets NAP", NC are soo worried about losing their renters they are raging. This is a good change, CCP go ahead with it, it will make 0.0 valuable again, you can clearly see from the comments that anoms are what making it easier to NAP, easier to bot and easier to rage. Oh and 0.0 has been crawling with supercaps and dull wars, having people work for their ISK for a change makes sense, MAKE THIS CHANGE HAPPEN NOW!! . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Pineapple Bill	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:24:00 - [1346] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Originally by: Pineapple Bill Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy. I think of my ideas would permote a better null sec, and be much better than CCP purposed changes, but then again I am not a null sec power-block member, I am one of the little guys that the changes CCP are purposing will screw. I can totally understand why folks like yourself would think my ideas are bad or worse than CCP purposed changes.
Kalle Demos Amarr Helix Protocol	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:28:00 - [1347] Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something. Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!! Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot. . Im not Bismaru, im better!
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:31:00 - [1348] Originally by: Kalle Demos Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something. Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!! Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot. how will this effect scap production? this only reduces teh isk income for teh small players and corps. id bet this actually increases scap production as there corps stuck with now fully upgraded **** systems have to replace that income
Raven Kahn	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:36:00 - [1349] It is funny to see all the empire people in here screaming about go ahead with the changes...Of course your for the changes don't hurt your game, you don't live in 0.0 Do all the 0.0 people a favor and shut the hell up, the only reason you running your heads is because you don't live in 0.0, and if these changes take place a lot of us will not be living in 0.0 any more either. If these changes take effect i would love to see all the 0.0 alliances NAP each other and spend the next 6 months war decing all the empire corps in and around the trade hubs and lvl 4 mission systems. Let's kill the ** out of all the empire alliances and corps till CCP gets a clue. Raven Kahn (**ed off 0.0 resident)
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:41:00 - [1350] Originally by: Abdiel Kavash CCP: "Let's rebalance TII components to stop the dyspro monopoly" Players: "No, these numbers will result in an even bigger bottleneck with Tech" CCP: "Meh" CCP rebalances TII components Tech price shoots in the sky CCP: "Let's make POS structures player-built" Players: "People will reprocess them for profit" CCP: "Surely nobody would think about that" CCP makes POS stuff player-built People reprocess it for profit, bringing trilions into the economy overnight CCP: "Let's nerf 0.0 anomalies" Players: "That will do no good, only make people leave 0.0" CCP: "We know what we're doing" ...can you see where this is going? Oh so true. especially the post in the middle saying **** you all. We're doing it.

Iseult Kross	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:48:00 - [1351] Originally by: Raven Kahn It is funny to see all the empire people in here screaming about go ahead with the changes...Of course your for the changes don't hurt your game, you don't live in 0.0 Do all the 0.0 people a favor and shut the hell up, the only reason you running your heads is because you don't live in 0.0, and if these changes take place a lot of us will not be living in 0.0 any more either. If these changes take effect i would love to see all the 0.0 alliances NAP each other and spend the next 6 months war decing all the empire corps in and around the trade hubs and lvl 4 mission systems. Let's kill the ** out of all the empire alliances and corps till CCP gets a clue. Raven Kahn (**ed off 0.0 resident) umad?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:49:00 - [1352] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 29/03/2011 08:51:51 Let me see if I may come up with a better idea than CCP Greyscale, in about 5 minutes. You may send me Ç5,000 for the effort later. 1) The problem. Too much ISK in too few hands and at entrenched locations, huge NAPs galore. 2) The non solution: nerf the grunts who live farming anomalies and other small fry alliances. Why? Even a non Einstein would get it, that nerfing grunts and small fries won't foster new grunts and small fries going into 0.0. Why won't it fix anything? Even a non Einstein would get it, that leaving the ONE godlike ISK source as is, nothing changes. 3) A possible solution: leave the grunts in peace and give small alliances a chance. Create depletable R32+ moons (or just add the material to existing ones in these moons) with low yield that may be milked by small alliances. Not in the north though . Once a moon runs dry (PI already implemented the concept) have it keep feeding a residual material. Just enough for a small alliance to survive, and not enough for a big one to bother scattering everywhere. When the moon runs dry and stays at "residual level", a random other elsewhere in 0.0 will refill. This will foster prospecting, moving around and will give small and nimble alliances a choice to "roam" and seek riches the huge blobs won't care enough to take. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:50:00 - [1353] You are giving solutions to different problems than the ones Greyscale is trying to solve.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:53:00 - [1354] Originally by: Kalle Demos 0.0 isnt about being fair, it isnt about "hi lets NAP", NC are soo worried about losing their renters they are raging. I'll repeat myself in case you missed it: Originally by: Imigo Montoya ev0ke, -A-, NC., Intrepid Crossing, Solar Wing, and Shadow of Death are not part of the NC, but all have members expressing their concern/disapproval of these changes for a multitude of reasons Originally by: Kalle Demos This is a good change, CCP go ahead with it, it will make 0.0 valuable again, you can clearly see from the comments that anoms are what making it easier to NAP, easier to bot and easier to rage. Oh and 0.0 has been crawling with supercaps and dull wars, having people work for their ISK for a change makes sense, MAKE THIS CHANGE HAPPEN NOW!! As you seem to have the habit (as above) to post something as fact without backing it up and using weasel words, please explain to to those of us who lack your "clarity of vision" how anoms make it easier to NAP, bot, and rage? As a side note, there is no mechanism for a Non-Aggression Pact specifically in game, there are only different levels of standings. How players use those standings is up to them.
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 08:56:00 - [1355] Originally by: Pineapple Bill Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Originally by: Pineapple Bill Redistribute the moongoo.( Evenly )(Better yet remove it all, and switch over to system similar to PI for the t2 components) Make some changes to black ops, allow them to jump other ships as well based on size ie...cruisers and below, and give them some range to there bridge. Null sec needs a resource that can only be gotten in null sec. Add a treaty system and charge a treaty maintenance fee. (Should be based on number of members in initiating corp/alliance) Ability to drop more than one station in a system. Remove the ability for a titan or super carrier to enter a POS shield. Tie activity into sovereignty (You have to occupy it to keep it) Remove ability for non sovereignty holding corps/alliance to declare war on sovereignty holding corps/alliance. Allow corporations to hold sovereignty. Wow... a couple of ideas that are actually worse than Grayscale's devblog Congrats for the effort, I know it wasn't easy. I think of my ideas would permote a better null sec, and be much better than CCP purposed changes, but then again I am not a null sec power-block member, I am one of the little guys that the changes CCP are purposing will screw. I can totally understand why folks like yourself would think my ideas are bad or worse than CCP purposed changes. No,... don't get me wrong. I'm very much against CCP's changes because those changes will not hurt powerful alliances or corporations, it will hurt the individual players. It will also leave a trace in the economy and force players to do more stuff they hate to do. I just think some of your ideas are not good, that's all.
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:01:00 - [1356] being of a small renter alliance, who probably wont be able to pay the rent after the change. my sentiments are perfectly voiced in what an alliance member said about the change and why it will fail. Quote: The big guys WILL go there and swat them for lols. You know it. I know it and the big guys know it. They have enough bored SC or cap pilots to do it. So unless they somehow massively nerf the number advantage and cap advantage it wont do diddly to help anyone take "worthless" space. Worthless space will just result in being worthless again as it was before dominion. why because its worthless again. Too bad CCP fails to see this.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:05:00 - [1357] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Raises hand Although not in Sanctums, the one size down yields much better ISK/hour .. double bonus for more cruiser sized modules which has better ISK/m3 and being able to run them in a PvP fit HAC/T3. In short: Your grinding/ratting leaves something to be desired. 100m/Hour Farming Havens? LOL, nice try but total fail, unless you run these havens with the 10 hacs mentioned a few pages ago. Originally by: Kalle Demos You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something. Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!! Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot. The amount of players has also dropped. Guess what that means? Also there're more people in 0.0 now than ever before.
Lenthall Scorpus	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:08:00 - [1358] Edited by: Lenthall Scorpus on 29/03/2011 09:09:58 Edited by: Lenthall Scorpus on 29/03/2011 09:09:07 Originally by: Kalle Demos You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. This will also stop the supercap mass production and FINALLY kills will mean something, if you have a problem with this ask your leaders for better space, but dont complain to CCP about making space worth something. Next you will say "its unfair that Jita has more more activity than Amarr", EVE isnt fair and was NEVER meant to be balanced, you have an issue take it up with Kim Jong Lau NOT CCP!! Besides you will still make alot of ISK in 0.0 from other sources, not everyone needs to bot. You really thought hard about this statement didn't you Do the maths - big alliances already hold most of the good space already as Moon goo trumps all income Let's analise a region like Providence Before Dominion it was a worthless piece of space where CVA carved a hard existence and made noobs come to learn the PVP trade, Dominion hit and the region actually became worth something. Did CVA lose the space because of a new "perceived" value, no they where stupid and poked a bear with a twig and lost there space. Now you have a few alliances in there that is facing a real threat to there member's existence since they cant do farming and guess what, Provi is going back too being .... wait for it.... useless. Somewhere in this long thread somebody pointed out that the Rich (NC & DRF) will get richer and the rest well you will have to start getting those dust of the Navy Ravens in Inaro since the non fun grind of Lvl 4's is beckoning once more. We can say one thing about CCP Failscale (Oops I didn't just do that)and his theories (Besides not knowing how to substantiate his theories) he will be creating a lot of grief and wasted hours and ending subscriptions (wait a sec is CCP not suppose to KEEP their clients? )
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:09:00 - [1359] Originally by: Jita Tradedrone being of a small renter alliance, who probably wont be able to pay the rent after the change. my sentiments are perfectly voiced in what an alliance member said about the change and why it will fail. Quote: The big guys WILL go there and swat them for lols. You know it. I know it and the big guys know it. They have enough bored SC or cap pilots to do it. So unless they somehow massively nerf the number advantage and cap advantage it wont do diddly to help anyone take "worthless" space. Worthless space will just result in being worthless again as it was before dominion. why because its worthless again. Too bad CCP fails to see this. But you miss the bigger picture. The people living in that ****ty space will take their fleet(corp) and move to better space (Motsu), farm the sanctums (lvl 4's), then take their blob to even better space (WH's?) and take that space, right? It has to be, CCP said so, because CCP know best.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:13:00 - [1360] Originally by: Lenthall Scorpus Let's analise a region like Providence Before Dominion it was a worthless piece of space where CVA carved a hard existence and made noobs come to learn the PVP trade, Dominion hit and the region actually became worth something. Did CVA lose the space because of a new "perceived" value, no they where stupid and poked a bear with a twig and lost there space. Now you have a few alliances in there that is facing a real threat to there member's existence since they cant do farming and guess what, Provi is going back too being .... wait for it.... useless. Providence will be even more worthless, as there're sov bills that will need to be paid. But they'll be paid with their super moons... no wait, all those moons are in the north. Now if only CCP Noobscale and his merry band of clueless elves could grasp that.

Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:14:00 - [1361] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Jita Tradedrone being of a small renter alliance, who probably wont be able to pay the rent after the change. my sentiments are perfectly voiced in what an alliance member said about the change and why it will fail. Quote: The big guys WILL go there and swat them for lols. You know it. I know it and the big guys know it. They have enough bored SC or cap pilots to do it. So unless they somehow massively nerf the number advantage and cap advantage it wont do diddly to help anyone take "worthless" space. Worthless space will just result in being worthless again as it was before dominion. why because its worthless again. Too bad CCP fails to see this. But you miss the bigger picture. The people living in that ****ty space will take their fleet(corp) and move to better space (Motsu), farm the sanctums (lvl 4's), then take their blob to even better space (WH's?) and take that space, right? It has to be, CCP said so, because CCP know best. yes but of course. we will take our 1.5 carrier, 3 bs's and 5 drakes and go and claim better spaces! The fact they can easily field as many caps as we have members doesnt withhold us.. /sarcasm
Ignatius Gnarl Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:14:00 - [1362] People saying losses should mean something are missing the point. I agree with them. But what is proposed is: * if you want to live in nullsec, losses will be crippling * if you carebear in hisec and then PvP for lulz in nullsec, losses will be fine Any restructure needs to take account of the whole EVE environment. I wouldn't mind nuking nullsec if they devastated hi-sec too. I think it would be a better game if battleships were rare and valued by everyone and capitals were legendary and awesome ships as opposed to the current supercap blobs. But all the current proposal does is make living in nullsec a stupid option since there is a huge opportunity cost. It's all about the relative risk/reward of the different places.
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:17:00 - [1363] Originally by: Ignatius Gnarl * if you carebear in hisec and then PvP for lulz in nullsec, losses will be fine but there will be less people in 0.0 because they will fly over there in the weekend in their weekend fleet. get into a few fights and than back to hi-sec to recoup losses. the big NAPs stay. The big powerhouses stay. and the smallfries are back in hi-sec (where they belong according to ccp i guess)
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:25:00 - [1364] Originally by: Kalle Demos You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. I didn't address this point (the bolded part) earlier because I needed to find proof first, but this is just plain wrong. If you look at the QENs since Dominion (Q2 2010 and Q3 2010) you will see (on page 13 or 14) that not only has the population of nullsec grown, the percentage of the total population that are in nullsec has also grown. Fact checking makes a difference when trying to present a case.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:26:00 - [1365] Originally by: Jita Tradedrone Originally by: Ignatius Gnarl * if you carebear in hisec and then PvP for lulz in nullsec, losses will be fine but there will be less people in 0.0 because they will fly over there in the weekend in their weekend fleet. get into a few fights and than back to hi-sec to recoup losses. the big NAPs stay. The big powerhouses stay. and the smallfries are back in hi-sec (where they belong according to ccp i guess) this is what happened before dominion. tried 0.0 belts they didnt produce anywhere close to my cnr in highsec, the belts got worse with that stupid rats warp in crap they installed.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:28:00 - [1366] This really is a sandbox game. CCP are burying their heads in the sand as we speak. How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:35:00 - [1367] I bet not a single player that has threatened to quit because of this change actually does. Also let us not forget this is not the only change that will happen. So going all ape **** over one of several changes to come is a bit over the top. /gets afk cloak alt ready to put in one of the overcrowded future sanctum systems w/ cov cyno...
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:38:00 - [1368] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 09:40:55 Originally by: Jita Tradedrone yes but of course. we will take our 1.5 carrier, 3 bs's and 5 drakes and go and claim better spaces! The fact they can easily field as many caps as we have members doesnt withhold us.. /sarcasm Personally I thought my sarcasm was pretty easy to read, considering better space became Motsu and sanctums were lvl 4's. Originally by: Marconus Orion I bet not a single player that has threatened to quit because of this change actually does. Also let us not forget this is not the only change that will happen. So going all ape **** over one of several changes to come is a bit over the top. /gets afk cloak alt ready to put in one of the overcrowded future sanctum systems w/ cov cyno... Going from six accounts to five and then to three is great going for CCP. I never said I'd quit. I've said all along I'll just drop another account or two.
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:39:00 - [1369] Edited by: Jita Tradedrone on 29/03/2011 09:40:33 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Jita Tradedrone yes but of course. we will take our 1.5 carrier, 3 bs's and 5 drakes and go and claim better spaces! The fact they can easily field as many caps as we have members doesnt withhold us.. /sarcasm Personally I thought my sarcasm was pretty easy to read, considering better space became Motsu and sanctums were lvl 4's i know, and i have seen and i have appreciated your sarcasm :D i just ended the sarcasm
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 09:42:00 - [1370] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 09:44:03 Originally by: Jita Tradedrone Edited by: Jita Tradedrone on 29/03/2011 09:40:33 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Jita Tradedrone yes but of course. we will take our 1.5 carrier, 3 bs's and 5 drakes and go and claim better spaces! The fact they can easily field as many caps as we have members doesnt withhold us.. /sarcasm Personally I thought my sarcasm was pretty easy to read, considering better space became Motsu and sanctums were lvl 4's i know, and i have seen and i have appreciated your sarcasm :D i just ended the sarcasm Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, look mate. If you're clever you'll take your corp, set tax to 110%, build like 9 Titans each and then go and take some space.

Spurty Caldari V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.03.29 10:29:00 - [1371] Although I don't believe this change is that much of a game changer, if this thread gets to 50 pages, I'll be changing my mind lol. Go for it CCP. This change has clearly created 'friction' at some level. Its doubtful it'll boil into war and fracturing of mega-alliances but may cause a deflation in the numbers of their membership who aren't there because they like the people they are playing with, but for the access to lucrative space. Hoppit!
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 10:32:00 - [1372] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Kalle Demos You do know CCP ONLY introduced these anoms in Dominion yeah, you have only had these bot havens just over a year AND 0.0 never even gained any population, removing them would hardly result in losing players. I didn't address this point (the bolded part) earlier because I needed to find proof first, but this is just plain wrong. If you look at the QENs since Dominion (Q2 2010 and Q3 2010) you will see (on page 13 or 14) that not only has the population of nullsec grown, the percentage of the total population that are in nullsec has also grown. Fact checking makes a difference when trying to present a case. This new change will drive people out of 0.0. Who is going to want to move to space with no moon goo AND no way of benefitting from upgraded systems? CCP didn't think this one through at all. Maybe its a way of driving up Plex prices or something but i'm not sure how it benefits anyone other than the guys with 4 or 5 accounts, where 4 of them live in high sec AFK mission running.
Jita Tradedrone	Posted - 2011.03.29 10:50:00 - [1373] Originally by: Spurty Although I don't believe this change is that much of a game changer, if this thread gets to 50 pages, I'll be changing my mind lol. Go for it CCP. This change has clearly created 'friction' at some level. Its doubtful it'll boil into war and fracturing of mega-alliances but may cause a deflation in the numbers of their membership who aren't there because they like the people they are playing with, but for the access to lucrative space. that depends on the fact if you are in one of the power blocks that have the lucrative moons and/or the good space, or the lowly renter corp/alliance with the ****ty space and the low end moons (that can be found in low sec also) for the 1st nothing changes, the second get a nice reset back to hi/low. Because 0.0 without income to pay rent and not the caps to actually lay a claim to (crappy) space without paying rent it will just be back off to hi or low sec.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 10:57:00 - [1374] Originally by: Spurty Although I don't believe this change is that much of a game changer, if this thread gets to 50 pages, I'll be changing my mind lol. Go for it CCP. This change has clearly created 'friction' at some level. Its doubtful it'll boil into war and fracturing of mega-alliances but may cause a deflation in the numbers of their membership who aren't there because they like the people they are playing with, but for the access to lucrative space. Friction between players and CCP? Definitely. Friction between players in the game? I can really see the drone regions turning into a major war zone the moment this goes live, because people really fought massive, endless wars over that area before the drone nerf
nubos	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:02:00 - [1375] Edited by: nubos on 29/03/2011 11:02:48 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Spurty Although I don't believe this change is that much of a game changer, if this thread gets to 50 pages, I'll be changing my mind lol. Go for it CCP. This change has clearly created 'friction' at some level. Its doubtful it'll boil into war and fracturing of mega-alliances but may cause a deflation in the numbers of their membership who aren't there because they like the people they are playing with, but for the access to lucrative space. Friction between players and CCP? Definitely. Friction between players in the game? I can really see the drone regions turning into a major war zone the moment this goes live, because people really fought massive, endless wars over that area before the drone nerf I doubt it that there is any force in eve, capable of attacking drone regions - even nc failed. And after that change of anomalies, drone regions gonna be unstoppable lol
Antmannen	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:12:00 - [1376] Am I a carebear? Yep. Will these changes hurt my gaming experience within Eve? Most likely Am I going to suspend my accounts due to this? Don't know, not sure how this will affect things really. I doubt it will do much powerblock-wise, anyway. I don't really see why nullsec by default has to be unstable with wars raging all the time. If these changes forces me into PvPing I will move on to other games (and no, you can't haz my stuff) and I am quite certain that I'm not alone. I don't mind changes but they better have a good reasoning behind them. I don't think these changes will do anything at all about blob warfare. If anything the problems will just increase as there will be even fewer systems worth clogging up.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:15:00 - [1377] Originally by: Abigail La'Fey As the CEO of a medium size renting corp, I have to say. This idea blows chunks. Your alliance is full of nothing but botters who go from belt to belt. How the **** is this change supposed to affect your income?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:17:00 - [1378] Originally by: Darth Gustav Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo. Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h. Don't some miners earn more solo? And may be that is it right there, i don't think most people salvage **** once its completed. Most people in 0.0 (from what i see) Rat, complete, Rat > complete. they do not waste time salvaging stuff.
Michael Petrov	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:21:00 - [1379] CCP, I really hope you wake up and start listening to your customers. These changes are a horrible idea. You are really nerfing 0.0 in general, which will result in far fewer pilots coming to nullsec and far more players running L4s and mining in high sec. This is the opposite of your stated goals.
Admiral Goberius Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:23:00 - [1380] a bloo bloo bloo this is what you get for nerfing nanos 0wned - Gob

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:24:00 - [1381] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 11:25:00 Originally by: nubos I doubt it that there is any force in eve, capable of attacking drone regions - even nc failed. And after that change of anomalies, drone regions gonna be unstoppable lol Don't tell CCP, they might get a clue. Originally by: Admiral Goberius a bloo bloo bloo this is what you get for nerfing nanos 0wned - Gob Domi's going faster than inties really has some relation to anom nerf.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:38:00 - [1382] Originally by: Marconus Orion Edited by: Marconus Orion on 29/03/2011 11:16:59 Originally by: Abigail La'Fey As the CEO of a medium size renting corp, I have to say. This idea blows chunks. Your alliance is full of nothing but botters who go from belt to belt. How the ** is this change supposed to hurt your income? There are bots that can do anomalies now. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:51:00 - [1383] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. As you can see, it is not like other issues are not being looked at. So stop QQing all over the place and be try to give feedback that is more than, "FU CCP! I quit!"
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:05:00 - [1384] The moment CCP rebalances moons, guns and all the other glaring problems with EVE is when I'll shut up. Months ago CCP said they were looking at these problems, 6 months+ later and a lot has changed... You're new to EVE, stay a while and you'll see the incompetence that is CCP.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:05:00 - [1385] this is such a bad idea. i can't believe CCP still insists on going thru with it. .. to those who think this will be just like pre-dominion - maybe, but only if the insurance goes back up. otherwise, how will people afford living in null? before the loss was minor, now they have anoms to make up for the loss after some number of hours grinding... what will be the recourse after this change? go run missions in hisec? sounds GREAT for null alliances. ... to those who think people will still live there regardless - have you looked at lowsec lately? these area of null will become as used as those areas. it wont create the desired effect of smaller alliances getting a chance in null. because why do you figure they and their members will bother with the costs of sov/upgrades/outposts if the members are earning the same as they would running level 3's in hisec? IF the earnings for individuals in null are any less than level 4's people just wont be attracted. its simply not worth the cost/loss/risk. and to the guy who responded that null livers are all oh so safe in their "sanctums" .... 1. it IS playing smarter, because they do what they can to maximize profits while having to defend their space. this is how it will be no matter what you do tot he game, because those with the deepest pockets tend to win. 2. i suppose that depends on where you live. but being someone who lost everything i owned when PL popped my POS in atlas space, then moving to pure blind with constant griefers/hotdrops... my experience has been that things aren't all quite and safe in null. and if i can't make a good amount of isk for having to deal with this risk/losses + CTAs then i don;t see much of a point in being there. granted i enjoy my alliance mates, so i'll probably stick with them no matter what they decide, just not likely to enjoy the game itself so much anymore. the end result would likely me eventually becoming uninterested. all in all i think this will change will result in less nullsec activity, less pvp, making it impossible for smaller alliances to ever get a hold of titans etc. and less activity in the game over all.
Horrendous Haddock	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:06:00 - [1386] Originally by: Marconus Orion As you can see, it is not like other issues are not being looked at. So stop QQing all over the place and be try to give feedback that is more than, "FU CCP! I quit!" Once again, a request to be quiet while we are ****d. Clearly you have no idea how much planning, effort and investment these changes simply sweep aside like it was meaningless. There is pretty much no need for feedback, these changes have been scheduled. There never was any time for constructive discussion on the matter, it's done and dusted already. Do you not see how this issue has been flown in under the radar? Is the timing not at all suspicious to you? Are you going to condone that sort of behaviour?
Lenthall Scorpus	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:15:00 - [1387] I've been wondering would posting a petition against this actually make a difference to CCP and make them think before simply implementing this?
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:24:00 - [1388] A large part of my support comes from an assumption that Greyscale is operating under a similar train of thought to my own, and the strong support I have for this idea comes with the string that it's part of a package deal. Greyscale, what are your trains of thought on the issues in 0.0? I don't think the sanctum change will do much good if it's implemented on its own. If I'm right about the gameplay that you're pushing the game to evolve into, this change will likely not have the desired effect in and of itself. Your viewpoints and analysis would be much appreciated.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:28:00 - [1389] Edited by: Cyrus Doul on 29/03/2011 12:28:27 Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 29/03/2011 08:01:15 Originally by: Darth Gustav Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Don't know who's the moron who claimed that he can get 100M/h from sanctums. Perfect Nighthawk pilot here, 10-12 mil per wallet flash minus corp tax (30-36M/h). I don't believe that you can get three times much, even with a carrier. I can't remember who it was, but he claimed he used three accounts to achieve this. Carrier/Logi/Salvage combo. Income per account involved would therefore be more like 33M/h. hmm... that's still one dps ship. I know that Guristas space have bad loot and salvage, but never thought it was that bad. If you are talking about my three guys it was 2 carriers with sentry drone damage augmentator rigs, Highs had 3 dcus a piece. Pretty maxxed drone skills. I was dropping 26 t2 sentries (i.e More then a supercarrier) as they do better then fighters as fighters are slow when the bs orbit you and they have to fly back and forth before applying damage where the sentrys just kill and switch instantly. Then the third guy was buzzing around in a Cormorant with a pair of capital shield transfers repping him just in case the rats wanted to be smart and shoot something they could actually kill. the sanctums had a payout of approx 25-30 mil per and the Angel Salvage is insane. You could get along the lines of 12 to 16 million per site with good skills due to trit bar / armour plate drops. With the carriers in the site with me I had a 20k m3 box to store regular loot in too. That adds up too but no where near as much as the salvage. The blood ones in Period basis do a lot better then NC ones too as they dont drop the trit bars as much but you get a lot of armour plates Gurista sanctums suck compared to those. If you want to carebear most effectively at this point join mother Russia.
The TradeDude	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:54:00 - [1390] So like 50%++ more of null sec will be empty and without value now...nice!

Jons Laroque	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:57:00 - [1391] This better be a joke, Otherwise my two accounts will be terminated Post patch.... nuff said. Fail More CCP....
TOTALHELLD3ATH	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:04:00 - [1392] I disagree with this change because it assumes the ultimate goal in Eve is to own "the best" space. What about smaller corps that just want a system or 2 and want to fund small roaming gangs. My corp has no aspiration to take over the world, we pvp just for the sake of pvp not to take space. The current system we have allows us to fund that without spending huge amounts of time killing red "+"'s. Now if we stay we have to grind longer to pay sov bills and pay for the pvp ships. So options seem to be... 1) suck it up and grind more - pew pew less 2) go back to empire and run L4's and pew pew in low sec 3) join blob warfare alliance 4) trade in the PVE ships for Hulks and do the industry upgrade thing (ick) Anyone have a better idea?
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:04:00 - [1393] Originally by: Jons Laroque This better be a joke, Otherwise my two accounts will be terminated Post patch.... nuff said. Fail More CCP.... What game are you here to play? EVE used to lean pretty hard to the right in this chart, and the level of fun really showed in third party content, comics, flash animations and other things created by that hardcore fanaticism and word of mouth. I miss the days when Eve felt like it was a hard game. Eve Online is no longer a hard game, and that saddens me. The sanctum nerf has reignited hope that CCP is getting tired of easy mode as well.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:07:00 - [1394] Originally by: Cyrus Doul If you are talking about my three guys it was 2 carriers with sentry drone damage augmentator rigs, Highs had 3 dcus a piece. Pretty maxxed drone skills. I was dropping 26 t2 sentries (i.e More then a supercarrier) as they do better then fighters as fighters are slow when the bs orbit you and they have to fly back and forth before applying damage where the sentrys just kill and switch instantly. Then the third guy was buzzing around in a Cormorant with a pair of capital shield transfers repping him just in case the rats wanted to be smart and shoot something they could actually kill. the sanctums had a payout of approx 25-30 mil per and the Angel Salvage is insane. You could get along the lines of 12 to 16 million per site with good skills due to trit bar / armour plate drops. With the carriers in the site with me I had a 20k m3 box to store regular loot in too. That adds up too but no where near as much as the salvage. The blood ones in Period basis do a lot better then NC ones too as they dont drop the trit bars as much but you get a lot of armour plates Gurista sanctums suck compared to those. Also the wallet updates every 20 minutes. And I didnt have to compete for sanctums as I was pretty much the only member on at the time. So warp in. clear, warpout, hit scan and right back in. If you want to carebear most effectively at this point join mother Russia. 100/3=33 Someone could put 10 miners in a belt then claim he's making 300m/hour. He's still only making 30m/account.
Armaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:13:00 - [1395] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jons Laroque This better be a joke, Otherwise my two accounts will be terminated Post patch.... nuff said. Fail More CCP.... What game are you here to play? EVE used to lean pretty hard to the right in this chart, and the level of fun really showed in third party content, comics, flash animations and other things created by that hardcore fanaticism and word of mouth. I miss the days when Eve felt like it was a hard game. Eve Online is no longer a hard game, and that saddens me. The sanctum nerf has reignited hope that CCP is getting tired of easy mode as well. I know what we can do !!! Let's drop the warp to 0 and force everyone to slowboat to the next gate ! Then we will make JF's and JB's go away and people will have a great time escorting freighters in deep 0.0 !!!! Seriously now, these changes are not making the game harder, they are making accessing the fun part of the game PvP harder for the casual gamer.
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:17:00 - [1396] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 13:18:56 Originally by: Armaos Originally by: Evelgrivion What game are you here to play? EVE used to lean pretty hard to the right in this chart, and the level of fun really showed in third party content, comics, flash animations and other things created by that hardcore fanaticism and word of mouth. I miss the days when Eve felt like it was a hard game. Eve Online is no longer a hard game, and that saddens me. The sanctum nerf has reignited hope that CCP is getting tired of easy mode as well. I know what we can do !!! Let's drop the warp to 0 and force everyone to slowboat to the next gate ! Then we will make JF's and JB's go away and people will have a great time escorting freighters in deep 0.0 !!!! Seriously now, these changes are not making the game harder, they are making accessing the fun part of the game PvP harder for the casual gamer. That isn't true; making it harder to make money makes it more difficult for casual gamers to use the biggest equipment available. It does not preclude the possibility of PVP. Frankly, with the slide the game's been going through, I'm not entirely sure I'm against dropping warp to zero, forcing slowboating, and getting rid of freighters and jump freighters anymore.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:21:00 - [1397] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jons Laroque This better be a joke, Otherwise my two accounts will be terminated Post patch.... nuff said. Fail More CCP.... What game are you here to play? EVE used to lean pretty hard to the right in this chart, and the level of fun really showed in third party content, comics, flash animations and other things created by that hardcore fanaticism and word of mouth. I miss the days when Eve felt like it was a hard game. Eve Online is no longer a hard game, and that saddens me. The sanctum nerf has reignited hope that CCP is getting tired of easy mode as well. eh, they wanted more PVP. they wanted the market to be more active. they did it. now they are ruining that. yes, it will be harder. though, people like you could have always went into W-Space. but apparently you would rather this game be ONLY for hardcore gamers, who will be thus forced to grind much more to continue their pew. not sure how you think this to be good. so, get rid of the casual gamers, and make the game less enjoyable for the hardcore. yup... great idea
Evelgrivion Ignatium.	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:25:00 - [1398] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 13:25:27 Originally by: Arnakoz eh, they wanted more PVP. they wanted the market to be more active. they did it. now they are ruining that. yes, it will be harder. though, people like you could have always went into W-Space. but apparently you would rather this game be ONLY for hardcore gamers, who will be thus forced to grind much more to continue their pew. not sure how you think this to be good. so, get rid of the casual gamers, and make the game less enjoyable for the hardcore. yup... great idea Wormhole space is not hardcore. It's very easy to control entry and exit, and traffic through wormhole space in general is extremely low. Once you're entrenched, you're essentially irremovable without an extremely concerted effort. Combined with probes on overview, low penalty cloaking devices and starbases, and it's very, very difficult to do anything but gank the unwary.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:26:00 - [1399] Originally by: Hermosa Diosas Really? You dont think 39 pages of negativity, warrants a rethink? Nice one.. When it's all crap from people who are desperate to keep their income and alliance alive, then no, it doesn't deserve a rethink. I personally am looking forward to the conflict when former BFF start arguing over who gets to rat in the good systems, in addition to the reemergence of Providence'esque regions.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:35:00 - [1400] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Cyrus Doul If you are talking about my three guys it was 2 carriers with sentry drone damage augmentator rigs, Highs had 3 dcus a piece. Pretty maxxed drone skills. I was dropping 26 t2 sentries (i.e More then a supercarrier) as they do better then fighters as fighters are slow when the bs orbit you and they have to fly back and forth before applying damage where the sentrys just kill and switch instantly. Then the third guy was buzzing around in a Cormorant with a pair of capital shield transfers repping him just in case the rats wanted to be smart and shoot something they could actually kill. the sanctums had a payout of approx 25-30 mil per and the Angel Salvage is insane. You could get along the lines of 12 to 16 million per site with good skills due to trit bar / armour plate drops. With the carriers in the site with me I had a 20k m3 box to store regular loot in too. That adds up too but no where near as much as the salvage. The blood ones in Period basis do a lot better then NC ones too as they dont drop the trit bars as much but you get a lot of armour plates Gurista sanctums suck compared to those. Also the wallet updates every 20 minutes. And I didnt have to compete for sanctums as I was pretty much the only member on at the time. So warp in. clear, warpout, hit scan and right back in. If you want to carebear most effectively at this point join mother Russia. 100/3=33 Someone could put 10 miners in a belt then claim he's making 300m/hour. He's still only making 30m/account. It takes me 45 minutes to clear a sanctum with 1 carrier and another 15 to salvage. so if we want to divide it like that im still looking at 37-46 million per hour so your 33 is still low. IIRC my original response was how did I make isk in 0.0 pre and post Dominion so the answer is still valid. Plus I only use the guy I am posting with here (My main) to pvp and the 33 mil per hour out of the 100 mil per hour that the other two make just gets funneled to him. I know more people that do this then dont do this in all the corps I have been in, weither low sec, null sec, or high sec so I assume a lot of the game does the same thing. To be fair the second account was created to haul for the first pre Domi, and the third account was created to salvage for the first two post domi. Now all nine heads have the ability to make t2 ammo and do pi. so between making scorch and running 35 planets out of 45 possible I don't even bother ratting.

Veshta Yoshida Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:35:00 - [1401] Originally by: Armaos ... Seriously now, these changes are not making the game harder, they are making accessing the fun part of the game PvP harder for the casual gamer. Just how much ISK do you need to PvP? I have lost (according to killboard) 14B since FW started but my wallet is only 1B lighter than at start. I ran missions for an hour a day the first two weeks but other than that between loot and the odd belt my wallet is fairly stable. Granted, it is mostly HAC and down and not leet null Drakes , but then I haven't insured a ship in over four years so I reckon it evens out. That is at market prices, I do not have a big daddy alliance to make my stuff at cost .. perhaps the real issue is with your wholesaler being greedy.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:40:00 - [1402] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Would you at least be so kind to explain us your model of null sec?
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:42:00 - [1403] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/03/2011 13:25:27 Originally by: Arnakoz eh, they wanted more PVP. they wanted the market to be more active. they did it. now they are ruining that. yes, it will be harder. though, people like you could have always went into W-Space. but apparently you would rather this game be ONLY for hardcore gamers, who will be thus forced to grind much more to continue their pew. not sure how you think this to be good. so, get rid of the casual gamers, and make the game less enjoyable for the hardcore. yup... great idea Wormhole space is not hardcore. It's very easy to control entry and exit, and traffic through wormhole space in general is extremely low. Once you're entrenched, you're essentially irremovable without an extremely concerted effort. Combined with probes on overview, low penalty cloaking devices and starbases, and it's very, very difficult to do anything but gank the unwary. Actually agreeing with Evel for once. Maybe media coverage has just dropped off to a point where no one knows of anything happening there any more. But it used to be the only times you heard of someone getting kicked from w-space was overwhelming numbers as I had happen when my 30 man corp got booted by Rionnang Alba when they were at 250 members, or Apeture Harmonics exploiting and when ccp stopped that you suddenly stopped hearing anywhere near as much about how awesome they are. WH space is decidedly less dangerous then even npc 0.0 kspace
Commander Hold	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:43:00 - [1404] Yes I am sure the only ones that are happy are the old holders of provi. Once again they will be able to claim their useless space back with out contest. Its the only way they can get it back is when its useless and no one wants it.
Killin Kittens	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:52:00 - [1405] Rakshasa, most of the conflict you're wondering about will go like this... Our Corp "our space sucks and we can't afford the rent you've imposed on us for use of this area." SOV Holder "so?" Our Corp "we would like (x) system because that will give us close to a break even where we were at" SOV Holder "that's 3x the rent you were paying... it's occupied already BTW and there is a waiting list of 9 other corps that have all been screwed out of the upgrades they worked so hard to install... the upside is most are leaving for level 4's... so just sit and hang out for a bit and maybe the 5 that are left can share it... lest we remind you any action against an alliance member will be acted upon by the whole of the alliance." Our Corp "well that sucks" SOV Holder "we could titan drop you if you don't like waiting..." Individual corp members now make arrangements to go back to Level 4's in high sec. Other corp members simply say FU CCP, and find the Cancel Subscription button. True story. Happening as we speak. I guess the in fighting CCP was hoping for isn't going to happen in this case as the corps holding SOV over the good areas they do want to rent out are bigger than any corp they're renting too... even if we band together... get 51% more DPS than the SOV holder battle it out and secure a system (somehow)... how are the 51% expected to recoup losses to hold that position with ONE descent system? Oh... and the SOV holder... with the other 5 good systems, moogoo production and solid income rebuilds and spanks us all into dust. We go to high sec and see if we can chisel out a win from empty worthless 0.0 space again later. Or... we just keep what we've obtained and go to high sec now. Less losses. Maybe CCP will grow a brain and figure out people won't stay in 0.0 for all the danger but none of the income to support the losses. 0.0 will become vacant again. In comes CCP's "lets populate 0.0 space" plan #2 The CCP says... huh... it stabilized again... bring in the "screw them over" plan #2, maybe they'll fight more... Lather rinse repeat. I'm not going to pay for that BS of being toyed with.
Jayne Khamsi	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:52:00 - [1406] Edited by: Jayne Khamsi on 29/03/2011 13:52:21 'Im betting this is to get people to buy more PLEX cards... Greedy b*stards! Nerfed Income = More money for CCP... Have fun I'm on to newer better games!
Green Cobra	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:53:00 - [1407] If CCP realy do execute these changes is it will more or less be unpossible for many null players to stay in null and fund any pvp fun without an alt in empire grinding lvl4 missions. How the hell does that benefit anyone if null goes to that? For me personaly I can't stay in null if there's not a way to me ends meed with a few hours total game time day. Some that don't have work and familys might be able to sit and grind for half a day with any problems but we vets that have been in the game a long time can't. So why are CCP giving us the short stick? Either they don't give a rats ass about us wets and want nubs crawling all over null in friggs and crusers fighting or they just want all to move south wich won't do matters any better. Then you will end up with a new BOB type of aliance... Wich none want. So I sugest CCP take a LOOOOOONGH time to think this over. It's not like CCP will have easy time to replace us vets if we deside that eve have gone down the drain and quit all together. Why not be happy that for once casual gaming in nullsec is possible for the most of the null sec playerbase?
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.29 13:57:00 - [1408] Originally by: Commander Hold Yes I am sure the only ones that are happy are the old holders of provi. Once again they will be able to claim their useless space back with out contest. Its the only way they can get it back is when its useless and no one wants it. That is a contradiction... If no one is interested in the space, then no one is willing to claim it.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 14:06:00 - [1409] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Commander Hold Yes I am sure the only ones that are happy are the old holders of provi. Once again they will be able to claim their useless space back with out contest. Its the only way they can get it back is when its useless and no one wants it. That is a contradiction... If no one is interested in the space, then no one is willing to claim it. starburst is a contradiction too! CVA would retake provi in a heart beat. It's their mother land and i doubt they care about 5 billion a month in so fees plus whatever they put in strat mod wise. When we rolled it originally every other system had a CSAA tower in there. The ones paying the bills were definately not doing it with ratting...
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.29 14:13:00 - [1410] Originally by: Killin Kittens Rakshasa, most of the conflict you're wondering about will go like this... Our Corp "our space sucks and we can't afford the rent you've imposed on us for use of this area." SOV Holder "so?" Our Corp "we would like (x) system because that will give us close to a break even where we were at" SOV Holder "that's 3x the rent you were paying... it's occupied already BTW and there is a waiting list of 9 other corps that have all been screwed out of the upgrades they worked so hard to install... the upside is most are leaving for level 4's... so just sit and hang out for a bit and maybe the 5 that are left can share it... lest we remind you any action against an alliance member will be acted upon by the whole of the alliance." Our Corp "well that sucks" SOV Holder "we could titan drop you if you don't like waiting..." Individual corp members now make arrangements to go back to Level 4's in high sec. Other corp members simply say FU CCP, and find the Cancel Subscription button. With the bot-nerfs coming, I can quite easily see how the rents can be quite hard to achieve. BTW, the past 3 years my corp has been in many 0.0 regions living on scraps if needed. But those were always non-renting relationships, and through those times we've been on the receiving end of a more powerful entity swinging its ** around. Yet not only did we survive, we prospered. This change makes me happy because it nerfs renter-heaven, but boosts the hardy independents out to make their mark. The kind of corp we were back then. If the above conversation represents reality, I say; GOOD. Get **ed, have the renter paradise collapse, go back to high-sec and run those new dynamic effective quality agents. Leaving room for one, just one more corp of new but dedicated and resourceful players the chance of living in a backwaters system, gradually building their skill, ISK and connections as they climb up the foodchain... It is quite frankly worth more than 10 carebear corps renting space from big alliance. It is... What EVE is supposed to be.

Sannye	Posted - 2011.03.29 14:17:00 - [1411] Greyscale, dont think for a second that EVE is the only game on the market. The way this change is beeing pushed through (in the middle of a CSM election) really tells us players that you really dont give a damn about our "feedback". You messed up with dominion, and now your are removing one of the 2 items that actually worked in that fail of an update. The other thing that DOES work, is the fleetfinder - everyting else has been, and is, utterly fail. Remove it - and remove EVERYTHING in the dominion patch. No ISK in upkeep pr system claimed SOV in. No upgrades to your system AT ALL! POS will deciede who has sov. If you remove one item, remove the lot. If not, then leave it alone.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 14:52:00 - [1412] Originally by: Sannye Greyscale, dont think for a second that EVE is the only game on the market. The way this change is beeing pushed through (in the middle of a CSM election) really tells us players that you really dont give a damn about our "feedback". You messed up with dominion, and now your are removing one of the 2 items that actually worked in that fail of an update. The other thing that DOES work, is the fleetfinder - everyting else has been, and is, utterly fail. Remove it - and remove EVERYTHING in the dominion patch. No ISK in upkeep pr system claimed SOV in. No upgrades to your system AT ALL! POS will deciede who has sov. If you remove one item, remove the lot. If not, then leave it alone. Rollback to apoc.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 14:55:00 - [1413] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab With the bot-nerfs coming, I can quite easily see how the rents can be quite hard to achieve. LOL stopped reading after this. You really think CCP can stop the bots
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:00:00 - [1414] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab With the bot-nerfs coming, I can quite easily see how the rents can be quite hard to achieve. LOL stopped reading after this. You really think CCP can stop the bots That first sentence was a joke meant to entice people to keep reading my real argument... However yes... I believe CCP will be able to significantly curb Joe Six-Bot. The RMT guys are however going to have to work for their money.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:02:00 - [1415] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab With the bot-nerfs coming, I can quite easily see how the rents can be quite hard to achieve. LOL stopped reading after this. You really think CCP can stop the bots the bots are the only ones who benefit from this. plex wont be worth as much because there will be less players buying them(and yes i do expect a mass account cancelation as people drop extra accounts they cant afford.) the botters and largest isk sellers in the game are in the drone russian areas, and they are the least impacted by these changes. they will end up being the go to way to generate extra isk for real money, and will benefit the most from the changes.
Omtaga	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:03:00 - [1416] Gentlemen, Thank you for taking the time to read my post. As posted, your intent is to create more 'interesting' 0.0 space by having alliances fight over better systems due to the spawning of anomolies. You have not addressed nor corrected: -The serious lag issues that still affect large fleet fights. -Compensation for further aggrivating large fleet fights and reimbursing all players ships lost due to poor server performance. -Not successfully posting a page concerning CCP's stance on reimbursement during large fleet fights. (No, a blank page is not acceptable, see GM ESKIMO's response to my petition where he linked http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blogbid727) -Reimbursement to alliances of all sov structures and upgrades for combat sites in all systems that have currently acquired the better anomolies where they will not spawn after the change is made. Thank you again for your time gentlemen, Omtaga
Killin Kittens	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:04:00 - [1417] With the bot-nerfs coming, I can quite easily see how the rents can be quite hard to achieve. BTW, the past 3 years my corp has been in many 0.0 regions living on scraps if needed. But those were always non-renting relationships, and through those times we've been on the receiving end of a more powerful entity swinging its ** around. Yet not only did we survive, we prospered. This change makes me happy because it nerfs renter-heaven, but boosts the hardy independents out to make their mark. The kind of corp we were back then. If the above conversation represents reality, I say; GOOD. Get **ed, have the renter paradise collapse, go back to high-sec and run those new dynamic effective quality agents. Leaving room for one, just one more corp of new but dedicated and resourceful players the chance of living in a backwaters system, gradually building their skill, ISK and connections as they climb up the foodchain... It is quite frankly worth more than 10 carebear corps renting space from big alliance. It is... What EVE is supposed to be. Without spending billions on upgrades that are going to be worthless soon, I can see how you could prosper. Word of caution... if you're having fun and making enough ISK to sustain it... don't let CCP know how you did it because they'll nerf that too. BTW.. no botting here... I ran sanctums to buy my PVP equipment.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:05:00 - [1418] Originally by: Cyrus Doul starburst is a contradiction too! CVA would retake provi in a heart beat. It's their mother land and i doubt they care about 5 billion a month in so fees plus whatever they put in strat mod wise. When we rolled it originally every other system had a CSAA tower in there. The ones paying the bills were definately not doing it with ratting... Did the math. To cyno gen, CSAA and JB all 84 systems cost 37 billion, thats 1 titan worth of profit per month. 7 or so for motherships. and we all know that those things sell like hotcakes. Enjoy paying sov bills on all those stations, as originally was years ago.
Nurgl3	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:07:00 - [1419] Edited by: Nurgl3 on 29/03/2011 15:10:35 Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Sannye Greyscale, dont think for a second that EVE is the only game on the market. The way this change is beeing pushed through (in the middle of a CSM election) really tells us players that you really dont give a damn about our "feedback". You messed up with dominion, and now your are removing one of the 2 items that actually worked in that fail of an update. The other thing that DOES work, is the fleetfinder - everyting else has been, and is, utterly fail. Remove it - and remove EVERYTHING in the dominion patch. No ISK in upkeep pr system claimed SOV in. No upgrades to your system AT ALL! POS will deciede who has sov. If you remove one item, remove the lot. If not, then leave it alone. Rollback to apoc. Any one ever play warhammer online... it tried to ballance its pvp and failed untill the playerbase got **ed and left.(i was one of them) and we left... remember ultima online... they made changes that made pvp geh... who els left that game (i was one of them) remember EVE online when they **ed up the space where the pvpers mane the money they used TO pvp (who els left with me(im taking 7 accounts when i go)) im an avid gamer and i have more options for where to put my money than i can count on all the fingers and toes of all the people on every post in this forum. ive played to many games and stoped when pvp got laim and broken! or in this case YOUR MAKING IT HARD FOR US TO PVP BY CAUSEING A MASS EXODUS TO HIGHSEC!! If i wanted to play in highsec or lowsec why would i have all but one of my toons in nullsec and no toons in lowsec other than for moving my carrier(that i use to move... pvp ships) hell half the time i rat in pvp ships... make no mistake be it the new starwars game or the warhammer 40k game(yes im holding my breath) or diable 3(yes ive been holding my breath sence d2 patch 1.09D went away(also another game i left after a "fix" broke it... CCP I wont even buy your dust game and i will let my friends know whats up with HOW CCP does thier games.(btw ive not heard one person bring this game up excited about its development irl ONLY PEOPLE WHO GET A LITTLE STIR CRAZY ARE YOUR CURRENT EVE PLAYERS... this move is a bad bis move... i think ima GOOGLE your CEO and ask him wtf hes doing to this game.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:15:00 - [1420] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Commander Hold Yes I am sure the only ones that are happy are the old holders of provi. Once again they will be able to claim their useless space back with out contest. Its the only way they can get it back is when its useless and no one wants it. That is a contradiction... If no one is interested in the space, then no one is willing to claim it. For some players, claiming space is the only motivation they need to live there. Deal with it.

Ravora	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:16:00 - [1421] I want an answer of CCP to following Questions: - How are the small alliances (the Alliances u wanted to go into 0.0 with Dominion), of which most of them will live in worthless Space, supposed to defeat big Alliances like Red Overlord, Razor etc. which posses alomost infinite Ressources? - Why should big Alliances that are holding already enough valluable space, go for other space? - How should the little man pay the Ships for PVP if there's not much money to get in HiSec and 0.0? - Do you want the Casual-Gamers to farm all the time (for PVP) they're spending on EVE? - Are this changes a good way to solve the BOT-problem, which are suspected to run exactly in these Regions that u want to boost? What are you aiming for? This change isn't leading into more Wars (like thousands said before me). What's the bigger Picture?
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:16:00 - [1422] Originally by: Killin Kittens BTW.. no botting here... I ran sanctums to buy my PVP equipment. It was possible to make billions in pre-Dominion nul-sec even if it wasn't the best true-sec, though I can understand many of the posters in this thread never got to experience that.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:19:00 - [1423] Originally by: Marconus Orion Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab That is a contradiction... If no one is interested in the space, then no one is willing to claim it. For some players, claiming space is the only motivation they need to live there. Deal with it. If 'claiming space' is (the only) motivation, then by definition they are interested in the space.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:22:00 - [1424] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Cyrus Doul starburst is a contradiction too! CVA would retake provi in a heart beat. It's their mother land and i doubt they care about 5 billion a month in so fees plus whatever they put in strat mod wise. When we rolled it originally every other system had a CSAA tower in there. The ones paying the bills were definately not doing it with ratting... Did the math. To cyno gen, CSAA and JB all 84 systems cost 37 billion, thats 1 titan worth of profit per month. 7 or so for motherships. and we all know that those things sell like hotcakes. Enjoy paying sov bills on all those stations, as originally was years ago. Wait there were sov bills on the stations? I thought they just worked like a tower did. i know with the current system you dont pay anything extra for them. i owned three in provi, and one in period basis and still only got charged 2 mil per day per system.
Caldari Meatbag	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:29:00 - [1425] nice to see CCP totally ignored the views here... -2 accounts subscribed to eve...
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:47:00 - [1426] Edited by: bitters much on 29/03/2011 15:53:30 Edited by: bitters much on 29/03/2011 15:51:32 For all you little whiners: Take a look at older alli maps and wonder how all these small alliances managed to grab some space without the endless stream of mindless rats spawning out of thin air outside of belts. Have a look in CAOD for the old maps yourself and stop the tears please...
Killin Kittens	Posted - 2011.03.29 15:52:00 - [1427] Edited by: Killin Kittens on 29/03/2011 15:55:10 nice 404 fail post, if the link fails for you cut and paste it in... it works there. and past situations are not relevant... different situations, different population densities.
Claire Auscent	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:13:00 - [1428] It is maddening to think that Grayscale's response boils down to "cool story bro." That they completely disregard the opinions of the player base is one thing. To push this change through while pilots are coming back from FanFest (should be called The Great Reach-Around of 2011 from now on for what they're doing to us) and CSM is being reshuffled smacks of under-handedness. To make such a change in the face of opposition is either bold or arrogant. I hope this is a bold move, I fear it is arrogant, short sighted and poorly conceived.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:17:00 - [1429] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 16:23:23 Originally by: Cyrus Doul Wait there were sov bills on the stations? I thought they just worked like a tower did. i know with the current system you dont pay anything extra for them. i owned three in provi, and one in period basis and still only got charged 2 mil per day per system. Originally, when you owned those stations, several years ago, the system was different to what it is now. Now you pay rent on stations. If you don't you lose the station. CVA shrank from holding most of the space to holding very few systems and stations. Dropping a station in every system was a good idea at the time, now you do it to bankrupt yourself, or if you really need it. Someone once calculated how much it would cost CVA to maintain all those useless stations and it came to a lot more than they were earning. We were all waiting for CVA to lose all their stations, which they didn't. Originally by: bitters much Edited by: bitters much on 29/03/2011 15:53:30 Edited by: bitters much on 29/03/2011 15:51:32 For all you little whiners: Take a look at older alli maps and wonder how all these small alliances managed to grab some space without the endless stream of mindless rats spawning out of thin air outside of belts. Have a look in CAOD for the old maps yourself and stop the tears please... To all the clueless: moon distribution was different then.
David Hassan	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:27:00 - [1430] Clearly once again CCP doesn't give a ** what their customers say. Its pretty scummy that the Devs are trying to defeat player coalitions, rather than other players defeating them. Whats the point to a game where if you become too successful, the Devs will just raze whatever you built. You tried to kill the Northern Coalition by painting a giant Technetium target on it, and it backfired. All you did was galvanize them. The claim of lack of conflict in Null is utter bull**. Look at the changes on the map since dominion. Vote with your wallets on this one.

Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:42:00 - [1431] For big fights, move Tech moons to lowsec? -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:49:00 - [1432] Originally by: Mara Rinn For big fights, move Tech moons to lowsec? I'd rather you moved them to high sec. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.29 16:58:00 - [1433] Originally by: Super Whopper Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 16:23:23 Originally by: Cyrus Doul Wait there were sov bills on the stations? I thought they just worked like a tower did. i know with the current system you dont pay anything extra for them. i owned three in provi, and one in period basis and still only got charged 2 mil per day per system. Originally, when you owned those stations, several years ago, the system was different to what it is now. Now you pay rent on stations. If you don't you lose the station. CVA shrank from holding most of the space to holding very few systems and stations. Dropping a station in every system was a good idea at the time, now you do it to bankrupt yourself, or if you really need it. Someone once calculated how much it would cost CVA to maintain all those useless stations and it came to a lot more than they were earning. We were all waiting for CVA to lose all their stations, which they didn't. When Did they add having to pay extra for a station? I know the sov bill didnt change and when it shows you taking up an office slot in a station you own it doesnt charge you anything extra, you aren't even actually using a slot unless you press the rent button. Station or no station the sov bill is 2 million per day per system for a total of 2mil x 84 systems x 30 days in a month = 5040 million isk for all of provi with basic, no strat upgrade sov. How stations work: Your corp gets all the isk from Market Orders being put up, the cost for a jumpclone, S & I fees, Mineral refine tax, docking fees, Ship repairs, and office rental. You do not have to rent an office in your own station even though the office tab makes it look like you do. You do not get the isk from medical clones. Plus when my corp did own stations we would always rent ourselves an office, we get the money back instantly as 100 percent of the rental fee comes back to the owner of the station. Only way to lose a station is to have it shot out from under you or have a ** corp member with station management roles and an even more alliance that wont give it back when the ** corp member transfers it to another in alliance corp.
Arela Xen Gallente Evoke. Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:05:00 - [1434] Revamp the way Technetium is used in the t2 production instead of taking away the small mans income for pvp ships...
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:07:00 - [1435] Originally by: David Hassan Clearly once again CCP doesn't give a **** what their customers say. If CCP would listen to what the customers say, PVP would be non existent since ages.
VaL Iscariot b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:20:00 - [1436] /me sits back and waits for the 'April Fools' from ccp Signature removed for not being EVE related. Zymurgist
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:29:00 - [1437] I think the real issues here are being skirted. I am pretty sure that every major coalition group out there is supported by bots. Either ratting bots as documented recently so handily out in Drone space, or miner bots either in empire or nullsec. It is this cheating, "free" income that makes PvP losses meaningless for the "power blocs." Sanctum and Haven income is the domain of the lowly few honest players who actually manually run these anomalies to make isk. The part that makes my "BS-o-meter" really twitch is the fact that the trolls in this conversation who are pro-change are all themselves likely very similar to the normal pirate/griefer model, a big mouth hostshot PvP pilot noob-and-carebear calling while hypocritically supporting all their PvP activity with an alt-corp botter swarm mining away somewhere in Khanid. CCP, you want to make nullsec more vibrant and make PvP losses have more sting? You want to break up the big coalitions? 1. STOP the BOTTERS. Remove the big alliances' secret money chain and they won't be able to afford that momswarm anymore. 2. Make the Dreadnought class ship what is was supposed to be: a badass. Make it 10x more effective against other caps and make it able to hit and pwn BSes. Immediately this ship clkass, accessible to all, becomes the de facto crapkicker of all low and nullsec, empowering pretty much anyone to go out and lay waste, thereby taking the power away from the NAPing, mom-blobbing current powers that be. 3. REMOVE the ability to AFK CLOAK. 4. Make moon goo deplete and make it migrate from moon to moon, anywhere in EVE. Suddenly you need to chase the good goo, and my little corp might luck out and have it appear in one of our "junk" systems just for fun, at least until someone comes along and kicks the crap out of us for it. THere you go Greyscale, all your problems solved.
R0RSCH4CH	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:35:00 - [1438] Quote: CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Well, maybe he is also excited if he finds his wiener every morning. Who cares what he¦s excited about. According to what i have read so far the majority of posters (which is not nessecarily the majority of players) deeply dislikes the upcoming changes. I also cannot see any benefit coming from this. Well all the good words, all the explaining and all the sane suggestions didnt mean anything to the Devs. Nice showing of a "fck you, we dont care what you say" Attitude. Fine for me. You can of course do that, dear Devs. I just see it this way: If Volkswagen would recall the car i just bought and tell me that they will just equip it with two Wheels instead of four as they are hoping that this would have a positive impact on the CO2 Balance then that might be right as i couldnt drive with just two wheels. I still would show them the middle finger and go and buy a BMW. What i want to say is: The power lies with us, the people. It always have and it always will. The only thing which will hurt CCP is if they dont get any money anymore from the customers. We are king and maybe its time to remember WHO pays for their living. They don¦t support our style of playing? Why support them with our money anymore. You whole lot wont pay for something you don¦t like (taxes and stuff left aside). Nice work CCP, -3 Accounts. Summer is near, the Beach looks very tempting and after that Battlefield 3 is out. Guess i will invest the money i saved on a ranked server. Last words to Greyscale: You maybe should rethink your motto you mentioned in your profile: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong". You must be kidding me. Change it to "I dont ***ing care". And your Bio? "It turns out that if you donÆt bother doing any homework at school, you can go on to study a subject with no obvious applications at a really good university and then end up designing computer games in Iceland. I am not a good role model" Yeah right. Explains a lot. Not doing the homework is what has happened here. To think something through is obviously a skill which you and your team are lacking. Maybe history will prove you right an me wrong. Then i will be the first one to apologize.
Besoina	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:45:00 - [1439] As it stands a corporation can plant themselves into any system in sov space, slap the upgrades on & have a place for their members to grind for isk in between cta's. Each system proudly "belongs" to a corp & they can grow their player base. With the proposed changes, corporations can still plant themselves anywhere in sov space but won't bother with the upgrades if their system isn't viable, ergo can't sustain growth or maintain the same isk grinding requirements. They are trying to force the player base to migrate into these lower sec systems where CCP have placed them in hard to defend corners of space, or strategically inconvenient. Their logic is that the abandoned systems will be occupied by newer corps or alliances wishing to move into 0.0. Although im not happy with the proposed changes, I can understand their logic. It's very similiar to how it was before, granting the lower sec systems the better dinner plate. And like 1 poster mentioned, all it takes is 1 cloaky hot dropper to hang out in system to halt the entire operation. The grunts like me who only want to earn enough isk to field ships for ctas is gonna have to work alot harder at it, potentially it all depends on how internal alliance policies are structured. We will have to wait & see.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:51:00 - [1440] Originally by: R0RSCH4CH Quote: CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Well, maybe he is also excited if he finds his wiener every morning. Who cares what he¦s excited about. According to what i have read so far the majority of posters (which is not nessecarily the majority of players) deeply dislikes the upcoming changes. I also cannot see any benefit coming from this. Well all the good words, all the explaining and all the sane suggestions didnt mean anything to the Devs. Nice showing of a "fck you, we dont care what you say" Attitude. Fine for me. You can of course do that, dear Devs. I just see it this way: If Volkswagen would recall the car i just bought and tell me that they will just equip it with two Wheels instead of four as they are hoping that this would have a positive impact on the CO2 Balance then that might be right as i couldnt drive with just two wheels. I still would show them the middle finger and go and buy a BMW. What i want to say is: The power lies with us, the people. It always have and it always will. The only thing which will hurt CCP is if they dont get any money anymore from the customers. We are king and maybe its time to remember WHO pays for their living. They don¦t support our style of playing? Why support them with our money anymore. You whole lot wont pay for something you don¦t like (taxes and stuff left aside). Nice work CCP, -3 Accounts. Summer is near, the Beach looks very tempting and after that Battlefield 3 is out. Guess i will invest the money i saved on a ranked server. Last words to Greyscale: You maybe should rethink your motto you mentioned in your profile: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong". You must be kidding me. Change it to "I dont ***ing care". And your Bio? "It turns out that if you donÆt bother doing any homework at school, you can go on to study a subject with no obvious applications at a really good university and then end up designing computer games in Iceland. I am not a good role model" Yeah right. Explains a lot. Not doing the homework is what has happened here. To think something through is obviously a skill which you and your team are lacking. Maybe history will prove you right an me wrong. Then i will be the first one to apologize. Signed. Failing to listen to its player base is the mark of a failing dev team. You guys make the WoT dev team look like punctual, high stepping boyscouts.

Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.29 17:59:00 - [1441] Originally by: Besoina And like 1 poster mentioned, all it takes is 1 cloaky hot dropper to hang out in system to halt the entire operation. This is likely gonna be a side-effect of having more people concentrated into 'good' systems. But is it really that bad? It sure will hurt the carebear types that are unable to accept any form of risk whatsoever while grinding their isk, but lets be honest those dont belong into nullsec in the first place. I've never given a damn about neutrals in my local, especially not since aligning to bookmarks became possible. But even before that feature, it just meant it was time to think about which inline safe I was gonna align to. If anything, improving the ability to choke the life out of the enemy by disrupting their money making using sting tactics is a good thing.
Pariah Flori Minmatar KINGS OF EDEN	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:04:00 - [1442] What a horrible idea. .
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:04:00 - [1443] Originally by: Tania Russ The part that makes my "BS-o-meter" really twitch is the fact that the trolls in this conversation who are pro-change are all themselves likely very similar to the normal pirate/griefer model, a big mouth hostshot PvP pilot noob-and-carebear calling while hypocritically supporting all their PvP activity with an alt-corp botter swarm mining away somewhere in Khanid. lolz. Quote: STOP the BOTTERS. Seems like they're trying. I wish they'd try harder. Overall, +1 Quote: 2. Make the Dreadnought class ship what is was supposed to be: a badass. Make it 10x more effective against other caps and make it able to hit and pwn BSes. Immediately this ship clkass, accessible to all, becomes the de facto crapkicker of all low and nullsec, empowering pretty much anyone to go out and lay waste, thereby taking the power away from the NAPing, mom-blobbing current powers that be. Now that's a terrible idea. Quote: 3. REMOVE the ability to AFK CLOAK. "AFK" cloaking is one of the few ways to legitimately attack a supply chain. In either case, your 50 guys AFK in the station do the same thing to me when I come harass your space. Maybe if it's simply doing away with AFK'ing at all? Quote: 4. Make moon goo deplete and make it migrate from moon to moon, anywhere in EVE. Suddenly you need to chase the good goo, and my little corp might luck out and have it appear in one of our "junk" systems just for fun, at least until someone comes along and kicks the crap out of us for it. There seem like there's lots of ways to solve this problem. That is one of them, but I think it's not necessarily the best one. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Evil Stare	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:15:00 - [1444] Originally by: bp920091 While i understand the intent of CCP, and touching sanctums and havens is an excellent way to get at this, a BETTER way to make -9 to -10 more valuable is to drastically increase the amount of sanctums and havens in those areas. While this change will make space more likely to be "fought over" (still wishful thinking by CCP), a proper way to do this is to leave the 0.0 to -0.4 regions of space alone or to decrease the value of them by small amounts (-50% MAX). A possible way to structure the changes could be (assuming 4 sanctums/havens with military upgrade 5 in current situation). Security Sanctums/Havens Percent change 0.0 to -.2 \|2-3\| (-50% to -25%) -.2 to -.4 \|3-4\| (-25% to 0%) -.4 to -.6 \|5-6\| (25% to 50%) -.6 to -.8 \|6-7\| (50% to 75%) -.8 to -1.0 \|7-9\| (75% to 125%) Another possible way that this change could be made is that lower security areas of 0.0 could get correspondingly higher rates of faction/officer spawns. (Take the rates of change from the above table for adjusted rates of change for faction/officer spawn increase). This numerical value would make -.8 to -1.0 space incredibly valuable, while only slightly nerfing (25% to 50%) low value 0.0 space. This change will cause valuable 0.0 to be very profitable, increasing its value, and making eve less "flat" while still allowing small alliances to make money and function, without having to go back to highsec and run missions. Please respond to this (CCP hopefully, but i don't expect that it will be the case) with either agreements or critiques of this idea. If you do feel that this idea would not work, please make some recommendations, so we as a playerbase can stand up to CCP and say that THIS is a change that we would feel good about. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:18:00 - [1445] Originally by: Besoina And like 1 poster mentioned, all it takes is 1 cloaky hot dropper to hang out in system to halt the entire operation. My sig is the anwser:
Inanna NiKunni	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:24:00 - [1446] I think CCP is on to something, i bet they are doing this to fight lag - yes LAG. less havens and sanctums means less isk for the grunts, which means less pvp ships, less people in fleet and therefore smaller blobs. I approve this message.
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:26:00 - [1447] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Tania Russ The part that makes my "BS-o-meter" really twitch is the fact that the trolls in this conversation who are pro-change are all themselves likely very similar to the normal pirate/griefer model, a big mouth hostshot PvP pilot noob-and-carebear calling while hypocritically supporting all their PvP activity with an alt-corp botter swarm mining away somewhere in Khanid. lolz. Quote: STOP the BOTTERS. Seems like they're trying. I wish they'd try harder. Overall, +1 Quote: 2. Make the Dreadnought class ship what is was supposed to be: a badass. Make it 10x more effective against other caps and make it able to hit and pwn BSes. Immediately this ship clkass, accessible to all, becomes the de facto crapkicker of all low and nullsec, empowering pretty much anyone to go out and lay waste, thereby taking the power away from the NAPing, mom-blobbing current powers that be. Now that's a terrible idea. Quote: 3. REMOVE the ability to AFK CLOAK. "AFK" cloaking is one of the few ways to legitimately attack a supply chain. In either case, your 50 guys AFK in the station do the same thing to me when I come harass your space. Maybe if it's simply doing away with AFK'ing at all? Quote: 4. Make moon goo deplete and make it migrate from moon to moon, anywhere in EVE. Suddenly you need to chase the good goo, and my little corp might luck out and have it appear in one of our "junk" systems just for fun, at least until someone comes along and kicks the crap out of us for it. There seem like there's lots of ways to solve this problem. That is one of them, but I think it's not necessarily the best one. -Liang Liang, you make by BS-o-meter twitch more than any other poster in this entire thread. Come up with some actual ideas instead of base trolling, mockery and drivel commentary, maybe your posts will be worth reading.
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:36:00 - [1448] Time to put on my corporate conspiracy theory hat and give my view on the real reason for this nerf - it has little to do with 0.0 mechanics and gameplay, and more to do with CCP's income. CCP perfectly understand the concept of 0.0 and the warfare mechanics, as well as sov dynamics. They know they the alliances that they claim to be targetting will be affected in no way by this nerf. Even to someone who doesn't understand fully, these changes make no sense whatsoever in the light that they're explained. However, if you look at my theory of why this is being done, it makes sense and falls nicely into place. Too much money is being made in 0.0. Sanctums and Havens are massive isk faucets. No one will argue that they're isk faucets - both from supporters and naysayers. In the large PvP alliances, much of that personal income goes into members equipping with more PvP ships and related equipment to fight large scale sov warfare and general PvP, but most goes to line the members' wallets. People will rat to get their income to get the ships and equipment that's not provided to them by their alliance ship replacement programs, as well as personal isk. Much of the isk generated by general members of the large sov-holding alliances is used in this matter. Alliance level income comes from tech moons, so this has zero effect on what space an alliance decides to settle. However, in these large alliances, and probably moreso in renter alliances (due to the little amounts lost in PvP), and too many accounts are being subscribed by PLEX rather than actual money. Seriously, look at any renter alliance, and most members have multiple accounts, often with most, if not all of them, being paid by isk via PLEX. PLEX is only a good thing for CCP when people are buying it from them to convert to ISK in game (which then then lose). When people are renewing their subscriptions with PLEX, that's $15 / month that CCP isn't getting for that account. No money makes CCP sad. By pulling the rug out from under people and further nerfing anoms (the new 6-7 min timer between respawn was Step 1), people who relied on isk / PLEX to pay for alt accounts will now come up horribly short of isk to do that. Unless they're in the best null systems, then they're going to either have to spend more time grinding away, or will have to pay for their alt accounts out of pocket. The latter is what CCP wants. This is a money grab and has little to do with "balancing 0.0", or whatever label CCP wants to put on it. Honestly, Greyscale, that blog is probably the most backward thing you've ever written. I usually look forward to your blogs. You have a great, naturally fluid writing style. But this one sounds very forced and unnatural and doesn't have your regular flow or writing style. It's like you know what you're saying is bull, but trying to convince us (and perhaps yourself) of it anyway. It's kind of like the newly converted vegetarian biting into that first soy burger at a friend's cookout and forcing that "MMMMMMMMMM, that's good burger" out to convince everyone (including yourself) that you like it, while knowing it tastes like compressed saw dust. Where's the CSM when we need them?
Ravora	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:42:00 - [1449] Originally by: Tania Russ Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Tania Russ The part that makes my "BS-o-meter" really twitch is the fact that the trolls in this conversation who are pro-change are all themselves likely very similar to the normal pirate/griefer model, a big mouth hostshot PvP pilot noob-and-carebear calling while hypocritically supporting all their PvP activity with an alt-corp botter swarm mining away somewhere in Khanid. lolz. Quote: STOP the BOTTERS. Seems like they're trying. I wish they'd try harder. Overall, +1 Quote: 2. Make the Dreadnought class ship what is was supposed to be: a badass. Make it 10x more effective against other caps and make it able to hit and pwn BSes. Immediately this ship clkass, accessible to all, becomes the de facto crapkicker of all low and nullsec, empowering pretty much anyone to go out and lay waste, thereby taking the power away from the NAPing, mom-blobbing current powers that be. Now that's a terrible idea. Quote: 3. REMOVE the ability to AFK CLOAK. "AFK" cloaking is one of the few ways to legitimately attack a supply chain. In either case, your 50 guys AFK in the station do the same thing to me when I come harass your space. Maybe if it's simply doing away with AFK'ing at all? Quote: 4. Make moon goo deplete and make it migrate from moon to moon, anywhere in EVE. Suddenly you need to chase the good goo, and my little corp might luck out and have it appear in one of our "junk" systems just for fun, at least until someone comes along and kicks the crap out of us for it. There seem like there's lots of ways to solve this problem. That is one of them, but I think it's not necessarily the best one. -Liang Liang, you make by BS-o-meter twitch more than any other poster in this entire thread. Come up with some actual ideas instead of base trolling, mockery and drivel commentary, maybe your posts will be worth reading. The problem is... Liang has not been involved into Sov-Fights since 04/2010 so she hasn't a clue. Currently she's in Lowsec so she doesn't care.... let her troll around
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:44:00 - [1450] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 29/03/2011 18:45:07 Originally by: Selpy However, in these large alliances, and probably moreso in renter alliances (due to the little amounts lost in PvP), and too many accounts are being subscribed by PLEX rather than actual money. Seriously, look at any renter alliance, and most members have multiple accounts, often with most, if not all of them, being paid by isk via PLEX. PLEX is only a good thing for CCP when people are buying it from them to convert to ISK in game (which then then lose). When people are renewing their subscriptions with PLEX, that's $15 / month that CCP isn't getting for that account. No money makes CCP sad. You dont understand how PLEX works. CCP doesnt care if you pay the $15, or the dude you bought the PLEX from did. Either way they get their $15. In other words, there is always someone who will convert the PLEX into gametime, they are not good for anything else (well, you can put them into a Kestrel and get blown up in Jita for the lulz I guess).

Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:52:00 - [1451] Originally by: Omara Otawan You dont understand how PLEX works. CCP doesnt care if you pay the $15, or the dude you bought the PLEX from did. Either way they get their $15. In other words, there is always someone who will convert the PLEX into gametime, they are not good for anything else (well, you can put them into a Kestrel and get blown up in Jita for the lulz I guess). QFT. Someone still bought the timecode to make the PLEX. CCP doesn't care who. PLEX is just a mechanism for those that have to buy game time and trade it for an agreed upon sum (market value) to someone who doesn't have/doesn't want to spend RL money on game time. The net to CCP is exactly the same.
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:55:00 - [1452] I can see both your points, and I can agree to a point with them. I still smell money grab, as the explanations or the reasons for these changes are asinine and make no sense. <gets off soapbox and removes tinfoil hat> ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 18:59:00 - [1453] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 19:00:30 Originally by: Ravora The problem is... Liang has not been involved into Sov-Fights since 04/2010 so she hasn't a clue. Currently she's in Lowsec so she doesn't care.... let her troll around Ah yes, me living in low sec and NPC 0.0 totally invalidates my opinion on botting, dreads, AFK cloaking, and moon goo. -Liang Ed: The funny thing is that there's a huge amount of rage being directed at moon goo - and rightfully so! But changing moon goo won't have the same effect on the economy (lowering net ISK inflow) - because moon goo removes ISK from the economy. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Inanna NiKunni	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:00:00 - [1454] Originally by: Selpy When people are renewing their subscriptions with PLEX, that's $15 / month that CCP isn't getting for that account. No money makes CCP sad. good theory - but wrong, CCP got their money, somebody bought that plex for $15 and sold it for isk. so some people are paying with isk for something that was originally purchased with $ by someone else.
ArmyOfMe Advocated-Destruction Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:03:00 - [1455] Originally by: Arela Xen Revamp the way Technetium is used in the t2 production instead of taking away the small mans income for pvp ships... ^^
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:06:00 - [1456] Originally by: Selpy I can see both your points, and I can agree to a point with them. I still smell money grab, as the explanations or the reasons for these changes are asinine and make no sense. <gets off soapbox and removes tinfoil hat> People quitting or unsubbing their alts doesn't equate to money grab. Kicking 1/2 the people out of 0.0 (which is what CCP are doing) destroys their way of playing, meaning there will be no reason for them to keep playing, meaning less $ for CCP. CCP's just too ****ing stupid to see it. Maybe they are hoping people will start to sell more plex to fund their 0.0 warfare. If it's a money grab it's CCP trying to get in on the RMT. If so it will be a quick burst of income followed by the company going under.
Godiever	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:12:00 - [1457] Could they now just re adjust the "true sec" of the systems? Make it that the further away you are form the nearest lowsec/high sec, the lower true sec the system becomes? This way, the deeper you are in null sec = the greater hassles/risks = the greater rewards!
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:17:00 - [1458] Originally by: mkmin Maybe they are hoping people will start to sell more plex to fund their 0.0 warfare. If it's a money grab it's CCP trying to get in on the RMT. If so it will be a quick burst of income followed by the company going under. This is what I believe is happening to an extent. Of course, I may have hit the bong a little too hard and my mind is wandering too. lol Seriously speaking though, I do feel there's more to this nerf than the reasons they're giving us, as even someone with basic understanding of how 0.0 works would know right away that plan is ******ed. And also the way Greyscale wrote the blog - I don't know, but as I read it, I feel like it was someone else's work that he just slightly edited himself. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just doesn't sound like his usual work. ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:23:00 - [1459] Originally by: Inanna NiKunni I think CCP is on to something, i bet they are doing this to fight lag - yes LAG. less havens and sanctums means less isk for the grunts, which means less pvp ships, less people in fleet and therefore smaller blobs. I approve this message. ccp is well aware that the grunts dont cause the lag, supercarriers and fighter bombers do. i have been in systems with 500v500 fights where all is well. as soon as supers take the field all hell breaks loose. why? consider this. every fighter bomber is essentially a drake. the server has to track movement and missile spam from each one. every mothership can field up to 20 fighter bombers. a 80 v 80 super carrier battle will generate more lag than those thousand grunts simply because as soon as they drop FB's the server is suddenly tracking on the order of 3000 missile spamming ships. this is what is generating the lag. its not the "grunt".
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:26:00 - [1460] Originally by: Selpy I can see both your points, and I can agree to a point with them. I still smell money grab, as the explanations or the reasons for these changes are asinine and make no sense. <gets off soapbox and removes tinfoil hat> how about this consiracy theory (and yes im just tossing it out lol): CCP loves isk farming bots. notice the drone russian areas are the least effected. as CCP finds and bans these routinely the botters buy a new account, keeping even more money rolling into the CCP wallet. as isk dries up for the average joe who will be effected by this they will be forced to buy isk, either from CCP or more than likely the bots. which will lead to more botters, more bans, and therefore more money.

Sli'co Scoser Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:26:00 - [1461] Originally by: Godiever Could they now just re adjust the "true sec" of the systems? Make it that the further away you are form the nearest lowsec/high sec, the lower true sec the system becomes? This way, the deeper you are in null sec = the greater hassles/risks = the greater rewards! One would hope this would happen to prevent parts of the far end of Omist and other far-flung regions from having -0.01 true sec. Combine this with a JB nerf to justify the distance from Empire resulting in a reason for a lower true sec (gate to gate or jump driving your way to the end of the galaxy would give more opportunity for supply chain ganking).
SamuelK The Stone of Jordan	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:27:00 - [1462] hats off to grayscale in this most epic of troll threads. btw, everyone above and below me are being trolled by ccp
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:36:00 - [1463] Originally by: Skaarl CCP loves isk farming bots. notice the drone russian areas are the least effected. Lets assume for a moment the drone regions are indeed full of bots (from my experience roaming there sometimes, these 'bots' at least smack you in local occasionally). Lets furthermore assume CCP intentionally designed this change in order to boost the drone regions. Maybe the intention is to give players incentive to pile into the drone regions by the thousands and make them a complete warzone, thus effectively killing off botter incomes? /puts on tinfoil hat Maybe the intention is to boost DRF in the hopes they will steamroll the other NAP coalitions off the map with an endless stream of supercaps. Then nerf said supercaps into the ground in order to reopen those regions for the taking. Might all be a huge conspiracy to give nullsec a fresh start.
Carsdottir	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:38:00 - [1464] much of everything! anyone want 5 characters ? They gave us milk for so long and now we are white colored water trick. Well I say if those systems become dynamic that is -1 when it is sure to become more crowded and those who do not really do anything in them to become more uncertain since the rats living there
Harocko K'zack	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:38:00 - [1465] Originally by: bp920091 This is yet another example of how CCP does not understand nullsec. Alliances will not change their goals, as their goals are not affected by the security class of their target system, that is more often an unintended side effect. All this change does is make the few deep 0.0 systems more valuable (which would be a good thing if it was not already settled), while turning the VAST majority of 0.0 space into desolate wasteland once again. If CCP wanted small alliances to succeed, killing the way that they can actually compete with others is not the way to do so. They are killing their way to fight large alliances as small to mid sized alliances use Anomalies to earn cash, rather than moons, as large alliances just take them for themselves. A way that a positive change could be made, and still implementing the changes that they would like to see is improving the anomalies by security status, but not nerfing the lowsecurity areas (0.0 - -0.4). They could do this by increasing the number of faction drops even more in high security anomalies. This would still make deep 0.0 still very valuable, without killing the ability for small alliances to actually fight back against huge power-blocks. Also, CCP could gradually improve 0.0 space (not by large amounts, but gradually), as huge areas of it would be turned into wasteland once again with this "fix". I certainly hope CCP realized that all this change will do is increase the strength of power-blocks (something they say that they do not want to do), while reducing the ability for small alliances to actually do things (again, something they say they do not want to do). Bp920091 has the ABSOLUTE right idea. I dont care if high end sec status gets MORE of something (let it be moons, drops, higher chances of special spawns, whatever) but DONT punish the poor. Keep the 2 sanctums and the 2 heavens, and whatever else the lower sec status have that the higher doesnt. CCP didnt take away Faction battleship blueprint drops from occuring in lower sec, but they did make it higher in the value over in the higher end sec status. CCP also didnt take officer spawns away, they made it MORE possible in higher end sec status. So dont take the heavens and sanctums away, just give the higher end sec status MORE.
Seraphin Foad Bad Kitty Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:43:00 - [1466] Awesome plan... Just a few flaws. 1) How are the members of those larger alliances able to afford the push for more desirable space if you've nerved the way THEY make isk? 2) Why would alliances move if they're sitting on decent moons? 3) Why... O why, will we move for more desirable space when 100 people moving through a gate in 0.0 lags out the game? CCP Greyscale is killing 0.0 for the average members. Stop hiring from the Central Park Zoo. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1231833
TEHb KOMETbl	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:44:00 - [1467] If ccp will remove high anomalies of -0.0 -0.2, I will remove EVE!!!!
DevkaEpt	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:51:00 - [1468] Originally by: TEHb KOMETbl If ccp will remove high anomalies of -0.0 -0.2, I will remove EVE!!!! Me to...
Pedro Snachez Senex Legio	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:53:00 - [1469] Originally by: Godiever Could they now just re adjust the "true sec" of the systems? Make it that the further away you are form the nearest lowsec/high sec, the lower true sec the system becomes? This way, the deeper you are in null sec = the greater hassles/risks = the greater rewards! Honestly, when I started the game, that is exactly how I imagined 0.0 worked because it makes sense on a very basic level. I imagined that the further away from some central middle point you went, the more dangerous and lucrative the space must be as Concord protection waned. I still think it's weird that it doesn't work that way. It would be better to push people further away from highsec entrances for good money than to just nerf/buff whole regions by some arbitrary truesec system that's been in place since forever. Ultimately, this is what I hate about these changes. They just make very little sense. CCP wants more dynamic 0.0, so they roll back the system that made people settle 0.0 in large numbers (anonamlies), but they leave the major ISK anchors for alliances in place (moons). Add to this the horrific sov grind and you've got one part of a change that might be really good for 0.0 coming through with no support from other changes. I am reserving judgment to see what happens, but it seems like not enough has really been changed to make people move to other rich regions as long as moons are still the way they are (stationary). Also, considering most bots don't live in settled 0.0 systems, having more unsettled systems is a weird stealth buff to the bots that just rat belts in empty space. The whole change just seems very poorly-explained, developed and executed, which is unsettling. Also, Greyscale could seriously use a PR person, as the communication from CCP about this has been terribad.
Seraphin Foad Bad Kitty Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 19:54:00 - [1470] Originally by: TEHb KOMETbl If ccp will remove high anomalies of -0.0 -0.2, I will remove EVE!!!! Im on this band wagon, Battlefield 3 and diablo 3 should be out soon. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1231833

White Tree	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:00:00 - [1471] Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is. We'll have to see how this works out. _______________________________________
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:06:00 - [1472] I'm still looking for the specific timeline CCP has to realize that this is **ing stupid. I kinda wish it was within a week so I could just cancel my accounts before it becomes time to resub. Would suck to have to wait a few months until the next expansion to know whether or not to quit permanently. Hell, maybe it's a good idea to just quit permanently anyway to get out of the CCP drama bull cluster** cycle. If this change goes through it's CCP saying we're all wasting our time with this game, because the time will count for nothing.
Duvida Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:09:00 - [1473] I'm glad Selpy brought up the ISK/PLEX topic, the resulting conversation filled in blanks for me on how PLEX functions. Learning...
Sli'co Scoser Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:10:00 - [1474] Apparently this goes live April 5th, so if you're affected, farm while you still can.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:11:00 - [1475] Originally by: mkmin I'm still looking for the specific timeline CCP has to realize that this is **ing stupid. I kinda wish it was within a week so I could just cancel my accounts before it becomes time to resub. Would suck to have to wait a few months until the next expansion to know whether or not to quit permanently. Hell, maybe it's a good idea to just quit permanently anyway to get out of the CCP drama bull cluster cycle. If this change goes through it's CCP saying we're all wasting our time with this game, because the time will count for nothing. http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Pay attention to Incursion 1.4 features and timeline for being deployed. I really don't think they could have aborted the nerf if they'd wanted to. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:31:00 - [1476] Originally by: Sli'co Scoser Apparently this goes live April 5th, so if you're affected, farm while you still can. Farm while I can? I'm not going to log in until I know whether or not the sub is worth keeping. I'm so freakin' glad it's only a week. That'll save me some $ on subs (yes I pay with $ rather than isk.)
Cyn0 A17	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:36:00 - [1477] Edited by: Cyn0 A17 on 29/03/2011 20:37:30 So adapting means get an alt to run missions in highsec for only 10% less isk per hour than pre-nerf and alot more post nerf. So whats a good highsec corp to run missions for.(that nerf is not comming anytime soon) Also all of 0.0 is just as risky except for maby -1.0 were you can run into an officer (almost 0% chance) and get face ****ed by it. This screws over the small alliance, but the big blocks dont care and live off tech to fund alliance and has enough space for players to rat in. Also simi-afk cloaky hotdropers need a nerf. No counter and can get a fleet that can counter your standing fleet and engage when they want when ever they want at almost 0 risk. Also they get the surprise factor after they been afk in system for several hours. This will get far worse once everyone is compressed into a few systems. Simi-afk means they check the game every so often for a target and standing hostile fleet comp/numbers but mostly afk. Also removing local and having to rely on d-scanner is useless for it doesnt tell you who it is; is that vaga a blue going somewere or warping to your sanctum (which do not need to be probed out btw) to gank you.
Vala Cora Gallente United Amarr Templar Legion Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:42:00 - [1478] Bravo CCP Bravo way to go, you've really screwed the pooch on this one.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:42:00 - [1479] To CCP: good. im glad you stuck with the plan. To... everyone else: tee hee. otherwise, a good change. its good to see EVE becoming just a bit harder. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:42:00 - [1480] Edited by: Gabriel Grimoire on 29/03/2011 20:42:35 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: mkmin I'm still looking for the specific timeline CCP has to realize that this is **ing stupid. I kinda wish it was within a week so I could just cancel my accounts before it becomes time to resub. Would suck to have to wait a few months until the next expansion to know whether or not to quit permanently. Hell, maybe it's a good idea to just quit permanently anyway to get out of the CCP drama bull cluster cycle. If this change goes through it's CCP saying we're all wasting our time with this game, because the time will count for nothing. http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Pay attention to Incursion 1.4 features and timeline for being deployed. I really don't think they could have aborted the nerf if they'd wanted to. -Liang Big surprise, another Liang post giving the Devs the benefit of the doubt. "Improved Quality/Risk Scaling in Anomalies" could have meant any number of things. The CCP Devs alone have the power/choice as to what those things are exactly. They aren't forced into doing a damn thing. They need to take responsibility for this and face the music, which in this case is going to be a hell of a lot of **ed off players and ultimately money lost. Stop making excuses for them. They tend to do a good enough job of that for themselves.

Zarko Dreadlor	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:43:00 - [1481] CCP do you really think this is a useful nerf? Look at the starmaps, the major alliances already control the true sec space. This is only going to re-enforce there recruiting ability and completly nerf ours... This makes me very sad as now smaller startup alliances, who need to be closer to high sec, etc, such as in catch are screwed. One major recruting tool IS anomoly running. Its how many PVPers generate ISK and get ships to fight with there alliance. Doing so is going to cause a mass migration out of null sec I'm sorry to say. Nullsecs rewards are dropping. if you want to leave things the way they are AND give a boost to the -. sec sysetms, thats fine I guess... Although let me remind you, they already GET officer spawns, MORE plexes, and just well, EVERYTHING is better about them already....... Its awesome watching CCP side with big alliances and coalitions.... If your intention was to get more people into null sec, you have failed. Thank you CCP for taking this game one more step towards destruction.....
dee x3	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:46:00 - [1482] 50 pages of how this is a bad idea...... Get the picture CCP http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/v...VoiceHeard.png
nulab jones Assisted Genocide	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:53:00 - [1483] Edited by: nulab jones on 29/03/2011 20:54:13 Originally by: White Tree Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is. We'll have to see how this works out. Lol, lots of R64 in lowsec that all the main power blocks hold with 0 chance of a small guy getting near and no need for sov. I have no fear that you guys will have no issue raking billions per tech moon. This is simply a attempt to sell more plex for ppl to fund there ships. Sorry CCP I paid real money for your game for 3 years for 2 accounts, now i have 5 paid with plex and after this goes through will return to 2 again. Between the 2 plex to keep my TWO accounts going and some isk for pvp ships it's all I will be able to afford not having access to a -.9 - -1.0 system, but rather a -.47 system.
Melkie Element 115. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.29 20:56:00 - [1484] This load of **** just makes me more excited about the new Star Wars game . . .
Presao	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:08:00 - [1485] Its time to quit then EVE when this is coming on 5.4.2011
didntwantthosesanctums anyway	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:09:00 - [1486] this makes me sad
Rinchi Caldari United Amarr Templar Legion	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:11:00 - [1487] Pretty obvious CCP doesn't care what their subscribers think. Question is, will they change their tune once the story about how CCP treats its paying customers hits the gaming news outlets? Way to go CCP, ignoring the real issues of unbalanced moon minerals and botting, while punishing the little guy for trying to scratch out a living.
Augmentin Raven	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:13:00 - [1488] Originally by: Rinchi Pretty obvious CCP doesn't care what their subscribers think. Question is, will they change their tune once the story about how CCP treats its paying customers hits the gaming news outlets? Way to go CCP, ignoring the real issues of unbalanced moon minerals and botting, while punishing the little guy for trying to scratch out a living. Maybe that's what we need to do? If they won't listen to us, maybe they'll listen to the reviews they're getting in magazines and editorials about how they don't listen to their player base? Game Informer/IGN/Metacritic...etc
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:16:00 - [1489] Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire Big surprise, another Liang post giving the Devs the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't meant to give them the benefit of the doubt. The implication should have been that they had this quite firmly in the pipeline and the dev blog was a "courtesy notification" to let us know what was going to happen. Even if the arguments in here had been largely valid (and I don't believe that they were), I don't think they could have rolled it back. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Wolfduke Secret Squirrel Readiness Group Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:18:00 - [1490] Edited by: Wolfduke on 29/03/2011 21:18:29 See my signature - that is all

VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:26:00 - [1491] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins To CCP: good. im glad you stuck with the plan. To... everyone else: tee hee. otherwise, a good change. its good to see EVE becoming just a bit harder. Couldn't agree more.
Kievan Ariskana Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:37:00 - [1492] Originally by: Incursion 1.4 features Extra Outpost info added If im not mistaken that feature is already running. On the other hand what is on the list now doesnt have to be there on April 5th. Fix null sec lag before nerfing income! Also if the changes go in as planned just wondering....WTS: High Quality Space
Demolish52	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:40:00 - [1493] Here you go, have these sweet cool upgrades. Go ahead invest billions in your space, it will be the best thing since sliced bread! Wait, I can haz those back now? -CCP NO -ME
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:43:00 - [1494] Originally by: Liang Nuren http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Pay attention to Incursion 1.4 features and timeline for being deployed. I really don't think they could have aborted the nerf if they'd wanted to. -Liang Originally by: CCP on that page Improved Quality/Risk Scaling in Anomalies As a part of the "equal value space makes this game boring" initiative, we've changed the way anomalies work. The quality of anomalies will depend on the system's true security level (truesec) - the better the truesec, the better the spawns. CCP Greyscale is writing a blog on this exact change, coming soonTM This seems perfectly workable (better spawns in anomalies in better truesec). However what CCP Greyscale has announced is no decent anomalies in poor truesec. Not just lesser spawns in the anomalies, no anomalies at all (worth mentioning). Keep the ISK drains of sov upgrades and tie the quality of the anomalies to the truesec - poorer truesec would then mean you get the anomolies, but they're not as good, and really low truesec anoms would be powerhouse.
Nomad I	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:45:00 - [1495] CCP will get the Yulei syndrome. CCP is trying to destroy a disease with some actions and creating a new disease, like destroying Yulei as a trade center and creating Jita. It will be happen again. CCP Greyscale wrote in 2009: Quote: Firstly, let people upgrade their space, and in particular its resource density. By increasing the resource density, you increase the potential population density, and by letting players do it rather than simply seeding more resources, you open up more decisions and more emergence.[..] It gets more people into nullsec - one of our objectives - by making big alliances want more people in their space. It makes it much harder to be a big, rich, military alliance http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 The same CCP Greyscale makes now a 180 degree turn. Really funny.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:50:00 - [1496] we will adapted to the changes, they will cost the corp and memebers income but hey. what really bothers me is the total disregard for the customers that comes with annoucing this sneaky change with only a few days notice before implmentation. you have given sov holders 2 weeks notice that there space and all the hard work that has gone into is now crap. its strange i know you at ccp have no respect for customers, so i dont know why im shocked each time you display that lack of respect.
Grandua	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:50:00 - [1497] Dear CCP, This has seriously got to be THE worst Idea I have heard! If you want to improve the 0.0 conflicts, then fix the @#$#ing LAG! Sincerely, -----Grand
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:51:00 - [1498] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire Big surprise, another Liang post giving the Devs the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't meant to give them the benefit of the doubt. The implication should have been that they had this quite firmly in the pipeline and the dev blog was a "courtesy notification" to let us know what was going to happen. Even if the arguments in here had been largely valid (and I don't believe that they were), I don't think they could have rolled it back. -Liang In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two shts what their player base thinks. They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and fck all if people don't like it. Real good business practice.
TeHb KaTJleTbl	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:51:00 - [1499] iwill delete eve if u do this .... all that u do CCP only dissapoints people
Demolish52	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:52:00 - [1500] Originally by: Nomad I CCP will get the Yulei syndrome. CCP is trying to destroy a disease with some actions and creating a new disease, like destroying Yulei as a trade center and creating Jita. It will be happen again. CCP Greyscale wrote in 2009: Quote: Firstly, let people upgrade their space, and in particular its resource density. By increasing the resource density, you increase the potential population density, and by letting players do it rather than simply seeding more resources, you open up more decisions and more emergence.[..] It gets more people into nullsec - one of our objectives - by making big alliances want more people in their space. It makes it much harder to be a big, rich, military alliance http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 The same CCP Greyscale makes now a 180 degree turn. Really funny. All I can say is...rofl, epic fail. Please stop screwing shi* up CCP. Leave it alone ffs.

helmeo Caldari Star Mandate	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:58:00 - [1501] um, all those that are quitting can i have your stuffz?
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 21:59:00 - [1502] Originally by: helmeo um, all those that are quitting can i have your stuffz? That depends. If you're going to use it to suicide gank rookie systems, maybe.
Ravora	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:02:00 - [1503] Edited by: Ravora on 29/03/2011 22:03:17 Originally by: Nomad I CCP will get the Yulei syndrome. CCP is trying to destroy a disease with some actions and creating a new disease, like destroying Yulei as a trade center and creating Jita. It will be happen again. CCP Greyscale wrote in 2009: Quote: Firstly, let people upgrade their space, and in particular its resource density. By increasing the resource density, you increase the potential population density, and by letting players do it rather than simply seeding more resources, you open up more decisions and more emergence.[..] It gets more people into nullsec - one of our objectives - by making big alliances want more people in their space. It makes it much harder to be a big, rich, military alliance http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695 The same CCP Greyscale makes now a 180 degree turn. Really funny. And thats how the reason he want's hold on that change. Originally by: Greyscale .... we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run.... Well... I FEEL that HIS FEELINGS will prove oneself wrong AGAIN!!!.
helmeo Caldari Star Mandate	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:09:00 - [1504] Originally by: mkmin Originally by: helmeo um, all those that are quitting can i have your stuffz? That depends. If you're going to use it to suicide gank rookie systems, maybe. i was thinking more like smart bombing jita undock...
Ahh yee	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:10:00 - [1505] This change alone will do nothing to influence alliances. GET RID OF THE **ED TECH IMBALANCE IN MOON MINERALS IF YOU WANT TO TRULY IMPACT ALLIANCE BEHAVIOR IN EVE
Aquana Abyss	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:13:00 - [1506] cram it up your "emergence" hole Greyscale!
Nostimo	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:13:00 - [1507] Dear CCP. You need to listen to the people who buy into this game. 50 pages so far of how Epic a Fail this change will be. When enough people are unhappy about the way things are run, they will revolt. Fanfest was really good by the way, but you will need fans for next years bash. Today, I am not a fan. -1 for next years fanfest. Regards
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:15:00 - [1508] Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two shts what their player base thinks. They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and fck all if people don't like it. Real good business practice. Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain. CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it). Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Evangalin	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:24:00 - [1509] Edited by: Evangalin on 29/03/2011 22:26:03 I just got to 5 million skill points got my first battleship Amar (yeah) and am ready to pay for another 6 months of gameplay after enjoying some sanctum runs with my corp. I am probably not much of a pilot or know alot about eve but it sounds to me like this change will seriously dishearten me into paying for another 6 months if the only thing I can do is fight with my corpmates about whose hub is who in the weeks to come. Seriously does ccp think this will improve there market income of the game if people under the 10 million skill level will want to play the game with a bunch of cutthroats rather then enjoying a nice shoot out with friends. What the hell are they thinking!?!?!
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:24:00 - [1510] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two shts what their player base thinks. They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and fck all if people don't like it. Real good business practice. Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain. CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it). Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry. -Liang You're right. Who needs all those damned roots anyway? Just sitting there not growing leaves.

Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:27:00 - [1511] Liang. Just shut up. No one is even remotely impressed by your pathetic sophistry, despite how much you like the sound of your own voice. There are a large number of well explained reasons that the customer base has given to back its claims and no adequate reply to them from CCP. This is a service the customers are paying for. They damn well know what they want and particularly in these kinds of numbers, as this last CSM's bringing about long sought changes and the consequent approval rating has well illustrated. CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:29:00 - [1512] Edited by: mkmin on 29/03/2011 22:30:59 Originally by: Xel Ra CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Because they are bored and want to **** stuff up, and are too drunk, stoned, or stupid to realize that it's going to cost every one of them their jobs. edit: But I guess the actual decision makers hold ownership in the company and are probably cashing in as we speak. Who cares about the players? Who cares about the coders?
Grandua	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:56:00 - [1513] So I guess I should quantify why I belive this is a bad idea... As a combat pilot I loose a great deal of isk. For all the reasons this could be, I have been playing for almost 3 years. I keep less than 100 mil in my wallet trying to replace the ships I loose, while skilling and buying the next better ship. If CCP makes these changes, as a combat pilot I will have four choices: 1. Become an indy to pay for all the ships we throw away....thus flooding the market and devaluating it in a very incredible way. 2. Go to the worm holes and flood the market with that stuff....again destroying the market, and reducing my ability to enjoy PVP so much. 3. Start high sec suicide ganking (very distasteful to me) 4. Going to play WOW or WOT where we can start again as a noob without having to invest years to do it! P.S. I understand the whole marketing strategy thing that CCP is trying to implement.... but these changes will redesign a game in such a way that the customers...or at least I....will quickly become bored. If you neut our ability to make isk to buy skills and ships (which is what you are suggesting) we will have to take MORE time to carebear to make money to replace them....doesn't this game suck enough of our lives away? Again, -----Grand
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 22:58:00 - [1514] Originally by: Xel Ra Liang. Just shut up. No one is even remotely impressed by your pathetic sophistry I agree - it's better to be uncivil, rage, and froth at the mouth when discussing changes. I also agree that it's better to refuse to discuss someone's arguments and dismiss them as "sophistry". :) -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:07:00 - [1515] The downfall of EVE, victory to Greyscale.
UberDeathDealer Steel Fleet Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:09:00 - [1516] Edited by: UberDeathDealer on 29/03/2011 23:10:19 hey CCP, Bitter vet here. Not sure you are not listening to your paying customers. I pay to play this game. The fact that you are not listening to a rather large part of your PAYING community really bothers me. The only reason i play is to make stuffs to boom. Not really sure you are gonna make it harder to live in 0.0. Not really sure why you chose to make it harder for me to make isk to make things go boom. I really thought living in any part of 0.0 is should be more profitable than any part of empire. Looks like high sec missions will remain the best safest way to make isk. With much risk comes the chance of great reward am i rite? I have to ask do your predictions see less subscribers in your future. Why not nerf highsec missions and make it so more people have to move to 0.0. Why not nerf botters? This change just seems really short sited and made by people who dont actually play this game. CCP states they want more alliance combat? Sense when is there not enough? Check out the epic fights between DRF and NC. Or you should check out our killboard.
Raindeth FACTION Inc. Irrelevant.	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:10:00 - [1517] TLDR: THIS is how you get to your stated goals, sorry too long to summarize though. I read the first 3 pages of replies. I hope some poor CCP newb has to get through to page.. 51 because I will fix this for you. I will cross-post this so CCP sees it. First, you have to stop looking for the quick and easy solutions to complex problems. Seek first to understand the motivations of your players and the dynamics of the economy. State your goals, then make changes that speak to the players' motivations. So, your goals are to: 1) Increase conflict among similarly sized entities 2) Allow new, smaller alliances access to 0.0. What motivates large alliances to hold sov? 1) Vanity. "We are the king of this hill" mentality "We are leet PVPers" etc 2) Passive Income. Making billions with little work through established moon-mining. 3) Individual income production for members is a factor. So, how do you achieve goal #1? There is currently no way to classify how big an alliance or powerblock is. With metagaming and use of NPC alts, alliances could be any size. So, the first thing you need to do is get alliances to voluntarily classify themselves. You would need to give big incentives for alliances to classify themselves appropriately. I would definitely use a "vanity" reward as well as an isk reward. In fact, here it is: Make sov bills scale in cost, so that one system costs 5 mil per day, but say, 5 systems cost 20 mil per day EACH (100 mil total) scaling up more steeply as more systems are added. THEN, you can reduce the sov bills based on the size of the alliance or powerblock you have. So, a "medium-sized" (make cool names) alliance would get, say, 5 systems at the 5 mil per day rate, but any sov after that would start increasing the per-system cost. Also, sort out moons and technetium. Make what you want valuable correctly valuable and require a certain level of alliance size to harvest certain moons. No small alliance has a tech moon now (or not for long) anyway. A small alliance could HOLD a tech moon, but would not be able to get isk from it. Many reward factors like this would help discourage big alliances from splitting up into a billion small alliances working together to grief the little guys. Ok, now that you have alliances and coalitions classified to represent their size, you can address factors that will allow them to want to fight similarly sized entities. Introduce rewards (vanity and actual strategic incentives as well as an effect on captured moons) that reward similarly sized entities to attack each other. If a huge alliance attacks a tiny one, make it less rewarding and more difficult, AND VICE VERSA. If a small alliance attacks a large one, make it less rewarding. A number of small alliances could band together, but then if they want to attack the large alliance and get the full rewards for doing so, they have to register as a larger entity, even if it is a temporary TREATY. Goal #2 I think the realization of goal number one will naturally lead to goal number two. Smaller alliances will pop up everywhere and probably fight each other for the _A_ system as long as it is more rewarding (remember vanity and iskwise) to hold 0.0 sov. As far as programming and work, I'm sure what I've proposed here is difficult, but if you want Eve to continue to be a great game, you need to look first at the goals, not how easy it'll be to implement. Sorry programmers. Critics, constructive ones, are welcome.
felchergod	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:12:00 - [1518] At first I was against these changes but now I can see just by all the arguing, crying and sodomy in this thread that it will have exactly the intended effect of generating conflict. My wallet will suffer, but I'm one of those guys who spends 10% of his time pveing, the other 90% pvping...unlike "elite 0.0 pvpers" (as Liang put it) who farm isk 90% of the time to lose a couple bs/bc a month on CTA ops which are covered by alliance ship reimbursement.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:17:00 - [1519] Originally by: mkmin Edited by: mkmin on 29/03/2011 22:30:59 Originally by: Xel Ra CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Because they are bored and want to ** stuff up, and are too drunk, stoned, or stupid to realize that it's going to cost every one of them their jobs. edit: But I guess the actual decision makers hold ownership in the company and are probably cashing in as we speak. Who cares about the players? Who cares about the coders? ... are you just **ed? they are simply turning back the tables to when the game was an actual challenge... eve will be here long after you quit... i bet you quit smoking too. i see a pattern here... ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:19:00 - [1520] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins Originally by: mkmin Edited by: mkmin on 29/03/2011 22:30:59 Originally by: Xel Ra CCP, why does the solution have to be a Phyrric victory? Surely there is something better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Because they are bored and want to ** stuff up, and are too drunk, stoned, or stupid to realize that it's going to cost every one of them their jobs. edit: But I guess the actual decision makers hold ownership in the company and are probably cashing in as we speak. Who cares about the players? Who cares about the coders? ... are you just **ed? they are simply turning back the tables to when the game was an actual challenge... eve will be here long after you quit... i bet you quit smoking too. i see a pattern here... You're right, they should turn everything back. They should remove POSes, remove mining barges, remove battleships and capitals... bring it all the way back to beta, because that was MUCH better and had WAY more subscribers. Just because something's old, doesn't mean it's good. In fact it usually means it's **.

Dr Syphilis	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:24:00 - [1521] Only a few days to go till Eve is changed for the better!!!
marinko26210 Gallente 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:36:00 - [1522] Fail again CCP.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:38:00 - [1523] Its been a long time since we have seen this kind of rage... Falcon nerf was it? If history tells us anything, this kind of rage usually means the game is getting better.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:38:00 - [1524] Originally by: White Tree Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is. We'll have to see how this works out. When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time. You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes.
Pesadel0 the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:40:00 - [1525] Originally by: Sig Sour Its been a long time since we have seen this kind of rage... Falcon nerf was it? If history tells us anything, this kind of rage usually means the game is getting better. Not all changes are good , and this is one of those times that it isnt good.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:42:00 - [1526] Edited by: Super Whopper on 29/03/2011 23:43:57 Originally by: Sig Sour Its been a long time since we have seen this kind of rage... Falcon nerf was it? If history tells us anything, this kind of rage usually means the game is getting better. Yeah, like the sharp drop in max concurrent players EVE's been experiencing, for the better. More ISK in the game, yet fewer players. When you've realised those players have left, despite being able to pay for their game time with PLEX/market GTC, because this is CCP we're talking about is when you realise CCP only know how to ruin things; they have never, ever iterated on anything they've released. According to their data polishing content won't bring in new players. Keep computing, while players leave. CCP solving lag by solving their excess profit.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:43:00 - [1527] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 23:43:15 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: White Tree Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is. We'll have to see how this works out. When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time. You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes. Last patch (PI) -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
ovenproofjet Caldari Therapy. R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:47:00 - [1528] What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh?
Pesadel0 the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:48:00 - [1529] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/03/2011 23:43:15 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: White Tree Should these changes go through, it will likely not stop larger Alliances from holding regions from which profit can be extracted via the moons. Especially if the profit is large enough to warrant keeping the space, which in the case of certain R64 types: it is. We'll have to see how this works out. When was the last time CCP iterated on anything in the game, or kept their word? If CCP continued 'development' it'd be the first time. You are delusional if you think CCP are actually going to monitor anything, and then make changes. Last patch (PI) -Liang -Engine trails -Cyno efects -FW -pesadel0
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:49:00 - [1530] Originally by: Pesadel0 -Engine trails -Cyno efects -FW -pesadel0 http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Looks like a whole lot of iteration to me. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

felchergod	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:54:00 - [1531] Originally by: ovenproofjet What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh? Scared to mission in Venal? I promise I will let you dock at least.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:57:00 - [1532] Originally by: ovenproofjet What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh? Nope, missions are also getting the bat. Forget about your fancy BPC's. ____________ I like woman because breasts
ovenproofjet Caldari Therapy. R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:01:00 - [1533] Originally by: *****god Originally by:** ovenproofjet What is broken is that I'm just gonna go back and say hi to my old Lvl4 agent and I'll be making just as much money in high sec. Some risk vrs reward there eh? Scared to mission in Venal? I promise I will let you dock at least. Nah really don't care enough about the game anymore to bother getting standings there lol
Pesadel0 the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:02:00 - [1534] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Pesadel0 -Engine trails -Cyno efects -FW -pesadel0 http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Looks like a whole lot of iteration to me. I will tell you one thing liang , IF CCP were interested in changing 0.0 and the way people make wars , they would change the moongoo , instead they nerf the ability of people replacing PVP ships.It just seems like they don¦t want to work and implement some features to their game.Frack it anyway, i will just farm level 5 :D.
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:04:00 - [1535] -4 subscriptions from me Just in time for battlefield 3, and the new Star Wars MMO.. Thanks for **ing me over CCP, eat a bag of **s. Easy Co.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:05:00 - [1536] LOL @ ALL THE HARD CORE NULL PLAYERS THREATENING TO QUIT THE GAME OR GO BACK TO HIGH SEC BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FARM SANCTUMS ALL DAY!
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:08:00 - [1537] Originally by: Marconus Orion LOL @ ALL THE HARD CORE NULL PLAYERS THREATENING TO QUIT THE GAME OR GO BACK TO HIGH SEC BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FARM SANCTUMS ALL DAY! You are an idiot, a troll, or both. I am gonna go with both.
DarkArtz Celestial Mayhem Violent Entity	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:19:00 - [1538] I don't rely on sanctums for my income but I know plenty of casual players that do. This certainly won't cause me to quit but it is just another sign that CCP's and my direction will eventually part.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:20:00 - [1539] Originally by: Amber Villaneous Originally by: Marconus Orion LOL @ ALL THE HARD CORE NULL PLAYERS THREATENING TO QUIT THE GAME OR GO BACK TO HIGH SEC BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FARM SANCTUMS ALL DAY! You are an idiot, a troll, or both. I am gonna go with both. you must be a bad. his trolling was spot on, and very accurate. people have gotten soft since the anoms came out and every region was equal... its no different from anything else, not everything can be equal. some regions are simply designed to be utter **. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?**
Xeneda	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:21:00 - [1540] CCP be mad that IT lost fountain? So nerf fountain? YES. Nerf fountain.

SizeDoesMatter	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:26:00 - [1541] Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 30/03/2011 00:27:23 The solution has already been posted pages ago. So please stop arguing like children and push this forward! Originally by: SizeDoesMatter Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:13:02 Edited by: SizeDoesMatter on 28/03/2011 19:08:57 CCP Greyscale you are completly missing the point. Players in this thread aren¦t against changes to 0.0 ! They actually want you guys from CCP to change stuff ! But you are not coming up with a real solution for the problems. What has to be changed is the access to moon minerals. Moons have to deplete, instead of giving the holder non stop ISKs, because that makes corps and alliance to stay at one place. Once the moon is depleted there has to be a random timer when the "mineral" spawns again in some random moon. Dont make it constellation based, try it with region based. And so the players have to spend time and ISK to scan all these moons from time to time to find new spawns. (Iam not talking about spawning new moons, i am refering to a spawn of minerals in the moon, regardless of this moon is being mined already) This will increase the fighting and the movement of troops, because neutrals and/or hostiles will scan your territory and if they find a moon before you do it, they will place a "death star" and defend it for that time. And the defending force will try to interrupt them from getting the ISK out of the moon. This will hopefully lead to incursions into hostile space. problem solved. home in time for tea and crumpets. i tell ya, iam wasted here. This!
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:31:00 - [1542] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 00:33:34 Originally by: Pesadel0 I will tell you one thing liang , IF CCP were interested in changing 0.0 and the way people make wars , they would change the moongoo , instead they nerf the ability of people replacing PVP ships.It just seems like they don¦t want to work and implement some features to their game.Frack it anyway, i will just farm level 5 :D. Why instead of... ? -Liang Ed: Also, enjoy getting your ISK through market PVP and research instead of having it fed to you on a silver spoon. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:35:00 - [1543] Originally by: Liang Nuren Ed: Also, enjoy getting your ISK through market PVP and research instead of having it fed to you on a silver spoon. Its not like exploration will suddenly not be a goldmine anymore.
Jimmy Duce Navy of Xoc	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:36:00 - [1544] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 00:33:34 Originally by: Pesadel0 I will tell you one thing liang , IF CCP were interested in changing 0.0 and the way people make wars , they would change the moongoo , instead they nerf the ability of people replacing PVP ships.It just seems like they don¦t want to work and implement some features to their game.Frack it anyway, i will just farm level 5 :D. Why instead of... ? -Liang Ed: Also, enjoy getting your ISK through market PVP and research instead of having it fed to you on a silver spoon. :( I used to think you were cool.
Cyxopyc Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:41:00 - [1545] CCP has been doing decent job of improving the game/client but they still have a long way to go. This includes many parts of the original game now over 6 years old. Their favored implementation tool is the dump truck and tuning is done by hammer and axe. An hour of planning or a slight turn of a dial often seems beyond CCP. As I said before I like the idea of making results of SOV upgrades a function of true security status. It's just messy how CCP has gone about it and they're ignoring everything else SOV upgrades spawn in a system. Maybe the axe blade needs sharpening? == Support fixing the EVE UI
Devinerose	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:42:00 - [1546] null WORST DAMN IDEA EVER MY ACCOUNTS ARE CANCELED
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:44:00 - [1547] Edited by: Frodo Teabaggins on 30/03/2011 00:45:26 Just let CCP do their thing, if the update doesnt work as planned they will make a change... however i can assure you that money can be made on rats in belts with little problem. it is not the same as a sanctum or a haven but the idea that every system is equal is ludicrous. you seem to think you are entitled to these imbalances. that doesnt mean you should have a way to make ISK. chaining belts in a system can net plenty of isk to support a player. ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?
missminer69	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:45:00 - [1548] Only way this jackass will listen is if there are people cancelling accounts and not signing in. I hate to say it but i think ill be one of them. Its nerf after nerf and whilst a handful of people will say "its good for the game" its ridiculous that you allowed people to work their arse off to farm their own systems and then take it away. I think I may be singing the same tune as a lot of people when i say this is a f*cking game you c$nt not a f4ckin job. 6 years of playing and i have never felt so dissapointed at finally realising the game is coming to an end for me. Mind numbing griding is not what i pay for.
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:46:00 - [1549] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 00:33:34 Originally by: Pesadel0 I will tell you one thing liang , IF CCP were interested in changing 0.0 and the way people make wars , they would change the moongoo , instead they nerf the ability of people replacing PVP ships.It just seems like they don¦t want to work and implement some features to their game.Frack it anyway, i will just farm level 5 :D. Why instead of... ? -Liang Ed: Also, enjoy getting your ISK through market PVP and research instead of having it fed to you on a silver spoon. No need to be a complete ***** about it. Just because it wasn't your pet game mechanic that was nerfed this time doesn't mean you should jump for joy when someone else gets screwed. Particularly in this case, when it is unclear as to whether the anomaly changes will have CCP's intended effect. Originally by:** CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Frodo Teabaggins Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:47:00 - [1550] hey maybe with all these emos the lag wont be so bad =) ______________________________ Do you feel lucky? well, do you, Punk?

Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:53:00 - [1551] Originally by: Frodo Teabaggins hey maybe with all these emos the lag wont be so bad =) Team Gridlock is excited to annouce their new Emo Technology...
zloxlo	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:54:00 - [1552] Subscription Status: Cancelled
gusher The Hunt United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:54:00 - [1553] Let me start by saying this is just bull **. we worked hard to get out system upgraded, haul the large ass mods into our space. We work hard for you to take everything away from us? I want a refund for all the intrapment arrays and the cost for having them brought up. Besides the torp nerf, this is the stupidist thing that is going to happen. Every one might as well turn into miners, well until ccp makes it to where you can only get abc in certain areas of space. Stop breaking what works and fix the ** that needs fixed before jacking with stuff. I would realy like to know who suggested this in your brain storm sessions because they need to be given a broom instead of a pen. I never complain because I love EVE but you guys are starting to go way to fare and basing EVE of one player type where eve use to be for everyone. One big sandbox? not when you guys get done. BTW great job on all the good stuff you do, but this is just plain fail. Gusher
zelalot	Posted - 2011.03.30 00:56:00 - [1554] Subscription Status: Cancelled
Murauke Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:00:00 - [1555] hmmmm nice of Greyscrubba to get this one through before the CSM.
Piter 'De'Vries	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:03:00 - [1556] awesome news ccp!!!!!!! This will help new players like myself get a shot to explore and colonize null sec the way it was meant to be, to experience a different part of the game that has been neglected to so many of us. Thanks much ccp. can't wait!!!
zz01shagsme	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:04:00 - [1557] Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries awesome news ccp!!!!!!! This will help new players like myself get a shot to explore and colonize null sec the way it was meant to be, to experience a different part of the game that has been neglected to so many of us. Thanks much ccp. can't wait!!! LOL - you have no idea..... loose a few ratting ships and then come back!
Malidia	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:13:00 - [1558] You have to love the way not a single dev has even bothered to take the time and let us know what is going on about this change, 52 pages of player posts and 3 very short dev posts in the entire topic.
Lord Calimari	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:13:00 - [1559] Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries awesome news ccp!!!!!!! This will help new players like myself get a shot to explore and colonize null sec the way it was meant to be, to experience a different part of the game that has been neglected to so many of us. Thanks much ccp. can't wait!!! LOL, you can tell you never been in 0.0... you will soon find out you will loose WAYY more ISK than you can make without being able to run havens and sanctums (after this change), won't be long you will be running back to high sec with an empty wallet wondering what just happend.... haha. The pvp players in the power blocks will love killing your ships (that you won't be able to replace do to lack of ISK making anoms). It would have actually been easier for you to get to 0.0 before this change.
Optimator One	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:16:00 - [1560] Is this 1st april ? If it's not then alot of pvp people i know will just go to high sec. These changes suck. And 98% of all players in eve agree that's the worst idea ever.

Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:21:00 - [1561] Originally by: Liang Nuren Ed: Also, enjoy getting your ISK through market PVP and research instead of having it fed to you on a silver spoon. Most of my ISK comes from Market PvP. Thing is, the bulk of day to day sales come from people replacing PvP ships, mods and ammo - EVE's economy is built around the construction and destruction of ships. Less ISK to replace ships = less money going into market PvP. Again, I'm pretty confident that I'll be fine (even better off) with this change because my alliance has some of the best truesec. ev0ke and NC. who are now staging out of Pure Blind (PvP delivered fresh to the door, can't beat it) don't. I sincerely hope those guys are able to sustain their losses for a while without sanctums to go home to.
Piter 'De'Vries	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:24:00 - [1562] Originally by: Lord Calimari Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries awesome news ccp!!!!!!! This will help new players like myself get a shot to explore and colonize null sec the way it was meant to be, to experience a different part of the game that has been neglected to so many of us. Thanks much ccp. can't wait!!! LOL, you can tell you never been in 0.0... you will soon find out you will loose WAYY more ISK than you can make without being able to run havens and sanctums (after this change), won't be long you will be running back to high sec with an empty wallet wondering what just happend.... haha. The pvp players in the power blocks will love killing your ships (that you won't be able to replace do to lack of ISK making anoms). It would have actually been easier for you to get to 0.0 before this change. I focus on industry which helps me make the isk I need to replace my ships to PvP well, trust me. I think now the power block of so called pewpewrs will finally leave their supers and come out to play. As you probably know, being in a super makes you a lazy pvpr losing your edge in game . The sharks are thirsty. ta ta.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:26:00 - [1563] SMA being evicted from Pure Blind :D Who is next? :D :D :D
gr ant	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:38:00 - [1564] CCP do you really think this will help? this wont destabalize ****, if anything the Bigger Alliances will just have a more firm foothold on their space. You should first focus on NERFING TECH MOONS, maybe spread them around a little so 80% of them arent in NC space...
Xuallus Arkanum Senex Legio	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:39:00 - [1565] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat SMA being evicted from Pure Blind :D Who is next? :D :D :D Not because of the epic awesomeness of their space...
Lord Calimari	Posted - 2011.03.30 01:49:00 - [1566] Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries Originally by: Lord Calimari Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries awesome news ccp!!!!!!! This will help new players like myself get a shot to explore and colonize null sec the way it was meant to be, to experience a different part of the game that has been neglected to so many of us. Thanks much ccp. can't wait!!! LOL, you can tell you never been in 0.0... you will soon find out you will loose WAYY more ISK than you can make without being able to run havens and sanctums (after this change), won't be long you will be running back to high sec with an empty wallet wondering what just happend.... haha. The pvp players in the power blocks will love killing your ships (that you won't be able to replace do to lack of ISK making anoms). It would have actually been easier for you to get to 0.0 before this change. I focus on industry which helps me make the isk I need to replace my ships to PvP well, trust me. I think now the power block of so called pewpewrs will finally leave their supers and come out to play. As you probably know, being in a super makes you a lazy pvpr losing your edge in game . The sharks are thirsty. ta ta. Oh boy you are really green about 0.0. You think the people currently living in 0.0 are rusty at PVP, lol, and that an Industrial focused corp that is new to 0.0 will have even a small chance alone against the current 0.0 superpowers. Trust me you would have been far better off joining an existing aliance down there that currently holds sov under the current system, than to go there alone and claim your own sov. Your systems will become favourite hunting grounds for pvpers looking to pad thier kill boards (and they will). And they will love the oportunity to kill your POSes because they also look good on the kill boards. Anyhow I have no idea why you think it would be easier for you to move to 0.0 under the new system (no havens / sanctums), because unless you are part of an aliance that can actually defend your sov, you will be a kill board feeder (ships and POSes).
amarr try	Posted - 2011.03.30 02:16:00 - [1567] Dear CCP, i like the idea behind the action. Just to restate it: keeping some good systems worth fighting for and some semi interesting systems for "newer Alliances" and some crap systems for ... well ... exploration maybe? o.O Anyways - what in theory sounded great now in practise. Watched the latested SOV-Changes? Surprised to see the big move right now - Drone regions stick more together to clustersystems (droping SOV to have better region density - easyer to defend - leaving the routing ways allone) Tenerifis: WN claims space from his renter Alliance so they have the better space. So - just to let me ask this again: why did u do it again? That u need to fight super-Blocks to get the systems better -0.6. Or joining their own renters-Allys as Corp? OR if they have more Systems over -0.4 then perhaps a renter Allianze/Corp (aka "pet" or "meatshield", "the cow to get money from") IT's just a new Space order ... But i think you saw that comming ... oh well ... good bye zero<dot>zero. At least high sec will like me (and the lowsec for some small scale roaming to crash the ISK) - until the mission runner nerfbat (comming soon). Then you solved the "to much ISK in system thingy u did when you "readjusted" PI to the players and killed in the big moneysink ... So we are back on course now - perfect - all hail the eco. And fun? well, no fun without cookies - and ccp has the cookies ... not the player ... so let's grind HUBs (its btw "just" 40% less income compared to heaven / sanctum ) . . .
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.30 02:37:00 - [1568] So how about those regions that are going to be getting massively boosted? Aren't the top 5 "most improved" regions (or really, "least screwed") the Drone regions? Going to make it even easier for players (bots) to get all the mins to make (and sell for $$$) supercaps, are we? Or putting all the "more desirable" space in the drone regions where actually dealing with the hundreds (thousands?) of cubic meters of alloys dropped by a drone sanctum is not only a pain in the butt, but maybe not even worth it unless you have a marauder or a 2nd account ( :tinfoil: ) to loot while you kill things? ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 02:43:00 - [1569] Another thing that's quite telling of this mess... Anyone else just get the recent newsletter? There's a list in it of the March dev blogs... this dev blog isn't in there. More hiding this change from the Eve community. First it's not discussed with the CSM, now it's not published in the newsletter. Very shady.
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services Quantum Forge	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:08:00 - [1570] Greyscale and your team really need to play EVE-Online... You can't say you been playing EVE and been in 0.0 coming up with this BS. Help smaller alliances? yer right I mean If you want to do a change maybe have the True sec state effect the bounties like they do with belt rats? Not the amount and type of amons ffs.. ------------------------------------ Looking for a 0.0 corp to join? Recruitment page

Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:15:00 - [1571] Interesting thought - how is this different to T2 BPOs? They're something that messes with the game (nobody can obtain them other than from somebody who already has one, and many of them were spawned illegally), but aren't being removed because players have invested billions of ISK in them (please correct me if I'm wrong here). IHubs and upgrades are apparently messing up the game (although bringing more people to live in nullsec where they can be freely shot, and they are equally available to all players), but they are being (effectively) removed regardless of players having invested billions in them.
Just fearless Caldari Phantom Squad En Garde	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:18:00 - [1572] 53 pages of ccp not caring what any players have to say. And i Pay for this?!?!
Hung Deudigren	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:24:00 - [1573] wow way to screw us corps in the arse in 0.0 systems ... we are a 0.0 allience in Catch and there are a fair bunch of us in 0.0 rely on the site to pay for ships to fight in. if this change goes threw we will be leaving 0.0 for sure
Veronica Alma	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:24:00 - [1574] CCP's model of 0.0 causality
Ryne Venamar	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:46:00 - [1575] WOW, utter fail on the part of CCP. I can see the reasoning behind the change, I can even agree with some of it.But this is going a bit to far. Has it occurred to the CCP brain trust that maybe a little moderation is in order here. Rather then nullify all the the hard work people have put into upgrading previously worthless null sec just cut back a bit. Would it be so terrible to allow the worst truesec system to continue spawning 1 sanctum and 1 haven at a time and moving up from there? Cut back a little on one end and bulk up a bit on the other rather then this nonsense your currently purposing. Im sure no one at CCP will actually read this but I had to throw my two cents in.
Ryne Venamar	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:48:00 - [1576] WOW, utter fail on the part of CCP. I can see the reasoning behind the change, I can even agree with some of it.But this is going a bit to far. Has it occurred to the CCP brain trust that maybe a little moderation is in order here. Rather then nullify all the the hard work people have put into upgrading previously worthless null sec just cut back a bit. Would it be so terrible to allow the worst truesec system to continue spawning 1 sanctum and 1 haven at a time with full upgrades and moving up from there? Cut back a little on one end and bulk up a bit on the other rather then this complete 180 your currently purposing. Im sure no one at CCP will actually read this but I had to throw my two cents in.
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:52:00 - [1577] Edited by: Ella Scorpio on 30/03/2011 03:52:21 I really hope CCP is still reading this. They better be--I still am, and I'm not even being paid to read it. I suspect that CCP's models are all about isk faucets and isk drains, and they believe somehow this will balance things. The problem is that like too many real-life economic models, they don't take into account individual psychology. You are taking away 1000s of player hours of work building up systems, outposts and alliances since Dominion. You are shattering the suspension of disbelief that Eve is anything like a consistent world. I am excited by many enhancements in 1.4, but this destroys it all. I invite CCP--and give my permission--to examine my alts on all my accounts. Look how many hours I've played in the last year and 4 months (that's how long I've been playing Eve--I'm not some grizzled veteran whining about CCP, nor am I a total noob). Look at how few hours I've been motivated to play since this was announced. Look at my expiration dates on my 6 month payments, because those are the last days I will play Eve. I'm not rage quitting Eve. I'm sorry to see it go, and I'll be sad without it. But the way this change was announced, the total disregard for 40+ pages of logical arguments against it after what was clearly less than a few hours of deliberation, and the total destruction of all that I've done in Eve to build a small corp within a small alliance in nullsec...I'm not mad. It's just if CCP doesn't care, why should I?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:58:00 - [1578] Originally by: oldmanst4r No need to be a complete ***** about it. Just because it wasn't your pet game mechanic that was nerfed this time doesn't mean you should jump for joy when someone else gets screwed. Particularly in this case, when it is unclear as to whether the anomaly changes will have CCP's intended effect. I'm really not trying to be an ***** about it or gloat - and I apologize if it comes off as that way. Its not that I'm rejoicing that you are losing your magic ISK fountain. I'm rejoicing that something that breaks the game is going away. Although must admit to enjoying some of the more outlandish tears too. Really, I know this change is going to suck for some 0.0 bears - especially in the short term. But, its a good change for the game and no amount of tinfoil or frothing at the mouth rage is going to change that. With regards to High Sec L4s and Sanctums: I think its important to remember that Havens/Sanctums are enormous raw ISK faucets. L4s, when run in such a manner as to compete with running Sanctums, are very nearly an ISK sink to the game. Most of your ISK comes from LP, and LP requires raw ISK inputs on top of contract/market costs. Furthermore, it requires market research to know what to sell... and some self restraint not to crash your own markets. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 03:59:00 - [1579] Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire Edited by: Gabriel Grimoire on 29/03/2011 20:42:35 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: mkmin I'm still looking for the specific timeline CCP has to realize that this is **ing stupid. I kinda wish it was within a week so I could just cancel my accounts before it becomes time to resub. Would suck to have to wait a few months until the next expansion to know whether or not to quit permanently. Hell, maybe it's a good idea to just quit permanently anyway to get out of the CCP drama bull cluster cycle. If this change goes through it's CCP saying we're all wasting our time with this game, because the time will count for nothing. http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Pay attention to Incursion 1.4 features and timeline for being deployed. I really don't think they could have aborted the nerf if they'd wanted to. -Liang Big surprise, another Liang post giving the Devs the benefit of the doubt. "Improved Quality/Risk Scaling in Anomalies" could have meant any number of things. The CCP Devs alone have the power/choice as to what those things are exactly. They aren't forced into doing a damn thing. They need to take responsibility for this and face the music, which in this case is going to be a hell of a lot of **ed off players and ultimately money lost. Stop making excuses for them. They tend to do a good enough job of that for themselves. I agree. Let's face it improved quality/risk scaling implies an overall improvement. However that's not the case. Half of Systems will suffer a nerf, that's not an improvement. It isn't that folks are against tying benefits to true sec it is the manner its being done. If they used current system for Band 1 and then had it improve from there with each band I don't think anyone would be angry. The way it is CCP is ensuring no one will ever challenge the big blocks. Let's think about it. What has killed the big blocks? Don't most of them die from internal struggles not external? Why is that? Is it because they have such a jump on the game at this point that no one can seriously challenge them? Let's think on that a moment. Where will these magical new alliances come from to challenge the big boys? I mean IT hasn't really been defending its space since Raiden. split off. Why hasn't anyone charged in and taken their space? Is it because even the weakened IT with its reduced but still existent supercap fleet can easily destroy any alliance coming out of Empire space that lacks those? So by that its not the type of space held or even what it holds that is the roadblock. It is the fact that someone in Empire cannot acquire the supercaps needed to challenge the blocks. That will not change with these changes. Now glancing over the maps there are many systems no one claims for sovereignty even now. Yet no one rushes to claim those systems. Why is that? Could it be that they can't get to those systems, set up and defend them because their neighbors will drop supercaps on them and destroy them. Will the proposed change in the OP change that? No it will not. Therefore how can it profess that it will bring about new blood to 0.0. It will not. Since it cannot meet its objectives because it does not address Supercaps which in essence are the backbone of all the power blocks, what worth is it? It's taken 2 years for them to reevaluate this, what's another few months to take another look at the problems and delay implementation of this? After all they just have to put in a flag that deactivates the code, and later could activate it after due consideration. To counter Supercaps I'd suggest Heavy Battlecruiser as a new type of tech 2 ship. Use the tier 2 tech 1 battlecruiser hulls. Allow each to fit 2 capital weapons (CPU & PG reduction as ship bonuses to allow this) and 2 utility high slots in addition. Damage bonus for cap weapons. Such a ship could allow a breakout with sufficient numbers.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:02:00 - [1580] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Interesting thought - how is this different to T2 BPOs? They're something that messes with the game (nobody can obtain them other than from somebody who already has one, and many of them were spawned illegally), but aren't being removed because players have invested billions of ISK in them (please correct me if I'm wrong here). IHubs and upgrades are apparently messing up the game (although bringing more people to live in nullsec where they can be freely shot, and they are equally available to all players), but they are being (effectively) removed regardless of players having invested billions in them. Good point.

Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:07:00 - [1581] Originally by: Liang Nuren L4s, when run in such a manner as to compete with running Sanctums, are very nearly an ISK sink to the game. Most of your ISK comes from LP, and LP requires raw ISK inputs on top of contract/market costs. Furthermore, it requires market research to know what to sell... and some self restraint not to crash your own markets. See, you are an expert on how that works--can you at least consider that you are not an expert on how post-Dominion nullsec works? That what people are reacting to is that the systems they have worked hard to build up, and the recruiting promises they have made to people moving to those systems, are all going up in a puff of smoke? The way the anoms work, the effort and isk required to upgrade systems, the complexity of renting and sov bills--all of these things deserve a close look. Not a "hmmm, let's try changing this thing and see what that does."
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:07:00 - [1582] Edited by: Super Whopper on 30/03/2011 04:09:34 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Pesadel0 -Engine trails -Cyno efects -FW -pesadel0 http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Looks like a whole lot of iteration to me. FW WH's Gun rebalancing AF fourth bonus Moon rebalancing etc. etc. etc. CCP making an 'iteration' after years of having been told about it gives hope that if this anom nonsense doesn't work out the way they are hoping it will (when was the first time something had its intended consequence?) they might fix it by 2020, and even then we'll have clueless noobs like CCP Failscale coming out with the same arrogant nonsense. Once again I'll end my post with the drop in subscriptions. Serenity, the future of Tranquility.
destructive nature death	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:10:00 - [1583] 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) lol..... if most regions would be useless, how would smaller alliances survive? if they do manage to get a good sys they would have a blob jumping in to take it on no time. big alliances make their isk throuhg moons and small alliances run sanctums and havens. all thats gunna happen is that the bigger alliances will kick smaller alliances out of null. how are they suppose to fight back if they dont have the isk they would have if they had sanctums? nerf moon goo u idiots
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:13:00 - [1584] Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries Originally by: Lord Calimari Originally by: Piter 'De'Vries awesome news ccp!!!!!!! This will help new players like myself get a shot to explore and colonize null sec the way it was meant to be, to experience a different part of the game that has been neglected to so many of us. Thanks much ccp. can't wait!!! LOL, you can tell you never been in 0.0... you will soon find out you will loose WAYY more ISK than you can make without being able to run havens and sanctums (after this change), won't be long you will be running back to high sec with an empty wallet wondering what just happend.... haha. The pvp players in the power blocks will love killing your ships (that you won't be able to replace do to lack of ISK making anoms). It would have actually been easier for you to get to 0.0 before this change. I focus on industry which helps me make the isk I need to replace my ships to PvP well, trust me. I think now the power block of so called pewpewrs will finally leave their supers and come out to play. As you probably know, being in a super makes you a lazy pvpr losing your edge in game . The sharks are thirsty. ta ta. yes this will stop titan blobs
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:17:00 - [1585] Originally by: El'Niaga Let's face it improved quality/risk scaling implies an overall improvement. However that's not the case. Half of Systems will suffer a nerf, that's not an improvement. It isn't that folks are against tying benefits to true sec it is the manner its being done. If they used current system for Band 1 and then had it improve from there with each band I don't think anyone would be angry. There are a great many nerfs that improve the game. The nano nerfs, ECM nerfs, stacking nerfs, and more all improved the game. Quote: The way it is CCP is ensuring no one will ever challenge the big blocks. Let's think about it. What has killed the big blocks? Don't most of them die from internal struggles not external? Why is that? Is it because they have such a jump on the game at this point that no one can seriously challenge them? Internal struggles come in many forms - such as determining who gets the nice systems, resolving conflicts over someone stealing a now-much-more-rare resource, interpersonal conflicts that arise from having so many more people crammed in smaller spaces, etc. Quote: Where will these magical new alliances come from to challenge the big boys? Could it be that they can't get to those systems, set up and defend them because their neighbors will drop supercaps on them and destroy them. Why do you think that some small alliances is going to come to 0.0 and kick PL's ass? The goal is much more that there will be entire regions of space that none of the "big boys" really want anymore. Hell, there's been 50 pages of people telling CCP how worthless the space is going to be and how nobody at all is going to live there. Are they likely to be roamed and hunted and occasionally even supercap dropped? YES. Are they likely to be booted straight out of 0.0? Probably not, if history is any judge. Really, the claims being made all over this thread exactly validate CCP's model of predicting player behavior. Quote: It's taken 2 years for them to reevaluate this, what's another few months to take another look at the problems and delay implementation of this? After all they just have to put in a flag that deactivates the code, and later could activate it after due consideration. Tell me: What if a big part of the goal was to slow down the ISK flow into the economy and CCP told the player base that they had 3 months to bear it up before their anoms all went away? Quote: To counter Supercaps... Meh, that's a topic that's been beat to death a thousand times over. I've written whole pages on the forums about why introducing a specialized ship class is a bad way to go about it. The long and short is that a ship class especially geared towards killing caps will never be on the field when it's needed. Furthermore, this seems like this further obsoletes dreads. And it still doesn't address the difficulty of keeping a supercap (or blob of them) tackled. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
big fluf	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:21:00 - [1586] Okay .... so if I read this right..... they are trying to make areas more valuble, by making them less valuble. Hmm, .. intersteing idea, let me know how that works out for you. Kev.
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:22:00 - [1587] Why would anyone pay 180 mil isk a month for sov in a system, plus a bil in upgrades, to run hubs/dens. This change breaks the entire dominion upgrade system very badly. I agree trusec should have an effect, but not that effect, I was expecting trusec to effect the bounties on the ships in the sanctums. lower trusec still gets the sties, but with lower valued bs's... Oh well ccp obviously spends too much time playing wow. Has any of the major gaming site/blogs picked this up yet. or has anyone suggested that the gaming press cover the outrage of the community, and the disregard that ccp is showing? We will not get anything changed until it really effects ccp's bottom line. Easy Co.
big fluf	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:30:00 - [1588] Quick note, ... on teh "dev page" this topic has more views, and more posts THEN EVERY OTHER DEV POST COMBINED CCP , . you SURE you really want to do this?
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:33:00 - [1589] Originally by: orphenshadow Oh well ccp obviously spends too much time playing wow. maybe you should join them the way your carrying on about your carebearing getting nerfed. Can play on a non-pvp server and farm all you want without competition from other players.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:46:00 - [1590] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 04:46:57 Originally by: Ella Scorpio See, you are an expert on how that works--can you at least consider that you are not an expert on how post-Dominion nullsec works? That what people are reacting to is that the systems they have worked hard to build up, and the recruiting promises they have made to people moving to those systems, are all going up in a puff of smoke? The way the anoms work, the effort and isk required to upgrade systems, the complexity of renting and sov bills--all of these things deserve a close look. Not a "hmmm, let's try changing this thing and see what that does." Yes, I agree I'm not 100% up on the current state of null sec - especially sov nullsec. However, I'm very much up on the goings on in the economy at large, which is a perspective I can say with some certainty that most players posting here lack. I also remember enough of what pre Dominion sov 0.0 sec was like and what current NPC 0.0 is like to know that anyone claiming they won't be able to pay for PVP ships under the new system is blowing smoke up my ass. And yes, I do understand that it sucks people are getting nerfed right after they put a lot of effort (and ISK!) into building something. I know it sucks. But does that mean that CCP should somehow hold off on nerfing it? Well, I'm going to go with the historical answer - what of all the people that trained the Pilgrim the nos nerf, or the Falcon before the ECM nerf, or the Domi before the Nano nerf, or Geddons before the stacking nerf? Really, there have been a number of very valid concerns brought forth (IMO): - While I understand this is a separate issue and is under consideration, moon goo really does need to be addressed. - The Drone Regions are being massively boosted relative to the rest of 0.0. - Sov costs might be over the top for smaller alliances in crap truesec. while I'm sure some of these systems (but by no means all of them) will still be claimed, it might be a good idea to scale the cost of sov differently. - These changes are going to be mostly meaningless without fixing power projection in 0.0 - from jump bridges and Titan/BOBS bridging to massive cap/supercap blobs. - High sec L4s make almost as much as running Sanctums when done 'properly'. This is true, and I don't think it really should be. There might be an upcoming nerf to this, but we'll have to see what Team BFF's dev blog says on the subject. At any rate, there are some redeeming features about this in regards to the economy. There are, I think, a couple of more outstanding issues that people have brought up. But for the most part, its been everyone frothing at the mouth, displaying a horrible understanding of the Eve economy, or saying "It won't work, CCP, because I say it won't work. And I'm mad because you're taking my free ISK away!" -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:53:00 - [1591] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 04:46:57 Originally by: Ella Scorpio See, you are an expert on how that works--can you at least consider that you are not an expert on how post-Dominion nullsec works? That what people are reacting to is that the systems they have worked hard to build up, and the recruiting promises they have made to people moving to those systems, are all going up in a puff of smoke? The way the anoms work, the effort and isk required to upgrade systems, the complexity of renting and sov bills--all of these things deserve a close look. Not a "hmmm, let's try changing this thing and see what that does." Your not an expert on anything, just someone consumed by their own ego. Rent is a player made mechanism and nothing CCP does can change it. So long as one group is stronger than another they can demand rent. If the change was just to remove isk faucets I hate to tell you this but why nerf the Drone Regions, they aren't isk faucets. At most they might get 100k from a horde of isk generation. All other income comes from other players willing to buy their alloys or minerals, or their produced items. It is truly a player economy. It takes longer for a person in the drone regions to make a like amount of money because they must salvage/loot everything, they don't have the luxury of just shooting stuff and leaving the wrecks behind because they don't make any isk then. So many flaws in your posts.....and your logic....in many posts that you've made in this thread. A specialized ship is about the only way you'll counter supercaps incidentally. Even at this point redoing moongoo won't change that mix. Yes, I agree I'm not 100% up on the current state of null sec - especially sov nullsec. However, I'm very much up on the goings on in the economy at large, which is a perspective I can say with some certainty that most players posting here lack. I also remember enough of what pre Dominion sov 0.0 sec was like and what current NPC 0.0 is like to know that anyone claiming they won't be able to pay for PVP ships under the new system is blowing smoke up my ass. And yes, I do understand that it sucks people are getting nerfed right after they put a lot of effort (and ISK!) into building something. I know it sucks. But does that mean that CCP should somehow hold off on nerfing it? Well, I'm going to go with the historical answer - what of all the people that trained the Pilgrim the nos nerf, or the Falcon before the ECM nerf, or the Domi before the Nano nerf, or Geddons before the stacking nerf? Really, there have been a number of very valid concerns brought forth (IMO): - While I understand this is a separate issue and is under consideration, moon goo really does need to be addressed. - The Drone Regions are being massively boosted relative to the rest of 0.0. - Sov costs might be over the top for smaller alliances in crap truesec. while I'm sure some of these systems (but by no means all of them) will still be claimed, it might be a good idea to scale the cost of sov differently. - These changes are going to be mostly meaningless without fixing power projection in 0.0 - from jump bridges and Titan/BOBS bridging to massive cap/supercap blobs. - High sec L4s make almost as much as running Sanctums when done 'properly'. This is true, and I don't think it really should be. There might be an upcoming nerf to this, but we'll have to see what Team BFF's dev blog says on the subject. At any rate, there are some redeeming features about this in regards to the economy. There are, I think, a couple of more outstanding issues that people have brought up. But for the most part, its been everyone frothing at the mouth, displaying a horrible understanding of the Eve economy, or saying "It won't work, CCP, because I say it won't work. And I'm mad because you're taking my free ISK away!" -Liang
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.30 04:55:00 - [1592] Originally by: Klam Another thing that's quite telling of this mess... Anyone else just get the recent newsletter? There's a list in it of the March dev blogs... this dev blog isn't in there. More hiding this change from the Eve community. First it's not discussed with the CSM, now it's not published in the newsletter. Very shady. This. Just got the Newsletter. Did they honestly think we wouldn't notice? :Greyscale walks away whistling innocently:
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:07:00 - [1593] Originally by: El'Niaga Liang your not an expert except in your own ego. Ok, if it makes you sleep better at night. Quote: Drone regions for instance are not isk faucets. It is the most player dependent economy in the game. You don't have the luxury of just shooting stuff and moving on, you have to salvage/loot or you make no money. A horde generates about 100k isk that's it as far as isk generation from killing stuff (just get bounties for the turrets). So if the goal as you say is to reduce isk faucets, why nerf regions where there is no isk faucet? If you notice, they're getting massively boosted as compared to the rest of 0.0. I kinda mentioned that. Quote: If the goal was to reduce ISK Faucets, wouldn't the better solution be to turn the other regions into more of a model similar to that of the Drone Regions. That is just remove the bounties altogether and force folks to salvage/loot to make their money? And if you think the rage over this change is bad... Quote: No Empire Alliance will make it to 0.0 without assistance from an existing powerblock, this will not change that. Without a counter to supercapitals they cannot get into 0.0 and so long as they are in empire they effectively can't get supercapitals in the numbers needed. Yes, supercaps are important. I even mentioned that. Quote: A specialized ship is about the only way you can do it. No.... no it really, really, really, really isn't. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:15:00 - [1594] Originally by: Desert Ice78 Originally by: Klam Another thing that's quite telling of this mess... Anyone else just get the recent newsletter? There's a list in it of the March dev blogs... this dev blog isn't in there. More hiding this change from the Eve community. First it's not discussed with the CSM, now it's not published in the newsletter. Very shady. This. Just got the Newsletter. Did they honestly think we wouldn't notice? :Greyscale walks away whistling innocently: Who cares about the newsletter? They hid this from the CSM. They have no respect for players and our idea's. If they did we'd have had moon rebalancing, we'd have had our engine trails, cyno effect, we'd have had FW worked on, WH's would have been finished. But CCP are too busy patting themselves on the back to notice they're losing customers.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:16:00 - [1595] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire In that case, what you're implying just further reinforces the fact that CCP apparently couldn't give two shts what their player base thinks. They'll do what they want with their game, when they want, how they want, and fck all if people don't like it. Real good business practice. Ok, this is getting really old. Let's just be clear: the customer is not always right. In fact, I'll take it one step further and say that the customer is frequently willing to outright bankrupt and destroy a company either out of sheer pettiness or for a temporary personal gain. CCP is taking steps to correct an imbalance that they perceive as having come from Dominion - something that they feel is hurting the game as a whole. Frankly, them not fixing things that they see wrong in the game (even if it makes certain groups cry like little girls) would be doing a grave disservice to us (their customers) and their employees (who lose their job when the game tanks because they didn't tend to it). Basically: sometimes a gardener has to do a little pruning to keep a plant healthy. Sorry. -Liang While this is a generally correct assessment it is not necessarily a correct assessment of this or every situation. It's true that gamers in the main do not understand nor care to understand the inner workings necessary to give a game such as Eve stability and longevity. That being the case there are times when the developers must make the hard choices for the game to survive. I do not believe this is such a case. In all likelihood there are several alternate changes that would suit both the customers AND the developers to reach their varied goals. Customers cannot always be placated. But it is also detrimental to the developers long term goals to reverse a previous change considered overall to be beneficial to the game environment instead of exploring alternate changes that could achieve the same ends. Furthermore I believe that the consumers in this case would concede that some changes while not the most desirable are necessary for the game's long term continuation, and would be willing to work with the devs to explore potential solutions to find a middle ground which would suit both the needs of the game and the satisfaction of the players. In the end you can't make everyone happy. But if you can't make ANYONE happy then you're really up the proverbial river without a paddle.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:31:00 - [1596] Originally by: Liang Nuren Stuff -Liang Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind. Let me ask you something, today the big boys don't claim all the systems officially yet they still claim them, what makes you think this will change that? They all charge fairly high rents for undesirable space. All these changes will do is shift what systems the big boys keep for themselves and which they rent to renters. They may adjust their rents slightly as they raised them in recent months. The thing is without a fleet to counter supercaps you can't stand on your own, which means that without some counter to supercaps in the proposal you can't open up space. It is just not possible. Oddly enough there will be those that do rent that undesirable space, make no mistake of that but it will not lead to more conflict. While changing moongoo could make it harder to replace supercaps at this point in the game that's not as important as a counter to the supercaps. Even if all moongoo disappeared tomorrow, they'd still have their massive fleets (including spares on both sides). Earlier in this thread someone suggested making Moongoo like PI, and I kinda like that idea. Tech prices would crash but others would probably rise as to many folks mined tech. However changes in moongoo will not assist new alliances seeking to take their own space in 0.0 as the moongoo has already been used to make massive fleets.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:43:00 - [1597] Originally by: Galerak Furthermore I believe that the consumers in this case would concede that some changes while not the most desirable are necessary for the game's long term continuation, and would be willing to work with the devs to explore potential solutions to find a middle ground which would suit both the needs of the game and the satisfaction of the players. In the end you can't make everyone happy. But if you can't make ANYONE happy then you're really up the proverbial river without a paddle. This is half the problem - there is no finding a middle ground going on here. Just rugs being pulled out from under players who have invested a lot of time and ISK into something that will become worthless. If CCP took part in this discussion to present some other possibilities that might meet the same requirements, it would go a long way to mitigate the feeling of being shafted and that CCP don't care about the players. PR is really important when you're selling a service.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:47:00 - [1598] Originally by: El'Niaga Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind. TBH, I stopped reading there. Please try to keep the petty personal insults to a minimum and focus on the issue itself. The personal attacks just detract from any point you might be making. This goes for anybody else too. I know it's hard on internet forums given the huge body of precedence...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:51:00 - [1599] Originally by: El'Niaga Still the little birdies only occupy your own mind. Um. Wut? Quote: Let me ask you something, today the big boys don't claim all the systems officially yet they still claim them, what makes you think this will change that? They all charge fairly high rents for undesirable space. All these changes will do is shift what systems the big boys keep for themselves and which they rent to renters. They may adjust their rents slightly as they raised them in recent months. They still officially claim them because they have value that they feel can be rented out. I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it. They haven't in the past, and they more than had the capability to enforce their will and collect rent. Besides, haven't you read the thread? Every second person is saying they're going to retreat to the -1.0 systems or high sec and never leave. Quote: The thing is without a fleet to counter supercaps you can't stand on your own, which means that without some counter to supercaps in the proposal you can't open up space. It is just not possible. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am somehow neglecting the power of supercaps. I'm not. But introducing a new counter ship class isn't the way to go about fixing them. WRT Moon goo/Tech, I don't see any major disagreements. You can feel free to stop harping on it. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Fredrick Engly Insorum Industries Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:53:00 - [1600] This is BS right? This is almost like removing Sov....WTF are they thinking...Sack the tard...immediately

Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:56:00 - [1601] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Galerak Furthermore I believe that the consumers in this case would concede that some changes while not the most desirable are necessary for the game's long term continuation, and would be willing to work with the devs to explore potential solutions to find a middle ground which would suit both the needs of the game and the satisfaction of the players. In the end you can't make everyone happy. But if you can't make ANYONE happy then you're really up the proverbial river without a paddle. This is half the problem - there is no finding a middle ground going on here. Just rugs being pulled out from under players who have invested a lot of time and ISK into something that will become worthless. If CCP took part in this discussion to present some other possibilities that might meet the same requirements, it would go a long way to mitigate the feeling of being shafted and that CCP don't care about the players. PR is really important when you're selling a service. I agree. Even after dozens of various suggestions and repeated requests for information about what the dynamics of the problem are CCP has yet to share more than a statement of what changes will be made and how they feel it should impact the game. If more detailed information had been shared even with the CSM, especially prior to the release of the dev blog post, it would at least show a willingness on CCP's part to share their "sandbox". As it is their declination to utilize such channels has only alienated most of us and damaged our willingness to believe CCP really cares in the slightest about Eve's playerbase.
Kireiina	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:57:00 - [1602] If the individual player is better off doing L4's in the complete safety of empire, than they would be holding space, then that space is worthless and will be empty. That doesn't seem like a great idea if you want null-sec space to be active. And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not? If CCP did care about macro-economic Isk flows then by all means make sanctums run like missions and give LP. But they can't because their coding doesn't allow mission agents on player owned stations. Of course they could fix that rather than taking a sledge-hammer to the whole map. And this will spur conflict by making space variable in quality? Yeah, that worked well with Tech didn't it.
The Arms Dealer	Posted - 2011.03.30 05:59:00 - [1603] Quote: 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) But, why is the rum gone?
Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:09:00 - [1604] United Macroer Russians REALLY need a boost
Leelo dallasmultipas	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:25:00 - [1605] As previously stated, numerous times, this change will not have the desired effect. Smaller alliances will not get a foothold in 0.0- because the space that they might think they have the manpower to take will be too ****ty. The larger alliances and coalitions will merely hold the best space, hands down. Does no one else think it's odd that Delve will be one of the best regions in the game... primarily being held by IT alliance? Anyone remember the "bubble day or 6VDT" where numerous bubbles "oh so mysteriously" disappeared from IT alliance poses allowing the escape of a number of unconfirmed super caps? I will note as well CCP's lack of vision and foresight on this topic, as well as their apparent lack of interest in the community who pays to enjoy a game deemed a: "sandbox". I also will note the hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of man hours that have gone into upgrading all the systems that will drop sov after this. The thousands upon thousands of man hours anchoring TCUs, POSes, IHUBs, Upgrades. The millions, billions, and trillions of isk that have gone into upgrading these systems for the ability to run sanctums in them. CCP will watch as 90% of 0.0 slowly drops sov, tower go offline, systems are evacuated leaving 0.0 as a dead zone, empty of all life and pvp. CCP, where does pvp come from? I can answer that, pvp comes from people going to Dotlan, and looking at the NPC kills in the last hour/day and going over there. Someone is over there. We want to kill them! After this joke happens: no one is up there, no one is down here, will everyone be ganking in high sec? Everyone beware! It doesn't appear as though you are reading this? Need our coalition get a 1500 man fleet together to turn this threadnaught into a threadosaur? CCP, say that CCP Greyscale had a momentary lapse in judgement, and that this joke has got out of hand, and we might forgive you.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:25:00 - [1606] Originally by: Kireiina And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not? Not really, and this principle is standard in any game, particularly an MMO - the whole economy is balanced by ISK Faucets (ISK coming into the game) and ISK Drains (ISK leaving the game). ISK comes in via faucets, sits in the sink for a while, and goes out the drains. Without a balance between the faucets and drains there will either be inflation (where faucets > drains) or recession (where faucets < drains). The issue is that players will just find what works best for them regardless of how it effects the game as a whole. But if there is enough inflation, you can bet your ass that players will complain about "how much items cost these days". Particularly in a free market economy that we now have because mineral prices are no longer tied to base price via insurance.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:26:00 - [1607] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 30/03/2011 06:28:27 Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Kireiina And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not? Not really, and this principle is standard in any game, particularly an MMO - the whole economy is balanced by ISK Faucets (ISK coming into the game) and ISK Drains (ISK leaving the game). ISK comes in via faucets, sits in the sink for a while, and goes out the drains. Without a balance between the faucets and drains there will either be inflation (where faucets > drains) or recession (where faucets < drains). The issue is that players will just find what works best for them regardless of how it effects the game as a whole. But if there is enough inflation, you can bet your ass that players will complain about "how much items cost these days". Particularly in a free market economy that we now have because mineral prices are no longer tied to base price via insurance. And where exactly on CCP Greyscale devblog does he states that reducing the ISK entering the game is one of their goals?! CCP history of game changes are full of examples where the changes had the complete opposite result of what was expected. This either means that CCP's real reason are different than what they make us believe, or that they simply aren't good at projecting end-results. And anyone that believes that these changes will have the desired effects, are hopelessly deluding themselves. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:31:00 - [1608] Edited by: Furb Killer on 30/03/2011 06:35:25 Quote: I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it. You think we will drop sov in station systems? Basic sov isnt that expensive, I wouldnt be surprised if large parts of sov will be dropped again, but definately not in station systems. Having sov in non-station systems if you cant use it for useful upgrades is useless. Smaller alliances will have as much chance as they have now to take space from a powerblock without backup from another powerblock: pretty much none. And if the issue is just the ISK faucet (what CCP denies), wouldnt it be more logical to fix that? Or instead of making huge parts of 0.0 useless, simply do the more elegant solution and delete them. You say agent missions dont have the problems due to LP shop, which at least decreases the ISK faucet, well there you got your solution, replace anomaly upgrades with agent upgrades. Watch out a bit what you put in their LP shop to prevent it from crashing the faction market (which will go down anyway due to more people running lvl 4 missions), and tada. Although a significant point, there hasnt been any proof that the ISK faucet is for now really an issue for the economy. I believe ISK influx was increasing like 2% per month or so, which isnt anything special for a game, even low. Now it might be a problem for something based on the economy like eve, but still then it makes way more sense to solve the real problems: bots injecting loads of ISK in the economy (there you got your solution for LP store devaluation immediatly, get rid of mission running bots, and some may be hard to find, but dont tell me you cant find courier mission bots), powercreep (that is waaaayyyyy more than 2% per month, in one week both powerblocks lost 10+ titans and loads more supercarriers, both of them replaced it already), etc.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:40:00 - [1609] Originally by: Renan Ruivo And where exactly on CCP Greyscale devblog does he states that reducing the ISK entering the game is one of their goals?! It doesn't, but surely it's part of the reasoning behind the changes (surely!!!). Balancing faucets and drains is of vital importance to the health of a game economy, and therefore the "long-term big picture" which was mentioned. I do still question CCP's "model of causality" and how much it is based on actual data. I'd love to see what data they're basing this model on myself (out of professional curiosity if nothing else ).
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:41:00 - [1610] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 30/03/2011 06:28:27 Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Kireiina And liang suggesting that L4's are an isk sink because of LP is irrelevant. Only CCP cares about the game at the macro level. The player only cares about having isk to spend on more ships to play with. And if they can buy more ships (plus lose less, rat faster in nicer ships and not have to fun system upgrades) by doing L4's in empire why would you not? Not really, and this principle is standard in any game, particularly an MMO - the whole economy is balanced by ISK Faucets (ISK coming into the game) and ISK Drains (ISK leaving the game). ISK comes in via faucets, sits in the sink for a while, and goes out the drains. Without a balance between the faucets and drains there will either be inflation (where faucets > drains) or recession (where faucets < drains). The issue is that players will just find what works best for them regardless of how it effects the game as a whole. But if there is enough inflation, you can bet your ass that players will complain about "how much items cost these days". Particularly in a free market economy that we now have because mineral prices are no longer tied to base price via insurance. And where exactly on CCP Greyscale devblog does he states that reducing the ISK entering the game is one of their goals?! CCP history of game changes are full of examples where the changes had the complete opposite result of what was expected. This either means that CCP's real reason are different than what they make us believe, or that they simply aren't good at projecting end-results. And anyone that believes that these changes will have the desired effects, are hopelessly deluding themselves. They don't care how balanced gameplay is. They're trying to get people to pay $ for more plex. When a news outlet reliably releases the amount of $ an RMT operation is pulling in, devs get greedy. This is about CCP taking more $ from it's players. More plex = less valuable plex = more needed to be bought. Even the push against non-RMT botters is just a push for PLEX selling, and CCP's attempt to push EVE into MT territory.

Wingshard Order of the Sable Shield	Posted - 2011.03.30 06:42:00 - [1611] Edited by: Wingshard on 30/03/2011 06:45:18 Originally by: Liang Nuren They still officially claim them because they have value that they feel can be rented out. I'm sure there's going to be some renting of space, but I think the most important thing you're missing is that there's going to be vast contiguous swaths of worthless 0.0. Are we really going to see large 0.0 alliances continue to maintain a strangle hold over this space? Maybe - but I kinda doubt it. They haven't in the past, and they more than had the capability to enforce their will and collect rent. Since you are so much for the change let me ask you the same thing i did several of pages ago: Why should anyone claim this so called "worthless space" that ... has to be paid for on a constant basis has to be upgraded before its even partly useful as its now for several billions of isk (not even counting the freighter to transport the i-hub) be desired by anyone? Dont forget that you cant upgrade a system to the maximum right of the bat either. You will have to claim it for a long long time before it starts to pay of while the cost is all the same but with less overall turnout compared to now. Yet even after you invested billions of isk in upkeep, tcu, i-hub, upgrades, maybe a tower to make it better accessable, towerfuel, towersetup, .... the system stil wont support 6 people of the same profession at a time. While on the contrary... Your troubles begin with setting up an i-hub exspecial for those alliances without titans. You stil have to grind and do ****ty tasks in systems before even being able to upgrade them. (try getting a good enough rat score in a 3-5 belt system with bad truesec just so you can instal pirate arrays) It takes 3 assaults of bigger entitys (either numbers or super capitals where super capitals exspecial a lot of motherships make it a cakewalk) to take your i-hub down and bring you back to zero. which in turn means that even if you concentrate on holding a single system its highly unlikely that your chance of having a foothold will become any better. With this change a lot of systems in 0.0 will show no benefit again for considering to claim them besides maybe being the obligatory jumpbridge / rich moon system / 0.0 entry system that needs to be jammed. If CCP wants more people in 0.0 than they also have to give them benefits as this system did (which was being able to make a steady income besides lvl 4 missions) and not put extra cost on the old system through upkeep cost, upgrade cost, etc which didnt work out anyway. It wont make small alliances have a better chance getting a foothold if their ressources are even more limited than now while the costs have increased. Thats like shutting the heater of my basement down in the midst of winter while at the same time charging me a higher rent to maintain it and thinking i would feel warm about it.
Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:15:00 - [1612] CCP Greyscale: Quote: Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space And how is this different than now? As of this moment nearly all the major and minor 0.0 alliances are already in heated conflict, where hundreds of billions of isk are being lost weekly. Quote: In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Okay.. what "local" goals? By removing the ability to fully upgrade systems you've removed those "goals" to regional or even universal goals. You've essentially removed the flat playing field and changed it to a constant "king of the hill" like it was prior to Dominion. Quote: Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec By removing their ability to make isk? That makes no sense, at all. The lower quality 0.0 space is generally near low-sec, and with the constant conflicts which you are hoping to cause, you are reducing the ability of smaller alliances to defend their space. Quote: Coalitions will be marginally less stable No. Whoever thought this was true was absolutely wrong and has a fundamental failure in understanding human interactions and relations. This belief is wrong on such a base level, that is it literally akin to saying that if we change the color blue to green, people will no longer want to have sex. I understand what you are thinking. You are thinking that in your above scenario, that greed will cause former alliance members to jockey and cause conflicts within coalitions, and those conflicts will be based on wanting better anom systems. This does not work.. in fact, you already have an example of how THIS DOESN'T WORK. It's called the Tech moons. There are a limited number of tech moons and so they are a perfect example of how a coalition will still operate DESPITE not everyone having a very valuable tech moon. Quote: 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) No, no, no, no. Will have to choose more carefully? Where do you get that logic? You have not changed the total relative value of 0.0, you've only limited the more casual and newer 0.0 player. The battle and war is STILL having the most space possible. In fact, this change CAUSES alliances to hold onto more space than before because you will need more space just to keep your pilots happy. Seriously, your causality model needs to be reviewed as it clearly misses a lot of the human element. I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:17:00 - [1613] Originally by: Imigo Montoya stuff So I assume you don't read his since he insults everyone else in his posts....although he's a bit more subtle at it.... Honestly at this point CCP isn't reading this thread, they don't care, their mind was made up when they posted it. Think about it, They released the blog on a friday during Fanfest. That was not by accident. You've had 3 small blurps from the originator of the blog all which indicate he's moving forward with it despite everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results. The few that have championed his cause are mostly individuals who are no longer in 0.0 hoping to reclaim some lost glory, low sec pirates hoping that more traffic will come their way or have some false delusion that magically this will cause the power blocks to break up when every other tried effort has failed to do so. Before Dominion they claimed large swaths of space, oftentimes with POSs so that you could see it on the map. Dominion came and they officially claimed less space yet still claimed the same space. This comes and they'll still claim the space, because they can. Let's think about the investment cost of claiming space. First you have to have an open system you can get to. You need a freighter to carry your ihub. That freighter needs to travel through hostile space (hopefully you use scouts or get lucky with a wormhole). Now you put down a TCU and are waiting for it to online. Can your corp/alliance guard it the whole 8 hours? Unless it covers multiple time zones unlikely. Lets assume the big guy just ignores you and lets you put it down. You move in your ihub and put it up. They still ignore you being busy elsewhere. 500 million for the ihub and probably what 100 for the TCU. You just claimed a band 1 system. You have approximately 100 people interested. Sadly the game doesn't allow all 100 to make money in 1 system at the same time. Lets assume your corp can cover maybe 2 shifts (4 hours each of playing). You also got one with slightly above avg number of belts. So maybe 10 people have something to do a shift, 20 people total. You now need to invest in other upgrades. Entrapment 1: 100kk, Entrapment 2: 200kk, Entrapment 3: 300kk, Entrapment 4: 400kk, Entrapment 5: 500kk Pirate Detect 1: 50kk, Pirate Detect 2: 100kk, Pirate Detect 3: 150kk, Pirate Detect 4: 200kk, Pirate Detect 5: 250kk Quantum Flux 1-5 same as the Pirate Detect Ore Prospecting 1: 50kk, Ore Prospecting 2: 75kk, Ore Prospecting 3: 100kk, Ore Prospecting 4: 125kk, Ore Prospecting 5: 250kk Survey Networks 1-5: same as the Pirate Detect Just under 5 billion in outlay, assuming no one attacks you and kills your I-HUB before you finish. How long would it take that corp to recover that investment? Now after you've upgraded the neighbor finally who's been off on campaign (probably against another upstart) comes back and sends a letter to your CEO. We have noticed you have illegally settled in XXX system. We hereby demand compensation for this system you shall pay a fine of 8 billion isk now, and shall hereafter reprimand 4 billion isk a month to us to maintain our good graces. Failure to comply will result in an attack on your system. signed YYYYY You've got 5 billion invested, what do you do? I dare say in most cases you don't have enough to pay but lets figure you got that up to 20 people a shift up to 40 a day. You made sure to keep it going, you have surplus isk. So you pay your fine and agree to the monthly rent. How long to make up the investment now? Remember you're in band 1 no sanctums, no havens, no hordes. 1 year after starting this CCP decides to change it again, your not attacking your landlord that's unacceptable. So now we take away The middle tier anomalies. Like that's going to help you. That's in essence what this blog as a first step taking the upper tier anomalies away. It cheats everyone that played within the system in an attempt to enjoy more of the game.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:22:00 - [1614] Originally by: El'Niaga everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results. What makes you think he wasn't flat out lying about his desired results? His desired result is that people will start selling PLEX for titans, which adds up to a lot of new income for CCP. Expect CCP to start introducing jovian super-titans that you can only get through plex. By then everyone who cares about the game will be long gone, and CCP will be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what this is about, $ in the pocket. Not about "conflicts in blah blah blah".
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:26:00 - [1615] Originally by: mkmin Originally by: El'Niaga everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results. What makes you think he wasn't flat out lying about his desired results? His desired result is that people will start selling PLEX for titans, which adds up to a lot of new income for CCP. Expect CCP to start introducing jovian super-titans that you can only get through plex. By then everyone who cares about the game will be long gone, and CCP will be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what this is about, $ in the pocket. Not about "conflicts in blah blah blah". SOE thought that too, but in the end the players they screwed with the NGE got the last laugh... I suppose you could be right maybe it is a PLEX system where you have to pay to get extra belts or extra anoms in your system and you have to pay to renew it every so often. I'm sure everyone would love such microtransactions. If they go that route or that's their plan cut their losses now and close the server is what i say.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:28:00 - [1616] before dom almost every one i knew in 0.0 had a lv4 mission alt. they would farm missions to pay for pvp. the crap systems produced no where enough isk as a lv4 mission. most of the peopel i have already spoken to will be moving those alts back to empire to farm missions again. lots will just let extra accounts lapse as lets face it missions suck ass and you have to tie that guy to an npc corp to avoid all the empire war decs 0.0 alliances face. you said your goal was to make people move to 0.0 that worked well tbh, but now you want to **** that goal away just to make people fight over true sec. lol moronic, it wont work people will just move back to empire as all you have done is take away from a years hard work and given nothing back
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:30:00 - [1617] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: mkmin Originally by: El'Niaga everyone agreeing that it will not lead to his desired results. What makes you think he wasn't flat out lying about his desired results? His desired result is that people will start selling PLEX for titans, which adds up to a lot of new income for CCP. Expect CCP to start introducing jovian super-titans that you can only get through plex. By then everyone who cares about the game will be long gone, and CCP will be laughing all the way to the bank. That's what this is about, $ in the pocket. Not about "conflicts in blah blah blah". SOE thought that too, but in the end the players they screwed with the NGE got the last laugh... I suppose you could be right maybe it is a PLEX system where you have to pay to get extra belts or extra anoms in your system and you have to pay to renew it every so often. I'm sure everyone would love such microtransactions. If they go that route or that's their plan cut their losses now and close the server is what i say. The decision making devs are already rich beyond what they had ever hoped. One last $ push before retiring to someplace that isn't a crappy windblown frozen rock. They way they don't give a **** about their players, their employees probably won't be receiving their final paychecks.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:31:00 - [1618] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 30/03/2011 07:32:27 What if we replaced the missing havens/sanctums with additional forlorn/forsaken hubs, which are actually worth running? (I swap to them if I warp to a Sanctum with 1-3 people in it already) That would still sting (since it means less isk/hour per person and reduces the number of players a system can support at one time), but it still brings in reasonable income, and means that more than 1-2 people can make good isk out of the anoms in a system at a time. Not as much as level4s, but with increased convenience (as you dont have to deal with LP, and also you don't have to move out of 0.0 to make isk), but it would also make the regions with better space 'more valuable' enough for people to want to fight over them. Of course, since big wars aren't funded by ratting, but by moongoo, it still won't work as intended, but at least it won't be so awful for the alliances that do end up staying in 0.0. ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:44:00 - [1619] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 07:47:01 Originally by: Furb Killer You think we will drop sov in station systems? Basic sov isnt that expensive, I wouldnt be surprised if large parts of sov will be dropped again, but definately not in station systems. ... Smaller alliances will have as much chance as they have now to take space from a powerblock without backup from another powerblock: pretty much none. Two things: - You're the first person in pretty much the whole thread to say that everyone isn't going to pull back to -1.0 systems or high sec in mass. - Of course smaller alliances aren't going to be taking space from a power block if the power block is there. The question is whether the power block is going to be there. Quote: And if the issue is just the ISK faucet... I'm neither +/-1 to that. I think it would have been a serviceable change that would have **ed off just as many people. A big part of the allure to running anoms in 0.0 is that you no don't have to spend $some_time_here ing with your LP. Quote:** Although a significant point, there hasnt been any proof that the ISK faucet is for now really an issue for the economy. I believe ISK influx was increasing like 2% per month or so, which isnt anything special for a game, even low. No, 2% was the target. Actual was ~6%. Originally by: Wingshard Why should anyone claim this so called "worthless space" that ... has to be paid for on a constant basis has to be upgraded before its even partly useful as its now for several billions of isk (not even counting the freighter to transport the i-hub) Three things: - People want their name on the map - People think it helps recruitment - It doesn't have to be upgraded to be useful space. Originally by: Wingshard A bunch of stuff about upgrades See #3. Originally by: Wingshard If CCP wants more people in 0.0 than they also have to give them benefits as this system did (which was being able to make a steady income besides lvl 4 missions) and not put extra cost on the old system through upkeep cost, upgrade cost, etc which didnt work out anyway. Frankly, I think its pretty obvious that CCP is revising their opinion of getting everyone in the whole game into 0.0 so they can join 2 big fleets and crash nodes. You'll notice there was a lot of talk about local conflicts and smaller alliances. The dev blog hints that its only the tip of the iceberg... and I think we're in for some more/bigger changes to 0.0. -Liang Ed: The forums ate my original post. Blargh. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.03.30 07:47:00 - [1620] Quote: With regards to High Sec L4s and Sanctums: I think its important to remember that Havens/Sanctums are enormous raw ISK faucets. L4s, when run in such a manner as to compete with running Sanctums, are very nearly an ISK sink to the game. Most of your ISK comes from LP, and LP requires raw ISK inputs on top of contract/market costs. Furthermore, it requires market research to know what to sell... and some self restraint not to crash your own markets I have made several billions with L4, maybe their level of ISK sink is not that prominent. 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) lol..... if most regions would be useless, how would smaller alliances survive? if they do manage to get a good sys they would have a blob jumping in to take it on no time. Sadly the sentence in italics looks true but it's false. In the first months the big alliances will indeed move their peripheral borders to forcibly include the nearby localized goals. If "hammering the small alliances with moon goo provided Plutonium" may be seen as "more conflicts going on" then it's true. I see it as a quite bad move, but still.... It's past the first months that the sentence becomes patently false: once the new owners have grabbed the good localized goals they have moon goo AND localized goals and then conflicts will just die. Nobody with no localized goal (good system) nor moon goo is so idiot to pretend to displace those who have both. Read: new 0.0 alliances GTFO back to L4 grinding. The sentence in bold is also true on paper but false in reality: new alliances indeed will have an easier foothold in nullsec. Going to live in worthless space is indeed easier, because no one cares, no one wants it. But wait! Who is so obtuse to want to even go in 0.0 if all they can do is to go where no one else wants it? What CCP Greyscale has totally not got is that EvE is not a "King of the hill" 3D shooter, where equally equipped teams fight for the best place. EvE is "space steamroller blobs", where totally unbalanced fights are what makes people win, and the "hill" is a bunker with ISK volcanoes to secure the winning team "forever". Basically ANY attempt to really make war dynamic and forever requires... drumm rolls that the "hills" of the "king of the hill" are dynamic themselves. Like PI. The static "hills" approach will only cause a transition to the next static "hills". I am surprised the game designers could see it for PI but not for 0.0. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity

Ofcourse IM anAlt	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:02:00 - [1621] Why is it no surprise that goons fully endorse this change? maybe bec the devs that actually play are being biased? they cant just log in and change stuff for their mates so they try to impliment changes that will F**k everyone BUT their alliance. to echo everyone else in this thread: CCP you dont know anything about nullsec. it not fought over for anoms. its fought over for pure love of the fight or the insane money to be made off moons. i 2nd the many others that play this game casually in my acc's will be unsubed to find a new game. enjoying this one seems to be at a low these days. i for sure can find something better to spend my $15 per acc on. and greyscale.....just sadface to you asshat.
gr ant	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:05:00 - [1622] Quote: While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec. With everywhere being essentially the same in terms of the value of key resources, once you've got yourself established in one patch of space there's little incentive to move elsewhere, because there's nowhere "better" to go. This is resulting in fewer drivers for conflict, both in terms of wars of conquest and also in terms of intra-coalition power struggles. Gotta love this, It's not like there hasn't been any conflict, IT didn't lose a lot of space, Atlas/AAA didn't lose any space, and the Initiative wasn't wiped by AAA a few months later there isnt a war going on between the DRF and NC and Test Didn't capture Fountain, this all didnt happen POST DOMINION apparently CCP thinks this, how stale 0.0 has gotten, with numbers in fights larger than ever seen before. 0.0 seems alive and well, and even if there was a problem, this wouldnt change were people live, the NC was there pre-dominion and will still be there past this, why would they move when they have most of the tech moon? why would the DRF care to move when they can just bot, if anything this mainly will effect small alliances, and considering the majority of SuperCaps are owned by big Alliances, there is no way in hell some rag tag group is going to take over a good truesec system
James Razor Amarr The Executives	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:27:00 - [1623] It was stated before and i can only repeat it: What is broken with 0.0 is the distribution of Moon Minerals around Eve. Alliance never fought for +TrueSec+ . They fight for Moons. This was true pre-Dominion and is true post-Dominion. What CCP does is simply not going to work, AGAIN as i have to remind you. Post-Dominion Sov Warfare is even more a pain than it was before, as it eliminated a lot of the tactical and skill-related actions. Even if shooting Towers was a pain, at least you could shoot something and you had to be on guard all the time what your enemy is doing, otherwise you would risk that they sliped through your defences and put up another tower or that u lose one when they attack it and u messed up with the timer. I remember times during MAX 1 when we had fights every few hours. Not 3 a Week. And if u lost one, u didnt lose the entire campaign. U just keept going and tryed to win the next two, so that u again had the upper hand. Oh and btw: Remember what significat achivements where made during those Campaigns and what Damage TRI, etc was able to do up north? Granted, the political landscape was another as well, but with the current Sov Mechanics u got LESS fights and a more static 0.0 than ever. Partially because of the crappy sov mechanics, partially because of the redistribution of valuable Moons around Eve. And now CCP plans to remove another source of ISK for the ones that are not profiting from the Moons (i.e. every smaller corp and alliance out there). Conclusion: We will see even less fights, less change in 0.0. Because no one than the established, Moon Goo Farming Alliances will be able to PAY for their PvP activities.
Newbie Ned Real Nice And Laidback Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:30:00 - [1624] Just wanted to add my voice to the crowd - this change really sucks. It will make 0.0 far less accesible and far less desirable to the average player. As a casual player (I have a RL, demanding job, and family), I don't make much isk in 0.0 as there is often a CTA or some reds running around. Occassionally I can get a Sanctum in and that is great, but when that is no longer true I might as well move back to empire. Sure, the big alliances and big corps within those alliances will be fine but joe average is screwed and joe average makes up a large proportion of 0.0 dwellers. Net result will be a move back to empire, which I thought was the opposite of what ccp wanted.
Soulscrystal	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:35:00 - [1625] Quote: CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. It seems CCP are the only one's excited about the up coming changes. Personally I think CCP should keep their noses out of player affairs. CCP, you design the game and the player base then finds the best way to use what you give them. Now the player base has worked out how stuff works settled in, made alliances etc... you think it fun to change everything and force the player base to do what you dictate? Why is it that you love to **** off your player base all the time. Epic fail Faction fail Incursion (never done one because it seems like a wast of time) fail. You brought the system upgrades in to try and populate 0.0 better, it worked, even though with Sanctums and Havens in low Trusec one does not make all that much more than those running L4 missions unless you get an escalation. Trusec already has an effect on bounties which makes better trusec more valuable anyway. And there is an element of the game that consistantly flies over CCP's head and is something they are unable to grasp - the player base. Corps, alliances, super alliances etc... all want a piece of space to call home, even if it not the most valuable patch of realestate in the game. They want to take and hold space and run it in a way they see fit within the mechanics of the game. You introduced system upgrades to encourage more people to spread out into 0.0 and populate those systems, now you want to push everyone into small pockets of space so you can get your jollies! Incase you don't read Eve News24, there are plenty of battles and big one's happening all the time. So, is this about creating more conflict, or is it as many have speculated, just CCP's attempt to destroy the NC since they will be the major benefactors of CCP's medling.
Transporter Slave	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:40:00 - [1626] Edited by: Transporter Slave on 30/03/2011 08:43:09 Edited by: Transporter Slave on 30/03/2011 08:40:21 April Fools this. 2 reasons: 1) How the **** is it, that it takes CCP 5 years from Dev Blog to Release on features they claim to be "excited" about. But it takes them 1 week to implement a change no one even remotely wants. 2) the utter lack of professionalism displayed on the boards about it. A thorough revision of current truesec distribution would be needed, based on distance to empire and closeness to NPC space (for obvious logical rp elements) And I can think of at least 200 other reasons already stated in this thread why "CCP shuuld nut taek mah sunctums", to put it in a language CCP will understand.
aycee F.R.E.E. Explorer	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:44:00 - [1627] Originally by: James Razor What is broken with 0.0 is the distribution of Moon Minerals around Eve. Alliance never fought for +TrueSec+ . They fight for Moons. This was true pre-Dominion and is true post-Dominion. nonsense they fight for space to install bots/renters now. assuming a very conservative 40 mill per hour for each "player" running sanctums, you get 40mill x 23 hours x 30 days = 27 billion isk per sanctum per month. why fight for a few scattered tech moons when each system is worth 54 billion per month?
missminer69	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:51:00 - [1628] Originally by: aycee Originally by: James Razor What is broken with 0.0 is the distribution of Moon Minerals around Eve. Alliance never fought for +TrueSec+ . They fight for Moons. This was true pre-Dominion and is true post-Dominion. nonsense they fight for space to install bots/renters now. assuming a very conservative 40 mill per hour for each "player" running sanctums, you get 40mill x 23 hours x 30 days = 27 billion isk per sanctum per month. why fight for a few scattered tech moons when each system is worth 54 billion per month? AApparently botters are good for the economy -they can fill thos really low high volume buy orders.... and they still do nothing about it.
Ckotenok	Posted - 2011.03.30 08:54:00 - [1629] Edited by: Ckotenok on 30/03/2011 08:55:36 ccp just whant that most new alliance what now basic in 0.0 leave it. thats change strikes to all alliance to DRF becose they cant leasing with better tems for self his space, to NC Declain coalition becose they members after that patch cant hunt in there space (over 10k characters and only about half system what they have andwhere they cant hunt) what i see. after dominion patch CCP boost 0.0 for small ally ans give them chance up his strange like cit or renters, but that patch whant kill 0.0 for all small and new ally, becose big ally not give them good system and in trash system they cant up his ally. Im sure that after patch many, many peaple out from 0.0 and never get back. And many gamers canceled his describtion. just remember how CCP shout in dominion "0.0 for small aliances!" where that alliances ? Nothing change, and we told you about it. Now we told you about that change and you agane not listen us. I see that You dont know about why 0.0 war begin, and why all 2010 year war is going. sorry about mine english his not mine primary language
Schlomo Weintraub	Posted - 2011.03.30 09:00:00 - [1630] Apparently CCP can afford to kick their customers into the Balls. With the upcoming "Second Life - Latex and Leather Edition" (aka Dancing in Station) they will get a lot of new players who can¦t wait to spend their lowlife nerd-existance in some Station, drinking virtual Quafe with their virtual friends, jerking off to virtual woman who are actually fat guys in real life. So, if they will really face some subscription decrease within the next quarterly review because of this ****ed up nerf thats coming, this will get compensated until this years end with the most awesome upcoming "Sexvilla 3D IN SPACE!". Yeah, right. Subscription cancelled. This is a game and as it always said i adapt to the changes with not giving my money to CCP anymore. And hey...DUKE NUKEM FOREVER....all hail to the King, Baby.

missminer69	Posted - 2011.03.30 09:18:00 - [1631] some keep coming back to previous nerfs and all i can say is: it was there to level the playing field. This does nothing but hurt people. and the arguement about it makes space less attractive and therefore more attractive to others, well ok if you say so. My paradigm is this (correct me if im wrong): Blocks will get the best truesec - less appealing systems are unhabited (this is actually the case now despite being able to upgrade. those less appealing systems may be claimed, even with upgrades the system is less appealing, blocks see new entrants to 0.0 and will use said occupants as a) renters or b) easy kills. When the game promotes so much sandbox theory sh!te, the core of the problem lies in the static nature of the resources used to play the game. e.g. in this case santrums, rats and anoms. Liang - are you CCP's *****? quit your BS, systems before dominion couldnt hold more than 3 to 4 people ratting, what will happen now is instead of being able to fund a bs in a week it will take a lot longer. UNTIL CCP UNDERSTAND THEIR DEMOGRAPHICS (FOR THOSE IN CCP THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, IT REQUIRES YOU TALKING TO YOUR CUSTOMERS TO FIND OUT HOW THEY PLAY YOUR GAME, YOU WILL NEVER FIND A FIX, INSTEAD YOU WILL ALWAYS BRAKE WHAT DOESN'T NEED FIXING Subscription Status: Cancelled
Reno Shinra	Posted - 2011.03.30 09:36:00 - [1632] Originally by: James Razor It was stated before and i can only repeat it: What is broken with 0.0 is the distribution of Moon Minerals around Eve. Alliance never fought for +TrueSec+ . They fight for Moons. This was true pre-Dominion and is true post-Dominion. What CCP does is simply not going to work, AGAIN as i have to remind you. Post-Dominion Sov Warfare is even more a pain than it was before, as it eliminated a lot of the tactical and skill-related actions. Even if shooting Towers was a pain, at least you could shoot something and you had to be on guard all the time what your enemy is doing, otherwise you would risk that they sliped through your defences and put up another tower or that u lose one when they attack it and u messed up with the timer. I remember times during MAX 1 when we had fights every few hours. Not 3 a Week. And if u lost one, u didnt lose the entire campaign. U just keept going and tryed to win the next two, so that u again had the upper hand. Oh and btw: Remember what significat achivements where made during those Campaigns and what Damage TRI, etc was able to do up north? Granted, the political landscape was another as well, but with the current Sov Mechanics u got LESS fights and a more static 0.0 than ever. Partially because of the crappy sov mechanics, partially because of the redistribution of valuable Moons around Eve. And now CCP plans to remove another source of ISK for the ones that are not profiting from the Moons (i.e. every smaller corp and alliance out there). Conclusion: We will see even less fights, less change in 0.0. Because no one than the established, Moon Goo Farming Alliances will be able to PAY for their PvP activities. ^^ what he said
Glafri	Posted - 2011.03.30 09:41:00 - [1633] Really CCP, Really??? 1/10
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 09:41:00 - [1634] Originally by: Reno Shinra Stuff [/quote Pre-dominion moon goo was a great source of income to many, nerf moons and created a source of conflict - done. Nerf the only way to make isk now to act out said conflict - done.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.30 09:54:00 - [1635] Originally by: StuRyan Pre-dominion moon goo was a great source of income to many, nerf moons and created a source of conflict - done. Nerf the only way to make isk now to act out said conflict - done. I agree - I would also add that the best way to nerf moon goo is to make it far more abundant all over nullsec. This way more players/entities would have access to it, there would be more on the market (driving prices down), T2 stuff would become more affordable (so more people willing to PvP), and more afk empires would fall - if you don't spend the ISK you make on keeping your members logging in and fighting fit, you won't be able to protect your assets when somebody decides to start knocking on the walls of your fortress (case in point - TEST and IT). Expected consequences of making moon goo much more abundant: More reason (and capability) for small alliances to be in nullsec (moon goo all over the place would be worth getting into those otherwise crappy systems) More conflicts with localised goals (unaffiliated small alliances might have a chance to try and grab outlying moons from even the bigger players) Coalitions will be slightly less stable (if moon goo wasn't so massively rare and valuable, what are they keeping together to protect?) Alliances wil have to chose more carefully what space they develop and claim sov in (simply going for the most tech moons possible won't be so appealing anymore)
Purgatorium2k9	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:05:00 - [1636] narf WoW I'm coming!!! narf
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:06:00 - [1637] I didn't come out to 0.0 so I could **ing belt rat! I came out here to prosper and it simply can not be done in some of these regions if you nerf the sanctums! What is wrong with you? 0.0 will become the biggest ghosttown in the history of this entire game ever. Your removing the reason for conflict god damn it! What do you want me to do? Kindly ask my tenant if it is cool to farm sanctums in their space? Dumbest **ing idea ever!
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:09:00 - [1638] Edited by: Furb Killer on 30/03/2011 10:09:45 @Liang, you didnt react on why CCP then wouldnt just replace anom upgrades with agent upgrades if the problem is just the ISK faucet (and CCP is lying to us about what the problem is, granted wouldnt really be a shocker). Quote: Two things: - You're the first person in pretty much the whole thread to say that everyone isn't going to pull back to -1.0 systems or high sec in mass. - Of course smaller alliances aren't going to be taking space from a power block if the power block is there. The question is whether the power block is going to be there. You misunderstood me, I do say many will pull back to -1.0 or high sec. I also say the powerblocks wont actually vbe in the crappy space. Howver my point is that they also will not drop sov in station systems, let alone allow others to take it, too much of a security risk. Since sov in non-station systems is kinda pointless without anomalies, this just creates wastelands.
Kireiina	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:10:00 - [1639] Edited by: Kireiina on 30/03/2011 10:10:03 Originally by: aycee they fight for space to install bots/renters now. assuming a very conservative 40 mill per hour for each "player" running sanctums, you get 40mill x 23 hours x 30 days = 27 billion isk per sanctum per month. why fight for a few scattered tech moons when each system is worth 54 billion per month? Indeed. And they still will. It will be less profitable of course but bots can make up for that since they can fill each system and are happy to run crap plexes 24/7. Whereas a real human player, who can only spend so many hours ratting before they feel the urge to self-mutilation, will give it up if they can make more money doing something else. No human does sanctums for fun after all.
Erdiere Minmatar Erasers inc. Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:12:00 - [1640] CCP, the fact that you first introduced this 0.0 changing plan in the "update: little things are still little" devblog, shows that you don't either understand what you are doing, or do know what you are doing, knew that it would generate negative feedback, but for some unexplainable reason have locked yourself into believing your own misconclusion that it would benefit the game and just planned to ninja it in as painlessly as possible. This change is anything but little afterall. Most people who live in 0.0 like pvp to a varying degree, if you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the pvp aspect of the game you would just stay in hi-sec doing whatever non-pvp activity you like with minimal risk. The fact that most people in 0.0 like pvp also means that there are almost no people in 0.0 who consider pve fun, and would do it for the sheer enjoyment of it, which is a very big part of the appeal of pvp. The more interested you are in pvp, the less interest you have in pve, and vice versa. The reason people do anomalies in 0.0 is to earn isk that allows you to pvp. They are not enjoyable, and when doing them for prolonged periods of time you can almost feel the soul leaving your body, but everyone has to make money in the game somehow. Doing the changes you have described in the dev blog, and completely removing sanctums and havens from some regions, you have nerfed an important money earning method of normal 0.0 residents to a level where the only way to be able to afford the time and sanity to reach the required levels of income for meaningful 0.0 pvp (not t1 frigate blobs) is to start botting. You are forcing people out from 0.0 back to the empire to do missions in almost complete safety in order to earn their isk, you are also forcing them to have multiple accounts so that they can do that and maintain some sort of presence in 0.0 (however, just why you think anyone would want to actually live there without any benefits compared to hi-sec I don't know). Do you honestly think that this will attract more people and newer/smaller entities to 0.0? Do you really want to see EvE Online as the first mmorpg where multiple accounts are an absolute necessity? Why would anyone, at least exclusively, stay in 0.0 and go through the pain of making isk there, if you can safely make more money in hi-sec without the need to always be on alert for reds arriving and blowing you up? People who can't or DON'T WANT TO acquire and operate a money making alt in hi-sec, will simply relocate to empire for good or just quit the game. Whatever the outcome, 0.0 will have less players/characters as a result of the change. If you really are hellbent on changing the system, make it so that the best true sec systems have some extra high level sites compared to the worst true sec systems, don't remove the only sites worth doing from the lowest "band". . .. ..... One of the reasons why you (CCP) might be thinking this is a good change was seen on the fanfest when you stated that you don't really think EvE Online as a game, a product that is usually associated with the expectation of enjoyment. However, you really should, you really should think Eve Online as a game from time to time, and this is one of those times. A game cannot indefinitely increase the suffering from its unpleasant and non-enjoyable aspects in order to sweeten the joy from the few enjoyable moments it offers via constantly starker contrast between the two. EvE Online has always balanced on the edge in this regard, these changes are just a one more unneeded push at the players, and some of them WILL fall out as a result, if CCP really insists on ramming them through. There really are other games as well, I've heard that some of them are actually fun.

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:17:00 - [1641] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: StuRyan Pre-dominion moon goo was a great source of income to many, nerf moons and created a source of conflict - done. Nerf the only way to make isk now to act out said conflict - done. I agree - I would also add that the best way to nerf moon goo is to make it far more abundant all over nullsec. This way more players/entities would have access to it, there would be more on the market (driving prices down), T2 stuff would become more affordable (so more people willing to PvP), and more afk empires would fall - if you don't spend the ISK you make on keeping your members logging in and fighting fit, you won't be able to protect your assets when somebody decides to start knocking on the walls of your fortress (case in point - TEST and IT). Expected consequences of making moon goo much more abundant: More reason (and capability) for small alliances to be in nullsec (moon goo all over the place would be worth getting into those otherwise crappy systems) More conflicts with localised goals (unaffiliated small alliances might have a chance to try and grab outlying moons from even the bigger players) Coalitions will be slightly less stable (if moon goo wasn't so massively rare and valuable, what are they keeping together to protect?) Alliances wil have to chose more carefully what space they develop and claim sov in (simply going for the most tech moons possible won't be so appealing anymore) It would have been a more "viable positive " to nerf the things that not many people have access to - Moon goo. By choosing something that affects a great deal of people your rocked the boat and I fear it will create a desert land. If thats ccp plan to "reset 0.0" then come out and say it. You gave us a great update in dominion but this is one hell of a backstep I fear this could end my game play.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:30:00 - [1642] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 07:47:01 Frankly, I think its pretty obvious that CCP is revising their opinion of getting everyone in the whole game into 0.0 so they can join 2 big fleets and crash nodes. You'll notice there was a lot of talk about local conflicts and smaller alliances. The dev blog hints that its only the tip of the iceberg... and I think we're in for some more/bigger changes to 0.0. -Liang Ed: The forums ate my original post. Blargh. Read the dev blog again. CCP Greyscale says nothing about smaller alliances he said he feels the changes will make large coalitions MARGINALLY less stable. Marginally? Obviously if breaking up the large coalitions was a priority they wouldn't be wasting time on marginal changes. Before that he basically says 'yeah it's nice having all these people in 0.0 now but it's not as interesting as we think it should be'. Bottom line the reason this change will NOT reap the stated results is because the base assumption CCP Greyscale's logic is founded on is faulty. Quote: While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec. With everywhere being essentially the same in terms of the value of key resources, once you've got yourself established in one patch of space there's little incentive to move elsewhere, because there's nowhere "better" to go True the big boys of deep 0.0 have nowhere better to go. They have all the key resources (tech moons) and since those are non-depleting resources there is no incentive to move elsewhere, only incentive to expand as much as possible to acquire more resources. Taking the havens/sanctums from the surrounding space and transplanting them to concentrated pockets within already established territory is not going to motivate the large alliances which already hold the key resources to 'move elsewhere'. In reference to his stated objective this change will merely give the already established power blocks an advantage in that now newer alliances in surrounding (often contested) space will have fewer resources with which to defend their own territory much less consider an attempt to encroach on the large alliances assets.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:40:00 - [1643] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 10:45:40 This is the game where Red Alliance came back from the brink of extinction with only four active pilots, only to later break ERA by destroying nearly their entire capital fleet of just 10 Dreadnoughts... ships that were irreplaceable. This is the game where the first Titan in the game's death was enough to break the morale of ASCN and give the final victory of that big war to Band of Brothers alliance; a ship that was irreplaceable. This is the game where Titans and Motherships represented the collective pride of the alliances that fielded them, and with their deaths, took that pride with them. Today, those ships are completely replaceable. Today, this is the game where you can get the ISK to buy a replacement HAC and its fittings with an hour and a half of ratting. Today, this is the game where Supercarriers are fielded in the hundreds and the few losses that do take place are covered within a couple of weeks. Today, players are whining about losing access to 120,000,000 ISK an hour sites and threatening to quit the game over that. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, PLAYERS OF EVE ONLINE? Where is that spirit of being willing to field priceless ships? Where is your willingness to give it your all and fight tooth and nail for your assets? Where is the pain of losing what you worked for?
Kingston Black	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:43:00 - [1644] NC carebear tears best tears amirite? Funny how the other large 0.0 entities (PL NC. etc) are laughing their heads off at this. Great first step, and as the new CSM is only an NC puppet im sure CCP will pointedly ignore them. Keep up the good work CCP p.s. bwahahahahaha
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:44:00 - [1645] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 10:43:37 This is the game where Red Alliance came back from the brink of extinction with only four active pilots, only to later break ERA by destroying nearly their entire capital fleet of just 10 Dreadnoughts... ships that were irreplaceable. This is the game where the first Titan in the game's death was enough to break the morale of ASCN and give the final victory of that big war to Band of Brothers alliance; a ship that was irreplaceable. This is the game where Titans and Motherships represented the collective pride of the alliances that fielded them, and with their deaths, took that pride with them. Today, those ships are completely replaceable. Today, this is the game where you can get the ISK to buy a replacement HAC and its fittings with an hour and a half of ratting. Today, this is the game where Supercarriers are fielded in the hundreds and the few losses that do take place are covered within a couple of weeks. Today, players are whining about losing access to 120,000,000 ISK an hour sites and threatening to quit the game over that. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, PLAYERS OF EVE ONLINE? Where is that spirit of being willing to field priceless ships? Where is your willingness to give it your all and fight tooth and nail for your assets? Where is the pain of losing what you worked for? Evolution took place
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:54:00 - [1646] Originally by: StuRyan Evolution took place A tremendous step backward, really.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.03.30 10:57:00 - [1647] Quote: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, PLAYERS OF EVE ONLINE? Where is that spirit of being willing to field priceless ships? Where is your willingness to give it your all and fight tooth and nail for your assets? Where is the pain of losing what you worked for? What happened? 99% quit after some years and they were few thousands to begin with. The new ones come from other easy mode games, where they don't get a thrill at escorting 100 industrials through 30 0.0 sec jumps because freigthers and bridges did not exist. They get a thrill at seeing their retribution paladin getting the most golden suit instead. And of course guess out of 300k current subscribers how many are those off 2003 getting the thrill at escorting industrials vs the former "other MMOs arrivals" players? Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
R0RSCH4CH	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:01:00 - [1648] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 10:45:40 WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, PLAYERS OF EVE ONLINE? Where is that spirit of being willing to field priceless ships? Where is your willingness to give it your all and fight tooth and nail for your assets? Where is the pain of losing what you worked for? The will for loosing ships, to give it all in fighting and defending is still there. Just the will of accepting to be bent over by ccp and get sodomized over and over again somehow isn¦t as strong.
Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:02:00 - [1649] Remember that time a Dev said he wanted to make the Naglfar horizontal? yeaaaah.
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:10:00 - [1650] Originally by: Evelgrivion WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, PLAYERS OF EVE ONLINE? Where is that spirit of being willing to field priceless ships? Where is your willingness to give it your all and fight tooth and nail for your assets? Where is the pain of losing what you worked for? So sorry we were not as dumb as the noobs that started back in beta. What one guy said above is right. Evolution mother ****er. Your just mad because we are smarter than you and use the tactic that works instead of trying to be all leet. Why risk expensive ships when you can accomplish the same results with more people and far less expensive ships? You are just mad because evolution left you behind, far behind. Go find another game instead of getting CCP to nurf ours!

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:16:00 - [1651] Originally by: Better Than You Originally by: Evelgrivion WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, PLAYERS OF EVE ONLINE? Where is that spirit of being willing to field priceless ships? Where is your willingness to give it your all and fight tooth and nail for your assets? Where is the pain of losing what you worked for? /quote] We already do, - ISK permitting
UGWidowmaker Caldari freelancers inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:18:00 - [1652] simple make mons dry out of moon g00. and make em spawn elsewhere :) now that will do somehting important. OMFG I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:19:00 - [1653] Originally by: Miso Hawnee Remember that time a Dev said he wanted to nerf null sec to the point it was pointless playing the game? yeaaaah. FIXED
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:20:00 - [1654] Edited by: Jennifer Gemini on 30/03/2011 11:23:34 Edited by: Jennifer Gemini on 30/03/2011 11:20:19 Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Subscription successfully cancelled Click here to continue x5 enjoy o7
knobber Jobbler Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:23:00 - [1655] Greyscale, fix the economy by removing bots and RMT and then think about making changes like this. This is only a short term solution to a long term issue. So many better alternatives have been suggested in this thread to increase movement and fights in 0.0. If you go through with this, you'll just need to do something similar a year down the line. At least do us all a favour and bring a long term solution to the table.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:23:00 - [1656] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Subscription successfully cancelled Click here to continue x5 enjoy o7 Can I have your stuff?
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:24:00 - [1657] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Subscription successfully cancelled Click here to continue x5 enjoy o7 Can I have your stuff? No. I'm not giving it away. It's gonna rot on my account forever. **** EVE and CCP if this change goes through.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:26:00 - [1658] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini No. I'm not giving it away. It's gonna rot on my account forever. **** EVE and CCP if this change goes through. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
missminer69	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:34:00 - [1659] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 11:29:47 Originally by: Jennifer Gemini No. I'm not giving it away. It's gonna rot on my account forever. ** EVE and CCP if this change goes through. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I and several others have made a good effort to point out why this change will be beneficial to the game and our long term enjoyment thereof, but the only thing people seem to care about is easy funding for no-consequence PVP. If you're going to quit the game because recovering from your losses is actually going to start taking time again, that's your prerogative. CCP alt *** detected.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:37:00 - [1660] Originally by: missminer69 CCP alt ***** detected. Coward alt detected. Post with your main.

Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:37:00 - [1661] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 11:29:47 Originally by: Jennifer Gemini No. I'm not giving it away. It's gonna rot on my account forever. **** EVE and CCP if this change goes through. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I and several others have made a good effort to point out why this change will be beneficial to the game and our long term enjoyment thereof, but the only thing people seem to care about is easy funding for no-consequence PVP. If you're going to quit the game because recovering from your losses is actually going to start taking time again, that's your prerogative. pvp will still be easy funded just by missions and not sanctums. its gonna be the way it was pre dom. this change will have no effect on isk incomes for most, just the locations of that isk income. short sited plan is short sited
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:39:00 - [1662] Originally by: Locii pvp will still be easy funded just by missions and not sanctums. its gonna be the way it was pre dom. this change will have no effect on isk incomes for most, just the locations of that isk income. short sited plan is short sited Short sighted yes, but a desperately needed step in the right direction. Eve has become far too easy, and far too homogenous. I've been hoping for a long time that CCP would start to make things tougher again, and I'm sick of seeing carebears cry for a nominal decrease in their rate of wallet bloat.
Optimator One	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:39:00 - [1663] Edited by: Optimator One on 30/03/2011 11:45:41 Well i think people went to 0.0 to get more isk and better rewards. The goal of 0.0 is to have fun with pvp and earn nice rewards. By doing this 0.0 will no longer reward players it will do opposite - no rewards for being in 0.0. That said people will start moving to high sec because high sec will be more rewarding and safer. Also i'd suggest making sov upgrades about 80% cheaper because of this change so aliances can keep sov because when a person does sanctums 20% goes to corp tax so it's quite huge income for corps / alliances.
missminer69	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:44:00 - [1664] Edited by: missminer69 on 30/03/2011 11:45:22 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: missminer69 CCP alt ***** detected. Coward alt detected. Post with your main. MUHAHAHAHAHAHA. You and about 4 others are the only people who want this change. The game has become far too easy Go cry somewhere else its a game you prick.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:45:00 - [1665] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii pvp will still be easy funded just by missions and not sanctums. its gonna be the way it was pre dom. this change will have no effect on isk incomes for most, just the locations of that isk income. short sited plan is short sited Short sighted yes, but a desperately needed step in the right direction. Eve has become far too easy, and far too homogenous. I've been hoping for a long time that CCP would start to make things tougher again, and I'm sick of seeing carebears cry for a nominal decrease in their rate of wallet bloat. this isnt gonna make anything harder for the pve pilots, those pve pilots or easy targets just wont be in 0.0. so who does that gain? the pvp pilots in 0.0? the plan was to get people in 0.0, that worked most people i know moved there mission alts to 0.0 so they could fund the pvp. no change of income just location. that plan made worthless space worth while, this change is just making it worthless again. so who does this change gain?
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:47:00 - [1666] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 11:29:47 Originally by: Jennifer Gemini No. I'm not giving it away. It's gonna rot on my account forever. ** EVE and CCP if this change goes through. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I and several others have made a good effort to point out why this change will be beneficial to the game and our long term enjoyment thereof, but the only thing people seem to care about is easy funding for no-consequence PVP. If you're going to quit the game because recovering from your losses is actually going to start taking time again, that's your prerogative. Sorry that I prefer having fun over grinding for ISK all day. EVE isn't supposed to be a 2nd job, it's supposed to be fun. This change makes it not fun, therefore I am no longer going to play. I don't mind working for my , I get ISK by running sanctums and I buy PLEX occasionally for supplement ISK. Over complicating things just because CCP feels like it is not OK. Making a ton of systems useless just because CCP feels like it is not OK. What are they going to nerf next? Screw that. CCP has proposed a lot of changes I didn't like, some went in, I kept quiet about those, they weren't a big deal. This one is just where I draw the line. When I started EVE I was told CCP actually listens to the players ... this post right here, his reply to everyone's objections, is proof enough for me that I was lied to about that. Don't think I want your pity or someone to beg me to stay, I don't. CCP apparently isn't going to learn by people just telling them it's a bad idea, apparently their wallet needs to hurt before they care. So here's to you CCP, -5 accounts. If you don't like this change, cancel. Really. Do it, hit them where it hurts. PS. I would have totally bought random clothing and ship paint and all sorts of ** and burned so much (cash)money on that, so, more money for me, less money for CCP.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:51:00 - [1667] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 11:54:13 Originally by: Locii Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii pvp will still be easy funded just by missions and not sanctums. its gonna be the way it was pre dom. this change will have no effect on isk incomes for most, just the locations of that isk income. short sited plan is short sited Short sighted yes, but a desperately needed step in the right direction. Eve has become far too easy, and far too homogenous. I've been hoping for a long time that CCP would start to make things tougher again, and I'm sick of seeing carebears cry for a nominal decrease in their rate of wallet bloat. this isnt gonna make anything harder for the pve pilots, those pve pilots or easy targets just wont be in 0.0. so who does that gain? the pvp pilots in 0.0? the plan was to get people in 0.0, that worked most people i know moved there mission alts to 0.0 so they could fund the pvp. no change of income just location. that plan made worthless space worth while, this change is just making it worthless again. so who does this change gain? As a single feature change, yes, this will largely will have no effect on ISK generation. However, there's very little reason to go out and fight people for better space right now, especially if/when CCP cripples the super capital's current force projection abilities. If I recall correctly, part of the goal in getting people out into 0.0 was to create more political entities as well, but that's not what happened. Existing power blocks collected more membership and the throw weight of the coalitions has only gone up, which damages the barrier of entry for smaller scale entities to get in. Someone needs to not want space, and someone needs to not be able to simply deny access to someone if they feel like it. In the fifth CSM, Greyscale indicated a strong desire to remove the ability to simply throw capitals at anyone who happens to be within 5 regions of a power block's home base of operations. If agent quality becomes dynamic, cash flow from level 4s will suffer as well. 0.0 Should keep its income edge over high security space, and players should be able to get a foothold since there will be space that power blocks don't want, while being incapable of denying that space to other people. In and of itself, the sanctum nerf won't fix things, but it will when combined with other things. It has to start somewhere.
Christopher AET Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:53:00 - [1668] Edited by: Christopher AET on 30/03/2011 11:53:50 To be honest I find the dev reply more than a little condescending. 56 pages of no and not even a "okay lets postpone this and see what other ideas are around". I really hope the new CSM picks up on this.
Jita Meatbag	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:57:00 - [1669] Edited by: Jita Meatbag on 30/03/2011 11:57:47 x 2 accounts...
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 11:59:00 - [1670] Originally by: Christopher AET Edited by: Christopher AET on 30/03/2011 11:53:50 To be honest I find the dev reply more than a little condescending. 56 pages of no and not even a "okay lets postpone this and see what other ideas are around". I really hope the new CSM picks up on this. qft I read it as "We don't give a f*ck about what you think. We know with our magical powers that this is gonna be a good change so we are doing it anyway" I don't want to play a game that treats its customers like that. If this was a free to play game then I'd say sure do whatever, but we pay for the right to play and we also pay for the right to have a say. I vote with my wallet. If other people do the same this won't go through. So do it. Hit cancel, put a link to the failblog as the reason. Sadly only 1 of my accounts was set to auto renew, but I won't be manually renewing any of my accounts until I see a dev post here saying this is called off.

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:04:00 - [1671] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 11:54:13 Originally by: Locii Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii pvp will still be easy funded just by missions and not sanctums. its gonna be the way it was pre dom. this change will have no effect on isk incomes for most, just the locations of that isk income. short sited plan is short sited Short sighted yes, but a desperately needed step in the right direction. Eve has become far too easy, and far too homogenous. I've been hoping for a long time that CCP would start to make things tougher again, and I'm sick of seeing carebears cry for a nominal decrease in their rate of wallet bloat. this isnt gonna make anything harder for the pve pilots, those pve pilots or easy targets just wont be in 0.0. so who does that gain? the pvp pilots in 0.0? the plan was to get people in 0.0, that worked most people i know moved there mission alts to 0.0 so they could fund the pvp. no change of income just location. that plan made worthless space worth while, this change is just making it worthless again. so who does this change gain? As a single feature change, yes, this will largely will have no effect on ISK generation. However, there's very little reason to go out and fight people for better space right now, especially if/when CCP cripples the super capital's current force projection abilities. If I recall correctly, part of the goal in getting people out into 0.0 was to create more political entities as well, but that's not what happened. Existing power blocks collected more membership and the throw weight of the coalitions has only gone up, which damages the barrier of entry for smaller scale entities to get in. Someone needs to not want space, and someone needs to not be able to simply deny access to someone if they feel like it. In the fifth CSM, Greyscale indicated a strong desire to remove the ability to simply throw capitals at anyone who happens to be within 5 regions of a power block's home base of operations. If agent quality becomes dynamic, cash flow from level 4s will suffer as well. 0.0 Should keep its income edge over high security space, and players should be able to get a foothold since there will be space that power blocks don't want, while being incapable of denying that space to other people. In and of itself, the sanctum nerf won't fix things, but it will when combined with other things. It has to start somewhere. The point i take from this is, blocks are just gonna go mess with small guys for lols. if undesirable space starts being taken. Thats a good way to get them on the map.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:12:00 - [1672] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 12:12:30 Originally by: StuRyan The point i take from this is, blocks are just gonna go mess with small guys for lols. if undesirable space starts being taken. Thats a good way to get them on the map. That's generally how this game goes; if you exist, you're a target. The trick for CCP is to make targets below a certain threshold not worth the power block's time, and for coalitions above a certain size to be undesirable for its would-be constituents.
Oguras Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:12:00 - [1673] Sweet carebear tears ITT.. Well, null sec is right now carebear paradise with much greater reward/risk ratio than hisec. This attracts "average joes" from empire who prefer same low risk type of pvp (or only know this type) aka Blob. It shouldn't be this way. I approve this change, if You can't htfu and adapt, well maybe you shouldn't move from motsu in the first place.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:13:00 - [1674] Originally by: StuRyan As a single feature change, yes, this will largely will have no effect on ISK generation. However, there's very little reason to go out and fight people for better space right now, especially if/when CCP cripples the super capital's current force projection abilities. If I recall correctly, part of the goal in getting people out into 0.0 was to create more political entities as well, but that's not what happened. Existing power blocks collected more membership and the throw weight of the coalitions has only gone up, which damages the barrier of entry for smaller scale entities to get in. Someone needs to not want space, and someone needs to not be able to simply deny access to someone if they feel like it. In the fifth CSM, Greyscale indicated a strong desire to remove the ability to simply throw capitals at anyone who happens to be within 5 regions of a power block's home base of operations. If agent quality becomes dynamic, cash flow from level 4s will suffer as well. 0.0 Should keep its income edge over high security space, and players should be able to get a foothold since there will be space that power blocks don't want, while being incapable of denying that space to other people. In and of itself, the sanctum nerf won't fix things, but it will when combined with other things. It has to start somewhere. The point i take from this is, blocks are just gonna go mess with small guys for lols. if undesirable space starts being taken. Thats a good way to get them on the map. CCP is cutting their own throat with this. They want people to move to null, so they make null space less valuable. This isn't going to change anything in terms of who controls what or letting small alliances move in. Large alliances will still take the space, they just won't use it or upgrade it. This is by CCPs own design, if you want regional sov you need to take the bulk of the region, so if someone wants regional sov they have to take most of the region which still excludes small alliances from taking space. This change does NOTHING but **** off people and make upgrades that were already done utterly useless.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:13:00 - [1675] Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:14:52 Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 11:54:13 Originally by: Locii Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii pvp will still be easy funded just by missions and not sanctums. its gonna be the way it was pre dom. this change will have no effect on isk incomes for most, just the locations of that isk income. short sited plan is short sited Short sighted yes, but a desperately needed step in the right direction. Eve has become far too easy, and far too homogenous. I've been hoping for a long time that CCP would start to make things tougher again, and I'm sick of seeing carebears cry for a nominal decrease in their rate of wallet bloat. this isnt gonna make anything harder for the pve pilots, those pve pilots or easy targets just wont be in 0.0. so who does that gain? the pvp pilots in 0.0? the plan was to get people in 0.0, that worked most people i know moved there mission alts to 0.0 so they could fund the pvp. no change of income just location. that plan made worthless space worth while, this change is just making it worthless again. so who does this change gain? As a single feature change, yes, this will largely will have no effect on ISK generation. However, there's very little reason to go out and fight people for better space right now, especially if/when CCP cripples the super capital's current force projection abilities. If I recall correctly, part of the goal in getting people out into 0.0 was to create more political entities as well, but that's not what happened. Existing power blocks collected more membership and the throw weight of the coalitions has only gone up, which damages the barrier of entry for smaller scale entities to get in. Someone needs to not want space, and someone needs to not be able to simply deny access to someone if they feel like it. In the fifth CSM, Greyscale indicated a strong desire to remove the ability to simply throw capitals at anyone who happens to be within 5 regions of a power block's home base of operations. If agent quality becomes dynamic, cash flow from level 4s will suffer as well. 0.0 Should keep its income edge over high security space, and players should be able to get a foothold since there will be space that power blocks don't want, while being incapable of denying that space to other people. In and of itself, the sanctum nerf won't fix things, but it will when combined with other things. It has to start somewhere. Lv4's becoming dynamic is just gonna make poeopel move round a bit. or train social skills and not care there LP income is a little less. but over all it is just a server load balancing issue more than anything else. net effect will be nothing changes. Force projection nerf, well tbh this will be a mild inconveance more than anything, unless they take away the jump portal altogether your just find strings of titans rather than beacons or jb's. This change only gives powerblocks a bigger advantage than before. why would any small allinace spend isk setting up in worthless space or the flip side, why would any power block let them? As in the 'no reason to go and fight peopel atm' bit, your joking right?? are we not at the point where we are having the largest fleet fights ever in eve, with titans and moms dying all over the map with increased amounts of pilots taking part and isk being lost. i fail to see in anything you have said something that makes this change an advantage.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:18:00 - [1676] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 12:18:35 Originally by: Locii Lv4's becoming dynamic is just gonna make poeopel move round a bit. or train social skills and not care there LP income is a little less. but over all it is just a server load balancing issue more than anything else. net effect will be nothing changes. Force projection nerf, well tbh this will be a mild inconveance more than anything, unless they take away the jump portal altogether your just find strings of titans rather than beacons or jb's. This change only gives powerblocks a bigger advantage than before. why would any small allinace spend isk setting up in worthless space or the flip side, why would any power block let them? as in the 'no reason to go and fight peopel atm' bit, your joking right?? are we not at the point where we are having the largest fleet fights ever in eve, with titans and moms dying all over the map with increased amounts of pilots taking part and isk being lost. i fail to see in anything you have said something that makes this change an advantage. If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants taking the risks for the power block's existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:19:00 - [1677] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii Lv4's becoming dynamic is just gonna make poeopel move round a bit. or train social skills and not care there LP income is a little less. but over all it is just a server load balancing issue more than anything else. net effect will be nothing changes. Force projection nerf, well tbh this will be a mild inconveance more than anything, unless they take away the jump portal altogether your just find strings of titans rather than beacons or jb's. This change only gives powerblocks a bigger advantage than before. why would any small allinace spend isk setting up in worthless space or the flip side, why would any power block let them? as in the 'no reason to go and fight peopel atm' bit, your joking right?? are we not at the point where we are having the largest fleet fights ever in eve, with titans and moms dying all over the map with increased amounts of pilots taking part and isk being lost. i fail to see in anything you have said something that makes this change an advantage. If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation. You must be trollin'
Marechal Ney	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:21:00 - [1678] Edited by: Marechal Ney on 30/03/2011 12:22:21 CCP you are targetting the wrong thing. The problem is not the ppl that are in null sec, so no need to try to make their life different again but the problem is a sov system that is too soft and pack of alliances going together against others which kind of frozen the map between North, South and East + drone region (mainly). What I would recommend is to put back a sov system that requires a very high level of commitment like before with towers everywhere, logistic needs by alliance so big that they had to trust their members otherwise they cannot achieve anything big (remember the second sandbox video... do you think this can happen currently ?). So the sov system should involve very large logistic and patrols to maintain it but also be VERY expansive to avoid that mega alliances/pack of alliances can own 20% of the galaxy in no time while only having to do very little work to earn the isk necessary to keep it.
SFShootme The Carebear Stare Hydroponic Zone	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:21:00 - [1679] Since all the carebears are spamming this topic to **** with negative feedback I am posting simply to say I am totally for this change. Without giving any other form of feedback since it'll prolly be spammed back 5 pages with carebear tears before the end of the day. o/
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:21:00 - [1680] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Originally by: Evelgrivion If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation. You must be trollin' Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions.

Don Pellegrino Pod Liberation Authority	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:28:00 - [1681] The current situation is out of control and most people here seem to have forgotten how fine everyone did before Dominion. It's hard to take candies away from a child that's been given lots of free candies every day. The kid will cry, but you know it's for his own good in the long term. ____________________________________________
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:28:00 - [1682] Edited by: StuRyan on 30/03/2011 12:35:34 Originally by: Oguras Sweet carebear tears ITT.. Well, null sec is right now carebear paradise with much greater reward/risk ratio than hisec. This attracts "average joes" from empire who prefer same low risk type of pvp (or only know this type) aka Blob. It shouldn't be this way. I approve this change, if You can't htfu and adapt, well maybe you shouldn't move from motsu in the first place. You obviously haven't read any of this thread, most people if not everyone bar a few use ratting and plexing for isk to pvp. pre-dominion people paid for timecodes and then sold it to fund their pvp becuase it was impossible to ratit caused alliances to space out even more so that it could sustain more than 5 people in the system. This change is just going to cause all those issues again. Greyscale is trying to whip up a storm - you gave people something valuable which was good for the game. When people can't have it they do 1 of two things try or join. I see blocks just getting even bigger somewhere along the lines there needs to be an entry level for alliances wanting their own land without the influence of blocks. this comes in the form of evolving and allowing people to do as they please with their land. It comes with having nothing and being able to do something with it. With the current model you get land with nothing and you will get nothing after months of hard work. If you are wanting people to be able to claim space there needs to be an exponetial cost to owning systems that is influenced somehow by the number of people in the alliance / corp claiming. AND PS: there is still a lot of unclaimed
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:28:00 - [1683] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Originally by: Evelgrivion If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation. You must be trollin' Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions. just because it was harder to move mins about dosnt make the blue list shorter. even if i was to have to move mins in a freighter gate by gate, it still wouldnt make sence to make systems worthless for anything except mining? maybe instead of anom runners we will see a massive amount of miners due to the fact industry changes are not taking place with this change. nerf the belts if you wanna use the excuse about linking it to true sec
Pesadel0 the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:30:00 - [1684] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Originally by: Evelgrivion If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation. You must be trollin' Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions. That would be all good and dandy , but jump bridges and ** ,supers already dominate 0.0, so this change wont do S* to 0.0 wars, if anything smal entities wont have a place in 0.0, and will get stomped like they were in the good old days.CCP doing half planned measures makes me laugh in real life hard.I mean the DEV was at the fanfest and couldn¦t check the data , after a couple of days ,he comes and says yup i was rigth,without providing the data and any proof what so ever of his research . Yeah right..
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:30:00 - [1685] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Originally by: Evelgrivion If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation. You must be trollin' Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions. Few things: - I didn't play back then - Had I joined back then I probably wouldn't have stayed -- you might be like "Fine," but CCP cares, they want money. - EVE was small back then as well, and the recent changes have encouraged more people (like myself) to actually play EVE. What do you think removing these beneficial changes will do? - These changes hurt small alliances more than they help. Why would they take useless space that cannot sustain itself? - If even the middle ground nullsec systems are about on par with highsec why even consider moving to nullsec? - Alliances should be able to move freely in their own space. Large powerblocks exist because that's human nature. We are pack animals, we travel in groups. You can't overcome instinct with ****ty changes like these. - Alliances paid for these upgrades, alliances paid for jump bridges and paid for pirate detection arrays, they invested thousands of hours of time into them. To have them taken away so easily is just BS. Why do anything in EVE if some idiot dev can just come along and be like "Ah I don't like that" and undo it all? When I pay for a game I expect some sort of security in what I do in it. I expect gradual changes where there is time to adapt but this is not gradual, it's quite extreme. - It's game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's not fun anymore it's time to quit. Period.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:32:00 - [1686] Originally by: Locii just because it was harder to move mins about dosnt make the blue list shorter. even if i was to have to move mins in a freighter gate by gate, it still wouldnt make sence to make systems worthless for anything except mining? maybe instead of anom runners we will see a massive amount of miners due to the fact industry changes are not taking place with this change. nerf the belts if you wanna use the excuse about linking it to true sec Before anomalies existed, people farmed asteroid belts. When anomalies started showing up, people started probing for them. When infrastructure was added, people only had to press their onboard scanner to find sites that paid like the old 6/10 Deadspace complexes but with none of the difficulty. The easy money will still be out there, it just won't be as gratuitous.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:35:00 - [1687] Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:34:59 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii just because it was harder to move mins about dosnt make the blue list shorter. even if i was to have to move mins in a freighter gate by gate, it still wouldnt make sence to make systems worthless for anything except mining? maybe instead of anom runners we will see a massive amount of miners due to the fact industry changes are not taking place with this change. nerf the belts if you wanna use the excuse about linking it to true sec Before anomalies existed, people farmed asteroid belts. When anomalies started showing up, people started probing for them. When infrastructure was added, people only had to press their onboard scanner to find sites that paid like the old 6/10 Deadspace complexes but with none of the difficulty. The easy money will still be out there, it just won't be as gratuitous. the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one.
Pink Wasp	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:37:00 - [1688] CCP Greyscale plz think again... meet up with somebody who acctual play's this game.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:41:00 - [1689] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Few things: - I didn't play back then Then it might be wise to pay attention to the people who did. Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - Had I joined back then I probably wouldn't have stayed -- you might be like "Fine," but CCP cares, they want money. I wonder about that. CCP set out to create the MMO that THEY wanted to play, and when they've focused on making the game they wanted, the expansions were always well received. Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - EVE was small back then as well, and the recent changes have encouraged more people (like myself) to actually play EVE. What do you think removing these beneficial changes will do? People actually went and played Eve without sanctums, and they did it with eyes over their shoulders, adrenaline coursing through their veins and had fights that required nerves of ice to run properly, lest they lose too many ships that were difficult to replace. It was a different experience to the one you're used to, but people still played it BECAUSE it was thrilling. Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - These changes hurt small alliances more than they help. Why would they take useless space that cannot sustain itself? How does it hurt a small alliance to create a pocket where they don't need to feed into a superblock who only wants you for a meat shield? Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - If even the middle ground nullsec systems are about on par with highsec why even consider moving to nullsec? Because null-sec is about power. It's about playing with friends to take a chunk of space, claim it as your own, and then using the power you have in that space to take power away from other people. If you're only there to make money, you're there for all the wrong reasons. Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - Alliances should be able to move freely in their own space. Large powerblocks exist because that's human nature. We are pack animals, we travel in groups. You can't overcome instinct with **ty changes like these. I postulate that you can, in fact, overcome instinct to flock by stimulating the instinct of greed and self preservation. If everyone's happy, people get along. If people aren't happy, they don't. I disagree about the free movement in their own space as well; free movement encourages sprawl, and history has shown that this is not good for the game's health and enjoyability. Originally by:** Jennifer Gemini - Alliances paid for these upgrades, alliances paid for jump bridges and paid for pirate detection arrays, they invested thousands of hours of time into them. To have them taken away so easily is just BS. Why do anything in EVE if some idiot dev can just come along and be like "Ah I don't like that" and undo it all? When I pay for a game I expect some sort of security in what I do in it. I expect gradual changes where there is time to adapt but this is not gradual, it's quite extreme. They aren't being taken away. Did you even read the blog? The highest end sites are being nerfed because they're too damn good. There's no reason to want better space. Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - It's game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's not fun anymore it's time to quit. Period. When CCP set out to create this game, they didn't have the attitude of the lackadaisical in mind. If you don't enjoy working for what you have and then seeing the power wrought by your hard work, then this really isn't the game for you. CCP shouldn't be trying to make it the game for you.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:43:00 - [1690] Originally by: Locii the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one. Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it.

Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:48:00 - [1691] Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one. Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it. this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running. this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location. the net result is mission runner alts, again. nothing changes which why this is so short sighted.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:51:00 - [1692] Originally by: Locii Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one. Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it. this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running. this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location. the net result is mission runner alts, again. nothing changes which why this is so short sighted. The amount of ISK people can make in an hour will go down, and there will be less money in Eve Online's economy. That is a change worth making, and one that will make a huge difference in the long term.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:52:00 - [1693] Edited by: Skaarl on 30/03/2011 12:55:11 Originally by: Locii Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one. Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it. this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running. this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location. the net result is mission runner alts, again. nothing changes which why this is so short sighted. actually it nets the same3 result, with fewer opportunities for obvious griefers like evol to shoot anything. CCP "we dont like risk: rewrad raitios, so we are going to drive most of the population to high sec level 4's where there is literally no risk whatsoever and make it easier to obtain the same rewards." face it, the Devs that made eve great are working on dust. we have the C-team who haven't ever even logged into eve and think that sittin in a cubicle talking to their barbie doll constitutes a discussion about the game.
Ohai Kalkoken	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:53:00 - [1694] Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 30/03/2011 12:41:58 Edited by: StuRyan on 30/03/2011 12:35:34 Originally by: Oguras Sweet carebear tears ITT.. Well, null sec is right now carebear paradise with much greater reward/risk ratio than hisec. This attracts "average joes" from empire who prefer same low risk type of pvp (or only know this type) aka Blob. It shouldn't be this way. I approve this change, if You can't htfu and adapt, well maybe you shouldn't move from motsu in the first place. You obviously haven't read any of this thread, most people if not everyone bar a few use ratting and plexing for isk to pvp. pre-dominion people paid for timecodes and then sold it to fund their pvp becuase it was impossible to ratit caused alliances to space out even more so that it could sustain more than 5 people in the system. This change is just going to cause all those issues again. Greyscale is trying to whip up a storm - you gave people something valuable which was good for the game. When people can't have it they do 1 of two things try or join. I see blocks just getting even bigger somewhere along the lines there needs to be an entry level for alliances wanting their own land without the influence of blocks. this comes in the form of evolving and allowing people to do as they please with their land. It comes with having nothing and being able to do something with it. With the current model you get land with nothing and you will get nothing after months of hard work. If you are wanting people to be able to claim space there needs to be an exponetial cost to owning systems that is influenced somehow by the number of people in the alliance / corp claiming. AND PS: there is still a lot of unclaimed has annyone at CCP cared to find that information out? I was there pre-dominion and I was able to prosper without sanctums. They say 95% of eve players are male, I'd argue with that looking at this thread. Do the Man thing: if the going gets tought, get toughter and deal with it.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:53:00 - [1695] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one. Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it. this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running. this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location. the net result is mission runner alts, again. nothing changes which why this is so short sighted. The amount of ISK people can make in an hour will go down, and there will be less money in Eve Online's economy. That is a change worth making, and one that will make a huge difference in the long term. lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms
TNT Lottery TNT GAME	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:55:00 - [1696] I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is: More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL. There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time. And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect. NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS The TNT Lottery - Safe, Professional, Fast and Secure.
Xune Body Count Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:56:00 - [1697] I dont aprove at all :\ Will just increase the gap of players with multi billions being able to play the market games on large scale. And those not rich enough to do so.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:58:00 - [1698] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii Edited by: Locii on 30/03/2011 12:48:21 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Locii the easy money is still there in missions and -0.8 systems and better. you have failed to give any reason why these changes make sence at this point in eve. not one. Eve isn't supposed to be easy, fair, or forgiving. Sanctums made Eve easy, fair, and forgiving. Making it harder to make ISK is a step in restoring Eve to the game it once was. You don't have to like it, but from the looks of things, you're just going to have to deal with it. this dosnt make eve any harder, its just teh same as it always was. just instead of mission running before dom its anoms now. after this change it will be back to mission running. this isnt harder this is the same just in a diffenet location. the net result is mission runner alts, again. nothing changes which why this is so short sighted. The amount of ISK people can make in an hour will go down, and there will be less money in Eve Online's economy. That is a change worth making, and one that will make a huge difference in the long term. Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 12:59:00 - [1699] Originally by: TNT Lottery I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is: More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL. There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time. And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect. NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS No easy money means more long term players see value in sticking around for a long time, since consequences will mean something again, and CCP can get back to growing rather than stagnating at ~350,000 accounts because people don't want to play for years on end anymore. Originally by: Xune I dont aprove at all :\ Will just increase the gap of players with multi billions being able to play the market games on large scale. And those not rich enough to do so. Those players with multiple billions of ISK from market manipulation take the money of ratters to get rich. If there's less money from ratters, there are fewer billions in the hands of market manipulators. You won't suffer from this change.
Optimator One	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:01:00 - [1700] Originally by: Locii lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms I agree. The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space. Those upgrades will now get useless.

Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:02:00 - [1701] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:03:23 Originally by: Optimator One Originally by: Locii lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms I agree. The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space. Those upgrades will now get useless. How can they become useless if they're still providing upgraded sites? All the changes do is remove sanctums from the low true-sec systems. The other, sites, while less valuable than sanctums, will still be there. Originally by: Rene Winter Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf. CCP tried that once, and people compensated for reduced mission rat bounties by grinding more. The option has to not be there for these changes to have their desired effect; players always overcompensate with numbers and time if they can. Raising sov bills is a bandaid that maintains the high barrier to entry and power creep problems that were already in place, and force everyone to grind more to maintain the status quo. This change would hurt small alliances more than big alliances, in comparison to a game-wide change in anomaly mechanics.
Oguras Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:03:00 - [1702] Originally by: TNT Lottery I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is: More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL. There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time. And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect. NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS This is bs, you were extending gametime with plex wich had to be bought from ccp at one point; it will have effect on plex market but it doesn't mean that if you cancel your subscription ccp will be hurt.. less isk in game and smaller plex demand might be equal and ppl who use game time codes might not stop buying them..
Ofcourse IM anAlt	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:05:00 - [1703] First day at CCP 2007.02.12 Title/Department Game Designer/Game Design Motto One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong Bio It turns out that if you donÆt bother doing any homework at school, you can go on to study a subject with no obvious applications at a really good university and then end up designing computer games in Iceland. I am not a good role model CCP GREYSCALE bio on eveonline.com this whole thread of CCP GREYSCALE telling us tough **** makes sence all of a sudden. i cant even imagine the lag fest motsu gonna be when everyone move back to missions.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:05:00 - [1704] I would like to announce a mass protest of this decisions tomorrow, Thursday March 31st at 20:00 on the singularity server. If you disagree with the developers decisions and their lack of explanation of both their reasoning and models, or just want to watch the show, please show up. Quafe and exotic dancers will be in abundance so please show up and voice your concerns with this poorly conceived decision.
Latino lover Minmatar SEX WITH PENYS	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:07:00 - [1705] http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1103/Carebears_rage_00000.jpg -- In GIGI we trust !!
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:08:00 - [1706] Originally by: Skaarl I would like to announce a mass protest of this decisions tomorrow, Thursday March 31st at 20:00 on the singularity server. If you disagree with the developers decisions and their lack of explanation of both their reasoning and models, or just want to watch the show, please show up. Quafe and exotic dancers will be in abundance so please show up and voice your concerns with this poorly conceived decision. Other than making it harder for you as an individual to make lots and lots of money, how is this a poorly conceived decision? If your alliance has even a modest tax rate of 5% and an active member base of 20, the taxes should easily cover any sovereignty costs while leaving 95% of the space's income to you.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:09:00 - [1707] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Skaarl I would like to announce a mass protest of this decisions tomorrow, Thursday March 31st at 20:00 on the singularity server. If you disagree with the developers decisions and their lack of explanation of both their reasoning and models, or just want to watch the show, please show up. Quafe and exotic dancers will be in abundance so please show up and voice your concerns with this poorly conceived decision. Other than making it harder for you as an individual to make lots and lots of money, how is this a poorly conceived decision? If your alliance has even a modest tax rate of 5% and an active member base of 20, the taxes should easily cover any sovereignty costs while leaving 95% of the space's income to you. if you dont agree, dont show up. plain and simple. the fact that you feel compelled to even respam my post just shows that you really are nothing more than an internet troll.
Locii	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:09:00 - [1708] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:03:23 Originally by: Optimator One Originally by: Locii lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms I agree. The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space. Those upgrades will now get useless. How can they become useless if they're still providing upgraded sites? All the changes do is remove sanctums from the low true-sec systems. The other, sites, while less valuable than sanctums, will still be there. Originally by: Rene Winter Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf. CCP tried that once, and people compensated for reduced mission rat bounties by grinding more. The option has to not be there for these changes to have their desired effect; players always overcompensate with numbers and time if they can. Raising sov bills is a bandaid that maintains the high barrier to entry and power creep problems that were already in place, and force everyone to grind more to maintain the status quo. This change would hurt small alliances more than big alliances, in comparison to a game-wide change in anomaly mechanics. there useless as the low lvl sites are worth less than lv3 missions. so you pay 3bil for your upgrades and you woudl be better off running lv3 missions in a drake. wow that sounds awesom. all they had to do was change the value of the rats in the anoms. it really isnt that hard. -0.5 the same +10% as the sec increase by 0.1 -10% when it decreases by 0.1 by making massive chunks of -0.4 and below worthless people will go back to mission running any fool can see that, well unless your a ccp fool
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:09:00 - [1709] Originally by: mkmin Originally by: helmeo um, all those that are quitting can i have your stuffz? That depends. If you're going to use it to suicide gank rookie systems, maybe. I would use the surprise wealth to get me a fleet of AFK cloakers to sit in the few remaining high value systems
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:10:00 - [1710] Originally by: Pesadel0 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Originally by: Evelgrivion If too many people run level 4s, all level four agents should offer poor payout. For force projection to work, capital ship cyno jumps need to take a notable amount of time to spin up and activate. Jump Portals need to take time to turn on as well. Jump Bridges need to stop being able to teleport entire fleets so long as they have the fuel to do so - which can be accomplished by adding a 10 second cooldown timer for each ship that hops through after the first five to ten, for example. Jump range can be decreased, penalties for interrupted jumps can be added, and generally making a move with a capital ship can be made into a risky action. If you can't deploy your heavy hitters flippantly, you can't take down alliances trying to make a name for themselves unless they're seen as a genuine threat that warrants the risks to their existing space and military hardware. That means those ships also need to be problematic to lose, which ties back to problems about easy ship movement, the quick acquisition speed of ISK, and other such issues. I meant it when I said the root cause of the game's ills is easy access to ISK, Minerals, and transportation. You must be trollin' Prove my argument wrong. The game existed in a state where it was hard to move materials and acquire materials in bulk once, and players existed in proportionately smaller organizations as a result of the living conditions. That would be all good and dandy , but jump bridges and ** ,supers already dominate 0.0, so this change wont do S* to 0.0 wars, if anything smal entities wont have a place in 0.0, and will get stomped like they were in the good old days.CCP doing half planned measures makes me laugh in real life hard.I mean the DEV was at the fanfest and couldn¦t check the data , after a couple of days ,he comes and says yup i was rigth,without providing the data and any proof what so ever of his research . Yeah right.. I can agree with this 100%. Comming from a smaller 0.0 entity when I heard the details of this change my first thoughts were . . I guess it's time to find a large 0.0 entity to join. Giving small alliances crappy resources will not cause small entities to attack the large ones for better space, it will just cause the players who can switch sides to do so. And then commence the largley risk free curbstomping of the small guys.

Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:14:00 - [1711] Originally by: Liang Nuren ... There are a great many nerfs that improve the game. The nano nerfs, ECM nerfs, stacking nerfs, and more all improved the game. ... I disagree. People find creative ways to counter purportedly over-powered ships. That is one of subtle joys of PvP in EVE. When CCP wields the nerf bat like Thor swinging his hammer to "balance the game" nobody wins. The players using the fun ships lose. The PvPers innovating and finding ways to counter such ships lose. And the overall gaming experience moves closer to having a slow morphine drip in the IV feed.
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:18:00 - [1712] Unless you have sov in null, then I suggest every single one of you trying to change how it works needs to have a nice tall glass of shut the *** up! There is a reason we are there and not you and it simply summs up to we are indeed better than you. So instead of trying to fight us fair you cry to your CCP overlords to change the rules of the game to suit your favor. No one who does not have sov should even be allowed to have a say in what goes on there much less beg for nerfs to make up for their lack of skill! So much for your leet honor that you like to brag about. [center] - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!*/center]
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:21:00 - [1713] Hey Greyscale Eve economics have gone nuts the last 2 years... And maybe it's too easy making isk in 0.0 - But certainly I really, really hope that you are looking into how easy it is to make isk farming lv 4 missions. There is a reason any half decent lv4 runner is undocking faction fit faction ships constantly without any real risc except a bunch of people ganking some of them for fun and a possible super drop. I have personally scanned ships for hours in a hi-sec system and It was less that 10% of the undocking ships that wasn't marauders, faction battleships or Tengus. Of all ships including the T1 battleships it was less than 10% of them that didn't have faction modules fitted in some degree. I would only find it fair if you investigated the current Lv 4 mechanics because otherwise I fear the risc-vs-reward statement CCP feeds upon has been severely undermined. Every time we ganked a multi-billion isk ship we get some drame finished with F*** You, I'll have a new in a month... And it's not seldom that people rather wanna live in empire because they can make much more isk running level 4 mission (which I ofcourse doubt a little, but the statement shows that CCP isn't good at making player space attractive for everybody) Pinky Denmark - I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew...
Oguras Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:27:00 - [1714] Originally by: Better Than You Unless you have sov in null, then I suggest every single one of you trying to change how it works needs to have a nice tall glass of shut the *** up*! There is a reason we are there and not you and it simply summs up to we are indeed better than you. So instead of trying to fight us fair you cry to your CCP overlords to change the rules of the game to suit your favor. No one who does not have sov should even be allowed to have a say in what goes on there much less beg for nerfs to make up for their lack of skill! So much for your leet honor that you like to brag about. Better at whinning.. So far You've created one of the best whinethreadnoughts I saw in my life..
Cyno Alfacinha	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:32:00 - [1715] Friends, I think this is the end game, most players have two or more accounts, for example I have two, but most likely cancel the accounts is waiting for better days, and I will look for other games to play, the worst of it is I think a lot of old players shall go do the same
John Python	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:33:00 - [1716] Edited by: John Python on 30/03/2011 13:35:58 Originally by: Oguras Originally by: TNT Lottery I think that alot of the points made are important but the one CCP will understand most is: More Players have more accounts because of sanctums. Remove Sanctums on such a grand scale, Less accounts. Less money for CCP in RL. There are many who dont but i know since sanctums I have doubled the ammount of accounts i have just because i know ratting for a day or two will pay for the game time. And believe me i wont hesitate in stop paying for the game time once this change comes into effect. NO SANCTUMS NO EXTRA ACCOUNTS This is bs, you were extending gametime with plex wich had to be bought from ccp at one point; it will have effect on plex market but it doesn't mean that if you cancel your subscription ccp will be hurt.. less isk in game and smaller plex demand might be equal and ppl who use game time codes might not stop buying them.. When people cant affored to buy plex (due to this change), the price and demand for plex will drop. When this happens many of the people that paid cash for GTC will stop buying them as demand and ISK value would have dropped. So summing this up. 1) Less people buying plex = less peope buying GCTs = Less cash to CCP 2) Less people buying plex = less active accounts. Just sayin
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:33:00 - [1717] Originally by: Oguras Originally by: Better Than You Unless you have sov in null, then I suggest every single one of you trying to change how it works needs to have a nice tall glass of shut the *** up! There is a reason we are there and not you and it simply summs up to we are indeed better than you. So instead of trying to fight us fair you cry to your CCP overlords to change the rules of the game to suit your favor. No one who does not have sov should even be allowed to have a say in what goes on there much less beg for nerfs to make up for their lack of skill! So much for your leet honor that you like to brag about. Better at whinning.. So far You've created one of the best whinethreadnoughts I saw in my life.. Cool starry bra! I also like your null sec sov... oh wait. You must be one of those have not's* that is jelous of us have's. Why don't you go cry to CCP for more nurfs to sov holders.. oh wait, I forgot, you have! - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:35:00 - [1718] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:03:23 Originally by: Optimator One Originally by: Locii lol no it wont, belive me when i say i know how much i can make mission running and when you count lp its more than anoms I agree. The problem is also that alliances invested alot of isk into upgrades and moving them to their space. Those upgrades will now get useless. How can they become useless if they're still providing upgraded sites? All the changes do is remove sanctums from the low true-sec systems. The other, sites, while less valuable than sanctums, will still be there. Originally by: Rene Winter Question, If you only want less money in the economy would there be a problem with slashing bounties by a significant margin and replacing that with a roughly equivalent mix of loot/mins/sweet stuff? Or raising Sov bills so more ISK is sucked out of the economy? I would rather have either of those than the anom nerf. CCP tried that once, and people compensated for reduced mission rat bounties by grinding more. The option has to not be there for these changes to have their desired effect; players always overcompensate with numbers and time if they can. Raising sov bills is a bandaid that maintains the high barrier to entry and power creep problems that were already in place, and force everyone to grind more to maintain the status quo. This change would hurt small alliances more than big alliances, in comparison to a game-wide change in anomaly mechanics. I actually disagree with the assessment that raising sov fees is a bandaid. I always felt they needed to be tweaked post dominion. They need to be set such that a system needs to hit n% utilization to be profitable/break even, and that alliances will take financial pain from holding unutilized systems. And yes it means more grinding but only if you are trying to hold more space than you need or want to maintain your current alliance level profit margin. Bounty reduction would also not be a problem for me as long as I was able to get ships. I would not care if I ratted for N hours to get [a fully fit Malestom] + 50 million isk or if I got enough isk to buy a fully fit Maelston + 50 million. Plus it would spurn local industry more than importing.
Optimator One	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:41:00 - [1719] Originally by: John Python When people cant affored to buy plex (due to this change), the price and demand for plex will drop. When this happens many of the people that paid cash for GTC will stop buying them as demand and ISK value would have dropped. So summing this up. 1) Less people buying plex = less peope buying GCTs = Less cash to CCP 2) Less people buying plex = less active accounts. Just sayin So true.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:41:00 - [1720] All thats need to be said: 1725 replies 65,800 views 2 responses from the Devs. enough is enough

Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:42:00 - [1721] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:43:27 Originally by: John Python When people cant affored to buy plex (due to this change), the price and demand for plex will drop. When this happens many of the people that paid cash for GTC will stop buying them as demand and ISK value would have dropped. So summing this up. 1) Less people buying plex = less peope buying GCTs = Less cash to CCP 2) Less people buying plex = less active accounts. Just sayin Equals lower demand in game for PLEX, equals lower price for PLEX, equals more people buying PLEX and using it to fund their own accounts, and possibly even new people willing to give it a shot since the threshold for being able to keep playing goes down. It evens out. Originally by: Rene Winter I actually disagree with the assessment that raising sov fees is a bandaid. I always felt they needed to be tweaked post dominion. They need to be set such that a system needs to hit n% utilization to be profitable/break even, and that alliances will take financial pain from holding unutilized systems. And yes it means more grinding but only if you are trying to hold more space than you need or want to maintain your current alliance level profit margin. Bounty reduction would also not be a problem for me as long as I was able to get ships. I would not care if I ratted for N hours to get [a fully fit Malestom] + 50 million isk or if I got enough isk to buy a fully fit Maelston + 50 million. Plus it would spurn local industry more than importing. It's a bandaid because it increases the demand for ISK generation in the game, which is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Increasing taxation has the side effect of encouraging people without money to make more of it.
Marco P Really Nice And Laidback Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.30 13:54:00 - [1722] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Just found this buried in the middle and haven't read the posts around it so apologies if I am repeating. The problem is that this isn't how alliances really work (or at least none that I've been in for the last 4 years or so). The elite corps will get the good systems and the average guys will not. Tech moons prove this - alliances don't say "welcome new corp take 10% of our tech moon income as we like to share evenly". Those that can play a lot (students, those without a job and ccp employees) will hugely benefit. The average player who can only take a more casual approach will be forced out of 0.0. Personally I'm not rage quitting but as soon as I get time to "play" I will be moving my stuff from 0.0 and doing other stuff (lvl 4s for isk). Perhaps this is what CCP intended - leave 0.0 for "elite" players only - if so Great Job!
Kalothea	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:00:00 - [1723] I've been playing since 2003 (albeit on and off). I've lived in Empire, I've lived in 0.0, have been part of big fights, small fights, large power block sov struggles, etc. If it can happen in the game experience, I've experienced it on some level. I've seen the changes. Some were great evolutionary steps, others not so good. But of all the hair-brained schemes that CCP have come up with to "improve" 0.0, this has got to be the worst ever. To me, this is counter-intuitive and will have the opposite effect of what they intend / claim, effectively shutting out smaller alliances from 0.0 completely. What's the incentive to claim sov in these low end systems? What's the financial incentive to anchor an ihub and upgrade it in a low end 0.0 system? Other than for mining, none whatsoever. The time / effort / isk required to upgrade to a L5 Pirate Detection is now non-existent. The whole move to 0.0 now is really not worth it unless someone is joining a large power block alliance or their rental alliances. If anything, as many have pointed out, this will either force people to return to Empire to grind L4 missions rather than stay in 0.0. Or those who do stay in 0.0 will either have Empire alts financing their PvP alts in 0.0, or will jump clone back and forth as required. Mining will remain a viable activity in 0.0, but only to those who are part of the power blocks or their pets. Otherwise, mining will be impossible, as small corps will get griefed all to Hell by either the power block members, or roaming pirate corps. This will drive these small alliances out of 0.0 and back to Empire where they can actually earn a comparable living with next to none of the risks. I can guarantee you that grinding L4 missions in Empire (especially with LP factored in) is FAR more profitable than running hubs in 0.0, and with no risk involved. The choice there is a no-brainer. Personally, this change has no immediate effect on me or my corp. Our 0.0 home is in the right security band that it will be exactly the same as it was before the nerf. But despite this, I see this nerf as a horrible idea. More distressing is the complete lack of reply on CCP's part, and the only CSM reply in this thread is basically sucking CCP's virtual a$$ with a pacifist "let's see how this works out" rather than stepping in and representing the people who got him elected. So enjoy your new worthless 0.0 space people. Seems like CCP have no intentions of backtracking on this. They even went out of their way to make sure the outgoing CSM knew nothing about this in order to not step in their way. For whatever reason, they want this change badly, and will go ahead with it regardless what any of us say. Perhaps one day CCP will remove their heads from the sanctuary of their rectums and live up to their own model of "player-drive experience". Until then, we'll just have to deal with their incessant, often lame-brained efforts at fixing things that aren't even broken (because those are easy changes to implement), rather than fixing the tons of bugs that have been in the game for years, including the hardly improving lag... You want to "fix" null and make it more dynamic? Distribute moon resources more evenly, and introduce a depletion mechanic into moon mining. Perhaps allow moon mining in high sec as well so that more than just the large 0.0 power blocks and large low sec pirate alliances have access to it. This will drive the price down, and actually give people a reason to fight for space. That's what the power blocks hold space for. It has nothing to do with anomalies. Change that, and you'll change the face of 0.0 forever.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:00:00 - [1724] Edited by: Skaarl on 30/03/2011 14:03:20 Originally by: Marco P Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Just found this buried in the middle and haven't read the posts around it so apologies if I am repeating. The problem is that this isn't how alliances really work (or at least none that I've been in for the last 4 years or so). The elite corps will get the good systems and the average guys will not. Tech moons prove this - alliances don't say "welcome new corp take 10% of our tech moon income as we like to share evenly". Those that can play a lot (students, those without a job and ccp employees) will hugely benefit. The average player who can only take a more casual approach will be forced out of 0.0. Personally I'm not rage quitting but as soon as I get time to "play" I will be moving my stuff from 0.0 and doing other stuff (lvl 4s for isk). Perhaps this is what CCP intended - leave 0.0 for "elite" players only - if so Great Job! as i have stated before in this thread: ccp greyscale obviously does not play eve, if he does hes in a high sec ratting corp. he has no clue how 0.0 functions, nor does he show any indication for having the aptitude or the desire to learn. he had a discussion with his barbie doll in his cubicle one day and they decided this was a good idea. if you disagree with him join us on SISI on march 31st at 20:00 utc for a mass protest of these changes.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:04:00 - [1725] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Rene Winter I actually disagree with the assessment that raising sov fees is a bandaid. I always felt they needed to be tweaked post dominion. They need to be set such that a system needs to hit n% utilization to be profitable/break even, and that alliances will take financial pain from holding unutilized systems. And yes it means more grinding but only if you are trying to hold more space than you need or want to maintain your current alliance level profit margin. Bounty reduction would also not be a problem for me as long as I was able to get ships. I would not care if I ratted for N hours to get [a fully fit Malestom] + 50 million isk or if I got enough isk to buy a fully fit Maelston + 50 million. Plus it would spurn local industry more than importing. It's a bandaid because it increases the demand for ISK generation in the game, which is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Increasing taxation has the side effect of encouraging people without money to make more of it. Huh? in my case demand for ISK increases and in the proposed changes ISK Supply is being reduced. Seems about the same to me.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:10:00 - [1726] Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 30/03/2011 14:12:17 Originally by: Skaarl as i have stated before in this thread: ccp greyscale obviously does not play eve, if he does hes in a high sec ratting corp. he has no clue how 0.0 functions, nor does he show any indication for having the aptitude or the desire to learn. he had a discussion with his barbie doll in his cubicle one day and they decided this was a good idea. if you disagree with him join us on SISI on march 31st at 20:00 utc for a mass protest of these changes. Whine more renter-boy, your QQ tears are delicious. Also, having actually lived multiple times in subsistent parts of 0.0 with no alliance block support instead of doing the rent-a-sanctum thing you only seem to know... I have to say this change is the best thing to happen to 0.0 this year, and the predictions Greyscale has made seem spot on. Edit: And wow, people actually posting QQ screenshots... This thread delivers.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:23:00 - [1727] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 30/03/2011 14:12:17 Originally by: Skaarl as i have stated before in this thread: ccp greyscale obviously does not play eve, if he does hes in a high sec ratting corp. he has no clue how 0.0 functions, nor does he show any indication for having the aptitude or the desire to learn. he had a discussion with his barbie doll in his cubicle one day and they decided this was a good idea. if you disagree with him join us on SISI on march 31st at 20:00 utc for a mass protest of these changes. Whine more renter-boy, your QQ tears are delicious. Also, having actually lived multiple times in subsistent parts of 0.0 with no alliance block support instead of doing the rent-a-sanctum thing you only seem to know... I have to say this change is the best thing to happen to 0.0 this year, and the predictions Greyscale has made seem spot on. Edit: And wow, people actually posting QQ screenshots... This thread delivers. the things he predicts in no way will happen. what are his assumptions? that a) people will turn on friends for better ratting space. b) small alliance will challenge people like RA, SOLAR, MM, RZR, -A- or Atlas for ratting space? and have a chance at winning? he is way off base, his assumptions are faulty and you can troll all you want, the only thing this does is go "hey all you guys who moved to null with the release of dominion? go ** yourself and the billions you have spent. we need to make room for "new" alliances to move into your space so you need to go elsewhere! if we dont leave? im sure they will come up with some new way to make "room" for new alliances to make space, forgetting of course that there is limited null sec space and its already occupied. basically his assumptions have no basis in the game world as it exists, his historical recollections are faulty (the only sections of null that were populated and ** was provi) and will have the result of decreasing both CCP's playerbase but the 0.0 population as well. but of course him and barbi they gotta be right, hes a game dev! if you dont agree with him, fell free to show up on SISI on march 31st at 20:00 UTC and show your disapproval!
Serpentine Logic	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:26:00 - [1728] This thread must be full of people who don't remember what it was like before Dominion, or else they wouldn't say such incredibly misguided things. Guys, even if you get fewer sanctums's, you'll get more escalations, so you really have no basis for your arguments.
Kalothea	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:29:00 - [1729] Nice reply Greyscale. All you've manage to do was solidify the image of how clueless you really are to the mechanics of 0.0. It has little to do with game (coding) mechanics and far more to do with the social nature of humans (driven by greed for the most part). Yes, there are imbalances in the game mechanics (moons) which the power blocks are exploiting, and that's what should be addressed. Your changes will no affect large alliances in the slightest. The only people they'll affect is individuals in small corps and alliances - the people you're claiming to help.
JohnMonty Gallente Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:29:00 - [1730] Edited by: JohnMonty on 30/03/2011 14:30:44 Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 30/03/2011 13:43:27 Originally by: John Python When people cant affored to buy plex (due to this change), the price and demand for plex will drop. When this happens many of the people that paid cash for GTC will stop buying them as demand and ISK value would have dropped. So summing this up. 1) Less people buying plex = less peope buying GCTs = Less cash to CCP 2) Less people buying plex = less active accounts. Just sayin Equals lower demand in game for PLEX, equals lower price for PLEX, equals more people buying PLEX and using it to fund their own accounts, and possibly even new people willing to give it a shot since the threshold for being able to keep playing goes down. It evens out. Yes it will level out that is what happens. The price will drop then hit a natrual suport level this level will be based off CASH:ISK. The lower the CASH:ISK gets the number of people willing to buy GTC to make ISK will drop. Which will still = less people buying GTC so less cash for CCP.

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:31:00 - [1731] Please contract all unwanted regions to Malcanis. Honestly the dishonesty (I prefer to believe that it's dishonesty, because it it's sincere then the stupidity is reaching core meltdown levels) in this thread is amazing. And so hyperbolic that it's impossible to take at all seriously. Listen carefully: If CCP removed system upgrades altogether, then regions like Pure Blind would still be a money-true. It was space well worth holding before Dominion, and it'll be space well worth holding after these changes. But as said, I will gladly receive any unwanted systems. eve-mail me in game and I will take over soverignty of all unwanted constellations (please dont bother me with individual systems while people who need to offload entire regions need my services). Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:36:00 - [1732] Originally by: missminer69 Edited by: missminer69 on 30/03/2011 11:45:22 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: missminer69 CCP alt ***** detected. Coward alt detected. Post with your main. MUHAHAHAHAHAHA. You and about 4 others are the only people who want this change. The game has become far too easy Go cry somewhere else its a game you prick. Yoou wrong, it is only the newcomers to 0.0 aka the whiners who dont want the change. We who played for a longtime and the "elite-pvpers" (Im not 1 of them) loves this change. Eve is to easy atm, no struggle to get the riches. You want reward, come and fight for it
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:36:00 - [1733] Originally by: Skaarl the things he predicts in no way will happen. what are his assumptions? that a) people will turn on friends for better ratting space. b) small alliance will challenge people like RA, SOLAR, MM, RZR, -A- or Atlas for ratting space? and have a chance at winning? he is way off base, his assumptions are faulty and you can troll all you want, the only thing this does is go "hey all you guys who moved to null with the release of dominion? go **** yourself and the billions you have spent. we need to make room for "new" alliances to move into your space so you need to go elsewhere! if we dont leave? im sure they will come up with some new way to make "room" for new alliances to make space, forgetting of course that there is limited null sec space and its already occupied. a) You are delusional if you think those alliances all BFF. Some are, however if you had actually lived real 0.0 life for a long enough time you'd know there is friendship, and then there's friendship. Only the latter, a very rare thing, actually survives once incentive is gone. b) If you think that lineup of alliances are going to be challenged for ratting-space by small alliances, then you just don't understand the dynamics involved. Arguing along the lines that e.g. that those alliances won't abandon that sub-par ratting space would indicate you actually understood the mechanics we are suggesting will be in effect.
Kalothea	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:44:00 - [1734] Originally by: Ace Frehley Yoou wrong, it is only the newcomers to 0.0 aka the whiners who dont want the change. We who played for a longtime and the "elite-pvpers" (Im not 1 of them) loves this change. Eve is to easy atm, no struggle to get the riches. You want reward, come and fight for it In theory, I would agree. However, in reality, all this change does is remove any value from the low end systems that would be available. Why would anyone invest heavily in a worthless 0.0 system when they can make more money in Empire? If you truly believe this, then I have an investment opportunity for you. Every week, give me 1B isk. After 7 days, I'll keep 250M isk, and give you back 750M. The following week, do the same again. Great setup, isn't it?
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:52:00 - [1735] I just can't believe this absolute bull **! We fight insurmountable odds to get the space. Spend billions upon billions of ISK to make it finally usable and you decide to just come and and be all like, "Sorry guys, we didn't want you to win anyways so HAHA! Your space is now ! Enjoy! :smug:" I swear on ALL that is holy, if you do this change I will cancel all five of my accounts, and take some people with me. So your looking at most likely fifty so accounts (thats right, I have friends unlike some of you for this change) between me and my friends. Here, let me help you with the math there. That is 50 accounts times Ç15 = Ç750 a month. So if you want to keep working on other games I strongly suggest you delete this idea from you thought process and do something else more productive! And another thing. Why in the does everything have to be about zomgleetpvpstuff??? Seriously, if you want non-stop conflict I suggest you fire up your XBox and play some Call of Duty. Or better yet just keep that teenage emotional rage bottled up till DUST 514 comes out. Then you can have your non-stop Pee Vee Pee! - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!**
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:53:00 - [1736] WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL!?!?! You all created post dominion!? Do you muppets think Geminate, Providence Pure Blind was totally eampty before? You all whining more then people claiming earth will explode year 1999. Im sure CCP will tweak the sov-costs aswell before they launch this much needed change. I have an idea, come up with new ways to create incomst to your alliance in a 0.0 spaceregion besides killing NPC¦s in some form. maybe should focus on that instead of sitting in a sanctum 23/7 and cry.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:53:00 - [1737] The TL;DR is simply that it is ridiculous that a normal grunt will make more ISK in high sec than in an average populated crap 0.0 region. (Where average populated means you cannot make all your isk with exploration).
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.30 14:56:00 - [1738] Originally by: Malcanis the stupidity is reaching core meltdown levels I think we've already got a breached containment vessel tbh....
Ravora	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:04:00 - [1739] I wonder if the low logins the last days have something to do with this change.... The login amount has never been that low since ca. 05.2009 http://www.eveger.de/page_serverstatus.php?serverstatusid=1
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:10:00 - [1740] Edited by: Skaarl on 30/03/2011 15:12:01 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Skaarl the things he predicts in no way will happen. what are his assumptions? that a) people will turn on friends for better ratting space. b) small alliance will challenge people like RA, SOLAR, MM, RZR, -A- or Atlas for ratting space? and have a chance at winning? he is way off base, his assumptions are faulty and you can troll all you want, the only thing this does is go "hey all you guys who moved to null with the release of dominion? go **** yourself and the billions you have spent. we need to make room for "new" alliances to move into your space so you need to go elsewhere! if we dont leave? im sure they will come up with some new way to make "room" for new alliances to make space, forgetting of course that there is limited null sec space and its already occupied. a) You are delusional if you think those alliances all BFF. Some are, however if you had actually lived real 0.0 life for a long enough time you'd know there is friendship, and then there's friendship. Only the latter, a very rare thing, actually survives once incentive is gone. b) If you think that lineup of alliances are going to be challenged for ratting-space by small alliances, then you just don't understand the dynamics involved. Arguing along the lines that e.g. that those alliances won't abandon that sub-par ratting space would indicate you actually understood the mechanics we are suggesting will be in effect. a) not going to comment as its a matter of opinion more than fact, mine is that we wouldnt attack friends over better ratting space. b) thank you for proving my point. these are not my assumptions. read the dev blog. these are ccp greyscales assumptions and the foundtaion of his whole argument. his theory is that alliances who moved into crap space post dominion are setting up shop, so to encourage them to contest for more valuable ratting space they are nerfing the current space. i like how even while trolling me you manage to prove my point. noone is going to attack the previously mentioned alliances to get their good true sec ratting space. this will then in turn not open up the "bad" space for high sec alliances who want to move in. its just not going to happen. now if the consequences of the change are NOT going to be what he is claiming they will be, and that all of his "models" claim it will be, then why make the change? and to ace, dude i lived in provi. i moved into pure blind and helped kick you guys out. neither one of the places was as populated as PB is now, nor as provi is now. they were pretty barren to be honest. when we first moved into pure blind it was almost totally empty, and that was several months post dominion. we had some bort dudes next door, and evoke sorta kinda in the bottom half of cloud ring and occasionally in 7d-osq. i honestly cant speak for geminate, but yes, compared to the amount of people who are in both providence and pure blind now, especially pure blind, they were devoid of life. which is why the current system was put in place if you would remember back. i dont care that you disagree, and there are reasons im sure you can think up of that might be actual arguments. why make something up?

Mistress Frome Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:28:00 - [1741] God damn. If you're so worried about not being able to stay in PvP ships with the changes, maybe you should ask your NC overlords to allow you to run anoms in their space? Maybe even ask them to distribute a little of that tech money to your corp/alliance in exchange for fighting under them? If they're unwilling to do so, maybe you should stop fighting for them and go do your own thing or find someone who is willing to take care of those under them. ---
R0RSCH4CH	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:32:00 - [1742] Edited by: R0RSCH4CH on 30/03/2011 15:32:50 Well, maybe time for giving perpetuum a try :) EvE with Mechs. Linky
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:34:00 - [1743] Originally by: Skaarl a) not going to comment as its a matter of opinion more than fact, mine is that we wouldnt attack friends over better ratting space. The plebs can feel it in the air that it is coming despite the best of promises to always BFF, it is why even those sitting on good space are going QQ. When even alliances have difficulties internally dividing up space... Originally by: Skaarl b) thank you for proving my point. these are not my assumptions. read the dev blog. these are ccp greyscales assumptions and the foundtaion of his whole argument. his theory is that alliances who moved into crap space post dominion are setting up shop, so to encourage them to contest for more valuable ratting space they are nerfing the current space. i like how even while trolling me you manage to prove my point. noone is going to attack the previously mentioned alliances to get their good true sec ratting space. this will then in turn not open up the "bad" space for high sec alliances who want to move in. its just not going to happen. Thanks for confirming you don't get it. Please continue raging, it warms my heart.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:34:00 - [1744] Originally by: Mistress Frome God damn. If you're so worried about not being able to stay in PvP ships with the changes, maybe you should ask your NC overlords to allow you to run anoms in their space? Maybe even ask them to distribute a little of that tech money to your corp/alliance in exchange for fighting under them? If they're unwilling to do so, maybe you should stop fighting for them and go do your own thing or find someone who is willing to take care of those under them. im quite happy under the nc thank you very much. and you are missing another of the points. how is moving into crap space, if it is going to remain crap in any way allow for an alliance to grow to the point where it can challenge any of the bigger entities for better ratting space??? (see how greysacles whole argument falls apart with those last 4 words?)
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:36:00 - [1745] Originally by: Mistress Frome God damn. If you're so worried about not being able to stay in PvP ships with the changes, maybe you should ask your NC overlords to allow you to run anoms in their space? Maybe even ask them to distribute a little of that tech money to your corp/alliance in exchange for fighting under them? If they're unwilling to do so, maybe you should stop fighting for them and go do your own thing or find someone who is willing to take care of those under them. You are so dumb. Nothing CCP can do will make us fight our friends. We have been there for each other in think and thin and just because you fail left and right you think we should be miserable like you too? Get a **ing clue buddy. The only thing this will do is cause thousands upon thousands of players to quit the game. So good job. Can't beat them then change the mechanics to make them leave then you can have your, "I'm the best!" dance when in fact no one else was there to compete with you. Why don't you go hack the local window about it? I feel sad for PL. Only time they can actually come out on top is when they cheat. Another reason I am glad DUST 514 will only be on consoles. To keep cheating auto-aim bot losers like you from hacking the game. - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!**
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:37:00 - [1746] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Skaarl a) not going to comment as its a matter of opinion more than fact, mine is that we wouldnt attack friends over better ratting space. The plebs can feel it in the air that it is coming despite the best of promises to always BFF, it is why even those sitting on good space are going QQ. When even alliances have difficulties internally dividing up space... Originally by: Skaarl b) thank you for proving my point. these are not my assumptions. read the dev blog. these are ccp greyscales assumptions and the foundtaion of his whole argument. his theory is that alliances who moved into crap space post dominion are setting up shop, so to encourage them to contest for more valuable ratting space they are nerfing the current space. i like how even while trolling me you manage to prove my point. noone is going to attack the previously mentioned alliances to get their good true sec ratting space. this will then in turn not open up the "bad" space for high sec alliances who want to move in. its just not going to happen. yeah. im the one who doesnt get it. and yet you left out the quotes of your previous post. you know, the one where trying to troll you proved my point for me? so not only are you obviously a troll, but a fairly fail troll at that.
Mistress Frome Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:37:00 - [1747] Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: Mistress Frome God damn. If you're so worried about not being able to stay in PvP ships with the changes, maybe you should ask your NC overlords to allow you to run anoms in their space? Maybe even ask them to distribute a little of that tech money to your corp/alliance in exchange for fighting under them? If they're unwilling to do so, maybe you should stop fighting for them and go do your own thing or find someone who is willing to take care of those under them. im quite happy under the nc thank you very much. and you are missing another of the points. how is moving into crap space, if it is going to remain crap in any way allow for an alliance to grow to the point where it can challenge any of the bigger entities for better ratting space??? (see how greysacles whole argument falls apart with those last 4 words?) A better question is how you plan on challenging anyone if the only thing your recruits care about is making money. ---
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:44:00 - [1748] Originally by: Mistress Frome A better question is how you plan on challenging anyone if the only thing your recruits care about is making money. It is not a hard concept you know. No money means no PvP ships to have fun it. What part of this equation goes over your tiny brain? - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!
Mistress Frome Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:45:00 - [1749] Originally by: Better Than You Originally by: Mistress Frome God damn. If you're so worried about not being able to stay in PvP ships with the changes, maybe you should ask your NC overlords to allow you to run anoms in their space? Maybe even ask them to distribute a little of that tech money to your corp/alliance in exchange for fighting under them? If they're unwilling to do so, maybe you should stop fighting for them and go do your own thing or find someone who is willing to take care of those under them. You are so dumb. Nothing CCP can do will make us fight our friends. We have been there for each other in think and thin and just because you fail left and right you think we should be miserable like you too? Get a ****ing clue buddy. The only thing this will do is cause thousands upon thousands of players to quit the game. So good job. Can't beat them then change the mechanics to make them leave then you can have your, "I'm the best!" dance when in fact no one else was there to compete with you. Why don't you go hack the local window about it? I feel sad for PL. Only time they can actually come out on top is when they cheat. Another reason I am glad DUST 514 will only be on consoles. To keep cheating auto-aim bot losers like you from hacking the game. Explain how making a reasonable request is a fight. ---
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:49:00 - [1750] Originally by: Better Than You Originally by: Mistress Frome A better question is how you plan on challenging anyone if the only thing your recruits care about is making money. [moron]It is not a hard concept you know. No money means no PvP ships to have fun it. What part of this equation goes over your tiny brain?[/maroon] There is a breed of internet spaceship pilots you have probably never met before, or if you have you never understood what they represented.

Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:49:00 - [1751] Originally by: Mistress Frome Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: Mistress Frome God damn. If you're so worried about not being able to stay in PvP ships with the changes, maybe you should ask your NC overlords to allow you to run anoms in their space? Maybe even ask them to distribute a little of that tech money to your corp/alliance in exchange for fighting under them? If they're unwilling to do so, maybe you should stop fighting for them and go do your own thing or find someone who is willing to take care of those under them. im quite happy under the nc thank you very much. and you are missing another of the points. how is moving into crap space, if it is going to remain crap in any way allow for an alliance to grow to the point where it can challenge any of the bigger entities for better ratting space??? (see how greysacles whole argument falls apart with those last 4 words?) A better question is how you plan on challenging anyone if the only thing your recruits care about is making money. That is the last thing I would expect a mercenary to say.
FourFiftyFour	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:50:00 - [1752] Here's a thought for everyone who is :sadpanda: about getting their income nerfed for the sake of saving the whole damn economy. Scan down WH's. Run the sites. It's lucrative especially if you run C3's or higher.
Iveran Amarr Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:52:00 - [1753] I'm sure it's already been said a few times... but I'll echo it anyways. This change will end my subscription to Eve Online (no, you can't have my ****). The only valid reason I can see that CCP wants to push this change through, against the will of the players, is to force you to buy more plex to sustain your 0.0 pew habbits. Just think about it... Once this change goes into effect it'll be like taking drugs from people who are heavily addicted to them and the withdraw effects of that will be more plex purchases... hahahaha And after watching some of the Fanfest vids, CCP will be taking control of the Plex market to maintain their value during this influx of plex stock. Nice business plan there CCP... --------
Jack bubu Trans-Solar Works	Posted - 2011.03.30 15:56:00 - [1754] This threat feels like the "LVL 5 for lowsec only" devblog nerf the isk printing heaven and all the carebears will come crying to the forum and threaten to cancel their accounts (hint : they wont)
Kalothea	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:02:00 - [1755] Originally by: Iveran This change will end my subscription to Eve Online (no, you can't have my ****). The only valid reason I can see that CCP wants to push this change through, against the will of the players, is to force you to buy more plex to sustain your 0.0 pew habbits. Just think about it... Once this change goes into effect it'll be like taking drugs from people who are heavily addicted to them and the withdraw effects of that will be more plex purchases... hahahaha And after watching some of the Fanfest vids, CCP will be taking control of the Plex market to maintain their value during this influx of plex stock. Nice business plan there CCP... I tend to agree with this. Someone else earlier in the thread mentioned that the real reason for CCP's doing this was to increase the reliance on PLEX. I think this completes the pictures. They want more plex being converted to ISK to maintain PvP rather than ISK being converted to subscriptions. That way, real money is spent both on maintaining accounts (that were otherwise maintained with PLEX) and the PLEXes bought are now being converted to expendable isk instead.
Ignatius Gnarl Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:02:00 - [1756] reward/risk How it should be: nullsec > lowsec > hisec How it will be: hisec > (most of) nullsec ~ lowsec I don't care if I can only make 100k an hour in a -1.0 system if the alternative is 5k an hour in hisec. I would love EVE to be tougher, with more focus on the lower end ships and the top end stuff being very rare and special. What bugs me is the above inequality is totally out of whack.
UberDeathDealer Steel Fleet Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:02:00 - [1757] So instead of actually fixing stuff we get this.. GG
Derth Ramir	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:03:00 - [1758] You all say this won't make people start wars... But you are all ****ed off that you won't have these sights anymore. Looks like its working.
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:03:00 - [1759] Originally by: Iveran I'm sure it's already been said a few times... but I'll echo it anyways. This change will end my subscription to Eve Online (no, you can't have my **). The only valid reason I can see that CCP wants to push this change through, against the will of the players, is to force you to buy more plex to sustain your 0.0 pew habbits. Just think about it... Once this change goes into effect it'll be like taking drugs from people who are heavily addicted to them and the withdraw effects of that will be more plex purchases... hahahaha And after watching some of the Fanfest vids, CCP will be taking control of the Plex market to maintain their value during this influx of plex stock. Nice business plan there CCP... You ****, how did I make isk before dominion,and I always almost lived in 0.0 or beeing a pirate, and I have never sold a single gamecard. You just plain lazy stupid carebear that just wanna play easymode in a sanctum. You make us all happy by cancel your account cuz you dont give us anything in eve besides whining and hide in a sanctum. Try wormholes, try run a pos, build and sell stuff to the 0.0 market, their are pleanty of ways.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:04:00 - [1760] Originally by: R0RSCH4CH Edited by: R0RSCH4CH on 30/03/2011 15:32:50 Well, maybe time for giving perpetuum a try :) EvE with Mechs. Linky Interesting... It's not just an MMO with Mechs ... it really is Eve Style MMO with Mechs. Thanks for the link.

iaunplexneamule	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:10:00 - [1761] First thing: CCP fails again because people ill leave null sec(renters, small alliances)and about the pvp part there will be no pvp because you cant fight big coalitions and alliances. Second thing: People will cancel/sell subscriptions/characters and the player base will diminish(no more money income for CCP from plexes/GTC's) Third thing: CCP you're digging your own grave cause players will search for an alternative game or quit for good. Conclusion: Developers from CCP get your senses back in place and make a better game not a bad one because you more and more intentionaly trying to nerf the isk income and ruin. As for my self i will see how this game will evolve after 5th april and if its sucks i will sell my 3 chars and find another game. To bad that people sent years to make chars to play the game and so on. i cant wait the day when eve goes f2p and when that day comes you will know that its the end of eve online like a lot of other games outhere. I hope CCP doesnt make the same mistake as other developers did.
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:12:00 - [1762] Originally by: Jack bubu This threat feels like the "LVL 5 for lowsec only" devblog nerf the isk printing heaven and all the carebears will come crying to the forum and threaten to cancel their accounts (hint : they wont) Maybe. There is a pretty big difference between an empire mission runner and someone that pves in null sec. The high sec guy will almost never lose a ship, as they will never take a risk. Any nerf to their income really only means waiting a little longer to get that officer cap recharger on their golem. The nullsec types, believe it or not, tend to use their bearing procedes to buy pvp equipment. Nerfing their income will mean less frequent pvp. It will also help to reinforce the blobing / risk free pvp types as losing assets becomes all the more painful. There is a 3rd type in there, the guys that have lived in null before and during dominion. They know that yes, you can live in null without these nice upgraded anoms. It means less dense population and more time spent away from your empire to fund activities. Also, token mention to the pay to win guys that just buy plex to fund their pvp. The end result, imo, is a lower nullsec population (why live somewhere where resources are more scarce than Motsu and is less secure?). Lower population means less potential targets and less conflict.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:16:00 - [1763] Originally by: Lev Aeris Originally by: Jack bubu This threat feels like the "LVL 5 for lowsec only" devblog nerf the isk printing heaven and all the carebears will come crying to the forum and threaten to cancel their accounts (hint : they wont) Maybe. There is a pretty big difference between an empire mission runner and someone that pves in null sec. Insofar as the posts in this thread go... no, sorry, not seeing a difference. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:19:00 - [1764] Edited by: Malcanis on 30/03/2011 16:24:18 New rule for this thread: anyone QQing about how PvPers in 0.0 wont be able to pay for their ships has to post a link to their own personal killboard to prove that they actually do any. EDIT: Oh man, poor Lev Aeris with his 101 lifetime losses in 3 years. How will he possibly sc** together the 77 million ISK per month he needs to sustain his losses now???? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
taycuna	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:22:00 - [1765] GG. Already in process of downgrading from 5 accounts to 1 after reading the blogs. This is just the beginning, probably the next in line will be the patch with nerfing missions in the form of "Dynamic Agent Quality" ****. I will not ragequit but for a casual player will be hard to sustain 5 accounts now. In my case 1 acc will be more than enough.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:23:00 - [1766] Overall I think the proposed changes are pretty good. I donÆt fully agree with greyscales predictions about how things will change but I like the idea of different regions having different value. The main issue people seem to be QQÆing about is certain regions being worthless. THIS IS NOT TRUE those regions where not worthless before dominion and they will not be worthless after the proposed changes. There is an issue about high sec L4 income but I believe that is a whole separate issue that needs to be addressed. HS L4 income is an issue for low sec as well as null sec. There is still tons of money to be made in null sec from probing, belt ratting, gas mining, wh ing. 6/10 drops from hubs etc, etc. I do how ever feel that the proposal will only truly work/add value to null sec if implement with:- extra plex sites (link) , a player proposal of moongoo depleting/moving (link) and cyno spool up time/cap jump nerf/ jump bridge nerf (link). I also think they should tie the anomaly graded below haven (which will be the top tier anoms for non-sanctum/haven systems) to dropping 8/10s (or soon to be created 8/10s). Will you make as much as the ôrichö regions ? no. But why should you? Big fat alliances that can hold stupid amounts of space should be able to hoard the best areas leaving the crappy stuff to who ever wants to pick it up. As said though high sec L4 income making is something that needs to be addressed though as part of an overall risk/reward and high/low/null sec balancing issue. But over all +1 greyscales ideas (even though I think he is a tad to over optimistic on the effect of these changes).
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:26:00 - [1767] Originally by: taycuna GG. Already in process of downgrading from 5 accounts to 1 after reading the blogs. This is just the beginning, probably the next in line will be the patch with nerfing missions in the form of "Dynamic Agent Quality" **. I will not ragequit but for a casual player will be hard to sustain 5 accounts now. In my case 1 acc will be more than enough. Your search - battleclinic killboard taycuna - did not match any documents. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
MrCoolShades	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:32:00 - [1768] This is ridiculous! So many complaints and not one comment from CCP. So much for the EVE universe being sculpted by the players. Actions speak louder than words people, cause CCP sure doesnt listen to its players anymore. Cancel alt accounts until this is fixed.
taycuna	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:32:00 - [1769] I had a good laugh after reading " search battleclinic..."
JasonKuehn The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:35:00 - [1770] It is just me or is every single dev blog seem like it's a bigger troll than the one before it? I just canceled my 2nd account and I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep my main. TBH, I really don't care about anomalies at all as I make my isk by playing the market. But over the past few years CCP has continually let itself get more and more out of touch with the players to the point that I just no longer have any faith in their ability to make this game go any direction but further down hill. It's really sad. This was an outstanding game at one time. Now it's just a source of consistently increasing disappointment.

Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:38:00 - [1771] Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 30/03/2011 16:24:18 New rule for this thread: anyone QQing about how PvPers in 0.0 wont be able to pay for their ships has to post a link to their own personal killboard to prove that they actually do any. EDIT: Oh man, poor Lev Aeris with his 101 lifetime losses in 3 years. How will he possibly sc** together the 77 million ISK per month he needs to sustain his losses now???? I'm going to disregard that you are just a troll here. Read my post. Graduate the 5th grade. Read it again. I never said anything about an end to pvp, I merely said it would be less frequent. Also note the lack of tears in my post. Maybe you see tears between the lines because you want to. Your delusions are not something that I can help you with. You will notice that I got by just fine before dominion, without sanctums. Trying to make the discussion a personal ** flinging contest is ignorant and anti-social.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:40:00 - [1772] i just like how all of the people who are "for" this change are for it due to thousands of reasons... none of which are because this change will actually accomplish the stated goals. there have been hundreds of replies on exactly why it WON'T cause the sequence of events that greyscale has predicted, namely that alliances who moved into "crap" null sec post dominion will pick up, move and attack much more powerful, established entities over the true security of their ratting space. remember this is the foundation of CCP greyscale's whole plan for opening up more 0.0 for "new" entities. which will then be faced with an even harder time growing into a bigger entity as they will have no income stream with which to work. Now i will admit, i have not read every single post in here, but on the 30ish pages of replies i have read i have not seen one logical explanation of exactly how CCP Greyscales changes will actually get one alliance to move and attack one of the bigger alliances to obtain better ratting space. it is a totally bogus argument.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:43:00 - [1773] Originally by: MrCoolShades This is ridiculous! So many complaints and not one comment from CCP. So much for the EVE universe being sculpted by the players. Actions speak louder than words people, cause CCP sure doesnt listen to its players anymore. Cancel alt accounts until this is fixed. CCP never listens. Remember the Mothership changes? Sometimes I think the devs that advocate such changes just don't have the guts to tell their bosses 'I was wrong, this was a bad idea' and would rather go through with them regardless of player feedback. It's stupid to think alliances would go to war over plexing space. Plexing and ratting only affects the little guy, the grunt. Alliances as a whole and their leadership mostly care about moon income, because that's what keeps them running. IMHO all this change will do is make people that don't have alternate income sources (trade, industry, botting, RMT etc) leave to high sec because they can't afford 0.0 life anymore.
Pod Bot90	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:49:00 - [1774] Originally by: taycuna GG. Already in process of downgrading from 5 accounts to 1 after reading the blogs. This is just the beginning, probably the next in line will be the patch with nerfing missions in the form of "Dynamic Agent Quality" ****. I will not ragequit but for a casual player will be hard to sustain 5 accounts now. In my case 1 acc will be more than enough. well ill downgrade also. from 3 accounts to 1 account. seems that ccp doesnt like money... better make eve free to play, with bonus % on everithing for players with premium accounts(aka paid accounts)
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:51:00 - [1775] Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 16:55:28 Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 16:53:37 Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 16:53:09 If CCP had said they were doing this because they are losing too much money or because too much isk was entering the game through these faucets and nothing else would equal this emergency measure, I could accept it silently - I might not like it, but I could deal without firing off about it. But the fact that CCP claims this is being done to help the little guy out in nullsec or that nullsec needs a pvp boost is laughable to anyone who's actually living out there, as this threadnaught clearly illustrates. I expect virtually none of the reasons why CCP has given as justification to pan out as they have claimed, and what's more, this is obvious. So, it's hard not to take it like a slap in the face. I don't know if Greyscale/CCP is trying to rationalize a quick and easy solution to the too much faucet problem or what, but the rationale being applied is just plain crap. Everyone in this thread knows it, too, and that's why you're getting the strong reaction, contrary to what the various trolls and empire-dwelling griefers would have you believe. So, this isn't emo, this isn't sperging rage, this is very, very simple. There is an obvious incongruity between the reason given and the action. When I see bull***, I call it. I'm not quitting Eve. I'll fall back on what was always the fallback plan upon moving out to null and move back temporarily to empire, if I can't make it work another way. What I won't do is sacrifice my enjoyment of the game by joining one of the high-truesec, nullsec-established alliances with a member trolling in this thread like that Initiative guy, forcing myself to play with people I don't like, if I want to be out in null. Screw that. I'll find another way to have fun. That's why we chose to be tiny but independent renters in the first place, because, let's face it, there are some real jerk-offs in this game. And the naysayers can denounce it all they like until they are blue in the face, but this is still a stupid move on CCPs part, if they really are doing it for the reasons given. End of story. Edited for grammar.
Lyrkra	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:58:00 - [1776] Greyscale you ALL see that the community in large does not want the changes. Now show some balls and give up your really silly plan!
Elder Man Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.03.30 16:59:00 - [1777] Greyscale, Why in the hell do you guys always feel the necessity to nerf content when adding content to the game. No wonder people buy isk. It's the same thing over and over again. The game is somewhat stagnant yes, but this is not the way to gain any real expected activity. 1-1 is still 1. 1+1 is 2 , that's what we need here. Most of your expected results are not going to materialize. You forget the people factor in all this. Elder Man
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:00:00 - [1778] Originally by: Lev Aeris Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 30/03/2011 16:24:18 New rule for this thread: anyone QQing about how PvPers in 0.0 wont be able to pay for their ships has to post a link to their own personal killboard to prove that they actually do any. EDIT: Oh man, poor Lev Aeris with his 101 lifetime losses in 3 years. How will he possibly sc** together the 77 million ISK per month he needs to sustain his losses now???? I'm going to disregard that you are just a troll here. Read my post. Graduate the 5th grade. Read it again. I never said anything about an end to pvp, I merely said it would be less frequent. Also note the lack of tears in my post. Maybe you see tears between the lines because you want to. Your delusions are not something that I can help you with. You will notice that I got by just fine before dominion, without sanctums. Trying to make the discussion a personal ** flinging contest is ignorant and anti-social. So are you straight up asserting that you personally will PvP less if this change goes through? Or is this a case of being offended on behalf of other people? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
MrCoolShades	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:02:00 - [1779] Time to send Greyscale an email. "In regards to your dev blog http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883. I, as a paying customer to CCP, request that this change not be made and will cancel my subscription if it is." Copy, paste and send from all alts you plan on canceling.
Flynn Fetladral Caldari BlackSite Prophecy	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:18:00 - [1780] CCP Greyscale is my hero! +1 For this nerf, pre Dominion FTW! Follow Flynn on Twitter

northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services Quantum Forge	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:18:00 - [1781] Originally by: Jack bubu This threat feels like the "LVL 5 for lowsec only" devblog nerf the isk printing heaven and all the carebears will come crying to the forum and threaten to cancel their accounts (hint : they wont) I am not a carebear but some of this is used to gain plex and found their PVP ships. If this comes in and screws with my plex then I have no choice to leave EVE. Years I been playing EVE I don't wana leave because I have no fun in earning and try and fight some battles. No thanks to high sec. ------------------------------------ Looking for a 0.0 corp to join? Recruitment page
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:20:00 - [1782] Tell me my dear whiners. Can you prove that you actully PVP or just calling a lame gatecamp somewhere as PVP? If you loved to pvp you will barly hang around in sanctums, you would be out pew pewing most time you onlined. It seems most of you dont meet this critea, you sit mostly in a sanctum to grind isk and when someone force you to pvp you bring a cheapass drake in massive blob. If you not in a massive blob and instead meet a equal gang you all get butcherd, whine about your stupid drakeloss and make it as an stupid excuse to sit and grind in a sanctum for 2 weeks. Get a grip people lived in 0.0 before without sanctums and people will, you just some of the biggest crybaby on Internet ever. Eve have never been about beeing easy, go back to wow or something instead and focus on that pve content, cuz that is ahell lot of better then EvE
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:27:00 - [1783] Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:52 Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:31 Originally by: Ace Frehley Tell me my dear whiners. Can you prove that you actully PVP or just calling a lame gatecamp somewhere as PVP? If you loved to pvp you will barly hang around in sanctums, you would be out pew pewing most time you onlined. It seems most of you dont meet this critea, you sit mostly in a sanctum to grind isk and when someone force you to pvp you bring a cheapass drake in massive blob. If you not in a massive blob and instead meet a equal gang you all get butcherd, whine about your stupid drakeloss and make it as an stupid excuse to sit and grind in a sanctum for 2 weeks. Get a grip people lived in 0.0 before without sanctums and people will, you just some of the biggest crybaby on Internet ever. Eve have never been about beeing easy, go back to wow or something instead and focus on that pve content, cuz that is ahell lot of better then EvE I just spent $1500 RL money on my first dedicated gaming computer (instead of playing on my laptop) so that I could pursue pvp'ing more aggressively, because living as a renter in nullsec allowed me to earn enough to fly a ship that could actually win battles. Before this my main was solo roaming in Tribute with a Stealth Bomber. So, your argument is ****.
Thycondor	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:35:00 - [1784] jeezuz plz........ ccp collect your fees and taxes; stay out of null-sec politics; and go play w/ your incarna dolls
TrUeViLnAmI Caldari O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:36:00 - [1785] april fools cause if you go threw with this change your gonna ruin the smaller alliances ability to make isk .. way to go ccp . how bout you fix lag issues and crap like that b4 you start taking away from the lil guy .... i say "f the man"
xXMajor StilettoXx	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:42:00 - [1786] whats eh fu... sh......t
Kievan Ariskana Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:42:00 - [1787] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Few things: Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - Had I joined back then I probably wouldn't have stayed -- you might be like "Fine," but CCP cares, they want money. I wonder about that. CCP set out to create the MMO that THEY wanted to play, and when they've focused on making the game they wanted, the expansions were always well received. If only they played their game. Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - EVE was small back then as well, and the recent changes have encouraged more people (like myself) to actually play EVE. What do you think removing these beneficial changes will do? People actually went and played Eve without sanctums, and they did it with eyes over their shoulders, adrenaline coursing through their veins and had fights that required nerves of ice to run properly, lest they lose too many ships that were difficult to replace. It was a different experience to the one you're used to, but people still played it BECAUSE it was thrilling. Arent the Supercarriers of today the Battleships of back then? Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - These changes hurt small alliances more than they help. Why would they take useless space that cannot sustain itself? How does it hurt a small alliance to create a pocket where they don't need to feed into a superblock who only wants you for a meat shield? It would be nice to be able to pay the monthly bill with the current systems output. If your best option is mining and production you will have an enemy fleet in your system everyday attacking your hulks/macks because they are 1337 pvpers. Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - If even the middle ground nullsec systems are about on par with highsec why even consider moving to nullsec? Because null-sec is about power. It's about playing with friends to take a chunk of space, claim it as your own, and then using the power you have in that space to take power away from other people. If you're only there to make money, you're there for all the wrong reasons. So you admid you need to be part of a powerblock just to be out there. Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - Alliances should be able to move freely in their own space. Large powerblocks exist because that's human nature. We are pack animals, we travel in groups. You can't overcome instinct with **ty changes like these. I postulate that you can, in fact, overcome instinct to flock by stimulating the instinct of greed and self preservation. If everyone's happy, people get along. If people aren't happy, they don't. I disagree about the free movement in their own space as well; free movement encourages sprawl, and history has shown that this is not good for the game's health and enjoyability. Current opinion says that the proposed changed arent good for the games health and enjoyability either. Originally by:** Evelgrivion Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - Alliances paid for these upgrades, alliances paid for jump bridges and paid for pirate detection arrays, they invested thousands of hours of time into them. To have them taken away so easily is just BS. Why do anything in EVE if some idiot dev can just come along and be like "Ah I don't like that" and undo it all? When I pay for a game I expect some sort of security in what I do in it. I expect gradual changes where there is time to adapt but this is not gradual, it's quite extreme. They aren't being taken away. Did you even read the blog? The highest end sites are being nerfed because they're too damn good. There's no reason to want better space. They are when you happen to live in Pure B/Provi/etc Originally by: Jennifer Gemini - It's game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's not fun anymore it's time to quit. Period. QFT
Sascha87 Gallente Out-of-Space United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:47:00 - [1788] Edited by: Sascha87 on 30/03/2011 17:49:03 Originally by: Lyrkra Greyscale you ALL see that the community in large does not want the changes. Now show some balls and give up your really silly plan! SIGN !!!!! cpp , thats a bad April Joke . i hope . boost the big Ally's with high end systems. nerf the poor corp's with systems like -0.2 or something like that . many people will give up ratting , and looking for new way's to make isk . That will not change the live in zero space , exept the isk flow frome people that are not in systems with high end ano's. did you realy thing that the people are going to make pew pew for sanctums, so have a look on - great wildlands , syndicate , venal .... they dont have military lvl's there . and why are these people not in an combat ship , and try to get better space ???
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:49:00 - [1789] Originally by: Xel Ra Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:52 Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:31 Originally by: Ace Frehley Tell me my dear whiners. Can you prove that you actully PVP or just calling a lame gatecamp somewhere as PVP? If you loved to pvp you will barly hang around in sanctums, you would be out pew pewing most time you onlined. It seems most of you dont meet this critea, you sit mostly in a sanctum to grind isk and when someone force you to pvp you bring a cheapass drake in massive blob. If you not in a massive blob and instead meet a equal gang you all get butcherd, whine about your stupid drakeloss and make it as an stupid excuse to sit and grind in a sanctum for 2 weeks. Get a grip people lived in 0.0 before without sanctums and people will, you just some of the biggest crybaby on Internet ever. Eve have never been about beeing easy, go back to wow or something instead and focus on that pve content, cuz that is ahell lot of better then EvE I just spent $1500 RL money on my first dedicated gaming computer (instead of playing on my laptop) so that I could pursue pvp'ing more aggressively, because living as a renter in nullsec allowed me to earn enough to fly a ship that could actually win battles. Before this my main was solo roaming in Tribute with a Stealth Bomber. So, your argument is **. Awesome. So you haven't really PvP'd much and you think you need expensive ships to "actually win battles". Man I'm not even gonna argue with you. Easier to let you learn by yourself. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:50:00 - [1790] What is rather of sad about this thread is that if you take a look at who in the playerbase is supporting this change vs opposing it, the numbers make sense. The people who support this are either deeply integrated into 0.0 alliances that hold GOOD 0.0 space and will be benefited by this change, or they run about in lowsec and to a lesser extent highsec. While there are very few examples of people who do not fufill these qualifications, they are few and far between (less than 20 in a 1700+ post thread). Try going to http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/index.php (battleclinic's main killboard) and looking up these people who are for this change, see for yourself. This change affects NONE of them directly, and yet they feel the need to say this is a good change. Alliances have put BILLIONS into upgrading their space, and CCP is basically taking it away for reasons that never lasted the first 10 pages (probably less, but i will give them a little bit more credit) of this thread. This change is simply a shameless ploy by CCP to get more plex out of the EVE community. If you will, please note that this blog stays out of the newsletter, when it is one of the biggest changes that they have made in MONTHS, barely even giving note to the fact that this comment thread has reached SIXTY PAGES, with about 90% of the comments having a NEGATIVE feeling about this change. I personally hate this change because of how i play, call me a carebear if you will. I run sanctums for 3-4 hours each week to get enough cash to go PVP. I dont care if i lose the ships, but i simply do not have six times the available time for me to go run anoms, making the same amount of cash to go pvp. There have been many different suggestions that would get the intended results, yet they have largely either been ignored by most people in this thread, or completely ignored by people in CCP. however, if CCP feels that this change is necissary for 0.0 and they say that they have models that show it would be so, please POST these models so we can actually see reasons for it that make sense, otherwise, like a corpmate of mine always says, "Links or it didn't happen." This feels exactly like what it is, a Tech 2 kick to the groin by CCP to all 0.0 people but the ones that hold good moons/good 0.0 space.

Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:53:00 - [1791] Originally by: Ace Frehley Tell me my dear whiners. Can you prove that you actully PVP or just calling a lame gatecamp somewhere as PVP? If you loved to pvp you will barly hang around in sanctums, you would be out pew pewing most time you onlined. It seems most of you dont meet this critea, you sit mostly in a sanctum to grind isk and when someone force you to pvp you bring a cheapass drake in massive blob. If you not in a massive blob and instead meet a equal gang you all get butcherd, whine about your stupid drakeloss and make it as an stupid excuse to sit and grind in a sanctum for 2 weeks. Get a grip people lived in 0.0 before without sanctums and people will, you just some of the biggest crybaby on Internet ever. Eve have never been about beeing easy, go back to wow or something instead and focus on that pve content, cuz that is ahell lot of better then EvE Your argument is flawed. How do we earn ISK to buy ships to PVP in if we can't run sanctums? Should we make another account to run missions in highsec on? Why should we do that? Here's what I'm seeing: - Old players with lots of ISK / people living in the systems getting buffed by this love the change because they'll be making even more ISK. - New players / people living in systems not getting buffed by this hate the change. So newer player have no other choice but to go back to highsec. If you cannot sustain PVP losses you cannot live in null. - Small alliances that this is supposed to benefit are saying it totally screws them, yet CCP seems to completely ignore this. Making space crappy so no one wants it means NO ONE wants it. Small, medium and large alliances. NO ONE wants it, large alliances will take it simply because they can -- but it will go unused. Being in a large alliance I'm not really affected in a very significant way by this change, but it screws over a lot of people that would have normally had a shot. - I was just told in game by my old highsec alliance that they no longer have any shot at really getting into null now. - No wars are going to be waged over ratting space. Alliances only care about moons. This change only hurts newer players living in null, forcing them back into highsec. - CCP proving yet again that there is no point in investing time and ISK into something just so they can nerf it later. Why even bother anymore? What's next, moons? w-space? Why should I even bother trying to really get into something when CCP will probably just nerf it in a few months. And yet everyone for this change jumping up and down saying how awesome it is and everything provides no proof. I've seen several posts by smaller alliances that just came right out and said this screws them over hard. How is this helpful? Greyscale, you say you know this is "better", what makes you qualified to know that, who are you? Do you live in null? Do you even play the game? Really, I don't know what to think. I'd prefer not to think you're a total moron, but you're making it really hard to think otherwise. I guess once subs drop you'll know it was a bad idea and you'll undo it. Keep in mind there mister CCP dev man sir, a lot of people pay with PLEX or month to month so you aren't getting cancellation notices from them. I wonder how many cancellation requests have already went through? I talked to a few people that said they were quitting but they all use PLEX so I guess you won't actually know about those until their subs are up and they don't renew. If you don't like this change, login to your account, click "Cancel Subscription" and put a link to the dev blog as the reason for why.
Mihai1 Caldari Heaven's Army Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:57:00 - [1792] -8 accounts (-120 euro per month, 1440 eurp per year) seya next expansion if your blood arrive to ccp brains
mumulescu gheorghe	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:58:00 - [1793] If you leave it like this you just buff BOTS and kick away players :( is so stupid .... what will happen, correct me if I am wrong : - may small corps and alliances will leave 0.0 space within small bands - bots will move there because they make belts anyway - bots make more money - players make less money - players will buy isk from bots !! is just stupid
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 17:58:00 - [1794] No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:01:00 - [1795] Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 18:02:22 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Xel Ra Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:52 Edited by: Xel Ra on 30/03/2011 17:27:31 Originally by: Ace Frehley Tell me my dear whiners. Can you prove that you actully PVP or just calling a lame gatecamp somewhere as PVP? If you loved to pvp you will barly hang around in sanctums, you would be out pew pewing most time you onlined. It seems most of you dont meet this critea, you sit mostly in a sanctum to grind isk and when someone force you to pvp you bring a cheapass drake in massive blob. If you not in a massive blob and instead meet a equal gang you all get butcherd, whine about your stupid drakeloss and make it as an stupid excuse to sit and grind in a sanctum for 2 weeks. Get a grip people lived in 0.0 before without sanctums and people will, you just some of the biggest crybaby on Internet ever. Eve have never been about beeing easy, go back to wow or something instead and focus on that pve content, cuz that is ahell lot of better then EvE I just spent $1500 RL money on my first dedicated gaming computer (instead of playing on my laptop) so that I could pursue pvp'ing more aggressively, because living as a renter in nullsec allowed me to earn enough to fly a ship that could actually win battles. Before this my main was solo roaming in Tribute with a Stealth Bomber. So, your argument is ****. Awesome. So you haven't really PvP'd much and you think you need expensive ships to "actually win battles". Man I'm not even gonna argue with you. Easier to let you learn by yourself. Wrong. I know for a fact that it's almost always expensive ships that kill me in nullsec. If you think I'm going to solo roam in nullsec in a BC and last for long, everyone in this thread will be laughing at you. But then, most of your fraidy pants kills are in low sec, so I guess you wouldn't know much about it. What else can we see by looking at your killboard? Oh, you fly a Proteus in pvp, yet your going to preach against the need for money. Way to put your money where your mouth is buddy, but maybe next time you should reach for your foot. That's your best argument? I saw that coming from before I even posted. Please, don't waste my time scrub.
Pod Bot90	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:03:00 - [1796] Originally by: bp920091 This change is simply a shameless ploy by CCP to get more plex out of the EVE community. i really doubt that less isk ingame = less plex bought less plex bought = lower the price of plex extremely. lower the price of plex = people with isk credit cards wownt buy plex any more to sell them on the market because it just wownt be worth it and they will do rmt (get isk from bot farmers) or this or its "no thinking" days for ccp
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:08:00 - [1797] Originally by: Malcanis No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. I'd like to fly more expensive ships, but I was just getting to the point where I could do that in a reasonable amount of time. This change undoes that and basically sets me back months. Why shouldn't I be upset? Originally by: Malcanis Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) I pay for my accounts with cashmoney thank you very much. My -5 accounts is literally 5*15 a month CCP is losing, more actually because I also bought and sold PLEX for ISK. I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. I was hoping some day I could make enough ISK to buy PLEX and do what others do, but that's basically out the window now. So what goals do I have now? I feel like I'm back to day 1 having no idea what I want to do in EVE, and I don't feel like starting over. I finally find a comfortable spot where I'm having fun and making ISK and everything is great just to have CCP yank the rug out from under me. I'm done arguing, debating, etc about this. What's done is done, either CCP is going to do it or they aren't. If they do it, I guess I'll see you all in some other game with (hopefully) less stupid developers.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:08:00 - [1798] Awesome. So you haven't really PvP'd much and you think you need expensive ships to "actually win battles". Man I'm not even gonna argue with you. Easier to let you learn by yourself. Wrong. I know for a fact that it's almost always expensive ships that kill me in nullsec. If you think I'm going to solo roam in nullsec in a BC and last for long, everyone in this thread will be laughing at you. But then, most of your fraidy pants kills are in low sec, so I guess you wouldn't know much about it. What else can we see by looking at your killboard? Oh, you fly a Proteus in pvp, yet your going to preach against the need for money. Way to put your money where your mouth is buddy, but maybe next time you should reach for your foot. That's your best argument? I saw that coming from before I even posted. Please, don't waste my time scrub. LOL Not only are your kills all in lowsec, they are all in the _same system_ of lowsec, where your boyfriends all hang out. Thanks for the laugh, you pathetic empire hugging troll.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:14:00 - [1799] Originally by: Pod Bot90 Originally by: bp920091 This change is simply a shameless ploy by CCP to get more plex out of the EVE community. i really doubt that less isk ingame = less plex bought less plex bought = lower the price of plex extremely. lower the price of plex = people with isk credit cards wownt buy plex any more to sell them on the market because it just wownt be worth it and they will do rmt (get isk from bot farmers) or this or its "no thinking" days for ccp oh, i do not disagree with you in regards to the price of plex going down, i know that the price of plex will go down, but it will eventually level off again, maybe 50-100M less than it is, it will never go down to 0, or even remotely close to it. This is a simple supply/demand function. Supply is greater, demand remains the same or decreases slightly. The price will decrease, but buying plex will get you less and less money until it stabilizes. Even further proof of CCP trying to get more plex out of the EVE community is the tab on the character sheet for buying plex. We didnt have that before, did we. I am not sure whether CCP has thought this through though. I will agree with a post above that CCP saw the Eve news 24 article about people buying HUGE amount of isk with cash and they wanted on it. Rather sad, ive cancelled one of my 2 accounts for now, citing the reason as this devblog since CCP wont even bother listening to their players that will be affected by this change. maybe i will resubscribe it when they get their act together and form coherent thoughts for changes.
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:18:00 - [1800] Guys, guys, you're getting worked up over nothing. This is clearly an April Fool's prank. CCP can't possibly that dumb.

Spartan dax	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:21:00 - [1801] Originally by: Malcanis No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Lulz. Malcanis telling the truth in his usual succint way.
Gariboldi Phiron	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:21:00 - [1802] Quote: You are forcing people out from 0.0 back to the empire to do missions QFT L4 missions are already nearly as profitable as anomalies and (other than during war decs) they are far safer to do. Everyone will naturally gravitate to the most profitable use of their time (that they can stand doing) and removing anoms will just shift that right back to the previous king of isk grinding. I wish the players could fire one ccp staffer a year for being a moron, because Greyscale would get my vote this year.
Cassius Hawkeye Minmatar Body Count Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:21:00 - [1803] I feel this is a good change to bring back a bit of balance in the eve 0.0 economy. I remember grinding ****ty rats in crap systems/ to get my first battleship, and the pain of losing it. 0.0 shouldn't be a free isk printing machine. Belt rats, PI, mining, havens/sanctums in other system still provide more than enough isk to many new players. I look forward to 0.0 being a bit tougher, with more reason to fight over richer regions / systems. Having the potential for every system to be the same for isk making was always wrong, and i am glad ccp is fixing it. P.S - i benefit from sanctums - i will miss the easy isk, but i will just go back to other ways to make isk.
orphenshadow Gallente Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:23:00 - [1804] Originally by: Proats Guys, guys, you're getting worked up over nothing. This is clearly an April Fool's prank. CCP can't possibly that dumb. Let's hope. However, To anyone saying that pvp'rs who oppose these changes arent pvpr's consider this. I do not farm sanctums, Hell i cant stand the thought of shooting npc's. But I need to fund my hull mining habits. Currently my alliance has upgrades our space, i can spend an hour a week running a sanctum to get me enough ships to enjoy the rest of the week. You take those away i either have to go all the way to highsec and run missions, or into a wh, taking me out of pvp for longer amounts of time. Or i just buy a botting program and join the rest of them... Not only that as someone who roams around frequently with his corpies looking for dumbasses running sanctums, its going to suck having everyone clumped into a few systems. It will only make the rich richer and keep more of them blobbed into one space. Where as right now there are plenty of upgraded systems in dead end pipes etc. where you can run in with a few ppl gank the unsuspecting idiot in a carrier and gtfo. I just don't see any of the outcomes listed in the op as actually having anything to do with these changes. Easy Co.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:26:00 - [1805] Originally by: Gariboldi Phiron Quote: You are forcing people out from 0.0 back to the empire to do missions QFT L4 missions are already nearly as profitable as anomalies and (other than during war decs) they are far safer to do. Everyone will naturally gravitate to the most profitable use of their time (that they can stand doing) and removing anoms will just shift that right back to the previous king of isk grinding. I wish the players could fire one ccp staffer a year for being a moron, because Greyscale would get my vote this year. You're forgetting that they are going to nerf level 4 missions as well. No more 7k LP kill missions. 3k lp at best. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:27:00 - [1806] Originally by: Spartan dax Originally by: Malcanis No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Lulz. Malcanis telling the truth in his usual succint way. Malcanis is a joke and a troll. But at least he always has his Kugu fanbase to plusrep him and make him feel like a big man on the Internet. It's important to have friends....somewhere.
Kalothea	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:28:00 - [1807] Originally by: Gariboldi Phiron I wish the players could fire one ccp staffer a year for being a moron, because Greyscale would get my vote this year. Until this last blog, I would have completely disagreed with you. Now, I'd be making sure the door DID hit him in the a$$ on the way out.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:28:00 - [1808] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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. Yup, because lvl 3 missions are just as good as lvl 4's because there are just as many lvl 3 agents. No! The choke point for isk/hour in any high end PVE is DPS. The ** anoms might be okay for noobs in their T1 cruisers where you hit the player's cap before you hit the anom's cap (same reason why lvl 4 missions in a frig don't pay any better than lvl 1 or 2's.) Quote: - 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. Remember the AFK empires? That's what you want to go back to? That's flat out stupid. Nobody's going to want to actually LIVE in space with absolute worst income/hour in the game. Look at all the lvl 3 mission hubs. Oh wait, there are none? I wonder why? Quote: - 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. Nobody's going to move until they've paid off their investment. The small alliances who move to any specific single 0.0 system will not move out until they've built up their asset pool to pay off the previous investment and possibly the next investment, or the alliance ends it's natural life cycle. They won't leave behind billions of isk in upgrades for better systems, but they will leave it behind to do lvl 4 missions. No, if you want sov to be more volatile, you won't require super-caps to take it or even to disrupt it. Make sov upgrades disruptible by cruiser fleets, cut the EHP supercaps and sov structures to practically nothing. Buff dreads. Then you will see people concentrating their defenses. Quote:** - 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. And the big alliances just hand out their good truesec like candy. Because the renters just starting out in 0.0 have any chance whatsoever of renting a an entire whole region or even a whole constellation.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:28:00 - [1809] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Gariboldi Phiron Quote: You are forcing people out from 0.0 back to the empire to do missions QFT L4 missions are already nearly as profitable as anomalies and (other than during war decs) they are far safer to do. Everyone will naturally gravitate to the most profitable use of their time (that they can stand doing) and removing anoms will just shift that right back to the previous king of isk grinding. I wish the players could fire one ccp staffer a year for being a moron, because Greyscale would get my vote this year. You're forgetting that they are going to nerf level 4 missions as well. No more 7k LP kill missions. 3k lp at best. >Extremely low risk of losing ship >Nerfs only really go into play when lots of people try to use the same agent. >Nullsec is reversed, they are trying to force everyone into a few systems. Yay for even MORE lag? None of these changes make any logical sense. *I now have no choice but to conclude that CCP is trolling us.*
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:44:00 - [1810] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Spartan dax Originally by: Malcanis No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Lulz. Malcanis telling the truth in his usual succint way. Malcanis is a joke and a troll. But at least he always has his Kugu fanbase to plusrep him and make him feel like a big man on the Internet. It's important to have friends....somewhere. Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:45:00 - [1811] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Spartan dax Originally by: Malcanis No, seriously though. Virtually all the people crying about how this change will "ruin PvP" or whatever are blatantly no kind of PvPers themselves and never will be. Check the facts before you listen to them. Even the few that do actually participate have losses so light that 3 hours of casual belt-ratting a month will replace those losses, and that's assuming that their alliances don't do any reimbursement at all. Which most of them do. Let's be frank here: the outrage in this thread largely originates from full-time sanctum huggers who are stockpiling ISK for a supercap to let them run sanctums even harder, just like they used to run level 4s in Motsu to buy X-type fitted Golems in order to run level 4s even more. It has absolutely nothing to do with "PvP" because they wouldn't know what PvP was if it gave them a business card that had "I am PvP" on it. Most of their alliances will almost certainly be glad to see the back of such CTA-dodging deadweight and their "fifty accounts" (all paid for by doing nothing but run Sanctums) Lulz. Malcanis telling the truth in his usual succint way. Malcanis is a joke and a troll. But at least he always has his Kugu fanbase to plusrep him and make him feel like a big man on the Internet. It's important to have friends....somewhere. Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. I know better than to feed the trolls. My posting alt is very good for doing just that. Keep on trying hard. You are good at it.
Woodiex3	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:45:00 - [1812] Well after days of reading this thread not even bothering to login game. I decided to nerf CCP income $ like they will mine (3 accounts canncelled). it goes boths ways while my accounts wont matter to them on this issue they will do what they want. Hopefully it will make them think twice next time. Hopefully the ppl who came up with this change will get tagged with "idea that killed 10,000 accounts" it all comes down to plex and microtransactions. in theory it will have an higher $ for CCP no matter how many ppl play. you can dress this patch up how ever you like, the eve players are smatter than the average bear. and see straight through it.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:47:00 - [1813] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. What kind of "serious income" do you think you need in order to PvP? Seriously, no troll, I'm interested. A rough ISk-per-month figure: how much do you think need? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:48:00 - [1814] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Jennifer Gemini I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. What kind of "serious income" do you think you need in order to PvP? Seriously, no troll, I'm interested. A rough ISk-per-month figure: how much do you think need? Why don't you educate us, since the Initiative proved how to be oh-so-successful at making a go in nullsec.
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:48:00 - [1815] Edited by: oldmanst4r on 30/03/2011 18:56:01 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: oldmanst4r No need to be a complete ***** about it. Just because it wasn't your pet game mechanic that was nerfed this time doesn't mean you should jump for joy when someone else gets screwed. Particularly in this case, when it is unclear as to whether the anomaly changes will have CCP's intended effect. I'm really not trying to be an ***** about it or gloat - and I apologize if it comes off as that way. Its not that I'm rejoicing that you are losing your magic ISK fountain. I'm rejoicing that something that breaks the game is going away. Although must admit to enjoying some of the more outlandish tears too. Really, I know this change is going to suck for some 0.0 bears - especially in the short term. But, its a good change for the game and no amount of tinfoil or frothing at the mouth rage is going to change that. With regards to High Sec L4s and Sanctums: I think its important to remember that Havens/Sanctums are enormous raw ISK faucets. L4s, when run in such a manner as to compete with running Sanctums, are very nearly an ISK sink to the game. Most of your ISK comes from LP, and LP requires raw ISK inputs on top of contract/market costs. Furthermore, it requires market research to know what to sell... and some self restraint not to crash your own markets. -Liang Liang, I'm not whining about my isk faucet being nerfed. I don't even live in null at the moment, although I did spend about six months in null post-dominion. I understand how the EVE economy works, and I am a supporter of changes that improve it. What I don't like is CCP devaluing null for the average player relative to high-security space. If the problem is isk sinks and faucets, there are literally a thousand ways they could decrease the isk payout of sanctums and still make them pay just as well as they do now. When I lived in null and ran sanctums I found them to be marginally more profitable than high-sec lvl4s at best. Their attractiveness was their convenience. In my opinion, making isk in null should be at least as easy as making isk in the safety of high sec, considering the amount isk you spend on day to day operations. Now you can argue, that making isk in EVE is too easy, and that lvl 4s should be nerfed as well. That's fine, but in order for 0.0 to be attractive, high-sec players must feel like the rewards for living there are higher than the rewards for living in high-sec, otherwise they won't move there. What this change is going to do is make 0.0 less attractive. It will also reduce the amount of isk flowing into the economy. Shrinking the isk faucet may be a good thing, but I think we all agree that making null less attractive is not. Besides that, the stated reason for this change is to increase the amount of conflict, and it seems to me, to be a rather haphazard way of fulfilling that goal. Edit: I'm sorry for calling you an ***** in my last post, that was uncalled for. I just don't like it when people gloat over other people's playstyle getting nerfed, whether it's for the good of the game or not. Originally by:** CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:50:00 - [1816] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. I know better than to feed the trolls. My posting alt is very good for doing just that. Keep on trying hard. You are good at it. But it's true though isn't it. You're not a PvPer, you dont PvP, and all this manufactured outrage about how PvP is impossible without santums is in fact complete rubbish, because it's nothing to do with why you're making all this fuss. Prove me wrong. Show me your active KB (that I couldn't find) where you're losing so many ships that you can't continue to PvP without that 70 mill an hour, all day every day. Or, you know, admit that this argument that sanctums are required to maintain PvP is a complete lie. Either is good. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:51:00 - [1817] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. I know better than to feed the trolls. My posting alt is very good for doing just that. Keep on trying hard. You are good at it. But it's true though isn't it. You're not a PvPer, you dont PvP, and all this manufactured outrage about how PvP is impossible without santums is in fact complete rubbish, because it's nothing to do with why you're making all this fuss. Prove me wrong. Show me your active KB (that I couldn't find) where you're losing so many ships that you can't continue to PvP without that 70 mill an hour, all day every day. Or, you know, admit that this argument that sanctums are required to maintain PvP is a complete lie. Either is good. Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about getting kicked out of Catch and wants to spread the love. Misery loves company, eh, Malcanis?
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:54:00 - [1818] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Jennifer Gemini I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. What kind of "serious income" do you think you need in order to PvP? Seriously, no troll, I'm interested. A rough ISk-per-month figure: how much do you think need? Why don't you educate us, since the Initiative proved how to be oh-so-successful at making a go in nullsec. Well I'm ever so glad you mentioned that. You see the Initiative lived in Venal, and then Vale - with no system upgrades or high-vlaue moons. None. Not one. And you know, somehow, we still turned out and fought every night, and did rather well thank you. Of course, we never matched the mighty combat record of... Aliastra? but still we managed to field HACs, Recons, T2-fitted BS Eventually we lost Immensea because we declined to join any other powerbloc, not that we didn't have plenty of offers, but such is life. Why dont you tell us about your awesome 0.0 record? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:56:00 - [1819] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Since you don't have a single kill or loss on battleclinic, then my "joke and a troll" would seem to be 100% precisely correct in your case. I know better than to feed the trolls. My posting alt is very good for doing just that. Keep on trying hard. You are good at it. But it's true though isn't it. You're not a PvPer, you dont PvP, and all this manufactured outrage about how PvP is impossible without santums is in fact complete rubbish, because it's nothing to do with why you're making all this fuss. Prove me wrong. Show me your active KB (that I couldn't find) where you're losing so many ships that you can't continue to PvP without that 70 mill an hour, all day every day. Or, you know, admit that this argument that sanctums are required to maintain PvP is a complete lie. Either is good. Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about getting kicked out of Catch and wants to spread the love. Misery loves company, eh, Malcanis? Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about losing their bot-farm rental income in Catch and wants to spread the love. And yes it does, whoever you are that's too gutless to stand behind what they say by posting with their main. So. Care to prove me wrong with the FACT of your killboard? Lost a few too many drakes recently, have you....? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:57:00 - [1820] Originally by: oldmanst4r What I don't like is CCP devaluing null for the average player relative to high-security space. If the problem is isk sinks and faucets, there are literally a thousand ways they could decrease the isk payout of sanctums and still make them pay just as well as they do now. When I lived in null and ran sanctums I found them to be marginally more profitable than high-sec lvl4s at best. Their attractiveness was their convenience. In my opinion, making isk in null should be at least as easy as making isk in the safety of high sec, considering the amount isk you spend on day to day operations. Now you can argue, that making isk in EVE is too easy, and that lvl 4s should be nerfed as well. That's fine, but in order for 0.0 to be attractive, high-sec players must feel like the rewards for living there are higher than the rewards for living in high-sec, otherwise they won't move there. What this change is going to do is make 0.0 less attractive. It will also reduce the amount of isk flowing into the economy. Shrinking the isk faucet may be a good thing, but I think we all agree that making null less attractive is not. Besides that, the stated reason for this change is to increase the amount of conflict, and it seems to me, to be a rather haphazard way of fulfilling that goal. This. This SO hard.

Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:57:00 - [1821] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Jennifer Gemini I currently don't do much PVP because I'm still not yet at the point where I can do anoms quickly enough to generate serious income. What kind of "serious income" do you think you need in order to PvP? Seriously, no troll, I'm interested. A rough ISk-per-month figure: how much do you think need? Why don't you educate us, since the Initiative proved how to be oh-so-successful at making a go in nullsec. Well I'm ever so glad you mentioned that. You see the Initiative lived in Venal, and then Vale - with no system upgrades or high-vlaue moons. None. Not one. And you know, somehow, we still turned out and fought every night, and did rather well thank you. Of course, we never matched the mighty combat record of... Aliastra? but still we managed to field HACs, Recons, T2-fitted BS Eventually we lost Immensea because we declined to join any other powerbloc, not that we didn't have plenty of offers, but such is life. Why dont you tell us about your awesome 0.0 record? Yes, the Initiative has taught us all a great lesson about how to be successful in nullsec........ohwait. Oh, and you're going to prove your point by talking about all the expensive ships you use now that you've been around the block for a while? Nice job of logic. Why don't you just admit you want easy targets, the kind you are used to blobbing during your time in null?
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:58:00 - [1822] Originally by: oldmanst4r When I lived in null and ran sanctums I found them to be marginally more profitable than high-sec lvl4s at best. Sort of true... right up until you get a 10/10 escalation worth 500-1.5B Then they're vastly more profitable. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Soma Khan Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.30 18:58:00 - [1823] is this a good time to ask everyone complaining in this thread to contract their stuff to me __
Zemkhoff	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:00:00 - [1824] Edited by: Zemkhoff on 30/03/2011 19:00:15 Please continue the self-entitlement complex and ranting. Now to make good isk in 0.0 you might need to, oh I don't know, make an effort? Currently it's press butan ---> receive isk. Scanning down sites or wormholes will net you better isk/h than the sanctums as they are now, but people have gotten lazy I suppose.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:04:00 - [1825] Originally by: Malcanis But it's true though isn't it. You're not a PvPer, you dont PvP, and all this manufactured outrage about how PvP is impossible without santums is in fact complete rubbish, because it's nothing to do with why you're making all this fuss. Prove me wrong. Show me your active KB (that I couldn't find) where you're losing so many ships that you can't continue to PvP without that 70 mill an hour, all day every day. Or, you know, admit that this argument that sanctums are required to maintain PvP is a complete lie. Either is good. Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about getting kicked out of Catch and wants to spread the love. Misery loves company, eh, Malcanis? Seems to me someone is a little butthurt about losing their bot-farm rental income in Catch and wants to spread the love. And yes it does, whoever you are that's too gutless to stand behind what they say by posting with their main. So. Care to prove me wrong with the FACT of your killboard? Lost a few too many drakes recently, have you....? Malcanis, at this point, I'm just going to let you keep sperging, because you do a far better job than I do of making yourself look like an ass to everyone in this forum. You're so desperate for legitimacy that you can hardly contain yourself by this point. Thanks for showing your true colors to everyone here. When you can wipe the tears away from the pain of your failed alliance, maybe all that butthurt will finally have worked itself off, and you, too, can learn to play with all the other kids in the sandbox without being a colossal jerk picking fights you can't hope to win. Good luck with everything, dude. Hope it all works out for you.
PI PETRA	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:06:00 - [1826] Quote: CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Will CCP be as Excited about there changes when people start to leave in there droves as they cant afford to pvp anymore unless they spend 3 weeks ratting? if this goes ahead then i will be voting with my hard earnt cash and find something else to play instead! PLEASE PLEASE release a better game than wow before CCP screw up space forever
estelle autinos	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:14:00 - [1827] If this is an April fool joke......it's immense.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:16:00 - [1828] I just love the way people say that we had no anomalies before and were able to make do, so its no big deal. Well, i agree. Since EVERYONE used to get on by on 0.0 with belt-ratting, and EVERYONE will have to go back to belt-ratting, no harm will be done, and no balance will be broken. Oh wait.. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Ghostscorpion	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:34:00 - [1829] Originally by: Cassius Hawkeye I feel this is a good change to bring back a bit of balance in the eve 0.0 economy. I remember grinding **ty rats in crap systems/ to get my first battleship, and the pain of losing it. 0.0 shouldn't be a free isk printing machine. Belt rats, PI, mining, havens/sanctums in other system still provide more than enough isk to many new players. I look forward to 0.0 being a bit tougher, with more reason to fight over richer regions / systems. Having the potential for every system to be the same for isk making was always wrong, and i am glad ccp is fixing it. P.S - i benefit from sanctums - i will miss the easy isk, but i will just go back to other ways to make isk. Humm I just looked at your alliance sovereignty. Looks to me that your Alliance will be... Will kicked from you rented space good luck to you after CCP adds the change. Quote: her is your Alliance sovereignty. info Quote:** Region SolarSystem Security lv Catch NH-1X6 -0.24 25S-6P -0.95 4-07MU -1.00 FAT-6P -0.64 CZK-ZQ -0.66 QETZ-W -0.40 Querious NDII-Q -0.04 5V-BJI -0.43 W-IIYI -0.35 F-NXLQ -0.79 H74-B0 -0.68 0TKF-6 -0.42
Jenn aSide	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:38:00 - [1830] Another thing about this idiotic idea is that it sets people like me (who are RL cash poor) WAY back against these kids who have no families and can just buy GTCs to fund pvp. As it is now, you have to do A LOT of sanctums and havens to match what someone with 35 bucks can get in seconds.

President Jordan	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:42:00 - [1831] To quote Charlie Sheen: "Wow, that was another BAD joke!" CCP = FAIL
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:44:00 - [1832] Originally by: Jenn aSide Another thing about this idiotic idea is that it sets people like me (who are RL cash poor) WAY back against these kids who have no families and can just buy GTCs to fund pvp. As it is now, you have to do A LOT of sanctums and havens to match what someone with 35 bucks can get in seconds. ^^ The real reason CCP is doing this. Money. EVE is now officially unofficially funded by RMT.
lpttpnalt	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:45:00 - [1833] wow this is a bad idea. lets just revert back to just before dominion. and as for there being more reason to rfight? as if we dont fight enough. i spent the past weekend on like 8 different pew ops. this is stupid. some carebear in jita thought this one up
Degara Farat Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:51:00 - [1834] Originally by: "CCP Soundwave" For those that don't know what Little Things are, it's a project that Team Best Friends Forever is working on.... & As a part of the "equal value space makes this game boring" initiative, we've changed the way anomalies work. The quality of anomalies will depend on the systems truesec - the better the truesec, the better the spawns. CCP Greyscale is writing a blog on this exact change, coming soonTM Maybe we are accusing the wrong person(s) for this brainfart. I hardly run anomalies because I dont like them but removing the sanctums/havens from the low true sec systems is simply put a bad thing. Individual corp members run these to fund their PVP. Less income per anomaly means longer PvE to fund PvP. So basicly less PVP allround. People will move back to Empire to run lvl 4 missions since most dislike mining or PI (considered boring and needs extra training). And when people leave nullsec and nobody runs these low-end anomalies the index drops and even less valuable anomalies will spawn. Rendering low true-sec not worth exploiting. High Risk No Reward isn't going to sell anywhere. If the said changes about coalition stability is hoped to reduce the size of blobs then think again. We need large numbers to play CCP's new Sov Mechanics. Dominions proposed drive-by takeovers aren't going to happen if you have to reinforce any I-HUB or Outpost twice. Remove those from the Sov Mechanics. Just return to the old spamming system as before but use TCU's anchored around planets this time. Needs a rebalance of the sov bill and the onlining times of SBU's/TCU's but it would become a lot more dynamic then todays "Drive by now, come back next week" mechanics. There might be some space opening up for new alliances to settle, but this would be in systems with a low true-sec thus bad revenue. And most likely the previous owner will drop a fleet in the moment they see Sov being claimed/taken just to kick the new entity back to Empire. It will get some more PVP out in nullsec but it will stop soon. No new alliance will try that twice in the same region. And stop posting about the changes being made to Lvl 4 highsec agents quality. Devs already explained (in Missions forums) that it isn't going to be the case in the near future due to the difficulty of programming for it, if it ever will.
Dazram Two	Posted - 2011.03.30 19:59:00 - [1835] I think it's pretty obvious now that this is an april fools joke....so everyone that's getting really really upset needs to relax a little and get a sense of humor..
Cassius Hawkeye Minmatar Body Count Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:04:00 - [1836] Originally by: Ghostscorpion Originally by: Cassius Hawkeye I feel this is a good change to bring back a bit of balance in the eve 0.0 economy. I remember grinding **ty rats in crap systems/ to get my first battleship, and the pain of losing it. 0.0 shouldn't be a free isk printing machine. Belt rats, PI, mining, havens/sanctums in other system still provide more than enough isk to many new players. I look forward to 0.0 being a bit tougher, with more reason to fight over richer regions / systems. Having the potential for every system to be the same for isk making was always wrong, and i am glad ccp is fixing it. P.S - i benefit from sanctums - i will miss the easy isk, but i will just go back to other ways to make isk. Humm I just looked at your alliance sovereignty. Looks to me that your Alliance will be... Will kicked from you rented space good luck to you after CCP adds the change. Quote: her is your Alliance sovereignty. info Quote:** Region SolarSystem Security lv Catch NH-1X6 -0.24 25S-6P -0.95 4-07MU -1.00 FAT-6P -0.64 CZK-ZQ -0.66 QETZ-W -0.40 Querious NDII-Q -0.04 5V-BJI -0.43 W-IIYI -0.35 F-NXLQ -0.79 H74-B0 -0.68 0TKF-6 -0.42 Well we don't rent space currently - as far as i am aware! And thanks for the good luck message - but it really doesn't bother me. I see sanctums/havens as a luxury item, but personally, i am quite happy to go back to the traditional way of lvl 4 0.0 missions, or belt ratting, or mining, or whatever i need. I managed to do well out of that in the past - i'm sure i will not go broke in the future on a new system.
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:06:00 - [1837] Originally by: mkmin Originally by: Jenn aSide Another thing about this idiotic idea is that it sets people like me (who are RL cash poor) WAY back against these kids who have no families and can just buy GTCs to fund pvp. As it is now, you have to do A LOT of sanctums and havens to match what someone with 35 bucks can get in seconds. ^^ The real reason CCP is doing this. Money. EVE is now officially unofficially funded by RMT. People seem to be getting what I meant in my post yesterday about this being a money grab. You have to step back and look at the whole picture, not just how PLEX is applied in 1 part. CCP have really stacked it in their favor, and it's going to get much worse. This nerf is about getting people to buy more PLEX for money, nothing more. PvP is an isk pit, particularly for the guys just learning it. Anyone who says otherwise should drop whatever they're smoking. Experienced PVPers, or members of the large block alliances who get their ships refunded don't apply here. These less experienced, new 0.0 citizens are the target demographic which CCP claims they're "helping" with this nerf. But they're the ones that are going to feel the pinch the most, as the low end systems won't be able to generate the isk required to sustain the heavy losses they WILL suffer at the hands of the roaming pirates and griefers that will essentially permacamp these systems for the "easy kills". Newer alliances just starting out in 0.0 that are farming sanctums hardcore to get themselves and their corps established are going to get screwed. Once you've got your infrastructure and upgrades in place, POSes running, and have a good stock of minerals, ships, mods, maintaining that is fairly easy with minimal isk flow. But without the initial resources available to do this, it leaves them with 2 options - abandon their investments and return to Empire, or buy PLEX to convert to ISK to fund their advancement. Most determined players will choose that second option. Now instead of these players buying a PLEX with ISK to sub their (sometimes multiple) accounts, they're buying PLEX with cash to sell for isk so they can continue their development. The more PLEX is bought and traded directly for isk in-game, the more money CCP make. Remember, it costs $15 for 1 month of play time. 1 PLEX for the same play time costs you $17.50. It's not much more, but it's still 16.6% more. Over time, that adds up. I agree in part what people say that one way or another, SOMEONE paid for that PLEX that's used to pay for the account. But, there's that 16.6% markup on it. And there's one important aspect people aren't considering that CCP not only planned for, but engineered - the ability to move PLEX, and thereby have PLEX destroyed. One must consider what percentage of the PLEX bought and sold are destroyed in attacks. There are no figures here, but you can be it's a fair percentage. And it was engineered exactly for that purpose - to "detroy money" so that people will buy more PLEX from CCP to replace the ones lost because the isk from them is required to fund their activities. There's much more to this than what appears on the surface. And it doesn't take much scratching if you do it in the right place to wear away the thinly veiled "excuse" for this (I'd hardly call CCP's version a "reason") and reveal the underlying intentions. Boo CCP. I really love this game, but you're starting to make it rather difficult to stand behind you when you pull off idiotic moves like this. ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:09:00 - [1838] Edited by: Selpy on 30/03/2011 20:09:51 Double post. Please disregard ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Anaplian Laine	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:14:00 - [1839] oh Brilliant...more time doing boring crap to earn isk to do exciting stuff, CCP really now!!!
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:14:00 - [1840] Originally by: Selpy Edited by: Selpy on 30/03/2011 20:09:51 Double post. Please disregard Can we disregard your post above that too?

MrCoolShades	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:22:00 - [1841] Originally by: Cassius Hawkeye I remember grinding ****ty rats in crap systems/ to get my first battleship, and the pain of losing it. 0.0 shouldn't be a free isk printing machine. Belt rats, PI, mining, havens/sanctums in other system still provide more than enough isk to many new players. Yes why not go back to dark ages, or back to when we had to hunt our food. It was tough and good then too! The "old" players should stop complaining about how tough and satisfying the good old days were. ôWe all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.ö C.S. Lewis Turn around Greyscale!
Lonely Island	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:23:00 - [1842] Originally by: Mihai1 -8 accounts (-120 euro per month, 1440 eurp per year) seya next expansion if your blood arrive to ccp brains lol it's probably better for your health that you quit if you have 8 accounts. Now you can finally get away from the PC screen and work off that fat....
Ashaai	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:23:00 - [1843] It's been four days and almost 1500 posts in this thread since someone from CCP commented on it. Last CCP post as far as I can find is post 470 by Greyscale. And yet this change is still scheduled to go live with the Incursion 1.4 patch scheduled for this coming Tuesday: http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Regardless of the rest of those features (most of which are super A+ awesome kthx), has this particular change been put on hold pending continued development/iteration? The response in this thread has been overwhelmingly negative. The response across most of the eve blog community has been overwhelmingly negative. And the response amongst most of the peolpe I know in game has been overwhelmingly negative (for whatever my personal bias counts). None of the very reasonable concerns raised by the community here and elsewhere have been addressed. I think it would go a long way to assuage our concerns if we knew we weren't going to be deaing with this change in less than a week. Some follow up, I think, is deserved.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:30:00 - [1844] Originally by: Ashaai It's been four days and almost 1500 posts in this thread since someone from CCP commented on it. Last CCP post as far as I can find is post 470 by Greyscale. And yet this change is still scheduled to go live with the Incursion 1.4 patch scheduled for this coming Tuesday: http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Regardless of the rest of those features (most of which are super A+ awesome kthx), has this particular change been put on hold pending continued development/iteration? The response in this thread has been overwhelmingly negative. The response across most of the eve blog community has been overwhelmingly negative. And the response amongst most of the peolpe I know in game has been overwhelmingly negative (for whatever my personal bias counts). None of the very reasonable concerns raised by the community here and elsewhere have been addressed. I think it would go a long way to assuage our concerns if we knew we weren't going to be deaing with this change in less than a week. Some follow up, I think, is deserved. And that is the response of only those who follow eve news. Once the change goes live, expect the negative response to grow ten-fold. I can only say that CCP's real reasons are unknown to us, and that they also wish it to remain unknown. Regardless of all the bad things that were argumented here, CCP perceives something as a big plus, and that something is a secret. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Lonely Island	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:35:00 - [1845] Originally by: Ashaai It's been four days and almost 1500 posts in this thread since someone from CCP commented on it. Last CCP post as far as I can find is post 470 by Greyscale. And yet this change is still scheduled to go live with the Incursion 1.4 patch scheduled for this coming Tuesday: http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Regardless of the rest of those features (most of which are super A+ awesome kthx), has this particular change been put on hold pending continued development/iteration? The response in this thread has been overwhelmingly negative. The response across most of the eve blog community has been overwhelmingly negative. And the response amongst most of the peolpe I know in game has been overwhelmingly negative (for whatever my personal bias counts). None of the very reasonable concerns raised by the community here and elsewhere have been addressed. I think it would go a long way to assuage our concerns if we knew we weren't going to be deaing with this change in less than a week. Some follow up, I think, is deserved. Greyscale (and CCP) don't give a fiddler's f*** what you think. Deal with it!
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:38:00 - [1846] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Originally by: Ashaai It's been four days and almost 1500 posts in this thread since someone from CCP commented on it. Last CCP post as far as I can find is post 470 by Greyscale. And yet this change is still scheduled to go live with the Incursion 1.4 patch scheduled for this coming Tuesday: http://www.eveonline.com/en/incursion/features Regardless of the rest of those features (most of which are super A+ awesome kthx), has this particular change been put on hold pending continued development/iteration? The response in this thread has been overwhelmingly negative. The response across most of the eve blog community has been overwhelmingly negative. And the response amongst most of the peolpe I know in game has been overwhelmingly negative (for whatever my personal bias counts). None of the very reasonable concerns raised by the community here and elsewhere have been addressed. I think it would go a long way to assuage our concerns if we knew we weren't going to be deaing with this change in less than a week. Some follow up, I think, is deserved. And that is the response of only those who follow eve news. Once the change goes live, expect the negative response to grow ten-fold. I can only say that CCP's real reasons are unknown to us, and that they also wish it to remain unknown. Regardless of all the bad things that were argumented here, CCP perceives something as a big plus, and that something is a secret. The big secret is that now more people will be using PLEX to fund 0.0 PVP. This is just a greedy bastard money grab by CCP. On the plus side PLEX prices will drop through the floor making it easier to play the game for free. On the downside, there will be no reason to play.
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:39:00 - [1847] Originally by: Lonely Island Greyscale (and CCP) don't give a fiddler's f*** what you think. Deal with it! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This... ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:42:00 - [1848] This is disheartening. Have EVE players really become this soft? h+t+f+u
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:51:00 - [1849] Originally by: Marconus Orion This is disheartening. Have EVE players really become this soft? h+t+f+u Have forum trolls really run out of creativity that they have to use tired old tropes that really weren't all that funny to begin with?
Khadann Caldari Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.03.30 20:58:00 - [1850] Originally by: Dazram Two I think it's pretty obvious now that this is an april fools joke....so everyone that's getting really really upset needs to relax a little and get a sense of humor.. I hope so dude... Hya!

Knokploeg	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:02:00 - [1851] This is a step in the proper direction. CCP had it wrong when they reduced module drops and increased ISK through sanctums. Drop more modules and reduce the ISK from sanctums.
Terianna Eri Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:06:00 - [1852] Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour? ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
Khadann Caldari Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:08:00 - [1853] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour? This. Hya!
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:12:00 - [1854] Edited by: Selpy on 30/03/2011 21:13:49 Originally by: Knokploeg This is a step in the proper direction. CCP had it wrong when they reduced module drops and increased ISK through sanctums. Drop more modules and reduce the ISK from sanctums. The module nerf was a pain in the ass for a lot of people, and it in no way had its desired effect of restoring the value of mining. It's another artificial interference in the "player generated world" that we could have done without. Despite all my "*****ing" about this, I do agree Sanctums are crazy ISK faucets that need to be tamed somewhat. Rather than this thinly veiled attempt at clawing more money out of its subscribers in the guise of "balancing", I would personally prefer to see the bounty payouts of high end anoms nerfed somewhat and based on system true sec, kind of the way belt rats are valued according to true sec. The lowest band of sec would retain the same bounties that they currently give out, with the bounties decreasing as sec increases. BUT.... restore the loot drops. That way, it would actually give people incentive to salvage and collect loot. And of course, there's the moon mining. Nerfing / readjusting that with depletion cycles or some other similar mechanism would have exactly the outcome CCP is claiming their upcoming changes are meant to promote. Take away the REAL isk faucets that the large alliances are comfortably sitting on and make them fight for them. That's the way to promote conflict. But then again, this isn't about conflict. This is about making more money, so all these points are moot. ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Evil Zeb	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:19:00 - [1855] CCP
Latino lover Minmatar SEX WITH PENYS	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:23:00 - [1856] Edited by: Latino lover on 30/03/2011 21:24:53 Carebears -- In GIGI we trust !!
Illiet	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:25:00 - [1857] Originally by: Selpy This nerf is about getting people to buy more PLEX for money, nothing more. Totaly agreed. I was going to make same post but had to leave office, so you made it before =)
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:27:00 - [1858] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 21:29:59 Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour? I've spent more time with hostiles on grid with my mission ship in high sec and low sec than in 0.0 Intel channels are fantastic for reducing actual risk of PVE in 0.0 to near 0. -Liang Ed: And apparently I must have spent 14 hours a day for 3 solid years belt ratting in 0.0 to pay for all my PVP ships. Also, Selpy... please stop with the tinfoil hattery about how this will increase revenue for CCP. Your grasp of real economics is obviously worse than your grasp of in game economics. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Illiet	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:32:00 - [1859] Edited by: Illiet on 30/03/2011 21:32:17 Originally by: Liang Nuren Your grasp of real economics is obviously worse than your grasp of in game economics. Except he is right at least about reasoning of nerf and you just insulting him =)
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:38:00 - [1860] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 21:29:59 Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour? I've spent more time with hostiles on grid with my mission ship in high sec and low sec than in 0.0 Intel channels are fantastic for reducing actual risk of PVE in 0.0 to near 0. -Liang Ed: And apparently I must have spent 14 hours a day for 3 solid years belt ratting in 0.0 to pay for all my PVP ships. Also, Selpy... please stop with the tinfoil hattery about how this will increase revenue for CCP. Your grasp of real economics is obviously worse than your grasp of in game economics. Yeah, Liang, all 279 of your kills, the vast majority of which in lowsec, are really impressive. Especially the haulers. Also, I have yet to see you produce your degree in economics for how quick you are to ridicule someone else's economic views. I especially like how, yesterday, because I said nothing more harsh than "shut up" to you, you posted that I was "frothing at the mouth". I hate to burst the bubble of your self-importance but controverting you hardly ascends to the lofts of rabid discourse.

VIncent Vance Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:38:00 - [1861] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour? Indeed, lvl4 missions in hi-sec empire need to be severely nerfed, or at least moved out to losec.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:38:00 - [1862] Originally by: Illiet Edited by: Illiet on 30/03/2011 21:32:17 Originally by: Liang Nuren Your grasp of real economics is obviously worse than your grasp of in game economics. Except he is right at least about reasoning of nerf and you just insulting him =) Why are you responding to Liang? I mean, he's not even a real person. Just some sad creature that was beaten and molested and says stupid stuff in an attempt to make other people feel bad. In fact, I would bet he's a CCP troll alt trying to defend a royal **up with insults. The liquid crap exploding from both ends of that troll to these forums is just sad. No intelligence, just insults, jibes, mocking, and 100% utter bull**. Just like the anom proposal. The ONLY way these changes begin to make even a little bit of sense is if CCP's doing it for PLEX revenue.
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:40:00 - [1863] Originally by: Liang Nuren Ed: And apparently I must have spent 14 hours a day for 3 solid years belt ratting in 0.0 to pay for all my PVP ships. 14 hours a day ratting? No. 14 hours a day on the forum instead of actually playing. Quite possible.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:44:00 - [1864] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 21:48:56 Originally by: Xel Ra ... Meh, there's a couple thousand but I'm not going to tell you where they are. Also, I had to go hunt for the last time I had a hauler posted to any killboard. ;-) With regards to economics: at least have your model make some sense. That's always a good first step. ;-) -Liang Ed: Quote: 14 hours a day ratting? No. 14 hours a day on the forum instead of actually playing. Quite possible. Naw man, I forum *** at certain times of the day and play at others. I spend a fair amount of time waiting on builds/tests to run. Once I get home, the forums are quite dead anyway so it works out great for my play time. ;-) -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:45:00 - [1865] Originally by: Klam Originally by: Liang Nuren Ed: And apparently I must have spent 14 hours a day for 3 solid years belt ratting in 0.0 to pay for all my PVP ships. 14 hours a day ratting? No. 14 hours a day on the forum instead of actually playing. Quite possible. Has anyone actually posted more on this issue than Liang? For someone who has no idea what it's like to live in 0.0 he sure is desperate to have his own view validated and to boldy go against the tide, proving that only he, in his infallible wisdom, is worthy of being recognized as wise and shrewd to see through the smokescreen that is everyone else's opinion. Oh, noble Liang, we are fortunate to be in your holy presence, you empire hugging troll.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:46:00 - [1866] Originally by: Xel Ra Has anyone actually posted more on this issue than Liang? yep...whiny carebears.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:48:00 - [1867] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Xel Ra ... Meh, there's a couple thousand but I'm not going to tell you where they are. Also, I had to go hunt for the last time I had a hauler posted to any killboard. ;-) With regards to economics: at least have your model make some sense. That's always a good first step. ;-) -Liang Way to take the high road....and say nothing meritorious and contribute nothing to the discussion, but then that's nothing new, to judge from your posts. Oh, you put on quite the affectation of noble good grace when it suits you to avoid anything substantive, but what a poor charade. You need to work on the acting skills, amigo. I recommend not trying out corp infiltration just yet.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:48:00 - [1868] CCP in your topics, deleting your posts. F*ck you CCP.
NenYim	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:48:00 - [1869] CPP = STUPID... u r STUPID 2 think this is a good idea! here's a stupid question.. when a alliance gets space... what r they going 2 do 2 make a income....FAIL! u just took that option AWAY! your going 2 force ppl back 2 highsec..... IDOTS! FACEPALM!
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:49:00 - [1870] Originally by: Liang Nuren I've spent more time with hostiles on grid with my mission ship in high sec and low sec than in 0.0 Intel channels are fantastic for reducing actual risk of PVE in 0.0 to near 0. -Liang Sure the risk is low with good intel but you are not going to be generating isk if you actually use said intel to avoid fights. And that if you want good intel vs incedental intel that means somebody is out there not making isk.

mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:49:00 - [1871] Originally by: VIncent Vance Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Marconus Orion please give me attention i'll even use red letters for it The crux of the matter is that sanctums were BARELY better than level4s as it is. Making vast regions of 0.0 worse then Empire can't possibly do anything good for the game. Why should I make less isk/hour in 0.0 when i could do it in highsec with less risk? Why should a group of people share the bad anoms in 0.0 when a single level4 system can support infinity people making better isk/hour? Indeed, lvl4 missions in hi-sec empire need to be severely nerfed, or at least moved out to losec. I think the only result that would have would be making lots of people just flat out quit altogether. Plenty of the mission running carebears might not want to move out to lowsec/0.0. Right now the carrot and stick for the mission runner is balanced well enough to keep them playing to buy the next big thing, which is what gives value to much of the 0.0 loot drops, and FW LP store. Take away the bears and you're destabilizing the game badly enough it could destroy it. But I guess CCP's working hard on making the game implode anyway, so probably just as well.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:51:00 - [1872] Edited by: Jennifer Gemini on 30/03/2011 21:51:24 CCP -- sorry. You messed up on this one. Really, you did. This is going too far now, you're deleting replies that tell people to shove it up your ass? Have fun ****ing off even MORE customers. My advice: - Delete this thread - Delete the blog post - Pretend it never happened - ??? - Profit
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:52:00 - [1873] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat Originally by: Xel Ra Has anyone actually posted more on this issue than Liang? yep...whiny carebears. Hi Irrelevant, I notice you're not capable of much thought more than a brief phrase at a time. Sincerely, Youboreme
Hrdlodus Gallente Bohemian Veterans Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.30 21:56:00 - [1874] i am just realy excited about this incoming change! atm there is loads of ppl trying to rat to get some isk and we must share anoms to get something out of it. and 50% of time its dangerous to rat because there are cloaked reds/neuts in system (with friends around). after the change the number of ppl per system will double (i am optimist), cloaked reds/neuts will be more in one system. this will be just great you can just tell us to return to high sec instead of this you know... but i think something like this have already been writen down by someone. i just needed to spit it out too live long and prosper? ☺/
Oguras Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.03.30 22:10:00 - [1875] Originally by: Hrdlodus i am just realy excited about this incoming change! atm there is loads of ppl trying to rat to get some isk and we must share anoms to get something out of it. and 50% of time its dangerous to rat because there are cloaked reds/neuts in system (with friends around). after the change the number of ppl per system will double (i am optimist), cloaked reds/neuts will be more in one system. this will be just great you can just tell us to return to high sec instead of this you know... but i think something like this have already been writen down by someone. i just needed to spit it out too live long and prosper? ☺/ Weren't you living in pre-sanctum era in providence? Somewhat you have managed to get isk for your :pvp: (or did you not back then?)..
Hrdlodus Gallente Bohemian Veterans Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.30 22:17:00 - [1876] Originally by: Oguras Weren't you living in pre-sanctum era in providence? Somewhat you have managed to get isk for your :pvp: (or did you not back then?).. back then i was mining in hisec and didnt know anything about 0.0 space tbh i know i will get by somehow if i must, but i will be one of hundreds of pilots that need to get by somehow... and doing lower anoms than havens/sanctums wont solve the problem... and this realy isnt nerf against alliances or powerblocks. this is nerf against small corps/alliances and players... (small gang pvp, plexes, better ships, expensive skill books... there is loads of things what you need isk for...)
Akuma Gouki Amarr Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.30 22:22:00 - [1877] This is kinda just screwing over the average 0.0 pilot with no other real benefits. We had this system originally, and it just plain sucked that a lot of us were forced to get crap money and crap spawns because the alliance stayed in a particular area due to good moons. None of us saw any of that isk. Sure, the alliance might've had somewhat decent reimbursement programs, but even those were limited and so most pilots were unable to fly whatever they wanted on their own dime. Poor pilots = boring fleet compositions and less likelyhood of them actually participating in fleets instead of whoring up the belts. Also, what the heck was the point of introducing infrastructure hubs and whatnot if we're just gonna go right back to the old system? tldr: This is going to change nothing with alliance politics and just screw over individual pilots. -1 subscription
shistelshik	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:05:00 - [1878] Horrible idea CCP. Leave SOV alone!
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:07:00 - [1879] Originally by: Akuma Gouki Poor pilots = boring fleet compositions and less likelyhood of them actually participating in fleets instead of whoring up the belts. hahaha you guys drakes and t1 fit maelstroms. You don't need sanctums for that.
Wingshard Order of the Sable Shield	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:09:00 - [1880] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Wingshard Why should anyone claim this so called "worthless space" that ... has to be paid for on a constant basis has to be upgraded before its even partly useful as its now for several billions of isk (not even counting the freighter to transport the i-hub) Three things: - People want their name on the map - People think it helps recruitment - It doesn't have to be upgraded to be useful space. Originally by: Wingshard A bunch of stuff about upgrades See #3. -Liang 1.People want their name on the map? Indeed i bet some people use that to stroke their ego but random person putting a tcu up and paying for upkeep to "have a name on the map" wont make any use of the system or bring warfare besides other people being "meh" dropping some supers / dreads on it and over. 2. You kidding? Go in recruitment channel and see how much people lie about "we have 0.0 space". Not to mention that it would be more hurtful to a corporation to be like "yeah we are awesome here use our space" and you end up in one of the said total crap systems. 3. So a 5 belt -0.2 security status is useful without upgrades? Lets see. You can do ratting for FAR less income than doing lvl 4 missions and factionspawns in -0.2...lol. (sersiously who are you kidding?) You cant mine abc ore nor do you have decent supply of other higher class ore. You probably get some exploration sites every couple of days...if even. Infact if the ore is depleted (the good one thats not accessable in empire) and there are no explortion sites spawning such a system would need a lot of the income from ratting to sustain the upkeep cost. Which would mean you rent space to rat for the sake of renting space. This concept does NOT support upcomming alliances, does NOT allow them to fund the desired warfare and will also be no reason to have warfare about if not used as staging system. Personaly i think that a lot of what you, some other people and exspecialy Greyscale read into this idea is more wishful thinking than anything else that might would come close to realism. The way of how 0.0 was populated before the upgrade system shows it wont work and speaking of "if theres less of something valueable there will be more conflict about it" is also wrong as shown by highend moons. Its wishful thinking at its best.

Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:15:00 - [1881] And Liang is back, after a full 14 hours of rest he is back for another 10 hours of training. This guy really knows no limit when it comes to his "sport" of choice. As he eats his greasy bucket of chicken while frantically typing away, is there anyone that could challenge this recluse of a man at this highest level of sport. Some say he hasent seen sunlight in over a year, others say if you see his face you will die of shock, all we know is he is called Liang. Posted - 2011.03.30 07:44:00 Posted - 2011.03.30 21:27:00
antsrkool Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:18:00 - [1882] is this a april fools day join. this idea is total ******ed. cancel this plan.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:30:00 - [1883] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/03/2011 23:34:53 Originally by: Lord Zoran And Liang is back, after a full 14 hours of rest he is back for another 10 hours of training. This guy really knows no limit when it comes to his "sport" of choice. As he eats his greasy bucket of chicken while frantically typing away, is there anyone that could challenge this recluse of a man at this highest level of sport. Some say he hasent seen sunlight in over a year, others say if you see his face you will die of shock, all we know is he is called Liang. Posted - 2011.03.30 07:44:00 Posted - 2011.03.30 21:27:00 lolz. I'm bookmarking this poast. -Liang Ed: OH SNAP I remember you! You're the guy that thinks all games should be easy and hates sports! LOLZ!! -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Sekhmet Orion Mad-Warping-Maniacs	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:31:00 - [1884] With all these people threatening to rage quit this could be the lag fix patch we have been waiting for Sadly they wont quit, it's just the usual angry carebears stomping their feet when you dare to touch their precious isk farms
Hesperius	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:45:00 - [1885] Edited by: Hesperius on 30/03/2011 23:45:37 Originally by: Lord Zoran And Liang is back, after a full 14 hours of rest he is back for another 10 hours of training. This guy really knows no limit when it comes to his "sport" of choice. As he eats his greasy bucket of chicken while frantically typing away, is there anyone that could challenge this recluse of a man at this highest level of sport. Some say he hasent seen sunlight in over a year, others say if you see his face you will die of shock, all we know is he is called Liang. The guy who started #fitfleet? The one who promotes health and fitness all the time? Looking good man.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.30 23:56:00 - [1886] Originally by: Hesperius Edited by: Hesperius on 30/03/2011 23:45:37 Originally by: Lord Zoran And Liang is back, after a full 14 hours of rest he is back for another 10 hours of training. This guy really knows no limit when it comes to his "sport" of choice. As he eats his greasy bucket of chicken while frantically typing away, is there anyone that could challenge this recluse of a man at this highest level of sport. Some say he hasent seen sunlight in over a year, others say if you see his face you will die of shock, all we know is he is called Liang. The guy who started #fitfleet? The one who promotes health and fitness all the time? Looking good man. Oprah Winfrey and Dr Phil promote fitness all the time too, but their asses are as fat as ever. Just because some jackass spews crap, and just because people are stupid enough to occasionally take it seriously, doesn't confer expert status.
RimasEG	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:05:00 - [1887] So... CCP is moving some of the the few reasons to live in null sec over to higher sec systems. Great idea, nice way to kill pvp in nullsec. The funny thing is that CCP thinks this will make nullsec alliances PVP more for more space when in fact this change will make nullsec space less valuable hence lesser reason to PVP in nullsec or own nullsec space. How can you PVP more when you have less ISK? IF you have less ISK you will PVP LESS. Casual nullsec players are done for. Only people that can devote a decent amoutn of time will get to pvp in nullsec.
Erick Odin Amarr Local-Spike	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:14:00 - [1888] How do you guys expect CCP to make money with time codes if there are all these sanctum isk faucets?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:15:00 - [1889] Whats up with all the spergs jumping at Liangs throat in here, he's one of the few posters on these forums that have a really profound understanding of this game as well as years of actually constructive posting history. Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately, his opinion holds far more weight than all the random whining in here combined.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:18:00 - [1890] Originally by: Omara Otawan Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately Hrm. You should evemail me with some examples - I thought I was getting happier as a whole... -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:22:00 - [1891] Originally by: Omara Otawan Whats up with all the spergs jumping at Liangs throat in here, he's one of the few posters on these forums that have a really profound understanding of this game as well as years of actually constructive posting history. Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately, his opinion holds far more weight than all the random whining in here combined. People on these forums arent judged by their personal qualities or feats, they're judged solely by their opinion on the current thread. If you are against the change you are automatically an NC whiner, and if you are for the changes you are a good true-sec dwelling troll. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:23:00 - [1892] Originally by: Omara Otawan Whats up with all the spergs jumping at Liangs throat in here, he's one of the few posters on these forums that have a really profound understanding of this game as well as years of actually constructive posting history. Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately, his opinion holds far more weight than all the random whining in here combined. Probably has something to do with the fact that everything he posts comes off as smug, elitist, dismissive, holier-than-thou, mocking, and a consistent habit of CCP brown nosing. Just a shot in the dark.
Welsige Gallente Guardian Manufacturing Incorp. Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:25:00 - [1893] All I will say is that i do not like that change, and hope CCP will see it before damaging the game.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:27:00 - [1894] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Omara Otawan Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately Hrm. You should evemail me with some examples - I thought I was getting happier as a whole... -Liang I used to take your posts somewhat seriously, and it surprises me what an asshat ****head you've been in this thread. Every post you've made is a personal attack on someone. Go away. EVE no longer wants you.
Ascendic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:33:00 - [1895] OHAI GUYZZZZZZ! I too have a model that I made just like CCP Greyscale! It shows that the less money I make, the more they I to beat the sh!t out of my neighbour and steal his house because it is nicer! DEEEEEEEEEEEERPP
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:41:00 - [1896] This is a thread that just keeps giving.
Oguras Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.03.31 00:59:00 - [1897] Originally by: Ascendic Edited by: Ascendic on 31/03/2011 00:37:08 DEEEEEEEEEEEERPP. Quality!
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:00:00 - [1898] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab This is a thread that just keeps giving. The butthurt over losing Catch that keeps giving.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:15:00 - [1899] Originally by: Omara Otawan Whats up with all the spergs jumping at Liangs throat in here, he's one of the few posters on these forums that have a really profound understanding of this game as well as years of actually constructive posting history. Although he's admittedly grown somewhat bitter lately, his opinion holds far more weight than all the random whining in here combined. All I heard was blah blah blah he's a dirty troll. Mostly. As far as constructive posting goes, I've been waiting for years for him to say something useful. He posts frequently enough I thought it would have happened by now.
End User	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:17:00 - [1900] well I'm done evacuating. at least I have standings with decent high sec agents.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:32:00 - [1901] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab This is a thread that just keeps giving. The butthurt over losing Catch that keeps giving. Bitter? I'm so loaded running sanctums feels like a waste of time. Bored and wanting to see space burn for the giggles more like it.
Omtaga	Posted - 2011.03.31 01:51:00 - [1902] Is this change crucial to keep the economy in check? I feel like this is a rewind to how eve was before Dominion, I got along fine and will continue, but it seems like my fellow pilots really like the state of the game in this respect. Instead of subtracting carrots, can we maybe add a new one in the already more valuable systems? I assume Greyscale has backing for this change by a LARGE volume of CCP employee's. If a radical change is not necessary, why threaten your player base, income, and customer satisfaction over something that will return us to less people in 0.0?
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:10:00 - [1903] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab This is a thread that just keeps giving. The butthurt over losing Catch that keeps giving. Bitter? I'm so loaded running sanctums feels like a waste of time. Bored and wanting to see space burn for the giggles more like it. I know what you mean, I had a great vantage point to watch Catch and Tenerefis burn while you guys bailed out with your tails between your legs.
Fierce Hunter	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:23:00 - [1904] Dear CCP, I haven't been in 0.0 long but I'm really enjoying it. Building assets, taking part in the NC/DRF conflict, and just having a good time in general. If this change sticks, I will lose 95% of my revenue stream. Losing my ability to make ISK = gonna have a bad time. Most of the other players I know depend on this same source of income to support their 0.0 fun. Any nerf should be done only when it produces a net benefit for the entire player base. I just can't see how this nerf is for the greater good. I would be interested to know what the CSM has to say. Oh, and Greyscale, would you be "excited" if you were fired from CCP with only two weeks notice?
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:31:00 - [1905] Originally by: Fierce Hunter Dear CCP, I haven't been in 0.0 long but I'm really enjoying it. Building assets, taking part in the NC/DRF conflict, and just having a good time in general. If this change sticks, I will lose 95% of my revenue stream. Losing my ability to make ISK = gonna have a bad time. Most of the other players I know depend on this same source of income to support their 0.0 fun. Any nerf should be done only when it produces a net benefit for the entire player base. I just can't see how this nerf is for the greater good. I would be interested to know what the CSM has to say. Oh, and Greyscale, would you be "excited" if you were fired from CCP with only two weeks notice? Look at your current 0.0 system. Run your scanner, and look at all the sites. Now back to me. All of the ones that are on your scanner that aren't named "Haven" or "Sanctum" will still be there. Look again; those sites that are still there are now your diamonds. The top end sites are the only ones that won't be there anymore. CCP isn't removing those sites completely with this change.
UniqueOne Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:49:00 - [1906] A few points: 1. The problem with this change is not that sanctums are being removed, it is that they are being removed from only the ones that need them most. 2. This is nothing like pre dominion - where they spawned randomly - anywhere. If you are going to remove some, then just remove all anoms from everyone. At least that would be balanced. How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
johnny sackomoney	Posted - 2011.03.31 02:50:00 - [1907] To the tune of "ole mcdonald had a farm" ready GO ccp had a game ei ei o .... and then they fracked it all up ei ei o ..with a nerf nerf here a nerf there a nerf everywhere a nerf nerf .. oh my fracking GOD >>>> seriously ccp stay away from the nerfbat juice its not good for any of us
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:00:00 - [1908] Look at your current 0.0 system. Run your scanner, and look at all the sites. Now back to me. All of the ones that are on your scanner that aren't named "Haven" or "Sanctum" will still be there. Look again; those sites that are still there are now your diamonds. The top end sites are the only ones that won't be there anymore. CCP isn't removing those sites completely with this change. Diamonds? You obviously are unable to do math friend. Let me break it down for you. My corporation has spent billions upgrading our current home system. Not including the hours of toil and raw grinding to get it to military 5. For what? The ability to make 40 mill or so an hour grinding sanctums or havens. The rest of the anomalies are, quite simply, **e. Have you never run them? They are e. Take my word for it. **e diamonds possibly I suppose? WHat do we receive in recompense for lost isk and effort as a result of this nerf? A hearty good luck? Botters of course don't care if Sanctums and Havens are nerfed.
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:01:00 - [1909] Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 31/03/2011 03:04:59 Moons are the FCKING TARGETS, not truesec, wtf is CCP thinking, you basically just made swaths of space UNUSEABLE! No it won't let new small alliances in ... why????? because the old groups will still hold the areas and crush any people who try to get soverignty its just now less of those systems will be upgraded.... Having the ability to upgrade any system to +% was what made nullsec useable for gods fcking sake..... your basically handing the power blocks the good systems, and all of the smaller entities will have to return to f*cking hisec to earn any ISK.... really -0.3 to -0.4 for break even, ah so areas like providence go back to being complete ghost towns of uselessness? WTF are you guys thinking! THIS IS NOT WHAT NULLSEC WANTED OR NEEDED DO NOT NERF NULLSEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anomolies = income for CHARACTERS, not ALLIANCES, alliances cud give a crap about anomolies, if you want to push for more conflict, ADD TO THE GAME REASONS TO FIGHT, dont take away one of the only damn good reasons for nullsec.... you want to do the anomolies way, don't completely gimp the low end systems, atleast leave them useable, maybe no sanctums but 3 havens in lowend, 4 and 1 in level 2 3 and 2 in next, 4 and 2 then 3 and 3 and 4 and 3 in the last level.... GIVE US MORE DONT SCREW OVER 80% of nullsec! Why the hell claim nullsec space if the anomolies are gimped? Who wants areas of nullsec with low trusec if you can't get good officer spawns reliably, you can't get anomolies worth crap, and there freely red roamed which makes mining useless (Especially as AFK cloakies stand)
Kaarrd	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:02:00 - [1910] Originally by: Evelgrivion Look at your current 0.0 system. Run your scanner, and look at all the sites. Now back to me. All of the ones that are on your scanner that aren't named "Haven" or "Sanctum" will still be there. Look again; those sites that are still there are now your diamonds. The top end sites are the only ones that won't be there anymore. CCP isn't removing those sites completely with this change. Too bad anomalies below Havens don't net f*ck all for ISK/hr.

Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:07:00 - [1911] Originally by: Kaarrd Originally by: Evelgrivion Look at your current 0.0 system. Run your scanner, and look at all the sites. Now back to me. All of the ones that are on your scanner that aren't named "Haven" or "Sanctum" will still be there. Look again; those sites that are still there are now your diamonds. The top end sites are the only ones that won't be there anymore. CCP isn't removing those sites completely with this change. Too bad anomalies below Havens don't net f*ck all for ISK/hr. Deal with it.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:07:00 - [1912] Originally by: Kaarrd Originally by: Evelgrivion Look at your current 0.0 system. Run your scanner, and look at all the sites. Now back to me. All of the ones that are on your scanner that aren't named "Haven" or "Sanctum" will still be there. Look again; those sites that are still there are now your diamonds. The top end sites are the only ones that won't be there anymore. CCP isn't removing those sites completely with this change. Too bad anomalies below Havens don't net f*ck all for ISK/hr. Wow does this guy realize you could clear all those "lower sites" in 2 hours and still make less than a level 4 mission done in 10 minutes! WTF talk about not understanding nullsec.... Theres a reason even the devblog called all these other sites "filler" because there USELESS no one wants them, WTF would i ever upgrade a -.1 - .2 site or hell eve -.2 to -.3 .... as without havens and sanctums, the anomoly upgrades are and i say this with 100% certainty USELESS
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:12:00 - [1913] Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:12:33 I support the changes. Life existed before sanctums. In fact sanctums are still a problem after the changes. Remove local please.
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:23:00 - [1914] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:20:31 Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:17:10 I support the changes. Life existed before sanctums and no one is forcing people to upgrade their systems for anomalies. Life will still be too easy after the fact. Only the really really careless have and will continue to get caught doing them. It is easier to kill people in high sec. Does that sound right? If there truly are less people in 0.0 after this then it's obvious they were not cut out for 0.0. They had a special grace period in 0.0 that let them pay taxes to their overlords during that time. If their overlords were lucky maybe they got them to come to a few CTAs in Drakes when they could be bothered to stop running sanctums or wait till a roaming gang leaves their space while in POS shields or station. Next remove local, please. Sure, remove local. While we are at it, make it impossible to afk cloak. And make it possible to view all of a player's alts. Then we can clearly see and easily find the pirate corporations' indy alts botting away in highsec, and wardec them, and kill their hulks. Good times.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:29:00 - [1915] Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:31:57 Quote: My corporation has spent billions upgrading our current home system. Not including the hours of toil and raw grinding to get it to military 5. For what? The ability to make 40 mill or so an hour grinding sanctums or havens. WHat do we receive in recompense for lost isk and effort as a result of this nerf? A hearty good luck? And your have reaped billions more profit during the time of these upgrades. The isk faucet has been on for a long time. It doesn't take long at all to get military to 5 especially when the people know that the end result is sanctum and haven heaven. So the recompense is you had a leg up on people who didn't have access to those sanctums. Or just about anyone who wanted to go to null sec had them too so you were all on a level playing field. Therefor no recompense is needed. I would trade no local for no afk cloak any day. Not like people cloaked can activate a gun and threaten a ship or any module for that matter.
Zelman Axe	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:31:00 - [1916] CCP why dont you get rid of 0.0 altogether its one huge napfest in the north and south and with the proposed changes 0.0 space to much like hard work. No more wars no conflicts just happy carebear land
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:32:00 - [1917] only version of this i see ever being accepted is to make -0.1 to -0.2 have 1 haven and 1 sanctum, and go up from there, that way atleast small corps can still grind and grow up and fund themselves in low end systems till there big enough to move on.... and hell let the -1 system have 6 and 6 sanctums.... that way they can support the larger alliances demands... but do NOT nerf 80% of f*cking nullsec because your trying to guess at ways to trigger wars.... how does that help break up NC like coallitions... they'lll just move there PVE alts to there lowest truesec systems... oh wait they already do that because of increased officer/faction spawns! so they wont change anything, they'll still hold swaths of space and smack down enemys that try to take anyt of it
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:34:00 - [1918] Originally by: Tania Russ Sure, remove local. While we are at it, make it impossible to afk cloak. You do realize these two things are mutually exclusive, right?
Nonamanadus	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:34:00 - [1919] CCP Greyscale you SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUMB IDEA, YOU WANT MORE WARS GET RID OF THE DAMN LAGG.
Kaarrd	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:35:00 - [1920] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Kaarrd Too bad anomalies below Havens don't net f*ck all for ISK/hr. Deal with it. The thing is, I don't have to deal with it. I can voice my concern when CCP announces a nerf that will negatively impact my experience in such a significant way.

Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:37:00 - [1921] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:31:57 Quote: My corporation has spent billions upgrading our current home system. Not including the hours of toil and raw grinding to get it to military 5. For what? The ability to make 40 mill or so an hour grinding sanctums or havens. WHat do we receive in recompense for lost isk and effort as a result of this nerf? A hearty good luck? And your have reaped billions more profit during the time of these upgrades. The isk faucet has been on for a long time. It doesn't take long at all to get military to 5 especially when the people know that the end result is sanctum and haven heaven. So the recompense is you had a leg up on people who didn't have access to those sanctums. Or just about anyone who wanted to go to null sec had them too so you were all on a level playing field. Therefor no recompense is needed. I would trade no local for no afk cloak any day. Not like people cloaked can activate a gun and threaten a ship or any module for that matter. While I applaud your certainly well intentioned efforts at elocution, I must point out that your logic is sadly flawed. Good try though son. If it weren't for the new and wonderful opportunities in null offered by Dominion, we wouldn't have bothered with the hassle, the billions of isk invested, the days of griefers like you sitting afk cloaked and removing any opportunity at isk generation, the ship losses, the asshats, the diplomatic and political shyte, and so on so forth in the first place. So yes, we deserve an explanation and recompense for lost work and isk based on false pretenses.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:37:00 - [1922] Originally by: Tania Russ And make it possible to view all of a player's alts. Then we can clearly see and easily find the pirate corporations' indy alts botting away in highsec, and wardec them, and kill their hulks. Good times. But then you would have to post with your main or at least be responsible for your words and actions because clearly you speak of your corporation investing in upgrades. Last I checked Pator Tech School hasn't upgraded any null sec systems.
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:48:00 - [1923] Originally by: Kovid Originally by: Tania Russ And make it possible to view all of a player's alts. Then we can clearly see and easily find the pirate corporations' indy alts botting away in highsec, and wardec them, and kill their hulks. Good times. But then you would have to post with your main or at least be responsible for your words and actions because clearly you speak of your corporation investing in upgrades. Last I checked Pator Tech School hasn't upgraded any null sec systems. We don't cheat. We actually (gasp!) mine. And we manually run these sanctums and havens for isk to support PvP. On the other hand, 5 years experience with this game has taught me that very likely your PvP alliance DOES cheat. You don't manualy mine. You use VMs and software. Or you run belts with VMs and software. And your massive capfleets and laughed at momship losses bear that up - plenty more isk from the robots tomorrow. Which is what makes folks like you such hypocrites for applauding these changes. I use thw words "you" and "your" generally to describe the big alliances out there who seem to have 23/7 to run around griefing and always have lots of PvP ships magically provided for them to do so. Elitist *******s, cheating to grief. Maybe Rapture doesn't do this. I know most do.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:51:00 - [1924] Originally by: Kovid Life existed before sanctums and no one is forcing people to upgrade their systems for anomalies. That's true - it's all about "choices having consequences". However people already have upgraded the systems (both the ihub+upgrades and working to improve the military index) based on the choice they were given by the game. They are now being forced to have the results of that choice taken away from them. Not by a hostile action that they chose to not defend against, not by dropping sov by choosing to not have enough ISK allocated to the right wallet, but by the choice of a developer to change the rules after their decision was made. That's my biggest issue with this (followed closely by not seeing a good causal link backed up with real data between the stated changes and the expected consequences), that EVE prides itself on the "choices have consequences" aspect. Problem is that if you make your choices, invest your ISK, time, and effort into that choice, and then have a dev take away any benefit that you would have reasonably expected, then the game play becomes arbitrary - make a choice and hope the consequences aren't changed by some out-of-game influence at random.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 03:58:00 - [1925] Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:58:25 Originally by: Tania Russ Originally by: Kovid Originally by: Tania Russ And make it possible to view all of a player's alts. Then we can clearly see and easily find the pirate corporations' indy alts botting away in highsec, and wardec them, and kill their hulks. Good times. But then you would have to post with your main or at least be responsible for your words and actions because clearly you speak of your corporation investing in upgrades. Last I checked Pator Tech School hasn't upgraded any null sec systems. We don't cheat. We actually (gasp!) mine. And we manually run these sanctums and havens for isk to support PvP. On the other hand, 5 years experience with this game has taught me that very likely your PvP alliance DOES cheat. You don't manualy mine. You use VMs and software. Or you run belts with VMs and software. And your massive capfleets and laughed at momship losses bear that up - plenty more isk from the robots tomorrow. Which is what makes folks like you such hypocrites for applauding these changes. I use thw words "you" and "your" generally to describe the big alliances out there who seem to have 23/7 to run around griefing and always have lots of PvP ships magically provided for them to do so. Elitist *******s, cheating to grief. Maybe Rapture doesn't do this. I know most do. Your 3+ years in Pator Tech School has taught you to lump all big alliances as pvpers who run around griefing 23/7. I am guessing CCP pays more attention to more sensible arguments and not some people posting as silly multiple alts with wild accusations.
Nikita Keriget	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:03:00 - [1926] How about CCP makes PvP more affordable by seeding stations with ships and modules for 100 isk each? How long should it take to replace a T2 fit HAC?
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:12:00 - [1927] Originally by: Imigo Montoya Originally by: Kovid Life existed before sanctums and no one is forcing people to upgrade their systems for anomalies. That's true - it's all about "choices having consequences". However people already have upgraded the systems (both the ihub+upgrades and working to improve the military index) based on the choice they were given by the game. They are now being forced to have the results of that choice taken away from them. Not by a hostile action that they chose to not defend against, not by dropping sov by choosing to not have enough ISK allocated to the right wallet, but by the choice of a developer to change the rules after their decision was made. That's my biggest issue with this (followed closely by not seeing a good causal link backed up with real data between the stated changes and the expected consequences), that EVE prides itself on the "choices have consequences" aspect. Problem is that if you make your choices, invest your ISK, time, and effort into that choice, and then have a dev take away any benefit that you would have reasonably expected, then the game play becomes arbitrary - make a choice and hope the consequences aren't changed by some out-of-game influence at random. The game changes and people adapt to new trends, play styles and even balances that CCP brings about. People adapted after the nano change and may have even picked their character and skills just to follow that. These changes are not random. They have posted the upcoming changes. It's not like Greyscale got drunk one night and flipped a switch. "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. " -Grayscale They have previously said it multiple times. But some people Imigo seem to think that the more they complain and louder they do so that wt will stand out more and make CCP change their mind. Remember the days of Falcons at 150+ km? I honestly believe people have sunk too much effort in this thread into making it seem like 0.0 without sanctum equals unlivable or any change is unconcionable since it was put in for a time. As if CCP can not make changes. And people already got hand over fist isk. Greyscale addressed your concerns about low value space already in his last post.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:28:00 - [1928] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 03:20:51 I support the changes. Life existed before sanctums and no one is forcing people to upgrade their systems for anomalies. Life will still be too easy after the fact. Only the really really careless have and will continue to get caught doing them. It is easier to kill people in high sec. Does that sound right? If there truly are less people in 0.0 after this then it's obvious they were not cut out for 0.0. They had a special grace period in 0.0 that let them pay taxes to their overlords during that time. If their overlords were lucky maybe they got them to come to a few CTAs in Drakes when they could be bothered to stop running sanctums or wait till a roaming gang leaves their space while in POS shields or station. Next remove local, please. Life existed quite well in my opinion before sanctums but after having them and relying on them for personal income, the status quo has changed. As has been pointed out the small alliances who need the income as a mainstay for their pilots wont have them yet the power blocks who have other resources will still have sanctums and havens as a financial resource for their pilots. This will dissolve many smaller alliances as they rely on their pilots individual stability to field ships for combat. As has also been pointed out the space will probably not remain empty. Either the large alliances will spread out to fill these systems or they will become revolving doors as new alliances take the territory only to find these systems do not provide enough resources to fund the security necessary to hold them and are forced out and the cycle repeats. Either way these systems will continue to be buffer zones for the major power houses which will remain mostly unaffected.
ADDRIA XIUHCOATL Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:36:00 - [1929] ok SERIOUSLY CCP, now your just looking for ways to screw the game up for ppl. WHAT IN THE HECK MAKES YOU THINK HAVENS AND SANCTUMS MATTER?!?!?!?!?!?!? They are there for corps and individuals to make isk to function in the game. You say they matter to an alliance as a whole, HELL NO THEY DONT!!! Moons matter! Strategic locations MATTER! Sec status matter TO A POINT as the members of the alliance can be more profitable in those systems!!! UPGRADES OF HAVENS AND SANCTUMS DONT MEAN CRAP ON HOW ALLIANCES ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT AND WHAT GOALS THEY HAVE!!! Your worried that not enough big battles are going on in 0.0 space, thats because many major alliances/ coalitions have been fighting for the last yr straight, borders have stabilized for the most part now because the larger alliances/coalitions that lost their space are rebuilding, the ones that WON are taking a break from all the fighting. NATURAL CYCLE OF THINGS, larger alliance will rebuild, stabilize their current space and then try to reclaim, SO THE FIGHTING WILL START ALL OVER AGAIN. All your doing with this COMPLETELY IGNORANT ASS IDEA is chasing most ppl out of 0.0 space because their isnt enough to support their living there anymore. DAMN IT CCP THINK A LITTLE BEFORE SCREWING THE GAME UP, the goal overall is to INCREASE PLAYERS, and eve has been stagnent, maybe loosing players overall BECAUSE YOU KEEP NERFING THE GAME SO ONLY THE MOST POWERFUL AND WEALTHY PLAYERS IN GAME CAN ENJOY IT, all the new people are too intimidated to even try anymore. Id just love for ccp to think of the players and not just whats best for the major powers in game that all of ccp have alts in.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 04:38:00 - [1930] Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48 For small alliance who can not adapt... Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place. I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc.. Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right?

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.31 05:19:00 - [1931] Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 31/03/2011 05:19:46 Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Bitter? I'm so loaded running sanctums feels like a waste of time. Bored and wanting to see space burn for the giggles more like it. I know what you mean, I had a great vantage point to watch Catch and Tenerefis burn while you guys bailed out with your tails between your legs. Yeah. I relished every moment of it, from the start when your alliance lost dozens of baby-supers and the tears until the very end when **** finally was gotten in order. (And unlike you I'm not talking in an ironic sense, I actually _DO_ like the chaos and destruction even when I am in the middle of it)
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.03.31 05:43:00 - [1932] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 31/03/2011 05:19:46 Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Bitter? I'm so loaded running sanctums feels like a waste of time. Bored and wanting to see space burn for the giggles more like it. I know what you mean, I had a great vantage point to watch Catch and Tenerefis burn while you guys bailed out with your tails between your legs. Yeah. I relished every moment of it, from the start when your alliance lost dozens of baby-supers and the tears until the very end when **** finally was gotten in order. (And unlike you I'm not talking in an ironic sense, I actually _DO_ like the chaos and destruction even when I am in the middle of it) Wow, Rakshasa, you're so evolved. What real life acumen you bring to the game. Your a regular footsoldier of Mars, and the earth quakes in the wake of your pixels. I'm glad you've found some "chaos and destruction" to be inspired about and feel powerful. It's just a little bit funny, though, that it's in front of a computer screen. Still, nice melodrama. I give it two thumbs up.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.31 05:46:00 - [1933] Originally by: Xel Ra Wow, Rakshasa, you're so evolved. What real life acumen you bring to the game. Your a regular footsoldier of Mars, and the earth quakes in the wake of your pixels. I'm glad you've found some "chaos and destruction" to be inspired about and feel powerful. It's just a little bit funny, though, that it's in front of a computer screen. Still, nice melodrama. I give it two thumbs up. Better than crying over pixels.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.31 05:46:00 - [1934] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 31/03/2011 05:47:49 Why are people complaining to each other about these changes? After the first five days i was upset but now i've cooled down, and so should everybody else. Although we'd definatly want a 300 page threadnought to show how the overwhelmingly majority of the community is against this change, i can't see a reason as to why there are people going back and forth. Ten people things one way, and another person things it another way. Neither side should be judging the others based on their opinions, so just chill out. Both sides. ____________ I like woman because breasts
F'C	Posted - 2011.03.31 06:00:00 - [1935] There is a significant playerbase, even in 0.0, that doesn't follow dev blogs or the forums. April 5th will be an interesting day for them. "Hey, you know all this **** you spent billions of isk upgrading and used freighters to haul into 0.0? Yeah... that's all worthless now. Have a nice day!"
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.31 06:05:00 - [1936] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48 For small alliance who can not adapt... Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place. I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc.. Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right? The problem is that those small alliances(without significant moon goo would have to pay Dominion sov costs with pre Dominion income. Before the sov changes, the costs of holding sov in a region nobody wanted was ridiculously small (you could get away with as little as 1 POS per system). Now it's a completely different matter.
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.31 06:06:00 - [1937] It's sad the CCP isn't willing to engage, either in this thread or with the CSM, to determine if the assumptions in their model are correct. I'm guessing they are just chocking this thread up to complaints from player effected, and aren't noticing that most people are agreeing with the fundamental logic of the change, just challenging the way it is being done. The incorrect assumptions seem to be 1) that anoms besides havens and sanctums are worth anything (they are frigate filled, actually more dangerous in nullsec because of scramming frigates, and take just as long as havens)--given the risks of nullsec, a haven-only system would barely equal level 4 mission running in highsec 2) that players who invested time and isk in upgrading systems (and even dropping outposts in the middle of bad truesec space) will still believe anything is worth doing in Eve after the way this was done 3) that this is just a rollback of part of Dominion, rather than a fundamental new dynamic for nullsec with its own set of unintended consequences 4) that isk faucets and drains can be analyzed independently of the dynamics of large alliances and the hodge-podge truesec geography 5) that this can be implemented and its effects evaluated in any reasonable amount of time--players won't make decisions quickly because they now no longer trust that CCP won't reverse course again, or do some other wacky nullsec changes. So you won't see a mass exodus of players from nullsec or Eve...it will be a slow trickle until suddenly it is too late, and by the time CCP realizes what they have done, it will be too late...
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.31 06:22:00 - [1938] Originally by: Kovid "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. " -Grayscale They have previously said it multiple times. But some people Imigo seem to think that the more they complain and louder they do so that wt will stand out more and make CCP change their mind. Remember the days of Falcons at 150+ km? Indeed - I'm all for making changes to improve the game. What I'm against is: BS reasons. I like the expected consequences, but I struggle to see how the proposed changes will have that effect Double Standards. Does this "long-term big picture" include the removal of T2 BPOs, particularly those that were illegally spawned? What about the apparent lack of action against macro use - what is being done there? There are plenty of things that have a much bigger effect (and being similarly small fixes as changing anom spawns) on the long-term big picture that seem to be being left alone in spite of a lot of players wanting something done about them. Poor PR. CCP: "We really value your feedback", Players: "We really don't want this change, nor do we believe that it will have the effect you expect.", CCP: "Thanks for your feedback, we're ignoring it". Not a good look for a company that promotes how engaged it is with its player community It could very well be that the ihub upgrades that spawn complexes might be fixed to work as they were supposed to as part of this change. In that case then it's not so bad. However, that's not mentioned in detail, all we get is what's here regarding "More Pirates, Shiny Treasures". Again, this could be a simple matter of poor PR and a lack of communication. Here's hoping.
Scapogo Amarr Quondam Souls of the Universe corporation R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:08:00 - [1939] Edited by: Scapogo on 31/03/2011 07:08:27 It will be nice if so awesome CCP listen to players. Do you remember this? http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1216357&page=2#60
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:09:00 - [1940] Edited by: Mara Rinn on 31/03/2011 07:13:06 Originally by: Selpy People seem to be getting what I meant in my post yesterday about this being a money grab. You have to step back and look at the whole picture, not just how PLEX is applied in 1 part. CCP have really stacked it in their favor, and it's going to get much worse. This nerf is about getting people to buy more PLEX for money, nothing more. You haven't been listening to CCP's economist. There are too many ISK faucets, not enough ISK sinks. Closing off some of the bigger faucets is not a move to push people into RMT, it is an attempt to reduce the flow of some ISK faucets. For those of you lacking creativity, consider reading the Making ISK guide for some ideas on raising funds to support your PvP. You could also consider flying cheaper ships. The forms of ISK-making that are least likely to get nerfed are the ones that increase the monetary velocity of the system (i.e.: those mechanisms that involve you gaining some stuff that you trade for someone else's ISK). It may also be worth your time enumerating to CCP (via the CSM) the reasons why null sec industry is too hard. You shouldn't need to be shipping all your resources down from hisec. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]

Real Mayers Caldari Varnos seserys	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:27:00 - [1941] Originally by: Mara Rinn Edited by: Mara Rinn on 31/03/2011 07:13:06 You haven't been listening to CCP's economist. There are too many ISK faucets, not enough ISK sinks. Closing off some of the bigger faucets is not a move to push people into RMT, it is an attempt to reduce the flow of some ISK faucets. Kill bots -> BIGGEST ISK faucet killed, no need for upgrade nerf -> everybody wins(except bots) Does it looks so simple only for me?
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:32:00 - [1942] Originally by: Scapogo Edited by: Scapogo on 31/03/2011 07:08:27 It will be nice if so awesome CCP listen to players. Do you remember this? http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1216357&page=2#60 Interesting that you would link the post where CCP Soundwave said: Quote: In terms of rewards, it shouldn't pump an amount of money into the system that is bad for EVEs economy compared to other moneymaking activities. The anomaly content is accessible by selecting this over another similar activity. So what happened? People chose the most profitable upgrade for their play style, which is the one capable of injecting unlimited ISK into the economy. Who wants more DEDs or wormholes when they can have Havens on tap instead? What if CCP made entrapment arrays a strategic upgrade, so nullsec systems could have sanctums on tap or have cyno hammers, but not both? -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:37:00 - [1943] Originally by: Ella Scorpio It's sad the CCP isn't willing to engage, either in this thread or with the CSM, to determine if the assumptions in their model are correct. I'm guessing they are just chocking this thread up to complaints from player effected, and aren't noticing that most people are agreeing with the fundamental logic of the change, just challenging the way it is being done. The incorrect assumptions seem to be 1) that anoms besides havens and sanctums are worth anything (they are frigate filled, actually more dangerous in nullsec because of scramming frigates, and take just as long as havens)--given the risks of nullsec, a haven-only system would barely equal level 4 mission running in highsec 2) that players who invested time and isk in upgrading systems (and even dropping outposts in the middle of bad truesec space) will still believe anything is worth doing in Eve after the way this was done 3) that this is just a rollback of part of Dominion, rather than a fundamental new dynamic for nullsec with its own set of unintended consequences 4) that isk faucets and drains can be analyzed independently of the dynamics of large alliances and the hodge-podge truesec geography 5) that this can be implemented and its effects evaluated in any reasonable amount of time--players won't make decisions quickly because they now no longer trust that CCP won't reverse course again, or do some other wacky nullsec changes. So you won't see a mass exodus of players from nullsec or Eve...it will be a slow trickle until suddenly it is too late, and by the time CCP realizes what they have done, it will be too late... 1) Running a mission in high sec is possibly safer than a sanctum or anomaly of anyone paying attention. Anoms and the risk of null sec are one of those things people like to throw out just becuase there are some really really clueless people out there. 2) Anything besides an outpost is a wash. The upgrades for anoms are static installs and 180 mil a month for sov is something they would want anyways and get tons of other stuff including belts and already random plexes etc... You don't need an outpost for anoms or anything. And you can support the space just as well without them. Putting up an outpost directly relating to the ability of your members to make isk solely of sanctums sounds silly. It's not strategic, or anything else? If it's a place to dock for sanctums that sounds like the silliest luxury item ever. 3) They are reducing sanctums and havens in lots of space, increasing it in some, increase the types of plexes out there and might actually increase plex spawns overall. New loots with the plexes. We'll have to wait and see how that works. Everything will have unintended consequences. Not like people can predict everything. 4) Why can't we talk about isk faucets in terms of true sec? Doesn't true sec also factor in mission payout, and plexes in general? Sounds like it should have been that way before. 5) Your idea of reasonable is always going to be different from some one else. People trusting CCP is another issue. If you really think this is going to cause a slow trickle to killing eve ... really? But then look at me I got trapped into arguing from someone in the Science in Trade Institute for 2 months. Your not even willing to put your main behind what you say like so many others.
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:50:00 - [1944] Originally by: Mara Rinn So what happened? People chose the most profitable upgrade for their play style, which is the one capable of injecting unlimited ISK into the economy. Who wants more DEDs or wormholes when they can have Havens on tap instead? Personally I'd much rather actually get a nice Pith Penal Colony or Maze than any anomoly, but that upgrade was bugged and didn't work properly. Havens and Sanctums are good because they're actually there. Originally by: Mara Rinn What if CCP made entrapment arrays a strategic upgrade, so nullsec systems could have sanctums on tap or have cyno hammers, but not both? Now that would be something to "choose more carefully".
Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.31 07:51:00 - [1945] You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's ****ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense. Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:01:00 - [1946] Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 31/03/2011 08:01:55 Originally by: Imigo Montoya What I'm against is: BS reasons. I like the expected consequences, but I struggle to see how the proposed changes will have that effect Double Standards. Does this "long-term big picture" include the removal of T2 BPOs, particularly those that were illegally spawned? What about the apparent lack of action against macro use - what is being done there? There are plenty of things that have a much bigger effect (and being similarly small fixes as changing anom spawns) on the long-term big picture that seem to be being left alone in spite of a lot of players wanting something done about them. Poor PR. CCP: "We really value your feedback", Players: "We really don't want this change, nor do we believe that it will have the effect you expect.", CCP: "Thanks for your feedback, we're ignoring it". Not a good look for a company that promotes how engaged it is with its player community Re: botting - Fanfest security presentation Re: PR - "we value your feedback" is not the same thing as "we will make your feedback the sole determinant of our actions." Look at how the playerbase responded to the suggestion that motherships should be toned down. Look at what happened as a direct result of that. Now tell me, with a straight face, that the existence of a giant ragethread automatically means that the proposed changes are bad (or at least worse than the alternatives that are on the table). Signature removed.
NexyJita	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:06:00 - [1947] This is the worst idea i have ever seen come from CCP. Wth are you thinking?? This will do more harm then good in every way! Yey for making some key systems the cloakies can sit and afk camp! And we can do nothing about them. Like many others have said, leave the rats alone! They have done nothing to you. Go after the moons instead..
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:18:00 - [1948] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 31/03/2011 08:01:55 Originally by: Imigo Montoya What I'm against is: BS reasons. I like the expected consequences, but I struggle to see how the proposed changes will have that effect Double Standards. Does this "long-term big picture" include the removal of T2 BPOs, particularly those that were illegally spawned? What about the apparent lack of action against macro use - what is being done there? There are plenty of things that have a much bigger effect (and being similarly small fixes as changing anom spawns) on the long-term big picture that seem to be being left alone in spite of a lot of players wanting something done about them. Poor PR. CCP: "We really value your feedback", Players: "We really don't want this change, nor do we believe that it will have the effect you expect.", CCP: "Thanks for your feedback, we're ignoring it". Not a good look for a company that promotes how engaged it is with its player community Re: botting - Fanfest security presentation Re: PR - "we value your feedback" is not the same thing as "we will make your feedback the sole determinant of our actions." Look at how the playerbase responded to the suggestion that motherships should be toned down. Look at what happened as a direct result of that. Now tell me, with a straight face, that the existence of a giant ragethread automatically means that the proposed changes are bad (or at least worse than the alternatives that are on the table). Don't know if you remember or are just spouting stuff out to kiss ass, but the SC proposals involved stuff like making them dockable, and giving them more RR or something absurd. The final product was voted "well, not optimal but better than the horse **** that was proposed earlier." But CCP procrastinated to the last second (ahem) so didn't have a chance to get it balanced just right before pushing it out the door half assed.
Amanda Ugnkiss	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:30:00 - [1949] Some people are gonna love this: AFK cloaky %ags - less systems to bother camping. If you wanna increase pvp in nullsec, nerf empire mission running and force more people to band together to fight for some nullsec space to make isk in. Nullsec should be about higher reward for higher risk, which this nerf will kill. I can imagine a loss of people who finally came out to 0 sec for once will go back to empire missions for better isk. I think the consensus here is don't nerf nullsec. Playeres wanna make isk faster so they can pvp better and more. Less isk = less fighting.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:37:00 - [1950] Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 08:43:45 This thread is amazing. People telling CCP they have no idea how their game works. But apparently they know better. People complaining about afk cloakers will wreak havoc in congested systems. This is ridiculous. And yet the people who want the changes are laughing at people like you for your inability to function without them and the claims you make. At least the people who complain on their mains have some class. I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right? On top of the fact if the isk faucet is toned down a bit then inflation might actually take a hit and things might be cheaper. But heh the tech barons might just increase the prices to compensate and pass the buck. Go shoo the tech barons then maybe. How many of the general null sec grunts who rat for income never see a dime for the moons even if not technitium in their systems? Hrmmmmm....... Who's fault is that? Are they going to blame CCP for that? Do your belts ever get ratted? Do you probe for wormholes? Do you do plexes? Is your alliance too big and full of people who can not support themselves? And half of the complainers are alts.

DarthMopp Gallente I.D.I.O.T. Ewoks	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:48:00 - [1951] Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 08:53:10 Originally by: Kovid I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right? Right. This is nullsec. And yes, given the fact that the pilot is not a complete moron and at least has an eye on Local then he is pretty safe in an Anomalie. I really think that most of the complaining does originate from the way CCP want to sell this nerf to us. Couldnt they just say "Hey...the Faucet/Sink Gap is way too ***ing huge. One problem to solve this is to remove Sanctums and Havens from crappy truesec, the other solution will be to nerf the mission Agents in HighSec. We are sorry about that but theres no other way at the moment." Some more honesty would be awesome. "Alea iacta est*"
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:51:00 - [1952] Confirming that I am still willing to receive all worthless space. Please note that I will be unable to log in tonight, so there may be a short delay in processing requests. Thank you for your patience. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 08:53:00 - [1953] Originally by: Tub Chil You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's **ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense. Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game. Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:02:00 - [1954] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tub Chil You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's ****ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense. Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game. Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps. they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind
Cyaron wars Fallen Angel's RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:10:00 - [1955] Edited by: Cyaron wars on 31/03/2011 09:15:29 Please CCP, fire these dumb **s you have hired for generating ideas or just ask them to STOP THINKING! You ed 0.0 more then enough. Why you guys love to nerf stuff, there's another option to fix things and it's called boosting. Have any of those ****s ever thought of boosting things instead of nerfing? I call for CSMs. Biggest part of you are 0.0 representatives. People have chosen you to speak for them. 66 pages of rage from members of basicly all alliances living in 0.0 should be more then enough for you to udnerstand what we want. As player base representatives you MUST print this out and feed it to guy who came up with idea. you should do same to those who supported him as well.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:11:00 - [1956] Originally by: DarthMopp Couldnt they just say "Hey...the Faucet/Sink Gap is way too ****ing huge. One problem to solve this is to remove Sanctums and Havens from crappy truesec, the other solution will be to nerf the mission Agents in HighSec. We are sorry about that but theres no other way at the moment." Some more honesty would be awesome. even such a big change would be a dumb admission to giving up on stopping bots. It's saying bots get more isk so now everyone else has to get less in order to close up the gap.
James Razor Amarr The Executives	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:12:00 - [1957] I lose more and more of my faith in CCP. The few recent changes they made all backfired. The new Sov Mechanics provoke Blobbs more than ever (every fight is decisve now for the attacker, so its natural they throw everything and the kitchen sink into it). They boosted Titans and SCs but forgot to adapt Dreads. They changed T2 Production and boosted Technetium which did throw the entire 0.0 out of balance and boosted the NC to a level that it is hard for every other entity to go against them, simply because u will run out of money long before they run out of it. And now they turn most of 0.0 into a worthless wasteland again which will ultimatley result in even more Empire-Carebears instead of 0.0 Inhabitants. It wont do nothing to break up the power blocks, it might result that the NC backstabs some pets, but thats all i expect to happen in that regard. Same thing for the drone russians, which will lose a lot of their strength and income, because no one will want to rent out their systems anymore because the risk vs. profit wont pay out anymore. And the result of this will be, that the last block able to challenge the NC wont be able to do that anymore. Also: It is very annoying that now CCP tells us the complete opposite to what the told us when they implemented the upgrade system. From my point of view CCP wants to FORCE us to behave in a certain way and that contradicts their Sandbox Design. If this goes through, u can forget it to ever see this Future Vision come true. Because the game will be dead long before.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:12:00 - [1958] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 08:43:45 This thread is amazing. People telling CCP they have no idea how their game works. But apparently they know better. People complaining about afk cloakers will wreak havoc in congested systems. This is ridiculous. And yet the people who want the changes are laughing at people like you for your inability to function without them and the claims you make. At least the people who complain on their mains have some class. I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right? On top of the fact if the isk faucet is toned down a bit then inflation might actually take a hit and things might be cheaper. But heh the tech barons might just increase the prices to compensate and pass the buck. Go shoo the tech barons then maybe. How many of the general null sec grunts who rat for income never see a dime for the moons even if not technitium in their systems? Hrmmmmm....... Who's fault is that? Are they going to blame CCP for that? Do your belts ever get ratted? Do you probe for wormholes? Do you do plexes? Is your alliance too big and full of people who can not support themselves? And half of the complainers are alts. Is main... Mostly you get popped by people afk cloaking when the victim has the balls to try and call the bluff. Sometimes they are right and the guy is afk. Other times they end up horridly wrong. Since afk cloakers are invincible on a 1v1 since the 1v1 is usually Stealthbomber / t3 vs hulk these things happen. In an anom the same thing can happen. I live in vale, mr cloaker will almost always be in a hound as im running rediculous kinetic thermal so hes going to come with em exp and raep my raven. As to your last paragraph. A lot of alliances after dominion grew to sizes that dominion can not support. Also with the new TCU system plenty of alliances have fractured the sov holders up. Granted this has its own issues like the rumours that someone in Stella Polaris got paid to drop sov in the station systems, but it allows for compartmentalization too. If the executor corp goes crazy and threatens to disband you can now switch the executor to a trusted corp and they cant disband, but if the exec corp had all the sov you are still hosed. With that said a lot of alliances now give each corp their own home system(s) based on membership count. Which with the Current system it allowed each corp to happily make the isk they want/need and can leave the moons alone and not care if they get one or not. Take that away and suddenly all these corps are going to be out their primary income source. Oh and I believe it was you that said something about stations being funded entirely of sanctums and havens? Pre domi my alliance at the time was trying to build one. after six months we had about 20 percent of the parts. Post domi when I found the now defunct Systematic Chaos we finished the other 80 percent in 1 month. Guess where the corp got that money as the alliance didn't give us a dime. (We even had to ask IT for titan bridges as ours wouldnt do it.)
Steel68164	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:16:00 - [1959] I don't agree with CCP's action on removing sanctum's and such and putting them all in a select few systems. That will and is going to make for one hellish issue with players in them area and they will be farmed out 24/7 so good bye to isk for them that use that method to pay for the there game, So I guess CCP don't mind losing players ;) Originally by: Tania Russ Originally by: Kovid Originally by: Tania Russ And make it possible to view all of a player's alts. Then we can clearly see and easily find the pirate corporations' indy alts botting away in highsec, and wardec them, and kill their hulks. Good times. But then you would have to post with your main or at least be responsible for your words and actions because clearly you speak of your corporation investing in upgrades. Last I checked Pator Tech School hasn't upgraded any null sec systems. We don't cheat. We actually (gasp!) mine. And we manually run these sanctums and havens for isk to support PvP. On the other hand, 5 years experience with this game has taught me that very likely your PvP alliance DOES cheat. You don't manualy mine. You use VMs and software. Or you run belts with VMs and software. And your massive capfleets and laughed at momship losses bear that up - plenty more isk from the robots tomorrow. Which is what makes folks like you such hypocrites for applauding these changes. I use thw words "you" and "your" generally to describe the big alliances out there who seem to have 23/7 to run around griefing and always have lots of PvP ships magically provided for them to do so. Elitist *******s, cheating to grief. Maybe Rapture doesn't do this. I know most do.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:19:00 - [1960] Originally by: Tub Chil they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind They are telling you the less fortunate and the new people to null sec get to go to lesser desired places which in theory should not be fought over by the people with the bigger guns. If you do not consider yourself one of these people you can move and fight for a better spot against people with big guns and rightfully claim your reward should you win, or go back and take scraps, or empire space. Another option is to apply for these richer space alliances and tell them about what assets you can bring to the table for them. I like where this is going.

Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:35:00 - [1961] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 09:28:33 Originally by: Tub Chil they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind They are telling you the less fortunate, and the new people to null sec, get to go to lesser desired places. These places in theory should not be fought over by the people with the bigger guns. If you do not consider yourself one of these people you can move and fight for a better spot against people with big guns and rightfully claim your reward should you win. In case of failure go back and take scraps, or empire space. Have you ever been in a big sov fight? Do you even have the slightest idea what numbers and effort it takes to dislodge a non-incompetent enemy? It's delusional to think ppl would go through all that effort just for sanctums. Originally by: Kovid Another option is to apply for these richer space alliances and tell them about what assets you can bring to the table for them. I like where this is going. As in encourage blobbing and huge alliances?
Raptor GUN	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:39:00 - [1962] to look. you can not find. not to be. Why be boring? do people have this game to work, doing something he did not stay to look on a monitor, better to have less bounty rats but was not there
Hrdlodus Gallente Bohemian Veterans Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:54:00 - [1963] i just counted up the usefull systems in regions: Branch: 12, Cache: 8, Catch: 4, Cloud Ring: oh look 0, Cobalt Edge: 17, Deklein: 16, Delve: 11, Detorid: 4, Esoteria: 5, Etherium Reach: 16, Fade: 0, Feythabolis: 10, Fountain: 7, Geminate: 2, Immensea: 0, Impass: 1, Insmother: 6, The Kalevala Expanse: 13, Malpais: 17, Oasa: 13, Omist: 4, Outer Passage: 12, Outer Ring: 1, Paragon Soul: 3, Period Basis: 7, Perrigen Falls: 15, Providence: 0, Pure Blind: 0, Querious: 6, Scalding Pass: 2, The Spire: 21 O_o, Tenal: 9, Tenerifis: 2, Tribute: 0, Vale of the Silent: 5, Venal: 5, Wicked Creek: again 0 that's all for today folks lets hope we all live tomorrow ☺/
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.31 09:55:00 - [1964] Originally by: Hrdlodus i just counted up the usefull systems in regions: Branch: 12, Cache: 8, Catch: 4, Cloud Ring: oh look 0, Cobalt Edge: 17, Deklein: 16, Delve: 11, Detorid: 4, Esoteria: 5, Etherium Reach: 16, Fade: 0, Feythabolis: 10, Fountain: 7, Geminate: 2, Immensea: 0, Impass: 1, Insmother: 6, The Kalevala Expanse: 13, Malpais: 17, Oasa: 13, Omist: 4, Outer Passage: 12, Outer Ring: 1, Paragon Soul: 3, Period Basis: 7, Perrigen Falls: 15, Providence: 0, Pure Blind: 0, Querious: 6, Scalding Pass: 2, The Spire: 21 O_o, Tenal: 9, Tenerifis: 2, Tribute: 0, Vale of the Silent: 5, Venal: 5, Wicked Creek: again 0 that's all for today folks lets hope we all live tomorrow ☺/ How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post.
deconed	Posted - 2011.03.31 10:25:00 - [1965] so lets all write an artical and submit it to all the major gamer sites and show everyone how ccp ignores their customers
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 10:28:00 - [1966] Originally by: Tub Chil Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tub Chil You know, removing sanctums is not as annoying the fact is that CCP has NO CLUE how their game works. they just don't know and that's **ed up. They could just say that they hate sanctums and remove them. It would be horrible reason and we would rage but it would at least make sense. Removing sanctums is not the end really. I was in FW before and have 8.5 standing (something like that) to caldari and around 5 to Amarr. I'll just plant hardwired clone somewhere in hisec and grind missions. Horrible thing is that game developers are detached from the game. Just FYI: they're not removing Sanctums. Hope this helps. they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind P sure that there will still be Sanctums even after the change. Even if not, money still falls from the sky in Pure Blind. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Tub Chil	Posted - 2011.03.31 10:39:00 - [1967] Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 09:28:33 Originally by: Tub Chil they are removing them for me because I live in pure blind They are telling you the less fortunate, and the new people to null sec, get to go to lesser desired places. These places in theory should not be fought over by the people with the bigger guns. If you do not consider yourself one of these people you can move and fight for a better spot against people with big guns and rightfully claim your reward should you win. In case of failure go back and take scraps, or empire space. Another option is to apply for these richer space alliances and tell them about what assets you can bring to the table for them. I like where this is going. PAs a person who does not play 18/7 I have following options to stay in 0.0 1) Join another alliance who has a better space 2) find alternative source of income 3) Fight above mentioned alliances for sanctums (lol) I hope you understand that current sov mechanics don't allow smaller alliances to fight bigger ones alone. To go to a sov fight you need a backup from a whole bloody coalition, so your first suggestion is not valid. NC will not fight dbf just to make me happier with anomalies. It does not help newer players because no alliance will drop sov after changes. Why would they?
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.31 11:15:00 - [1968] Why was there no mass test of this? It seems it's going in on April 5th but I've heard no mention of it being tested on Sisi. Greyscale, you claim it's not going to be "that bad", well maybe if you have given us a shot to test it we could know that for sure. Maybe you should put it off, upgrade every system on sisi with this update and let us try it out. Maybe it's not that bad, maybe it needs tweaks, in either case why isn't it going on the test server first?
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 11:33:00 - [1969] Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 11:34:07 Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Hrdlodus i just counted up the usefull systems in regions: * random figures about regions How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post. Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are *ed. 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site 0.45 - 0.6499 = no change 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 0.85 - 0.85 = + 6 sites Your formula for change in sites should be =(c(x)-4)+(d(x)-1)+(f(x)1)+(f(x)6) (where x is the row number) If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12.* So all I can conclude from this is either you werenÆt entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH. (just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.)
Herpes Sweatrash	Posted - 2011.03.31 11:33:00 - [1970] Once this change goes through my alliance's space is completely worthless except for miners and maybe 1 person could live off plexing in our 3 allocated systems. We are not elite pvpers like Pandemics Legion or Goonswarm. We will not be able to fight for better space. This change will put an end to our 0.0 life I believe. I would like to suggest an additional change if this is one is set in stone as it appears. Please make Concord provide security in npc area such as Venal. This way peaceful alliance such as mine can live in 0.0 space with the ability to do sanctums and haven in relative safety. Please take it into consideration.

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous Scum Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 11:56:00 - [1971] Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash We will not be able to fight for better space. Then you dont deserve it. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Lenthall Scorpus	Posted - 2011.03.31 11:59:00 - [1972] So the question for me is this - CCP has the customer at heart (Bleh so they say) yet this will directly affect my playing experience. I've been working towards a Golem to smack a few rats around but with the nerf coming I'm not sure I should bother. A Tengu or a Iskhur for that matter will be more than sufficient for my 0.1 sec status. So now I've wasted 2 months of training BS 5 and Advanced Weapons 5 to get to a Golem only to have it proven OTT for the given game dynamic. So CCP Greyscale will you give me my sp back? We play for the fun yet what you are doing is taking our aspirations as players flushing it down the toilet and saying its for our own good, bleh bloody bleh CCP Greyscale ..!./
Herpes Sweatrash	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:04:00 - [1973] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash We will not be able to fight for better space. Then you dont deserve it. I think with 50k member coalitions this gave is past the point whether people deserve to have space or not. Every paying customer should have equal and fair access to all end game content.
Titmando Caldari Vengeance Imperium Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:05:00 - [1974] Edited by: Titmando on 31/03/2011 12:04:56 * Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in null sec Who ever is employed to come up with these ideas needs sacking, f*'n monkeys could do a better job. How will removing sanctums from all but the best true-sec systems give "newer alliances" a better foothold, what possible incentive could these "newer alliances" have to go out to 0.0 and be c* blocked by CCP jewing up sanctums. If anything it will have the opposite effect, coalitions that have a foothold will not be effected much if at all and newer alliance will tear down there infrastructure and move back to care bearing in high sec or become merc's. It's not going to make us fight each other for better space at all CCP you are wrong in saying we'll be de-stabalised, your going to find your member base dropping if this is a sure thing. -T I <3 carebear's "let's poo in their cornflakes.."
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:08:00 - [1975] Edited by: StuRyan on 31/03/2011 12:08:13 Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash We will not be able to fight for better space. Then you dont deserve it. I think with 50k member coalitions this gave is past the point whether people deserve to have space or not. Every paying customer should have equal and fair access to all end game content. ^ this and has anyone ever thought about the average joe bloggs who already spends his life at a laptop.... I certainly don't wanna spend my free time grinding and grinding and grinding when i already spend 9 hours a day glued to a laptop.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:09:00 - [1976] Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:11:22 Originally by: Cyrus Doul How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post. Please go up 4/5 posts to see my initial post about this fail spreadsheet. But taking his raw data about system true sec and putting in correct formulas IÆve managed to generate some maybe useful information for you lot to ponder over. Overall % change of higher tier sites = -23% regions of noticeable increase = spire (+28%), perrigen (+18.5%), cobalt (+17%) and etherium (+14.3%). regions of noticeable decrease = PB (-94%), provi (-88%), tribute (-53%) and paragon (-52.3%). TBH i still think this is a good idea just need to tweak the brackets. I would propose swapping the upper most and lower most bracket ie. 0.0 - 0.1499 = -4 sites 0.15 - 0.3499 = -1 site 0.35 - 0.5499 = no change 0.55 - 0.7499 = +1 site 0.75 - 1 = +6 sites Basically shrinking the lower bracket and expanding the upper bracket to hold overall % change of higher tier sites at around 0%...... Mull it over before you reply with the usual tears.
Dymdr proISKi Ltd Red Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:15:00 - [1977] Not supporting this change. CCP, please start doing something that will actually make your customers happier instead of ****ing them off. So as a customer Im saying that, no, I dont want this change to my spaceships game. I dont want walking in stations. I dont want planetary stuff. I dont want bridges removal. I want something to be done about macro users. I want something to be done about lags. I want something to be done about sov mechanics so I dont have to waste two hours shooting hubs and SBUs.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:16:00 - [1978] Quote: Please make Concord provide security in npc area such as Venal. This way peaceful alliance such as mine can live in 0.0 space with the ability to do sanctums and haven in relative safety. Please take it into consideration. CCP did not want to make 0.0 a better version of high sec. After reading about 60 pages it's clear that both Grayscale and the "customers" did not get it. CCP's original intention should have been to give ISK faucets so the smaller alliances would actively fight and stuff. But the ISK faucets attracted (also) a lot of not 0.0 grade people who would just go there to PvE and farm. Now, these guys are exclusively filling EvE with inflation and not fighting. This is what the WoW era playerbases do. The 0.0 PvE farmers seem to belong to hi sec, this is why they are getting nerfed and kicked back to high sec. The others who are genuinely PvP players but have no moons, are those truly screwed. This is where Greyscale failed: he wants to nerf Sanctum Bears but not Moons Sucking Bears. Only by doing the latter there's ANY hope to see someone challenge the big blocks. Only an heavy moons nerf would help. Making them depletable and their "load" spawning in another constellation / region would make space dynamic. Sanctum nerf would send the fake 0.0ers back in hi sec. L4 nerf will make the nerf on moons still make living 0.0 preferrable by those who are still up to moons mining. Only downside of the above, a part of the customers would return back to their former MMO. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:21:00 - [1979] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha CCP did not want to make 0.0 a better version of high sec. After reading about 60 pages it's clear that both Grayscale and the "customers" did not get it. CCP's original intention should have been to give ISK faucets so the smaller alliances would actively fight and stuff. But the ISK faucets attracted (also) a lot of not 0.0 grade people who would just go there to PvE and farm. Now, these guys are exclusively filling EvE with inflation and not fighting. This is what the WoW era playerbases do. The 0.0 PvE farmers seem to belong to hi sec, this is why they are getting nerfed and kicked back to high sec. The others who are genuinely PvP players but have no moons, are those truly screwed. This is where Greyscale failed: he wants to nerf Sanctum Bears but not Moons Sucking Bears. Only by doing the latter there's ANY hope to see someone challenge the big blocks. Only an heavy moons nerf would help. Making them depletable and their "load" spawning in another constellation / region would make space dynamic. Sanctum nerf would send the fake 0.0ers back in hi sec. L4 nerf will make the nerf on moons still make living 0.0 preferrable by those who are still up to moons mining. Only downside of the above, a part of the customers would return back to their former MMO. THIS ...................... 100% this >.<
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:26:00 - [1980] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash We will not be able to fight for better space. Then you dont deserve it. Right, so anyone not a part of one of the giant coalitions deserves no decent space. Nice job CCP.

John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:31:00 - [1981] Well it seems that CCP have made up their mind regardless of the overwhelming opposition to this porposal. But you should understand that a lot of the ISK faucets have been created due to the increase in PvE content within Empire and the neglect of the Drake Spam in 0.0. There are plenty of wars going on throughout Eve right now but due to the relatively low cost of Drakes compared to their high damage potential in large numbers, there isn't enough ISK being lost in order to conmpensate for the increased ISK generated by PvE content in Empire. If you implement this whilst maintaining current superior levels of income in Empire, you will create an exedous from low value 0.0 space and increase in the numbers of people running higher value Incursions, Level 4 and 5 missions in order to fuel Empire wars. This will exacerbate the problem with too many ISK Faucets and not enough ISK sinks by a reduction in large scale warfare, where you have a high number of ISK absorbed through ship and/or pod losses as opposed to a comparative trickle of losses in Empire wars. 0.0 will be reduced to a handfull of Super Power Alliances who rent out the other space at a reduced cost safe in the knowledge that it's not worth the cost it would take to invade it. Rather than nerfing 0.0 ISK value you should look to the problems with Drake blobs. Find incentives for people to use more expensive ships (why should I use my Legion when my Zealot does as good a job for a fraction of the cost?) which will increase the amount of ISK taken out of the economy. Make loyalty points available to buy for ISK whcih again takes ISK out of the system both directly with their purchase, and indirectly through the modules/ammo/weapons bought being lost in warfare. Make level 4 and 5 missions require a deposit that is lost if the mission is failed and make those missions tougher to complete. I know these suggestions won't be popular with Empire dwellers but 0.0 should have the biggest rewards by having the greatest risks associated by any reasonable pilot being able to jump in and gank some complacent ratter. Across the galaxy there is only war.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:33:00 - [1982] Originally by: John McCreedy Well it seems that CCP have made up their mind regardless of the overwhelming opposition to this porposal. But you should understand that a lot of the ISK faucets have been created due to the increase in PvE content within Empire and the neglect of the Drake Spam in 0.0. There are plenty of wars going on throughout Eve right now but due to the relatively low cost of Drakes compared to their high damage potential in large numbers, there isn't enough ISK being lost in order to conmpensate for the increased ISK generated by PvE content in Empire. If you implement this whilst maintaining current superior levels of income in Empire, you will create an exedous from low value 0.0 space and increase in the numbers of people running higher value Incursions, Level 4 and 5 missions in order to fuel Empire wars. This will exacerbate the problem with too many ISK Faucets and not enough ISK sinks by a reduction in large scale warfare, where you have a high number of ISK absorbed through ship and/or pod losses as opposed to a comparative trickle of losses in Empire wars. 0.0 will be reduced to a handfull of Super Power Alliances who rent out the other space at a reduced cost safe in the knowledge that it's not worth the cost it would take to invade it. Rather than nerfing 0.0 ISK value you should look to the problems with Drake blobs. Find incentives for people to use more expensive ships (why should I use my Legion when my Zealot does as good a job for a fraction of the cost?) which will increase the amount of ISK taken out of the economy. Make loyalty points available to buy for ISK whcih again takes ISK out of the system both directly with their purchase, and indirectly through the modules/ammo/weapons bought being lost in warfare. Make level 4 and 5 missions require a deposit that is lost if the mission is failed and make those missions tougher to complete. I know these suggestions won't be popular with Empire dwellers but 0.0 should have the biggest rewards by having the greatest risks associated by any reasonable pilot being able to jump in and gank some complacent ratter. pvp = isk faucet not an isk sink, therefore your whole argument is void.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 12:35:00 - [1983] Originally by: Proats Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash We will not be able to fight for better space. Then you dont deserve it. Right, so anyone not a part of one of the giant coalitions deserves no decent space. Nice job CCP. can see where your coming from but on the flip side does this mean every single scrub who cba to go through with the effort of fighting for space STILL deserves to prosper from the best space?
BIZZAROSTORMY	Posted - 2011.03.31 13:19:00 - [1984] m'kay and another idea we had here at ccpidealab was to make all ships randomly explode after a random amount of time, while will have the effect of making pilots have to have more ships. oh, oh and sometimes your wallet will simply empty because space ninjas stole your money. This will encourage pilots to not bother trying to get any money.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 13:29:00 - [1985] Originally by: Ella Scorpio It's sad the CCP isn't willing to engage, either in this thread or with the CSM, to determine if the assumptions in their model are correct. I'm guessing they are just chocking this thread up to complaints from player effected, and aren't noticing that most people are agreeing with the fundamental logic of the change, just challenging the way it is being done. The incorrect assumptions seem to be 1) that anoms besides havens and sanctums are worth anything (they are frigate filled, actually more dangerous in nullsec because of scramming frigates, and take just as long as havens)--given the risks of nullsec, a haven-only system would barely equal level 4 mission running in highsec 2) that players who invested time and isk in upgrading systems (and even dropping outposts in the middle of bad truesec space) will still believe anything is worth doing in Eve after the way this was done 3) that this is just a rollback of part of Dominion, rather than a fundamental new dynamic for nullsec with its own set of unintended consequences 4) that isk faucets and drains can be analyzed independently of the dynamics of large alliances and the hodge-podge truesec geography 5) that this can be implemented and its effects evaluated in any reasonable amount of time--players won't make decisions quickly because they now no longer trust that CCP won't reverse course again, or do some other wacky nullsec changes. So you won't see a mass exodus of players from nullsec or Eve...it will be a slow trickle until suddenly it is too late, and by the time CCP realizes what they have done, it will be too late... actually that is an incorrect statement. "most" players do not in fact agree with the fundamentals of this change. CCP believes (and i have this as a petition response" that the suppport/disapporve ratio is about 50/50 but that is just a yay/nay guess on their part. when you discount the trolls and the people who think the change is good becuase it will have an effect totally different than what CCP is guessing it will (and its a bad guess) and the people who are happy about it simply cause it screws someone else over the number of people approving of this change because it will accomplish what was intended to do is very, very small.
Lonely Island	Posted - 2011.03.31 13:31:00 - [1986] Originally by: Levistus Junior Edited by: Levistus Junior on 31/03/2011 06:07:04 Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48 For small alliance who can not adapt... Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place. I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc.. Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right? The problem is that those small alliances(without significant moon goo) would have to pay Dominion sov costs with pre Dominion income. Before the sov changes, the costs of holding sov in a region nobody wanted was ridiculously small (you could get away with as little as 1 POS per system). Now it's a completely different matter. Well tbh a small alliance in poor truesec space such as yourselves will be better dropping sov (excluding outpost systems) in your space after April 5th. Doesn't 0.0 have potential for good income generation through high-class wormholes?? (and it isn't raw isk, no won't add to eve-inflation)
BIZZAROSTORMY	Posted - 2011.03.31 13:34:00 - [1987] AND ANOTHER THING, Next time you come up with some fancy idea involving upgrades that cost a lot of money and time and resources to put into place DONT expect people to get involved, as the general feeling will be "that will get nerfed so why ****ING bother." Now lets all start packing up and moving to NPC space. Im sure the smaller alliances will just love the absolutely useless space left behind.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.31 13:43:00 - [1988] Originally by: Lonely Island Originally by: Levistus Junior Edited by: Levistus Junior on 31/03/2011 06:07:04 Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48 For small alliance who can not adapt... Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place. I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc.. Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right? The problem is that those small alliances(without significant moon goo) would have to pay Dominion sov costs with pre Dominion income. Before the sov changes, the costs of holding sov in a region nobody wanted was ridiculously small (you could get away with as little as 1 POS per system). Now it's a completely different matter. Well tbh a small alliance in poor truesec space such as yourselves will be better dropping sov (excluding outpost systems) in your space after April 5th. Doesn't 0.0 have potential for good income generation through high-class wormholes?? (and it isn't raw isk, no won't add to eve-inflation) Thats pretty much the conclusion I came up with, pay for sov in station systems and drop it everywhere else because ownership gains you nothing but a bill.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.31 13:58:00 - [1989] Edited by: Levistus Junior on 31/03/2011 13:58:31 Originally by: Rene Winter Originally by: Lonely Island Originally by: Levistus Junior Edited by: Levistus Junior on 31/03/2011 06:07:04 Originally by: Kovid Edited by: Kovid on 31/03/2011 04:41:48 For small alliance who can not adapt... Who' fault is it if the alliance can not support themselves? Is it the leaders or the individual pilots who can not do anything in null sec besides rat in sanctums? These pilots can not probe plexes, wormholes, rat in the age old belts, mine, etc... If so many people will be leaving null sec, or these alliances fall apart then they don't seem to be much an alliance or player in the first place. I imagine some players will find new homes in larger alliances that have better space, better leadership, more robust and active pilots, etc.. Those people in null sec should ask their alliances to distribute some isk from moon goo to the players right? The problem is that those small alliances(without significant moon goo) would have to pay Dominion sov costs with pre Dominion income. Before the sov changes, the costs of holding sov in a region nobody wanted was ridiculously small (you could get away with as little as 1 POS per system). Now it's a completely different matter. Well tbh a small alliance in poor truesec space such as yourselves will be better dropping sov (excluding outpost systems) in your space after April 5th. Doesn't 0.0 have potential for good income generation through high-class wormholes?? (and it isn't raw isk, no won't add to eve-inflation) Thats pretty much the conclusion I came up with, pay for sov in station systems and drop it everywhere else because ownership gains you nothing but a bill. That's probably what's going to happen. After these changes, only reasons to have sov in most regions would be strategic (outposts, JBs, cyno gens etc.). I have no problem with that, although any naive dudes that would set up camp in an 'unclaimed' system only to see their stuff swiftly annihilated by 30-40 supercaps belonging to the de facto owners might. What I do have problem with is: -CCPs stated reasons for this change; they prove either ignorance of the game, or plain lying to the players -The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so, which will probably generate a move from 0.0 to high sec (or plain quitting for those that find high sec boring), which I fail to see how it will benefit the game.
Admiral Goberius Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:04:00 - [1990] Originally by: Levistus Junior -The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so, Here are more facts: 97% of eve players will not care 85% of eve players will become more rich after the nerf 115% will be the net increase in conflicts after the changes Facts. - Gob

John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:23:00 - [1991] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda pvp = isk faucet not an isk sink, therefore your whole argument is void. Actually PvP is both. ISK is taken out by PvP which creates a demand for Industry to put ISK back in. It's one of the dynamics that drives the economic cylce. But the whole point of my argument, which you obviously overlooked in order to troll, is that the increased ISK is largely due to the PvE content that has been created over the last couple of years rather than leveling 0.0 space. That's lead to a redistribution where similar numbers of people are still residing within 0.0 but over a greater geographical area. This, as I understood it, was why CCP created upgrades in the first place. By reversing that decision based solely on the premise that it will increase PvP is a misconception that will result in higher concentrations of population within smaller geographical areas (i.e. the best regions) and, as a result, decrease large scale PvP because those who can't relocate to the best regions will migrate back to Empire where there's greater money to be made. It's this that will excacerbate the problem of too much ISK. But how about a comprimise whereby if this is introduced, you'll redistribute the true sec systems so that there are no worthless Regions? Across the galaxy there is only war.
James Razor Amarr The Executives	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:24:00 - [1992] Originally by: Admiral Goberius Originally by: Levistus Junior -The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so, Here are more facts: 97% of eve players will not care 85% of eve players will become more rich after the nerf 115% will be the net increase in conflicts after the changes Facts. - Gob U are wrong. We ARE caring and most other players i know and talk to ARE caring and are NOT happy with CCP's plans or views in this affair. And i am talking of a couple of dozens of players here, not just 2 or 3.
Admiral Goberius Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:35:00 - [1993] Originally by: James Razor Originally by: Admiral Goberius Originally by: Levistus Junior -The fact that 80-90% of the guys that used 0.0 anomalies to fund their PvP will no longer be able to move so, Here are more facts: 97% of eve players will not care 85% of eve players will become more rich after the nerf 115% will be the net increase in conflicts after the changes Facts. - Gob U are wrong. We ARE caring and most other players i know and talk to ARE caring and are NOT happy with CCP's plans or views in this affair. And i am talking of a couple of dozens of players here, not just 2 or 3. So you talked to your friends and they agree with you shocker.
SirGorold	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:51:00 - [1994] C¦mon CCP, say something in defense, u¦ve heard us!!!
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:54:00 - [1995] Originally by: Skaarl actually that is an incorrect statement. "most" players do not in fact agree with the fundamentals of this change. CCP believes (and i have this as a petition response" that the suppport/disapporve ratio is about 50/50 but that is just a yay/nay guess on their part. when you discount the trolls and the people who think the change is good becuase it will have an effect totally different than what CCP is guessing it will (and its a bad guess) and the people who are happy about it simply cause it screws someone else over the number of people approving of this change because it will accomplish what was intended to do is very, very small. I agree with you completely--I should have been more clear that the fundamentals that people agree with is that not all space should be be equal. But it already isn't, thanks to moons, and there's a lot of better ways to do this. I don't see the logic of wanting to encourage conflict for space by making 0.0 a ghost town. I also think CCP should look at outposts deployed since Dominion--I know a lot of them were in the middle of what will now be very poor space by the small alliances CCP claims they are trying to help.
Mangala Solaris Caldari Blue Republic	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:57:00 - [1996] While I know there has been various numbers thrown around this thread, some of which make some sense, has anyone actually done a before and after in a very simplistic view? ================
Herpes Sweatrash	Posted - 2011.03.31 14:59:00 - [1997] As I read the latest news of CSM corruption (uxadeath offer irl $$$ to NC player to drop sov) I again must wonder why cannot all subscribers have fair and equal access to end game content? Must we all have spies through out every alliance like Pandemic Legion? Or pay players real cash to buy our space? Where will it end? Sell my body for a good true sec system? Please think on this CCP.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:05:00 - [1998] Originally by: James Razor And i am talking of a couple of dozens of players here, not just 2 or 3. So... we're talking between 0,003% and 0,01% of the player-base was consulted by you? That's far from the 3% that care according to Admiral Goberius.
Mrs Pants	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:09:00 - [1999] Ok lots of lovely thoughts and views (mostly against) but this whole thread is based on guess work and speculation from a developer (greyscale) who is probably better seated to make such speculation than most of us ordinary players, but it is guesswork none-the-less. I am a bit of a part timer. I love big blobs fighting big blobs and I don't really care for Sanctums etc but I know that most of the alliance that I am a member of do. This worries me. Other games are being bandied around on our corp. forum. Other things to spend money on and other pleasures to be had that are not eve... I fear that some now old and close trans-global friends may just disappear from the game all together over something quite ineffectual. I am no political genius, in fact I am no genius of any kind but I can see that these proposed changes are going to hit the small fry hard and leave the big boys totally un touched. This happens in life all the time. We immerse ourselves in virtual realities like eve to get away from it, not to see more of it. I propose a new plan to change 0.0 sec. Leave it alone. It is constantly changing just nicely as it is.
inmoratal4tw	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:19:00 - [2000] I wanted to add here that i am also AGAINST this anom change.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:33:00 - [2001] Originally by: Mrs Pants I am no political genius, in fact I am no genius of any kind but I can see that these proposed changes are going to hit the small fry hard and leave the big boys totally un touched. This happens in life all the time. We immerse ourselves in virtual realities like eve to get away from it, not to see more of it. I propose a new plan to change 0.0 sec. Leave it alone. It is constantly changing just nicely as it is. The big boys untouched?... Then why are they so up in arms whining like the world is ending? No, even the big boys are going to feel this hard as their BFF network gets untangled by the need to allocate a now scares resource.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:35:00 - [2002] Originally by: John McCreedy Originally by: Sarina Rhoda pvp = isk faucet not an isk sink, therefore your whole argument is void. Actually PvP is both. ISK is taken out by PvP which creates a demand for Industry to put ISK back in. It's one of the dynamics that drives the economic cylce. But the whole point of my argument, which you obviously overlooked in order to troll, is that the increased ISK is largely due to the PvE content that has been created over the last couple of years rather than leveling 0.0 space. That's lead to a redistribution where similar numbers of people are still residing within 0.0 but over a greater geographical area. This, as I understood it, was why CCP created upgrades in the first place. By reversing that decision based solely on the premise that it will increase PvP is a misconception that will result in higher concentrations of population within smaller geographical areas (i.e. the best regions) and, as a result, decrease large scale PvP because those who can't relocate to the best regions will migrate back to Empire where there's greater money to be made. It's this that will excacerbate the problem of too much ISK. But how about a comprimise whereby if this is introduced, you'll redistribute the true sec systems so that there are no worthless Regions? I wasn't even trolling this time >.< pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp. People who keep calling regions worthless annoy me. Just because a region is worth less does not mean it is worthless. Due to plexing, probing, belt ratting, wh-ing, cosmos agents, (lol) mining, gas harvesting, pi, margin trading and more that im sure i've missed no nullsec region will every truly be worthless. Also when i used to be apart of a sov holding alliance I used to make a fair bit blitzing hubs for 6/10 escalations. Albeit not as effective as sanctum running but still made more than enough iskies to support myself. Again what i think are much more pressing issues that the sanctum redistribution is s-cap force projection, static moongoo/tech bottleneck and High sec income compared to low/null sec.
Fejo	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:42:00 - [2003] CCP why did you lure us to 0.0 ? we worked very hard and improved our systems. Now you slap us in the face and because our system doesnt have a very high true sec, we will have to leave because it wont support us. CCP what are you thinking ? how many will leave 0.0 because of this nerf ?
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:43:00 - [2004] Can't wait for Guild Wars 2
Mrs Pants	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:43:00 - [2005] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab The big boys untouched?... Then why are they so up in arms whining like the world is ending? No, even the big boys are going to feel this hard as their BFF network gets untangled by the need to allocate a now scares resource. Are they? Ok, but you therfore agree with the planned changes then? Because if you are right then Greyscale has hit it on the money with this one... I am not so sure but will bow down and watch.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:44:00 - [2006] Originally by: Ella Scorpio Originally by: Skaarl actually that is an incorrect statement. "most" players do not in fact agree with the fundamentals of this change. CCP believes (and i have this as a petition response" that the suppport/disapporve ratio is about 50/50 but that is just a yay/nay guess on their part. when you discount the trolls and the people who think the change is good becuase it will have an effect totally different than what CCP is guessing it will (and its a bad guess) and the people who are happy about it simply cause it screws someone else over the number of people approving of this change because it will accomplish what was intended to do is very, very small. I agree with you completely--I should have been more clear that the fundamentals that people agree with is that not all space should be be equal. But it already isn't, thanks to moons, and there's a lot of better ways to do this. I don't see the logic of wanting to encourage conflict for space by making 0.0 a ghost town. I also think CCP should look at outposts deployed since Dominion--I know a lot of them were in the middle of what will now be very poor space by the small alliances CCP claims they are trying to help. thats just it, CCP is trying to force the alliances that moved to 0.0 post - dominion to move on, so other alliances can move into 0.0. and they think that we will do so... to obtain better truesec space. the exact opposite will happen. LOTS of players will return at least part time to high sec. less players in null will mean less people for guys like gobbins to kill means less conflict. it wont change the amount of sov conflict going on, it wont encourage "bad" space alliances to move to better truesec (i mean seriously??) it wont do anything but help to depopulate populous regions and decrease the amount of small gang pew.
Swearte Widfarend Gallente Aurora Security	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:59:00 - [2007] Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26 Originally by: Sarina Rhoda pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp. This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet. ----- I've skipped the last 20 pages, so... Here's the thing about all of the people whining about how they can't afford sovereignty after this change. If that's true, you are doing it wrong. I've done the math, and an iHub with a Pirate Array 1 (the lowest level) will spawn 4 Hub anomalies (yes, the poor, useless Hub). Did you know that the average ISK/hr for running a Hub is between 10-15 million? So (at worst level) that's 40 million ISK coming out of a Sovereignty 1 system with a Pirate Array (by the way, the Pirate Array 5 is something like 20 anomalies). If corp tax is an overbearing 10%, that means it takes 15 hours total ratting per day to afford your Sovereignty. 30 Days Sovereignty bill = 180 million (60 million per day) 15 hours ratting in 4 Hubs = 600 million ISK 10% Tax on ratting = 60 million ISK. So if you have, in the span of 23 hours online, 60 pilots rat for 1 hour, you cover your sov bill. Stop whining about how you can't afford your sovereignty. As for the individual pilot, they are only taking in about 10m isk/hr which is significantly less than the 75-100m isk/hr a carrier or tengu ratting a sanctum, but not far from what a Drake pilot gets (around 25m isk/hr) when doing one. However, CCP is also updating and improving the spawns based on the Entrapment Array. These are the DED complexes, and the ones that spawn in nullsec (DED 6-10) have a higher chance of spawning in a system with an Entrapment Array installed. They are also bringing online an unknown number of previously unavailable Faction Modules that will drop in these DED complexes. I can't find great numbers, but it seems that the average DED complex can bring up to 200m isk/hr to the pilots running it - although they won't be as frequent as the Anomalies they also require combat/scan probes to get at, so are more secure to work in compared to an anomaly. In addition, this isn't a pure ISK faucet, since most of the ISK earned will be in loot/salvage compared to raw bounties in an anomaly. It remains to be seen if the DED complexes will be utilized (or available) in such a way to balance out the earning capabilities of the individual pilot, but everyone complaining that you won't be able to afford sovereignty after this change is not researching the facts of these changes. Facts folks - this isn't FOX News or MSNBC. You must offer facts, and most of you didn't do a bit of research before shooting off your mouth in this thread.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.03.31 15:59:00 - [2008] Originally by: DarthMopp Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 09:02:12 Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 08:53:10 Originally by: Kovid I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right? Right. This is nullsec. And yes, given the fact that the pilot is not a complete moron and at least has an eye on Local then he is pretty safe in an Anomaly. (Blue Tackles left aside..as well as those morons ratting in Caps and Supercaps) I really think that most of the complaining does originate from the way CCP want to sell this nerf to us. Couldnt they just say "Hey...the Faucet/Sink Gap is way too ****ing huge. One problem to solve this is to remove Sanctums and Havens from crappy truesec, the other solution will be to nerf the mission Agents in HighSec. We are sorry about that but theres no other way at the moment." Some more honesty would be awesome. Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently. I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:18:00 - [2009] Edited by: Rene Winter on 31/03/2011 16:19:34 Originally by: Swearte Widfarend Originally by: Sarina Rhoda pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp. This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet. You totally misunderstand ISK faucets and sinks. You are equating material goods that are removed from the system to ISK which is incorrect. ISK faucets are instances where ISK is created by CPP (out of thin air) like bounties, insurance, NPC buy orders. There are not many of these in the game. ISK Sinks are things that cause money to be removed from a players wallet and don't end up in another players wallet, like Skillbooks, Clones, Insurance (nominally as more usually comes out), NPC sell orders, NPC manufacturing fees, PI export taxes . . . SOV bills When a module is destroyed, really what was destroyed was the time and effort a player put in to create it. Which a player is willing to trade for some amount of isk, dependent on how stable he feels the currency is . . .
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:21:00 - [2010] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: DarthMopp Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 09:02:12 Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 08:53:10 Originally by: Kovid I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right? Right. This is nullsec. And yes, given the fact that the pilot is not a complete moron and at least has an eye on Local then he is pretty safe in an Anomaly. (Blue Tackles left aside..as well as those morons ratting in Caps and Supercaps) I really think that most of the complaining does originate from the way CCP want to sell this nerf to us. Couldnt they just say "Hey...the Faucet/Sink Gap is way too **ing huge. One problem to solve this is to remove Sanctums and Havens from crappy truesec, the other solution will be to nerf the mission Agents in HighSec. We are sorry about that but theres no other way at the moment." Some more honesty would be awesome. Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently. I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy. valid point concerning intel networks. but it doesnt change the fact that that will exist with or without anomolies, and that with LESS people in 0.0 doing mindless ratting you will have even a LOWER chance of catching them napping in an anom. not to mention that all of the above, while some arguments may have merits, does not explain how the anomaly nerf will increase sov warfare. people are not going to go to the effort of taking a system for ** anoms, and they wont attack someone else for better anoms. its a non-nonsensical argument and the fact that greyscale thinks that THAT argument has merit should be of concern to all customers.

Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:24:00 - [2011] Originally by: Swearte Widfarend Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26 Originally by: Sarina Rhoda pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp. This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet. Lord you are painful. I will read the rest of your post in a bit but IÆm going to try this one more time. When a ship dies in pvp isk enters the game through insurance payouts. No isk is removed from the game. The items and the minerals/materials used to create them are removed, but still no isk has been removed from the game. You might have less isk in your wallet because you bought the items, but that isk now resides in someone elseÆs wallet. Alas again no isk has been removed. overall conclusion? pvp = isk faucet and a mineral sink. If your post was about pvp acting as a catalyst for the economy you would be correct. Pvp however does not stop in anyway shape or form the massive isk faucet that is sanctums. However if ccps goal from this change was to reduce the sanctum isk faucet they could have done it simply by dropping npc bounties and increasing the loot drops. However I do not believe curbing the isk faucet was their primary intention from this change.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:44:00 - [2012] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Originally by: Swearte Widfarend Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26 Originally by: Sarina Rhoda pvp is a mineral sink and a isk faucet. Isk is given out through insurance but no isk is removed from the game by pvp. This is incorrect. This would only be correct if the net balance of destruction/insurance/drop/salvage was 0 ISK, and it's not. At the very least, any rigs on a ship are lost in PvP destruction. Anytime a single module is destroyed, isk is removed from the game. Insurance is a net loss (most insurance does not even cover the build cost of a T1 ship now), so that is not an isk faucet. Lord you are painful. I will read the rest of your post in a bit but IÆm going to try this one more time. When a ship dies in pvp isk enters the game through insurance payouts. No isk is removed from the game. The items and the minerals/materials used to create them are removed, but still no isk has been removed from the game. You might have less isk in your wallet because you bought the items, but that isk now resides in someone elseÆs wallet. Alas again no isk has been removed. overall conclusion? pvp = isk faucet and a mineral sink. If your post was about pvp acting as a catalyst for the economy you would be correct. Pvp however does not stop in anyway shape or form the massive isk faucet that is sanctums. However if ccps goal from this change was to reduce the sanctum isk faucet they could have done it simply by dropping npc bounties and increasing the loot drops. However I do not believe curbing the isk faucet was their primary intention from this change. considering they stated exactly what their "desired" outcome was you are correct. most people supporting this change ae doing so for hundreds of reasons.... none of which are the desired outcome. face it, in no way shape or form will A lead to B as CCP greyscale is claiming. if their actual gola is C then all we have is CCP lying to their customers. again.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:46:00 - [2013] Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: DarthMopp Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 09:02:12 Edited by: DarthMopp on 31/03/2011 08:53:10 Originally by: Kovid I'd like to see someone admit that there is no realistic way to get caught in a sanctum in alliance held territory with intel networks, or hell just look at local and warp out. for someone who is paying attention. This is nullsec right? Right. This is nullsec. And yes, given the fact that the pilot is not a complete moron and at least has an eye on Local then he is pretty safe in an Anomaly. (Blue Tackles left aside..as well as those morons ratting in Caps and Supercaps) I really think that most of the complaining does originate from the way CCP want to sell this nerf to us. Couldnt they just say "Hey...the Faucet/Sink Gap is way too **ing huge. One problem to solve this is to remove Sanctums and Havens from crappy truesec, the other solution will be to nerf the mission Agents in HighSec. We are sorry about that but theres no other way at the moment." Some more honesty would be awesome. Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently. I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy. valid point concerning intel networks. but it doesnt change the fact that that will exist with or without anomolies, and that with LESS people in 0.0 doing mindless ratting you will have even a LOWER chance of catching them napping in an anom. not to mention that all of the above, while some arguments may have merits, does not explain how the anomaly nerf will increase sov warfare. people are not going to go to the effort of taking a system for ** anoms, and they wont attack someone else for better anoms. its a non-nonsensical argument and the fact that greyscale thinks that THAT argument has merit should be of concern to all customers. Seeing as Mining upgrades were not touched, perhaps their master plan is to have us nudge all players into a training plan that involves nothing but training hulk -> Carrier -> Supercarriers
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:50:00 - [2014] Originally by: Super Whopper Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. The logic behind this argument is so flawed it hurts. Where are all these PLEX gonna go, you think people will thrash them for the lulz? The demand for PLEX will actually decrease as paying a sub with ISK to support secondary/tertiary/gazillionary accounts is less feasible for the average Joe. Since the average Joe will not suddenly have more money in his RL wallet either (unlike Joe Plexseller who is loaded IRL and wants to trade RL cash for ingame cash), CCP can only lose revenue here. They are doing it for the long-term benefit, there will most certainly be a short-term loss of revenue for CCP, but a stable game economy is beneficial to them as it ensures the long-term survival of their product on the market.
Zamiq	Posted - 2011.03.31 16:55:00 - [2015] Edited by: Zamiq on 31/03/2011 16:58:19 Originally by: Swearte Widfarend Edited by: Swearte Widfarend on 31/03/2011 16:04:26 I've skipped the last 20 pages, so... Here's the thing about all of the people whining about how they can't afford sovereignty after this change. If that's true, you are doing it wrong. I've done the math, and an iHub with a Pirate Array 1 (the lowest level) will spawn 4 Hub anomalies (yes, the poor, useless Hub). Did you know that the average ISK/hr for running a Hub is between 10-15 million? So (at worst level) that's 40 million ISK coming out of a Sovereignty 1 system with a Pirate Array (by the way, the Pirate Array 5 is something like 20 anomalies). If corp tax is an overbearing 10%, that means it takes 15 hours total ratting per day to afford your Sovereignty. 30 Days Sovereignty bill = 180 million (60 million per day) 15 hours ratting in 4 Hubs = 600 million ISK 10% Tax on ratting = 60 million ISK. So if you have, in the span of 23 hours online, 60 pilots rat for 1 hour, you cover your sov bill. Stop whining about how you can't afford your sovereignty. As for the individual pilot, they are only taking in about 10m isk/hr which is significantly less than the 75-100m isk/hr a carrier or tengu ratting a sanctum, but not far from what a Drake pilot gets (around 25m isk/hr) when doing one. However, CCP is also updating and improving the spawns based on the Entrapment Array. These are the DED complexes, and the ones that spawn in nullsec (DED 6-10) have a higher chance of spawning in a system with an Entrapment Array installed. They are also bringing online an unknown number of previously unavailable Faction Modules that will drop in these DED complexes. I can't find great numbers, but it seems that the average DED complex can bring up to 200m isk/hr to the pilots running it - although they won't be as frequent as the Anomalies they also require combat/scan probes to get at, so are more secure to work in compared to an anomaly. In addition, this isn't a pure ISK faucet, since most of the ISK earned will be in loot/salvage compared to raw bounties in an anomaly. It remains to be seen if the DED complexes will be utilized (or available) in such a way to balance out the earning capabilities of the individual pilot, but everyone complaining that you won't be able to afford sovereignty after this change is not researching the facts of these changes. Facts folks - this isn't FOX News or MSNBC. You must offer facts, and most of you didn't do a bit of research before shooting off your mouth in this thread. Ok, let me first state that you are completely clueless. First get your facts straight. Ratting = Going around asteroid belts killing/chaining spawns Plexing = Doing complexes/anomolies. So lets begin with the fact that the iHub with Pirate Array 1 will do jack s h i t for Hubs, since Pirate Array 1 will not impact complex spawn rates. Pirate Arrays will impact rat spawn rates, which spawn in asteroid belts. Second, iHub = 300kk and Pirate Array 1 = 100kk so you just slap a 400mil bill on top of that 180 mil sovereignty bill. Guess what though, that still leaves you with a useless Pirate Array 1, to use an Entrapment Array 1 (which actually increases hub spawn rate) you will need Pirate Array 3 installed. So add 200kk for Pirate Array 2 and then 300kk for Pirate Array 3. What are we at now? Thats 300mil for hub + 100mil + 200mil + 300mil + 100mil for Entrapment Array. So now you spent 1 billion just to get the 4 Hubs spawning. This requires a serious investment, the entire idea here is that the said investment is always at risk, so how do you want more people to move out to 0.0 if they need to splurge multi billion ISK upgrades when the rewards dont justify the risk? Also, before you spew your BS about facts, which you obviously have no clue about, please point us to anything that says the DED complex spawn rates will be increased? Where is the official statement on that mister FOX News?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:15:00 - [2016] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 31/03/2011 17:22:53 Originally by: Zamiq Also, before you spew your BS about facts, which you obviously have no clue about, please point us to anything that says the DED complex spawn rates will be increased? There was a dev blog last month that hinted DED plexes will be touched again: Look here for details. Doesnt directly say spawn rates will increase, but it does say that there will be more different plexes. So you'll probably see an increased chance to get a more valuable plex. Since those plexes tend to have more gain from loot than being a direct ISK faucet, I dont see a good reason to not have increased spawn rates either. Originally by: Dev Blog And if explosions and sarcastic AIs talking about space snacks aren't enough, these new DED complexes will be the exclusive source of several pirate modules previously unavailable in EVE Online. ^^ In other words, chances are an outrageously expensive module will drop into your lap. Originally by: Dev Blog So where's this stuff going to show up? First, the new sites in the 6-10 range are being slammed into the sovereignty upgrade system. (Pirates always make good downtime crunch between nullsec sorties.) ^^ Sounds like upgrades will net you a better chance to get the cookie.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:16:00 - [2017] Edited by: Gabriel Grimoire on 31/03/2011 17:18:25 - Dammit... ninjaed. Originally by: Zamiq Also, before you spew your BS about facts, which you obviously have no clue about, please point us to anything that says the DED complex spawn rates will be increased? Where is the official statement on that mister FOX News? http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=861 is what I believe he was referring to. Not higher spawn rates, but more refinement in the way the DED system works.
Infiltrator2112	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:18:00 - [2018] Nice trolling CCP I¦m playing EvE now for around 9 months, and even I can say that the dev-blog is total bullsht. Sht will happen, we(NC) won¦t begin fighting each other, neither will anyone else. We won¦t leave any systems, neither will anyone else, so why should new alliances have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec? CCP, do you know what happend in the last months in 0.0? Serious question. In our war against the Solar Legion of Red Noise, over 20 titans and countless supercarriers were destroyed, and that in only in ~1 month. The is more then enough fighting for 0.0 facepalm Nothing will change. People will earn less money and thats all. I would bet all my ISK that the people who had those ideas don¦t know anything about 0.0 space. A 9 month old noob knows more than you about the situation in 0.0 , sad Obvious Dev-Troll is obvious.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:20:00 - [2019] Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: Super Whopper Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. The logic behind this argument is so flawed it hurts. Where are all these PLEX gonna go, you think people will thrash them for the lulz? The demand for PLEX will actually decrease as paying a sub with ISK to support secondary/tertiary/gazillionary accounts is less feasible for the average Joe. Since the average Joe will not suddenly have more money in his RL wallet either (unlike Joe Plexseller who is loaded IRL and wants to trade RL cash for ingame cash), CCP can only lose revenue here. They are doing it for the long-term benefit, there will most certainly be a short-term loss of revenue for CCP, but a stable game economy is beneficial to them as it ensures the long-term survival of their product on the market. Push PLEX prices down and it will take more PLEXes to buy what you want. For CCP that sounds like a good thing. Push PLEX prices down and the middle cases where people would buy a plex if they were cheaper would switch over. With the destruction of PLEXes it's become absolutely clear that CCP is under no legal obligation to ever honor PLEXes. If prices drop far enough that CCP stops making $ they could just start adding an expiration date to old PLEXes, and they have stated that they WILL control PLEX prices if they want to. It's CCPs game, they can try to **** us out of $ however they want. Every word said at Fanfest and every decision CCP's made over the past year or 2 makes a lot more sense if you look at it from the $ perspective.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:21:00 - [2020] Originally by: Skaarl considering they stated exactly what their "desired" outcome was you are correct. most people supporting this change ae doing so for hundreds of reasons.... none of which are the desired outcome. face it, in no way shape or form will A lead to B as CCP greyscale is claiming. if their actual gola is C then all we have is CCP lying to their customers. again. Have to say I agree with you but overall I still think that post i have quoted below is the most accurate one I've read so far. Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha CCP did not want to make 0.0 a better version of high sec. After reading about 60 pages it's clear that both Grayscale and the "customers" did not get it. CCP's original intention should have been to give ISK faucets so the smaller alliances would actively fight and stuff. But the ISK faucets attracted (also) a lot of not 0.0 grade people who would just go there to PvE and farm. Now, these guys are exclusively filling EvE with inflation and not fighting. This is what the WoW era playerbases do. The 0.0 PvE farmers seem to belong to hi sec, this is why they are getting nerfed and kicked back to high sec. The others who are genuinely PvP players but have no moons, are those truly screwed. This is where Greyscale failed: he wants to nerf Sanctum Bears but not Moons Sucking Bears. Only by doing the latter there's ANY hope to see someone challenge the big blocks. Only an heavy moons nerf would help. Making them depletable and their "load" spawning in another constellation / region would make space dynamic. Sanctum nerf would send the fake 0.0ers back in hi sec. L4 nerf will make the nerf on moons still make living 0.0 preferrable by those who are still up to moons mining. Only downside of the above, a part of the customers would return back to their former MMO.

Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:26:00 - [2021] On PLEX and how much money CCP makes: If I pay for an account with cash chances are I will do it in 6 month or 12 month blocks. Those cost $11.95 and $10.95 per month respectively. If I pay for my account with PLEX, well that PLEX costs someone $17.50. Every account CCP can switch from being paid for with cash to being paid for with PLEX increases their income by $5.55 to $6.55 per month. In addition not every PLEX added to the game goes to extending a subscription. Some get blown up, some are saved as investments, some are stockpiled by players "just in case". Result: CCP does make money off increased PLEX sales. Question: All the isk amounts given in an above post for sov and upgrades: which of those are a per month charge and which are one-time?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:27:00 - [2022] Originally by: mkmin Push PLEX prices down and it will take more PLEXes to buy what you want. For CCP that sounds like a good thing. No, its a bad thing for CCP. PLEX price dictates the exchange rate ISK<->$$$. The lower the PLEX price, the more likely Joe Plexseller is to get his ISK from RMT sources instead.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:34:00 - [2023] Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: mkmin Push PLEX prices down and it will take more PLEXes to buy what you want. For CCP that sounds like a good thing. No, its a bad thing for CCP. PLEX price dictates the exchange rate ISK<->$$$. The lower the PLEX price, the more likely Joe Plexseller is to get his ISK from RMT sources instead. Never said Greed was smart. And CCP's cracking down on RMT and botting. They hired a guy for it and everything. Really though, if they are confident they can reduce the RMT, and they are confident they can pry more $ out of us, why wouldn't they? And even if a small percentage goes to RMT, a larger percentage will still go to PLEX. Not to mention that RMTers always set their prices to be barely cheaper than PLEX anyway regardless of the ISK<->$ rate.
DarthMopp Gallente I.D.I.O.T. Ewoks	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:39:00 - [2024] Originally by: Super Whopper Nonsense. The reason why CCP are doing this is in the hope more people buy and sell PLEX. The more people buy and sell PLEX the more money CCP make. This is why it wasn't discussed with the CSM. CCP can see they are bleeding customers and money but instead of improving the game they are set on releasing unfinished content that never gets iterated on, because their data tells them it's better to be stupid and lose customers than do things differently. I have no idea where management get these idiots from but they'll be in for a shareholder revolt in a while if they don't change their strategy. Now your logic would be that CCP hopes that people who are **ed off because of this change and now need to fund their PVP/0.0 Life with an mission running alt in highsec, which they need to keep online with plexes and/or need to sell plexes for being able to buy ships and fittings? And that this is their sole intention to push this nerf through? Hope you call as soon as you run out of tinfoil. K, CCP definately isn¦t the salvation army and yes their "endgame" is to make money. They run a business. On the other hand a unwritten law of business is and always will be is that it is easier to keep customers then to get new ones, BUT you still need to grow because stagnation in economic terms is equal to a slow but certain death. I really cannot imagine that Hilmar would accept such a risky beggars trick to lure the Money from existing customers wallets. Risky in terms of "Hey, lets ** of a decent amount of players, negate them their easy income in 0.0 so they will surely buy plexes which nettos more money for us all in the end. They are brainless addicts, Eve is their drug and they are our Milkcow." Once and again. Isk Sink and Faucet are way out of control. In my Eyes thats the sole point they are doing this. But it does not sound as catchy and hardboild as "hey, we want the 0.0 burning, fight for your rights...now get moving". And still....you all are the customers, not the slaves of ccp. If you think you can live with the change then adapt to it. If you think you cannot live with it try another game. After all for us customers its not more then that. A Game. If its more for you then you need to rethink your gaming habits. Anyways, nice Boobs on that char, Super Whopper! "Alea iacta est"
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:44:00 - [2025] Here's a twisted idea: How about if as soon as Sov is claimed in a system the ownership of every POS in that system automatically transfers to the new Sov holders.
Latino lover Minmatar SEX WITH PENYS	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:49:00 - [2026] Edited by: Latino lover on 31/03/2011 17:49:36 Just quit you f;cking farmers none cares about your pain , if you're so stupid and dont known how to make isk you have no place in this game -- In GIGI we trust !!
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 17:53:00 - [2027] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 31/03/2011 17:55:14 Originally by: mkmin Never said Greed was smart. I honestly think you should give the people that run a successful company for more than 10 years now a little more credit. It has nothing to do with greed, but with protecting a long-term investment.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:00:00 - [2028] Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 31/03/2011 17:55:14 Originally by: mkmin Never said Greed was smart. I honestly think you should give the people that run a successful company for more than 10 years now a little more credit. It has nothing to do with greed, but with protecting a long-term investment. actually that true is an untrue statement. EVE has just reached the point in its mmo lifetime where the second stringers start making bad decisions cause they have a successful game handed to them by the first stringers, who are now working on a separate project (in this case dust.) now these second stringers think they are always right because the game is successful! problem is they start killing the game in horrible ways. i do expect, not just because of this change to anoms, but because of ccps and the devs attitudes a 25-33% decrease in subscriptions over the next year. this is just the beginning of the end.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:03:00 - [2029] btw MASS PROTEST MARCH 31ST AT 20:00 UTC ON SINGULARITY. JOIN CHANNEL PROTEST FOR MORE INFORMATION.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:03:00 - [2030] Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 31/03/2011 17:55:14 Originally by: mkmin Never said Greed was smart. I honestly think you should give the people that run a successful company for more than 10 years now a little more credit. It has nothing to do with greed, but with protecting a long-term investment. Good thing we have people like you ensuring the success of the world's financial markets. I mean wall street has been running the economy for generations, there's no way they could ever fail, right? Too big to fail?

Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:13:00 - [2031] Originally by: mkmin Good thing we have people like you ensuring the success of the world's financial markets. I mean wall street has been running the economy for generations, there's no way they could ever fail, right? Too big to fail? A company being successful or not has nothing to do with wallstreet.
Galerak	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:16:00 - [2032] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Mrs Pants I am no political genius, in fact I am no genius of any kind but I can see that these proposed changes are going to hit the small fry hard and leave the big boys totally un touched. This happens in life all the time. We immerse ourselves in virtual realities like eve to get away from it, not to see more of it. I propose a new plan to change 0.0 sec. Leave it alone. It is constantly changing just nicely as it is. The big boys untouched?... Then why are they so up in arms whining like the world is ending? No, even the big boys are going to feel this hard as their BFF network gets untangled by the need to allocate a now scares resource. Need to allocate? what makes you think they will actually allocate anything? Do they grant pets or other allies access to their low trusec systems for ratting or access to tech moons in systems they hold? No, so why would they 'allocate' to anyone else? If you foresee an uprising of the renters or a fracturing of the coalitions you're delusional.
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:40:00 - [2033] After this change, would an alliance that DOES allocate moon income to members be more successful than one that does not?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.03.31 18:56:00 - [2034] Originally by: Galerak Need to allocate? what makes you think they will actually allocate anything? Do they grant pets or other allies access to their low trusec systems for ratting or access to tech moons in systems they hold? No, so why would they 'allocate' to anyone else? A meatshield is only good if it has some meat on its ribs. You are probably right in that the coalitions will not suddenly start eating their own, however they will need to find a new balance (as losing bodies is not an option since the blob on the other side doesnt magically shrink), one that will in fact be much more prone to internal clashes.
Cyrus Doul Infinite Development	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:07:00 - [2035] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:11:22 Originally by: Cyrus Doul How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post. Please go up 4/5 posts to see my initial post about this fail spreadsheet. But taking his raw data about system true sec and putting in correct formulas IÆve managed to generate some maybe useful information for you lot to ponder over. Overall % change of higher tier sites = -23% regions of noticeable increase = spire (+28%), perrigen (+18.5%), cobalt (+17%) and etherium (+14.3%). regions of noticeable decrease = PB (-94%), provi (-88%), tribute (-53%) and paragon (-52.3%). TBH i still think this is a good idea just need to tweak the brackets. I would propose swapping the upper most and lower most bracket ie. 0.0 - 0.1499 = -4 sites 0.15 - 0.3499 = -1 site 0.35 - 0.5499 = no change 0.55 - 0.7499 = +1 site 0.75 - 1 = +6 sites Basically shrinking the lower bracket and expanding the upper bracket to hold overall % change of higher tier sites at around 0%...... Mull it over before you reply with the usual tears. I used the numbers to break down the planets that someone on scrapheap figured out and posted. "In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), " According to that the sites are not going to be linear. so I took the assumed most amount of drops since they said that the lowest of the third band loses 1 system and the highest of the fourth band gains 1. Mine is the Pessimistic graph. Your information is the most Optimistic with your plus six assuming that every system in the fifth bracket is a 1.0 index or whatever quantify the plus six bonus. Also your brackets are off. the system currently rounds down. so the divisors are .25 .45 .65 and .85. =sum(-1(C34)+(G3-D3)*2+(F3-E3)) is the formula that i am running for the spire. And I just roll drag it down for the others.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:10:00 - [2036] MASS PROTEST EVENT ON SINGULARITY IN 1 HOUR FROM THIS AT 20:00 UTC JOIN CHANNEL "PROTEST"
Lady Veneficus	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:12:00 - [2037] CCP please leave the anomalies be.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:27:00 - [2038] Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 19:31:27 Originally by: Cyrus Doul Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 31/03/2011 12:11:22 Originally by: Cyrus Doul How much your region is getting screwed spreadsheet version of this post. Please go up 4/5 posts to see my initial post about this fail spreadsheet. But taking his raw data about system true sec and putting in correct formulas IÆve managed to generate some maybe useful information for you lot to ponder over. Overall % change of higher tier sites = -23% regions of noticeable increase = spire (+28%), perrigen (+18.5%), cobalt (+17%) and etherium (+14.3%). regions of noticeable decrease = PB (-94%), provi (-88%), tribute (-53%) and paragon (-52.3%). TBH i still think this is a good idea just need to tweak the brackets. I would propose swapping the upper most and lower most bracket ie. 0.0 - 0.1499 = -4 sites 0.15 - 0.3499 = -1 site 0.35 - 0.5499 = no change 0.55 - 0.7499 = +1 site 0.75 - 1 = +6 sites Basically shrinking the lower bracket and expanding the upper bracket to hold overall % change of higher tier sites at around 0%...... Mull it over before you reply with the usual tears. I used the numbers to break down the planets that someone on scrapheap figured out and posted. "In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), " According to that the sites are not going to be linear. so I took the assumed most amount of drops since they said that the lowest of the third band loses 1 system and the highest of the fourth band gains 1. Mine is the Pessimistic graph. Your information is the most Optimistic with your plus six assuming that every system in the fifth bracket is a 1.0 index or whatever quantify the plus six bonus. Also your brackets are off. the system currently rounds down. so the divisors are .25 .45 .65 and .85. =sum(-1(C34)+(G3-D3)2+(F3-E3)) is the formula that i am running for the spire. And I just roll drag it down for the others. Yes I am aware I dissected your spread sheet. I addressed what I believed to be the issues in the post below. Your change formula is simply wrong. I even wrote the correct one in my post. Even if you think the +6 is optimistic then change it to 4. Either way yours is still incorrect. Originally by:* Sarina Rhoda Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ***ed. 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site 0.45 - 0.6499 = no change 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites Your formula for change in sites should be =(cx-4)+(dx-1)+(fx1)+(gx*6) (where x is the row number) If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12. So all I can conclude from this is either you werenÆt entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH. (just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.)
Jenn aSide	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:29:00 - [2039] As i've said in this thread, i don't like the proposed changes, but only because I think they are way to extreme. I think making some space better than others is a laudable goal, but do mega screw the little guy over it. I have 3 accounts and am training up a mission runner on one of them, so it won't kill me, but again it benifits the live at home kids who can spend they Mcdonald's pay check on GTC and screw people like me some. Even just 1 haven in the lowest systems would end my personal opposistion. and (and this is the big and ) Sov bills should scale as well, it's stupid for someone to have to pay the same bill for a system in pure blind as they have to for a system in better space....
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:36:00 - [2040] If isk faucets are dumping to much isk into the system then they need to be nerfed. In that case a sanctum nerf is warranted, although I feel other faucets should also bear some of the load. It should be more profitable to live in 0.0 than highsec. FOR A GRUNT. Lvl 4 missions and anomaly ratters/belt ratters. A 0.0 system should be able to support several people making a good living at any one time. Small pvp groups will stay in 0.0, probably npc like before. Small renter groups will leave 0.0 to run lvl 4 missions. Big alliances/coalitions will -have less isk because the renters went away -have a smaller ancillary blob because the renters went away -might send some of their pilots to put alts or clones in lvl 4 agent sites Overall this leads to -there will be fewer carebears to kill in 0.0 -fights will be a bit less blobby because there won't be renters bulking up the main alliance fleets -large groups will be able to afford fewer shinys -afk cloaking will be a bit more effective If they follow this up with a decent lvl 4 nerf I'd be happy. And did I hear something about new 0.0 complexes with new loots? That would mitigate the damage a bit. I didn't think renters had done anything that made them deserve to get stomped on. So I'll rate this not awful, not great, highly dependent on how they follow up on it.

Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:43:00 - [2041] Originally by: Hiroshima Jita If isk faucets are dumping to much isk into the system then they need to be nerfed. In that case a sanctum nerf is warranted, although I feel other faucets should also bear some of the load. It should be more profitable to live in 0.0 than highsec. FOR A GRUNT. Lvl 4 missions and anomaly ratters/belt ratters. A 0.0 system should be able to support several people making a good living at any one time. Small pvp groups will stay in 0.0, probably npc like before. Small renter groups will leave 0.0 to run lvl 4 missions. Big alliances/coalitions will -have less isk because the renters went away -have a smaller ancillary blob because the renters went away -might send some of their pilots to put alts or clones in lvl 4 agent sites Overall this leads to -there will be fewer carebears to kill in 0.0 -fights will be a bit less blobby because there won't be renters bulking up the main alliance fleets -large groups will be able to afford fewer shinys -afk cloaking will be a bit more effective If they follow this up with a decent lvl 4 nerf I'd be happy. And did I hear something about new 0.0 complexes with new loots? That would mitigate the damage a bit. I didn't think renters had done anything that made them deserve to get stomped on. So I'll rate this not awful, not great, highly dependent on how they follow up on it. this change is not directed at isk faucets in any way. it is intended to create more sov warfare. noone can figure out how greyscale comes to this conclusiong but there it is.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.03.31 19:54:00 - [2042] Originally by: Skaarl this change is directed at isk faucets. it is intended to create more sov warfare. I can't figure out how greyscale comes to this conclusiong but there it is. FYP
Angst IronShard Minmatar Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:11:00 - [2043] I think it may work in the long term. Indeed it's like an electroshock at all those sleeping alliances. "Taking us down a path to hell Dying for nothing Except to make their pockets swell" And I don't live in nullsec anymore so I don't care about the change, but I think it will suit really at the True Sec scale as first intended. GJ CCP o7 . ____________________________________________ Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:14:00 - [2044] Originally by: Marconus Orion Originally by: Skaarl this change is directed at isk faucets. it is intended to create more sov warfare. I can't figure out how greyscale comes to this conclusiong but there it is. FYP Except no, you didn't "FYP", because what he said is valid. There was ZERO mention in any of Greyscale's posts that this change was to reduce the isk faucet specifically. This is all supposedly happening under the guise of stimulating PvP and conflict within nullsec and getting more people involved in 0.0 life. I suggest you go back and actually read what Greyscale has said thus far on the issue. Bottom line here (which has been artfully stated by numerous people in this thread already),is CCP is either totally bullsh*tting its players about why exactly they are making this change, or they truly have no understanding of the way such a change will ultimately effect life in 0.0. Both of those scenarios are worse than the actual change itself.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:14:00 - [2045] Originally by: Skaarl thats just it, CCP is trying to force the alliances that moved to 0.0 post - dominion to move on, so other alliances can move into 0.0. and they think that we will do so... to obtain better truesec space. the exact opposite will happen. LOTS of players will return at least part time to high sec. less players in null will mean less people for guys like gobbins to kill means less conflict. it wont change the amount of sov conflict going on, it wont encourage "bad" space alliances to move to better truesec (i mean seriously??) it wont do anything but help to depopulate populous regions and decrease the amount of small gang pew. I think the population movement goal will be met but it won't be via invasion or conflict. The higher SP characters in the small alliances will join up with the better space holding alliances and the new players will take their places. And every 3 months the process repeats itself.
Myra Gungwei	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:18:00 - [2046] I do not understand this change, nor its stated reasoning? Nullsec attracts a variety of players for the diversity of operations. Availability of bounties allows SMALLER end corps/alliances to exist in nullsec, buy ships, AND JOIN IN with roams and combat. Those small combat groups protect small mining alliances in their space, and at the bottom of the food chain support the combat eco-system above it. If this small area of combat income is removed then an hour of time becomes more precious = ship more precious = less desire to lose it = less combat, not more = sod it, hello High-Sec (bored = bye bye game). This seems to be a play to re-establishing the only large alliance game balance who'll be able take and now own both moon mining and any lucrative sanctum space. So back to large corp stalemates. Why? Suggest a better rebalance of moon mining if the economy needs to be balanced rather than knee-capping smaller alliances with this ill-considered change.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:31:00 - [2047] Originally by: Myra Gungwei I do not understand this change, nor its stated reasoning? Nullsec attracts a variety of players for the diversity of operations. Availability of bounties allows SMALLER end corps/alliances to exist in nullsec, buy ships, AND JOIN IN with roams and combat. Those small combat groups protect small mining alliances in their space, and at the bottom of the food chain support the combat eco-system above it. If this small area of combat income is removed then an hour of time becomes more precious = ship more precious = less desire to lose it = less combat, not more = sod it, hello High-Sec (bored = bye bye game). This seems to be a play to re-establishing the only large alliance game balance who'll be able take and now own both moon mining and any lucrative sanctum space. So back to large corp stalemates. Why? Suggest a better rebalance of moon mining if the economy needs to be balanced rather than knee-capping smaller alliances with this ill-considered change. i hate to say this, but save your breathe. CCP is not listening. this change is obviously designed to do somethingother than CCP greyscales stated purpose and if he can not come out and say what it is then its going to be REALLY bad.
Gothiczwerg	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:47:00 - [2048] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ***ed. 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site 0.45 - 0.6499 = no change 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites Your formula for change in sites should be =(cx-4)+(dx-1)+(fx1)+(gx*6) (where x is the row number) If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12. So all I can conclude from this is either you werenÆt entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH. (just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.) You are wrong with this: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change) it sounds for me: 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 1st band no sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -4 site 2nd band no sites 0.45 - 0.6499 = -1 site 3rd band 3-4 sites 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 4th band 4-5 sites 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites 5th band 10 sites maximum of the 4 sites (2 havens 2 Sanctums) in the 3rd and 4th band ... -1 and +1 respectively
Orion GUardian Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.31 20:54:00 - [2049] Edited by: Orion GUardian on 31/03/2011 20:55:13 The only thing this change will do is the following: Make large portions of nullsec space worthless for moneymaking for the players while the alliances itself will remain the same. I am not against changing the system to bring a little diversity into it. But cutting Havens and Sanctums COMPLETELY for anything above -0.249 is utter bull****. As if the big Powerblocksweren't already sitting on the best moons. It just means that Nullsec will again be worse off than Highsec where all the Missions can be run for alot of profit. I like diversity, what I do not like is making things worthless. Anything below a Haven is not useful for anyone trying to reclaim some ISK from lost ships. [I could even live with "no sanctums for -0.15 and above] that way small alliances will keep being small as it is because noone would want to come to them and their space anyway. Screw this plan
fibergunner	Posted - 2011.03.31 21:03:00 - [2050] The tears from those people who live in crappy space is great. I think CVA is going to be happy.No one is going to want to fight over prov much anymore. Congrats on that. Look at all the renter tears lol..Sorry DRF. Let the teardom rain. Want better space? Come get it :) Im rich btc North dude

Justin Cody Caldari Instant Annihilation Everto Rex Regis	Posted - 2011.03.31 21:09:00 - [2051] horrid idea and I usually like your change ideas. scrub this one think of something better. kthxbye Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.03.31 21:09:00 - [2052] Originally by: Angst IronShard I think it may work in the long term. Indeed it's like an electroshock at all those sleeping alliances. Other players have been doing a damn good job of being "electroshock at all those sleeping alliances" - look at Atlas, -A-, Init, and of course IT. Some have rebuilt/retaken their space, but all are/were large alliances who lost a lot of space recently, mostly because of being inactive. I would really like to see data regarding ship kills before and after Dominion, both raw numbers and measured against total population. I do wonder whether there is more or less conflict in nullsec since the sov changes. Another interesting piece of data would be sov changes, although this would be a little less accurate with voluntary hand overs and empty sov wallets mixed in.
Altaica Amur Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.31 21:39:00 - [2053] So instead of trying to fix the moongoo distribution of wealth which you broke quite some time ago you decided that the anomolies system you introduced with dominion, which comprised most of the benefit from the Dominion update, needed to be messed with instead. as most of the other appealing features were conveniently forgotten
Lord Zoran Middleton and Mercer LLP RED Citizens	Posted - 2011.03.31 21:49:00 - [2054] If you really want more conflict make it so that the high end moons run dry every so often and respawn in a diffrent location. Either that or just put them all in 1 region which would inevitably be a constant battle ground.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.03.31 21:50:00 - [2055] this thread is getting as big as the t20 fun and games when is ccp grayscale going to comment on any of this stuff his last post sounded like a petition auto response
Brandon1980	Posted - 2011.03.31 22:47:00 - [2056] CCP greyscale must be a total idiot. We already have lots of members canceling their accounts over this. CCP wants more subcriptions but they will only loose subscribions. CCP always talks about how this game is run by the players but that is bull**** cause almost eveyone is against this nerf. Thanks for screwing up what I thought was the best game ever. CCp dont care what the players want if they did they would not be nerfing 0.0 cause the majority does not want the nerf.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.31 22:52:00 - [2057] Edited by: Jennifer Gemini on 31/03/2011 22:54:56 Thread is just short of 70 pages, each page has 30 replies with about 3 of those replies for it and the rest against. So 10% of the replies are arguing for it and the other 90% against. That's 1890 replies against and 210 for. I've seen at least a few people saying they are quitting because of this change towards the end of the thread, we'll say about 2 per page. That's 140 people/accounts. If we assume only 20% of them are serious, that's 28 accounts. We assume everyone has posted 5 times in this thread that's 378 people participating in this thread. 28 of those 378 is 7% If we assume these numbers can be extrapolated to the rest of eve which CCP says has over 300,000 subscribers and assume half of them don't care either way: 150,000 people that care * 10% = 15,000 people that are for this change * 90% = 135,000 people that are against this change How much is CCP losing? Of the 135,000 people against it, 7% (the amount established for people quitting) of that is 9450... 9450 * $15 = $141,750 / month. Lets assume 75% of them come back within a month. That's still $35,437 lost/month from there after. So yeah, if you want to stick it to CCP for this change -- cancel sub. The bigger the hit, the greater the chance they will cancel this idea. I did it, others did it to. Lets show them they can't just ignore us. Do it now, not after the change. That way they see it now, they cancel it, you can uncancel sub and not lose any play time. If you wait until after... well then it just sucks for everyone.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:10:00 - [2058] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Edited by: Jennifer Gemini on 31/03/2011 22:54:56 Thread is just short of 70 pages, each page has 30 replies with about 3 of those replies for it and the rest against. So 10% of the replies are arguing for it and the other 90% against. That's 1890 replies against and 210 for. I've seen at least a few people saying they are quitting because of this change towards the end of the thread, we'll say about 2 per page. That's 140 people/accounts. If we assume only 20% of them are serious, that's 28 accounts. We assume everyone has posted 5 times in this thread that's 378 people participating in this thread. 28 of those 378 is 7% If we assume these numbers can be extrapolated to the rest of eve which CCP says has over 300,000 subscribers and assume half of them don't care either way: 150,000 people that care * 10% = 15,000 people that are for this change * 90% = 135,000 people that are against this change How much is CCP losing? Of the 135,000 people against it, 7% (the amount established for people quitting) of that is 9450... 9450 * $15 = $141,750 / month. Lets assume 75% of them come back within a month. That's still $35,437 lost/month from there after. So yeah, if you want to stick it to CCP for this change -- cancel sub. The bigger the hit, the greater the chance they will cancel this idea. I did it, others did it to. Lets show them they can't just ignore us. Do it now, not after the change. That way they see it now, they cancel it, you can uncancel sub and not lose any play time. If you wait until after... well then it just sucks for everyone. actually according to GM stardust this thread is 50% for 50% against. (sarcasm off.) shows how much of this they actually read, i stopped tracking after the 3rd page myself as i was going to provide hard numbers to refute him but decided that it was a waste of time since CCP doesnt give a frak what their customers think. when i stopped it was 90 against and 8 for, with those 8 breaking down into 1 makes sense, 1 no reason stated, 2 it changes isk inflation, 3 because it generates carebear tears, 1 because it hurts the NC and 1 cause its an april fools joke. in the whole thread ive yet to see a reply that thinks that the action will actually result in the predicted consequences.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:14:00 - [2059] Originally by: Skaarl actually according to GM stardust this thread is 50% for 50% against. (sarcasm off.) I want some of what he is smoking.
Henry Leaf	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:15:00 - [2060] Originally by: Brandon1980 CCP greyscale must be a total idiot. We already have lots of members canceling their accounts over this. CCP wants more subcriptions but they will only loose subscribions. CCP always talks about how this game is run by the players but that is bull**** cause almost eveyone is against this nerf. Thanks for screwing up what I thought was the best game ever. CCp dont care what the players want if they did they would not be nerfing 0.0 cause the majority does not want the nerf. Sorry mate but CCP don't care. Things like lag and and Sanctum nerfs have an impact on the older player base but are less likely to effect newer players. Sure, a few of us will leave, but they will just recruit more new players. Why do you think they took away learning skills? To make it easier for new people to get into the game. Walking in stations? Something to make Eve more attractive to the tards from WoW and SL etc. Even Incursions are full of l337 ex wow players who want to "inspect your gear" before you can join their l337 fleet. There are thousands and thousands of posts requesting issues be fixed - ship scaling, gun re-balancing, fix POS's, re-distribution of moon goo, fix lag. All these things cost too much time and money. Money that can be spent on recruiting more players with new shiny add-ons, whilst the veterans go do something else. Keep pushing lads, but it's clear that their new business model is about "recruit moar noobs, and let the older toons go". ItÆs all about ôX * $14.95 a month. Whilst ever X is increasing (ie the number of players), they will continue to invest their money in ônoob candyö and not on fixing the real issues. DonÆt flame CCP Greyscale. He is clearly not empowered as a decision maker in this process, and he is simply doing what his management want him to do. I feel sorry for him.

Xel Set	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:15:00 - [2061] Originally by: Gabriel Grimoire Originally by: Marconus Orion Originally by: Skaarl this change is directed at isk faucets. it is intended to create more sov warfare. I can't figure out how greyscale comes to this conclusiong but there it is. FYP Except no, you didn't "FYP", because what he said is valid. There was ZERO mention in any of Greyscale's posts that this change was to reduce the isk faucet specifically. This is all supposedly happening under the guise of stimulating PvP and conflict within nullsec and getting more people involved in 0.0 life. I suggest you go back and actually read what Greyscale has said thus far on the issue. Bottom line here (which has been artfully stated by numerous people in this thread already),is CCP is either totally bullsh*tting its players about why exactly they are making this change, or they truly have no understanding of the way such a change will ultimately effect life in 0.0. Both of those scenarios are worse than the actual change itself. This.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:15:00 - [2062] Originally by: Skaarl [...]In the whole thread ive yet to see a reply that thinks that the action will actually result in the predicted consequences. This. ____________ I like woman because breasts
PLUCX	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:18:00 - [2063] What I see here is that CCP makes a huge profit with PLEX and whant to keep the wheel spinning. By cutting the players income, they make PLEX much more appealing!
Baron Sterno	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:20:00 - [2064] Ahhh, really knowing how to decimate smaller corps that are struggling to establish a foothold in nullsec. While it is easy for a large coalition, alliance, corp. to hold onto and move into new territory; it nerfs the small corps. Not to mention the simple fact that the major power holders most likely have some of the more valuable nullsec systems as part of the territory already. Poor thought process on this decision I believe. One thumbs down!
Jiraan Easy Co. Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:24:00 - [2065] ccp if you have the commen since that most of the players that live in null with quit the game in the event of you nurffing the sanctums and havens... i know that both of my accounts WILL be stop being payed for and i will never get on this game again... Unless you fix the pay of the rats in belts so that is more profitable then doing the sanctums in the lower systems as in the higher systems.. there is no point in nurffing the stuff that you created to see if you can get more fights. instead most likly you will lose alot more players then anything alse. dont be retarted!!!!!!! you are screwing your own game by doing this....
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:24:00 - [2066] Edited by: Dharh on 31/03/2011 23:25:13 Whining whiners who whine. This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. In fact, they should make this exact change to moon goo too. -30% in -0.0 to -0.2, -15% in -0.3 to -0.4, 0% in -0.5 to -0.6, +15% in -0.7 to -0.8, and +30% in -0.9 to -1.0. Along with that moon goo should deplete and slowly refill the same way PI resources do. I just solved the game and you are all whiners.
Herpes Sweatrash	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:26:00 - [2067] I have gone through the thread and counted each poster's opinion, either for or against. An overwhelming majority (93%) are opposed to this change and pvp in general. It couldn't be much clearer; the player base doesn't want changes dictated by bitter money grubbing game devs or arsemode lamer pvpers. Ensure all subscribers have equal access to end game content. Make the changes your player base desires (more pve content, better industry, less focus on laggy circlejerks). Just like an employee works better when he is happy and content; a happy and content player will be able to go much further in this game and achieve far greater things. I hope you take this into consideration.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:36:00 - [2068] This change has greater effect on new people. I've only been playing a few months and this is going to have a pretty large impact on me. I've seen greyscale contradict himself a few times. First he said it will foster PVP because it creates conflict. Implying that some regions will have significantly better systems with anoms... Then he said it won't be that big of a change because it's basically moving sanctums from lowend (high truesec) systems to highend (low truesec) systems. Which is contradictory to the previous statement because that just makes people move a few jumps over. Also, doing that groups people together which increases node resource demand. The nerfs planned for missions seems to be to get people to spread out while the nerfs for nullsec seem to be to get people to group together. This change makes no sense no matter how I look at it... - Increases node load by encouraging many people to be in the same system - Screws over small alliances trying to get into nullsec by removing systems they could have used as a nice start up system due to the decreased potential income - Forces out new players -or- forces them to grind much more boring anoms/move back to highsec. Killing NPC frigs and cruisers is not fun. That's grind. That's boring. - Forces many renters to stop renting since they will have issues earning income from taxes in low quality systems. - Further encourages power blocks. - ***es off so many nullsec pilots and... - Is causing people to quit - Encourages botting -- grinding a sanctum yourself a few hours a day to fund your faction fit faction ships isn't too bad. Take that away and leave only crappy anoms it's no longer worth your time. Botting becomes viable because it's not your time. A bot grinding away at a low level anomaly will still make quite a bit of ISK. Many players will probably turn to botting. Alternatively... - People will PVP less* because it now takes longer to pay off what you lost. - Doesn't help CCP make money in any way -- PLEX prices are player driven. If this causes less ISK in the economy (what many people assume this change is for) the price of PLEX will fall... as it falls less and less people will be willing to buy PLEX to sell for ISK. Best case the same amount of PLEX is bought/sold, worst case PLEX starts to get less and less used in favor of RMT. I don't get what they are trying to do with this change. Seriously, the only thing that makes sense is they are trolling us.
Admiral Goberius Amarr North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:36:00 - [2069] Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash I have gone through the thread and counted each poster's opinion, either for or against. An overwhelming majority (93%) are opposed to this change and pvp in general. It couldn't be much clearer; the player base doesn't want changes dictated by bitter money grubbing game devs or arsemode lamer pvpers. People in favor are a lot less likely to come post about it. Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash Ensure all subscribers have equal access to end game content. I dont think you "get" eve-online.
Jennifer Gemini	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:41:00 - [2070] Originally by: Admiral Goberius People in favor are a lot less likely to come post about it. Then lets have PLEX for remaps.

kasai zenpachi	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:48:00 - [2071] Originally by: Jennifer Gemini Edited by: Jennifer Gemini on 31/03/2011 22:54:56 Thread is just short of 70 pages, each page has 30 replies with about 3 of those replies for it and the rest against. So 10% of the replies are arguing for it and the other 90% against. That's 1890 replies against and 210 for. I've seen at least a few people saying they are quitting because of this change towards the end of the thread, we'll say about 2 per page. That's 140 people/accounts. If we assume only 20% of them are serious, that's 28 accounts. We assume everyone has posted 5 times in this thread that's 378 people participating in this thread. 28 of those 378 is 7% If we assume these numbers can be extrapolated to the rest of eve which CCP says has over 300,000 subscribers and assume half of them don't care either way: 150,000 people that care * 10% = 15,000 people that are for this change * 90% = 135,000 people that are against this change How much is CCP losing? Of the 135,000 people against it, 7% (the amount established for people quitting) of that is 9450... 9450 * $15 = $141,750 / month. Lets assume 75% of them come back within a month. That's still $35,437 lost/month from there after. So yeah, if you want to stick it to CCP for this change -- cancel sub. The bigger the hit, the greater the chance they will cancel this idea. I did it, others did it to. Lets show them they can't just ignore us. Do it now, not after the change. That way they see it now, they cancel it, you can uncancel sub and not lose any play time. If you wait until after... well then it just sucks for everyone. If this update happens the only thing I could do is cancel my account, This is a business (a badly managed business) and hitting them in the pocket is the only way to get their attention. Hate to do this but i see no other way for ccp to get the point.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.03.31 23:56:00 - [2072] Originally by: kasai zenpachi If this update happens the only thing I could do is cancel my account Nothing of value would be lost. They are nerfing the way how one can constantly farm in 0.0, if you think the ability to farm 80 million+ isks per hour on any upgrade sov system in 0.0 throughout the day with endless anomalies is ok, you have serious problem.
Kovid Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:10:00 - [2073] Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally. The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts. I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity. CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity. No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better. After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started.
JTK Fotheringham Dashavatara	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:14:00 - [2074] Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:19:16 Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:16:46 Originally by: PLUCX What I see here is that CCP makes a huge profit with PLEX and whant to keep the wheel spinning. By cutting the players income, they make PLEX much more appealing! I don't think you understand the factors that drive out-of-game PLEX selling and in-game PLEX dependance. Originally by: Herpes Sweatrash I have gone through the thread and counted each poster's opinion, either for or against. I don't think you get out enough. Seriously, this was a waste of your time. Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. In fact, they should make this exact change to moon goo too. -30% in -0.0 to -0.2, -15% in -0.3 to -0.4, 0% in -0.5 to -0.6, +15% in -0.7 to -0.8, and +30% in -0.9 to -1.0. Along with that moon goo should deplete and slowly refill the same way PI resources do. I don't think you like affordable T2. I suspect the Dev's problem is that adjusting 0.0 will take tinkering with more than one factor, but in order to not totally shaft the game, they need to change one thing at a time. Saddly, they're not starting with something that will make much difference towards their stated goal, and will likely have the opposite effect. My 2c for fixing 0.0: Introduce something to change the risk / reward ration for moon mining - at present, it is far too easy to milk your moon and run your stuff over your JB to market - personally, I'd look into commando teams in an in-development-FPS-tie-in-game boarding moon goo towers (from specially suited Black-ops insertion ships) to disrupt them! Towers are way more juicey targets than planets anyway - as things presently stand! This would make 0.0 alliances defend in depth, and might help break the crappy over-dependence on super-caps with a return to moar small gang pew pew. Only point of caution, I'd monitor the effect on supply of moon goo, and introduce T2 moon mining to adapt to changing demand. This makes the risks for silly isk from moons much higher without adversely affecting moon goo supply, and fuels moar in-depth game play. Change Sov to reflect real-world invasions. A real invasion is never really over once the big battles are done - sov shouldn't climb based only on length of time held, but should be disrupted by some factors too, e.g. sov-holding alliance ships killed in system could produce a hit (based on size/type) of some sort on the sov index. That would make roaming gangs a lot moar of a threat - as they might hit your sov, not just your wallet. It might even allow a way to break through cyno-jammers if you're willing to invest in guerilla warfare instead of pos bashing. I could go on, but this is now tl;dr. Originally by: Kovid After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started. This - I think I'm just giving specific examples of what these might be. /JTK www.dashavatara.com
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:21:00 - [2075] Originally by: kasai zenpachi I am sorry but are there titans in high sec or carriers, we use expensive ships and lose thing with out problem because we can replace the loses (never fly something you can't afford to lose remember) so since the loses are more expense the rewards must be larger, is common sense. We this nerf will i really want to lose a carrier, titan or T3 at the same rate as before? the answer in no. They are not taking it away completely, they are only reducing it. You just have to move to a lower true sec status, or you would have to make somewhat less isks if you choose to stay in -0.01.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:21:00 - [2076] Originally by: JTK Fotheringham My 2c for fixing 0.0: Introduce something to change the risk / reward ration for moon mining - at present, it is far too easy to milk your moon and run your stuff over your JB to market - personally, I'd look into commando teams in an in-development-FPS-tie-in-game boarding moon goo towers (from specially suited Black-ops insertion ships) to disrupt them! Towers are way more juicey targets than planets anyway - as things presently stand! This would make 0.0 alliances defend in depth, and might help break the crappy over-dependence on super-caps with a return to moar small gang pew pew. Only point of caution, I'd monitor the effect on supply of moon goo, and introduce T2 moon mining to adapt to changing demand. This makes the risks for silly isk from moons much higher without adversely affecting moon goo supply, and fuels moar in-depth game play. Change Sov to reflect real-world invasions. A real invasion is never really over once the big battles are done - sov shouldn't climb based only on length of time held, but should be disrupted by some factors too, e.g. sov-holding alliance ships killed in system could produce a hit (based on size/type) of some sort on the sov index. That would make roaming gangs a lot moar of a threat - as they might hit your sov, not just your wallet. It might even allow a way to break through cyno-jammers if you're willing to invest in guerilla warfare instead of pos bashing. I could go on, but this is now tl;dr. Two excellent ideas really, given that CCP is finally getting around fixing whats broken with nullsec one can hope we might one day see something along these lines.
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:23:00 - [2077] Originally by: JTK Fotheringham Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:16:46 Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. In fact, they should make this exact change to moon goo too. -30% in -0.0 to -0.2, -15% in -0.3 to -0.4, 0% in -0.5 to -0.6, +15% in -0.7 to -0.8, and +30% in -0.9 to -1.0. Along with that moon goo should deplete and slowly refill the same way PI resources do. I don't think you like affordable T2. I suspect the Dev's problem is that adjusting 0.0 will take tinkering with more than one factor, but in order to not totally shaft the game, they need to change one thing at a time. Saddly, they're not starting with something that will make much difference towards their stated goal, and will likely have the opposite effect. My 2c for fixing 0.0: Introduce something to change the risk / reward ration for moon mining - at present, it is far too easy to milk your moon and run your stuff over your JB to market - personally, I'd look into commando teams in an in-development-FPS-tie-in-game boarding moon goo towers (from specially suited Black-ops insertion ships) to disrupt them! This would make 0.0 alliances defend in depth, and might help break the crappy over-dependence on super-caps with a return to moar small gang pew pew. Only point of caution, I'd monitor the effect on supply of moon goo, and introduce T2 moon mining to adapt to changing demand. This makes the risks for silly isk from moons much higher without adversely affecting moon goo supply, and fuels moar in-depth game play. Change Sov to reflect real-world invasions. A real invasion is never really over once the big battles are done - sov shouldn't climb based only on length of time held, but should be disrupted by some factors too, e.g. sov-holding alliance ships killed in system could produce a hit (based on size/type) of some sort on the sov index. That would make roaming gangs a lot moar of a threat - as they might hit your sov, not just your wallet. It might even allow a way to break through cyno-jammers if you're willing to invest in guerilla warfare instead of pos bashing. I could go on, but this is now tl;dr. /JTK More to the point I don't think we are entitled to cheap T2. I'm perfectly fine with more people using faction/officer gear rather than pure T2. But thats kinda besides the point. It just does not make sense that low quality null sec equals high quality null sec in almost any aspect.
JTK Fotheringham Dashavatara	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:32:00 - [2078] Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:33:22 Originally by: Dharh It just does not make sense that low quality null sec equals high quality null sec in almost any aspect. I don't think I'm actually disagreeing on that point. But your previous suggestion (about moon goo) would only have the effect of ramping up the price of T2 for no real in-game benefit - that I'm in disagreement with. I'm just a bit "meh" about this particular change - as it will not result in the outcome Greyscale is looking for, and will maybe, although not as dramatically as some are suggesting, have the opposite effect (i.e. wasteland buffers around the big 0.0 alliances that don't actually encourage new people to grab a slice of the pie.) /JTK www.dashavatara.com
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:40:00 - [2079] Edited by: Dharh on 01/04/2011 00:44:02 Originally by: JTK Fotheringham Edited by: JTK Fotheringham on 01/04/2011 00:33:22 Originally by: Dharh It just does not make sense that low quality null sec equals high quality null sec in almost any aspect. I don't think I'm actually disagreeing on that point. But your previous suggestion (about moon goo) would only have the effect of ramping up the price of T2 for no real in-game benefit - that I'm in disagreement with. I'm just a bit "meh" about this particular change - as it will not result in the outcome Greyscale is looking for, and will maybe, although not as dramatically as some are suggesting, have the opposite effect (i.e. wasteland buffers around the big 0.0 alliances that don't actually encourage new people to grab a slice of the pie.) /JTK Maybe just adding moon goo depletion and/or balancing it with sov upgrades. Moon goo scaling might not make sense with null sec quality, but it is a bit too profitable. And I agree with you. Null sec quality changes, moon goo changes, and sov changes (making it easier for enemy to take sov) would do the trick.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:46:00 - [2080] Originally by: kasai zenpachi we use expensive ships and lose thing with out problem Wait a minute, you want to use expensive ships and lose without problem.... just because you are in 0.0? why? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Just because you want to field carriers and dreadnoughts, doesn't mean you have to have the option to farm for a day or two, and return in fully fitted carriers to participate in a 1000 v 1000, and then come to COAD and ***** at CCP to fix lag. If you're in 0.0 and want more rewards, fine! But that doesn't mean you should get many many times the reward the empire has to offer just because you are in 0.0

JTK Fotheringham Dashavatara	Posted - 2011.04.01 00:49:00 - [2081] Originally by: Dharh Maybe just adding moon goo depletion and/or balancing it with sov upgrades. Moon goo scaling might not make sense with null sec quality, but it is a bit too profitable. I think you're missing my point. Present moon mining is high profit without corespondingly high risk. I'd like to see the risk ramped up, with some sort of threat of tower disruption, through covert action, and Dust514 suicide teams massacaring the tower crew, off-lining it for 6 hours, and unanchoring all the modules. That would be a risk to attach to moon goo towers. Nerfing the production to match the low risk would make T2 prohibitively expensive. We like T2 stuff, it kills good. CCP want a game with depth, we players want a game with depth. That's infinitely preferrable to the small scale tinkering with isk/hour output. /JTK www.dashavatara.com
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:27:00 - [2082] Originally by: Kovid Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally. The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts. I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity. CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity. No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better. After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started. You're so corny. Their "beliefs". It's not a religion, and you're not the high priest of pvp, you drama queen. What a cheeseball, "toppling goliaths" in your spaceship game. You have no idea what other people think, whether they plan to fight with the isk they made or not, with your blanket statements of pure drivel. You come in here, posting since page 1, obsessed with the legitimacy of your own voice, convinced of your own self-righteousness by the inflated size of your aggrandized ego. You sure are impressed with yourself in the "harsh place" of the computer screen you're staring into. What a joke. You're actually begging CCP in this post to make defense _less_ difficult and to give you more _offensive options_, because your so freakin' leet, right? What a pathetic crybaby pot calling the kettle black. You need CCP to hold your hand, you need all the "carebears" to be nerfed, why, because you're so tough, you're so billy bob badass that you can't do it otherwise? Do you even listen to the ridiculous tripe that you post in your own head before you post it? Do you realize what choad you sound like? Go ahead, dude. Keep squacking on into the night for hours, post after post, with you gameworld _ideology_ that only you, the chosen prophet of Eve, see with any perspicacity. I bet you try this hard in real life, too. We don't need you to tell us whether Eve is or is not "hard enough" with or without sanctums you arrogant overblown id-driven self-important drama queen. Apart from being someone to mock, someone to be occasionally toyed with and laughed at, the only attention you are worth is pointing how in this post you epitomize a total fraud. "Boo-hoo....there's too many cyno jammers and jump bridges. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'm a leet supergamer."
Svenne009 Viral Inc.	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:31:00 - [2083] I think CCP has it wrong and actually thinks grinding anomaly's is fun. Let's say a fitted Zealot costs about 170M (T2 + ammo + paste), and a "normal" income per tick is about 15M when running Haven's or Sanctum's. A bit low, but realistic, not everyone rats in carriers or dead-space fitted ships and taken in consideration the delay between the anomaly's and possible reds/neutrals in system. So it would take me about 12*20min = 4H to earn that. Thats excluding a costly clone or needed implants. If that income drops to about 10M/tick - about what you would get in our current ratting space, doing the low-end anomaly's. Lengthens my grind to +- 6H for that ship. Thats a lot of risk/effort Vs reward. Knowing that you could the same isk or more jumping to Empire missions or WH space. And most of the time there is less upkeep cost involved, less risk, ... So a lot of people will relocate characters to named places. And come to 0.0 for the announced/obligated SRP fleets -> more blob, less small gang warfare. And alliances fight over MOONS not over ratting systems.
Joker 725	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:33:00 - [2084] If you truly want to do something to fix nullsec on an epic scale for fighting, then fix the lag problem FIRST before you start screwing up the ability for average players to earn ISK, buy ships and fittings, and participate in these battles that you somehow think are an improvement. I've seen it said over and over in this thread and I have to agree - you truly have no clue on what goes on in nullsec. You're just an EvE bureaucrat ruining the game one stupid decision at a time.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:40:00 - [2085] Originally by: Joker 725 then fix the lag problem FIRST before There will never be a fix, make it possible for 1000 v 1000, you nubs will just nap more people and bring in more, and then the fight will be 2000 v 1000. LAG FIXED RIGHT????
Optimator One	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:43:00 - [2086] Originally by: Svenne009 I think CCP has it wrong and actually thinks grinding anomaly's is fun. Let's say a fitted Zealot costs about 170M (T2 + ammo + paste), and a "normal" income per tick is about 15M when running Haven's or Sanctum's. A bit low, but realistic, not everyone rats in carriers or dead-space fitted ships and taken in consideration the delay between the anomaly's and possible reds/neutrals in system. So it would take me about 12*20min = 4H to earn that. Thats excluding a costly clone or needed implants. If that income drops to about 10M/tick - about what you would get in our current ratting space, doing the low-end anomaly's. Lengthens my grind to +- 6H for that ship. Thats a lot of risk/effort Vs reward. Knowing that you could the same isk or more jumping to Empire missions or WH space. And most of the time there is less upkeep cost involved, less risk, ... So a lot of people will relocate characters to named places. And come to 0.0 for the announced/obligated SRP fleets -> more blob, less small gang warfare. And alliances fight over MOONS not over ratting systems. You're forgetting corp TAX over that 12m per tick. and that makes 8m per tick then.
CALWELL	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:50:00 - [2087] WELL U THINK THAT BY DOING THIS CCP THAT U THINK IT WILL MAKE IT BETTER? WELL GUESS WHAT, IT WONT!!!!!!!!!! AND ALSO EXPECT 600 MEMBERS EITHER TO QUIT OR GUESS WHAT WE R GOING TO CRASH ALL MISSION RUNNERS SCAN THEM DOWN BLOW THEM UP COMPLETE THEIR MISSIONS WHILE THEY DIE IN A BLAZE OF GLORY JUST TO MAKE OUR MONEY SYSTEMS LIKE UMOKKA KAIMON OHSIAMIA NORV AND HAVE 600 PPL SITTING ON THE UNDOCK OF JITA AND BLOW WHATEVER UNDOCKS THEN WE'LL QUIT UR GAME OR JUST BY PLEXES AND NEVER PAY U A DIME AGAIN GUESS WHO'LL LOOSE CCP
Dark Templari	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:56:00 - [2088] This is ******ed. They want to nerf the individual players income to encourage fighting but won't touch moons. They prove with every small change they know nothing about the game.
Inmei T'ko	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:56:00 - [2089] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Kovid Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally. The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts. I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity. CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity. No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better. After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started. You're so corny. Their "beliefs". It's not a religion, and you're not the high priest of pvp, you drama queen. What a cheeseball, "toppling goliaths" in your spaceship game. You have no idea what other people think, whether they plan to fight with the isk they made or not, with your blanket statements of pure drivel. You come in here, posting since page 1, obsessed with the legitimacy of your own voice, convinced of your own self-righteousness by the inflated size of your aggrandized ego. You sure are impressed with yourself in the "harsh place" of the computer screen you're staring into. What a joke. You're actually begging CCP in this post to make defense _less_ difficult and to give you more _offensive options_, because your so freakin' leet, right? What a pathetic crybaby pot calling the kettle black. You need CCP to hold your hand, you need all the "carebears" to be nerfed, why, because you're so tough, you're so billy bob badass that you can't do it otherwise? Do you even listen to the ridiculous tripe that you post in your own head before you post it? Do you realize what choad you sound like? Go ahead, dude. Keep squacking on into the night for hours, post after post, with you gameworld _ideology_ that only you, the chosen prophet of Eve, see with any perspicacity. I bet you try this hard in real life, too. We don't need you to tell us whether Eve is or is not "hard enough" with or without sanctums you arrogant overblown id-driven self-important drama queen. Apart from being someone to mock, someone to be occasionally toyed with and laughed at, the only attention you are worth is pointing how in this post you epitomize a total fraud. "Boo-hoo....there's too many cyno jammers and jump bridges. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'm a leet supergamer." THis! Oh, this. ROFL
Mort269 Gallente Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.01 01:58:00 - [2090] PLEASE tell me this is all just an April Fools joke. =)

Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.01 02:28:00 - [2091] Originally by: Mort269 PLEASE tell me this is all just an April Fools joke. =) Even if it wasn't intended to be one, they still have about 20 hours to capitalize on using that graceful exit strategy. ;)
RabbidFerret Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.01 02:51:00 - [2092] Moons.... --------------------------------------------------
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.01 03:16:00 - [2093] Originally by: Gothiczwerg Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ***ed. 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site 0.45 - 0.6499 = no change 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites Your formula for change in sites should be =(cx-4)+(dx-1)+(fx1)+(gx6) (where x is the row number) If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12. So all I can conclude from this is either you werenÆt entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH. (just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.) You are wrong with this: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change) it sounds for me: 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 1st band no sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -4 site 2nd band no sites 0.45 - 0.6499 = -1 site 3rd band 3-4 sites 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 4th band 4-5 sites 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites 5th band 10 sites maximum of the 4 sites (2 havens 2 Sanctums) in the 3rd and 4th band ... -1 and +1 respectively No. They were very explicit in most cases: Band 1: 0 sites Band 2: 3 > sites > 0 (I strongly suspect 2) Band 3: 3 Band 4: 5 Band 5: 10 -Liang -- Eve Forum **** Extraordinaire On Twitter
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.01 03:30:00 - [2094] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gothiczwerg Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Lol wtf that sheet is so incorrect its painful. Assuming that the your count for the number of systems in the true sec brackets is correct and that my understanding listed below of the dev blog is correct then your formulas are ***ed. 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -1 site 0.45 - 0.6499 = no change 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites Your formula for change in sites should be =(cx-4)+(dx-1)+(fx1)+(gx*6) (where x is the row number) If you apply this formula to the spire for example you get change = +81 as opposed to your -12. So all I can conclude from this is either you werenÆt entirely sure what you were doing when you built this spreadsheet or you are just trying to fuel unnecessary rage and ZOMG CCP YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING ARHGHGHGHGHGH. (just want to add btw that my view on this is pretty neutral. I don't think the changes are anywhere near as bad as people are making out but at the same time i don't think they will result in the outcomes ccp are expecting.) You are wrong with this: In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change) it sounds for me: 0.0 - 0.2499 = -4 sites 1st band no sites 0.25 - 0.4499 = -4 site 2nd band no sites 0.45 - 0.6499 = -1 site 3rd band 3-4 sites 0.65 - 0.8499 = +1 site 4th band 4-5 sites 0.85 - 1 = + 6 sites 5th band 10 sites maximum of the 4 sites (2 havens 2 Sanctums) in the 3rd and 4th band ... -1 and +1 respectively No. They were very explicit in most cases: Band 1: 0 sites Band 2: 3 > sites > 0 (I strongly suspect 2) Band 3: 3 Band 4: 5 Band 5: 10 -Liang And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.04.01 03:38:00 - [2095] Edited by: Widemouth Deepthroat on 01/04/2011 03:38:26 derp could be worng
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.01 04:17:00 - [2096] Edited by: Quincy Taggart on 01/04/2011 04:17:37 Dumb asses... Less isk, less fun, less 0.0 population, less players... time to dust off my mission runner
Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.04.01 04:22:00 - [2097] The last time I saw anything this imbecilic was when CCP Nozh posted his (mis)understanding of target painters.
Gimmy Rotten	Posted - 2011.04.01 04:25:00 - [2098] real True Sec ! \o/ thx CCP
Fredrick Engly Insorum Industries Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 04:42:00 - [2099] This is just ******ed. Has to be a joke and a bloody bad one at that. Call for this guys resignation
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.01 04:45:00 - [2100] Originally by: mkmin And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick. Maybe its because that's what the dev blog says: Originally by: Dev Blog In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Lets break it down: - Current is 4 sites - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. - Band 3 = 3 sites - Band 4 = 5 sites - Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change) - Band 1 = 0 sites - Band 2 = Some sites (1-2) - but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. - Band 5 = 10 sites -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 04:46:00 - [2101] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: mkmin And why should anyone trust your numbers again? You have been outright trolling this thread from the beginning, spouting crap after crap out of some sick desire to watch other people suffer. You're sick. Just sick. Maybe its because that's what the dev blog says: Originally by: Dev Blog In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Lets break it down: - Current is 4 sites - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. - Band 3 = 3 sites - Band 4 = 5 sites - Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change) - Band 1 = 0 sites - Band 2 = Some sites (1-2) - but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. - Band 5 = 10 sites -Liang How long before the sites get re-spawned?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:00:00 - [2102] Originally by: Lost'In'Space How long before the sites get re-spawned? The dev blog didn't mention any changes in spawn timers. You did read it right? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:02:00 - [2103] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lost'In'Space How long before the sites get re-spawned? The dev blog didn't mention any changes in spawn timers. You did read it right? -Liang I know nothing of the current spawn timers, that was my question.
Geralden	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:15:00 - [2104] Dont respond to anything -liang writes. He used to be a wellrenowned poster, but he changed to a bitter personal attacking troll, especially in this thread. Just ignore all hist posts, then he will proberly crawl beneath a bridge somewhere again.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:23:00 - [2105] Originally by: Geralden Dont respond to anything -liang writes. He used to be a wellrenowned poster, but he changed to a bitter personal attacking troll, especially in this thread. Just ignore all hist posts, then he will proberly crawl beneath a bridge somewhere again. He may be trolling, but I don't see anyone actually respond with a reason. All I see is people *****ing that they are not able to make a lot of isks and field expensive things just because they're in 0.0, and whine just as ccp reduce the isk making ability.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:30:00 - [2106] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lost'In'Space How long before the sites get re-spawned? The dev blog didn't mention any changes in spawn timers. You did read it right? -Liang I know nothing of the current spawn timers, that was my question. It takes approximately 5 minutes so long as no one remains in an anomaly currently. Though lag can delay that on heavily trafficked systems.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:30:00 - [2107] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 01/04/2011 05:35:39 Originally by: Lost'In'Space He may be trolling He isnt, people just dont know what 'trolling' means anymore. For some, apparently having a different opinion and daring to voice it (or even just stating mere facts they dont like to hear) constitutes trolling. If anything, the attacks directed at him resemble trolling. They arent really trolling either though, as they arent driven by a trolls agenda, but simply by overwhelming blind rage directed at anything that opposes their opinion (or sense of entitlement if you want to put it that way). Frankly, I blame it on the parenting these days and the anonymity of the internet. People just arent used to a civilized face-to-face discussion anymore, so the tone tends to get rough on the forums.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 05:57:00 - [2108] Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 01/04/2011 05:35:39 Originally by: Lost'In'Space He may be trolling He isnt... I figured, but I do not know just how bad/good these changes are because I do not know how fast and how much isks each site would give out. I only know what someone told me, that farming the anomalies can give more than 80 mill per hour. I do agree with you there, some people just have sense of entitlement. I don't know, maybe they think 1000 v 1000 is the end game to be enjoyed in this game.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.01 06:03:00 - [2109] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 01/04/2011 05:35:39 Originally by: Lost'In'Space He may be trolling He isnt... I figured, but I do not know just how bad/good these changes are because I do not know how fast and how much isks each site would give out. I only know what someone told me, that farming the anomalies can give more than 80 mill per hour. I do agree with you there, some people just have sense of entitlement. I don't know, maybe they think 1000 v 1000 is the end game to be enjoyed in this game. No... most of his posts begin with "You deserve anything bad that happens to you" "you are so stupid you don't deserve to live" "I hope you die in traffic" and other such personal insults. There's a lot of "nuh-uh" quality arguments, and general douchebaggery. Troll is a troll, being defended by what apparently must be a troll too. Even if the troll does say something legitimate it will be impossible to identify out of the mess spewing out.
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 06:33:00 - [2110] So, we've established that currently, anoms are netting ~45m-alot ISK/hr. We've established that a lot of people are angry about them making ~10m-20m ISK/hr. I'll ask this. Seeing as how the really expensive stuff is all moongoo paid, and most of the current conflict in Eve involves Drakes and sh*tfit Maels, what exactly are you lot doing with all this ISK now? I don't really see any 'big projects' going on. Just sitting there looking pretty in your wallet?

Khadann Caldari Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.04.01 06:50:00 - [2111] So it was not a CCP first april joke after all? OMFG, we're not even sure if we can afford these changes... back to empire? Hya!
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.01 06:54:00 - [2112] Originally by: Erichk Knaar So, we've established that currently, anoms are netting ~45m-alot ISK/hr. We've established that a lot of people are angry about them making ~10m-20m ISK/hr. I'll ask this. Seeing as how the really expensive stuff is all moongoo paid, and most of the current conflict in Eve involves Drakes and sh*tfit Maels, what exactly are you lot doing with all this ISK now? I don't really see any 'big projects' going on. Just sitting there looking pretty in your wallet? ISK always sits in people's wallets anymore. There's some interesting psychology that the richer a lot of people are, the more money they feel they need to be financially secure. The Moon Goo is just a wealth concentrator; the ISK that people use to buy Moon Goo off of the moon owners comes from sites like Sanctums and missions. Without an ISK faucet, there aren't super-alliances with super-wallets.
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 06:59:00 - [2113] Originally by: Evelgrivion ISK always sits in people's wallets anymore. There's some interesting psychology that the richer a lot of people are, the more money they feel they need to be financially secure. The Moon Goo is just a wealth concentrator; the ISK that people use to buy Moon Goo off of the moon owners comes from sites like Sanctums and missions. Without an ISK faucet, there aren't super-alliances with super-wallets. So sort of like, the point of this nerf then?
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.04.01 07:16:00 - [2114] I am against the change, but i'm interested in this.. Why would people who run sanctums buy moon goo? I know a >6 years veteran eve player who does no PVE of any sort for at least 2 years. He lives off the market and producing goods, and consuming moon goo..
Cpl Punnishment Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.01 07:32:00 - [2115] I would have to say that I am against it as well. Generally speaking, while its all well and good to have nice moons for the alliance to use, its the anoms that fill the wallets of the average alliance joe out in SOV space. This allows ppl to buy T2 ships and other nice things to die in a fire. Anoms are like an Alliance's Equal Opportunity Employer. From noobs in Drakes to Pimped out T3s, all have a chance to make enough money to burn ships in PVP or some other LAGfest. If Anoms take a good hit, then there is less of an incentive to live in SOV space.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 07:34:00 - [2116] Originally by: Erichk Knaar So, we've established that currently, anoms are netting ~45m-alot ISK/hr. We've established that a lot of people are angry about them making ~10m-20m ISK/hr. I'll ask this. Seeing as how the really expensive stuff is all moongoo paid, and most of the current conflict in Eve involves Drakes and sh*tfit Maels, what exactly are you lot doing with all this ISK now? I don't really see any 'big projects' going on. Just sitting there looking pretty in your wallet? Moon Goo income seldom filters down to members of an alliance, it is generally used by the elites of any alliance. With many ceos cutting a slice off the top for themselves. Thus the average individual still needs the high income to replace their PVP ships in fleet actions. While many alliances offer discounts they do not generally offer free ships with the exception of just a handful of alliances. Thus this will have the opposite effect, as the individuals cannot afford the required ships they'll spend more time making it up or just decide not to pvp. That's what is wrong in the OP premise. You could nerf moon goo and leave the anomalies alone and folks could still fight, it would only affect the rate at which supercapitals are replaced not the run of the mill ships. That's why its a bit puzzling they'd take the route they plan to. By removing the main source of subcaps they'll reduce conflict not increase it.
Michael McDonald	Posted - 2011.04.01 07:37:00 - [2117] If CCP makes the areas fought for lame, then we might take up our new positions in High Sec looking for noobs to take out our aggression on. Its hard to maintian interest in a new game if you are constantly loosing your stuff to other ppl. Something like a 23/7 365 Hulkageddon soul crusher. Want to be heard? Start messing with someones RL cash cow.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.04.01 08:27:00 - [2118] Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. Most people dont argue that. The problems are lvl4.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 08:45:00 - [2119] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. Most people dont argue that. The problems are lvl4. The problems are not Level 4s. Nerfing never helps games. Its sad that CCP has entered that cycle, but its the death cycle of any game. Once the only expansions you have are content that isn't used by the majority (PI, FW, WH etc), fluff (new graphics, new sounds etc), or nerfs a game has entered its death spiral. Some go fast and some slowly ride into oblivion.
daremo shirnai Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 08:48:00 - [2120] Originally by: El'Niaga Moon Goo income seldom filters down to members of an alliance, it is generally used by the elites of any alliance. With many ceos cutting a slice off the top for themselves. Thus the average individual still needs the high income to replace their PVP ships in fleet actions. While many alliances offer discounts they do not generally offer free ships with the exception of just a handful of alliances. Thus this will have the opposite effect, as the individuals cannot afford the required ships they'll spend more time making it up or just decide not to pvp. That's what is wrong in the OP premise. So you're saying moongoo will fall in the hands of those who pay for their member's pvp ships? Cool.

Ortenz Brick	Posted - 2011.04.01 09:17:00 - [2121] Originally by: Jaggins Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder. This is why im not playing as much as i want to. Ideally id play mostly pvp, and a little pve. But how eve is set up, i have to grind pve for so long to pvp. Which would be sort of ok if pve wasnt such a repetitive bore. So i resigned myself to just playing a couple days a month and im asking myself if its worth to keep subbing when i have to work so hard to be able to do the thing i enjoy doing (pvp). I have alot less experience in eve than probably most people here, so that will be my comment for this.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 09:20:00 - [2122] Originally by: daremo shirnai Originally by: El'Niaga Moon Goo income seldom filters down to members of an alliance, it is generally used by the elites of any alliance. With many ceos cutting a slice off the top for themselves. Thus the average individual still needs the high income to replace their PVP ships in fleet actions. While many alliances offer discounts they do not generally offer free ships with the exception of just a handful of alliances. Thus this will have the opposite effect, as the individuals cannot afford the required ships they'll spend more time making it up or just decide not to pvp. That's what is wrong in the OP premise. So you're saying moongoo will fall in the hands of those who pay for their member's pvp ships? Cool. No it will go where it always has, primarily to the elite in the alliances, not the average grunt that flies, it will go to the executors and his friends like it always has. Trickle down economics do not work.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.04.01 09:48:00 - [2123] Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 09:51:48 Originally by: Ortenz Brick Originally by: Jaggins Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder. This is why im not playing as much as i want to. Ideally id play mostly pvp, and a little pve. But how eve is set up, i have to grind pve for so long to pvp. Which would be sort of ok if pve wasnÆt such a repetitive bore. So i resigned myself to just playing a couple days a month and im asking myself if its worth to keep subbing when i have to work so hard to be able to do the thing i enjoy doing (pvp). I have alot less experience in eve than probably most people here, so that will be my comment for this. But imho isnÆt that exactly what makes eve pvp so good ? the fact that there is so much at risk. ThatÆs at least what made eve pvp stand out for me, the fact that when i risk my ship IÆm risking hours worth of time and investment. ThatÆs what gets my blood pumping at least :P If I could replace all pvp losses within 20mins worth of bearing i don't think pvp would have the same pull factor for me. Also on the subject of moon-goo. Couldn't you argue then that by nerfing individuals incomes alliances that want to keep a large well stocked member base will need to shed the moon-goo profits down the ranks. Why should an alliance be able to hoard all that iskies without having to trickle it down to support its lower members. The alliance that my main is in atm make very little from moon-goo, but what we do make goes towards reimbursing logistics and HIC losses on ctas. It works beautifully :) (I no that is not he point of these changes at all but I think its an interesting concept.) edited - grammar
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:07:00 - [2124] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. Most people dont argue that. The problems are lvl4. The problems are not Level 4s. Nerfing never helps games. Its sad that CCP has entered that cycle, but its the death cycle of any game. Once the only expansions you have are content that isn't used by the majority (PI, FW, WH etc), fluff (new graphics, new sounds etc), or nerfs a game has entered its death spiral. Some go fast and some slowly ride into oblivion. Just thought i would point out this isn't strickly true. If you don't nerf i.e. only buff, you end up with power creep which has got a whole host of its own issues. What you said is true if you were to ONLY nerf. In order to create balence you need an even spread of nerfing and buffing.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:20:00 - [2125] Originally by: Erichk Knaar So, we've established that currently, anoms are netting ~45m-alot ISK/hr. We've established that a lot of people are angry about them making ~10m-20m ISK/hr. I'll ask this. Seeing as how the really expensive stuff is all moongoo paid, and most of the current conflict in Eve involves Drakes and sh*tfit Maels, what exactly are you lot doing with all this ISK now? I don't really see any 'big projects' going on. Just sitting there looking pretty in your wallet? Anoms earn 45m/hour? We have established anoms earn 150m/hour. If you're going to make nonsense up at least make something up to promote your pointless cause. Building Titans and MS are what? Good to know the ISK used to buy and build them are in alliance leaders wallets. Next time you see a fleet of super caps remind yourself they're not there, the money was never used. Liang and this nub are the definition of trolls. By picking some random numbers, false statements and making personal attacks they are not here to discuss anything, they're just here to antagonise.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:24:00 - [2126] Originally by: Super Whopper Anoms earn 45m/hour? We have established anoms earn 150m/hour. If you're going to make nonsense up at least make something up to promote your pointless cause. If that is sarcasm, then what is the right number for farming anoms in fully upgraded system?
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:24:00 - [2127] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. Most people dont argue that. The problems are lvl4. The problems are not Level 4s. Nerfing never helps games. Its sad that CCP has entered that cycle, but its the death cycle of any game. Once the only expansions you have are content that isn't used by the majority (PI, FW, WH etc), fluff (new graphics, new sounds etc), or nerfs a game has entered its death spiral. Some go fast and some slowly ride into oblivion. Just thought i would point out this isn't strickly true. If you don't nerf i.e. only buff, you end up with power creep which has got a whole host of its own issues. What you said is true if you were to ONLY nerf. In order to create balence you need an even spread of nerfing and buffing. When's the last time they buffed something you cared about?
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:26:00 - [2128] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Erichk Knaar So, we've established that currently, anoms are netting ~45m-alot ISK/hr. We've established that a lot of people are angry about them making ~10m-20m ISK/hr. I'll ask this. Seeing as how the really expensive stuff is all moongoo paid, and most of the current conflict in Eve involves Drakes and sh*tfit Maels, what exactly are you lot doing with all this ISK now? I don't really see any 'big projects' going on. Just sitting there looking pretty in your wallet? Anoms earn 45m/hour? We have established anoms earn 150m/hour. If you're going to make nonsense up at least make something up to promote your pointless cause. Building Titans and MS are what? Good to know the ISK used to buy and build them are in alliance leaders wallets. Next time you see a fleet of super caps remind yourself they're not there, the money was never used. Liang and this nub are the definition of trolls. By picking some random numbers, false statements and making personal attacks they are not here to discuss anything, they're just here to antagonise. Sorry, the only ones who manage to pull off 150m/h witha anomalies are those who run with two or three carriers, or two carriers and one T3, or one super... you catch my drift. If your average grunt can pull 60m/h, then he's doing VERY nice. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:55:00 - [2129] Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 10:57:20 Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 10:56:02 Originally by: El'Niaga When's the last time they buffed something you cared about? Well ones that come immediately to mind are the blanket minmater dps buff, rocket buff, salvaging buff with the noctis, and the epic null sec buff that is static anoms. Originally by: Renan Ruivo Sorry, the only ones who manage to pull off 150m/h witha anomalies are those who run with two or three carriers, or two carriers and one T3, or one super... you catch my drift. If your average grunt can pull 60m/h, then he's doing VERY nice. 45m an hour per toon is actually quite a realistic figure i think for your average alliance grunt. I used to farm sanctums up in catch dual boxing a t2 fitted with max skills ishtar and geddon. Both toons combined i used to make 100m/hr. My biggest isk bounty cycle i believe was 18.5m on each toon so 37m per 20mins which = 111m/hr but that was only if i was really focused on what i was doing. I spent ages trying different ships/fittings but short of high isk pimping / using carrier + faction bs i could not get my IPH up any higher. edited - messed up the quote :(
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.01 10:57:00 - [2130] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Super Whopper Anoms earn 45m/hour? We have established anoms earn 150m/hour. If you're going to make nonsense up at least make something up to promote your pointless cause. If that is sarcasm, then what is the right number for farming anoms in fully upgraded system? I'd say 30m is about average. 45 Million is possible but you're looking at expensive ships with even more expensive fittings. When an arbitrary number like 45 is used it doesn't mean they are talking about the average person, they're talking about billions in fittings and faction or T2 BS, or T3. I have seen people flying Navy Ravens with 2b in fittings turn into pretty KM's because they got caught by hostiles, so, the average player isn't going to sit in an anom with billions in fittings, they'd rather do that in Motsu or Dodixie. Originally by: Renan Ruivo Sorry, the only ones who manage to pull off 150m/h witha anomalies are those who run with two or three carriers, or two carriers and one T3, or one super... you catch my drift. If your average grunt can pull 60m/h, then he's doing VERY nice. Sarcasm - Brittanica 150 Million ISK per hour with carriers? More like 10 Zealots.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.01 11:01:00 - [2131] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda 45m an hour per toon is actually quite a realistic figure i think for your average alliance grunt. I used to farm sanctums up in catch dual boxing a t2 fitted with max skills ishtar and geddon. Both toons combined i used to make 100m/hr. My biggest isk bounty cycle i believe was 18.5m on each toon so 37m per 20mins which = 111m/hr but that was only if i was really focused on what i was doing. I spent ages trying different ships/fittings but short of high isk pimping / using carrier + faction bs i could not get my IPH up any higher. edited - messed up the quote :( That 18.5 you got was including an expensive faction rat you got. I have lived in Catch and you're lying.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.01 11:09:00 - [2132] Quote: Anoms are like an Alliance's Equal Opportunity Employer I think this is exactly what CCP does not want. A "commie EvE" was never their plan, nor Welfare Ships. I have played enough failed PvP MMOs like Warhammer Online to see what happens with such setup. Quote: This is why im not playing as much as i want to. Ideally id play mostly pvp, and a little pve. But how eve is set up, i have to grind pve for so long to pvp As per the above, EvE is known because kills sting. If they didn't we'd have "FFA PvP" which works for 6 months then the game tanks. In other MMOs I played, surviving was so pointless that we moved our bands by mass suiciding to respawn closer to the action. Ofc this immediately kills players retention, because whatever you do, there's no difference. No difference leads to no taste. No taste leads to waiting for next MMO to jump off. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Duke Hamilton1	Posted - 2011.04.01 11:18:00 - [2133] Ok the nuts and bolts of isk per hour with a tengu ratting against Dread Guristas is a max income of 60-65 mill p/h, that's with Faction fit Ballistic controls max missle skills and HAM'S and pith x type ballistic hardner's with a ECCM fitted and a target painter and a pithium A medium shield booster with a pith x type shield boost amplifier( tengus get a insane amount of extra damage with kinetic bonuses 1560 per volley with 6 missle launchers and a rate of fire for heavies of 3.2). Most I have ever seen some one earn is with a carrier and Macherial dual which earns 100-120 mill p/h. So with that settled watch the markets drop like a ton of **** when the patch is released.
Dimitri Fukoyama	Posted - 2011.04.01 11:22:00 - [2134] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: As per the above, EvE is known because kills sting. If they didn't we'd have "FFA PvP" which works for 6 months then the game tanks. In other MMOs I played, surviving was so pointless that we moved our bands by mass suiciding to respawn closer to the action. Ofc this immediately kills players retention, because whatever you do, there's no difference. No difference leads to no taste. No taste leads to waiting for next MMO to jump off. Right, i understand that as well. I was kind of thinking aloud. I agree its cool you risk something when you go out and pvp, but i dont play MMOs to get bored. And having to grind so many anoms to afford pvp is boring. When MMOs are boring to me, i stop playing. Im not sure what can be done to make this catch 22 break.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.04.01 11:30:00 - [2135] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 09:51:48 Originally by: Ortenz Brick Originally by: Jaggins Bad move. Leave the crappy systems how they are, and buff rewards in the low truesec systems. That way you support alliances living in poor space while giving a reason for conflict. Most of us hate ratting, we just do it to buy ships for PVP. Please don't make that harder. This is why im not playing as much as i want to. Ideally id play mostly pvp, and a little pve. But how eve is set up, i have to grind pve for so long to pvp. Which would be sort of ok if pve wasnÆt such a repetitive bore. So i resigned myself to just playing a couple days a month and im asking myself if its worth to keep subbing when i have to work so hard to be able to do the thing i enjoy doing (pvp). I have alot less experience in eve than probably most people here, so that will be my comment for this. But imho isnÆt that exactly what makes eve pvp so good ? the fact that there is so much at risk. ThatÆs at least what made eve pvp stand out for me, the fact that when i risk my ship IÆm risking hours worth of time and investment. ThatÆs what gets my blood pumping at least :P If I could replace all pvp losses within 20mins worth of bearing i don't think pvp would have the same pull factor for me. Also on the subject of moon-goo. Couldn't you argue then that by nerfing individuals incomes alliances that want to keep a large well stocked member base will need to shed the moon-goo profits down the ranks. Why should an alliance be able to hoard all that iskies without having to trickle it down to support its lower members. The alliance that my main is in atm make very little from moon-goo, but what we do make goes towards reimbursing logistics and HIC losses on ctas. It works beautifully :) (I no that is not he point of these changes at all but I think its an interesting concept.) edited - grammar Don't think about it as Moon Goo income flowing down to members. Think the opposite for small alliances . . . To finance the projects like Capital Construction and Ship Replacement programs smaller alliances need income to "trickle up".
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.04.01 11:48:00 - [2136] Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 11:50:36 Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Sarina Rhoda 45m an hour per toon is actually quite a realistic figure i think for your average alliance grunt. I used to farm sanctums up in catch dual boxing a t2 fitted with max skills ishtar and geddon. Both toons combined i used to make 100m/hr. My biggest isk bounty cycle i believe was 18.5m on each toon so 37m per 20mins which = 111m/hr but that was only if i was really focused on what i was doing. I spent ages trying different ships/fittings but short of high isk pimping / using carrier + faction bs i could not get my IPH up any higher. edited - messed up the quote :( That 18.5 you got was including an expensive faction rat you got. I have lived in Catch and you're lying. Nope not lying - its just the result of stupid amounts of eft whoring, practicing and refining of target selection. The 18.5 does not include any faction rats but as I said it is my record highest. On average i think i was pulling about 16.6m cycles per toon. The setup i was using (and please feel free to try it) was :- ishtar 1600 plate + 4 active resits 2 omnidirectionals + 3 tracking links (links go on the geddon with range script) 3 beam lasors + probe launcher sentry rigs curators and t2 amarr heavys. geddon 3 heat sinks, large armor rep, dc, 1 hardener and a pdu or rcu (cnt remember) 3 cap rechargers 7 mega pulses with 1 large rr. 3 cc rigs curator drones. Standard tactics was to warp the ishtar in at 0 pull full agro and then warp in the geddon and use the RR to keep it alive. Ishtar resists + RR = 800-900 dps tank. At the beginning use ishtar manually to pop all frigs whilst using geddon to pop the bs's. Once all frigs are dead just assist the ishtar curators to the geddon. Total dps output was something like 400 for the ishtar +1000 from the geddon. Also pro tip when fighting at 0 in a sanctum pull all drones when a new spawn happens wait for agro then drop them again otherwise you end up wasting **** loads of time pulling and re-dropping drones when they start shooting them. And that how you use sub-capital/non-faction/non-pimped ships to earn yourself 100m an hour in sanctums :D edited - spelling
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:01:00 - [2137] Originally by: Dimitri Fukoyama Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: As per the above, EvE is known because kills sting. If they didn't we'd have "FFA PvP" which works for 6 months then the game tanks. In other MMOs I played, surviving was so pointless that we moved our bands by mass suiciding to respawn closer to the action. Ofc this immediately kills players retention, because whatever you do, there's no difference. No difference leads to no taste. No taste leads to waiting for next MMO to jump off. Right, i understand that as well. I was kind of thinking aloud. I agree its cool you risk something when you go out and pvp, but i dont play MMOs to get bored. And having to grind so many anoms to afford pvp is boring. When MMOs are boring to me, i stop playing. Im not sure what can be done to make this catch 22 break. Both of these opinions are equally valid, and I can see the different perspectives clearly here. I don't want EVE to become so easy that it is meaningless either, but on the other hand, I really don't think that it has become so easy. Some of you seem to practically live online in EVE, but I have a job, a wife, and other interests. If I log on and join a CTA with my alliance for three hours, that is really the most time I can afford to spend playing EVE online in a day. Even that is actually really pushing it. Generally, I log on while at work, chat a bit, and then do my PI for the day and log off. Now I am a member of a large 0.0 alliance. We have stuff going on all the time. To contribute I need to devote the majority of my available time for EVE to doing alliance activities like CTAs. To make isk, I can't grind mining or plexes for hours on end - it's not realistic. THat is why I really appreciated Sanctums and Havens - if I only had an hour to play, I had a reasonably profitable thing I could do, run 1 Sanctum or Haven or two possibly, make say 35 mill isk, (ishtar, shield tank, not the highest DPS out there obviously.) And I could do that in my low end space where we live, which pre-Dominion would have been considered utterly worthless, 1 belt, no ice, nothing else of interest. Yet we have worked hard and made that terrible little system a great place, with the upgrades offered (we believed in good faith) by CCP with the Dominion expansion. THe casual end game player should have a niche as well. I have played EVE and paid my subscriptions faithfully since 2006. WHere is the love, CCP?
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:02:00 - [2138] and none of the above 10 posts or so about "hard pvp" or any of the other ** in any way have anything to do with ccp *****s reasons for the change.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:13:00 - [2139] Originally by: Skaarl and none of the above 10 posts or so about "hard pvp" or any of the other ** in any way have anything to do with ccp *****s reasons for the change. Yer that is because I think most people are in agreement that ccps reasoning for this change is total garbage. A better question is whenever this change will add value to null sec endgame content or not. Personally i think the changes make null sec a tad more dynamic and would add value but again i do accept that ccps reasoning for this change is just a joke.
Ignatius Gnarl Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:17:00 - [2140] Originally by: JTK Fotheringham Originally by: Dharh Maybe just adding moon goo depletion and/or balancing it with sov upgrades. Moon goo scaling might not make sense with null sec quality, but it is a bit too profitable. I think you're missing my point. Present moon mining is high profit without corespondingly high risk. I'd like to see the risk ramped up, with some sort of threat of tower disruption, through covert action, and Dust514 suicide teams massacaring the tower crew, off-lining it for 6 hours, and unanchoring all the modules. That would be a risk to attach to moon goo towers. Logistics for keeping POSs running are a pain. Other than the top tier moons the money you make is definitely in proportion to the hassle let alone any risk premium. For the top tier moons they are very profitable because in order to take and hold them you need a huge support base of many players in fancy capital ships across several time zones. The 'risk' attached to tech moons is the risk attached to being a serious nullsec player, and you can see the cost in the multiple Titan kills these guys sustain. However I agree that distribution of moon goo is shockingly bad game design. I seem to remember this was another case where the player base expressed concern but CCP knew best? Gradually changing moon goo comes up again and again as a simple game mechanic that would make for a much better game.

Ignatius Gnarl Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:34:00 - [2141] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Dharh This change can only be good. Anyone who thinks that low quality null sec should be equally as profitable as high quality null sec is crazy. Most people dont argue that. The problems are lvl4. No one is objecting to good null sec > bad null sec the issue is: good null sec > hi-sec > low-sec (agents) > bad null sec If they only sort out that formula so it makes sense, I don't think anyone would mind making less money, because everyone would make less. What matters is relative wealth compared to other players. The proposed anom nerf means that: * Player who carebears in hi-sec and runs to nullsec for lulz can bring fancy ships * Player who tries to live in null-sec and make an empire can bring crappy ships Result: the nullsec residents lose, the natural choice is carebearing in hi-sec followed by a trip to the PvP 'arena' for lulz. Goodbye to a huge amount of the politicking and empire building that make the game interesting. This will be restricted to the old money in good true sec, shutting out the pioneer empires in bad true sec.
Kara'ina	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:49:00 - [2142] Bad change, I would not be surprised if this wasn't a change as suggested by CCP Eyjo who is scared about inflation and the sanctum isk printing machines we currently have in place. As stated earlier this change mostly hurts individual player income and hardly affects any bigger alliance out there with access to 0.0 moon goo. People will just go belt ratting or go back running missions in empire, Alliances will still get tax from that. It will not be major economic incentive for conflict. It will still be equally hard for smaller alliances to get themselves a place in 0.0 as they can't viably attack the current power blocks. Taking a bit of unwanted space has no real benefit for them either after these changes so why even bother. This will put an even bigger damper on any conflict then other suggested changes. CCP should change the moon resources and true sec so it regularly and dynamically changes all over Eve. You'd think moons run out of resources and new ones are found just as npc pirates will figure out they are actively being chased and shot at by bloodthirsty carebears. After that change even smaller alliances might get lucky and earn themselves some moon income and in border zones it might just be interesting to claim a few of your neighbor's moons. Just as in the real world Eve sov conflict needs to be driven by dynamic changes in the environment and the economic situation. This change still leads to a stagnant environment and fixed (moon) positions to get your income and so will not result in more conflict.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 12:54:00 - [2143] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Originally by: Skaarl and none of the above 10 posts or so about "hard pvp" or any of the other ** in any way have anything to do with ccp *****s reasons for the change. Yer that is because I think most people are in agreement that ccps reasoning for this change is total garbage. A better question is whenever this change will add value to null sec endgame content or not. Personally i think the changes make null sec a tad more dynamic and would add value but again i do accept that ccps reasoning for this change is just a joke. the question i will pose to you is: was nullsec more dynamic and more valuable prior to dominion? these changes will very much revert the effected nullsec back to dominion status. and like you said, if they are going to screw me, and they obviously will considering my alliance lives in one of the most populated regions of null that will be hugely slammed by this, i would at least like to hear the real reason they are doing this. CCP Greyscale is obviously lying out his arse when he makes the claims about small alliances which can now garner little to no income building up to take out larger alliances.... blah blah blah. re-read the blog. i mean come on, at least be kinda honest with what your intentions are here greyscale. oh wait thats right, CCP has no problems lying to their customers. they keep trying to say this thread is 50/50 pro and con....
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.01 14:01:00 - [2144] Originally by: Skaarl ina nutshell... apparently greyscale is sick of people doing what they want in his sandbox, if we play in it we have to build the sandcastle that he wants us to or gtfo. When you're right, everyone else is a dirty liar.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.04.01 14:09:00 - [2145] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Kovid Null sec is a lucrative space people fight for. The true sec is not their by accident. Nor is the recent change to list the true sec in the UI finally. The problem now is too many people have moved to null sec and never fought for it or intend to fight for it. They believe it is their right to do sanctums and make the amount they did. They are transfering their beliefs of high sec into zero zero. People say they will not fight for new space and cancel their accounts. I would say it's unfortunate that so many people are quitting over something they don't understand but fine. Eve is supposed to a harsh place and the end game content as people like to call null sec is not supposed to be easy or handed to them on a platter. If theses people parading as carebears in null sec quit then the game in preserving its integrity. CCP seems to be trying for a vision of null sec were the the powerful lord over the week. The imaginative strive to topple the goliaths. And life is a harsh and cruel mistress. I suppose a few cancel accounts will keep that integrity. No we just need to make it able the weeker and smaller alliances to band together and have a chance at those bigger one with the juicer space. There are too many defender advantages with cyno jammers jumpbridges, faulty black ops. Give the offense and the little guy more chances and continue with the changes please. It's not to say some of these (paper) goliaths haven't toppled but a little more headway into others would be a change for the better. After all CCP you want more conflict, let there be less defense or more offensive options on top of the economic changes you started. You're so corny. Their "beliefs". It's not a religion, and you're not the high priest of pvp, you drama queen. What a cheeseball, "toppling goliaths" in your spaceship game. You have no idea what other people think, whether they plan to fight with the isk they made or not, with your blanket statements of pure drivel. You come in here, posting since page 1, obsessed with the legitimacy of your own voice, convinced of your own self-righteousness by the inflated size of your aggrandized ego. You sure are impressed with yourself in the "harsh place" of the computer screen you're staring into. What a joke. You're actually begging CCP in this post to make defense _less_ difficult and to give you more _offensive options_, because your so freakin' leet, right? What a pathetic crybaby pot calling the kettle black. You need CCP to hold your hand, you need all the "carebears" to be nerfed, why, because you're so tough, you're so billy bob badass that you can't do it otherwise? Do you even listen to the ridiculous tripe that you post in your own head before you post it? Do you realize what choad you sound like? Go ahead, dude. Keep squacking on into the night for hours, post after post, with you gameworld _ideology_ that only you, the chosen prophet of Eve, see with any perspicacity. I bet you try this hard in real life, too. We don't need you to tell us whether Eve is or is not "hard enough" with or without sanctums you arrogant overblown id-driven self-important drama queen. Apart from being someone to mock, someone to be occasionally toyed with and laughed at, the only attention you are worth is pointing how in this post you epitomize a total fraud. "Boo-hoo....there's too many cyno jammers and jump bridges. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'm a leet supergamer." BWAHAHAHA EPIC WIN.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 14:15:00 - [2146] lolz i had missed that post, xel ra your my new hero.
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 14:33:00 - [2147] Originally by: Super Whopper Anoms earn 45m/hour? We have established anoms earn 150m/hour. If you're going to make nonsense up at least make something up to promote your pointless cause. Building Titans and MS are what? Good to know the ISK used to buy and build them are in alliance leaders wallets. Next time you see a fleet of super caps remind yourself they're not there, the money was never used. Liang and this nub are the definition of trolls. By picking some random numbers, false statements and making personal attacks they are not here to discuss anything, they're just here to antagonise. I'm not trolling, and I'm also posting with my main. Also, who have I personally attacked? So, your claim is that everyone of these grunts, who can't pvp without this massive isk faucet, when they earn enough to replace (and insure) the primary ships of the line in nullsec combat in a couple of hours tops, is saving for a titan or scarrier through ratting now? YOU are either trolling, or just stupid. I'll ask again, where is all the money going? If the answer is rent, and the burden is so high that the average member is stretched so thin, even at say, the 30 mil per hour figure that you threw out, the the issue is a social one, it has nothing to do with game design at that point. TL;DR The rent is too damn high.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.01 14:35:00 - [2148] Originally by: Sarina Rhoda Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 10:57:20 Edited by: Sarina Rhoda on 01/04/2011 10:56:02 Originally by: El'Niaga When's the last time they buffed something you cared about? Well ones that come immediately to mind are the blanket minmater dps buff, rocket buff, salvaging buff with the noctis, and the epic null sec buff that is static anoms. Originally by: Renan Ruivo Sorry, the only ones who manage to pull off 150m/h witha anomalies are those who run with two or three carriers, or two carriers and one T3, or one super... you catch my drift. If your average grunt can pull 60m/h, then he's doing VERY nice. 45m an hour per toon is actually quite a realistic figure i think for your average alliance grunt. I used to farm sanctums up in catch dual boxing a t2 fitted with max skills ishtar and geddon. Both toons combined i used to make 100m/hr. My biggest isk bounty cycle i believe was 18.5m on each toon so 37m per 20mins which = 111m/hr but that was only if i was really focused on what i was doing. I spent ages trying different ships/fittings but short of high isk pimping / using carrier + faction bs i could not get my IPH up any higher. edited - messed up the quote :( So you enjoy the static anoms they boosted nullsec with and are now nerfing? Noctis is the first decent ship to come out in almost 2 years. I'll give you that, in a space game we'd expect more new ships. Most people never make 45 m/hr, there simply isn't enough to do in 0.0 to support everyone making that much whose alliance is in 0.0.
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.01 15:11:00 - [2149] Posting in the first R4G3 N3rf thread of 2011.
Erdiere Minmatar Erasers inc. Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.01 15:42:00 - [2150] Originally by: Erdiere Edited by: Erdiere on 30/03/2011 16:18:51 CCP, the fact that you first introduced this 0.0 changing plan in the "update: little things are still little" devblog, shows that you don't either understand what you are doing, or do know what you are doing, knew that it would generate negative feedback, but for some unexplainable reason have locked yourself into believing your own misconclusion that it would benefit the game and just planned to ninja it in as painlessly as possible. This change is anything but little afterall. Most people who live in 0.0 like pvp to a varying degree, if you wouldn't want to have anything to do with the pvp aspect of the game you would just stay in hi-sec doing whatever non-pvp activity you like with minimal risk. The fact that most people in 0.0 like pvp also means that there are almost no people in 0.0 who consider pve fun, and would do it for the sheer enjoyment of it, which is a very big part of the appeal of pvp. The more interested you are in pvp, the less interest you have in pve, and vice versa. The reason people do anomalies in 0.0 is to earn isk that allows you to pvp. They are not enjoyable, and when doing them for prolonged periods of time you can almost feel the soul leaving your body, but everyone has to make money in the game somehow. Doing the changes you have described in the dev blog, and almost completely removing sanctums and havens from some regions, you have nerfed an important money earning method of normal 0.0 residents to a level where the only way to be able to afford the time and sanity to reach the required levels of income for meaningful 0.0 pvp (not t1 frigate blobs) is to start botting. You are forcing people out from 0.0 back to the empire to do missions in almost complete safety in order to earn their isk, you are also forcing them to have multiple accounts so that they can do that and maintain some sort of presence in 0.0 (however, just why you think anyone would want to actually live there without any benefits compared to hi-sec I don't know). Do you honestly think that this will attract more people and newer/smaller entities to 0.0? Do you really want to see EvE Online as the first mmorpg where multiple accounts are an absolute necessity? Why would anyone, at least exclusively, stay in 0.0 and go through the pain of making isk there, if you can safely make more money in hi-sec without the need to always be on alert for reds arriving and blowing you up? People who can't or DON'T WANT TO acquire and operate a money making alt in hi-sec, will simply relocate to empire for good or just quit the game. Whatever the outcome, 0.0 will have less players/characters as a result of the change. If you really are hellbent on changing the system, make it so that the best true sec systems have some extra high level sites compared to the worst true sec systems, don't remove the only sites worth doing from the lowest "band". . .. ..... One of the reasons why you (CCP) might be thinking this is a good change was seen on the fanfest when you stated that you don't really think EvE Online as a game, a product that is usually associated with the expectation of enjoyment. However, you really should, you really should think Eve Online as a game from time to time, and this is one of those times. A game cannot indefinitely increase the suffering from its unpleasant and non-enjoyable aspects in order to sweeten the joy from the few enjoyable moments it offers via constantly starker contrast between the two. EvE Online has always balanced on the edge in this regard, these changes are just a one more unneeded push at the players, and some of them WILL fall out as a result, if CCP really insists on ramming them through. There really are other games as well, I've heard that some of them are actually fun. Quoting myself as 5th of April is approaching fast.

1OF NINE Minmatar WE BLOCK SANCTUMS	Posted - 2011.04.01 15:50:00 - [2151] Thanks to the new patch, we founded this corporation to block sanctums in the fifth band that enrich only some, we do not hot drop because we do not have ships for that not that we follow, we will stay afk cloak in sanctums grid and you have only one chance to make that sanctums after down time or share some isk what you get from them. recruitment are open for any able to fit a cloak.
Sarina Rhoda	Posted - 2011.04.01 15:53:00 - [2152] Originally by: El'Niaga Originally by: Sarina Rhoda **previous stuff (look up if you are really that interested *** So you enjoy the static anoms they boosted nullsec with and are now nerfing? Noctis is the first decent ship to come out in almost 2 years. I'll give you that, in a space game we'd expect more new ships. Most people never make 45 m/hr, there simply isn't enough to do in 0.0 to support everyone making that much whose alliance is in 0.0. Yes i did enjoy the anoms whilst i was in sov 0.0, I made an absolute fortune from them + the 10/10 drops. I would rather see them balence existing ships before bringing out new ships if im honest. CCP have a habit of not balencing old content before moving onto new content. There is SOO much to do in 0.0. Ok admitably there isn't that much log-on, grind, log-off material but that does not mean there isn't enough to support people. To list a few:- Wh'ing, mag sites, radar sites, plexing, belt ratting, cosmos agents, trading, pi, (lol) mining, gas mining, blitzing hubs for 6/10s, moon-goo + other pos crap, etc,etc. Most of that stuff you can't put an IPH mark on so you can't really make comparisons, but to say without sanctums people can't support themselves just isnt true.
Evangalin	Posted - 2011.04.01 15:57:00 - [2153] I understand there are multiple ways to make Isk in eve. But lets think about the effect of limiting one of them especially in 0.0, say sanctums and havens. If you are a brand new player who is driven by progress but not gifted with patience what are your options? Moon mining is not one of them cause it takes to long to research and a lot of Isk. Belt Ratting, (ha your lucky if a third of the belts at least have a BS to shoot down that's less then one mill.) Missions (um sorry but I don't know you well enough to give you a job try my other associate who is 36 jumps away and gives crap missions like finding dolls for a 40 year old weirdo) Hmmm... what else is around that you can make a decent amount of Isk and still shoot things? Anyone? Oh lets see... Hubs, maybe I can do that (warping to one now, what reds in system ah &%$ what are they doing hubs? Cause they cant find any other way of making Isk and have a better chance of getting easy PvP against your PvE ship kills BOOM!) So now I'm out of a 70-100 million Isk ship that takes you 2 weeks of solid of ratting to get. Oh maybe I can trade..... my alliance is at war and I would rather shoot things then warp gate to gate for the next Year while getting blown up by war targets... so yeah my options are pretty limited at making decent Isk with my corp. What... what you mean fly smaller ships? Did I pay actual money so I can dinkle dork around in a stupid frig and barely take the paint off these tech 3 PvP moon mining rich guys?? Seriously your just making the game sound more difficult and *****ed to even attempt playing. CCP I challenge you to go out to 0.0 in a skill set of 5 million skill points with a few friends and try to stay there and pvp for a few months and see how well you do. Then come back to me and tell me why these changes could benefit you rather then benefiting the moon miners that blockade all entry point in a system with all the sanctums. Tell me how you can even afford to fly a battle cruiser and pvp every day with say 6-12 skirmishes every few hours. Then tell me how bored you get and would find more enjoyment in playing WOW after you stand there ship spinning cause you cant afford to do even one skirmish every few days. The truth is that I'm not a hardcore player, but I want to be, just not one that takes hours upon hours of care bear methods to afford it. Oh wait that's right you want me to blow $15 on your plex's so I can afford to pay for ships and play to have a good time. Sorry but I'm not that foolish, I have other games to enjoy that don't involve a 15$ monthly fee that give me just the same amount of game play. True I'll probably stick it out as long as me and my corp is willing, but if we have to go to highsec and live there to make isk that's as far as I'm willing to go, or any other hardcore 0.0 PvP'r is willing to go as well. P.S. If you check my killboards and don't see a lot of kills from me its cause Ive been busy trying to get Isk for it, its true I was finally done paying back one of my corpmates for helping me buy my first battle ship for PvE'ing but I guess soon it wont matter that I was able to get that done cause the most I can do with it is belt ratting after these changes, and lets see a show of hands how that works out in 0.0. vs sanctum runs with your corpmates? Either get blown up by roaming frig roams or have poor returns vs good fun and social enjoyment? Whats your opinion?
Don Gongal	Posted - 2011.04.01 15:59:00 - [2154] Originally by: 1OF NINE Thanks to the new patch, we founded this corporation to block sanctums in the fifth band that enrich only some, we do not hot drop because we do not have ships for that not that we follow, we will stay afk cloak in sanctums grid and you have only one chance to make that sanctums after down time or share some isk what you get from them. recruitment are open for any able to fit a cloak. At least someone adapt to the new conditions :). I think a large number of players already think at ransoming -0.8 - -1.00 as a new source of income. I think the owners will pay what you ask if you block 10 anomalies lol
Pod Bot88	Posted - 2011.04.01 16:02:00 - [2155] Originally by: 1OF NINE Thanks to the new patch, we founded this corporation to block sanctums in the fifth band that enrich only some, we do not hot drop because we do not have ships for that not that we follow, we will stay afk cloak in sanctums grid and you have only one chance to make that sanctums after down time or share some isk what you get from them. recruitment are open for any able to fit a cloak. so... making isk by just keeping your pc open? its better than afk missioning :D
Ravenfoe Amarr The Chaos Hegemony The Lostboys	Posted - 2011.04.01 16:10:00 - [2156] Edited by: Ravenfoe on 01/04/2011 16:16:16 As someone who led a small alliance that lived in nul-sec for a while I have to agree with what 99% of the people are saying here. With rental and sov bills to pay and a smaller player base, I relied solely on the Havens and Sanctums to support our alliance and get ahead. As our initial -0.23 system was the only one that we could afford in the beginning, the Sanctums were VITAL in allowing us to expand our operations in NUL. I can honestly say that without these sites present we would never have been able to have made the move into nul. From the little man's perspective, these changes will require that any alliance that wants to make the move to nul would have to already have a huge high-sec support system and a pre-made capital fleet before even thinking of nul as the "beginner" systems available for rent would preclude any income ability to attain these things in nul. These changes won't make it easier for smaller alliances to get a foothold in nul-sec it makes it almost impossible. Instead of a smaller alliance renting modest sec level systems, working their asses off with the lower sites to attain upgrade availabilities and isk to purchase the upgrades and then using this money to expand and get a stronger foothold you'll be forcing these small guy alliances that want to move to nul to just disband and join their corps to one of the exhisting power blocs in order to even have a chance of succeeding at all or, even, to just pull out of nul-sec completely. Whithout Sactums and Havens I can say absolutely that these would have been the only two options for my alliance. So I feel that if these changes go into affect you'll see a mass exodus of smaller alliances pulling out of nul and back into high-sec or merging with the already too big alliances as they will no longer have the means to even pay the rent and sov bills let alone grow as an alliance. I don't post much on the forums but I love this game and therefore couldn't let this one pass without speaking my mind. I'm not going to say CCP sucks or anything like that because they have given me and awesome game to play and the fact that everyone in this thread cares enough about this game to get as mad as they are about this topic says that CCP has done many things right. However, I have to beg you, CCP, to please not implement these changes. Nul-sec is the end-game dream of many a smaller alliance. Please don't take away the only tools these ambitious pilots have to achieve this!
Machinegunner Bob	Posted - 2011.04.01 16:14:00 - [2157] May be there is won't changes to alliances' wallets, but it's a strike on a players' wallets. And if it will be abled I'll leave the 0.0 because I'll lose the income.
Zamiq	Posted - 2011.04.01 16:19:00 - [2158] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: kasai zenpachi we use expensive ships and lose thing with out problem Wait a minute, you want to use expensive ships and lose without problem.... just because you are in 0.0? why? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Just because you want to field carriers and dreadnoughts, doesn't mean you have to have the option to farm for a day or two, and return in fully fitted carriers to participate in a 1000 v 1000, and then come to COAD and *** at CCP to fix lag. If you're in 0.0 and want more rewards, fine! But that doesn't mean you should get many many times the reward the empire has to offer just because you are in 0.0 Yes it does, unless you are war decced in high sec there is little risk. In null sec there is always risk, thus the rewards should be greater. Now, for anyone who wants bigger rewards they can just take their stuff and move to null sec, oh wait you wont be able to anymore because come April 5th your system will be **.
REDRUM44	Posted - 2011.04.01 16:39:00 - [2159] So much for your sandbox theroy on eve,ya know your next trailer might want to add "your playing in our sandbox if you start to succeed in any way we will change and nerf the game to make it impossible"
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.01 16:55:00 - [2160] Originally by: Ravenfoe I'm not going to say CCP sucks or anything like that because they have given me and awesome game to play They've "given" you a game, you've given them a fleet of corporate jets. I think you're about even. You don't really owe them anything. They, on the other hand...

Omida Pufoasa	Posted - 2011.04.01 17:03:00 - [2161] Edited by: Omida Pufoasa on 01/04/2011 17:02:47 hopefully this is a 1st of april joke if not... its brutal! much to brutal.
Simvastatin Montelukast Blue Republic	Posted - 2011.04.01 17:14:00 - [2162] I tried to read through all 72 pages of this topic. Did I miss the CSM's input?
Vandiilo Gallente Full Metal Jacket LLC	Posted - 2011.04.01 17:17:00 - [2163] The rent is too damn high.
Lady Carton	Posted - 2011.04.01 17:25:00 - [2164] Originally by: Simvastatin Montelukast I tried to read through all 72 pages of this topic. Did I miss the CSM's input? seriously? when did we ever see anything from CSM? this nerf is the most disgusting piece of crap I see from CCP since I began playing/paying EVE - not hearing from its customers is so pleasant, CCP.
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 17:38:00 - [2165] Originally by: Lady Carton Originally by: Simvastatin Montelukast I tried to read through all 72 pages of this topic. Did I miss the CSM's input? seriously? when did we ever see anything from CSM? this nerf is the most disgusting piece of crap I see from CCP since I began playing/paying EVE - not hearing from its customers is so pleasant, CCP. Agreed. I may quit EVE period. The only thing this will achieve is pushing alliances from nullsec to lowsec. I hate low-sec. For a company who doesn't listen to player input, is a company that is doomed.
gargars	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:04:00 - [2166] Well I am mainly an Empire dweller and am no expert on null sec, however CCP if this change has generated 73 PAGES of concern (to put it mildly) in less than a week, then I would say you might want to postpone it/scrap it or explain it better if the player experts here are in error about what the change is going to do.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:08:00 - [2167] Edited by: Nipps McChesty on 01/04/2011 18:09:10 This change won't affect me in any way, as my corp's systems are in the somewhat unaffected band, and anoms are just a supplement to my income. That being said, I really have no clue as to how this change is going to result in the desired outcome listed in Greyscale's blog. This is analogous to announcing changes to help get new players in a BS quicker, but then raising the requirements to train BS to require frigate, cruiser and BC all to level 5. No matter how often I read that blog, I just can't wrap my head around how they expect to get this desired outcome. Are CCP really that clueless about how their own game works?
Liability Insurance	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:17:00 - [2168] So... Huge swathes of 0.0 become virtually worthless to players. Roamers now have to jump through dozens of completely empty systems to reach where people actually are. Alliance level finances rely on moongoo- not sanctums. Any alliance that would be willing to go to war for Sanctums is NOT an alliance capable of taking and holding the space with good or even mediocre truesec. HiSec players and new corps have 0 reason to move to 0.0, which will now be vastly less profitable than low or even high security space. Who wants to move into a desert? The whole thing reeks of "We made an entire expansion to get people to move to nullsec, but now that there are actually people there the system can't handle it! SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING" All of the sanctums are crammed into a small number of systems, easily susceptible to a few AFK cloakers sitting in system and shutting down an entire alliance worth of players because nobody with half a brain rats with reds in local, even "afk" reds. Sure is increasing the fun of the game, right? Many players won't be able to afford fleet BS or fancy T2 toys. They'll downgrade to cheaper ships, right? HAHAHA. More like they'll stop playing because a huge part of the fun of the game is gone. Who wants to fly a Stabber after flying a Vagabond? And it isn't an "Everybody is on the same scale now" situation, all of the people with wormhole/DED/broken trusec/whatever missions will keep on flying their pimpmobiles, while all the people that relied on sanctums will either switch to empire missions, flood the other money makers and crash them, or just quit. DRF areas spawn MASSIVELY improved numbers of Drone Hordes, flooding the game with drone trash and salvage that goes directly into Super production. Just what we need, more supercaps. Bot usage explodes because who in their right mind actually enjoys running Drone anoms. CCP Greyscale's model of the sandbox is the model of someone who has never actually played the game.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:22:00 - [2169] just remember according to CCP this thread is split 50/50 for and against this change... thats bull**** but it lets ya know where CCP's head is on this.
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:24:00 - [2170] Originally by: Skaarl just remember according to CCP this thread is split 50/50 for and against this change... thats bull**** but it lets ya know where CCP's head is on this. Lol. So true.

Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:26:00 - [2171] Originally by: Liability Insurance CCP Greyscale's model of the sandbox is the model of someone who has never actually played the game. That right there. Eve is touted as the ultimate sandbox where everything is unscripted and player driven. This change kind of blows that model out of the water. Particularly when the big decisions are made by someone in CCP who's just an outside observer seeing very little of what actually happens in game. Eve is far too big and complex of a world for anyone that isn't experiencing the actual gameplay (as a player) to be able to really understand the 'big picture'. I don't care if these guys are the hands-on programmers that built the thing. Until they've "lived" in it, they're just noobs.
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:31:00 - [2172] Originally by: Nipps McChesty Originally by: Liability Insurance CCP Greyscale's model of the sandbox is the model of someone who has never actually played the game. That right there. Eve is touted as the ultimate sandbox where everything is unscripted and player driven. This change kind of blows that model out of the water. Particularly when the big decisions are made by someone in CCP who's just an outside observer seeing very little of what actually happens in game. Eve is far too big and complex of a world for anyone that isn't experiencing the actual gameplay (as a player) to be able to really understand the 'big picture'. I don't care if these guys are the hands-on programmers that built the thing. Until they've "lived" in it, they're just noobs. I agree. But define "lived" in. 2 weeks, a month, 6 months, 2 years? I've been here for about 5 weeks in total, and I love it the way it is. If they implement this "New Feature" it'll ruin everything a lot of people have worked for. Isn't there a saying; If it's not broken, don't **** with it? Just a thought for CCP to contemplate..
Endokra	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:37:00 - [2173] Well I remember the promises CCP made for Dominion patch and they **ed it up completely. Now you guys will finally ruin nullsec completely. The common member of small alliances will not be able to afford ship reimbursement. Straight to the point: Is there anyone in CCP with just half a brain? Or is it intended to ruin the game finally? Another complete **y idea. Get lost.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:50:00 - [2174] Originally by: BinaryData I agree. But define "lived" in. 2 weeks, a month, 6 months, 2 years? I've been here for about 5 weeks in total, and I love it the way it is. If they implement this "New Feature" it'll ruin everything a lot of people have worked for. Isn't there a saying; If it's not broken, don't fnck with it? Just a thought for CCP to contemplate.. It's hard to define really, as Eve is such a huge, complex world. I know people who've been playing for years and never left high sec. I wouldn't consider them as having any valuable opinion on this matter as they haven't experienced 0.0 firsthand. That being said, I know newer guys with toons less than 1 year old that have only been in 0.0 for a couple of months that probably have a pretty good idea of the model and whose opinions on this I would value more than the devs. It really depends on the person and their experience. Most devs and CCP employees get in game, fly around with their GM invincibility superpowers, see what's going on, etc. They're "there" as observers, but not truly a part of the greater experience. Devs don't fight in the wars or to hold their space. They don't have to make money to equip themselves. Their experience of the game is the polar opposite of the players. They're not really the best people to be making this kind of judgement call. I see CCP interfering like this as the armchair military analyst "experts" that have never served a day of military service in their life, watch CNN 16 hours a day, and seem to have in-depth analyses of all situations and all the solutions to what's happening in Iraq or A-stan. I SORT of disagree about it not being broken. True sec of a system MUST be taken into account for anoms. I just don't agree with the way they're going about it as it will in no way have their desired outcome. From an outsider's vantage point, their reasoning may make sense. But from the vantage point of someone with actual "boots on the ground" and actual expereience, the current model makes no sense.
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services Quantum Forge	Posted - 2011.04.01 18:57:00 - [2175] still against the nerf! ------------------------------------
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:12:00 - [2176] for the nerf!
Chr1st0ph3r	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:18:00 - [2177] Wonderful. Kill the one good source of ISK for a PVP pilot living in a small alliance in o.o. I have one reply to you *****es at CCP. Read my lips. Unsubscribe 3 account this month. That is $60 I will spend on a competitive MMO like. OMG there is a new one releasing in just a few days. $13.90 a month for a premium account, and you do not have to grind #%$^ level-4's to replace your PVP vehicle.
Kiramati	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:24:00 - [2178] Was waiting for CCP to even out 0.0 back to there true sec values. Think back to the good old days belt ratting and scanning. People managed then people will manage after this change. An allaince now only looked at moons not really space for there members. Now gets allaince to look back at the drawing broad. Looking forward for this change. FYI remember people managed befor ratting in belts. So now back to chaining :D
CorryBasler Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:26:00 - [2179] confirming CCP Grayscale don't know how to listen to any of his customers and will enjoy it when alot of smaller renter allainces move back to high sec because lvl 4 missions will be easier to make isk on then renting decent space.
Helios Xise	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:27:00 - [2180] Edited by: Helios Xise on 01/04/2011 19:29:17 Originally by: gargars Well I am mainly an Empire dweller and am no expert on null sec, however CCP if this change has generated 73 PAGES of concern (to put it mildly) in less than a week, then I would say you might want to postpone it/scrap it or explain it better if the player experts here are in error about what the change is going to do. im sure numbers of pages would top 100 easy if ccp wasn't busy deleting every comment with players giving their opinion about where greyscale can put his improvments but from CCPs point of view i can understand. Lag will be reduced due to ppl not being able to afford 250mio abba for massive fleet fights... seriosly, after reading about their ideas during fanfest it was more in the direction of how to change the players and avoid battles instead of improving that what made this game great. thanks ccp, ppl will now relay on botting and other unwelcomed ways of generating their money, but ur new anti-bot taskforce needs something to do right?

Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:32:00 - [2181] Originally by: Kiramati Was waiting for CCP to even out 0.0 back to there true sec values. Think back to the good old days belt ratting and scanning. People managed then people will manage after this change. An allaince now only looked at moons not really space for there members. Now gets allaince to look back at the drawing broad. Looking forward for this change. FYI remember people managed befor ratting in belts. So now back to chaining :D "When I was a kid, we walked 10 miles, through the snow, uphill! When we couldn't eat fish, we ate crawdads, and when there weren't enough crawdads, we ate dirt. It was good enough for us, it should be good enough for you goddamn kids. Change is bad!!"
Penny Storm	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:33:00 - [2182] i don¦t support this product
gargars	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:34:00 - [2183] Originally by: Helios Xise but ur new anti-bot taskforce needs something to do right? You mean Burt the janitor?
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:37:00 - [2184] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: Kiramati Was waiting for CCP to even out 0.0 back to there true sec values. Think back to the good old days belt ratting and scanning. People managed then people will manage after this change. An allaince now only looked at moons not really space for there members. Now gets allaince to look back at the drawing broad. Looking forward for this change. FYI remember people managed befor ratting in belts. So now back to chaining :D "When I was a kid, we walked 10 miles, through the snow, uphill! When we couldn't eat fish, we ate crawdads, and when there weren't enough crawdads, we ate dirt. It was good enough for us, it should be good enough for you goddamn kids. Change is bad!!" Is belt ratting equivalent to eating dirt, or is that what comes after you run out of dirt? Because I'm pretty sure "they'll manage" means "they'll try belt ratting, realize it's somehow even less fun than mining, move to highsec and realize there's nothing to work for there, then quit the game."
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:41:00 - [2185] Originally by: REDRUM44 So much for your sandbox theroy on eve,ya know your next trailer might want to add "your playing in our sandbox if you start to succeed in any way we will change and nerf the game to make it impossible" This has nothing to do with the 'sandbox' and everything to do with balance and reality. I wish CCP had already done an emergency dev blog to explain themselves. But I still support this move as 1 of many changes to be made in sov to make it dynamic and thriving again.
Sannye	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:42:00 - [2186] I wonder if CCP will ever figure out, that even though we players MAY appear to be paid betatesters, we are NOT employees of CCP and we do NOT want to work our a##'s off for hours and hours, to get 2 min of fun. It's a GAME for your customors, and it should be a WORK for you, CCP. You got it the other way around! (should have linked to the Fanfestival here - but... you saw it yourself...)
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:47:00 - [2187] Originally by: Kiramati Think back to the good old days belt ratting and scanning. People managed then people will manage after this change. In the old days, you could also belt rat or scan for hours ALONE across multiple systems rarely seeing anyone. It was a viable source of income, and a good one at that. Since Dominion and the new sov system, nullsec is populated in a way it never was before. Some null systems have denser population than Empire now. You find yourself limited to a couple of systems, and having to share / compete for those belts and signatures with multiple other people. Your argument is valid in the pre-Dominion context, but completely off in the current environment.
Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.04.01 19:51:00 - [2188] i'm glad that these changes are still being implemented. it means that ccp was smart enough to see this thread for what it is: a bunch of NC bears crying.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 20:00:00 - [2189] Originally by: Panda Name i'm glad that these changes are still being implemented. it means that ccp was smart enough to see this thread for what it is: a bunch of NC bears crying. It's funny, but so far, it seems the only people I've seen in this thread that are for the changes "nerfing the NC carebears" are either Empire-dwellers who'd love nothing more but to be in 0.0 but don't have the skills / ability / connections, or the "1337 PvPers" who aren't able to actually hold their own space without being handed the spanking of a lifetime by one of the big power blocks.
Vortx JR	Posted - 2011.04.01 20:09:00 - [2190] Well, let's hope it's 1st april Joke.... Just a quote from the fanfest : " Empty Space is boring " well remove the isk from space and you'll have a LOT of empty space. Then you'll go for a boring game. Look at the Drone Region really boring. Of course giving more " high end " anom to a few system is really a good idea. As you said you have 1 or 2 system like that by area, so you will add 2 sanctums / or whatever called and remove 200 by area ? It's just an isk nerf nothing else, not a gameplay improvment. I can't wait till next fan fest to see the " whine on forums graphic " the year starts preally well on that side .

Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.04.01 20:15:00 - [2191] Originally by: Nipps McChesty Originally by: Panda Name i'm glad that these changes are still being implemented. it means that ccp was smart enough to see this thread for what it is: a bunch of NC bears crying. It's funny, but so far, it seems the only people I've seen in this thread that are for the changes "nerfing the NC carebears" are either Empire-dwellers who'd love nothing more but to be in 0.0 but don't have the skills / ability / connections, or the "1337 PvPers" who aren't able to actually hold their own space without being handed the spanking of a lifetime by one of the big power blocks. NC poster, given that you are a "huge powerblock," why are you even concerned? oh wait, because space will be prioritized, and you will probably lose your blue status, ejecting you from said powerblock. LOLzZZzzz.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 20:27:00 - [2192] Originally by: Panda Name NC poster, given that you are a "huge powerblock," why are you even concerned? oh wait, because space will be prioritized, and you will probably lose your blue status, ejecting you from said powerblock. LOLzZZzzz. As I said in my earlier posts, these changes will have absolutely no effect on me or any of my toons. I'm more concerned about the effects this will have to the overall health of the game.
Khadann Caldari Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.04.01 20:49:00 - [2193] Edited by: Khadann on 01/04/2011 20:49:15 This is really gonna mess up the economy... Hya!
Zamiq	Posted - 2011.04.01 20:49:00 - [2194] Originally by: Nipps McChesty Originally by: Panda Name NC poster, given that you are a "huge powerblock," why are you even concerned? oh wait, because space will be prioritized, and you will probably lose your blue status, ejecting you from said powerblock. LOLzZZzzz. As I said in my earlier posts, these changes will have absolutely no effect on me or any of my toons. I'm more concerned about the effects this will have to the overall health of the game. Sure they will. What do you think is going to happen when a lot of evicted 0.0 players go back to high sec and realize that missioning without an end goal is boring? Get ready for tons of Wardecs, can flipping, ninja salvaging and suicide ganking. When people decide to leave the game they will go out with a bang.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:02:00 - [2195] Originally by: Zamiq Sure they will. What do you think is going to happen when a lot of evicted 0.0 players go back to high sec and realize that missioning without an end goal is boring? Get ready for tons of Wardecs, can flipping, ninja salvaging and suicide ganking. When people decide to leave the game they will go out with a bang. That's making the assumption that I'll end up being forced back to live in Empire. I can very much guarantee that won't be happening ever. However, I tend to agree with you. People that can't afford their space will be forced back to Empire, and that will cause a lot of issues. All the activities you mentioned will be happening in droves. While it's fun to be on the side dealing that out, on the scale it's going to happen, it won't be good for the health of the game overall. This is why I'm against these changes. It has nothing to do with my personal wallet. I'm more than capable of generating isk for my main PvP toons without requiring endless anomaly grinds to do so.
Karl Planck Walt Disney Productions	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:02:00 - [2196] ROFL, this thread reminds me of how most of 0.0'ers pvp. "Well, we don't like it and were really not talented enough to make this work to our atvantage, lets blob the sh*t out of it" ------------------------------------------------- Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Zamiq	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:12:00 - [2197] Originally by: Karl Planck ROFL, this thread reminds me of how most of 0.0'ers pvp. "Well, we don't like it and were really not talented enough to make this work to our atvantage, lets blob the sh*t out of it" Post like yours remind me of how most "leet low sec pvpers" are. "Well, I will sit docked and only pop out when I can rain on someones parade."
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:23:00 - [2198] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 01/04/2011 21:24:26 Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 01/04/2011 21:23:36 Originally by: Karl Planck ROFL, this thread reminds me of how most of 0.0'ers pvp. "Well, we don't like it and were really not talented enough to make this work to our atvantage, lets blob the sh*t out of it" ROFL, this reminds me about how "elite" low-sec pvp'ers like to shoot industrials and tech 1 cruisers with carriers and vindicators camping a station.. Problem?? Dock up/warp-to-POS lololololololololbr ____________ I like woman because breasts
Oguras Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:33:00 - [2199] Originally by: Zamiq Post like yours remind me of how most "leet low sec pvpers" are. "Well, I will sit docked and only pop out when I can rain on someones parade." He he, looks like a snapshot for your avatar was taken after some nice sanctum grind.. Or maybe you have just ganked with 12 another bears some solo roamer and it's sign of happiness that you got on killmail with 0 dmg? :D
Ashaai	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:34:00 - [2200] Despite Greyscale indicating he would open a dialogue with us following the response to his blog, he has completely failed to do so. His follow-up posts were both days ago and completely nonresponsive to the issues raised by players in this thread. Nevertheless, the change still appears in the patch notes for Incursion 1.4 in what I can only assume is a cruel joke being played on us by the devs. This change has a major impact on thousands of players (again, PLAYERS, not ALLIANCES) and how they play the game. It deserves more consideration, more deliberation and more attention than the iota of attention it has currently received before it goes live. Additionally, I notice that the revisions to DED complexes which were listed on the 1.4 Incursion site are NOT listed in the patch notes, so the one change which may have served to balance out the anomaly idiocy does not seem to have been completed and does not appear to be going live. That, in short, is pathetic planning and execution. That is not the kind of attention or iteration nullsec needs. If there is any question in your minds why CSM6 is so overwhelmingly biased towards nullsec, it's decisions like this made by people who either don't know, don't care or don't understand the current nullsec environment. In going live with this change, you have shown no regard for the people you impact the most (a small corporation or alliance who has sunk hundreds of millions of isk into upgrading space that will soon be worthless), while simultaneously suggesting you are making this change to serve their interests. Unbelievable.

Neclar	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:39:00 - [2201] Originally by: Ashaai Despite Greyscale indicating he would open a dialogue with us following the response to his blog, he has completely failed to do so. His follow-up posts were both days ago and completely nonresponsive to the issues raised by players in this thread. Nevertheless, the change still appears in the patch notes for Incursion 1.4 in what I can only assume is a cruel joke being played on us by the devs. This change has a major impact on thousands of players (again, PLAYERS, not ALLIANCES) and how they play the game. It deserves more consideration, more deliberation and more attention than the iota of attention it has currently received before it goes live. Additionally, I notice that the revisions to DED complexes which were listed on the 1.4 Incursion site are NOT listed in the patch notes, so the one change which may have served to balance out the anomaly idiocy does not seem to have been completed and does not appear to be going live. That, in short, is pathetic planning and execution. That is not the kind of attention or iteration nullsec needs. If there is any question in your minds why CSM6 is so overwhelmingly biased towards nullsec, it's decisions like this made by people who either don't know, don't care or don't understand the current nullsec environment. In going live with this change, you have shown no regard for the people you impact the most (a small corporation or alliance who has sunk hundreds of millions of isk into upgrading space that will soon be worthless), while simultaneously suggesting you are making this change to serve their interests. Unbelievable. As CCP has shown over, and over, they DONT CARE what we think. We are all stupid lemmings and will all keep playing, and sending them money, no matter how bad they **** up the game.
Lucia Schmitz	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:44:00 - [2202] I hope its not a 1 April Joke. When this changes will hit the server there is nothing for a small Alli to stay in 0.0 Our System will be complete worthless then. So we have to go back to High Sec. To do lvl4 Missions? Great Idea!!! most of us do that to get money for Start in 0.0 Wit this changes you create some PVP Hot Spots where no one can make ISK. Sanctum and Heaven System will be camped by neuts or Reds. So where is the Point to play anymore if i need days to get the money for a lost Vagabond, Rapier or another PVP Ship? The Changes will have an really big affect to High Sec. Wardecs are good to get ransom!!! So many High Sec Corps will die and player will go to NPC corps. In the End many Players will quit. I will remember you... we pay you to make a good game wich players will play. So dont bite the hand wich feeds YOU !!!!
xXThunder StruckXx	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:45:00 - [2203] If ccp needs to sell timecodes so bad as to make this a reality, they should just take the plex for Japan if they are so hard up.
omarey	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:45:00 - [2204] Will not be good, Pls dont change it.
Etyk Selatnet	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:45:00 - [2205] CCP: I have broken down your entire blog post to prove to you how wrong you are about this upcoming change. Part 1: Quote: There's now a reason to fight for better space again: sov upgrades will spawn better cosmic anomalies in lower truesec space; cosmic anomalies spawned by methods other than sov upgrades are unaffected. At first, this change sounds good, on paper. More pvp in nullsec, sounds like you're giving us more/better cosmic anoms in some of nullsec. Great. Quote: One of the many internal discussions we had during the development of Dominion was how to strike a good balance between making sovereign space everywhere more desirable, ... and how this should affect the way we let players upgrade their space. You say your goal is to create more wars in nullsec by giving value to every null-sec space and making all of them more desirable. Still sounds good on paper. Later you mention that the equilibrium of nullsec space dulled our combat because you think people were happy with their space, and had no reason to move elsewhere. Your intentions, as you wrote them out, sound good. Now here's where the blog post goes substantially wrong. Quote: It's also a concern that by making the traditionally less-valuable areas of space viable for long-term settlement, we're depriving new organizations of somewhere to start out. I started my null-sec life in one of these less-valuable areas, in one of those newer alliances, where the fighting was good, but the moon-mining was minimal, and ship reimbursements were few and far between. 100% of my pvp ships came from ratting, and I was not alone, either. We had 2 systems always full of many people per sanctum and haven, all surviving out in nullsec with our ratting alone. It was purely the ability to hit havens and sanctums, even if it was in large groups of numbers to make money. I never use a sub-haven to rat, since the spawns were small, and most of the BSÆs were worthless. I made more money chaining belts if I was solo, even if there werenÆt a ton of those to begin with. Now, if we implement all your changes (to be discussed below), the less valuable space, in your mind, would be the systems with truesec status < -.2. These would NOT be inviting to an up-and coming alliance because they will not be able to survive off of infrastructure as that takes months to build up, and only a few days to topple, and they wonÆt make as much money ratting as they would going back to level 4 missions in highsec! Quote: à the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. Wow, one whole system for an entire region, and 8 of the regions donÆt even have one! Impressive! *end sarcasmà DonÆt you have any idea what this would do to all alliances? These systems would become dotlan bullseyes for all enemy fleets, as theyÆd be the only system with NPC kills in the whole region. Ratting wouldnÆt even be valuable even in these super- sanctum filled systems, cause any smart enemy will plant at least 1 afk covert cyno alt there, completely rendering the system worthless, unless you controlled and camped every single entrance/system within black ops jump range. Thus this means entire regions will be taken for waste, and newer alliances wonÆt find a single system without angering some larger coalition.
rebekah valentine	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:47:00 - [2206] there trying to cause eve all out war just leave it as it is
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:47:00 - [2207] Edited by: bloody johnroberts on 01/04/2011 21:47:39 even if this get to 100k posts he still will not respond to the player base. we saw that at fanfest in every round table i attended he showed is total lack of understanding. his solution to an issue is CHANGE THE PLAYERS BEHAVOUR lol well you will do this but at a cost to ccp
mimiki	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:50:00 - [2208] why change it , just leave everything as it is !
Etyk Selatnet	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:54:00 - [2209] Part 2 Quote: * Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space You bet your arse. CeptÆ its not gonna be as youÆd imagine in your perfect little dream, CCP. Coalitions will own entire regions AND their neighboring regions to provide a buffer zone for their better ratting space, and to connect their one or two good truesec systems. Smaller alliances will be kicked off less valuable space simply because itÆs in the way. Renters will be kicked from their space by their rentees for their space, and nullsec will be more inclusive and uninviting for those without lots of buddies and iskies. Quote: * In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Conflicts occur every day in nullsec, with or without ratting. Coalitions hording the most valuable moons will always face enemies who want their moons for themselves, and people fight for a very localized goal already- usually the main reason people want more space is not because their current space sucks, but because they just need more. This innately adds conflict and sov wars all throughout nullsec. Just check dotlan! Almost every day, some systems are won and lost, usually not through peaceful means. This new change will actually slow the process of sov wars, because those who are at war in some far-from-home outpost will have less ratting to keep their ship numbers strong while they lose them in PVP to gain and hold the new space. Ratting is an easy way for those deployed out near enemy space to keep going since you donÆt have to go home necessarily to find rats. With new challenges to find ratting space, conflicts will be slowed, and people will consider just holding on to what they have instead of trying to war for new space. Quote: * Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec I already said many reasons why this will do the exact opposite affect. Less truesec space will not be appetizing to a new alliance, and strong coalitions will want to hold these to have a buffer zone and a jump bridge network to move from truesec spots to where the PVP is. No small alliance will be able to hold any chunk of decent to good truesec space without lots of allies, and thus theyÆll be forced back to empire. Quote: * Coalitions will be marginally less stable With less little alliances in the way, coalitions will start to strengthen, finding more space and entrenching deeply into their high truesec space and moon mining. They will also grow bored of seeing all blues in the area, as their empires continue to expand. PVP will be harder to find, and take longer to get to known areas of the enemies. And if theyÆre also in a coalition, holding onto lots of space, theyÆll be warned of your fleetÆs arrival way before you can do anything, and since youÆre in their space, theyÆll build a fleet to counter yours, and you wonÆt be able to reship. This means coalitions will be stronger and safer, and smaller alliances will be wiped out. Quote: * 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) Again, exactly the opposite will occur, despite your best efforts. Alliances will quickly build up outposts and posses in the truesec systems, then claim as much of the systems around it as they can, but they wonÆt be advancing any of the others. It makes the game boring, and automatic. ItÆs almost as if youÆre trying to take out most of the fun of the game.
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:54:00 - [2210] It's fine. When CCP for bankrupt, I will laugh at their terrible owners. Learn to run a business, or complete primary school. Worst game admins on the internet.

Commander Krispy Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.01 21:58:00 - [2211] Edited by: Commander Krispy on 01/04/2011 21:59:37 if you think coalitions rely on sanctums and havens. It just goes to show how much you know and care about the game. You should research where the money is on coalition/alliance level before coming up with these bull**** changes that have no positive short or long term effects. Instead only making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Great Job CCP!!!! <sarcasm>(incase your head is so far up your ass you believe that it was actually a well earned pat on the back)
Zamiq	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:02:00 - [2212] Originally by: Oguras Originally by: Zamiq Post like yours remind me of how most "leet low sec pvpers" are. "Well, I will sit docked and only pop out when I can rain on someones parade." He he, looks like a snapshot for your avatar was taken after some nice sanctum grind.. Or maybe you have just ganked with 12 another bears some solo roamer and it's sign of happiness that you got on killmail with 0 dmg? :D Oh snap! You sure showed me. Well, in that case your AV looks like his balls just retreaded back into his body because your corp CEO told you that you are moving into null sec and have to take about 15 billion ISK worth of ships, infrastructure and supplies. Don't Panic! Don't waste your griefer tears, everything will be OK, your balls are too small to have an impact on your internal organs anyway. Now go look for that Leave Corp button and keep that gate to high sec camped 24/7.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:03:00 - [2213] Edited by: Skaarl on 01/04/2011 22:04:21 CCP just censored their facebook page and deleted several hundred comments about this! lols i guess the responses arent quite 50/50 are they? there were over 400 comments 2 days ago and its now down to 50 or so!
Etyk Selatnet	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:04:00 - [2214] Edited by: Etyk Selatnet on 01/04/2011 22:04:16 Part 3 Quote: You're seeing this first because it was an obvious target that's relatively easy to implement. ... 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. Here you provide us with a glimmer of why you actually want this change, and all that stuff you said before was unrelated just to try to qualm the dissenters (nice workà) All it seems you care about is you. A huge reason that you are implementing this is that itÆs easy for you to implement, and by saying that half of these comments here are positive mean that youÆre not really reading these comments, cause I assure you the people that this actually affects are all up in arms (not to mention IÆve flipped through several pages, only to find one short, jokingly positive comment). Those that sound positive are those are not even ratting, of strong coalitions, making money off tech moons and 12 botting alts mining in hulks in highsec or blasting NPCs in belts using macros. What should really be more important to you are us players. Without players, you will be bankrupt. Without us paying for plexes, or our 15$ monthlies, you would have no income (pretty much what youÆre doing to newly formed alliances/players in nullsec) and the game will collapse. I have already heard one of my friends say heÆll quit once this is implemented, and IÆm strongly considering it too. 70 PAGES of 10 or more comments have been made, mostly negative responses to this change. ThatÆs more than 700 players who have voiced their frustration, and 700x$15 for each monthà Is that change worth it to you? You can do that math CCP (I hope). Plus thatÆs not to mention whom all here has multiple accounts (myself included) and will cancel them all pending this change, and all those who didnÆt voice. Usually only a small % of the people who are agitated by a game change will discuss it, unless its horrendously wrong. Either this is horrendously wrong, or there are even more than 700 dissenters to this plan, who are all considering leaving Eve because of this change. Continually pushing something onto gamers who choose to pay monthly fees that they do not want will end up with an empty MMO, and eventually the end of the game as a whole. You of all people, CCP, must see the value in that. It is obvious (even though you never mention it) that you expect people to buy another alt to make resources in these few systems or simply go mission running in highsec, but the opposite will occur. People AND their alts will quit the game and play another. Cause I know I would rather quit then go back to running missions in highsec. I see no value in paying for a game to run missions (boring) instead of pvp (fun). If you were actually interested in making sure us players are happy, and thus make more money for yourself, you would lessen the values of those things that can be botted, such as belt rats in nullsec or highsec mining, and INCREASE the value and occurrence of ratting in anoms to pay for the ships in PVP, increase the value of mining ABCÆs, and the value of moon goo, and keep with the ôhigh-risk, high-rewardö setting of nullsec as it has always been. That way we all would have more reason to go out in nullsec and hold onto as much space as we can, fighting our neighbors to hold onto it daily and able to afford fancier, more expensive ships and fleet up with them. I mean who doesnÆt want to see more titans and moms and the like getting blown up/fighting? With more income, more people would be more willing to fly their more expensive ships into battle more often, and you donÆt mess up the chances for new alliances to make a living out in null. My 2c. Cause it sounds like those 2 cents might be the last of my money that I give to CCP ever.
Revii Lagoon The Foreign Legion Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:04:00 - [2215] How will these changes do anything good? My alliance has only a couple systems in cloud ring, pure blind / fade, and Branch. With these new changes, for the case of my alliance, most of our space will become worthless except Branch. It's already fairly difficult to find a system to do anomalies in as it is now. So rather than splitting the amount of ratters across larger area's of space, you now put them in one massive cluster **** of a couple systems. All this does is make it harder for the average person to make money. And to top it all off, A couple afk cloaker's can effectively neutralize the majority of the average person's income, for an entire alliance. GG CCP, Y U NO LIKE WIDOT? OR THE REST OF 0.0 FOR THAT MATTER????
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:05:00 - [2216] Player Owned Structures, Outposts and Stations 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. its in the patch notes great move CCP much love !
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:09:00 - [2217] I wonder if I get it this right: Pros: - The obvious reason is to fire up CCP¦s own RMT system as less income ingame means to compensate it via legal (=CCPs) RMT Contras: - Huge nullsec areas are wasteland (not at all suitable for small alliances to set ground on nullsec) - Concentrated areas of non wasteland systems that are constantly farmed by pew pews. - Overall less pew pew as renters will have to bo back to high and so less peeps in nullsec - Overall less pew pew as PLAYERS can¦t afford loosing ships coz this "great idea" hits hard on PLAYERS not ALLIANCES - More frequented highsec warfare coz ppl want to shoot stuff and carebear tears are so sweet and can¦t be found in null anymore - More frequented highsec warfare coz home is where you can make isk - Crying carebears and probably a mass extinction of highsec corps as their members will run missions in a NPC corp - Less mining coz hulkbear tears are even more sweet - More expensive ships as less raw materials Result: Pro wins as CCP wants it and doesn¦t care for anything else.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:11:00 - [2218] lol after ccp presents and being asked to get new member to come and play eve i find it hard to understand how we could do this after the new patch
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:12:00 - [2219] Originally by: bloody johnroberts lol after ccp presents and being asked to get new member to come and play eve i find it hard to understand how we could do this after the new patch dont be silly ... MM has lot of moongoo just ask your leaders for a bit
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:15:00 - [2220] you fail to understand this is not about 1 alliance this is about every alliance north south east or west everyone is affected unless you stay in high sec

Waesserchen	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:16:00 - [2221] i REALY hope this is an april joke .. otherwise this is the end of all 0.0 activity of our small ally because our system .... and hole catch is complete worthless ok, back in the high sec .( but i don't need all accounts for mission running ok, it is a joke, right?
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:17:00 - [2222] Originally by: Waesserchen i REALY hope this is an april joke .. otherwise this is the end of all 0.0 activity of our small ally because our system .... and hole catch is complete worthless ok, back in the high sec .( but i don't need all accounts for mission running ok, it is a joke, right? the april fools jokes are mounts in stations, its about halfway down the list of stickies. this is for real.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:20:00 - [2223] Originally by: bloody johnroberts you fail to understand this is not about 1 alliance this is about every alliance north south east or west everyone is affected unless you stay in high sec you fail to understand or dont want to that theres more in 00 than anomalies
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:21:00 - [2224] Originally by: Skaarl the april fools jokes are mounts in stations, its about halfway down the list of stickies. this is for real. Even CCP can¦t be stupid enough to seriously suggest this, It has to be a ******ed joke!
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:23:00 - [2225] Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Skaarl the april fools jokes are mounts in stations, its about halfway down the list of stickies. this is for real. Even CCP can¦t be stupid enough to seriously suggest this, It has to be a ******ed joke! its real its in the patch notes and makes perfect sense .. if you look at all the posts here
Traska Gannel	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:25:00 - [2226] Dear CCP Greyscale, I just wanted to comment on some of the ideas you presented. 1) Your first point assumes that the Alliance involved has access to high quality systems. A large number of alliances do not have low true sec systems and will be unable to obtain them after these changes are put through since they will be taken by larger alliances. Only the lowest true sec systems have significant upgrades. There is no way these systems can replace upgraded constellations. 2) The reason 0.0 is populated is so that players can make ISK and sometimes find good fights. Making ISK is either from moons, minerals or bounties. Why do you think 0.0 is more populated now than it was 3 or 4 years ago? The quick answer is that the risk/reward ratio was adjusted through the addition of anomalies to make it worthwhile. If it isn't worth the time and the costs of living there are not covered by returns ... people will go elsewhere. The most likely alternative for PVE ISK I have heard seem to be high or low sec mission hubs. 3) You suggest that Alliances need to have a reason to abandon infrastructure ... it takes days or weeks of effort to find wormholes to get these system upgrades to 0.0 since each requires a freighter. Upgrading takes a huge investment of time, energy and some ISK from a number of players. With that much effort required there is no incentive to have to do it again for a new system even if it is a bit better ... and with the suggested changes there will be NO reason to upgrade any but the best systems. 4) -0.79 is the lowest truesec in Immensea. This change writes off the entire region since it won't be able to support its population. Only 10 systems out of 84 have a truesec < -0.65. Alliances need the ISK from rats to cover costs. 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 - 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. - 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.[/quo
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:27:00 - [2227] Originally by: Lt Pizi its real its in the patch notes and makes perfect sense .. if you look at all the posts here yep all the posts clearly indicate that this stupid idea is a joke High time for CCP to make a happy face and point fingers on us while laughing (Better then us pointing our fists towards the genious that had this idea)
Picado Pitviper	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:29:00 - [2228] Edited by: Picado Pitviper on 01/04/2011 22:29:37 So here's something interesting from another CSM blog and I quote: "Mounts are coming to Incarna reported by CCP Soundwave \| 2011.04.01 10:51:31 \| NEW \| Comments The next revelation is Incarna Mounts. That's right. It's finally going to happen. We've listened to your feedback and now we're going to give you what you've wanted for so long -- your very own pets in Incarna for your Captain's Quarters." 75 pages of feedback here on the anomaly nerf but I don't think CCP is listening.
Materia Hunter	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:30:00 - [2229] Firmly against the nerf. I lose about the same amount of ISK that I gain through ratting in these. Many people have already stated the reasons in this thread much better than I can, but the bottom line is that grinding in Eve is boring at the best of times, making me do it for longer is only going to move me away from PvP. Every time I was in 0.0 Pre-Dominion, this was the reason I ended up back in highsec. Please don't do this change.
Travis J Penken	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:30:00 - [2230] According to dotlan maps... Dark-rising http://evemaps.dotlan.net/corp/Dark-Rising holds ... 0 systems, have 0 outposts... and is affected by this change by ... 0 %

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:31:00 - [2231] Originally by: Picado Pitviper Edited by: Picado Pitviper on 01/04/2011 22:29:37 So here's something interesting from another CSM blog and I quote: "Mounts are coming to Incarna reported by CCP Soundwave \| 2011.04.01 10:51:31 \| NEW \| Comments The next revelation is Incarna Mounts. That's right. It's finally going to happen. We've listened to your feedback and now we're going to give you what you've wanted for so long -- your very own pets in Incarna for your Captain's Quarters." 75 pages of feedback here on the anomaly nerf but I don't think CCP is listening. lol pic cannot wait till i ride my mount with various pets by my side in station hope this gene splicing skills are lvl 24 and take ages to train
Jack Lagoon	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:31:00 - [2232] 75 Pages of replies and you still think this is a good idea ccp? I hope csm takes all the replies, makes a book out of them and beats you over the head until you listen.
Fredrick Engly Insorum Industries Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:32:00 - [2233] hmm this isn't an April Fools.... This change effectively * removes the use of Sov, * will force more people into power bloc alliances * force alliances to a few systems * increase lag due to population in fewer systems * devalue highend minerals futher as ppl scramble to mine more to make isk * force ppl to highsec GG CCP.. who wants my stuff?
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:33:00 - [2234] Edited by: Lt Pizi on 01/04/2011 22:33:48 Originally by: Travis J Penken According to dotlan maps... Dark-rising http://evemaps.dotlan.net/corp/Dark-Rising holds ... 0 systems, have 0 outposts... and is affected by this change by ... 0 % true but we were down there did hold systems and i ran 20 or so sanctums the whole year .. and if we goin back im sure we will not grab a ****ty system edit and i still willnot run anomalies ..
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:34:00 - [2235] Originally by: Picado Pitviper Edited by: Picado Pitviper on 01/04/2011 22:29:37 So here's something interesting from another CSM blog and I quote: "Mounts are coming to Incarna reported by CCP Soundwave \| 2011.04.01 10:51:31 \| NEW \| Comments The next revelation is Incarna Mounts. That's right. It's finally going to happen. We've listened to your feedback and now we're going to give you what you've wanted for so long -- your very own pets in Incarna for your Captain's Quarters." 75 pages of feedback here on the anomaly nerf but I don't think CCP is listening. Read the bold part..
Stepsun	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:38:00 - [2236] I fear this is not an april's fool... CCP just will annoy about more than 100 people in our corp as we will not be able to hold a position anymore in 0.0. Some of us think about changing systems, going back to high-sec or leaving the game.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:39:00 - [2237] I stick to it: It has to be a joke There weren¦t enough Darwin Awards for all these guys if this was real.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:41:00 - [2238] Originally by: Antigue I stick to it: It has to be a joke There weren¦t enough Darwin Awards for all these guys if this was real. you would think so. but considering they appear to be censoring their facebook page, and they are definately censoring this thread and the changes are in the patch notes...
Ilia Caine	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:42:00 - [2239] -1, CCP. Please ask the CSM's how things like this affect the playerbase before you make such a bold, and obviously drastic, choice. They actually play the game.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:42:00 - [2240] Originally by: Fredrick Engly hmm this isn't an April Fools.... This change effectively * removes the use of Sov, * will force more people into power bloc alliances * force alliances to a few systems * increase lag due to population in fewer systems * devalue highend minerals futher as ppl scramble to mine more to make isk * force ppl to highsec GG CCP.. who wants my stuff? Can I have your stuff?

Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:45:00 - [2241] Don¦t worry guys it is a joke. Maybe the joke got limited fun potential but still it is a joke. THAT can¦t be the real deal.
Athests	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:46:00 - [2242] would rather have the pet than someone nerf my sanctums
Sebastian GZ	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:50:00 - [2243] The worst part about this isnt the fact that CCP has no clue on how null space works nor the fact that they waste time with these changes when they still havent fixed the fleet lag issues. The worst part is that we as the players (read customers) have posted more than 75 pages complaining about this change and explaining why it doesnt make sense. But they dont care. CCP moron (read grayscale) has a woody so they are going to do it anyway. This change will screw the little guy and will benefit the large alliances that happen to have already laid claim to the "true null sec space" as they will get a disproportiante share of the sanctums. But in the end its our own fault since we do nothing about it. I for one have turned off my automatic renewal and when my time runs out I will take a few days off to deny these idiots some income if we all do this they might get the message
Ochiniwe	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:53:00 - [2244] Basically the problem with this change is that they installed th ihub and all this nice stuff. then lots of people invested MONTHS in this game to get a foothold in 0.0 Sec and with a quick patch CCP just forces many MANY players to rethink their strategy and some will not take it. If for whatever reason we will not be able to stay in 0.0 space I just quit the game. A real pity... reminds me of SWG.... they screwed up the game.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.01 22:54:00 - [2245] From what i can tell, certain members of CCP (the ones who are either deeply ingrained in nullsec and do not require money from sanctums or highsec players who dont cate) feel that EVE has gotten too calm lately. I am sorry, i must have imagined the 1800 person fight in O2O-2X system, where people across multiple time zones fought, multiple fights near this level occurring several times a week, as well as IT alliance collapsing, and dozens of other large conflicts all across the EVE universe. All you have to do to see the aftermath from these fights is turn on the "Ships Destroyed in the past 24 Hours" filter for your map in-game. EVE has NOT gotten too calm lately, and frankly, their stated intent of "In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals" does not make sense to me at all. Why do they want MORE conflict, because their servers certainly CANNOT HANDLE IT at larger numbers than they have now. Yes the servers do not crash nearly as much anymore, but the lag does get rather atrocious. For all of you people who have not been in a high lag environment, or those of you who associate lag as being a minor inconvience, I consider lag, when it gets to the FIFTEEN minute mark, which it far surpassed in O2O-2X to be serious and debalitating. No, i am not exaggerating, the time in which i activated my modules and the server accepted the commands and activated the module effect was over FIFTEEN minutes. During that time I could do the following things. Take a shower, Go get some food, take a short walk, ect. and by the time I get back, it is still possible that my module still had not activated. For some reason, the simple fact that the Tranquility server cannot handle any larger fights, yet they are trying to encourage more conflict (which leads to larger fights, since unlike before dominion, there really are only one to three crucial times that people need to show up) leads me to three possible conclusions about the Developers and their thought process 1. There is a serious disconnect within CCP about how 0.0 actually functions, ie fleet fights/how the average person makes money. 2. CCP's models show rather interesting data about how 0.0 works, and it obviously is different from the experience that about 90% of this thread (99% if you discount lowsec and highsec players, check killboards if you disagree with me) has. I would be fine if this thread was 50/50%, like CCP says, but it frankly is NOT anywhere close to 50/50. 3. The developers cannot think even small changes through even to one result (not even bothering to consider the far reaching implications) Conclusion 1 makes sense, as it would explain how people within CCP can make these logical processes that would make sense for them. The only solution to this is to talk it out. Conclusion two can be remedied with the community simply by posting the models that they have. I rather would not like to believe that conclusion 3 is accurate, because CCP has brought me a game that provides me with endless entertainment, and i happen to think that a large portion of the people who work there (hoping for all of them) are rather intelligent, yet if conclusion 1 or 2 are not correct, conclusion 3 is the only valid one. The final conclusion (not listed above) is that CCP was using this as an april fools joke, and i sincerely hope that this is the case, although i do not expect that it is so.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:00:00 - [2246] because CCP has brought me a game that provides me with endless entertainment <<<<< i agree with this and now that sanctums are tied to sec status your whole entertainment is gone ??
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:03:00 - [2247] Originally by: bp920091 From what i can tell, certain members of CCP (the ones who are either deeply ingrained in nullsec and do not require money from sanctums or highsec players who dont cate) feel that EVE has gotten too calm lately. I am sorry, i must have imagined the 1800 person fight in O2O-2X system, where people across multiple time zones fought, multiple fights near this level occurring several times a week, as well as IT alliance collapsing, and dozens of other large conflicts all across the EVE universe. All you have to do to see the aftermath from these fights is turn on the "Ships Destroyed in the past 24 Hours" filter for your map in-game. EVE has NOT gotten too calm lately, and frankly, their stated intent of "In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals" does not make sense to me at all. Why do they want MORE conflict, because their servers certainly CANNOT HANDLE IT at larger numbers than they have now. Yes the servers do not crash nearly as much anymore, but the lag does get rather atrocious. For all of you people who have not been in a high lag environment, or those of you who associate lag as being a minor inconvience, I consider lag, when it gets to the FIFTEEN minute mark, which it far surpassed in O2O-2X to be serious and debalitating. No, i am not exaggerating, the time in which i activated my modules and the server accepted the commands and activated the module effect was over FIFTEEN minutes. During that time I could do the following things. Take a shower, Go get some food, take a short walk, ect. and by the time I get back, it is still possible that my module still had not activated. For some reason, the simple fact that the Tranquility server cannot handle any larger fights, yet they are trying to encourage more conflict (which leads to larger fights, since unlike before dominion, there really are only one to three crucial times that people need to show up) leads me to three possible conclusions about the Developers and their thought process 1. There is a serious disconnect within CCP about how 0.0 actually functions, ie fleet fights/how the average person makes money. 2. CCP's models show rather interesting data about how 0.0 works, and it obviously is different from the experience that about 90% of this thread (99% if you discount lowsec and highsec players, check killboards if you disagree with me) has. I would be fine if this thread was 50/50%, like CCP says, but it frankly is NOT anywhere close to 50/50. 3. The developers cannot think even small changes through even to one result (not even bothering to consider the far reaching implications) Conclusion 1 makes sense, as it would explain how people within CCP can make these logical processes that would make sense for them. The only solution to this is to talk it out. Conclusion two can be remedied with the community simply by posting the models that they have. I rather would not like to believe that conclusion 3 is accurate, because CCP has brought me a game that provides me with endless entertainment, and i happen to think that a large portion of the people who work there (hoping for all of them) are rather intelligent, yet if conclusion 1 or 2 are not correct, conclusion 3 is the only valid one. The final conclusion (not listed above) is that CCP was using this as an april fools joke, and i sincerely hope that this is the case, although i do not expect that it is so. greyscale thinks that null should be small little 2 man gangs constantly roaming and fighting each other and will screw over anyone who disagrees with that vision. as long as he is in charge just chuckle every time anyone at ccp says the word "sandbox" cause its a total load of ****.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:07:00 - [2248] Originally by: Lt Pizi because CCP has brought me a game that provides me with endless entertainment <<<<< i agree with this and now that sanctums are tied to sec status your whole entertainment is gone ?? No, my whole entertainment has not gone, but a large portion of the EVE game for me is being able to fly ships that are specialized in what they do. An example of this is Logistics ships. A properly fitted Guardian costs anywhere in the region of 120-150M, depending on where you buy it. While many replacement programs cover this ship, most do not cover the whole cost of the ship itself. This means that in order to get into fun enviornments, i have to spend time grinding sanctums/havens to get the isk required just to be able to fly these ships. Other examples are Recons, Hacs (zealots dont come cheap), Dreadnaughts (about 1.2-1.5B to fit). If these changes go into effect, my whole EVE experience will not be gone, but being able to fly ships that are specialized in an area, allowing me to achieve my stated goal faster or at all, is something that i do consider being fun. Therefore taking a way for me to be able to fund ships that i could previously afford away does decrease the amount of entertainment that i can have, for no logical reasoning other than the four that i listed above.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:12:00 - [2249] A properly fitted Guardian costs anywhere in the region of 120-150M, depending on where you buy it. While many replacement programs cover this ship, most do not cover the whole cost of the ship itself. This means that in order to get into fun enviornments i agree with that you should talk with your leaders, because logi ships should always be fully replaced since you seem to be open minded .. you really should try other aspects of eve to make money , because shooting the same NPC¦s over and over again will become booring and you leaving at 1 point anyway
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:16:00 - [2250] Originally by: Lt Pizi because CCP has brought me a game that provides me with endless entertainment <<<<< i agree with this and now that sanctums are tied to sec status your whole entertainment is gone ?? Hmm ok let¦s think about it: For the vast majority of PLAYERS isk can no longer be generated where they are supposed to live (in nullsec -that¦s the place you have obviously never been-) So they will move back to highsec leaving billions of iskies they spent on upgrading. NOT FUNNY FOR RENTERS! Huge white places on the map with nobody in there. Empty places! NOT FUNNY FOR PEW PEWS. Hotspots of carebearing for big alliances means hotspots for cloakies waiting to strike over and over again. NOT FUNNY FOR PEW PEWS AND NOT FUNNY FOR ALLIANCES Hotspots with pew pew going on means LAG. LAG IS NOT FUNNY FOR ANYONE Renters with their pew pews returning to high coz they got screwed by CCP will lead to a mass extinction of highsec carebear corps (ransom or your highsec corp is dead) NOT FUNNY FOR HIGHSEC CORPS New players can¦t join highsec corps coz there will be a tremendous increase of wardeccs just for ransoming them. NOT FUNNY FOR NEW PLAYERS New alliances can¦t start gaining 0.0 experience by renting. NOT FUNNY FOR AMBITIOUS NEW ALLIANCES AND NOT FUNNY FOR PEW PEWS. So I stick to it: This has to be a joke coz this much stupidity in one single "idea" is even for CCP way over the edge.

zelalot	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:17:00 - [2251] I think the last dev that play EVE seriously, left when CCP Abathur quit. Supercap fleets and the ability to replace them are the basis of nullsec alliances these days. Any smaller alliance trying to get foothold in 0.0 must be able to respond to the larger coalition supercap hotdrops - and in essence, that's impossible, so they join the coalitions instead. This leads to huge blobs/coalitions/alliances that occupy most of 0.0 I don't think nerfing sanctums does much to help that situation.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:23:00 - [2252] Originally by: Lt Pizi A properly fitted Guardian costs anywhere in the region of 120-150M, depending on where you buy it. While many replacement programs cover this ship, most do not cover the whole cost of the ship itself. This means that in order to get into fun enviornments i agree with that you should talk with your leaders, because logi ships should always be fully replaced since you seem to be open minded .. you really should try other aspects of eve to make money , because shooting the same NPC¦s over and over again will become booring and you leaving at 1 point anyway I have talked to my leaders and while they will cover the ship, increaing costs due to warfare and replacing ships en masse (30 guardians does cost a lot to replace) means that only the ship itself can be replaced, no modules/rigs (which can cost a fair amount) is an inevitable change that has to be made for now. i have also tried other ways to make money, yet most of them take longer than i can commit during the average day. During the day, i can put at most an hour or an hour and a half into EVE, and during the weekend, there are too many operations going on that i do wish to take part in, seriously cutting down on the potential to make cash. While one can argue that Complexes (the ones you have to scan down) do not take a long time, consider the fact that they do take a while to find/scan down/complete, with some of the harder ones (10/10) requiring more than 1 person, with rare exceptions. Ratting in Sanctums/Havens are ideal for me, as they allow me to essentially make cash when i can, so i can actually pvp in decent ships during times where i can actually get fights. Taking them away for me for no real reason that was explained well (or made sense to any person living in 0.0 for any real time) really decreases my satisfaction and entertainment value with this game, because that is what it is after all, a "Game."
Sp3tre ClonEr	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:23:00 - [2253] Lol at Greyscale how did CCP Seergs? (Darius J goon leader) do to get this through? Monopoly on tech moons Deklein and its almost all truesec between -0.7 and -1.0 Oh and fix ECCM against npc so if setup correctly its almost impossible to get jammed againt the npc's in deklein. Did he sell you this in the form of Anti RMT and Anti botting? If so well played Goons and Darius. Just shows the only way to get in front in this game is not try and take some useless barren -0.2 0.0 and hope the supercap online crowd doesn't wipe you out in the first week (they will wait until u have gotten setup and spent your isk upgrading the system) but instead join Goons/ Test or the NC. Seergs = Once a goon always a goon. P.S I'm not anti goon, i love watching your antics and having your ex leader get into CCP put on 15kgs then help push this through for you is masterful
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:27:00 - [2254] Originally by: Antigue So I stick to it: This has to be a joke coz this much stupidity in one single "idea" is even for CCP way over the edge. You know, i really hope so, i really do. However, considering that they have put it in the Feature page, censored it on the facebook page, and have yet to reply to the thread since post 400 (or roughly around there), this leads me to conclude that they are serious about this, which makes me rather sad about the direction this game is going with this update. This is after all, not a small change, whatever CCP thinks about it.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:32:00 - [2255] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Antigue So I stick to it: This has to be a joke coz this much stupidity in one single "idea" is even for CCP way over the edge. You know, i really hope so, i really do. However, considering that they have put it in the Feature page, censored it on the facebook page, and have yet to reply to the thread since post 400 (or roughly around there), this leads me to conclude that they are serious about this, which makes me rather sad about the direction this game is going with this update. This is after all, not a small change, whatever CCP thinks about it. Nothing is smaller in EVE than the players. At least compared to the devs egos and greed for the RMT revenue they expect.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:39:00 - [2256] Originally by: mkmin However, considering that they have put it in the Feature page, censored it on the facebook page, and have yet to reply to the thread since post 400 (or roughly around there), this leads me to conclude that they are serious about this, which makes me rather sad about the direction this game is going with this update. This is after all, not a small change, whatever CCP thinks about it. Nothing is smaller in EVE than the players. At least compared to the devs egos and greed for the RMT revenue they expect. Consider all the renters alt accounts for cynos, logistics and stuff. It is not realistic to assume that a huge number of players will leave but it is very realistic to believe that they will not pay for additional accounts that will not serve them any longer. So even concerning this side of the matter this has to be a joke rather then a well thought plan.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:40:00 - [2257] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Lt Pizi A properly fitted Guardian costs anywhere in the region of 120-150M, depending on where you buy it. While many replacement programs cover this ship, most do not cover the whole cost of the ship itself. This means that in order to get into fun enviornments i agree with that you should talk with your leaders, because logi ships should always be fully replaced since you seem to be open minded .. you really should try other aspects of eve to make money , because shooting the same NPC¦s over and over again will become booring and you leaving at 1 point anyway I have talked to my leaders and while they will cover the ship, increaing costs due to warfare and replacing ships en masse (30 guardians does cost a lot to replace) means that only the ship itself can be replaced, no modules/rigs (which can cost a fair amount) is an inevitable change that has to be made for now. i have also tried other ways to make money, yet most of them take longer than i can commit during the average day. During the day, i can put at most an hour or an hour and a half into EVE, and during the weekend, there are too many operations going on that i do wish to take part in, seriously cutting down on the potential to make cash. While one can argue that Complexes (the ones you have to scan down) do not take a long time, consider the fact that they do take a while to find/scan down/complete, with some of the harder ones (10/10) requiring more than 1 person, with rare exceptions. Ratting in Sanctums/Havens are ideal for me, as they allow me to essentially make cash when i can, so i can actually pvp in decent ships during times where i can actually get fights. Taking them away for me for no real reason that was explained well (or made sense to any person living in 0.0 for any real time) really decreases my satisfaction and entertainment value with this game, because that is what it is after all, a "Game." i always tell new players or older if they askme this DON'T rat for a ship .. rat for something that creates passive income DON'T sell a plex for a new ship ... buy something with it that generates passive income this may mean that in the beginning you may fly not the best ships .. but in the long run you are able to afford more and more and don't HAVE to rat you can do it for fun from time to time but you are not forced to like all the ppl complaining now i understand that it is easy to just undock warp to a santum kill a few rats and see insta gratification when the wallet flashes but in the long run its getting old
Casper Kaspersky	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:41:00 - [2258] As many ppl in the beginning of the thread have already pointed out (and no I didnt read 75 pages) this does nothing for 0.0 as a whole. Politics are driven by alliance income for the most part. Which basically means moons. Which in turn means that for the alliance income nothing changes. These changes only effect the wallets of the individual players and especially the smaller corps and alliances which do not get or get a lot good moons. Which in turn will make them have to turn to other sources for income. That is not inline with having more people live in 0.0 and certainly not more small corps / alliances. The larger alliances will just continue to live of good moons and the general level of occupance in 0.0 will revert back to before dominion. Large blobs will still be large blobs and small scale pvp will be a lot less since most everyone making isk (be it carebears, pewbears or pvpers after a loss) will move to empire to run missions to replace stuff. Better get supernodes ready for running the mission hubs. They will need it.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:44:00 - [2259] Originally by: Antigue Consider all the renters alt accounts for cynos, logistics and stuff. It is not realistic to assume that a huge number of players will leave but it is very realistic to believe that they will not pay for additional accounts that will not serve them any longer. So even concerning this side of the matter this has to be a joke rather then a well thought plan. thats why ccp is so great they do not listen to whiners nor to the threat of loosing a few accounts they think their game is in "danger" and react if they are right i dunno but i trust em more then all you armchair devs here
Lonely Island	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:56:00 - [2260] Originally by: Casper Kaspersky As many ppl in the beginning of the thread have already pointed out (and no I didnt read 75 pages) this does nothing for 0.0 as a whole. Politics are driven by alliance income for the most part. Which basically means moons. Which in turn means that for the alliance income nothing changes. These changes only effect the wallets of the individual players and especially the smaller corps and alliances which do not get or get a lot good moons. Which in turn will make them have to turn to other sources for income. That is not inline with having more people live in 0.0 and certainly not more small corps / alliances. The larger alliances will just continue to live of good moons and the general level of occupance in 0.0 will revert back to before dominion. Large blobs will still be large blobs and small scale pvp will be a lot less since most everyone making isk (be it carebears, pewbears or pvpers after a loss) will move to empire to run missions to replace stuff. Better get supernodes ready for running the mission hubs. They will need it. With any luck, lvl4s will be severly nerfed in hi-sec to fall into line with the risk/reward scale. Personally I think they should move all combat lvl4s to deep losec.

Joe Null	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:58:00 - [2261] Edited by: Joe Null on 01/04/2011 23:58:10 Quote: thats why ccp is so great they do not listen to whiners nor to the threat of loosing a few accounts they think their game is in "danger" and react if they are right i dunno but i trust em more then all you armchair devs here Correct me if I am wrong but dark rising is supposedly a pvp alliance, which has fun (amongst other things I am sure) to go into 0.0 and kill carebears, pewbears and whatever comes in front of their guns. So how is it in your best interest if there are less ppl in 0.0 unless they are there to blob the living daylight out of you? And the passive income you talk about is great. But if everyone in eve would be concentrating on that same passive income style the profits would be going through rock bottom sooner rather then later.
Zverushka	Posted - 2011.04.01 23:58:00 - [2262] It is so stupid! I only yersterday 1st april paid 1,5bil for rent system with SS 0,112. Thank you CCP, that you said about patch 1st april, thank you. Give me my money back plzzz. You so good understand 0.0 life and life alliance, you so much know about it, that even cannot make path to 20-28th numbers of month! But you cannot, Because really you don't understand nothing in nullsec life!
Squirrle	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:03:00 - [2263] CCP Grayscales comment (but having a densely populated nullsec is less important to us) yep but this is a game we play it is important to us null sec will just become another low sec a barren waste land that no one goes to empire will becoming even more busy there will be less fights as less people in null sec as they will be in high sec farming those lvl 4 missions to pay for their accounts. if ccp what more fights and less farming then get rid of paying for game time with isk people will then use there isk to by ships and killing stuff even with lag in the big battles this is fun also when you get roams coming though all that will happen now is people will safe up and not fight also the markets will crash as how much minerals are purchased for replacing all this lost battle ships and cariers in these null sec wars. ccp have not looked at the bigger picture miners isk will also drop as well people will not be blowing up as many ship to stop high sec war dec that we be happening more they will just drop back to npc corps meaning this game gets less fun. as a new palyer it concerns mean that this has just been decided nothing talked about csm not involed very bad
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:03:00 - [2264] Originally by: Joe Null Edited by: Joe Null on 01/04/2011 23:58:10 Quote: thats why ccp is so great they do not listen to whiners nor to the threat of loosing a few accounts they think their game is in "danger" and react if they are right i dunno but i trust em more then all you armchair devs here Correct me if I am wrong but dark rising is supposedly a pvp alliance, which has fun (amongst other things I am sure) to go into 0.0 and kill carebears, pewbears and whatever comes in front of their guns. So how is it in your best interest if there are less ppl in 0.0 unless they are there to blob the living daylight out of you? And the passive income you talk about is great. But if everyone in eve would be concentrating on that same passive income style the profits would be going through rock bottom sooner rather then later. I can reply since I have been in Dark Rising in my most fun times in EvE, including when there was Lt Pitzi and others. At DR they don't go after ratters or miners, they often make roams that go around blow PvPers. As such, removing a bunch of inflation generators is not going to affect DR at all, they are after figthers not after people who are crying because an AFK cloaker DARES to enter the system. Back at the time, an AFK cloaker for DR meant soon there'd be a dead cloaker or pew pew would be had anyway. While I strongly believe the reasons Greyscale brought are not believable and don't solve 0.0 issues, he's surely going to remove a lot of 0.0 parasites who did not really earn the right to live there. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Casper Kaspersky	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:04:00 - [2265] Originally by: Lonely Island Originally by: Casper Kaspersky As many ppl in the beginning of the thread have already pointed out (and no I didnt read 75 pages) this does nothing for 0.0 as a whole. Politics are driven by alliance income for the most part. Which basically means moons. Which in turn means that for the alliance income nothing changes. These changes only effect the wallets of the individual players and especially the smaller corps and alliances which do not get or get a lot good moons. Which in turn will make them have to turn to other sources for income. That is not inline with having more people live in 0.0 and certainly not more small corps / alliances. The larger alliances will just continue to live of good moons and the general level of occupance in 0.0 will revert back to before dominion. Large blobs will still be large blobs and small scale pvp will be a lot less since most everyone making isk (be it carebears, pewbears or pvpers after a loss) will move to empire to run missions to replace stuff. Better get supernodes ready for running the mission hubs. They will need it. With any luck, lvl4s will be severly nerfed in hi-sec to fall into line with the risk/reward scale. Personally I think they should move all combat lvl4s to deep losec. Which, as a lot of ppl more eloquent then me have pointed out would just result into ppl running lvl 3 missions. Forcing ppl into lowsec / nulsec doesnt work unless they feel they benefit from it. But then looking at your corp the first change that would benefit eve would be to forcefully remove everyone from npc corps after say 2-3 months. And maybe even remove (delay) local, outside of highsec. Which would probaly do more to get good fights then this.
Joe Null	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:10:00 - [2266] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Joe Null Edited by: Joe Null on 01/04/2011 23:58:10 Quote: thats why ccp is so great they do not listen to whiners nor to the threat of loosing a few accounts they think their game is in "danger" and react if they are right i dunno but i trust em more then all you armchair devs here Correct me if I am wrong but dark rising is supposedly a pvp alliance, which has fun (amongst other things I am sure) to go into 0.0 and kill carebears, pewbears and whatever comes in front of their guns. So how is it in your best interest if there are less ppl in 0.0 unless they are there to blob the living daylight out of you? And the passive income you talk about is great. But if everyone in eve would be concentrating on that same passive income style the profits would be going through rock bottom sooner rather then later. I can reply since I have been in Dark Rising in my most fun times in EvE, including when there was Lt Pitzi and others. At DR they don't go after ratters or miners, they often make roams that go around blow PvPers. As such, removing a bunch of inflation generators is not going to affect DR at all, they are after figthers not after people who are crying because an AFK cloaker DARES to enter the system. Back at the time, an AFK cloaker for DR meant soon there'd be a dead cloaker or pew pew would be had anyway. While I strongly believe the reasons Greyscale brought are not believable and don't solve 0.0 issues, he's surely going to remove a lot of 0.0 parasites who did not really earn the right to live there. Well thank you for your answer :) I've been living in various 0.0 regions over the years on several chars and I will continue doing that, so me personally it doesnt hit to hard. At least for a long while. But in the end people tend to go where they can live. And living means pew, means adventure, means companionship, but also means being able to replace what you lose so you can keep on living. And this change only pushes eve even further to mega alliances and corps and further from small scale fun pvp.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:11:00 - [2267] Originally by: Ashaai Despite Greyscale indicating he would open a dialogue with us following the response to his blog, he has completely failed to do so. His follow-up posts were both days ago and completely nonresponsive to the issues raised by players in this thread. Nevertheless, the change still appears in the patch notes for Incursion 1.4 in what I can only assume is a cruel joke being played on us by the devs. You're getting dismissed cause this thread is nothing but a big QQ with a lot of splerg and rage, not actual reasonable discussion. Greyscale has already gotten positive feedback from (at least parts) of the CSM and SHC discussion is much in favor.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:15:00 - [2268] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Ashaai Despite Greyscale indicating he would open a dialogue with us following the response to his blog, he has completely failed to do so. His follow-up posts were both days ago and completely nonresponsive to the issues raised by players in this thread. Nevertheless, the change still appears in the patch notes for Incursion 1.4 in what I can only assume is a cruel joke being played on us by the devs. You're getting dismissed cause this thread is nothing but a big QQ with a lot of splerg and rage, not actual reasonable discussion. Greyscale has already gotten positive feedback from (at least parts) of the CSM and SHC discussion is much in favor. yes elise randolph and company were the small minority of idiots sperging about how 0.0 is boring so of course SHC is all for this. they were the micro-community that pushed for the bad change to start with.
Mizukage Madara	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:48:00 - [2269] well we are in april month . you know 1 april fool joke ? i think O/ Skaarl
Ashaai	Posted - 2011.04.02 00:56:00 - [2270] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab You're getting dismissed cause this thread is nothing but a big QQ with a lot of splerg and rage, not actual reasonable discussion. Greyscale has already gotten positive feedback from (at least parts) of the CSM and SHC discussion is much in favor. I think you misunderstand what dialogue means. There is a lot of splerg and rage here because there has been no discussion. They did not come here to discuss how this change could be made. They declared an ill-conceived, poorly executed change was going to happen and **** off if you don't like it. If there is so much CSM and SHC support for this change (I strenuously doubt there's as much as you suggest), it's not showing up here. What is showing up here is a lot of disagreement both about the purpose of the change and its impact, much of it well-substantiated (which you've just clearly ignored because you don't care to read it). So far as I can tell, supporters of this change justify their support either for reasons that have nothing to do with anything said in the devblog (nerfing isk sinks is important for the economy) or because they simply like "carebear tears." I have not heard a single cogent argument supporting the notion that this will have any meaningful, beneficial impact on the nullsec environment. Greyscale's own comments are internally inconsistent, so...excuse me for thinking a change of this magnitude ought to have some better justification than "at least parts" of the CSM and SHC supporting it, compared to many others who don't and a dev who can't express himself clearly. That doesn't seem too much to ask.

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:05:00 - [2271] Originally by: Ashaai Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab You're getting dismissed cause this thread is nothing but a big QQ with a lot of splerg and rage, not actual reasonable discussion. Greyscale has already gotten positive feedback from (at least parts) of the CSM and SHC discussion is much in favor. I think you misunderstand what dialogue means. There is a lot of splerg and rage here because there has been no discussion. They did not come here to discuss how this change could be made. They declared an ill-conceived, poorly executed change was going to happen and ** off if you don't like it. If there is so much CSM and SHC support for this change (I strenuously doubt there's as much as you suggest), it's not showing up here. What is showing up here is a lot of disagreement both about the purpose of the change and its impact, much of it well-substantiated (which you've just clearly ignored because you don't care to read it). So far as I can tell, supporters of this change justify their support either for reasons that have nothing to do with anything said in the devblog (nerfing isk sinks is important for the economy) or because they simply like "carebear tears." I have not heard a single cogent argument supporting the notion that this will have any meaningful, beneficial impact on the nullsec environment. Greyscale's own comments are internally inconsistent, so...excuse me for thinking a change of this magnitude ought to have some better justification than "at least parts" of the CSM and SHC supporting it, compared to many others who don't and a dev who can't express himself clearly. That doesn't seem too much to ask. look at it from a larger PoV the old saying is dont fly what you cant afford to loose now look at certain alliances they are far beyond that point they welping titans after titans and supers fleets (and subcaps ) not so long ago loosing a few ** lost would break an ally now you just shrug it off what this change will bring is imo - renters will pay less or stop paying at all - the average Joe will demand a good ship replacement program and leaders will need to pay out , not loosing their 5th titan and so on will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:21:00 - [2272] Originally by: Lt Pizi look at it from a larger PoV the old saying is dont fly what you cant afford to loose now look at certain alliances they are far beyond that point they welping titans after titans and supers fleets (and subcaps ) not so long ago loosing a few **** lost would break an ally now you just shrug it off what this change will bring is imo - renters will pay less or stop paying at all - the average Joe will demand a good ship replacement program and leaders will need to pay out , not loosing their 5th titan and so on will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming How terribly wrong you are. This does not affect the large ALLIANCES at all as they got their income out our moongoo. This does affect ONLY small alliances and players. It will destroy a diversity of renters in space. It will NOT AT ALL break the large alliances. But it will destroy life in nullsec for at least 80% of the renters. This means less conflict among renters and even bigger blobs. This will mean less pew pew as there are only 2 options: 1) The freakin system is empty anyway 2) The system is worth it to keep sov and rat so there will be the blob concentrated. In the end there will be a few huge powerblocks that control the entire nullsec and for younger players with lesser SP and no supers it will be almost impossible to join them. The only thing this patch would be good for is to finally destroy most of the smaller NC corps/alliances. But then again it is really sad that you need to patch away alliances and naps by punishing the common grunt. So all this would be in favour of large alliances by completly destroying renters. And don¦t be fooled. There will not be any "good ship reimbursements" instead of titans. Very much the opposite. If you can bring in supers you are welcome if not, then not. So this is an extremly r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d. idea back to super blocks and away from small and medium scale pew pew.
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:26:00 - [2273] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Ashaai Despite Greyscale indicating he would open a dialogue with us following the response to his blog, he has completely failed to do so. His follow-up posts were both days ago and completely nonresponsive to the issues raised by players in this thread. Nevertheless, the change still appears in the patch notes for Incursion 1.4 in what I can only assume is a cruel joke being played on us by the devs. You're getting dismissed cause this thread is nothing but a big QQ with a lot of splerg and rage, not actual reasonable discussion. Greyscale has already gotten positive feedback from (at least parts) of the CSM and SHC discussion is much in favor. I hope everyone remembers this. SHC forums now carry more weight than CCP's own forums. Proof yet again that CCP listen to whatever special interest groups that are kissing ass. CCP favors those who at least pretend to be their friends when they are doing something stupid. This is not the first time SHC has gotten stealth changes into the game because they are in bed with the devs.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:32:00 - [2274] I find it most interesting they've removed the post about these changes on their Facebook page, which I had been closely following. Earlier, they were just deleting comments that were against this nerf, leaving the ones that were in support. Now the post has been completely removed. That leads me to believe that: 1. They couldn't maintain the illusion of 50-50 for / against this change they claimed, so they're obfuscating the facts by simply removing the posts, thereby not looking like total tools to the general Facebook public and being able to claim massive support from fans. 2. This is indeed an April Fool Joke and the change isn't really going to happen. I tend to lean towards option 1.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:35:00 - [2275] Originally by: Antigue Edited by: Antigue on 02/04/2011 01:29:53 Originally by: Lt Pizi look at it from a larger PoV the old saying is dont fly what you cant afford to loose now look at certain alliances they are far beyond that point they welping titans after titans and supers fleets (and subcaps ) not so long ago loosing a few ** lost would break an ally now you just shrug it off what this change will bring is imo - renters will pay less or stop paying at all - the average Joe will demand a good ship replacement program and leaders will need to pay out , not loosing their 5th titan and so on will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming How terribly wrong you are. This does not affect the large ALLIANCES at all as they got their income out our moongoo. This does affect ONLY small alliances and players. It will destroy a diversity of renters in space. It will NOT AT ALL break the large alliances. But it will destroy life in nullsec for at least 80% of the renters. This means less conflict among renters and even bigger blobs. This will mean less pew pew as there are only 2 options: 1) The freakin system is empty anyway 2) The system is worth it to keep sov and rat so there will be the blob concentrated. In the end there will be a few huge powerblocks that control the entire nullsec and for younger players with lesser SP and no supers it will be almost impossible to join them. The only thing this patch would be good for is to finally destroy most of the smaller NC corps/alliances. But then again it is really sad that you need to patch away alliances and naps by punishing the common grunt. So all this would be in favour of large alliances by completly destroying renters. And don¦t be fooled. There will not be any "good ship reimbursements" instead of titans. Very much the opposite. If you can bring in supers you are welcome if not, then not. So this is an extremly r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d. idea back to super blocks and away from small and medium scale pew pew. Edit: The easiest way to create drama that will lead pretty soon into fights is to remove the options to set standings for alliances and corps outside their own alliance. That would cause drama and lead to fights rather sooner then later. you just replying ? read it to the end i highlight it for you will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming** be prepared to rage in a few month again
Mizukage Madara	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:39:00 - [2276] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Antigue Edited by: Antigue on 02/04/2011 01:29:53 Originally by: Lt Pizi look at it from a larger PoV the old saying is dont fly what you cant afford to loose now look at certain alliances they are far beyond that point they welping titans after titans and supers fleets (and subcaps ) not so long ago loosing a few ** lost would break an ally now you just shrug it off what this change will bring is imo - renters will pay less or stop paying at all - the average Joe will demand a good ship replacement program and leaders will need to pay out , not loosing their 5th titan and so on will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming How terribly wrong you are. This does not affect the large ALLIANCES at all as they got their income out our moongoo. This does affect ONLY small alliances and players. It will destroy a diversity of renters in space. It will NOT AT ALL break the large alliances. But it will destroy life in nullsec for at least 80% of the renters. This means less conflict among renters and even bigger blobs. This will mean less pew pew as there are only 2 options: 1) The freakin system is empty anyway 2) The system is worth it to keep sov and rat so there will be the blob concentrated. In the end there will be a few huge powerblocks that control the entire nullsec and for younger players with lesser SP and no supers it will be almost impossible to join them. The only thing this patch would be good for is to finally destroy most of the smaller NC corps/alliances. But then again it is really sad that you need to patch away alliances and naps by punishing the common grunt. So all this would be in favour of large alliances by completly destroying renters. And don¦t be fooled. There will not be any "good ship reimbursements" instead of titans. Very much the opposite. If you can bring in supers you are welcome if not, then not. So this is an extremly r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d. idea back to super blocks and away from small and medium scale pew pew. Edit: The easiest way to create drama that will lead pretty soon into fights is to remove the options to set standings for alliances and corps outside their own alliance. That would cause drama and lead to fights rather sooner then later. you just replying ? read it to the end i highlight it for you will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming** be prepared to rage in a few month again well we are expecting more pain .. not something that we are glad to hear. .i realy doubt that
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:40:00 - [2277] Originally by: Lt Pizi you just replying ? read it to the end i highlight it for you will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming be prepared to rage in a few month again How stupid is this? We are not talking about enough we are talking about a stupid idea that will not even be a beginning. You don¦t need to watch where this is going to you just need to use your brain for like let¦s say a second. Obviously people in nullsec did use their brains and if this should not be just a silly joke, CCP did not. Easy as it is. But hey I know you trust their almighty wisdom and like thousands of replies from players all over nullsec is worth like nothing for you.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:42:00 - [2278] what brain ?? they patched sanctums in and the moon goo revamp now they takin it away you rage i applaud em to see the error ...
Mizukage Madara	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:45:00 - [2279] Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Lt Pizi you just replying ? read it to the end i highlight it for you will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming be prepared to rage in a few month again How stupid is this? We are not talking about enough we are talking about a stupid idea that will not even be a beginning. You don¦t need to watch where this is going to you just need to use your brain for like let¦s say a second. Obviously people in nullsec did use their brains and if this should not be just a silly joke, CCP did not. Easy as it is. But hey I know you trust their almighty wisdom and like thousands of replies from players all over nullsec is worth like nothing for you. well you are kinda right i dont think they give a ... about what we think .. but let us hope that they wont apply this patch (the hell is gone brake louse)
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:47:00 - [2280] do you really beleave the few few hundred of individuals that posted here are an even near to an educated guess what ppl think ?

Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:47:00 - [2281] Originally by: Lt Pizi what brain ?? Exactly. Now go and search your brain and stop *****shipping some CCP.
Nipps McChesty	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:50:00 - [2282] I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0.
Mizukage Madara	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:51:00 - [2283] well .. atleast we try maybe we can change something but i realy doubt that (maybe the CCP will realise where this leads.. and will stop it.. now all we can do is wait relax... and enjoy the rest .
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 01:56:00 - [2284] Originally by: Mizukage Madara now all we can do is wait relax... and enjoy the rest . this pretty much either enjoy the game or leave (and if you leave sell your stuff and sent it to plex for good :=) there are games out were you can farm mindless npc for 24 hours over and over again if that suits you better
Mizukage Madara	Posted - 2011.04.02 02:00:00 - [2285] well we are gone wait and see anyway was a honor to meat you all .. fly safe good luck and god bless you all. O/
Mac Omon	Posted - 2011.04.02 02:52:00 - [2286] Oh well, back to World of Warcraft.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.02 03:29:00 - [2287] Originally by: Nipps McChesty I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0. Yeah, because 0.0 carebears are going to come out and admit that anomalies needs to be nerfed.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 03:36:00 - [2288] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Nipps McChesty I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0. Yeah, because 0.0 carebears are going to come out and admit that anomalies needs to be nerfed. no it was the outdated 0.01% of griefers who couldn't adapt to the dominion changes and were dying that greyscale is catering to here. apparently he wants them to stay while the other 99.99% of eve go.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.02 03:44:00 - [2289] So when you all go back to high sec to farm level 4's and then CCP nerf those too; Are you going to let the tears flow again for that?
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.02 03:56:00 - [2290] Originally by: Mac Omon Oh well, back to World of Warcraft. you must be desperate. I'll just quit gaming. I'll keep my cash. The 45$ a month I spend will go to beer, and other stuff. CCP Greyscale, can I have your address so I can kick you in the testicals for being a self-indulgent wiener? kthxbai!

Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.02 03:56:00 - [2291] Originally by: Lt Pizi look at it from a larger PoV the old saying is dont fly what you cant afford to loose now look at certain alliances they are far beyond that point they welping titans after titans and supers fleets (and subcaps ) not so long ago loosing a few **** lost would break an ally now you just shrug it off what this change will bring is imo - renters will pay less or stop paying at all - the average Joe will demand a good ship replacement program and leaders will need to pay out , not loosing their 5th titan and so on will these changes be enough ? i doubt it ccp will watch were this leads to and i fear more pain incoming This is a good post. It's the truth. CCP fuxxed their game when they made the ISK faucets open. They need to reel it back in, because the way the status quo is, its going to get stagnant and die soon(tm). This change will cause major friction inside coalitions. I don't care how much BFF spam we get. Pets will fail, and leave. For all the short-sighted "This hurts individual player" hb we get, equally, what are alliances, (and indeed, coalitions) made of? Individual players. The "elite" and alliance leaders are nothing without the grunts to allow them to play chess. Someone up the thread said something about losing 30 guardians, and needing the anoms just to be able to keep up. That's the point. If your FC is leroying 30 guardians, time to get a new FC. You should die as an alliance/coalition, because you aren't very good. Its sad that you feel a sense of entitlement enough to demand that you can replace this near instantly in an Eve timescale. Moons should be next, then lvl 4s, then dynamic truesec (several good idea's have been floated). Ruptures can be fun, I promise...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 04:29:00 - [2292] Originally by: Nipps McChesty I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0. I love how the 0.0 populace is able to take an objective look at Eve and realize that the game is out of balance. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
A90EDA27	Posted - 2011.04.02 04:43:00 - [2293] Greyscale is fick. People living in 0.0 to 0.2 will just go back to levels 4 - no one is interested (at a player level) in these. No one will want to live there and they will become wastelands like lo-sec is now. Moon goos will continue to be harvested by big alliances (again like lo-sec) People living in 0.6 to 1.0 will repel invaders with pimped out supercaps. So, basicaly, CCP want to solve the lag by driving players back to empire. What motivation is there left for a player to progress to 0.0? Was this change asked for by the players or CSM? Was there any consultation with the players or CSM? What is the **ing point of CSM? tbh this change makes me feel like saying you CCP, what's the **ing point if the goalposts keep changing?
mkmin	Posted - 2011.04.02 04:45:00 - [2294] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Nipps McChesty I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0. I love how the 0.0 populace is able to take an objective look at Eve and realize that the game is out of balance. -Liang I love how trolls fail to notice that Greyscale said this change isn't meant to change the high/low/0.0 income balance, just shift the exciting 0.0 income further into the hands of the rich. Unless trolls don't have a dictionary and are unaware of what the word 'balance' means.
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.02 05:07:00 - [2295] Originally by: mkmin Edited by: mkmin on 02/04/2011 04:47:55 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Nipps McChesty I love how high sec griefers and low sec pirates seem to have all the answers about how things should be handled in 0.0. I love how the 0.0 populace is able to take an objective look at Eve and realize that the game is out of balance. -Liang I love how trolls fail to notice that Greyscale said this change isn't meant to change the high/low/0.0 income balance, just shift the exciting 0.0 income further into the hands of the rich. Unless trolls don't have a dictionary and are unaware of what the word 'balance' means. Originally by: A90EDA27 Greyscale is fick. People living in 0.0 to 0.2 will just go back to levels 4 - no one is interested (at a player level) in these. No one will want to live there and they will become wastelands like lo-sec is now. Moon goos will continue to be harvested by big alliances (again like lo-sec) People living in 0.6 to 1.0 will repel invaders with pimped out supercaps. So, basicaly, CCP want to solve the lag by driving players back to empire. What motivation is there left for a player to progress to 0.0? Was this change asked for by the players or CSM? Was there any consultation with the players or CSM? What is the **ing point of CSM? tbh this change makes me feel like saying you CCP, what's the **ing point if the goalposts keep changing? Yeah, there's a 3rd party piracy/griefer forum that CCP takes more seriously than it's own forums. That's who they are catering to. That's where they got the idea from. You put CCP and the word "balance" in the same comment. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is NOTHING balanced about this game. Take mom's for instance, overpowered to high fcking hell.
WisdomPanda Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.02 05:20:00 - [2296] I'll start with saying; I don't support the changes. It's not to say that I think it will ruin nullsec, or that people won't be able to do fights anymore, as big fights still happened before Dominion. But rather, it's because I feel that CCP could attack this issue form many more sides before going for an individuals income source. Many of the goals listed, for example, have no feasible way of coming true just by fiddling with some anomalies. The idea that people will starting looking for better space is silly; not only is it a logistical nightmare to relocate an entire alliance of any large size, you're also unlikely to find enough good quality space to satisfy all your members. Not to mention any outposts you've put up, giving your corp/alliance a home base that you would be unwilling to leave. There won't be more conflicts if people think they need to spend more time earning the isk to get their ships back. Whether they do or not is not relevant, if they believe they will, it will hurt 'good fights' all around. Also personally, I love scap fights. I love watching multiple fleets on field at the same time trying to duke it out. My only wish is that we could have some 5,000+ man fights with multiple sides, instead of the standard 1v1. Titan's and super caps are still expensive as heck to replace, but that doesn't come out of anoms... Newer alliances will have no easier time of getting space as they do now; as it stands, they always get either the rubbish space or the meat shield space. While it might be less isk to kill pirates in a -0.2 sec system, if you can do it uninterrupted because the cloaky tengu's are down bothering the guys in the -1.0, chances are you'll still break about even. Coalitions will not be less stable either. BFF spam aside, you don't turn your back on allies for what will equate to a marginal increase of players funds, at the potential cost of putting valuable moon minerals out of reach and even putting allies offside. Bro's over foes, man. Jump Clones, Jump Bridges, Titan Bridges and Jump Drives make almost all 'strategically inconvenient' systems easier to manage. Any system that isn't the system I'm in is strategically inconvenient for me, but I manage that by using the tools you've provided to make life a little easier. ----- Cheesecake, Natures ultimate weapon.
Prester Tom	Posted - 2011.04.02 05:34:00 - [2297] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Buy PLEX!
Anah Karah Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.04.02 06:22:00 - [2298] Wow..... just wow....this is a SEVENTY SEVEN (77) PAGE THREAD telling you how bad this idea is. do i need to elaborate any further? no? If you want to improve this game, maybe you should listen to the people who play it? Because if you really want to understand what living in 0.0 is like, maybe you should try it? Oh wait that would involve actually playing EVE. Sorry i forgot...
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.02 06:26:00 - [2299] Originally by: Skaarl no it was the outdated 0.01% of griefers who couldn't adapt to the dominion changes and were dying that greyscale is catering to here. apparently he wants them to stay while the other 99.99% of eve go. 99.99% of eve are not in 0.0
Bawsk	Posted - 2011.04.02 06:34:00 - [2300] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc

Elisa Vilerum	Posted - 2011.04.02 06:35:00 - [2301] all this wow/post domininon 0.0 care bears need to quit eve and i hope they will. amount of tears is epic i tried to read all pages but couldn't take it any more,amount of pathetic is epic,so i scrolled just to make sure ccp is still on it glad to see they too are bull**** intolerant. on an more light note when u scroll rly fast same wiener faces are all u can see. have an good day.
Degara Farat Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.02 06:55:00 - [2302] READ THE F^%$#*G NEWS Pure Blind is going to be hit the hardest by these changes, yet this is the only nullsec engagement that gets in the news in the last week. Clearly there is no need to execute these changes to promote conflict over alliance anomalies since its all about Technetium Moons. Proof delivered!
Natasha Voljova	Posted - 2011.04.02 07:25:00 - [2303] I thought devs wanted to boost lowsec for a few years? I thought its a wasteland? I still think it is.. Now certain parts of 0.0 will also become a wasteland nobodys interested in. Oh and this is my third account, I just cancelled the subscription after reading patch notes that they are going to go forward with the anom changes.. Its not much of a dent in CCP's coffers, but it is a dent I can make.
Z4smoker	Posted - 2011.04.02 07:26:00 - [2304] Originally by: Lost'In'Space 99.99% of eve are not in 0.0 o`rly ?
Vortx JR	Posted - 2011.04.02 07:31:00 - [2305] We are on april 2 nd and i don't see the : " Ha ha ha ha ha it was a joke for 1st april "..... Well, we gonna have fun for sure .... Lots of empty space to do empty stuff with no war or fights for empty space in 3 days!
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.02 07:36:00 - [2306] Originally by: Degara Farat READ THE F^%$#*G NEWS Pure Blind is going to be hit the hardest by these changes, yet this is the only nullsec engagement that gets in the news in the last week. Clearly there is no need to execute these changes to promote conflict over alliance anomalies since its all about Technetium Moons. Proof delivered! Actually, the moons are just a means of forcing a fight (in this case atleast). There have been plenty of invasions of the north that came, took some moons, and stirred up some trouble. The key thing that they all got out of the whole ordeal was fights. None of the invaders have kept any valuable moons for long. So that just lends to the 'model of causality' thinking nerfing anomolies will promote conflict being flawed. Most fights in 0.0 (big and small) happen because people want to blow stuff up, simple as that. If fights happen, the attackers get satisfied and end up leaving. If not, they keep pushing until the other side either fights or flees. Getting good ratting space really isn't much of a factor in driving conflict.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.02 08:05:00 - [2307] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Antigue Consider all the renters alt accounts for cynos, logistics and stuff. It is not realistic to assume that a huge number of players will leave but it is very realistic to believe that they will not pay for additional accounts that will not serve them any longer. So even concerning this side of the matter this has to be a joke rather then a well thought plan. thats why ccp is so great they do not listen to whiners nor to the threat of loosing a few accounts they think their game is in "danger" and react if they are right i dunno but i trust em more then all you armchair devs here CCP would be great if they would remove JBs. There are 2 options: 1) This change is either extremly stupid, because nerfing some 0.0 areas below high sec profitability will simply drive people out of there. 2) Or this change is only a part of a series of changes (e.g. nerfing high sec income and thus making bad 0.0 still more profitable), in this case CCP fails to communicate this correctly.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2011.04.02 08:20:00 - [2308] I am embarassed by the dronning carebear whine in this thread. Some people are making good arguments. But the overall drone is becoming painful. The people who are quiting are worse. Meh. I don't beleive CCP are implementing this change for the reasons they claimed. I don't know if the change is going to effect the game positively or negatively. I feel that small renter groups and non-blob non-pvp 0.0 entities are getting the shaft. 0.0 is more vibrant with more people living in it. So I feel hesitant about this change. At the same time a thing I said to a friend when we were talking about how our allince was doing comes to mind. I said, "We could live under a shoe if it came to that. If there was pvp under there." I feel a certian pride in that statement. I will (and have) enjoy pvp if I get reduced to t1 cruisers nibbling at the edge of blob space. I will kill their tackle frigates. I will engage the carebear ships totally outgunned. I can deal with difficulty. I was a nano-* before the great nerf. I had to learn how to fight with a scram instead of a disruptor. I have broken the gate camps in PF-346, EC-P8R, and HED-GP many times. I spent two weeks waking up after midnight so I could fight the russians in N-RAEL at downtime. I have stalked the loot pinata that is Sigarii Kitawa. I have fought the darkside drake blob. Sometimes I even won. I have raided through the NC in light nanoships and run heavy fleets against them. I have had PL try to fire doomsdays at me. I ganked carbonfury's stabber fleet issue left over from the alliance tournament in FD-MLJ on the PF-346 gate and ran before the blob landed. I saw the glory that was RRBS before bombers wiped it away. I saw what is was like to try to kill the old sniperhac gangs with shield bc, tackling one after another. I fought for npc space in PC9-AY and E02-IK. I was there for the southern coalition's invasion of geminate, and the final MAX campaign. I remember the chinese botters of Hevrice and the neverending killmail stream that came from the Raneilles gate. I've lot my pod to the Rancer smartbomb bs camp. I know about the only belt in Ostingele. Old Man Star? I fought there. Heck, I remember the rabbits in Lonetrek lowsec. I paid my dues as a noobie in 4C-B7X losing drakes to Pirate Kiliran. And I've ganked Garmon's Machariel. I was there when Cult of War spent a week baiting Quam's supercap fleet into a gank in the Uanzin system. Dang, I fought Quam in Covryn outside of Stacmon. I was there when the hammer came down on ATLAS, raiding them with small fleets. I was there when AAA took their space back from Initiative Mercenaries. I hit and run no trademark so many times that SK Rooster calls me a * anytime he sees me. I did battle with the DICE capital fleet on the station in E02-IK using subcaps. And I won. I didn't do that by whining or quiting every time I got hit with the nerfhammer or CCP changed some aspect of the game in a way that hurt my playstyle.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.02 08:59:00 - [2309] Originally by: Hiroshima Jita I am embarassed by the dronning carebear whine in this thread. Some people are making good arguments. But the overall drone is becoming painful. The people who are quiting are worse. Meh. < lotsa stories > You brought me back old memories . I was so new to the game yet this was all so fun. Then RL sh!t happened and I got nerfed and unable to do anything of value for Dark Rising (so I left, and I miss them every day. But I don't want to be a dead weight). Anyway what is really awful is not this specific nerf. It's the change in player base. When I started back in the '90s, there were text MUDs that make EvE sound like a LOLeasy trip. In 2003 I played a MMO where you had a dozen of quests (no ! on the NPCs heads ofc, no cheesy "tip" or maps web sites) then HTFU and grind to multiple 100 levels with unbonused and group happy mobs. Then came WoW and it catered to "everyone". And now it's the model "everyone" want to impose on every MMO. The mild theme park with no lame nor fame. This thread is exactly a testament to this minsets change. Once you EARNED the right to be in 0.0 because being able to BE there (not to lazily farm supercaps) was the accomplishment. Now it's handed on a silver platter, bridges removed every difficulty, stupid NPC ISK pinhatas spawned on demand. Is this EvE? NO At the same time what was sh!t in the past, like having static moons giving an almost forever unbeatable edge to those who got there is not going to be touched at all. Big thumbs down both to the theme park-ies AND this completely short sigthed partial change by CCP. The former just don't get it, the latter just don't get it. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 09:23:00 - [2310] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Hiroshima Jita I am embarassed by the dronning carebear whine in this thread. Some people are making good arguments. But the overall drone is becoming painful. The people who are quiting are worse. Meh. < lotsa stories > You brought me back old memories . I was so new to the game yet this was all so fun. Then RL sh!t happened and I got nerfed and unable to do anything of value for Dark Rising (so I left, and I miss them every day. But I don't want to be a dead weight). Anyway what is really awful is not this specific nerf. It's the change in player base. When I started back in the '90s, there were text MUDs that make EvE sound like a LOLeasy trip. In 2003 I played a MMO where you had a dozen of quests (no ! on the NPCs heads ofc, no cheesy "tip" or maps web sites) then HTFU and grind to multiple 100 levels with unbonused and group happy mobs. Then came WoW and it catered to "everyone". And now it's the model "everyone" want to impose on every MMO. The mild theme park with no lame nor fame. This thread is exactly a testament to this minsets change. Once you EARNED the right to be in 0.0 because being able to BE there (not to lazily farm supercaps) was the accomplishment. Now it's handed on a silver platter, bridges removed every difficulty, stupid NPC ISK pinhatas spawned on demand. Is this EvE? NO At the same time what was sh!t in the past, like having static moons giving an almost forever unbeatable edge to those who got there is not going to be touched at all. Big thumbs down both to the theme park-ies AND this completely short sigthed partial change by CCP. The former just don't get it, the latter just don't get it. Thanks for your very touching life story. I almost had tears in my eyes while I couldn¦t care less. On the subject you are so fecking wrong. There is no RIGHT to be earned to live in nullsec. There is only isk to be made to be able to live in nullsec. If you cannot compete iskwise then you will loose your ability to stay in nullsec. If you got enough isk then you will mount your ship and go out to see if you can make things explode (remember this is the whole idea in this game) Big Alliances don¦t care at all for anomalies as they have propper income from moongoo. Small alliances that started to settle down in nullsec after dominion will be screwed as they spent most of their isk and effort to upgrade a system that is now completely useless. Players are screwed as they don¦t have personal income to replace ships. So how in the world could anyone with just half a brain come up with the idea that such changes would fire up fights in nullsec? It will kick out at least 80% of the renters. Large fights will be about the moongoo. Small end medium scale pew pew will not happen as they concentrate people in hotspots. These hotspots will either be perma camped or be defended by huge blobs (remember concentrating fish means concentrating sharks). Big alliances will get richer and richer and produce more and more supers. Small alliances will be back in highsec and never again make them a home in nullsec (high risk for no isk). Nullsec will be empty except some hotspots. How could anyone with just half a brain come up with the idea that this would lead to an interesting nullsec? It will just feck up nullsec the same way lowsec was fecked up.

MyAvatar Hilanen	Posted - 2011.04.02 09:32:00 - [2311] From a monetary economics point of view, this will lead to deflation (decrease in general price level) or lower inflation (lower increase in general price level). All in all that is not bad perse on a macro level. HOWEVER, the moment you consider the this on a micro level it becomes bad for some people, especially the individual or smaller corps/alliances. Lets got for the deflation example. Say I, as a simple grunt, can now make 500M a month doing ano's, while my beloved alliance leaders make about 5b a month from moongoo. Now lets assume one ship costs 100M. So I am able to buy 5 ships atm and the alliance leader can buy 50. So basically my purchasing power is about 1/10th of the alliance leader. Now lets implement the ano nerf. My income will go down to say 300M a month while doing ano's and my alliance leader's moongoo will not change. Also lets assume that ship prices will go down by 10% (deflation), so one ship will no cost 90M. The consequences of this is that my ability to buy ships goes from 5 per month to 3 and 1/3 ship (300/90). The alliance leader however goes from 50 ships to 55 1/2 (5000/90). That implies that while before the nerf the ratio for purchasing power was 1:10, it now becomes more then 1:16. So to sum up: this nerve will cause deflation or will lower inflation, but it also will make the rich richer and the poor poorer based on purchasing power. This might be "working as intended" according to CCP, but that is mentioned nowhere in their statements. Also its pretty clear no1 is fighting over upgraded systems. When is the last time alliances targetted upgraded systems at all? They target the Tech moons for a reason, u know......
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.04.02 09:44:00 - [2312] So CCP would rather take advice from total and complete fail idiots on Scrapheap Challenge instead of listening to the paying customers? That horrible place is full of better non playing people who have had their ** pushed by us in the NC so many times. So I say we all spam the crap out of that place and then CCP will listen to us! - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!**
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.02 09:45:00 - [2313] Quote: Thanks for your very touching life story. I almost had tears in my eyes while I couldn¦t care less. I extend the same feelings to yours. Quote: On the subject you are so fecking wrong. There is no RIGHT to be earned to live in nullsec. There is only isk to be made to be able to live in nullsec. This is why you have a grunt mentality and others reap the benefits in your face. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Mortiis Goro	Posted - 2011.04.02 09:54:00 - [2314] Originally by: Kiramati Was waiting for CCP to even out 0.0 back to there true sec values. Think back to the good old days belt ratting and scanning. People managed then people will manage after this change. An allaince now only looked at moons not really space for there members. Now gets allaince to look back at the drawing broad. Looking forward for this change. FYI remember people managed befor ratting in belts. So now back to chaining :D Before the PLEX was 100mil cheaper, before there wasnt so many people living in 0.0. Good luck with chaining, you gona chain for 2 hours then some one is going to join you and ***k up your chain
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.02 10:30:00 - [2315] Originally by: mkmin Yeah, there's a 3rd party piracy/griefer forum that CCP takes more seriously than it's own forums. That's who they are catering to. That's where they got the idea from. SHC are trolling CCP so hard CCP haven't got a clue, which isn't abnormal. But CCP wouldn't even listen to them. Look up the "Will it won't it" Technetium thread. It was foretold there that CCP were making a mistake, but CCP are too busy with their heads up each others arses. SHC is usually a good place for discussion but discussions are usually heavily influenced by idiots who haven't played EVE for years, and haven't got a clue what they're talking about. To be honest they aren't the idiots, they're the trolls, the idiots are the people who listen to these trolls.
Vortx JR	Posted - 2011.04.02 10:55:00 - [2316] " CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies " Well is not the only one anymore. But not for the same reasons ! Did he make a stupid bet like : - " Hey guys i bet that i can have 100 pages of complaint with a simple idea: changing anomalies ! " - " Are you sure ? What do you wanna bet ? " - " Well let's see 1 isk, just do that for fun " - " Ok let's count " And now we are only on page 78 so please guys help Greyscale to win his bet and keep posting, then it will be old story.
Kuna Shayiskhun	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:10:00 - [2317] I disapprove these changes.
Galtogrim Tor'mashrah	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:10:00 - [2318] Edited by: Galtogrim Tor''mashrah on 02/04/2011 11:16:45 Edited by: Galtogrim Tor''mashrah on 02/04/2011 11:16:28 Seriously? You are kidding me. I thought it was a bad joke at first place. After you got that many answers, which should have told CCP that their idea is crap, I thought they are intelligent enough to put their idea in the trash. I am very displeased. And btw, for a "1. april joke" it was too early and for a late "1. april joke" its very bad. Try something else next year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:11:00 - [2319] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: mkmin Yeah, there's a 3rd party piracy/griefer forum that CCP takes more seriously than it's own forums. That's who they are catering to. That's where they got the idea from. SHC are trolling CCP so hard CCP haven't got a clue, which isn't abnormal. But CCP wouldn't even listen to them. Look up the "Will it won't it" Technetium thread. It was foretold there that CCP were making a mistake, but CCP are too busy with their heads up each others arses. SHC is usually a good place for discussion but discussions are usually heavily influenced by idiots who haven't played EVE for years, and haven't got a clue what they're talking about. To be honest they aren't the idiots, they're the trolls, the idiots are the people who listen to these trolls. Scrapheap is worth more than posting like this for exactly one reason: Players can see past the scope of their personal, corporation, or alliance's in game wallet and assets list.
Rooli Pelaaja	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:16:00 - [2320] harden the f*ck up nobody complained when there wasn't perma sanctums, people were happily belt ratting and still getting isk. but now _some ppl_ cant get their pve nyxes anymore so easily bu-hu

Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:17:00 - [2321] Originally by: Hiroshima Jita I am embarassed by the dronning carebear whine in this thread. Some people are making good arguments. But the overall drone is becoming painful. The people who are quiting are worse. Meh. Very few of the whiners threatening to quit in this thread will keep their promise. Unfortunately. Hmmm, I wonder if this might make for a fun minor player event. I could do a betting pool on what percentage actually do quit (1%, 2% 3%...100%) with each pick costing 10 mill. I'll use the ISK to buy a faction ship for the prize. Then I'll tot up all the promises to quit that are listed by, say, page 80 (or 100 if it gets that far), and 30 days from patch day we'll see who's still in game. Closest pick gets the ship. Anyone in for this? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Jasmin Fox	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:29:00 - [2322] Edited by: Jasmin Fox on 02/04/2011 11:29:34 Is that a voluntary patch I can load if I want and if I dont want, i just dont download it? That would be a great idea, wouldn't it?
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:57:00 - [2323] All this rage over CCP nerfing how you can field expensive ships and lose without problems?
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.04.02 11:58:00 - [2324] Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 02/04/2011 12:01:28 Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja harden the f*ck up nobody complained when there wasn't perma sanctums, people were happily belt ratting and still getting isk. but now _some ppl_ cant get their pve nyxes anymore so easily bu-hu your right and wrong, prior to the perma havens and plex's the population of nullsec was a lot less, when they did it it allowed more people to move away from l4ing ... guess we'll be going back to that and many will be abandoning nullsec with these changes, this is by far the WORST use of the nerf bat in HISTORY I find it odd that this thread has 2500+ replies and 95000+ views, yet CCP has yet to reply or admit that this was a HORRIBLE mistake and that it needs to be reviewed, especially the lower end system changes
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:05:00 - [2325] Originally by: Rrama Ratamnim Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 02/04/2011 12:01:28 Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja harden the f*ck up nobody complained when there wasn't perma sanctums, people were happily belt ratting and still getting isk. but now _some ppl_ cant get their pve nyxes anymore so easily bu-hu your right and wrong, prior to the perma havens and plex's the population of nullsec was a lot less, when they did it it allowed more people to move away from l4ing ... guess we'll be going back to that and many will be abandoning nullsec with these changes, this is by far the WORST use of the nerf bat in HISTORY I find it odd that this thread has 2500+ replies and 95000+ views, yet CCP has yet to reply or admit that this was a HORRIBLE mistake and that it needs to be reviewed, especially the lower end system changes Probably because it's not a mistake. What benefit does it provide to the game if those thousands of new players in 0.0 only fight in superblobs and flood the economy of the game with even more ISK than other sources?
Buzz Aldrino	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:06:00 - [2326] Originally by: Rrama Ratamnim I find it odd that this thread has 2500+ replies and 95000+ views, yet CCP has yet to reply or admit that this was a HORRIBLE mistake and that it needs to be reviewed, especially the lower end system changes http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=39763&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:08:00 - [2327] Originally by: Evelgrivion Probably because it's not a mistake. What benefit does it provide to the game if those thousands of new players in 0.0 only fight in superblobs and flood the economy of the game with even more ISK than other sources? so instead of giving smaller goals, and fixing the problem and mechanic, lets nerf income sources so less peoeple can afford to pvp and less alliances can afford to move to nullsec into especially the crappier regions?
JTK Fotheringham Dashavatara	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:12:00 - [2328] Originally by: Ignatius Gnarl Originally by: JTK Fotheringham Originally by: Dharh Maybe just adding moon goo depletion and/or balancing it with sov upgrades. Moon goo scaling might not make sense with null sec quality, but it is a bit too profitable. I think you're missing my point. Present moon mining is high profit without corespondingly high risk. I'd like to see the risk ramped up, with some sort of threat of tower disruption, through covert action, and Dust514 suicide teams massacaring the tower crew, off-lining it for 6 hours, and unanchoring all the modules. That would be a risk to attach to moon goo towers. Logistics for keeping POSs running are a pain. Other than the top tier moons the money you make is definitely in proportion to the hassle let alone any risk premium. For the top tier moons they are very profitable because in order to take and hold them you need a huge support base of many players in fancy capital ships across several time zones. The 'risk' attached to tech moons is the risk attached to being a serious nullsec player, and you can see the cost in the multiple Titan kills these guys sustain. However I agree that distribution of moon goo is shockingly bad game design. I seem to remember this was another case where the player base expressed concern but CCP knew best? Gradually changing moon goo comes up again and again as a simple game mechanic that would make for a much better game. I think we'll just have to have a civilised disagreement on this point. If the rewards are constant (which with moon mining they most certainly are) then the corresponding risks should be moar or less constant. But with expensive moon goo, you can actually afford better defences, ship replacement, and so on - all of which greatly reduces the risk factor involved in getting the reward (see the proliferation of super-caps for evidence of this). That's why I favour looking for a different risk-mechanism for moon mining. Moving the goo around might be interesting - it would certainly make 0.0 less static. And maybe it would force more fights to secure new 0.0 space, which might increase the risk. But moar'n likely it would only involve moving to a new moon in existing sov held space. /JTK www.dashavatara.com
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:15:00 - [2329] Originally by: Rrama Ratamnim Originally by: Evelgrivion Probably because it's not a mistake. What benefit does it provide to the game if those thousands of new players in 0.0 only fight in superblobs and flood the economy of the game with even more ISK than other sources? so instead of giving smaller goals, and fixing the problem and mechanic, lets nerf income sources so less peoeple can afford to pvp and less alliances can afford to move to nullsec into especially the crappier regions? Low hanging fruit; this problem is a quick one to change. Addressing fundamental PVP mechanics isn't something you can wrap into a 1.X patch.
Sheela Mystics	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:20:00 - [2330] If this Patch will take place, I definitely stop playing EVE and I know a lot of people who will do the same!!! I can not believe how CCP could think this would help small Alliances. Yes it will be easier to go into nullsec, but without the chance of making money it is totally unlucrative. This patch would be one of the biggest **** CCP ever produced in changes!

Asora Sun	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:23:00 - [2331] CCP, that idea is crap. why the hell a small alliance want to go nullsec? pvp and isk to realize that. farming missions in highsec to pvp in nullsec is no option for me.
NeuroSpike	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:34:00 - [2332] Does anyone want me to save them a parking spot in IRJ at the CPF station?
MSprej	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:36:00 - [2333] Bad idea!
Nemnapos	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:38:00 - [2334] Thanks CCP for killing the 0.0 this is the most stupid idea ever. With this you don't get more fights because no one has the ISK to fight.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:40:00 - [2335] Originally by: Evelgrivion Scrapheap is worth more than posting like this for exactly one reason: Players can see past the scope of their personal, corporation, or alliance's in game wallet and assets list. Obviously, most of them don't play the game anymore, so, they have no alliance or personal game, wallet to look past. And the thread was good, until bitternubs like Marlona and Malcanis started posting. Most of their posts nowadays are just drivel, trolling out of boredom, rather than contributing anything of value. Whatever makes them happy, but don't come here and say their opinions are of any value. When there's something decent to be discussed they can be quite intelligent but in cases like this the low sec trolls crawl out of their caves and start spamming nonsense. The only thing they are right about is people claiming they're quitting. But even then they pretend their way of gaming is the only possible way, which is why they're as ignorant as it gets.
Darkares1	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:42:00 - [2336] Bad idea !!!!!!!!!!!
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:42:00 - [2337] Originally by: Evelgrivion Low hanging fruit; this problem is a quick one to change. Addressing fundamental PVP mechanics isn't something you can wrap into a 1.X patch. Quarterly Economic Newsletter says: Average ISK in active character wallet: 350 million and further: "Destruction the catalyst of production" CCP really should nerf the average income of nullsec inhabitants. They are famous for never loosing ships and farming all day coz it¦s so safe. So I reckon a wallet of 20 millions should be enough for them. Oh wait... what¦s happening to the catalyst then if there is no destrcution anymore coz 20 millions will not pay for a 200 million ship? I reckon you just wanted to troll without ever having read the QEN. Right?
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:46:00 - [2338] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Evelgrivion Scrapheap is worth more than posting like this for exactly one reason: Players can see past the scope of their personal, corporation, or alliance's in game wallet and assets list. Obviously, most of them don't play the game anymore, so, they have no alliance or personal game, wallet to look past. And the thread was good, until bitternubs like Marlona and Malcanis started posting. Most of their posts nowadays are just drivel, trolling out of boredom, rather than contributing anything of value. Whatever makes them happy, but don't come here and say their opinions are of any value. When there's something decent to be discussed they can be quite intelligent but in cases like this the low sec trolls crawl out of their caves and start spamming nonsense. The only thing they are right about is people claiming they're quitting. But even then they pretend their way of gaming is the only possible way, which is why they're as ignorant as it gets. Something likewise can be said to you. Just because people endorse these changes doesn't mean they're trolls. It probably means the change doesn't affect how easily they'll be able to replace their own ships, pay for time codes or other such things, but don't dismiss the arguments in favor of this change out of hand just because they "clearly don't play eve." There is too much ISK in eve. The tide must be stemmed. Changing the nature of the largest source to make it a rarity, rather than a commodity, will help have that effect. I've stopped caring about getting "more people" into 0.0, because the people that it's attracted are the wrong kind of players; too many of them are PVP avoiding grind-bears who are only in their corporations because their CEOs enjoy mooching off their cash generation via corporation taxes.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:57:00 - [2339] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: mkmin Yeah, there's a 3rd party piracy/griefer forum that CCP takes more seriously than it's own forums. That's who they are catering to. That's where they got the idea from. SHC are trolling CCP so hard CCP haven't got a clue, which isn't abnormal. But CCP wouldn't even listen to them. Look up the "Will it won't it" Technetium thread. It was foretold there that CCP were making a mistake, but CCP are too busy with their heads up each others arses. SHC is usually a good place for discussion but discussions are usually heavily influenced by idiots who haven't played EVE for years, and haven't got a clue what they're talking about. To be honest they aren't the idiots, they're the trolls, the idiots are the people who listen to these trolls. Scrapheap is worth more than posting like this for exactly one reason: Players can see past the scope of their personal, corporation, or alliance's in game wallet and assets list. scrapheap is a bunch of worthless whiners who are so intent on swelling their own epeen on their l33tness that they couldnt adapt to a new game and started crying and whining fot the "good old days" of empty 0.0 and 6 people per region. theres literally NO substance to what goes on over there who are you trying to kid.
HSG Bomber	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:58:00 - [2340] Edited by: HSG Bomber on 02/04/2011 13:01:49 this nerf will be the end of my income and the end of playing eve for me. CCP if you need more money, nerf this stupid plex method and make it possible to buy isk for real money.

Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 12:59:00 - [2341] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 02/04/2011 13:00:04 Originally by: Skaarl scrapheap is a bunch of worthless whiners who are so intent on swelling their own epeen on their l33tness that they couldnt adapt to a new game and started crying and whining fot the "good old days" of empty 0.0 and 6 people per region. theres literally NO substance to what goes on over there who are you trying to kid. *looks at this thread The irony is overwhelming.
Rooli Pelaaja	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:10:00 - [2342] Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 02/04/2011 13:11:59 Originally by: Nemnapos With this you don't get more fights because no one has the ISK to fight. lol good sarcasm. Originally by: HSG Bomber this nerf will be the end of my income and the end of playing eve for me. lol, you really suck at the game
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:12:00 - [2343] Originally by: HSG Bomber Edited by: HSG Bomber on 02/04/2011 13:01:49 this nerf will be the end of my income and the end of playing eve for me. CCP if you need more money, nerf this stupid plex method and make it possible to buy isk for real money. if this is irony i apologize if not i feel bad about the future of mankind
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:12:00 - [2344] Originally by: Evelgrivion EDIT: As a disclaimer, when I say "ISK Source," I mean a faucet that creates ISK that didn't exist before hand. To pre-empt arguments, Moon Minerals do not create ISK. Once again you miss the point. The problem is not generating isk. It is rather sinking isk. Say you buy a ship for 100 million, engage someone, your ship explodes. Is there an isk sink? No ofc not. Your 100 millions are still circling in the system. To refund your ship you need to rat and generate another 100 mill. Now there are 200 mill circling. The problem is that there are some very exclusive materials coming from very limited moons. Where do you think will you money end up? Exactly in the wallet of those who got the monopoly on these moons. Is there an ISK-sink? Yes by paying sov bills, taxes and NPC stuff. But this does not make up for the huge amount of isk they gain by their monopoly. That easily explains why the average player does not have billions over billions but the monopolists do have it. So what effect would it have to cut off the common players income? None! The monopolists create their own prices that are not at all dependant on demand and supply, simply because you need these materials to produce and you will not get them from anyone else. Well there is a little "but". But if lots of smaller alliances could afford and build supers aswell, their monopoly would be endanger to be taken over by new ambitious guys. I¦m sure SHC does not speak for any of the monopolists. Oh wait.... maybe not so sure. Better safe then sorry
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:18:00 - [2345] Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Evelgrivion EDIT: As a disclaimer, when I say "ISK Source," I mean a faucet that creates ISK that didn't exist before hand. To pre-empt arguments, Moon Minerals do not create ISK. Once again you miss the point. The problem is not generating isk. It is rather sinking isk. Say you buy a ship for 100 million, engage someone, your ship explodes. Is there an isk sink? No ofc not. Your 100 millions are still circling in the system. To refund your ship you need to rat and generate another 100 mill. Now there are 200 mill circling. The problem is that there are some very exclusive materials coming from very limited moons. Where do you think will you money end up? Exactly in the wallet of those who got the monopoly on these moons. Is there an ISK-sink? Yes by paying sov bills, taxes and NPC stuff. But this does not make up for the huge amount of isk they gain by their monopoly. That easily explains why the average player does not have billions over billions but the monopolists do have it. So what effect would it have to cut off the common players income? None! The monopolists create their own prices that are not at all dependant on demand and supply, simply because you need these materials to produce and you will not get them from anyone else. Well there is a little "but". But if lots of smaller alliances could afford and build supers aswell, their monopoly would be endanger to be taken over by new ambitious guys. I¦m sure SHC does not speak for any of the monopolists. Oh wait.... maybe not so sure. Better safe then sorry so now what CCP tries to achive that the moongoo pays for your ship not your ratting money if that can be done then goal reached i would say youre an coalition of BFF were is the problem when the coalution helps out the poor grunt with moon money ? or maybe youre not so good BFF then greed will kick in and war will start another goal archieved
Herr KaLeu	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:21:00 - [2346] It is realy nice too see how CCP is killing its own Game it is realy easy no money no pvp no pvp no players who pay too play. I realy hope that these changes will never come if they destroy the 0.0 and make half of it worthless a lot of people will leave the game and after all yes, if i have too work the whole week to have a ship for my pvp-weekend then i will be one of those who leave.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:23:00 - [2347] Originally by: Herr KaLeu It is realy nice too see how CCP is killing its own Game it is realy easy no money no pvp no pvp no players who pay too play. I realy hope that these changes will never come if they destroy the 0.0 and make half of it worthless a lot of people will leave the game and after all yes, if i have too work the whole week to have a ship for my pvp-weekend then i will be one of those who leave. There was PVP when nobody could fly anything bigger than frigates and it took three weeks to save up for a cruiser. There was PVP when High-sec was no more secure than 0.0. There will always be PVP. To say there won't be PVP when you can't afford to replace a battleship within minutes of losing it is insanity.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:31:00 - [2348] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Evelgrivion EDIT: As a disclaimer, when I say "ISK Source," I mean a faucet that creates ISK that didn't exist before hand. To pre-empt arguments, Moon Minerals do not create ISK. Once again you miss the point. The problem is not generating isk. It is rather sinking isk. Say you buy a ship for 100 million, engage someone, your ship explodes. Is there an isk sink? No ofc not. Your 100 millions are still circling in the system. To refund your ship you need to rat and generate another 100 mill. Now there are 200 mill circling. The problem is that there are some very exclusive materials coming from very limited moons. Where do you think will you money end up? Exactly in the wallet of those who got the monopoly on these moons. Is there an ISK-sink? Yes by paying sov bills, taxes and NPC stuff. But this does not make up for the huge amount of isk they gain by their monopoly. That easily explains why the average player does not have billions over billions but the monopolists do have it. So what effect would it have to cut off the common players income? None! The monopolists create their own prices that are not at all dependant on demand and supply, simply because you need these materials to produce and you will not get them from anyone else. Well there is a little "but". But if lots of smaller alliances could afford and build supers aswell, their monopoly would be endanger to be taken over by new ambitious guys. I¦m sure SHC does not speak for any of the monopolists. Oh wait.... maybe not so sure. Better safe then sorry so now what CCP tries to achive that the moongoo pays for your ship not your ratting money if that can be done then goal reached i would say youre an coalition of BFF were is the problem when the coalution helps out the poor grunt with moon money ? or maybe youre not so good BFF then greed will kick in and war will start another goal archieved Once again you miss the point dear sir. The moongoo didn¦t pay for the ships in the past so why should it pay for it in the future? Im not linked to BFF in any way pretty much the opposite. But Im indeed very concerned about the consequences. As I have described them earlier on I will not repeat that (funny enough you never felt like you would like to respond to them). So whatever happens here is to re-establish huge power blocks by annihilating the possibility of smaller alliances grow up in nullsec. Drive them back to highsec, make them bleed like hell for any loss and your monopoly will be safe. Well played meta gaming. But still the player base is shocked about these ridiculous plans that empty out nullsec again.
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:35:00 - [2349] Originally by: Antigue Once again you miss the point dear sir. The moongoo didn¦t pay for the ships in the past so why should it pay for it in the future? Im not linked to BFF in any way pretty much the opposite. But Im indeed very concerned about the consequences. As I have described them earlier on I will not repeat that (funny enough you never felt like you would like to respond to them). So whatever happens here is to re-establish huge power blocks by annihilating the possibility of smaller alliances grow up in nullsec. Drive them back to highsec, make them bleed like hell for any loss and your monopoly will be safe. Well played meta gaming. But still the player base is shocked about these ridiculous plans that empty out nullsec again. No smaller entity gets into 0.0 without being completely dependent on having the right blues list under the current system, due to the power projection afforded by capitals and super capitals. Changing income doesn't make life easier or more difficult for smaller alliances in any notable way over how it affects bigger entities. The only thing that will truly give small alliances a chance to shine is to force alliances to keep the bulk of their big boys (super carriers and titans) at home, or to make them useless. That, and make it so going out to destroy them in a more conventional manner isn't a desirable or affordable option either. All in all, I'd say the status quo will stay about the same, but minus hundreds of renter blues who only came to 0.0 to get fat off of sanctums.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:40:00 - [2350] Edited by: Lt Pizi on 02/04/2011 13:40:39 The moongoo didn¦t pay for the ships in the past so why should it pay for it in the future? ---------------------------- you have no data on this so we will see have fun sitting in your SC and titan without support ... some learned it already the hard way so if you want to keep your everage Joe comming in his sub cap you need to help him out this bad ? hell no all you doomsayers need to remember ... it worked before so why should it fail now

Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 13:52:00 - [2351] Originally by: Evelgrivion No smaller entity gets into 0.0 without being completely dependent on having the right blues list under the current system, due to the power projection afforded by capitals and super capitals. Confirmed but this will become even worse with this patch. Originally by: Evelgrivion Changing income doesn't make life easier or more difficult for smaller alliances in any notable way over how it affects bigger entities. I assume having some more ships they can burn to ashes will make a vast difference. So not confirmed at all. Originally by: Evelgrivion The only thing that will truly give small alliances a chance to shine is to force alliances to keep the bulk of their big boys (super carriers and titans) at home, or to make them useless. That, and make it so going out to destroy them in a more conventional manner isn't a desirable or affordable option either. Not confirmed. The only thing that give small alliances a chance to shine is by having lots of succesful roams. Therefor you need targets and therefor you need regular training. Speaking of training you need to be able to resupply with ships in a decent amount of time. Originally by: Evelgrivion All in all, I'd say the status quo will stay about the same, but minus hundreds of renter blues who only came to 0.0 to get fat off of sanctums. You better read QEN. It is a wil fantasy that "renters get fat off sanctums". In reality it pays of their costs for what they like to do: Let ships explode. It will also have tremendous effects on nullsec pew pews when they will have troubles finding targets. The hundreds of renters that are driven back to empire still enjoy pew pew but they will be ****ed and this will lead to ransoming highsec corps to ashes because they are forced to live where they don¦t want to live and they will not run like 40 jumps through empty nullsec for no fight. So you will pick up a target next door. And what is that for? Only to serve the big alliances. There are tons of decent ideas how to create drama in nullsec but to empty out the lands was the worst move one could ever think about.
Geralden	Posted - 2011.04.02 14:05:00 - [2352] Originally by: Lt Pizi Edited by: Lt Pizi on 02/04/2011 13:40:39 The moongoo didn¦t pay for the ships in the past so why should it pay for it in the future? ---------------------------- you have no data on this so we will see have fun sitting in your SC and titan without support ... some learned it already the hard way so if you want to keep your everage Joe comming in his sub cap you need to help him out this bad ? hell no all you doomsayers need to remember ... it worked before so why should it fail now Because. Before you had 2 pilots at MAX pr 0.0 system, now there's 40 to 50. Before you had 5 to 10 pilots dooing plexing in a region - now you have 150. Before you had icebelts as a valid income - macro bots destroyed that income Before you had mining as a valid way of making isk. See above. Before you didnt have to pay upkeep to CONCORD. Now, you pay 1+ Bill pr system for paying an upkeep, for upgrades you payed alot for. If you could pull down your outposts, and your system upgrades, it wouldnt matter as much. But if you DONT pay the INSANE upkeep costs for crappy systems, you will make outposts vounrable for a flip. So, basicly, if you dropped a station, you are chained down to pay for that outpost system, even if it's compleatly worthless after this "update"
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 14:19:00 - [2353] Before there wasnt PI before there wasnt WH minerals are at an long time high, noc 10 times it was before they nerfed the mineral inflow from the DR now its time for the rest will it be the end of the changes no its a long way and it creates many tears but imo its for the better of the economy and the game
Hanniball King	Posted - 2011.04.02 14:23:00 - [2354] One main reason i hear too say its F... Bull... too make thease canges is "too have fun in pvp u need ships for ships u need money and its stupid too grind isk in lv4 missis in highsec and when the enemy is on his way too your space u should hope u have a clonejump available..." If some people bring the arguments in the past there has been no sovupgrades and no permaannos i must say yes, but if you have the same stuf too pay(sovbills for example) with no income from it i can only say wtf? If your Boss tells u from now on u will get the payment as in 1960 that would mean 25-35% of the payment u have got now u wont be happy or would u?
Geralden	Posted - 2011.04.02 14:32:00 - [2355] Try to respond the the post I made. Not just ONE of the arguments. Try respond to the station situation, the number of people in local... Minerals at an alltime high? Do you play the same EVE as i do? PI... no. Just, no. I tried it for 6 weeks, and my hands/wrists are still recovering. The inteface is worse than most of my games made for the c64 back in 1984. Stations - again, let's be able to pull them down, then maybe we can save some billions each month, by NOT paying upkeep. Problem is, you CANT.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 14:53:00 - [2356] Originally by: Geralden Try to respond the the post I made. Not just ONE of the arguments. Try respond to the station situation, the number of people in local... Minerals at an alltime high? Do you play the same EVE as i do? PI... no. Just, no. I tried it for 6 weeks, and my hands/wrists are still recovering. The inteface is worse than most of my games made for the c64 back in 1984. Stations - again, let's be able to pull them down, then maybe we can save some billions each month, by NOT paying upkeep. Problem is, you CANT. try PI again .. it has improved much , it is far from a clickfest now then use your frekkin station to base of todo WH when we were in fountain there were like 10 WH¦s in the constelation these can support alot of players there was alot of money to be made in 00 before sanctums and there still is after the patch if you cant see it i cannot help you
Jena Lindser	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:02:00 - [2357] Although I agree this new anom change is a terrible idea, instead of making a list of why its stupid like the other 79 pages of replies in this thread, I will offer some solutions. CCP can add an anti AFK cloaker system wide pulse decloaking pos mod. This stops afk cloakers from sitting in the - with the change - only good system for ratting in an entire region. CCP can allow alliances to pull down stations and refund 3/4's of the cost. This allows 0.0 groups to relocate to better areas with the isk they need to attack but which they cant get anymore in their bad nullsec, AND attackers can invade simply to sell stations off for lol's. Instead of nerfing anoms to cut profit, CCP can make all super carriers and titans always remain in space, even if their pilot logs off. People can then invade just to attack a titan-super pos,and because they have the password, bump the titan-super out, and steal it or blow it up. Massive isk sink in lost titans-supers + defense fleet losses. CCP can add a new system upgrade that lowers the truesec of a system. It can be super expensive, 5+ billion for every -.1. Short term thats a huge isk sink. To prevent all 0.0 from being -1.0 truesec, losing sov will reset the true sec to its base state. Alliances can now invade just to bump the -1.0 truesec system down to -.2 for a loss of 40 billion in upgrades. CCP can rework the truesec of regions, making all constellations have at least 1 system that has potential for 2 sanctums. CCP can make wormhole inhibitors and wormhole stabilizers that cost billions in fuel to run. Alliance deploys one stabilizer in 0.0 on a good class 6 wormhole, making it perma open. Alliance then deploys wormhole inhibitors in class 6 to prevent any new wormholes from opening, essentially making a back door system under alliance control for isk making. CCP can rework moon goo, a system tha'ts very old, by adding moon goo to moons that currently have nothing in them, not even hydrocarbons, that produce goods that sell to NPC buyers in highsec, but which have no value in ship construction - aka blue glass marbles loved by caldari children across the galaxy. CCP can rework asteroid belt ratting to have a much faster respawn, and add more belts to systems. 10+ belts in each system is equilvant to a sanctum, but also much more dangerous to farm as people can warp right to you without scanning you out. Those are just a few things that can change to make this anom change not become the worst idea CCP ever had. If anyone can think of something else that would make this change - which WILL happen no matter what anyone says - be not so bad, then please post that suggestion here instead of simply calling CCP idiots, as they WONT listen or care.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:08:00 - [2358] Originally by: Lt Pizi Before there wasnt PI before there wasnt WH minerals are at an long time high, noc 10 times it was before they nerfed the mineral inflow from the DR now its time for the rest will it be the end of the changes no its a long way and it creates many tears but imo its for the better of the economy and the game this triples the amount of droneland mineral inflow not nerfs it. they will have 6 carrier++ bots in sanctums all day every day in a good portion of their systems. and once again, CCP greyscales conclusions and models have nothing to do with the economy. they are to increase 0.0 conflict (read allow pirates and griefers who couldnt adapt to dominion to become relevant again.) the issue is there is no real need for increasing the amount of conflict. as you said, minerals are at an all time high, which means the demand for those minerals is at a high. why would that be? because theres a ton of fights going on out in null with billions and billions lost daily. this change will not in anyway increase the amount of conflict, it will reduce it. it will allow the small groups of griefers who never made friends and have always just been asshats to suddenly find themselves relevant and will revert 0.0 back to pre-dominion populations. the probelm is i dont see most of those players moving back to high sec. i see them moving on from CCP games as customers.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:08:00 - [2359] you need to accept the fact that the game is currently moving away from npc injected isk so as sooner you accept this and look for alternative ways to generate income , the more fun you will have in the future
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:10:00 - [2360] This pretty much sums it all up lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc In unrelated news, CCP greyscale has been chosen for fanfest 2012's chess boxing event. \O/

Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:12:00 - [2361] Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 02/04/2011 15:14:12 Originally by: Jena Lindser Although I agree this new anom change is a terrible idea, instead of making a list of why its stupid like the other 79 pages of replies in this thread, I will offer some solutions. CCP can add an anti AFK cloaker system wide pulse decloaking pos mod. This stops afk cloakers from sitting in the - with the change - only good system for ratting in an entire region. CCP can allow alliances to pull down stations and refund 3/4's of the cost. This allows 0.0 groups to relocate to better areas with the isk they need to attack but which they cant get anymore in their bad nullsec, AND attackers can invade simply to sell stations off for lol's. Instead of nerfing anoms to cut profit, CCP can make all super carriers and titans always remain in space, even if their pilot logs off. People can then invade just to attack a titan-super pos,and because they have the password, bump the titan-super out, and steal it or blow it up. Massive isk sink in lost titans-supers + defense fleet losses. CCP can add a new system upgrade that lowers the truesec of a system. It can be super expensive, 5+ billion for every -.1. Short term thats a huge isk sink. To prevent all 0.0 from being -1.0 truesec, losing sov will reset the true sec to its base state. Alliances can now invade just to bump the -1.0 truesec system down to -.2 for a loss of 40 billion in upgrades. CCP can rework the truesec of regions, making all constellations have at least 1 system that has potential for 2 sanctums. CCP can make wormhole inhibitors and wormhole stabilizers that cost billions in fuel to run. Alliance deploys one stabilizer in 0.0 on a good class 6 wormhole, making it perma open. Alliance then deploys wormhole inhibitors in class 6 to prevent any new wormholes from opening, essentially making a back door system under alliance control for isk making. CCP can rework moon goo, a system tha'ts very old, by adding moon goo to moons that currently have nothing in them, not even hydrocarbons, that produce goods that sell to NPC buyers in highsec, but which have no value in ship construction - aka blue glass marbles loved by caldari children across the galaxy. CCP can rework asteroid belt ratting to have a much faster respawn, and add more belts to systems. 10+ belts in each system is equilvant to a sanctum, but also much more dangerous to farm as people can warp right to you without scanning you out. Those are just a few things that can change to make this anom change not become the worst idea CCP ever had. If anyone can think of something else that would make this change - which WILL happen no matter what anyone says - be not so bad, then please post that suggestion here instead of simply calling CCP idiots, as they WONT listen or care. You just forgot a point : CCP wants 0.0 players to earn less isk.
Jena Lindser	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:16:00 - [2362] You didnt watch the fanfest coverage or attend did you? CCP people said they need isk sinks. Its not that people have too much isk, its that the isk doesnt go away fast enough. Most of my ideas either outright cost isk to maintain, or ramp up massive pvp and huge losses in terms of isk. Anom change hurts Simple Joe's bottom line. I suggest shifting the burden off of Simple Joe and onto Super Alliance.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:18:00 - [2363] Originally by: UJust Lost TheGAME In unrelated news, CCP greyscale has been chosen for fanfest 2012's chess boxing event. \O/ HAHAHA will he be BRAIN (my choice) or PAIN (wich will also fit) ?
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:24:00 - [2364] Originally by: UJust Lost TheGAME This pretty much sums it all up lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc THIS!
Nemnapos	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:38:00 - [2365] Originally by: Jena Lindser CCP people said they need isk sinks. Its not that people have too much isk, its that the isk doesnt go away fast enough. Thats ok but this is not an reason to kidding alls player that life in the -0.00 up to -0.20 space AND buff the -1.0 space.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:41:00 - [2366] Originally by: UJust Lost TheGAME This pretty much sums it all up lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc In unrelated news, CCP greyscale has been chosen for fanfest 2012's chess boxing event. \O/ i approve this message.
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:49:00 - [2367] Edited by: Dodgy Past on 02/04/2011 15:50:50 Originally by: Herr KaLeu It is realy nice too see how CCP is killing its own Game it is realy easy no money no pvp no pvp no players who pay too play. I realy hope that these changes will never come if they destroy the 0.0 and make half of it worthless a lot of people will leave the game and after all yes, if i have too work the whole week to have a ship for my pvp-weekend then i will be one of those who leave. If you wanted to PvP you'd find the isk to pay for it, you just want an excuse not to PvP. I'd imagine a huge percentage of PvP'ers never run anoms, yet manage to fly whatever they want whenever they want rather than the cheapest boat they can get away with. Couple of weekends ago I lost 4 Abaddons in 3 days, yet somehow managed to turn a profit without ever killing a rat.
Cpt Darkstar	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:51:00 - [2368] lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc it say¦s all
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:52:00 - [2369] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: Herr KaLeu It is realy nice too see how CCP is killing its own Game it is realy easy no money no pvp no pvp no players who pay too play. I realy hope that these changes will never come if they destroy the 0.0 and make half of it worthless a lot of people will leave the game and after all yes, if i have too work the whole week to have a ship for my pvp-weekend then i will be one of those who leave. There was PVP when nobody could fly anything bigger than frigates and it took three weeks to save up for a cruiser. There was PVP when High-sec was no more secure than 0.0. There will always be PVP. To say there won't be PVP when you can't afford to replace a battleship within minutes of losing it is insanity. problem is all the old school douche bags with their ill gotten t2 bpos complaining cause now everyone can afford to put the same ships on the field they can. its not fair!
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:55:00 - [2370] i think everyone should open up a petition with CCP concerning these changes and just link them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc

Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 15:57:00 - [2371] Originally by: Dodgy Past I'd imagine a huge percentage of PvP'ers never run anoms, yet manage to fly whatever they want whenever they want rather than the cheapest boat they can get away with. Couple of weekends ago I lost 4 Abaddons in 3 days, yet somehow managed to turn a profit without ever killing a rat. Yeah and if you are really a pr0 pvp¦er then you will create isk right out of thin air. But I imagine that you want to point out exactly how that "somehow" you mentioned should work for such a lot of peeps that get kicked out of nullsec immediately. Once there was a saying like "High risk makes good isk" Now CCP tells us "High risk still s.hitty isk" How stupid would that be?
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:06:00 - [2372] Originally by: Antigue Yeah and if you are really a pr0 pvp¦er then you will create isk right out of thin air. But I imagine that you want to point out exactly how that "somehow" you mentioned should work for such a lot of peeps that get kicked out of nullsec immediately. Actually I took advantage of the fact that we were losing bucketloads of Abaddons and imported a bunch to our local market, I also noticed that some of the mods used were in short supply because others were starting to copy our fits and started manufacturing those. Ratting for bounties has never been meant to be the way players are supposed to get rich, instead of flooding the game with isk and not caring how that ruins the game for everyone by causing inflation how about looking for opportunities to make isk which also make the game better.
Natalia Kovac Minmatar Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:08:00 - [2373] This is a great change which I wholeheartedly support. Whiners can adapt or die
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:24:00 - [2374] This is your final warning CCP! You better reverse the Sanctum change or else. You want to lose thousands of subscribers?! If so then keep this ** up. I was under the impression you wanted this game to thrive? If so then why do you slit its own thought with this patch? What the is wrong with you all?! - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!**
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:37:00 - [2375] Originally by: Better Than You I was under the impression you wanted this game to thrive? Exactly, that's why they are reducing how easily 0.0ers can field expensive ship and have "no problem" losing it.
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:39:00 - [2376] Originally by: Better Than You Obviously not
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:45:00 - [2377] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 16:46:03 Originally by: MyAvatar Hilanen Say I, as a simple grunt, can now make 500M a month doing ano's, while my beloved alliance leaders make about 5b a month from moongoo. .. My income will go down to say 300M a month while doing ano's and my alliance leader's moongoo will not change. When the amount of ISK entering the game drops, the price of everything will drop - including the alliance leader's moon goo, which will directly affect your alliance leader's moon goo income. Potentially, his income may drop more than yours as it becomes harder for "the grunts" to replace thousands of T2 ships per month. I think that's a point that's been widely missed in the thread. -Liang Ed: I don't mean to imply I'm not in favor of also rebalancing moon goo. I'm just saying that people are making a potentially dubious claim that the demand for moon goo will remain constant in the face of "plummeting" ISK supplies. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:48:00 - [2378] Originally by: MyAvatar Hilanen Say I, as a simple grunt, can now make 500M a month doing ano's, while my beloved alliance leaders make about 5b a month from moongoo. .. My income will go down to say 300M a month while doing ano's and my alliance leader's moongoo will not change. Just curious, how many hours totally does it take for you to make 500M a month?
Bezzell	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:49:00 - [2379] Hurry, everyone back to high-sec and lvl 4's. Gogo.
CraZyDudE2	Posted - 2011.04.02 16:52:00 - [2380] "There's now a reason to fight for better space again" Get real you bunch of numpty's - what game have you been playing Mr Greynoob ? Since when did anyone fight over true sec systems ? F--k with the moons and then see what happens.. Watch all the small Alliances disapear, Crap tons of barron useless systems appear, Billions waisted on upgrades that these smaller Alliances can neither afford. Average joe in null sec prob Pays for 1 account with reall money and then pays for his other accounts with isk - watch the ammount accounts drop ! Well done CCP, All your thinking about is $ in your fat coffers..

Asuri Kinnes Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.04.02 17:00:00 - [2381] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hiroshima Jita The people who are quiting are worse. Meh. Betting Pool Malcanis's Law @ work again. Sony Entertainments players quit en-mass when they made the game easier... Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist NO!
Laviere	Posted - 2011.04.02 17:44:00 - [2382] -3 accounts
Zenzija	Posted - 2011.04.02 17:46:00 - [2383] Originally by: Laviere -3 accounts -20 accounts here.. 15 Hulks, 4 Orcas, 1 Rorqual.
Kalpel Caldari United Systems of the Allegiance Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.02 17:48:00 - [2384] I'm a belt ratter by trade in EvE, I know it sounds strange, but I love to belt rat in 0.0 making high value chains and looking for Officer / Faction spawns. Greyscale if you remove the amount of Sanctums this will put more people in the belts, which in turn takes isk out of my wallet, so my question to you is ..... How long do you figure players like myself will continue to play eve?
Phatsack	Posted - 2011.04.02 17:50:00 - [2385] So if CCP wants to determine political matters in eve without consulting the players, why not just access and alter a corps or alliances standings lists , randomly changing standings from blue to red without warning, that could be interesting don't ya think? formup for a blob and 'lo looky here half the fleet just turned red, gettem boys!! Or how bout if ccp just sends mails to individual players saying stuff like "the only place you get to make isk this month is by running missions in amarr" etc, cause really if you are going to change the game from a true sandbox to a dictatorship based play style, why pretend? just do it for real.This obvious ploy to wreck the NC makes me sick, political affiliations are supposed to be made by the players in eve, not the developers. I for one will not send an alt to highsec to grind missions, I want to continue living in 0.0, risking billions of isk worth of shiney toys to grind isk in the danger zone, grinding is so boring at least knowing I could take serious losses while doing it adds some excitement. To sum up my rant I will say this, I love playing eve, I have loved playing it for the last 2 years, the greatest part about eve is the freedom to do what you want, if ccp is going to start dictating who gets what, and who has to fight who in order for the individual players to succeed without handouts from their corp/alliance, I think I'll find something else to waste my free time on. PS I think the truesec sanctum nerf is a stupid idea, just incase my point was missed.
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:10:00 - [2386] Originally by: Better Than You This is your final warning CCP! You better reverse the Sanctum change or else. You want to lose thousands of subscribers?! If so then keep this ** up. I was under the impression you wanted this game to thrive? If so then why do you slit its own thought with this patch? What the ** is wrong with you all?! ROFL! ahhh... you guys are getting too comfortable out there in Null. I'm looking forward to anything that increases conflict. It's better for everyone in the game. You have too much pie. CCP is just giving us more slices... they aren't removing any pie from the game. You guys just don't want to share the pie... but the rest of us are hungry. Now if we can just get a jump bridge nerf.... "A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:21:00 - [2387] Just let¦s make a small poll: For coming up with this idea Greyscale should [ ] get booted from CCP [ ] feel the nullsec players pimphand [ ] all of the above [ ] awarded because I¦m as clueless as CCP in terms of nullsec Your choice guys
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:26:00 - [2388] Originally by: Antigue Just let¦s make a small poll: For coming up with this idea Greyscale should [ ] get booted from CCP [ ] feel the nullsec players pimphand [ ] all of the above [ ] awarded because I¦m as clueless as CCP in terms of nullsec [x] get a raise and promotion Your choice guys Ok, made my choice -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:30:00 - [2389] Originally by: Antigue Just let¦s make a small poll: For coming up with this idea Greyscale should [ ] (a) get a promotion at CCP and a big hug from the CEO [ ] (b) Nerf jump bridges next so logistics, pre-positioning, and travel time become actual tactical factors to think about. [X] (c) both (a) and (b) [ ] (d) pander to the children's forum tears Your choice guys Fixed
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:30:00 - [2390] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 16:46:03 Originally by: MyAvatar Hilanen Say I, as a simple grunt, can now make 500M a month doing ano's, while my beloved alliance leaders make about 5b a month from moongoo. .. My income will go down to say 300M a month while doing ano's and my alliance leader's moongoo will not change. When the amount of ISK entering the game drops, the price of everything will drop - including the alliance leader's moon goo, which will directly affect your alliance leader's moon goo income. Potentially, his income may drop more than yours as it becomes harder for "the grunts" to replace thousands of T2 ships per month. I think that's a point that's been widely missed in the thread. -Liang Ed: I don't mean to imply I'm not in favor of also rebalancing moon goo. I'm just saying that people are making a potentially dubious claim that the demand for moon goo will remain constant in the face of "plummeting" ISK supplies. No Liang people are still going to be able to field expensive ships and that comes in the form of those lucky enough to have a good truesec rating. What we will see is even more entrenched alliances and bigger alliances. People wont want to fight over it they will just join the sheep so they can carry on doing what they need to do to play the game. There is too much useless space in null sec to create a well balanced game. This may limit people to being more careful about what ships to take to the party but for those that can pay for ISK this will not affect them in the slightest. Ever thought about the average player that does pay for the game and does rat so they can ship up? even now it takes a full day to get enough isk to reship a destroyed BS or tech 2. By making space unattractive it will always be un-attractive thats it. Until you give people the chance to make their own pie of space this will never improve and you will always have the big boys. I have said it before and i will say it again. the game needs to add space on a periodic basis - with new shinys that people can fight over. and as one new shiny comes out old space becomes obsolete or unattractive to the big boys but not so unattractive that small people cant live in it and prosper. My point is this if you generate a game that is static based like eve is then you will always get sheep becuase fighting for space is hard when joining is a lot easier. create a evolving environment and you get a different story.

Zavun	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:53:00 - [2391] I love the way this change was completely ignored at Fanfest. So it makes more of 0.0 space worthless and actually increases the benefit of the mega-alliances holding those lucrative moons. Well personally its great for my Corp/Alliance but it sucks to be a smaller alliance in 0.0. Alliances will not go to war over anomaly space. The moon goo is where its at. I guess more of the smaller alliances will find people actually moving back to core to run Lvl 4s to make isk. Exactly the opposite of what CCP has tried to do with this change.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:55:00 - [2392] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 18:55:57 Originally by: StuRyan No Liang people are still going to be able to field expensive ships and that comes in the form of those lucky enough to have a good truesec rating. Which as everyone has been so busy telling us is going to be some incredibly small fraction of 0.0 - both in population and in geography. Quote: What we will see is even more entrenched alliances and bigger alliances. People wont want to fight over it they will just join the sheep so they can carry on doing what they need to do to play the game. More entrenched - sure. Bigger? I doubt that very much. Its not going to take very much before the good truesec systems are utterly overpopulated and people stop moving into them. Furthermore, the dev blog explicitly states this is simply the first of many ~~potential nerfhammers~~ small changes coming to 0.0 in the coming months. Also: AFK Cloaker/BOBS threads are going to be epic. Quote: There is too much useless space in null sec to create a well balanced game. I couldn't disagree with that more. It is IMPORTANT TO THE GAME to have worthless 0.0 space - for wildlands, for badlands, and for buffer zones. Quote: I have said it before and i will say it again. the game needs to add space on a periodic basis I must have been ***ing imagining the thousands and thousands of new systems added since I started playing Eve. -Liang Ed: OH, and good on you for totally missing the point of my post. -- Eve Forum **** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Justyce Gazer Endless Destruction Imperial 0rder	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:57:00 - [2393] Thank you CCP. No one thought this could be possible but you are moving ahead with a plan that makes useless null sec space even more useless. So, will you be reimbursing all those smaller, null sec alliances like ours who have spent billions upgrading crap space into somewhat useable space or not? I guess after these changes I will have to see if it is feasible to have 4 accounts anymore.
Memoocan	Posted - 2011.04.02 18:59:00 - [2394] Originally by: Better Than You This is your final warning CCP! You better reverse the Sanctum change or else. You want to lose thousands of subscribers?! If so then keep this ** up. I was under the impression you wanted this game to thrive? If so then why do you slit its own thought with this patch? What the ** is wrong with you all?! Nullsec tears are best tears. Whine, whine is all I read. I'm happy with the change, too much ISK in nullsec as it is. And whoever tried to propose wormhole inhibitors, etc....won't happen. Story line and all, which I am happy with as well, don't need nullsec alliances thinking they control wspace. Come in and play like the rest of us, or are you too scared?
Zaval hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:05:00 - [2395] This is a bad idea. Its obvious you have a limited understanding of how individuals generate ISK in 0.0 space. What you have done has crippled the smaller alliances to generate ISK for PVP in 0.0 space. So they can either: a) Mine. b) Run Empire Missions. c) Buy ISK from botters. d) Buy a botting programme.
druid 99	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:07:00 - [2396] bla bla bla moan moan moan ok so the indivdual players income in these lower end system will drop but 0.0 dosnt fall and drop on sanctums and havens before they brought havens and sanctums in 0.0 was still lucritave and still had lots of peeps in it so people saying there gona leave bull **** having as many anomilies as each system has so lower end systems will still have the same amount of anomilies just lower end ones that you can run faster there will still be isk to be made dont worry i live in 0.0 and i dont drop or cry about losing anomilies yes so i may not be able to take my carrier into a stn sanctum depending on where i am but lets face it compared to life 2 years ago 0.0 has it easy atm so stop whining and just get on with it
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:09:00 - [2397] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 16:46:03 When the amount of ISK entering the game drops, the price of everything will drop - including the alliance leader's moon goo, which will directly affect your alliance leader's moon goo income. Potentially, his income may drop more than yours as it becomes harder for "the grunts" to replace thousands of T2 ships per month. I think that's a point that's been widely missed in the thread. What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture? This is the problem with the entire change. There's no hard facts to backup these claims by supporters or by CCP. This is Greyscale's supposed Motto: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong." Give us the factual why ... not conjecture. Not "Because I say so since I've got years of hidden experience running 0.0 on a pilot I won't post with." Many people posting against this change are FOR making truesec more distinctive and even for reducing havens, sanctums in low end truesec. You say dominion went too far. We say ok, maybe. But this change is going too far the other direction. Drop the number of sanctums, havens available in lowend truesec. And see if it changes anything. Of another note, havens and sanctums aren't "free" they took effort to purchase and move the expensive upgrade modules. Many people worked hard to achieve those upgrade modules. Many have implied that sanctums and havens were just handed to players, and the facts show otherwise.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:13:00 - [2398] Originally by: Klam What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture? This is the problem with the entire change. There's no hard facts to backup these claims by supporters or by CCP. This is Greyscale's supposed Motto: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong." Give us the factual why ... not conjecture. Not "Because I say so since I've got years of hidden experience running 0.0 on a pilot I won't post with." That's actually a result from applying a fairly simple economic theory: supply and demand: You have less ISK => You can't buy as many HACs at current prices => the price of HACs goes down => the price of moon goo goes down -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Zarko Dreadlor	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:14:00 - [2399] People alrady leaving... great job CCP. In perperation of these new changed, members are alradymoving out of 0.0 due to the fact that the null suc space is now worth much less than level 4 and even level 3 mission. Congradulations at ****ing smaller alliance and everyday PVP players who get there isk to induldge in PVP in null sec. We're too small to take a -1.0 true sec system as the large alliance will control these. You are making the rich richer, and poor never having a chance. You arn't hititng the mom production or most of the alliance pocket book, you're hitting the everyday PVPer. FAIL CCP
Zervun Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:27:00 - [2400] Wow, nicely done CCP. Yet again you seemed to have misread how players actually play the game. Although I have no objection to you wanting to change the mechanics of 0.0 space. I do think that you should have consulted players on it. If only you had an event where your loyal customers where all in once place and where you could of scheduled a round-table discussion. Hey, wait a minute...

Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:39:00 - [2401] Originally by: Gogela ahhh... you guys are getting too comfortable out there in Null. I'm looking forward to anything that increases conflict. It's better for everyone in the game. You have too much pie. CCP is just giving us more slices... they aren't removing any pie from the game. You guys just don't want to share the pie... but the rest of us are hungry. Now if we can just get a jump bridge nerf.... First of all they are removing pie from the game. The total number of good anomalies across the cluster is dropping, so yeah, there will be less ISK entering the game via anomaly ratting Secondly, if you weren't getting any pie before, the odds of getting some now are even lower, as the pie will be concentrated in the hands of a few pretty powerful alliances. Thirdly, if you think this change increases conflict, think again. Go look through pre-Dominion EVE history and try to find a single conflict that was fought over ratting space.
Hofbrau Dunkel	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:40:00 - [2402] So more or less good truesec 0.0 > lvl 4 missions > bad truesec 0.0 systems. Apparently their model forgot to take into account the risk vs. reward scale.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:45:00 - [2403] Originally by: HSG Bomber Edited by: HSG Bomber on 02/04/2011 13:01:49 this nerf will be the end of my income and the end of playing eve for me. CCP if you need more money, nerf this stupid plex method and make it possible to buy isk for real money.
Abinadi9 NerdHerd	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:52:00 - [2404] Well in my opinion, people who played by the rules for the past 17 months are now being punished. Visit http://www.evethink.com. Go there, vote if you want or do not want this change. It is API verified so only one vote per account. Go there, vote, then change your API if you're worried about security. It is important that we show CCP that not just a select few but MOST PEOPLE are opposed to this nerf. Spread this link to your corp/friends/leaders. GET PEOPLE VOTING.
Green Cobra	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:52:00 - [2405] So looks like CCP don't listen to there customers one bit. Problem is as I see it 2 major ones today in null that really need fixing: PLEX system, horrible thing that kill EVE in the long run. It should not be possible to buy subscription time with ISK BOTS, stupid freaking cheater!!! Ban em all and for once do a good job with it CCP Fix these 2 and almost all in null will be happy subscribers. It is possible to do it without adding nerfs, it will however require manpower from CCP and lots of it. But who said good fixes are easy fixes?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 19:54:00 - [2406] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 18:55:57 Originally by: StuRyan No Liang people are still going to be able to field expensive ships and that comes in the form of those lucky enough to have a good truesec rating. Which as everyone has been so busy telling us is going to be some incredibly small fraction of 0.0 - both in population and in geography. Quote: What we will see is even more entrenched alliances and bigger alliances. People wont want to fight over it they will just join the sheep so they can carry on doing what they need to do to play the game. More entrenched - sure. Bigger? I doubt that very much. Its not going to take very much before the good truesec systems are utterly overpopulated and people stop moving into them. Furthermore, the dev blog explicitly states this is simply the first of many ~~potential nerfhammers~~ small changes coming to 0.0 in the coming months. Also: AFK Cloaker/BOBS threads are going to be epic. Quote: There is too much useless space in null sec to create a well balanced game. I couldn't disagree with that more. It is IMPORTANT TO THE GAME to have worthless 0.0 space - for wildlands, for badlands, and for buffer zones. Quote: I have said it before and i will say it again. the game needs to add space on a periodic basis I must have been ***ing imagining the thousands and thousands of new systems added since I started playing Eve. -Liang Ed: OH, and good on you for totally missing the point of my post*. 1. I never said they hadnt added spaceand my point is why stop? 2. Re-read my point people arent going to fight for a truesec system. they will join, and when that is over run they will branch out even if they have an hour in a truesec system that will be worth it. Trust me i have been there and ran hubs all day in systems that are close to a truesec system and waited for it to calm down so i could get my piece. What ended up happening was people branched further and futher around the region just so they could make isk. The fact that you are trying to debate that i am wrong shows how far from the game you must be playing. 0.0 pre-dominion was incredible difficult. this change brings back those days. Just so you know i ran hubs all day today and made 12m. that was 4 hours of ratting for 12 mil! that is during the day at a time when the wife is out and the kids are asleep. if you think im going to spend all my free time grinding rather than trying to enjoy the end game PVP which of course now means you need a group of people to play the game with considering most of the time you are fighting against blobs. Try getting a bit closer to the life of people who play in null sec find out who is actually playing this game. Not everyone has endless hours to burn.
Prester Tom	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:05:00 - [2407] It seems DRF space will be getting the best of the new anomaly set-up. Because they need more isk.
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:17:00 - [2408] Originally by: Levistus Junior First of all they are removing pie from the game. The total number of good anomalies across the cluster is dropping, so yeah, there will be less ISK entering the game via anomaly ratting Secondly, if you weren't getting any pie before, the odds of getting some now are even lower, as the pie will be concentrated in the hands of a few pretty powerful alliances. Thirdly, if you think this change increases conflict, think again. Go look through pre-Dominion EVE history and try to find a single conflict that was fought over ratting space. First and second, the slices are smaller in the low end and fatter in the high. It'll be balanced... it's just that with more slices it'll be easier for the little guy to get any. As it stands now, they get zero... b/c the big alliances gobble it ALL up. I'd rather have a sliver of pie than none at all. ...and the idea here is maybe the fat alliances won't bother with the sliver of pie because it does nothing to maintain their body's fat content. Thirdly, so much has changed since the pre-Dominion times that a comparison falls flat. That said, true-sec was a factor in the locations of big alliances. BOB didn't rule Delve because the name was cool. Fail-alliance Xelas (remember them?) moved into fountain in part because of all the carebear corps in it wanted a crack at the back systems which had decently low true-sec. There are a lot of factors in taking space though... and moon goo is a bigger one than true-sec, I'll admit. This is just the start of the null sec changes though. The issue at hand isn't elusively true-sec, it's the principal that space should be different and offer a reason to move around and conquer different areas. It keeps alliances from becoming static, lethargically sucking up ISK in boring and repetitive ways. The alliances today are to the envisioned alliances of tomorrow as miners are to PvP'ers. The idea here is not to just find any space and merely develop it... staying in one area all the time. Rather, it's to provide aggressive and growing alliances a path to galactic domination that requires movement and more conquest. I think a lot of the crying going on in these forums is a reaction to that. Yes the major alliances will have a huge advantage in initially taking the "good" space. However, after this and other changes they will be more localized, and everyone is going to be constantly gunning for them. The idea that an alliance can grow to a certain point, collect a bunch of carebear renters, and just sit there will give way to a tighter alliance with a few specialized renter corps that feed their war machine, leaving the bulk of carebear corps and alliances to the reduced gains of poorer space. It's going to force the great alliances to become leaner and tougher, and at the same time provide the carebears with a foothold so that they can stop being carebears and become strong. ...increasing carebear alliance greed and frustration will motivate them to take more lucrative space. More ships will be lost. The economy will grow. I will have more active logistics and shipping lanes to camp. Some haulers might be carrying pie. I shall enjoy that pie. I think this vision is the path to smaller, more vicious, and bloodier wars. In a way, I think it will expand the game. The alliances are just upset that the lazy days of ruling are coming to an end. As an analog to market efficiency, we can call forthcoming changes a drive toward "political efficiency." "A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:28:00 - [2409] Shoot Greyscale before this is implemented...
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:32:00 - [2410] There are no words to descrive this. People have been saying for ages that CCP does not really understand their game. I always thought it was a joke. The reality is much worst. Rich alliances are only gonna get richer and the middle tear to lower alliances are gonna get screwed with this new change. This is by far the worst ever change/idea. How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances out? I mean they are already monsters, they are only gonna get stronger with this new change. Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenanc on top. Whats gonna happen is that they willl have to leave for high sec or low sec cos they cant afford anything and they can make more money without hassle and bills in high sec. Who ever thought of this, defently lost it or has no clue about the game or plays another game thats not eve. CCP claims to hear what people say...Let just hope they listen better than they can hear. Based on how long this thread has become and has not shown any sign of slowing yet, it is clear that CCP has really have A LOT of support on this change!!! Good luck to all capsulers o/

Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:47:00 - [2411] Originally by: Lt Pizi you need to accept the fact that the game is currently moving away from npc injected isk so as sooner you accept this and look for alternative ways to generate income , the more fun you will have in the future Lt Pizi, I don't know if you still recall me when I was with you guys (miss DR a lot). Your reply is the same I have seen in the past 15 years, given by those who achieved end game objectives by adapting vs those crying in a corner, unable to react. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:51:00 - [2412] Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN There are no words to descrive this. People have been saying for ages that CCP does not really understand their game. I always thought it was a joke. The reality is much worst. Rich alliances are only gonna get richer and the middle tear to lower alliances are gonna get screwed with this new change. This is by far the worst ever change/idea. How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances out? I mean they are already monsters, they are only gonna get stronger with this new change. Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenanc on top. Whats gonna happen is that they willl have to leave for high sec or low sec cos they cant afford anything and they can make more money without hassle and bills in high sec. Who ever thought of this, defently lost it or has no clue about the game or plays another game thats not eve. CCP claims to hear what people say...Let just hope they listen better than they can hear. Based on how long this thread has become and has not shown any sign of slowing yet, it is clear that CCP has really have A LOT of support on this change!!! Good luck to all capsulers o/ This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have just stated the base of dissenting arguments as succinctly as anyone, so lets talk about it. The Rich Alliances are only gonna get richer - Not true. Renters aren't going to pay what they are paying now for lesser space. In fact, they may not want to pay anything for it. Renter corps will therefor defect from their non-agression / support pacts because it's just not worth it. This will reduce the size of great alliances, and have a negative impact on the number of available pilots and amount of resources available to them. How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances (redacted)? - It's not. Those corps that no longer can afford to rent will covet the larger alliances space, and if those bigger alliances drop their guard for a second alliances that might otherwise have been renters will pounce on them like a fat kid on a cupcake. Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenance on top. - While it's true that those smaller alliances will suffer from reduced gains, I think greed will now motivate them to break from their now far less attractive non-aggression pacts and instead take what is "rightfully theirs". It's about reducing comfort zones, increasing paranoia and fear, and instigating conflict. Yah... CCP is breaking up your band so that more people can rock. Everyone SEEMS to be complaining about how this screws the little guy... but looking around I see the whiners more often than not in large alliances. While your concern for those former renters and future competitors is touching, I question your motivations. ~Fly dangerous...
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:53:00 - [2413] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Lt Pizi you need to accept the fact that the game is currently moving away from npc injected isk so as sooner you accept this and look for alternative ways to generate income , the more fun you will have in the future Lt Pizi, I don't know if you still recall me when I was with you guys (miss DR a lot). Your reply is the same I have seen in the past 15 years, given by those who achieved end game objectives by adapting vs those crying in a corner, unable to react. what you mean by that is bot and have a salvage alt running round like a dog on a lead picking up all your npc kills. then transport it and sell it. an awful lot of effort just to enjoy the end game.
Jason Nesmeth	Posted - 2011.04.02 20:57:00 - [2414] Originally by: Gogela First and second, the slices are smaller in the low end and fatter in the high. It'll be balanced... it's just that with more slices it'll be easier for the little guy to get any. As it stands now, they get zero... b/c the big alliances gobble it ALL up. I'd rather have a sliver of pie than none at all. ...and the idea here is maybe the fat alliances won't bother with the sliver of pie because it does nothing to maintain their body's fat content. There aren't more slices LOL...it's still the same number of systems...just now 80% of them can not reach the max level of income generation as they can now. What allows the little guy to move out into 0.0 is the fact that with work and effort any 0.0 system can be improved to generate the max ratting income. They can stay out of the path of the big boys and get a foothold so that maybe someday they can compete with bigger alliances. What CCP is doing negates that is one fell swoop... What CCP is doing caters directly to the large alliances consolidating power and pulls the rug out from under the little guy. CCP always whines that not enough ppl are in 0.0...then they actually did something right and gave folks an incentive to move out to 0.0...and now they are taking it away...end of story. Hypocrites. And it all stems from the fact that CCP can't let the players actually be free to choose their own path...always they are trying in both overt and clandestine ways to coerce everyone into PvP. More conflict? Why? Is there a USDA daily recommended allowance of conflict? I assure you as a 0.0 resident I get all the conflict I need. Disgusting...
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:01:00 - [2415] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Klam What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture? This is the problem with the entire change. There's no hard facts to backup these claims by supporters or by CCP. This is Greyscale's supposed Motto: "One half of game design is having solid, well-reasoned opinions about everything. The other half is figuring out why theyÆre wrong." Give us the factual why ... not conjecture. Not "Because I say so since I've got years of hidden experience running 0.0 on a pilot I won't post with." That's actually a result from applying a fairly simple economic theory: supply and demand: You have less ISK => You can't buy as many HACs at current prices => the price of HACs goes down => the price of moon goo goes down -Liang You are making assumptions quite a few assumptions there your economic theory is also based on real life models, not that of facts gathered from Eve. Eve has shown to not follow economic models of the real world. You are assuming that those with moon goo won't trickle it into the market at it's current prices. Forcing an artificial lack of supply. Since you are a fan of real world economics... ever take a look at the diamond market?
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:04:00 - [2416] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 02/04/2011 21:06:53 Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Lt Pizi you need to accept the fact that the game is currently moving away from npc injected isk so as sooner you accept this and look for alternative ways to generate income , the more fun you will have in the future Lt Pizi, I don't know if you still recall me when I was with you guys (miss DR a lot). Your reply is the same I have seen in the past 15 years, given by those who achieved end game objectives by adapting vs those crying in a corner, unable to react. what you mean by that is bot and have a salvage alt running round like a dog on a lead picking up all your npc kills. then transport it and sell it. an awful lot of effort just to enjoy the end game. Your reply shows your limited understanding of ISK making opportunities. Just because YOU waste countless hours grinding, and on top of that having the fruits of your hard work robbed away by your landlord in the form of taxes, doesnt mean other people do this. What you make in 10 hours grinding sanctums (before your landlord takes his share), other people make in one hour plexing. Fact is, you are not only wasting your own time, but with your easy mode petty cash making concept you are bolstering the wallets of the big players that allow you to exist in their domain. You are hurting your very own cause in the long run, you are hurting the game economy, and you are hurting your enjoyment of the game. Once this change is a week or two old, you will have adapted (or ragequit), and with the new exploration site changes coming be better off than ever before as your landlord wont steal your hard earned cash anymore so easily.
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:05:00 - [2417] Once more for the Lols. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:07:00 - [2418] Originally by: UJust Lost TheGAME Once more for the Lols. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS5IHVKRzwc "Did you even consult the CSM?" "Who the **** is the CSM?" rofl
Namolun	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:13:00 - [2419] When this changes will really going online i won't playing eve any more!!111 Then you can make more money in Lvl 4 missions then in Hub-anomalies and i will NEVER do missions in highsec. This is like going back to the time i started playing Eve!!
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:22:00 - [2420] Originally by: Klam You are making assumptions quite a few assumptions there your economic theory is also based on real life models, not that of facts gathered from Eve. Eve has shown to not follow economic models of the real world. You are assuming that those with moon goo won't trickle it into the market at it's current prices. Forcing an artificial lack of supply. Since you are a fan of real world economics... ever take a look at the diamond market? A few points: - Your alliance leader control the production of 80% of the moon goo in Eve and thus will simply be cutting his own throat by withholding his moon goo. - Moon goo is looking down the barrel of a nerf right now. Stockpiling what is likely to be soon-worthless moon goo would be pretty stupid. - There isn't the same amount of raw ISK flowing so the overall price point for how much people are willing to spend on his product drops. Assuming some kind of collusion, the price per unit can be raised by withholding moon goo, but the total income (and thus profits) is going to go down. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Daemonspirit Six Degrees of Separation	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:24:00 - [2421] Edited by: Daemonspirit on 02/04/2011 21:25:00 Originally by: Hemmo Paskiainen CCP prob saw the plex usuage rise and got less $$ cause people farming too much sanctums. Why should they go to your corp, when you don't even know how plex work? Or this guy: Originally by: Green Cobra PLEX system, horrible thing that kill EVE in the long run. It should not be possible to buy subscription time with ISK ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:24:00 - [2422] It wouldnt be so bad if we knew what their long term plan was. But based on what I was hearing from the devs at the fanfest panel, they seem to be making it up as they go along, and its all trial and error. I now see that they have taken the concept of the "sandbox" and have managed to find practical uses for it in their dev teams.
DogTeeth	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:30:00 - [2423] Petitioned. I'll have my subscription monies back please CCP. Byeeeeeeeeee
Klam Amarr FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:32:00 - [2424] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Klam You are making assumptions quite a few assumptions there your economic theory is also based on real life models, not that of facts gathered from Eve. Eve has shown to not follow economic models of the real world. You are assuming that those with moon goo won't trickle it into the market at it's current prices. Forcing an artificial lack of supply. Since you are a fan of real world economics... ever take a look at the diamond market? A few points: - Your alliance leader control the production of 80% of the moon goo in Eve and thus will simply be cutting his own throat by withholding his moon goo. - Moon goo is looking down the barrel of a nerf right now. Stockpiling what is likely to be soon-worthless moon goo would be pretty stupid. - There isn't the same amount of raw ISK flowing so the overall price point for how much people are willing to spend on his product drops. Assuming some kind of collusion, the price per unit can be raised by withholding moon goo, but the total income (and thus profits) is going to go down. -Liang More baseless assumptions. - Controlling the flow of a product is beneficial to the long run of an entity in control of that product. Again see diamond markets. So this isn't a "cutting one's own throat" - Moon Goo itself is getting the nerf? or the way it's mined supplied to eve is getting the nerf? Care to supply evidence to this? - Based on your other arguments that people can make enough isk to PvP without sanctums and havens, HACs will still be bought in quantity as people learn to make isk via, exploration, belt ratting mining, PI, mid class moon mining ect. Again this is your own argument that people can make isk just fine without sanctums/haves since they did before dominion. How about you do a price comparison of frequently used HACs before dominion and now? I think that would be a factual argument to help your case. Is it a 20% difference in price? or a 2-3x difference in price?
Tau Prime Black Barrel Black Habitat	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:37:00 - [2425] Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja harden the fck up nobody complained when there wasn't perma sanctums, people were happily belt ratting and still getting isk. but now _some ppl_ cant get their pve nyxes anymore so easily bu-hu ^^This. Might actually be able to find a target at a belt now. That would be nice. Belt ratting was just fine for most before dominion. All I can see really changing here is the fact that every tom *** and harry will no longer have a carrier or faction fitted t3 to carebear it up in. There is a ridiculous amount of money floating around post dominion. The only band that is losing havens and sanctums all together is the 0.0 to -0.2. There will still be high end sights everywhere else that will respawn as soon as completed with the appropriate upgrades from what I understand. There just wont be one haven for everyone at all times. There are still plenty of options for generating isk. WH raiding, mining, manufacturing, belt ratting, PI, supplying markets and market manipulation just to name some. Just because ccp is thinning out the the havens and sanctums does not mean that everyone has to go back to lvl-4ing it in highsec. Just my 2c. Guess I'm neither for or against this. I just don't see what the big deal is. There are other things to do to make more money with less effort in eve. It was to big of an 'easy mode' isk faucet to begin with and prob will continue to be so.
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:38:00 - [2426] Originally by: DogTeeth Petitioned. I'll have my subscription monies back please CCP. Byeeeeeeeeee I think you guys should wait until the patch comes out and takes effect before you start cancelling accounts and what not. Because for all you know they might roll back on it, change how it effects each ranking of true sec or some other ****. Unless ofcourse, you are a true winner
Vorlon Kosh	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:42:00 - [2427] Ive got a beter idea why dont CCP just nerf everything that can make a player isk to go PVP. They might as well as this will in all likleyhood kill more than 60% of players who will have a source of isk income removed from them to carry on. Increase PVP, lol your just going to kill it dead in its tracks, it seems CCP has a total lack of understanding surrounding the economics of its own creation and how things actually work in 0.0 space. EvE is about to bleed a lot of players because they cannot exist within it anymore. CCP Zymurgist you need to look at this again as all it is going to do is to harm Eve not improve it.
Adrasta	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:43:00 - [2428] Edited by: Adrasta on 02/04/2011 21:44:36 Originally by: Prester Tom It seems DRF space will be getting the best of the new anomaly set-up. Because they need more isk. If only you actually knew what you were talking about...
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:45:00 - [2429] Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 02/04/2011 21:06:53 Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Lt Pizi you need to accept the fact that the game is currently moving away from npc injected isk so as sooner you accept this and look for alternative ways to generate income , the more fun you will have in the future Lt Pizi, I don't know if you still recall me when I was with you guys (miss DR a lot). Your reply is the same I have seen in the past 15 years, given by those who achieved end game objectives by adapting vs those crying in a corner, unable to react. what you mean by that is bot and have a salvage alt running round like a dog on a lead picking up all your npc kills. then transport it and sell it. an awful lot of effort just to enjoy the end game. Your reply shows your limited understanding of ISK making opportunities. Just because YOU waste countless hours grinding, and on top of that having the fruits of your hard work robbed away by your landlord in the form of taxes, doesnt mean other people do this. What you make in 10 hours grinding sanctums (before your landlord takes his share), other people make in one hour plexing. Fact is, you are not only wasting your own time, but with your easy mode petty cash making concept you are bolstering the wallets of the big players that allow you to exist in their domain. You are hurting your very own cause in the long run, you are hurting the game economy, and you are hurting your enjoyment of the game. Once this change is a week or two old, you will have adapted (or ragequit), and with the new exploration site changes coming be better off than ever before as your landlord wont steal your hard earned cash anymore so easily. Please enlighten me at who to have super dooper efficiency playing a game once i have about 2 hours left through the day to play eve.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:51:00 - [2430] Originally by: Klam Controlling the flow of a product is beneficial to the long run of an entity in control of that product. Again see diamond markets. So this isn't a "cutting one's own throat" The diamond market works because one company controls the overwhelming majority of the market. Your alliance leader does not control the overwhelming majority of the market. Thus, if he withholds his stock while his competitors are still selling, he cuts his own throat. Quote: Moon Goo itself is getting the nerf? or the way it's mined supplied to eve is getting the nerf? Care to supply evidence to this? I'd say that no player knows and CCP hasn't yet hinted as far as I've seen - and I'm pretty well up on most of the hints they throw. But the one hint that seems to be coming through loud and clear is that CCP is taking an eye to pushing through potentially unpopular changes with regards to the nullsec industrial landscape. And what is more important to that than moon goo? But as you say - at this point nothing has been confirmed. But just enough has been said that I'd be getting really antsy about holding back my stocks of moon goo in hopes of higher profits in the future. Quote: Based on your other arguments that people can make enough isk to PvP without sanctums and havens, HACs will still be bought in quantity as people learn to make isk via, exploration, belt ratting mining, PI, mid class moon mining ect. Again this is your own argument that people can make isk just fine without sanctums/haves since they did before dominion. How about you do a price comparison of frequently used HACs before dominion and now? I think that would be a factual argument to help your case. Is it a 20% difference in price? or a 2-3x difference in price? Hmmmmm: - I remember buying an Ishtar for ~55M ISK before Dominion. For much more than that, I'd have to go digging through market logs most likely. - People will still make enough ISK to PVP, but they probably won't be able to make enough ISK to ** away T2 ships like they're cheap beer. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Adrasta	Posted - 2011.04.02 21:51:00 - [2431] Originally by: Daemonspirit Edited by: Daemonspirit on 02/04/2011 21:25:00 Originally by: Hemmo Paskiainen CCP prob saw the plex usuage rise and got less $$ cause people farming too much sanctums. Why should they go to your corp, when you don't even know how plex work? Or this guy: Originally by: Green Cobra PLEX system, horrible thing that kill EVE in the long run. It should not be possible to buy subscription time with ISK Well plex as an idea is pretty terrible tbh. Its basically CCP's way to make sure the monkeys (us) keep injecting cash into their **ehole game. You need more isk? Why don't you buy a plex or 4? You need to pay for sub - well there's plex! And in the meantime we'll keep making it harder and harder to actually get any isk and thus make you inject more and more cash. Very good plan if money is what you're after don't you think? I mean I have so much iskies across my accounts that I really couldn't give a ** about this change but I kinda agree that "lets make all newbie alliances farm cruisers and frigs in anomalies" initiative is a bit warped. (Lets make them buy more PLEX!). So basically people will head back to belts. So we'll go back to "good old days" of farming for weeks to get anywhere. Old players like me won't but I'm sure it'll be a lot of "fun" trying to start up in null...
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:00:00 - [2432] Edited by: StuRyan on 02/04/2011 22:02:34 Originally by: Liang Nuren Hmmmmm: - I remember buying an Ishtar for ~55M ISK before Dominion. For much more than that, I'd have to go digging through market logs most likely. - People will still make enough ISK to PVP, but they probably won't be able to make enough ISK to **** away T2 ships like they're cheap beer. -Liang I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve. You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:04:00 - [2433] Originally by: StuRyan I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve. You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing. "Ok, so when StuRyan buys his first Ishtar..." GTFO. GB2/WOW. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:05:00 - [2434] Quote: This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have just stated the base of dissenting arguments as succinctly as anyone, so lets talk about it. The Rich Alliances are only gonna get richer - Not true. Renters aren't going to pay what they are paying now for lesser space. In fact, they may not want to pay anything for it. Renter corps will therefor defect from their non-agression / support pacts because it's just not worth it. This will reduce the size of great alliances, and have a negative impact on the number of available pilots and amount of resources available to them. How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances (redacted)? - It's not. Those corps that no longer can afford to rent will covet the larger alliances space, and if those bigger alliances drop their guard for a second alliances that might otherwise have been renters will pounce on them like a fat kid on a cupcake. Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenance on top. - While it's true that those smaller alliances will suffer from reduced gains, I think greed will now motivate them to break from their now far less attractive non-aggression pacts and instead take what is "rightfully theirs". It's about reducing comfort zones, increasing paranoia and fear, and instigating conflict. ofcource the large alliances ar gonna get richer. you were just told that the space ith the highest 0.0 number is going to get a buff while the lower is gonna get a neft. Thats simpl mathmatics there. On the second point, how is it the smaller alliances are gonna take out these monster alliances? Are you mad? If they havent taken them out now that they have almost equal number for the sanctums, how is it you think they can afford to do so when they have less isk....Or are you suggesting we all go and buy plex to fund an invasion that can take several months? On the third. You think you can take whats "rightfully yours" when you are outmatched in very sence of the way to these large coalitions alliances? You can sur pvp but you wont have th allet to found a campaign specially against a blob and all today restrictions with large numbers in system. Obviously you think you can go and attack the NC by yourself with an alliance and think you will get even a portion of their space and somehow in vs a huge economy, and vs huge numbers and vs all time zone coverage? I think you need to think this throught more. o7
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:07:00 - [2435] I still think that this is a half assed way of dealing with inflation. They should add more sinks. Fines, maybe? Isk fee to use Jump bridges? There are many possible ways to passively take isk out of the game.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:08:00 - [2436] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve. You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing. "Ok, so when StuRyan buys his first Ishtar..." GTFO. GB2/WOW. LOL nice mature reply.... if you can not grasp the concept of evolution and inflation your playing the wrong game and i invite you to GTFO and go play WOW
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:09:00 - [2437] Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve. You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing. "Ok, so when StuRyan buys his first Ishtar..." GTFO. GB2/WOW. LOL nice mature reply.... if you can not grasp the concept of evolution and inflation your playing the wrong game and i invite you to GTFO and go play WOW You do realize I spent the last 80 pages explaining to you 0.0 noobs how the economy works? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Davlin Thrace	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:11:00 - [2438] Dear CCP unfortunetly i only have time for a a short reply atm.. This disregard to ur customers is a disgrace and the only people who wont be affected by these changes are the "bots" and people running missions in Empire.. Why not nerf some of these instead? A vibrant and fun 0.0 will only be possible if there are possibilites of making isk for the avarage guy out there, by making new DED sites u help maybe 1 guy a day, the guy who probes it.. Sanctums are for every1, the other ****e ur applying wont be.. U fail in every regard on this update :( Take ur head out of ur ass, please..
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:11:00 - [2439] Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN Quote: This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have just stated the base of dissenting arguments as succinctly as anyone, so lets talk about it. The Rich Alliances are only gonna get richer - Not true. Renters aren't going to pay what they are paying now for lesser space. In fact, they may not want to pay anything for it. Renter corps will therefor defect from their non-agression / support pacts because it's just not worth it. This will reduce the size of great alliances, and have a negative impact on the number of available pilots and amount of resources available to them. How is this gonna force out the bigger alliances (redacted)? - It's not. Those corps that no longer can afford to rent will covet the larger alliances space, and if those bigger alliances drop their guard for a second alliances that might otherwise have been renters will pounce on them like a fat kid on a cupcake. Its the smaller and mid alliances that already have spent fortune in upgrading their systems and even then they still hav to deal with ho expensive its for them sov maintenance on top. - While it's true that those smaller alliances will suffer from reduced gains, I think greed will now motivate them to break from their now far less attractive non-aggression pacts and instead take what is "rightfully theirs". It's about reducing comfort zones, increasing paranoia and fear, and instigating conflict. ofcource the large alliances ar gonna get richer. you were just told that the space ith the highest 0.0 number is going to get a buff while the lower is gonna get a neft. Thats simpl mathmatics there. On the second point, how is it the smaller alliances are gonna take out these monster alliances? Are you mad? If they havent taken them out now that they have almost equal number for the sanctums, how is it you think they can afford to do so when they have less isk....Or are you suggesting we all go and buy plex to fund an invasion that can take several months? On the third. You think you can take whats "rightfully yours" when you are outmatched in very sence of the way to these large coalitions alliances? You can sur pvp but you wont have th allet to found a campaign specially against a blob and all today restrictions with large numbers in system. Obviously you think you can go and attack the NC by yourself with an alliance and think you will get even a portion of their space and somehow in vs a huge economy, and vs huge numbers and vs all time zone coverage? I think you need to think this throught more. o7 Ya if you cant field a supercap fleet, you have almost no chance of getting ur hands on that space. It makes me think if this is a way for the powers that be in Null sec to further secure their position. Its a Conspiracy.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:17:00 - [2440] Edited by: StuRyan on 02/04/2011 22:21:51 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan I remember housese being sold for average 120k now the same houses are being sold for 180K - thats evolution and thats inflation. Same thing has happened in eve. You dont see someone interfering with that but what you do see is more help for those branded as first time buyers. that more like what should happeneing. "Ok, so when StuRyan buys his first Ishtar..." GTFO. GB2/WOW. LOL nice mature reply.... if you can not grasp the concept of evolution and inflation your playing the wrong game and i invite you to GTFO and go play WOW You do realize I spent the last 80 pages explaining to you 0.0 noobs how the economy works? -Liang I understand perfectly how it works, try not to deflect away from the argument. This change will hurt everyone and it will hurt those in crap space the most. depending on how you play the game some may live in 0.0 to carebear that means some may have a small NDI and in effect less to spend on ships. you would hope these people have quite a bit of time on their hands and can get to a truesec system. However if you are the average player that can not physically spend a long time playing the game and have Real life commitments then obviously your NDI is going to be a lot less if you plan to pay for the game via plex. Over the months things will reduce and hopefully the reduction in price of ships and equipment will be so new people coming into the game can afford said ships. However i thought the price of something dictated your emotional connection to that ship and if the hope is to reduce isk in the game then surely the chest beating felt when losing said ship is also reduced. This has nothing to do with stimulating conflict, all you will get is people who plan to pay for the game joining alliances that have access to good true sec systems. If isk sinks are the issue there are other avenues to take to reduce the amount of isk in the game and one of those is not by hurting the rewards of living in 0.0,. Infact i seem to remember that "conflict makes the economy go round" /me is looking forward to seeing how the economy is going to sink after this patch.

Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:24:00 - [2441] Originally by: StuRyan I understand perfectly how it works, try not to deflect away from the argument. ... However i thought the price of something dictated your emotional connection to that ship and if the hope is to reduce isk in the game then surely the chest beating felt when losing said ship is also reduced. Wut. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:31:00 - [2442] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan I understand perfectly how it works, try not to deflect away from the argument. ... However i thought the price of something dictated your emotional connection to that ship and if the hope is to reduce isk in the game then surely the chest beating felt when losing said ship is also reduced. Wut. try to bear with me. When interviewed people who play eve say whats the difference between this mmo and other mmo's the answer was "the feeling of having an emotional attachmentment to assets". in other words you work hard save up then buy and if some **** scraps my car im gonna be incredibly upset. But if the value of that is so low where is the emotional attachment. 55m used to be a lot of isk then it was 550m then it was 5.5b that is evolution that is why people play eve - it is the emotional attachment to the game. i thought you would have understood that?
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:34:00 - [2443] Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ? If so -- http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now! in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1 Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM! Thank you Omgdutch2005 IEGEX Alliance Director
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:37:00 - [2444] Originally by: omgdutch2005 Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ? If so -- http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now! in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1 Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM! Thank you Omgdutch2005 IEGEX Alliance Director And what exactly can this petition accomplish that an 80+ page thread can't?
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:38:00 - [2445] Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN ofcource the large alliances ar gonna get richer. you were just told that the space ith the highest 0.0 number is going to get a buff while the lower is gonna get a neft. Thats simpl mathmatics there. On the second point, how is it the smaller alliances are gonna take out these monster alliances? Are you mad? If they havent taken them out now that they have almost equal number for the sanctums, how is it you think they can afford to do so when they have less isk....Or are you suggesting we all go and buy plex to fund an invasion that can take several months? On the third. You think you can take whats "rightfully yours" when you are outmatched in very sence of the way to these large coalitions alliances? You can sur pvp but you wont have th allet to found a campaign specially against a blob and all today restrictions with large numbers in system. Obviously you think you can go and attack the NC by yourself with an alliance and think you will get even a portion of their space and somehow in vs a huge economy, and vs huge numbers and vs all time zone coverage? I think you need to think this throught more. o7 Dang dude you can't even type. Well... maybe YOU will have trouble figuring it out, but a competent alliance leader will not. The larger alliance will become smaller because renters will defect. Read - the - post. K? Just read it. Then re-read it, instead of sputtering poorly thought out drivel. The Larger alliance will have more bang bang per capita, because yah they are now smaller (read: less mouths to feed means more isk for them on a pilot to pilot level) and making more (again, relatively speaking... they'll actually making less gross though since there are less pilots overall generating isk, and really complexes are but a small fraction of what any respectable alliance takes in), but from a macro level they will have lost numbers. This will encourage other former renters to band together to take them out. It'll be kind of democratic in that way, and keeping neighbors (at least most of them) happy will be of greater concern to those with power. Yes alliances in poorer space are going to have a tough time cracking a more powerful alliances shell. That's why the more powerful alliance is there... and why those other alliances even want it. That may require a coalition of some type be formed to take them out. They will not be attacking superior numbers with their coalition anymore since the coalitions will be made up of defectors. That pretty much addresses every concern in your lame post, G money. Just take a deep breath and use your noggin. You'll figure it out and perhaps be successful if your plotting and planning are on, or you will be unsuccessful if you pick and choose what to cognate as you seem to be doing with my post. [:p "A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."
omgdutch2005 Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:38:00 - [2446] Originally by: UJust Lost TheGAME Originally by: omgdutch2005 Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ? If so -- http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now! in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1 Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM! Thank you Omgdutch2005 IEGEX Alliance Director And what exactly can this petition accomplish that an 80+ page thread can't? you can only vote 1x, and if you dont try its never gonna do stuff int he 1st place... petition can be handed over to csm (maybe they can help)
Quartex Gallente Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:39:00 - [2447] Nul sec should be where the end game is played. It always has been. We used to fight for it to get the conquerable stations, access to the best mining, to the legendary Officer spawns, to chain the three bs npc spawn, then to build the capital ships right up to where we are now with the super moons and their glorious goo. CCP have always wanted more players in nulsec. Alliances and space infrastructure has been the method to do it. Moon Goo and taxation provides the cash to help an Alliance keep its Corporations together and for them in turn to satisfy their pilots with free ships and organised PvP. Also to fund Jump bridges and jammers to help individual pilots and Fleets move about more easily. Clone jumps did a similar thing... what a Godsend. We are all going to have to adapt to the changes coming in. Alliances wanting to establish themselves in nulsec will find plenty of places to develop in and then work to form coalitions of Alliances that existing Alliances could not ignore. I have sympathy with the challenge of building a Cap Fleet significant enough to take down an existing nulsec Cap fleet but these things aren't static even if they seem so over the last year or two. The established Alliances got where they are and have stayed there through more than their Cap Fleets alone. My general plea for nulsec is to keep things dangerous. Individual pilots should be able to make more than in any Empire activity but the local channel should be removed. Moon goo is hard to bot, so should stay but belt rats should be beefed up, with the odd Sansha strength spawn to hurt botters. Worm holes should have been new space but with the same limitations, risks and rewards in play as today...this could still be changed. The current Alliances couldn't stretch to dominate this too and if they tried they'd be more open to attack elsewhere in their Empire. If that's impossible then bring in yet more space but make it hardwork and un-bottable, make it different. Oh and Sansha's should degrade moon mining POS, to add to the challenge.
SingMi	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:50:00 - [2448] I small a rat...NC will be a powerbloc again... Anybody checked what systems are hit the least? Suspicious eh? I will be unsubscribing on my 4 accounts and EON magazine once this chance goes through
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.02 22:52:00 - [2449] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 22:53:05 Originally by: StuRyan try to bear with me. When interviewed people who play eve say whats the difference between this mmo and other mmo's the answer was "the feeling of having an emotional attachmentment to assets". in other words you work hard save up then buy and if some ** scraps my car im gonna be incredibly upset. But if the value of that is so low where is the emotional attachment. 55m used to be a lot of isk then it was 550m then it was 5.5b that is evolution that is why people play eve - it is the emotional attachment to the game. i thought you would have understood that? Ok, sure. But I think you'll find that there are lots of static costs, and lots of things that don't scale with inflation in the same way. -Liang Ed: Originally by:** Quartex Nul sec should be where the end game is played. Says who? 0.0 is one mindless blob after another - I'm not sure why anyone would consider that the end game of Eve. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
LestaatLioncourt	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:01:00 - [2450] Originally by: Gogela Dang dude you can't even type. Well... maybe YOU will have trouble figuring it out, but a competent alliance leader will not. The larger alliance will become smaller because renters will defect. Read - the - post. K? Just read it. Then re-read it, instead of sputtering poorly thought out drivel. The Larger alliance will have more bang bang per capita, because yah they are now smaller (read: less mouths to feed means more isk for them on a pilot to pilot level) and making more (again, relatively speaking... they'll actually making less gross though since there are less pilots overall generating isk, and really complexes are but a small fraction of what any respectable alliance takes in), but from a macro level they will have lost numbers. This will encourage other former renters to band together to take them out. It'll be kind of democratic in that way, and keeping neighbors (at least most of them) happy will be of greater concern to those with power. Yes alliances in poorer space are going to have a tough time cracking a more powerful alliances shell. That's why the more powerful alliance is there... and why those other alliances even want it. That may require a coalition of some type be formed to take them out. They will not be attacking superior numbers with their coalition anymore since the coalitions will be made up of defectors. That pretty much addresses every concern in your lame post, G money. Just take a deep breath and use your noggin. You'll figure it out and perhaps be successful if your plotting and planning are on, or you will be unsuccessful if you pick and choose what to cognate as you seem to be doing with my post. [:p Yeah but the larger alliance will be with LESS pilots and there will be NO SMALL ALLIANCES at ALL cause of less incomes from null sec. It's pretty simple to understand.

StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:03:00 - [2451] Edited by: StuRyan on 02/04/2011 23:03:45 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: StuRyan try to bear with me. When interviewed people who play eve say whats the difference between this mmo and other mmo's the answer was "the feeling of having an emotional attachmentment to assets". in other words you work hard save up then buy and if some **** scraps my car im gonna be incredibly upset. But if the value of that is so low where is the emotional attachment. 55m used to be a lot of isk then it was 550m then it was 5.5b that is evolution that is why people play eve - it is the emotional attachment to the game. i thought you would have understood that? Ok, sure. But I think you'll find that there are lots of static costs, and lots of things that don't scale with inflation in the same way. -Liang So lets take a look at those. and a FYI are there not commodities in the real economy that don't scale inflation in the same way either? said static costs are the things that should be adjusted. e.g. a price for using JB's would be a perfect way to take isk out of the game. It also would be an incredibly easy way to increase conflict becuase people may use gates more instead of using the travel free JB. this is not saying take them away it is a way of saying impose a cost. Another one is to impose a cost of travelling from gate to gate stupid i know but if too much isk in the game is the issue that would help to reduce it. really more thought should go into this. NDI depending on how you play the game is going to hurt and it could get to the point where no one can afford to actually play the game. (not pay for it in game but actually play the game with they way ccp want us to)
David Barr Caldari Barr Heavy Industries STR8NGE BREW	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:05:00 - [2452] More importantly, will this show as a FWI spike?
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:08:00 - [2453] Originally by: Liang Nuren I'm not sure why anyone would consider that the end game of Eve. you think 1000 v 1000 and coming to COAD to ***** about lag not the end game?
Panizia	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:09:00 - [2454] CCP to mistake the sov-system.
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:22:00 - [2455] Originally by: Gogela Dang dude you can't even type. Well... maybe YOU will have trouble figuring it out, but a competent alliance leader will not. The larger alliance will become smaller because renters will defect. Read - the - post. K? Just read it. Then re-read it, instead of sputtering poorly thought out drivel. The Larger alliance will have more bang bang per capita, because yah they are now smaller (read: less mouths to feed means more isk for them on a pilot to pilot level) and making more (again, relatively speaking... they'll actually making less gross though since there are less pilots overall generating isk, and really complexes are but a small fraction of what any respectable alliance takes in), but from a macro level they will have lost numbers. This will encourage other former renters to band together to take them out. It'll be kind of democratic in that way, and keeping neighbors (at least most of them) happy will be of greater concern to those with power. Yes alliances in poorer space are going to have a tough time cracking a more powerful alliances shell. That's why the more powerful alliance is there... and why those other alliances even want it. That may require a coalition of some type be formed to take them out. They will not be attacking superior numbers with their coalition anymore since the coalitions will be made up of defectors. That pretty much addresses every concern in your lame post, G money. Just take a deep breath and use your noggin. You'll figure it out and perhaps be successful if your plotting and planning are on, or you will be unsuccessful if you pick and choose what to cognate as you seem to be doing with my post. [:p Alliances become smaller? How can these big alliances become smaller hen they already on a huge amount of the 0.0 space? It certainly did not happen in the last patch where CCP in all their wisdom thought it would. So by filling up/faster isk making of the large alliances, you somehow expect that they are just gonna get rid of their numbers cos its would not be profitable for them. Just take a look at th sov map. Look at the large portions of space these coalitions hold. Do you think they are just gonna let go of people and leave them empty? Nonsence. One thing that eve has tought us, it that everything counts in this game. Large numbers, time span accross different time zones, supper caps all these count. You cant wage a war on all time zones with less people? Specially now days that wars are very time zone oriented. We have seen in th last invasion of the north huge campaings and this is with people with more or less the same isk income. How long it lasted? several months, at a cost of trillions for each side. At the end, what was the result? Basically very little was accompished cos the biggger alliances can hold the ground with supper caps. Now all these smaller alliances. how many supper caps do you think they have? Better, how often they can afford to replace them? Your finance doesnt add up and neither the idea of getting rid of large portions of people from these monstera alliances cos its counter productive specially when its timezone wars. Your whole idea is flaud. No offence. o7
Samurai Okie Helljumpers En Garde	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:22:00 - [2456] I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:34:00 - [2457] Originally by: Samurai Okie I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful Wow, really? Maybe you should take some meds/not take a game so seriously.
Asuri Kinnes Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:37:00 - [2458] Originally by: Erichk Knaar Originally by: Samurai Okie I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful Wow, really? Maybe you should take some meds/not take a game so seriously. Yeah dude, that might be a bit harsh... for a computer game and all... bye the way... when's the next time your headed to Jita? Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist NO!
UJust Lost TheGAME	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:47:00 - [2459] Originally by: Erichk Knaar Originally by: Samurai Okie I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful Wow, really? Maybe you should take some meds/not take a game so seriously. I too would like some of these said meds.
BirdInfluenza	Posted - 2011.04.02 23:52:00 - [2460] Where are the CSM to put a stop to this?

CraZyDudE2	Posted - 2011.04.03 00:15:00 - [2461] Edited by: CraZyDudE2 on 03/04/2011 00:16:11 Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 22:53:05 Originally by: StuRyan try to bear with me. When interviewed people who play eve say whats the difference between this mmo and other mmo's the answer was "the feeling of having an emotional attachmentment to assets". in other words you work hard save up then buy and if some ** scraps my car im gonna be incredibly upset. But if the value of that is so low where is the emotional attachment. 55m used to be a lot of isk then it was 550m then it was 5.5b that is evolution that is why people play eve - it is the emotional attachment to the game. i thought you would have understood that? Ok, sure. But I think you'll find that there are lots of static costs, and lots of things that don't scale with inflation in the same way. -Liang Ed: Originally by:** Quartex Nul sec should be where the end game is played. Says who? 0.0 is one mindless blob after another - I'm not sure why anyone would consider that the end game of Eve. Wind ya kneck in Liang ! - So i take it you don't live in 0:0 ? so don't comment on it, This don't concern you so why try argue the toss with players that it does concern and will affect.. Stick to empire eh! Goodbye
Asuri Kinnes Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.04.03 00:23:00 - [2462] Originally by: CraZyDudE2 Wind ya kneck in Liang ! - So i take it you don't live in 0:0 ? so don't comment on it, This don't concern you so why try argue the toss with players that it does concern and will affect.. Stick to empire eh!Goodbye So by that reasoning, I guess there will be no more "move level 4's to lowsec/nullsec" bleats? Thought not.... Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist NO!
Mordus Sith Kickurass Industries	Posted - 2011.04.03 00:29:00 - [2463] Originally by: CraZyDudE2 Edited by: CraZyDudE2 on 03/04/2011 00:16:11 Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2011 22:53:05 Originally by: StuRyan try to bear with me. When interviewed people who play eve say whats the difference between this mmo and other mmo's the answer was "the feeling of having an emotional attachmentment to assets". in other words you work hard save up then buy and if some ** scraps my car im gonna be incredibly upset. But if the value of that is so low where is the emotional attachment. 55m used to be a lot of isk then it was 550m then it was 5.5b that is evolution that is why people play eve - it is the emotional attachment to the game. i thought you would have understood that? Ok, sure. But I think you'll find that there are lots of static costs, and lots of things that don't scale with inflation in the same way. -Liang Ed: Originally by:** Quartex Nul sec should be where the end game is played. Says who? 0.0 is one mindless blob after another - I'm not sure why anyone would consider that the end game of Eve. Wind ya kneck in Liang ! - So i take it you don't live in 0:0 ? so don't comment on it, This don't concern you so why try argue the toss with players that it does concern and will affect.. Stick to empire eh! Goodbye and you are 0.0, according to your char details you're in an npc corp??
Sadie Heluene	Posted - 2011.04.03 01:41:00 - [2464] i really dont see the point in this; its already very difficult to make isk, almost impossible to pay for 0.0 pvp even when you rat with 2-3 chars every day for 3+ hours straight (which often causes you not to have time for the pvp you are making the isk for). if you want to increase the diversity in value of 0.0 systems, you should boost the -0.8 to -1.0 systems, not nerf the normal ones. people are tired and bored of ratting every day, and if there would be a easier way to make isk, everyone would want to do so: the result would be the same but be less annoying and maintain balance. when you say "26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more." that just makes me laugh; "one or more" systems arent anything when you considder the incredible amount of 0.0 players who need to rat, many regions wont have more then perhaps 4-5 systems below -0.2. i would like to say at this point that alot of people will simply not rat at all and mine instead if they cant run sanctums; already now its possible to make about the same isk x hour mining in a good hulk as ratting in a t3/marauder. but who will buy the ships and modules build by this new generation of industrialists and pvpers? if you still want to go through with those changes, i would recommend not to do it (i believe this is what you are planning to do) over night. this will be a very violent intervention in 0.0 life in general, and you should introduce it gradually - ideally give people another perspective instead of changing peoples income over night from very little to almost none. i am certain such an action would make many, many of your customers really unhappy, which is, i believe, not the objective of updates. please reconsider. Ishar.
Salar Sjet	Posted - 2011.04.03 02:13:00 - [2465] In my view, this change is stupid and looks like a joke. But unfortunately, the CCP already announced the change to the next April 5th, in keeping with an authoritarian decision without giving a damn about 80 pages of protests from their customers. It's a shame, a company that says so much appreciate your customers, make decisions that affect their clients, completely ignorant, showing that they do not care a damn what your customers think. I'm really disappointed, until now, I thought the CCP was different from most other gaming companies, which in most, detonate their customers, without shame in the face. Until now, I believed that the CCP really cared about their customers and give value for suggestions and complaints. Unfortunately, I was mistaken and the CCP is proving to be just another company that does not really matter with your customers. I'm really disappointed.
Nuramori Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.04.03 03:01:00 - [2466] Coming in late, but why not have the tru-sec value be dynamic and not static. Let the system tru-sec in null be based on a number of factors such as distance from hi-sec, sov status, and importantly, traffic and ratting activity. This would then have systems that are actively farmed become "safer" and over time raise tru sec status andnlower value. Systems that don't see activity would become progressively more dangerous as pirates infest, and lower tru sec. This woukd have a secondary benefit of diminishing botting activity as it woukd be fished out. It would force people to travel in search of juicier areas less travelled and get people to get out of their habitual rinse and repeat behavior and get people to take more risks in search of better systems. Areas that until now have been crappy (providence) for ratting would get "better" as they are no longer static.
Abramul Gallente StarFleet Enterprises -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.03 03:34:00 - [2467] I would like to modestly propose a few changes to NPC corps and missions: -Characters should automatically be moved to an NPC corp after a month in a school corp -NPC corps other than school corps should be subject to faction war declarations -Missions in highsec should generate a scannable anomaly or beacon Expected consequences Some players will immediately start wanting to look for better corporations In the longer run, there'll be more wardecs going on, with more localized goals Newer players will have an easier time getting a foothold in highsec Salvage will be marginally less wasted Mission runners will have to choose more carefully what space they operate in, where their staging systems are, and so on (mission hubs will have more mercenary and ninja activity)
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.03 03:39:00 - [2468] Originally by: Samurai Okie I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful I think you should see a medical professional immediately. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Sefria	Posted - 2011.04.03 03:40:00 - [2469] Quote: * 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) Ok this has all probably been said and said again and again in this ginormous thread but I just wanna get my thoughts out there as well. 1, Yes some alliances will start looking for better space. ( Until the few good areas of space are taken by the power alliances) 2, No there will not be more conflict in the long run (There will be more conflict in the short run as the big power alliances take over the said few remaining areas of good space, once they have them conflict will drop back to normal.) 3, Sure the newer alliances will have an easier time of getting a foothold in null space. (But only because the only space they can get will be vacant and mostly forgotten, which in turn will cause the newer/weaker alliances to more than likely just either disband and their members join the bigger power alliances in order to gain access to the "good space" or the entire alliance just gets absorbed by the power alliances which just ends up making them even bigger and more annoying.) 4, Coalitions will be marginally less stable, (then why worry about it in the first place?) 5, Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, (Well not really, alliances will just drop their crappy space making it vacant and useless, so it's not really a matter of "choosing more carefully" as it is just cutting the fat and for the big power alliances EASILY taking from whoever they want the good space, which as stated in number 1 will be the short term conflict. Now in some of your responses CCP you stated that you are confident in your models to work in the long run and for the most part you are correct in that assumption. But mainly because you are obviously aware that you WILL in fact loose subs and you WILL make the game less fun for current players that do stay, Your long term models I have to assume are based on the fact that there will always be new player to replace the ones that drop subs that just don't know any better or the way it used to be so it won't be an issue for them. Now I have to say on a personal note about your responses, that I kind of felt like mommy and daddy CCP were telling son and daughter players that (We are the mommy and daddy and we know whats best for you regardless of what you think and don't worry it will be all better once you grow up and are replaced by new children) Now I understand that you want to create more conflict in null sec and that is very admirable and a good idea all around I mean the game is supposed to be mostly a PVP based game. But instead of nerfing the anoms and ruining in some cases entire alliances who may have at some time actually become a decent power house why not focus on trying to actually making a real reason to PVP other than just for the sake of it. Such as actually make PVP somewhat profitable, currently PVP is only profitable if the player who dies actually had something worth while and it actually drops for the killers. How about something like random loot drops from players based on several variable like players sec status, age, number of kills that type of thing, then you could even add in a bounty on everybody who kills anybody in null, so that the more people you kill the higher your bounty can go on top of any player made bounties. I'm sure with a bit of tweaking something like that could work and would encourage more PVP I know they arent the greatest ideas in current form. Well got to go as I am now out of space. Flame on ya'll
Meridith Akesia Stimulus	Posted - 2011.04.03 03:55:00 - [2470] Everyone mad.

Kandarus Minmatar Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:02:00 - [2471] Haha, CCP announcing this online while people were at fanfest reminds me of the US government instating the Federal Reserve Act during Christmas vacation. History's funny when it repeats itself eh? Don't take away our gold backed currency ... er, Sanctums and Havens!
Sefria	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:11:00 - [2472] Quote: Haha, CCP announcing this online while people were at fanfest reminds me of the US government instating the Federal Reserve Act during Christmas vacation. History's funny when it repeats itself eh? Hmmm I hadn't thought of it like that but you are absolutely correct sir.
Scribbly	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:24:00 - [2473] Cannot believe CCP will be putting this in...ridiculous, just shows that they don't give a damn. When is star wars out?
kasai zenpachi	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:25:00 - [2474] Edited by: kasai zenpachi on 03/04/2011 04:24:59 ok have the DEV who came up with this dumb idea at leats said something or did he jet start this topic and forgot about?
Sefria	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:33:00 - [2475] Quote: Cannot believe CCP will be putting this in...ridiculous, just shows that they don't give a damn. When is star wars out? Star wars has been out for a while now, like 4 years or more i think, but don't bother I think ccp devs worked on that game as well because it was killed a while ago with the "new game experience" Such a pity it was a pretty good game.
F'C	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:34:00 - [2476] IBTL
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:36:00 - [2477] Originally by: kasai zenpachi Edited by: kasai zenpachi on 03/04/2011 04:24:59 ok have the DEV who came up with this dumb idea at leats said something or did he jet start this topic and forgot about? I am hoping that you would "at leats said something" about the question I asked you, or did you jet post that and forgot about? Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: kasai zenpachi we use expensive ships and lose thing with out problem Wait a minute, you want to use expensive ships and lose without problem.... just because you are in 0.0? why? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Just because you want to field carriers and dreadnoughts, doesn't mean you have to have the option to farm for a day or two, and return in fully fitted carriers to participate in a 1000 v 1000, and then come to COAD and ***** at CCP to fix lag. If you're in 0.0 and want more rewards, fine! But that doesn't mean you should get many many times the reward the empire has to offer just because you are in 0.0
Pedro Snachez Senex Legio	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:42:00 - [2478] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Samurai Okie I feel like going to iceland and doing a columbine to CCP headquaters. YOu might as well of rolled back the server to 2009 would have been less painful I think you should see a medical professional immediately. -Liang I have disagreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread Liang... ...until now.
cpu939 Gallente Strategic Syndicate -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:47:00 - [2479] ok so I have already done my part of saying this is a bull** idea. so why am I posting again well fan fest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibb1M0Ty7es#t=4m06son the screen points 3 and 4, Also lack of communication (3) We've improved (4) while 3 is true 4 is pure bull** you need to do better. 3 replies and the last one we are do it so there, none of the question that players are asked getting answered The biggest being how are you see this as a good thing for small alliance to start out in 0.0? after they have a foot hold how do you see them gaining the isk for a prolonged war with this less income? there are more but its almost 6am my time and my brain has switched off please reply greyscale or any other dev from his team 01010011 01110100 01110010 01100001 01110100 01100101 01100111 01101001 01100011 00100000 01010011 01111001 01101110 01100100 01101001 01100011 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01001101 01100101 01
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 04:51:00 - [2480] Originally by: Abramul I would like to modestly propose a few changes to NPC corps and missions: -Characters should automatically be moved to an NPC corp after a month in a school corp -NPC corps other than school corps should be subject to faction war declarations -Missions in highsec should generate a scannable anomaly or beacon Expected consequences Some players will immediately start wanting to look for better corporations In the longer run, there'll be more wardecs going on, with more localized goals Newer players will have an easier time getting a foothold in highsec Salvage will be marginally less wasted Mission runners will have to choose more carefully what space they operate in, where their staging systems are, and so on (mission hubs will have more mercenary and ninja activity) 0.0 is meant to be more conflict driven than hi-sec, not for you nubs to have half the 0.0 sov holders napped. They are coming after your napfest soon, I hope. I'm betting that blog thread would have 200 pages in 2 days, calling it now.

Iambruce Gallente The Real OC Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 05:01:00 - [2481] Originally by: omgdutch2005 Are you too disgusted by the idea of getting rid of havens/sanctums in most if not all systems of IEGEX !! ? If so -- http://www.petitiononline.com/ieg2011/petition.html - sign the petition now! in case your wondering what it all is about... Read about it at: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=883 and http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1487231&page=1 Vote now! Boost the systems, not NERF THEM! Thank you Omgdutch2005 IEGEX Alliance Director Nice to see you posting the petition on the forums Dutch! Its just another way to get our voices heard.
Christopher AET Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 05:15:00 - [2482] yep. There is a former jagged director working on an API verified petition. Will post it up when it be ready!
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:02:00 - [2483] LAWN has failed to get access to better ratting space after tense negotiations with NC leadership. Please do the right thing and turn over sov to NC. on your way back to empire.
Alaren Planeswalker	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:03:00 - [2484] bump for a terrible idea. Don't make me go back to WoW or try Rift out. leave the null-sec anoms alone.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:11:00 - [2485] Originally by: Abramul I would like to modestly propose a few changes to NPC corps and missions: -Characters should automatically be moved to an NPC corp after a month in a school corp -NPC corps other than school corps should be subject to faction war declarations -Missions in highsec should generate a scannable anomaly or beacon Expected consequences Some players will immediately start wanting to look for better corporations In the longer run, there'll be more wardecs going on, with more localized goals Newer players will have an easier time getting a foothold in highsec Salvage will be marginally less wasted Mission runners will have to choose more carefully what space they operate in, where their staging systems are, and so on (mission hubs will have more mercenary and ninja activity) applause CCP seem to be either out of touch with reality or possessing an ulterior motive. I would also hesitate to call EVOKE and NC. leaving their sov space in providence to go shoot at tech moon poses from an npc 0.0 station a positive example of "Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space"
Eurlan Eclipse Industrials Quantum Forge	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:24:00 - [2486] If its not broken, break it. I'm not going to try and predict what is and isn't going to happen as a "consequence" to plans that CCP has for anomalies. I'm just going to say: It seems there's more important things to focus on than yet another attempt to move the playerbase around. For the past few years, several of the changes made to the game have been focused on getting more players to move from high-sec into low or null sec space. Then they made changes to sov that consolidated the players into denser populations and gave us the ability to work together to increase the quality of our space. Perhaps one goal was achieved, some players did come out from high-sec carebearing to life in null space. Now CCP is trying to get the players who are in null, to move around again and consolidate even more. Then get newer players from high-sec to null in lame-duck space. There must be a master list somewhere of: "Things to try to get experienced players to all join one of two alliances."
Thenle Shadowcaster	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:42:00 - [2487] Canceling a newer account that I'm sure I will not need in the future. I will be dropping two more shortly. http://i53.tinypic.com/2z9meqh.png http://i51.tinypic.com/t9jmdg.png PS I didn't want this internet spaceship game anyways
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:45:00 - [2488] Originally by: Thenle Shadowcaster Canceling a newer account that I'm sure I will not need in the future. I will be dropping two more shortly. http://i53.tinypic.com/2z9meqh.png http://i51.tinypic.com/t9jmdg.png PS I didn't want this internet spaceship game anyways You are emo rage quitting because they took away for you to make easy isks?
Crazy Craven	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:48:00 - [2489] I have seen a few changes already since becoming a new player since December, and by learning all different aspects of EVE by reading online and in game/forum discussions actually got me interested to the point of purchasing additional characters from the forum (after using real money to get the GTC's converted to isk) and of course from that they needed setting up with ships, POS etc so that cost even more money for me to achieve. Now I recently joined NULL and again getting ready to learn PVP etc and now with all these changes I see nothing but negative responses from players both in game and on the forums, even beyond this forum. I think it's safe to say you have caused a little issue here, and more to the point, it's your customers that RUN/FUND your business, they pay for the servers and upgrades and your Christmas bonuses. You are going against what the majority of EVE players so far on the forums responded with, and you continue to say you are going ahead with it because of "this reason and that reason" / that's more like been in a court room not a discussion. I will happily let 2 of my accounts expire that I pay for as all I use them for is mining and manufacturing and it's somewhat hard as hell to make a profit on making ships atm as it is but it's something thats fun. But your changes are probably going to impact a lot of my resources, I guess it would be smarter to just use the one account I use to mission as that's all that going to be worth doing as that's the best source of income. Everything will be affected if you nerf the quality of NULL for players, nobody will want to be there if they can't have the goodies, it will trickle throughout the entire EVE food chain all the way from mineral prices to ships and modules and even blueprints as people will not want to mine somewhere that they have no protection, or build cap ships etc unless they have mass amounts of isk saved up, either way they will eventually drain those funds. I see CCP losing a lot of customers here to be honest, I will be honest in the fact I will still play, but not with 3 accounts if everything is going to be harder for me to do with my current eve career choices.
Thenle Shadowcaster	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:51:00 - [2490] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Thenle Shadowcaster Canceling a newer account that I'm sure I will not need in the future. I will be dropping two more shortly. http://i53.tinypic.com/2z9meqh.png http://i51.tinypic.com/t9jmdg.png PS I didn't want this internet spaceship game anyways You are emo rage quitting because they took away for you to make easy isks? I make zero isk via anomalies but many of my corp/alliance mates do rely on them. This will end up affecting me as my corp and alliance consider moving out of 0.0 since our space will no longer support our numbers.

Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:54:00 - [2491] Originally by: Crazy Craven You are going against what the majority of EVE players so far on the forums responded with, You mean majority of 0.0 carebear EVE players, plz fix your post. All 0.0 PvPers, no, not the mindless drone who participate in 1000 v 1000 PvPers, and everyone else in eve are either happpy, or not unhappy with this change.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.03 06:54:00 - [2492] This is the most ******ED idea I've ever read....and given the availability of ******ed things to read on the internet...that's impressive!
Tubolard The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:28:00 - [2493] I assume this idea came around to reduce lag. After all when no one can afford to pvp because you took away their income there will be less 0.0 fighting.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:39:00 - [2494] Originally by: Tubolard I assume this idea came around to reduce lag. After all when no one can afford to pvp because you took away their income there will be less 0.0 fighting. Are you implying that anomalies are the only means for income? oh wait, you probably meant the only means for easy income.
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:43:00 - [2495] Edited by: BinaryData on 03/04/2011 07:46:06 Originally by: Tubolard I assume this idea came around to reduce lag. After all when no one can afford to pvp because you took away their income there will be less 0.0 fighting. CCP actually cares more about high-sec than they do nullsec. Why do you think they beefed up the servers that host High-Sec places? If you really wanna ** CCP off. I will be hosting a Disco Dance. What to bring Dominix or another battleship similar. Massive amounts of cap boosters SmartBombs Resists to combat SmartBomb damage Goal: Crash EVE servers by spamming the Fck outta Jita with Concord. Message me for Questions :) Oh yeah, and for the person who said nullsec lags when you have lots of ships.. Go smack yourself in the face with the stupid paddle. OF COURSE ITS GOING TO LAG WHEN YOU HAVE 900 ING PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. And it's not CLIENT lag you imbeciles, it's CCP's TY servers. <sarcasm>My god, my eMachine could host this game 100x better.</sarcasm> CCP, Sincerely off and die you **ed ing **s. kthxbai Your Lost Customer
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:50:00 - [2496] Originally by: BinaryData OF COURSE ITS GOING TO LAG WHEN YOU HAVE 900 **ING PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. And it's not CLIENT lag you imbeciles, it's CCP's TY servers. 1000 v 1000 lag is fixed, you'll see 2000 v 2000, and then it'll still be laggy. OFF TO COAD TO ***! The real problem is the napfest, maybe they should look into not have half the 0.0 sov napped.
Dax Frey	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:54:00 - [2497] Dear CCP, For the love of all things holy....put down the crack pipe. We are begging you. Love Dax
Sa'Shena Amarr Nomad LLP Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:55:00 - [2498] I disagree with this change on the principle that there was no consultation with the CSM to refine the idea or to fish for alternatives. A lack of transparency when sweeping changes are made is never a good thing, because it sets a negative precedent for changing anything in the future, with no feedback from the customer whatsoever.
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:55:00 - [2499] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: BinaryData OF COURSE ITS GOING TO LAG WHEN YOU HAVE 900 **ING PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM. And it's not CLIENT lag you imbeciles, it's CCP's TY servers. 1000 v 1000 lag is fixed, you'll see 2000 v 2000, and then it'll still be laggy. OFF TO COAD TO ***! The real problem is the napfest, maybe they should look into not have half the 0.0 sov napped. Eh, I dunno about the 1000 vs 1000. Last NC vs DRF fight I was at, it was terrible. Not sure if it was client lag or server lag but when you jump 50AU's, somethings up. Sov Nap? Wtf you smokin'? You mean inactive systems that no one uses? You should have to keep a specific level to keep systems. There's soo many other things they can do. I will be affected by this change a lot. I just moved to nullsec, and started ratting. It's a stupid change. Everything they've "Predicted" won't happen. New Alliances will be shafted because they have no places to "conquer" and set their own sov. The larger alliances will just control the good systems, and you'll be screwed. CCP Stupidity +1 Player Intelligence -1 Stupid CCP..
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 07:56:00 - [2500] "'Ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin' on 'ere then?" Yeah we all wonder what kinda drugs you take. "At the time we decided to go with having upgrades have the same effect everywhere, to try and maximize the potential holding capacity of nullsec and give more people reason to live out there. Having given things time to settle down and find their new equilibrium, we're now revising our opinion on this decision." Excellent. After small alliances having planned to settle down in nullsec, spent time, effort and lots of hard earned isk, you decide that they should get patched out again. So all these guys learned was, that EvE is not a sandbox where players decisions make the rules but it is your little playground where they can loose everything over night, if some devs took the wrong drugs. "While it's been successful in making more space more useful, it's also become a damper on conflict in nullsec. With everywhere being essentially the same in terms of the value of key resources, once you've got yourself established in one patch of space there's little incentive to move elsewhere, because there's nowhere "better" to go. This is resulting in fewer drivers for conflict, both in terms of wars of conquest and also in terms of intra-coalition power struggles." Once again stop taking drugs. While you were sobbering on your desk completely stoned the whole EvE-Map changed. And concerning smaller alliances: They just didn¦t have enough time to make enough isk, build up their super cap productions and get in enough peeps from highsec to go at war with neighbours. Not even to speak about the fact that they didn¦t yet have enough time to learn how the nullsec warfare job is done propperly. So stop taking drugs or at least don¦t smoke and code. "It's also a concern that by making the traditionally less-valuable areas of space viable for long-term settlement, we're depriving new organizations of somewhere to start out." Fecking stop taking drugs. You state Dominion¦s been successful in making more space useful. So who do you think did use this more useful space other then "new organizations" that came from highsec and settled down in nullsec? "We're pretty happy with the increase in useful space, but having a densely populated nullsec is less important to us than having an interesting, vibrant and entertaining nullsec. Therefore, we're making some changes" In sum you just tell the newly settled organizations to f*** off after they have made their decisions to spent billions after billions in their systems. And how in the world if you are not over any edge stoned should there be an interesting, vibrant and entertaining nullsec with this ¦tarded patch? Imagine there is war and noone is there? But you are right you can take out your frig gang, run through 80% of nullsec, make a congo at any planet for hours and noone will ever disturb you. But then again you would only do so, if you really took the wrong drugs. "Expected consequences * Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space" Yes highsec. Some are already taking down their towers in nullsec. Well played CCP. "In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals" Yes more blob warfare about MOONS! With this sov mechanic any alliance would be completely stupid to go for sanctums as this would be a tremendous isk loss for no gain. They will just send peeps to mission run. You will make the big alliances fatter and annihilate the small ones. Once again well played in making nullsec interesting and vibrant. "Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec" Yeah if they really take the same stuff as you did and if they are into making a congo around their POS. For anything else this space will be worthless. "Coalitions will be marginally less stable" Bulls***. They will reduce some numbers and be even more stable.

BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:03:00 - [2501] Originally by: Antigue "'Ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin' on 'ere then?" Well said. I couldn't agree more. P.S. Disco Domi idea good or bad? Could I get banned from it?
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:06:00 - [2502] Originally by: BinaryData Eh, I dunno about the 1000 vs 1000. Last NC vs DRF fight I was at, it was terrible. Not sure if it was client lag or server lag but when you jump 50AU's, somethings up. Sov Nap? Wtf you smokin'? You mean inactive systems that no one uses? You should have to keep a specific level to keep systems. There's soo many other things they can do. I have no idea how this change is suppose to help new alliance, maybe they think since poor quality -0.25 to 0.00 is unattractive to larger alliance, new alliance might stand a chance at keeping it or pay less rent, whatever. But I somehow doubt this will help at all. As for the napfest comment, someone posted about how NC has like 50k players or something like that. Second highest is DRF, with something like 30k. Disco Domi? what exactly are you planning to do with it? kill some frigs/shuttles in Jita? You do know that Jita 4-4 has big docking range? Your resis on it will be the least of the problem when concord shows up 7 seconds later and insta nuke your ship.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:08:00 - [2503] Sure this move off CCP is going to have many additional bad effects to those they want to achieve but reading this: Quote: For the past few years, several of the changes made to the game have been focused on getting more players to move from high-sec into low or null sec space. I am quite sure CCP did not want to move former L4 bears in 0.0, they wanted to move the truly PvP players in 0.0. Something happened: at CCP they seem to have not noticed how modern MMO playerbase is made of weaklings in search for a comfy place to farm. So at CCP they expected wannabe Rambos to magically go to 0.0, grind anomalies and get enabled to furious PvP, where destruction keeps ISK flow in check and increase manufacturing volume of soon-to-explode new ships. What happened instead? That wannabe Winnie the Poos went to 0.0, grind like crazy and bot like crazy and generate 4-5 times more income than what they lose. Result: PLEXes skyrocketed, inflation started going out of control, EvE turned into WoR (World Of Renter) where the same system I'd pay 250M (including 1 mediocre moon) now is 3-4B a month. CCP went for 0.0 Rambos and all what they got is this Winnie the Poo shirt. Thus they are burning the bear. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:17:00 - [2504] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Sure this move off CCP is going to have many additional bad effects to those they want to achieve but reading this: Quote: For the past few years, several of the changes made to the game have been focused on getting more players to move from high-sec into low or null sec space. I am quite sure CCP did not want to move former L4 bears in 0.0, they wanted to move the truly PvP players in 0.0. Something happened: at CCP they seem to have not noticed how modern MMO playerbase is made of weaklings in search for a comfy place to farm. So at CCP they expected wannabe Rambos to magically go to 0.0, grind anomalies and get enabled to furious PvP, where destruction keeps ISK flow in check and increase manufacturing volume of soon-to-explode new ships. What happened instead? That wannabe Winnie the Poos went to 0.0, grind like crazy and bot like crazy and generate 4-5 times more income than what they lose. Result: PLEXes skyrocketed, inflation started going out of control, EvE turned into WoR (World Of Renter) where the same system I'd pay 250M (including 1 mediocre moon) now is 3-4B a month. CCP went for 0.0 Rambos and all what they got is this Winnie the Poo shirt. Thus they are burning the bear. 55 kills in lowsec... I rofled! Nice troll
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:22:00 - [2505] Originally by: Antigue 55 kills in lowsec... I rofled! Nice troll Not everyone participates in 1000 v 1000 to be in on 1000+ killmails doing 0.01% damages.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:24:00 - [2506] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Antigue 55 kills in lowsec... I rofled! Nice troll Not everyone participates in 1000 v 1000 to be in on 1000+ killmails doing 0.01% damages. Learn to read killboards! And now go on playing fanboy for changes that doesn¦t affect you in any way.
Squirrle	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:25:00 - [2507] Ok this is already having an effect Last night usually at least 51 thousand users on line when I logged in only 47 thousand users that was around 8pm last night So well done CCP looks like your improvements to the game are already starting to have an effect with people not logging. Well I suppose at least the lag will get better in the remaining fleet fights. has CCP greyscale tried living in 0.0 for a long time there is always roaming gangs around but you will not engage if the odds are against you this will happen even more as corps drop sov and go back to just ratting and only have one or two people in a system. Against a t2 nano gang with logi support you would be stupid to engage that with 2 people One other thing look at the costs for a rental corp:- 500 million rent for a crap system from one of the large alliances 1 billion to purchase and ihub and install the upgrades 86 million every 2 weeks for the Concord sov cost That is just for one system with basic upgrades why would a corp do it unless they have really high corp tax. that will then put off people wanting to join the corp as they can easily just set up a small mission corp with zero tax doing l4's lot more isk for those nice shinny ships So no Corp would want to stay in 0.0 unless they have a lot of members that are always active. Sorry not going to happen for new corps/alliances just getting started If this does go ahead I see most of null sec being empty with in 2 weeks to a month Lots of accounts not being extended past the current game time already on them. Bots being set up in every non sov claimed system in ratting drakes and ravens with cloaks with in one year Eve online will be close to collapsing an MMO is based on people in the game the more active people you lose the less interaction starts a very slippery slope downward but never mind high sec mission hubs here we come. Unless I can get into one of the nice large Alliances that will be left with all the good space then yippee.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:28:00 - [2508] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 03/04/2011 08:32:50 Originally by: Antigue Learn to read killboards! And now go on playing fanboy for changes that doesn¦t affect you in any way. I don't care enough to look up how much kills you got, it was a general statement, and yes it does affect me, PLEX prices will go down, some of my friends can play without having to compete with 0.0 carebears who farm anomalies.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:42:00 - [2509] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 03/04/2011 08:32:50 Originally by: Antigue Learn to read killboards! And now go on playing fanboy for changes that doesn¦t affect you in any way. I don't care enough to look up how much kills you got, it was a general statement, and yes it does affect me, PLEX prices will go down, some of my friends can play without having to compete with 0.0 carebears who farm anomalies. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=lost%27in%27space#losses says it all....
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:46:00 - [2510] Originally by: Antigue http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=lost%27in%27space#losses says it all.... I just looked up Vaerah Vahrokha kills, 55 kills is a lifetime kills, not all of it in low-sec, some were in 0.0, maybe you are the one who should learn to read killboards.

Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:55:00 - [2511] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 03/04/2011 08:47:57 Maybe I should join a 0.0 alliance, and get in on 1000 kills too. Yes maybe you should live in nullsec prior to talking about life in nullsec. But hey there is bad news on the doorstep for you: No bigger alliance will take you with your stats and the smaller ones will get patched out. But Im happy to hear that your carebearing friends will have an easier life to get their playtime for free.
Hrdlodus Gallente Bohemian Veterans Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.04.03 08:59:00 - [2512] now i get it why CCP is doing this! players in 0.0 wont have any income, so everyone there is going to start paying subs with real cash. and because ppl in 0.0 need ISK to PvP and do other stuff and wont be able to make some via anoms, everyone will start buying PLEXes too!! and here we go CCP is richer and we are more screwd. it feels like home all right
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:00:00 - [2513] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 03/04/2011 09:03:03 Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 03/04/2011 08:47:57 Maybe I should join a 0.0 alliance, and get in on 1000 kills too. Yes maybe you should live in nullsec prior to talking about life in nullsec. But hey there is bad news on the doorstep for you: No bigger alliance will take you with your stats and the smaller ones will get patched out. But Im happy to hear that your carebearing friends will have an easier life to get their playtime for free. yeah, all alliances check killboard stats before accepting players because individual skills really matter in a blob warfare hi/lo-sec carebears > nullsec carebears
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:04:00 - [2514] Originally by: Hrdlodus now i get it why CCP is doing this! players in 0.0 wont have any income, so everyone there is going to start paying subs with real cash. and because ppl in 0.0 need ISK to PvP and do other stuff and wont be able to make some via anoms, everyone will start buying PLEXes too!! and here we go CCP is richer and we are more screwd. it feels like home all right How dare you? Nullsec will become more intersting and vibrant. 80% of the systems will be empty and you can easily explore any plaet in there congo any moon and orbit any stargate for hours. Doesn¦t feel that tickling, interesting and vibrant for you? Take drugs and it will. Promised! CCP Greyscale tried it for the last few months and he still got his happy smile in his face.
Jackson Millenius Caldari Nomad LLP Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:10:00 - [2515] Originally by: Sa'Shena I disagree with this change on the principle that there was no consultation with the CSM to refine the idea or to fish for alternatives. A lack of transparency when sweeping changes are made is never a good thing, because it sets a negative precedent for changing anything in the future, with no feedback from the customer whatsoever. I agree with this dude.
John Maynard Keynes	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:15:00 - [2516] Quote: 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. I am still hoping that this change will make more sense in combination with changes to come...
Namolun	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:42:00 - [2517] Originally by: bp920091 A way that a positive change could be made, and still implementing the changes that they would like to see is improving the anomalies by security status, but not nerfing the lowsecurity areas (0.0 - -0.4). They could do this by increasing the number of faction drops even more in high security anomalies. This would still make deep 0.0 still very valuable, without killing the ability for small alliances to actually fight back against huge power-blocks. 100% SIGNED!!! This is the right way!
Jackson Millenius Caldari Nomad LLP Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2011.04.03 09:51:00 - [2518] Originally by: John Maynard Keynes Quote: 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. I am still hoping that this change will make more sense in combination with changes to come... +1 People need to stop freaking out until the patch is actually implemented, and we hear from the devs and the csm. But I think this really is a slap in the face to the CSM lol.
Chup Chup	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:00:00 - [2519] On a more positive note, atleast we will have "new forums" on which to complain about the total ****up ccp just made.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:04:00 - [2520] Quote: My general plea for nulsec is to keep things dangerous. Individual pilots should be able to make more than in any Empire activity Individual pilots already can make more in null sec than in empire doing exactly the same activity, before taking into account infrastructure upgrades. With the entrapment array you'll have endless anomalies to farm. The folks complaining that null sec anomalies don't raise as much per hour as hisec missions, really need to get their facts together. Go run missions in hisec with a T2-fit Raven, then go run non-sanctum/haven anomalies in a T2-fit Raven. Your income will be higher in null sec. Now go run missions in an officer-fit Machariel, and run those anomalies in the same fitting. Your income will be higher in null sec. The rats in null sec anomalies are easier to get to, and have similar bounties to the best rats in L4 missions. If you haven't got the infrastructure and social networking in order to keep your anomaly-running ship safe in null sec, perhaps you need to make more friends? Null sec will either be dangerous, or have comparable income from ratting to hisec. You can't have both: if null sec is dangerous, you will lose your ratting ship to PvP. If null sec is high-income, you'll spend all your time ratting and spend none actually engaging in PvP. Note that blowing up rats is only one way of making ISK in null sec. One option is to get yourself a jump freighter and ship useful items down to nullsec to sell at a significant markup over Jita prices. Another is to participate in PI to produce things that are in demand. For those who need further education on making ISK, try the Making ISK guide in the EVElopedia. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]

Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:12:00 - [2521] Originally by: BinaryData CCP actually cares more about high-sec than they do nullsec. Why do you think they beefed up the servers that host High-Sec places? CCP have beefed up the Jita node because that's where everyone goes to buy stuff. People keep piling into Jita until the node lags. The faster they make the node, the more people pile into the system. Can you point to the devblog where they've indicated that they have "beefed up" the servers that host hisec at the expense of nullsec? Now go listen to the virtual worlds presentation from Fanfest where they talk about automatically monitoring for events such as structures being reinforced, SBUs being anchored, etc, and are instituting automated processes to move the nodes with expected fleet fights onto reinforced nodes. This doesn't do anything to help hisec at all! Still think that CCP prioritizes hisec over nullsec? Quote: Crash EVE servers by spamming the Fck outta Jita with Concord. Intentionally crashing a server is a bannable offense. Quote: Oh yeah, and for the person who said nullsec lags when you have lots of ships. Fleet fights lag because people keep joining the fight until it lags. That's the way your alliance leaders plan their fights these days. If you have a complaint to make about fleet fights lagging, talk to your leadership. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.03 10:36:00 - [2522] I feel alot of people are gonna loose with this change and the only winner will again be the mosnter alliances/coalitions. A lot of middle class will have to move into low sec or high sec cos they cant afford system upkeep bills etc.. To make matters worst, it is well known that low sec now days is at huge disadvantage against 0.0, primarely cos of supper caps. If the 0.0 alliances with the highest true sec will be making more money with this new change, the gap between the people in low sec and 0.0 is gonna get bigger. Its really hard to fight a supper cap fleet in low sec but in 0.0 its not that hard. But with this change its only gonna get worst for low sec. There is no way in hell that people in low sec will be able to afford supper capital replacement. While the pirates may move into 0.0 in bigger numbers it will not be able to take on the monster alliances. Few reasons, they will not have the numbers to afford soverenty, they will not have the isk income required for ship replacemnt, they will not be able to lock the system against caps or have very few they can afford. This makes it easy for the blob to come in a clean up with a CTA when ever they choose and there wont be anything the pirates they can do. The pirates sure can make an offensive but they cant battle suppercaps nor they can in a against a monster alliance with a large Jump Bridge network. On thing is for sure. The middles class will only be pirates and no more industrials in middle class. With less industrials in 0.0 space, the need for minerals will only get bigger. The industiral will have to move into high sec cos low sec is not cost effective mining vs a higher chance of loosing a hulk. The monster alliances will "bunker in" further with their new found wealth. To give the middle class a higher chance of defeating the monster allinces you will have to make it affordable for the middle class or pirates to wage war but as we know, this is not going to be the case with this patch.
Gladiator XM Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:09:00 - [2523] Average Null sec player 1-2+ accounts Lets say 1 account is payed for in real cash the others are payed for with isk from said anoms/sanctums Said player can no longer afford to run these accounts as some doosh bag decided he wanted to reduce anoms/sanctums = less isk Player decides to drop 1 maybe 2 accounts and start using the isk he does make to pay for the account he was paying for with real cash. Outcome = Greyscale not only f--ks over the player base he ****s over his boss too. Sweet.. You idiot
Tetragammatron Prime	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:20:00 - [2524] Originally by: Gladiator XM Average Null sec player 1-2+ accounts Lets say 1 account is payed for in real cash the others are payed for with isk from said anoms/sanctums Said player can no longer afford to run these accounts as some doosh bag decided he wanted to reduce anoms/sanctums = less isk Player decides to drop 1 maybe 2 accounts and start using the isk he does make to pay for the account he was paying for with real cash. Outcome = Greyscale not only f--ks over the player base he ****s over his boss too. Sweet.. You idiot more plex for me at cheaper price once all the "elite 0.0 pvpers" go back to high sec and make significantly less isk per hour :D
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:24:00 - [2525] The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:39:00 - [2526] I'm just wondering why there is no communication from CCP atm ? Not enough complaint ?
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:41:00 - [2527] Originally by: Antigue The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted. Way to lay down and let your landlord drill you in the ass. You should have told them to kindly ** off and put 9+ shield hardeners on all the towers and stront time them for some enemy cap fleet to crush them when they come to finish a tower. You know, instead of being a colossal *** and just giving up like that.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:43:00 - [2528] Originally by: Marconus Orion Originally by: Antigue The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted. Way to lay down and let your landlord drill you in the ass. You should have told them to kindly ** off and put 9+ shield hardeners on all the towers and stront time them for some enemy cap fleet to crush them when they come to finish a tower. You know, instead of being a colossal *** and just giving up like that. I reckon a propper Capfleet will be most impressed by your hardeners. Smart idea +10
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.03 11:47:00 - [2529] 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.
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:29:00 - [2530] 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?

Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:37:00 - [2531] Originally by: Antigue The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted. :BFF:
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:40:00 - [2532] Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Antigue 55 kills in lowsec... I rofled! Nice troll Not everyone participates in 1000 v 1000 to be in on 1000+ killmails doing 0.01% damages. Learn to read killboards! And now go on playing fanboy for changes that doesn¦t affect you in any way. Apparently you missed my post some pages ago where I stated that despite having much fun, RL sh!t happened and I had to leave my 0.0 stay. Anyway unlike pathetic crybabies like you, I have ventured in 0.0 in a damn RUPTURE (could not pilot better yet) and had a blast with it. Link CCP caters to those like ME who go out in a Rupture to pew pew, not those who feel they NEED a cheat T3 unprobable Tengu to go... rat. Also, having a low end SP did not net me tasty KMs (they were bugged at the time too and did not show all). Still this is RUPTURES bravely going to tackle a carrier. I guess some one else got the KM and... my role was not to kill. Mitch Taylor hired new players and made them scout and tackle and I am fuk!ng missing those times. Roams like this were what EvE is about. Now you can kindly return to your crying. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:43:00 - [2533] 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? You are so dumb. Firstly, think of the billions lost in your last stand insult to the NC. Secondly, there is no real money to be made in doing such a thing. This entire line of thinking is why we always kick your ass every time you decide to start . You have no grasp of economics. I would much rather be rich and spineless than be some homeless idiot who thinks he needs to fight the universe to be relevant, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Put that in your pee vee pee pipe and smoke it. - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!**
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:52:00 - [2534] Originally by: Antigue The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted. hahahaha it works already as he said large powerblocks will become more unstable the meatshields leaving or if they have sume guts they turn on their masters i told you 10 pages before greed will kick in now relocate to npc space or lowsec put a cov cyno in their soon tobe ratting hubs and gank em ... its alot of fun i promise you and good loot
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:56:00 - [2535] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Antigue 55 kills in lowsec... I rofled! Nice troll Not everyone participates in 1000 v 1000 to be in on 1000+ killmails doing 0.01% damages. Learn to read killboards! And now go on playing fanboy for changes that doesn¦t affect you in any way. Apparently you missed my post some pages ago where I stated that despite having much fun, RL sh!t happened and I had to leave my 0.0 stay. Anyway unlike pathetic crybabies like you, I have ventured in 0.0 in a damn RUPTURE (could not pilot better yet) and had a blast with it. Link CCP caters to those like ME who go out in a Rupture to pew pew, not those who feel they NEED a cheat T3 unprobable Tengu to go... rat. Also, having a low end SP did not net me tasty KMs (they were bugged at the time too and did not show all). Still this is RUPTURES bravely going to tackle a carrier. I guess some one else got the KM and... my role was not to kill. Mitch Taylor hired new players and made them scout and tackle and I am fuk!ng missing those times. Roams like this were what EvE is about. Now you can kindly return to your crying. ello Vaerah 07 sure i remember you in fact we talked about you and your project not so long ago in corp hope you be back some day until then fly save mate that said look me up on battleclinic i dont want to brag .. but ive done it all (beside paying ransom or rant) AND I AGREE WITH EVERY SINGLE WORD SHE SAID you can goin on and on and on to rage against CCP or do what others have sugested and get sum guts and now its payback time to your landlords
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 12:58:00 - [2536] 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? No mate you are pretty much right on that but how would this help a small alliance? You get bashed out this way or another. If they are really smart then they even don¦t go for your POSes but they start to roam you over and over again. Without a perspective to earn isk where you are supposed to be (nullsec) small alliances will start bleeding members. In less then a month there will be noone left in the system. So I don¦t see the benefit except maybe one nice fight (at least if you got someone to batphone and your opponent is extra stupid).
Apollo A	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:00:00 - [2537] dont do it
Gothiczwerg	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:25:00 - [2538] Hope we can get the money back for the 4th and 5th I-Hub Military upgrade.Cause its a downgrade to military lev 3 (no havens and sanctums)
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:30:00 - [2539] 2 things are nerfed here - dev's brains and CCP's attitude towards us - its customers. Very bad decision making (if you are little bit familiar with 0.0 life, you know what i mean), no response from CCP despite the huge negative reaction (Grayscale's shy try outs to label all the sh177y thoughts in his head under "thinking process" doesn't count). Unfortunately for us, the players, the bucket of sh17s that's been pouring down from Grascale's team on us, has spread its stinky clouds over the other departments in CCP as well. WTF is this CCP - link . We don't need your Zoo here. And we don't want to feed tamagotchis too. We want SPACE SHIPS, to shoot at other ppl's SPACE SHIPS in SPACE. Obviously, you can't give that to us.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:31:00 - [2540] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 03/04/2011 13:36:19 Originally by: Tetragammatron Prime more plex for me at cheaper price once all the "elite 0.0 pvpers" go back to high sec and make significantly less isk per hour :D exactly Originally by: Antigue And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. So it's his fault that none of alliance don't want to bother taking the trouble to go after better space?

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:33:00 - [2541] Originally by: Danastar 2 things are nerfed here - dev's brains and CCP's attitude towards us - its customers. Very bad decision making (if you are little bit familiar with 0.0 life, you know what i mean), no response from CCP despite the huge negative reaction (Grayscale's shy try outs to label all the sh177y thoughts in his head under "thinking process" doesn't count). Unfortunately for us, the players, the bucket of sh17s that's been pouring down from Grascale's team on us, has spread its stinky clouds over the other departments in CCP as well. WTF is this CCP - link . We don't need your Zoo here. And we don't want to feed tamagotchis too. We want SPACE SHIPS, to shoot at other ppl's SPACE SHIPS in SPACE. Obviously, you can't give that to us. me shakes had in shame
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:38:00 - [2542] Originally by: Danastar WTF is this CCP - link . We don't need your Zoo here. And we don't want to feed tamagotchis too. I can't tell, does this guy really thinks that dev blog is real? and not a joke?
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:42:00 - [2543] the rage makes em so freekin blind and let em search for any argument (may it be as small as a atom) against CCP it was with every big game adjustment ....... remember the nano thread ? when things cleard up i hope at least some ppl will see their error
Rubenson Gladius Veritatis	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:45:00 - [2544] THANK YOU CCP FOR DOING THIS!!!! By the time I heard about this I had in mind only one thing. The dissolution of the imperialistic coalition that is the NC. I hope NC splits in half and a massive 1 year war starts named "East and West". Today I read the blog stating the obvious ideas that the dev team had. Originally by: "CCP Greyscale" 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) DEAL WITH IT!!! Bravo Grayscale!
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:49:00 - [2545] Originally by: Rubenson THANK YOU CCP FOR DOING THIS!!!! By the time I heard about this I had in mind only one thing. The dissolution of the imperialistic coalition that is the NC. I hope NC splits in half and a massive 1 year war starts named "East and West". Today I read the blog stating the obvious ideas that the dev team had. Originally by: "CCP Greyscale" 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) DEAL WITH IT!!! Bravo Grayscale! Im far away from being a NC fanboy but one thing annoys me really: Using ingame methods to harm them would have been pr0. Patching them away is lame. Plus: They patch away any smaller alliance in nullsec.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:54:00 - [2546] Originally by: Rubenson I hope NC splits in half and a massive 1 year war starts named "East and West". Yeah Originally by: Antigue Using ingame methods to harm them would have been pr0. You mean like ingame method to overthrow them in a sov fight that have always been there, but no one has amassed enough numbers to pose threat to them?
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 13:56:00 - [2547] Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Rubenson THANK YOU CCP FOR DOING THIS!!!! By the time I heard about this I had in mind only one thing. The dissolution of the imperialistic coalition that is the NC. I hope NC splits in half and a massive 1 year war starts named "East and West". Today I read the blog stating the obvious ideas that the dev team had. Originally by: "CCP Greyscale" 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) DEAL WITH IT!!! Bravo Grayscale! Im far away from being a NC fanboy but one thing annoys me really: Using ingame methods to harm them would have been pr0. Patching them away is lame. Plus: They patch away any smaller alliance in nullsec. i told you this before ... THEY are the gods .. they gave it now they take it away (for the better imo) they dont patch nc away .... if they are BFF all wil be the same if they are greedy lil bast ards .... i say grays goal acomplished
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:20:00 - [2548] Originally by: Rubenson THANK YOU CCP FOR DOING THIS!!!! By the time I heard about this I had in mind only one thing. The dissolution of the imperialistic coalition that is the NC. I hope NC splits in half and a massive 1 year war starts named "East and West". Today I read the blog stating the obvious ideas that the dev team had. Originally by: "CCP Greyscale" 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) DEAL WITH IT!!! Bravo Grayscale! uhhh.... your in the NC dude....
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:22:00 - [2549] Originally by: Lt Pizi i told you this before ... THEY are the gods .. they gave it now they take it away (for the better imo) they dont patch nc away .... if they are BFF all wil be the same if they are greedy lil bast ards .... i say grays goal acomplished LOL CCP obviously is your god. I¦m a paying customer and whenever they play god I always got the choice to stop paying them. Guess it is pretty safe to say that -except yourself ofc- noone will accept them as god. And I have seen too many homemade gods falling so it is just a matter of time until CCP will learn it the hard way.
Arasteero	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:25:00 - [2550] Originally by: Rubenson THANK YOU CCP FOR DOING THIS!!!! By the time I heard about this I had in mind only one thing. The dissolution of the imperialistic coalition that is the NC. I hope NC splits in half and a massive 1 year war starts named "East and West". Today I read the blog stating the obvious ideas that the dev team had. Originally by: "CCP Greyscale" 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) DEAL WITH IT!!! Bravo Grayscale! This expectation is so wrong... The impact of removing so many havens and sanctums out of the game will dramatically rise the worth of tech moons. Who is the owner of most of all tech moons in the game? NC, Yes !! My ally has a sum of 17 systems and ALL of them are useloss now... This doesnt make me search for new space - this makes me searching for the quit button!

Leonard Cage Minmatar IMPERIO DE PIRATAS UNIDOS E C L I P S E	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:43:00 - [2551] Thought to reactivate my second account, but after seeing how friendly game, not do it... By God! are all Eve killing Strongly disagree!
Mibad	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:45:00 - [2552] This would be a good idea if they didn't remove anything and instead just made it so lower nullsec has more sanctums/havens. Everyone wins.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:46:00 - [2553] Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Lt Pizi i told you this before ... THEY are the gods .. they gave it now they take it away (for the better imo) they dont patch nc away .... if they are BFF all wil be the same if they are greedy lil bast ards .... i say grays goal acomplished LOL CCP obviously is your god. I¦m a paying customer and whenever they play god I always got the choice to stop paying them. Guess it is pretty safe to say that -except yourself ofc- noone will accept them as god. And I have seen too many homemade gods falling so it is just a matter of time until CCP will learn it the hard way. ingame they are the gods their decition is final do i like CCP¦s way? - yes do i agree with all decisions they made hell no introducing of PI was a huge mess - but it corrected over time moon mineral/T2 production nees of moon goo was another one - i hope thats next on their agenda for industrial 00 revamp will i quit if the game doesnt apeal anymore - sure in a heartbeat but i will just go not making endles threats of quitting and i will not quit over such a little thing this is
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:50:00 - [2554] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Antigue Originally by: Lt Pizi i told you this before ... THEY are the gods .. they gave it now they take it away (for the better imo) they dont patch nc away .... if they are BFF all wil be the same if they are greedy lil bast ards .... i say grays goal acomplished LOL CCP obviously is your god. I¦m a paying customer and whenever they play god I always got the choice to stop paying them. Guess it is pretty safe to say that -except yourself ofc- noone will accept them as god. And I have seen too many homemade gods falling so it is just a matter of time until CCP will learn it the hard way. ingame they are the gods their decition is final do i like CCP¦s way? - yes do i agree with all decisions they made hell no introducing of PI was a huge mess - but it corrected over time moon mineral/T2 production nees of moon goo was another one - i hope thats next on their agenda for industrial 00 revamp will i quit if the game doesnt apeal anymore - sure in a heartbeat but i will just go not making endles threats of quitting and i will not quit over such a little thing this is actually... PI is probably the biggest single problem with eve atm. they removed quite possibly the largest way for isk to disappear out of the economy and if you really want to look at it is probably WAY more responsible for any inflation than havens and sanctums ever were.
Sadie Heluene	Posted - 2011.04.03 14:52:00 - [2555] oh god, this is so fail
Quartex Gallente Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:02:00 - [2556] The death of big Alliances ... Big Alliances will come under strain as Corps within them want access to the trusec systems and this may cause schisms, if not handled properly by the leadership of those Alliances. They may even choose to let Corps go, so there is more to go around. New renters.... There have always been renters. The price to rent will have to go down if you want to have renters near your home systems, if the money from those systems is less and they may get tempted to switch sides by a richer Alliance that covets the trusec space. Blobs & Conflict in nulsec.... Anything that reduces the former and increases the latter is good. Resource availability fuels both and the balance is wrong right now. Nulsec as the end game .... It always has been but it need not be your end game. For those who want it the risk:reward equation ratio must be better than in Empire and the risks should be significantly increased..... e.g no local channel. Plex to kill RMT to kill bots.... It just hasn't worked out that way. I don't know how badly it undermines CCP's business model but it smarts to know people are running multiple accounts, all self funding to earn real world cash.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:09:00 - [2557] Edited by: Antigue on 03/04/2011 15:16:21 Originally by: Lt Pizi ingame they are the gods their decition is final do i like CCP¦s way? - yes do i agree with all decisions they made hell no introducing of PI was a huge mess - but it corrected over time moon mineral/T2 production nees of moon goo was another one - i hope thats next on their agenda for industrial 00 revamp will i quit if the game doesnt apeal anymore - sure in a heartbeat but i will just go not making endles threats of quitting and i will not quit over such a little thing this is You are terribly wrong. Having a godlike attitude doesn¦t mean you are god. There is one basic rule in any game: Do not turn against the vast majority of your player base. I may assume that our small alliance is not different to all other small alliances and people in here are already talking about other MMO¦s we could play together. That¦s a shame and Greyscale and godlike attitude is responsible for that. One could argue that things calm down once the dust has settled. But they lured lots of people into nullsec, made them invest lots of effort and isk and finally patch them out over night. There is an old saying: If you cheat me once it¦s your bad, if you cheat me twice it¦s my bad. So I wouldn¦t bet too hard on a "the dust will settle and all will be fine" card.
Caoim Fearghul Caldari The First Church of the Azure Carrot	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:17:00 - [2558] Greyscale, I dont see how you honestly think this will destablize large power blocs. Will something about this randomly blow up supercarriers and titans if they're logged out in non -1.0 space or some other crazy measure. Short of that there is not really much CCP can do in terms of fiddling with space to alter the nature of power blocs. There's an economy of scale to defense in EVE that means that the best way to protect your assests is to pool your resources with others. That means get a bigger blob of bigger stuff. That's the fundamental issue you need to address, and its one for which there is no easy or fun answer. Currently the best way to compete with a power bloc is to be a bigger power bloc. With the simple logistics that super capitals provide for breaking peoples stuff without much chance for consequences and certainly no issues with redeployment time there is no logical reason for power blocs to break up no matter what you do to systems. I do also have to end with the amusing note that you say -1.0 systems tend to be in strategically inconvenient places. I can only hope you meant to say logistically inconvenient (also nonsense with the aid of jump drives, but still less idiotic) since if they are something worth having they ARE the strategic objectives and thus what is used to determine the convenience or otherwise. Prodesse Non Nocere
Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:27:00 - [2559] This change is an RMTers wet dream. If I had interests in the RMT trade I would love nothing more than to remove Sanctums and Havens. Its hard to compete with that.
Quartex Gallente Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:39:00 - [2560] Originally by: Caoim Fearghul Greyscale, I dont see how you honestly think this will destablize large power blocs. Will something about this randomly blow up supercarriers and titans if they're logged out in non -1.0 space or some other crazy measure. Short of that there is not really much CCP can do in terms of fiddling with space to alter the nature of power blocs. There's an economy of scale to defense in EVE that means that the best way to protect your assests is to pool your resources with others. That means get a bigger blob of bigger stuff. That's the fundamental issue you need to address, and its one for which there is no easy or fun answer. Currently the best way to compete with a power bloc is to be a bigger power bloc. With the simple logistics that super capitals provide for breaking peoples stuff without much chance for consequences and certainly no issues with redeployment time there is no logical reason for power blocs to break up no matter what you do to systems. I have a great deal of sympathy with this point. To date Big Alliances have tended to implode, rather than be decisively beaten on the battlefield. so the most enduring Alliances tend to be well organised and well run by very visible leadership. There have been a number of triggers for these implosions; usually a combination of metagaming and pilot disatisfaction but also a series of defeats in battle, or bad strategic decisions have begun a "fail cascade", when individual pilots, or corporations take umbridge, or decide their stuff is at risk. Yes, it's human instinct to group together. CCP's challenge is to keep tension in the nulsec gameplay between pilot need/greed and Corporation leadership need/greed.

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:40:00 - [2561] Originally by: Antigue Do not turn against the vast majority of your player base. HAHAHA you finally made me giggle do you really think that the majority are even on the board ? there was a study how many ppl read the boards of an mmo and it was like 3-4 % but lets say this is eve and 10 % read it thats out of 360k ppl 36k now lets asume everyone has 3 accounts .... thats 12k RL ppl now we have 2500 posts lets asume everyone made only 2 post thats 1200 RL ppl out of 12k forum visitors (10%) or 120k real players (1%) and i staced the numbers highly in your favor another pov - highsecers they really dont care .. why would they -low seccers same - 00 big allies the good ones will shrug it off like they always do the bad ones will die - 00 renters now they are hit by this .. they need other ways of income , stop paying rent whatever .. again the ppl there who can adept will survive , the ones that did run sanctums all day in and out will be gone overall eve wins
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 15:52:00 - [2562] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Antigue Do not turn against the vast majority of your player base. HAHAHA you finally made me giggle do you really think that the majority are even on the board ? there was a study how many ppl read the boards of an mmo and it was like 3-4 % but lets say this is eve and 10 % read it thats out of 360k ppl 36k now lets asume everyone has 3 accounts .... thats 12k RL ppl now we have 2500 posts lets asume everyone made only 2 post thats 1200 RL ppl out of 12k forum visitors (10%) or 120k real players (1%) and i staced the numbers highly in your favor another pov - highsecers they really dont care .. why would they -low seccers same - 00 big allies the good ones will shrug it off like they always do the bad ones will die - 00 renters now they are hit by this .. they need other ways of income , stop paying rent whatever .. again the ppl there who can adept will survive , the ones that did run sanctums all day in and out will be gone overall eve wins You really believe in what you are writing? That makes me laugh now. I can already hear the highsec corps whine when such a lot of renters with at least some pvp experience and a lot of pvp fun return to highsec. They will not jump through empty nullsec to get blobbed in their face when they finally hit the hotspots. They will rather learn that highsec ransoming can be a nice side business and you don¦t have to jump like 40 times to get blobbed in the face. I can already hear the pew pew demands for targets and their protests about increasing blobs in the hotspots. I can imagine young players who joined for their first time a corp to learn some stuff about eve and this corp get straight away wardecced and the young sirs get killed if they ever leave the station. So you really believe this will not have effects on all aspects of EvE? Really?
Payne Valitea	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:00:00 - [2563] I actually see this as a good change and think it will have the desired effect, yes it will be uncomfortable change always is. I live in 0.0 as part of an alliance in space that will go down in value so why do I say it is a good change? Alliance members not in good systems or without isk making ability will want to move. Alliances will either take what they need start wars and move furthing into 0.0 or move to low/highsec. There isn't enough moons to go around so solutions will be found those who deserve to be in 0.0 will adapt and survive be it by war or inovation. Roll on 5th of april
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:08:00 - [2564] dear Antigue im getting tierd dispelling every single argument you make the poor highseccers ... there are many ways to avoid a war in highsec if you want to my dear some will die yes AGAIN the good ones will adept and follow the eve way and you may find out that the typical highseccer has more teeth then th avarage sanctum pirate NPC you donot create a game and listen to the masses there are prime example out there that destroyed great games iE UO you have a vision how your game should be and follow it (if thats successfull and i think we both agree that eve is great) if the comunity suggests you something thats INLINE with your vision great if its not you dismiss it
Proats Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:14:00 - [2565] Originally by: Lt Pizi you donot create a game and listen to the masses there are prime example out there that destroyed great games There are also prime examples of developers themselves destroying great games.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:15:00 - [2566] Dear Pitzi, you simply don¦t have valid arguments. The only thing you are doing is -and I quote you- "believe in CCP". The question I got is how much does CCP pay you for being their fanboy? You are not an inhabitant of nullsec, never built up an alliance and you are not even sov-holder. So how much would CCP pay you for being their only fanboy left atm? Oh yeah I know you do it for free coz you are such a strong believer in CCP and their great ideas... Why not go back to your lowsec and wait for some poor soul to gank?
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:24:00 - [2567] you simply don¦t have valid arguments. that i cannot answer looks like nothing said will change your opinoin The only thing you are doing is -and I quote you- "believe in CCP". yes cause so far the game gets better and better if they follow their way The question I got is how much does CCP pay you for being their fanboy? they pay me with the fun i have logging in You are not an inhabitant of nullsec, never built up an alliance and you are not even sov-holder. was there done that , but i wasnt a renter So how much would CCP pay you for being their only fanboy left atm? so if 10 k accounts left over this theres still 350k paying fanbois left Oh yeah I know you do it for free coz you are such a strong believer in CCP and their great ideas... again sofar they were most of the time straight on Why not go back to your lowsec and wait for some poor soul to gank? im there .....
Lonely Island	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:27:00 - [2568] Originally by: Hrdlodus now i get it why CCP is doing this! players in 0.0 wont have any income, so everyone there is going to start paying subs with real cash. and because ppl in 0.0 need ISK to PvP and do other stuff and wont be able to make some via anoms, everyone will start buying PLEXes too!! and here we go CCP is richer and we are more screwd. it feels like home all right wtf? I thought those who currently pay with isk have to either buy plex on markets, or GTC on the forums from other players who have already paid RL cash to CCP? Am I missing something here or is it just the fact the NC PureBlind shortbus crew such as yourself can't comprehend economics?
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:35:00 - [2569] Originally by: Antigue Dear Pitzi, you simply don¦t have valid arguments. The only thing you are doing is -and I quote you- "believe in CCP". The question I got is how much does CCP pay you for being their fanboy? You are not an inhabitant of nullsec, never built up an alliance and you are not even sov-holder. So how much would CCP pay you for being their only fanboy left atm? Oh yeah I know you do it for free coz you are such a strong believer in CCP and their great ideas... Why not go back to your lowsec and wait for some poor soul to gank? An elite sov-holding alliance builder, who thinks any other class of player can't have an opinion, who is crying about CCP nerfing their carebearing.
Lonely Island	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:37:00 - [2570] Originally by: Erichk Knaar Originally by: Antigue Dear Pitzi, you simply don¦t have valid arguments. The only thing you are doing is -and I quote you- "believe in CCP". The question I got is how much does CCP pay you for being their fanboy? You are not an inhabitant of nullsec, never built up an alliance and you are not even sov-holder. So how much would CCP pay you for being their only fanboy left atm? Oh yeah I know you do it for free coz you are such a strong believer in CCP and their great ideas... Why not go back to your lowsec and wait for some poor soul to gank? An elite sov-holding alliance builder, who thinks any other class of player can't have an opinion, who is crying about CCP nerfing their carebearing. 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.

Johnny Lane	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:39:00 - [2571] So far I am really disappointed. If this feature is implemented as announced, it will be a disaster for the entire 0.0 Community. Most players will no longer be able to earn enough money to do reasonable PvP, and ergo will probably stop playing Eve. I can only advice CCP to reconsider deploying this new "feature".
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:41:00 - [2572] 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. No disagreement here.
Mistchaser	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:08:00 - [2573] 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? Lol. I watched Defi4nt try to rebel when they were renting and stand against their hosts. Yea that lasted as long as it took to incap the cyno jammer and jump the motherships in. So each tower takes a few minutes to reinforce and then they have to come back later and finish it off, while you sit docked in station with 600 hostiles outside and watch. Resistance doesn't work out too well. :)
El Liptonez Trauma Ward 0ccupational Hazzard	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:14:00 - [2574] Back in 2009 everyone only flew frigates, because that was the only thing people could afford from belt ratting. At least from what people in this thread tell me.
Avallarion Selara	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:18:00 - [2575] IMO it's a good idea to give True Sec more meaning. That makes systems more deverse and gives some reason for conflict. But invalidating most of 0.0 space is bull****. Let's face it, nobody likes to farm Anos and Havens/Sanctums are the only ones worth doing. So in the end you have 4 relevant anos and the rest are just fillers. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that promotes more diversity and makes use of the other Anos? Is there any reason for Anos to exist in 0.0 that are designed for anything less capable than a BC? (And generate matching income of course.) It's also quite interesting how different Military upgrades and Industrial ones are. For Military it's very easy to reach and maintain lvl5 but you also need lvl5 to have any worthwhile effect. For Industry you have to work those mining lasers quite hard to reach lvl5 and most corps don't bother to because even starting with lvl1 you get what you want. So maybe it would help if Military levels worked more like Industrial ones? Hard to reach but worth something from the start? Another bad point about Anos is that they are 100% reliable in their respawn. You did a Station Sanctum? Wait a few mins and there's a new one for you. This means that you can reliably form the same Ano ad infinitum. This gets boring really fast. So now my idea: - Each system spawns 4 + military level + bonus for low True Sec Anos - When an Ano is completed a new random one spawns after a few minutes. The chance for each type depends on military level and True Sec. The function should be in a way that even a 0.0 system could get Sanctums when fully upgraded but maybe only like 10% of the time. Good True Sec systems could also spawn "Super Sanctums" when upgraded. - The type of NPC in the Ano should also depend on True Sec and military level. Simply better chance for good ships like expensive battleships or faction spawns. This could make it necessary to do the smaller Anos from time to time but they would possibly not feel like a complete waste of time anymore. What do you think? PS: I'm aware that there are more important things to fix than Anos. Moongold and Jump Bridges/Titan Bridges come to mind. Oh, and I liked the proposal to reduce bounty but increase loot/salvage. Doesn't really reduce your income but means that you have to do a little bit more besides Ctrl+Left and F1.
Mistchaser	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:27:00 - [2576] Edited by: Mistchaser on 03/04/2011 17:27:40 Originally by: Avallarion Selara So now my idea: - Each system spawns 4 + military level + bonus for low True Sec Anos - When an Ano is completed a new random one spawns after a few minutes. The chance for each type depends on military level and True Sec. The function should be in a way that even a 0.0 system could get Sanctums when fully upgraded but maybe only like 10% of the time. Good True Sec systems could also spawn "Super Sanctums" when upgraded. - The type of NPC in the Ano should also depend on True Sec and military level. Simply better chance for good ships like expensive battleships or faction spawns. This could make it necessary to do the smaller Anos from time to time but they would possibly not feel like a complete waste of time anymore. See, now this is brilliant. Use the truesec mechanic to make existing anoms more or less valuable relatively, but not completely obsolete the worse systems. You will get the increased value of truesec that you desire, and thus more conflict over that, but also keep the rest of null viable for smaller alliances who are trying to get their feet wet.
fibergunner	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:56:00 - [2577] I am happy about this change. Renter tears YAY...:)
fibergunner	Posted - 2011.04.03 18:09:00 - [2578] Now Soundwave and Darius you two have a job on your hands. Make sure Greyscale does not back down because of the renter tears. In all seriousness this is a fantastic change. DRF renter isk is going to dry up YAY!!!. Crap true sec should never be equal to better true sec. I have played since 04 and this is one of the better changes. Good looking out. BFF <3
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 20:03:00 - [2579] Originally by: Antigue Do not turn against the vast majority of your player base. You may think the world of your systems and your napfest buddies and your anomalies, but 0.0 carebears are hardly the vast majority of player base.
Samurai Okie Helljumpers En Garde	Posted - 2011.04.03 23:29:00 - [2580] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Antigue Do not turn against the vast majority of your player base. You may think the world of your systems and your napfest buddies and your anomalies, but 0.0 carebears are hardly the vast majority of player base. Are you sure? After all its always been carebear tears that have lead to the other major nerfs against PVPers Take the Nano Nerf for example Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist

Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.03 23:39:00 - [2581] Originally by: Samurai Okie Are you sure? After all its always been carebear tears that have lead to the other major nerfs against PVPers Take the Nano Nerf for example I supported nano nerf, those want to PvP and had 99% chance of running away when things don't go well, thus making them take very little risk. I'm going to look up the nano nerf dev blog thread, I am going to see just how much emo rage quit threat it had, and how many predicted the eve doom. If you guys want to change this nerf, personal attack against dev isn't going to get you anywhere. In the last 10 pages or so that I read, and participated, it was mostly cry babies. for example Originally by: Antigue And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted.
SPIAWEB	Posted - 2011.04.03 23:40:00 - [2582] Wow.... this is a terrible idea and will not succeed in that which it is intended for. I agree with whoever said, just flip the switch on the server room and save us the misery of the slow death which this game will become.
fibergunner	Posted - 2011.04.04 00:23:00 - [2583] 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 < 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 - [2584] 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 - [2585] 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 S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.04 00:51:00 - [2586] Somewhere in null sec... Sanctum Nerf 2011
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.04 01:07:00 - [2587] 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 - [2588] 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 - [2589] 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. 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 -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Omtaga	Posted - 2011.04.04 02:13:00 - [2590] 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 - [2591] 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 - [2592] I guess it's back to running level 4s. ~ cute vampress ~
Zelman Axe	Posted - 2011.04.04 02:36:00 - [2593] 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 - [2594] 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 - [2595] 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
Bubanni	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:08:00 - [2596] 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	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:33:00 - [2597] 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 for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
The Mittani	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:38:00 - [2598] 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. The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:39:00 - [2599] 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	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:42:00 - [2600] "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 The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster

Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:50:00 - [2601] 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	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:54:00 - [2602] yeah don't get me wrong i think there should be a difference between, say, cloud ring and delve in income potential The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
Marconus Orion S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.04 04:11:00 - [2603] 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.
Pedro Snachez Senex Legio	Posted - 2011.04.04 04:37:00 - [2604] 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. 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 - [2605] 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. 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 - [2606] 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. 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 S.E.G.W.A.Y.	Posted - 2011.04.04 05:01:00 - [2607] 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 - [2608] :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 - [2609] 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	Posted - 2011.04.04 05:58:00 - [2610] 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

Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.04 05:59:00 - [2611] 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 - [2612] 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.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 06:33:00 - [2613] Originally by: The Offerer 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 Nah, when PLEXes value drop, non-0.0-carebears can afford to have more accounts, so overall, there might not be no loss at all.
Nashuatec	Posted - 2011.04.04 06:42:00 - [2614] Dear CCP Greyscale ! Nerfing of ss 0.0 -0.24 systems - very bad idea, because half of population leave in claimed nullsecs for hunting, and this "improvement" will do 50% of them angry and hungry ! And how 5lvl military upgrades already installed in Infrastructure HUB's in 0.0 -0.24 (delivered with a lot of troubles from imperia and cost a lot of ISK) will works now ? They will be removed without compensation? What is the plan for null-sec ? More battles ? More action ? - These goals you can obtain - simply "fix the lag" ! If one node can not die when 3000-5000 pilots would fight in one grid - there would be more action and dynamic in null-sec where can I vote do abandon this "improvement" ?
Zacheas	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:23:00 - [2615] the changes you made will not increase conflict, but will reduce the qaulity of the game, and I am not in a region getting shafted. less people will want to be in 0.0 and thus will not fight for it. small alalicne will see no benifit moving out of high sec. oh,... and you take away Jump bridges and I am leaving the game no question, stop listening to the players that are the minority, carebears in high sec that are not the o.o hard core pvpers that made ccp rich. ccp,... listen to the majority, the base... or you will loose a lot of us. you jsut want whiny carebears? cuz those are the regular comentors on the forums.
Zakal Sin	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:25:00 - [2616] Once again, a clear example of what CCP "doesn't" know about Eve politics and how alliances are run. This nerf is essentially going to kill the little guy and make this game unplayable for him if he chooses a life in 0.0. Zymurgist, I know sometimes things look good on paper, but trust us on this issue m8. This is going to be one of the worst things you could do to the Eve community. I really do hope that you seriously give this change more consideration for the trash can.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:27:00 - [2617] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 04/04/2011 07:28:58 Originally by: Zacheas carebears in high sec that are not the o.o hard core pvpers that made ccp rich. 0.0 hardcore PvPers lol there's some hardcore about being in a 1000 v 1000 fleet fights. It is the 0.0 carebears that are minority. Originally by: Zacheas you jsut want whiny carebears? they don't, that's why they are nerfing the 0.0 anomalies, and not giving into the 88 pages of whine!
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:34:00 - [2618] Quote: 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. Originally by: The Mittani 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. Apparently the goals of Dominion fell very short of what CCP thought they'd do. - They wanted to nerf Dyspro moons yet they just replaced them with an even more 'tarded material. - They wanted to reduce blobbing and POS boring beatdown yet the replacement sov structures encourage even more blobbing. - They wanted to promote new, active, aggressive 0.0 alliances and instead they filled 0.0 with LOLrenters. - They wanted to greatly increase conflict and assets destruction yet they got an even bigger ISK inflation and supercaps everywhere (hello, the ultimate ships in EvE suddenly are but average trash). - The average Joe works his ass off farming anoms, yet his money is going to pay or help the holders who ALSO have anoms AND most of all they have the moons. Thus the ISK bar is raised higher and higher. Now, CCP are pulling the bail out trigger, because EvE economy (as the Economist said) is spiralling into unsustainable inflation feedback. Super pricey PLEXes, super expensive tritanium, decuplicated renter fees, all of this points to economy sickness. I think the above puts more into light how the nerf is necessary even if Greyscale tried to mask it with a number of shallow excuses. Apparently he does not want to say: "hey guys we did A, B and C but A and B failed horribly to the point we have to bail out". Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:42:00 - [2619] Originally by: Marconus Orion Whatever happens to the individual players DOES have an impact on coalitions. Yep. Since my personal income got nerfed, guess I'm going to stick to flying in official blobs where my losses get reimbursed. You are 100% correct - it does have an impact. - Ok, here's the deal. At first, I thought this is a horrible idea - what else can you think when someone takes a big part of your personal income. But then, I've realised that the problem is much deeper than it looks. Like Mittani pointed out, it's not about the sanctum nerf, it's about the scary vision of nullsec that devs like Greyscale have. The consequences of this change will not be like the devs thought it would be, in fact it won't be anywhere near or even totally opposite of them. It simply won't have anything to do with them at all. I still have some trouble seeing the whole set of consequences, that's why I'm waiting for a response from the only person I know that is really supporting this change and is willing to go to details about it (yep, I'd still like to read that blog post). The biggest problem that I can see is - CCP screwed people over. Many players ventured in nullsec after Dominion (myself included, and no... I wasn't in any powerblock back then), because no matter how bad or unfinished the implementation was, it still had some sort of a system to support individuals. I remember all that talk about Dominion being just a start and that "we'll iterate on things as we get the results", but instead of iteration, we simply got a rollback. That's just wrong. Many players will adjust. Large blocks will hardly suffer since it only touches a part of personal income. But what they did here will have a big impact on smaller entities. You can't just expect that everyone will be open minded about the changes and finding their way to compensate the nerf. You can't even expect that compensation is possible in the majority of cases. But what you can expect is that players, the actual living, breathing carbon based organisms that pay the subscription to this fictional game and spend their free time by the computer, will feel that CCP just turned their backs on them by destroying everything those players worked for. In this discussion, we had many different points of view presented and people discussing about other players as if they were "living" highsec/nullsec or belonging to a small alliance or large blob. But, the fact is we are not dealing with alliances or carebears or blobbers, we are dealing with actual people sitting in front of the computer thinking "Damn, I just got screwed over". In a game that's nothing more than it - just a game - that's quite dangerous, because even if CCP came up with a brilliant idea later on how to implement what they want to, what's left of the players that will stay in the game after feeling betrayed by the developer, will have a hard time trusting in the new system, or how long will it last before they bring another rollback like this. So, the biggest problem is not how will the changes reflect coalitions, small alliances, carebears or PvPers. The problem is the impact on the people that have other options besides Sanctums - like other games, more parties, more time to spend with girlfriend/family,... After all, CCP could have thought of a way to make some space more desireable other than nerfing. Boosting lower trusec systems without touching the rest would also make a difference between good and bad quality space and it wouldn't cause the feeling of betrayal. To negate the inflation and stop the devaluation of ISK a very large number of things can be done: finishing iteration on FW so that more ships get blown up because more people are willing to fight, more intense fight against botters, hell... even going as drastic as adding 10 times more nullsec space than now (with careful planning of world design and limitations of the new space) would make more ships blow up in smaller gangs and more...
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:42:00 - [2620] ... people moving to lawless parts of EVE. But instead all of that, CCP decided to take the easy way out and just nerf things making their customers unhappy. The funniest thing about it all is the name: Crowd Control Productions. Well, live up to your name and do some sociological research. The crowd is happier when it has the perception of multiple choices (sanctums included) and when they get more for their money (that's RL money in terms of a subscription) instead of less. From the sociological point of view, the changes here are totally against every interest of CCP. It won't have as much impact on the in-game politics or characters as it will have on real people that will feel betrayed. Me? I'll adapt somehow, like many other individuals. But because people are complicated and masses are simple, the bigger picture doesn't look so bright. I'm not complaining/crying/leaving the game, just merely pointing out that many current players will leave after a radical rollback like that. What will be the impact on the game, on CCP's income and their ability to invest in future expansions... well, I leave that to you. Cheers

Ze Beeblebrox	Posted - 2011.04.04 07:42:00 - [2621] This idiotic nerf ist just going to kill small alliances like mine: 1. We loose billions of ISK in Upgrades-Value, because those Upgrades become worth sht ! 2. Our whole constellation becomes utter crap ! So we will eventually just abandon the area. 3. Those ultrafew -1 Highend-Systems will be permanently camped because they are so few and thus it may not be advisable for its owners to upgrade them, if they do not have backup and firepower ready. 4. Over 75% of 0.0 space will become uninteresting wasteland noone wants. 5. The rest will be held by the big alliances and coalitions. 6. Small alliances are just fued up. What to expect: - Massively fewer ISK in 0.0, many will revert to Level 4 Missions. - Big Alliances/Coalitions will keep the most valuable systems for themselves as with the moons. - Small Alliances will drastically loose income and thus be driven out of 0.0 as they cannot compete with the financial and thus military means of larger entities. So the official intention of this change is just an outright lie or CCP Greyscale ist just dump and does not understand 0.0 at all ! As CEO of a smaller 0.0 alliance I know the consequence for my folks and CCP fu*s us up more than any neighboring entity would be able to ! So I strongly urge CCP and CCP Greyscale to drop this stupid idea. It is no good for nothing ! Ze Beeblebrox CEO Negotium Alliance
Angst IronShard Minmatar Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:05:00 - [2622] CCP do well with this patch. For all the whiners, who dare call themselves 0.0 hardcore players. I lived in 0.0 for years, Curse, Geminate, Syndicate, Pure Blind, The Vale, Deklein, Insmother, Wicked Creek, Immensea, Delve, Fountain, all around the cluster so, and I never chain-farm anomalies to buy ships. There are plenty of others not boring stuffs to do in EvE to get fun and make isks. The True Sec must reflect the high quality of systems contents, you'll want to chain farm high end anomalies, well, go and do war now to get access to those systems. Get the **** out of your farming torpor. The sand is slowly moving, adapt or die, yeah, it's a cruel virtual game. Good job CCP ! . ____________________________________________ Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:15:00 - [2623] Originally by: Liang Nuren A few comments: - 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. Just a few comments on your comments: =) - It's highly likely that your typical 0.0 PVPer has been a L4 mission runner at one point in time or another; it's less likely that your typical L4 mission runner has any clue about nullsec, unless they're a highsec mission-running alt of a 0.0 PVPer, in which case that kind of goes directly to the point, no? - You're right that there's less risk when you're part of a large coalition of blues, but that's not the entire point, no? If we look at one of the main reasons for the changes -- to provide more access to nullsec beyond the large coalitions -- the nerf to much of nullsec hurts smaller entities far more. The only systems the larger entities will allow the smaller entities to possess will be the worthless ones, and the risk/reward of running anoms will utterly pale in comparison to highsec. Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec, why would anyone not part of one of the large coalitions risk running anoms in now worthless space? - What does it say if more nullsec dwellers create highsec L4 alts to fund their PVP activities in nullsec? What does that say about the balance of risk/reward in nullsec compared to in highsec? Whatever the ISK expectation per hour is in highsec, it needs to be higher in nullsec for the average person if they want to populate nullsec with more than just the large coalitions.
IchBinEinTestChar	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:20:00 - [2624] Originally by: Avallarion Selara IMO it's a good idea to give True Sec more meaning. That makes systems more deverse and gives some reason for conflict. But invalidating most of 0.0 space is bull****. Let's face it, nobody likes to farm Anos and Havens/Sanctums are the only ones worth doing. So in the end you have 4 relevant anos and the rest are just fillers. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that promotes more diversity and makes use of the other Anos? Is there any reason for Anos to exist in 0.0 that are designed for anything less capable than a BC? (And generate matching income of course.) It's also quite interesting how different Military upgrades and Industrial ones are. For Military it's very easy to reach and maintain lvl5 but you also need lvl5 to have any worthwhile effect. For Industry you have to work those mining lasers quite hard to reach lvl5 and most corps don't bother to because even starting with lvl1 you get what you want. So maybe it would help if Military levels worked more like Industrial ones? Hard to reach but worth something from the start? Another bad point about Anos is that they are 100% reliable in their respawn. You did a Station Sanctum? Wait a few mins and there's a new one for you. This means that you can reliably form the same Ano ad infinitum. This gets boring really fast. So now my idea: - Each system spawns 4 + military level + bonus for low True Sec Anos - When an Ano is completed a new random one spawns after a few minutes. The chance for each type depends on military level and True Sec. The function should be in a way that even a 0.0 system could get Sanctums when fully upgraded but maybe only like 10% of the time. Good True Sec systems could also spawn "Super Sanctums" when upgraded. - The type of NPC in the Ano should also depend on True Sec and military level. Simply better chance for good ships like expensive battleships or faction spawns. This could make it necessary to do the smaller Anos from time to time but they would possibly not feel like a complete waste of time anymore. What do you think? PS: I'm aware that there are more important things to fix than Anos. Moongold and Jump Bridges/Titan Bridges come to mind. Oh, and I liked the proposal to reduce bounty but increase loot/salvage. Doesn't really reduce your income but means that you have to do a little bit more besides Ctrl+Left and F1. Shameless self-quote so that maybe more than one person comments on something constructive. (Thx btw.)
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:23:00 - [2625] Originally by: Angst IronShard CCP do well with this patch. For all the whiners, who dare call themselves 0.0 hardcore players. I lived in 0.0 for years, Curse, Geminate, Syndicate, Pure Blind, The Vale, Deklein, Insmother, Wicked Creek, Immensea, Delve, Fountain, all around the cluster so, and I never chain-farm anomalies to buy ships. There are plenty of others not boring stuffs to do in EvE to get fun and make isks. The True Sec must reflect the high quality of systems contents, you'll want to chain farm high end anomalies, well, go and do war now to get access to those systems. Get the ** out of your farming torpor. The sand is slowly moving, adapt or die, yeah, it's a cruel virtual game. Good job CCP ! The simple fact is that new alliances were intended to settle down in nullsec. New alliances put all their assets together, went into nullsec, were killed by pew pews and spent their assets int upgrading systems and keeping new ships coming. Now CCP just tells them to p* off. But of course we got the super pr0s that have done everything in EvE, know everything and make isk by just being extra pr0. Basically all they are saying is: "Im fecking pr0." Now that we know that you are so awesome, go out and get new players with like 10 million sp and small wallets to settle down in nullsec. But I know they do not deserve to live there... why? well simply because you the super pr0 says so. Funny enough the best pvp¦er I know were not too much interested in sov but a lot in moons. And who will be your targets tomorrow if you tell everyone he is not worth it to live in nullsec?
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:24:00 - [2626] Originally by: Angst IronShard CCP do well with this patch. For all the whiners, who dare call themselves 0.0 hardcore players. I lived in 0.0 for years, Curse, Geminate, Syndicate, Pure Blind, The Vale, Deklein, Insmother, Wicked Creek, Immensea, Delve, Fountain, all around the cluster so, and I never chain-farm anomalies to buy ships. There are plenty of others not boring stuffs to do in EvE to get fun and make isks. The True Sec must reflect the high quality of systems contents, you'll want to chain farm high end anomalies, well, go and do war now to get access to those systems. Get the **** out of your farming torpor. The sand is slowly moving, adapt or die, yeah, it's a cruel virtual game. Good job CCP ! Can you possibly fill your post with more cliches and less foundation? Anything that makes the game more about grinding than having fun is a bad move, period.
Sahmul The Grimreapers.	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:28:00 - [2627] I have no strong feelings for or against this change, until I get around to joining the rest of my corp in null it will have no effect on me. I do however feel compelled to wonder how these particular changes can even hope to achieve the objectives laid out in the blog. Eve wars are primarily wars of attrition, in other words Alliances fight until one of them can no longer supply the ships to continue. At present, it seems that smaller Alliances already have an uphill struggle to displace larger entities, reducing their capacity to make ISK hurts their ability to successfully prosecute a war against the major Powerblocs. Simple logic shows me that a small Alliance will have greater difficulty recruiting good pilots, as a good pilot would likely prefer to place his allegiance to an Alliance that can pay him. The small Alliance will have less capacity to recover from losses, and will likely be forced by limited resources to ship out in cheaper fits and ships. To my mind, this will encourage them to either return to Low/High Sec or fall into line with the major Powerblocs. Greyscales goals appear to be worthy, his method for achieving them seems flawed at best.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:30:00 - [2628] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour?
Angst IronShard Minmatar Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:31:00 - [2629] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Can you possibly fill your post with more cliches and less foundation? Anything that makes the game more about grinding than having fun is a bad move, period. so farming anos isn't grinding and is funny ? Well, I don't pay my subsciption for the same reason as you do. . ____________________________________________ Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:40:00 - [2630] Originally by: Angst IronShard Originally by: Aurelia Rei Can you possibly fill your post with more cliches and less foundation? Anything that makes the game more about grinding than having fun is a bad move, period. so farming anos isn't grinding and is funny ? Well, I don't pay my subsciption for the same reason as you do. Your reading comprehension needs improvement, sir. Anoms is one of many types of grinding in this game; having to run more of them to make the same amount of money = more grinding and less time for fun. What part of that don't you get?

Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:43:00 - [2631] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? "How much will the new anomalies in -0.00 through -0.249 space give per hour?" There, I've fixed it for you.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:51:00 - [2632] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? "How much will the new anomalies in -0.00 through -0.249 space give per hour?" There, I've fixed it for you. So, you don't want to answer how much the current anomalies give? Maybe it's too much, and thus justifying the nerf.
Angst IronShard Minmatar Sense of Serendipity Echoes of Nowhere	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:51:00 - [2633] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Your reading comprehension needs improvement, sir. Anoms is one of many types of grinding in this game; having to run more of them to make the same amount of money = more grinding and less time for fun. What part of that don't you get? maybe, I'm not english fluent. my bad. But You still stick to farming anos... Stop farming anos and you'll have more time for fun, that's the point. Anos are not the only content to get isks, even in 0.0. It's only the simpliest and quickest and boring way, not sure it's the best way for the dynamical's game of 0.0 alliances. . ____________________________________________ Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:57:00 - [2634] Originally by: Angst IronShard Originally by: Aurelia Rei Your reading comprehension needs improvement, sir. Anoms is one of many types of grinding in this game; having to run more of them to make the same amount of money = more grinding and less time for fun. What part of that don't you get? maybe, I'm not english fluent. my bad. But You still stick to farming anos... Stop farming anos and you'll have more time for fun, that's the point. Anos are not the only content to get isks, even in 0.0. It's only the simpliest and quickest and boring way, not sure it's the best way for the dynamical's game of 0.0 alliances. I think what he's trying to say is that he wants to spend 2 or 3 hours farming anomalies to replace his carrier. 0.0 anomaly must be really a lot if he thinks it's easy to make 60-100 mill per hour in L4s, otherwise why risk it out in 0.0 to farm anomalies? With the new path he would have to spend a lot of time to grind to replace, so he doesn't like that grinding.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.04 08:57:00 - [2635] Quote: Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s This is quite garbage. Despite being a strenuous (eve-search is your friend) supporter for L4 nerfs I have never claimed "making 60-100M per hour" because that's something that requires blizting + nicely fitted gankboat, abundant skillset and intensive in game focus including having saved fittings to swap, maybe an alt to take missions while the mission character just jumps from one mission to the next and so on. 40M/h is the "sweet spot" for hi sec missioning, the average Joe (the same skillset who would fill 90% of 0.0 renters) will make 25-30M tops. Quote: - What does it say if more nullsec dwellers create highsec L4 alts to fund their PVP activities in nullsec? What does that say about the balance of risk/reward in nullsec compared to in highsec? ... that L4 should / shall be nerfed again. Quote: Anything that makes the game more about grinding than having fun is a bad move, period. The only difference between EvE and the average fail "PvP only" MMO is that in EvE losses matter and sting a lot. If you turn EvE in "having fun", EvE becomes the next Failhammer Online. Quote: I do however feel compelled to wonder how these particular changes can even hope to achieve the objectives laid out in the blog They won't. The stated objectives are not even so much sincere imho. Quote: Simple logic shows me that a small Alliance will have greater difficulty recruiting good pilots, as a good pilot would likely prefer to place his allegiance to an Alliance that can pay him. This simple logic is flawed. The fabled good pilots don't go after ISK, they go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations. I have had the honor of knowing several totally epic guys, they never cried for ISK (they were good at making them) and being able making enough ISK is a discounted factor among the "good pilots" (this falls in the decade long and all MMOs encompassing "Good Player" topic). The Good Pilots who are after PvP, will join the good PvP corps / alliances and there's a bunch of well established ones that naturally attract talents. Your failure seeing this as the true drive for such individuals is what will keep them out of reach for the dime a dozen half assed alliances that struggle fielding 20 PvPers. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:00:00 - [2636] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? "How much will the new anomalies in -0.00 through -0.249 space give per hour?" There, I've fixed it for you. So, you don't want to answer how much the current anomalies give? Maybe it's too much, and thus justifying the nerf. I love that you apparently don't even know. So basically, you admit to trolling? Here you are, because you have no basis to believe what I say anyway. As you can see, sanctums were only a little better than blitzing L4s for the average player. Now imagine 40+% of nullsec losing sanctums and havens. Only hubs or lower left. Admit to trolling yet?
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:03:00 - [2637] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Admit to trolling yet? No, I want to find out from you what you think you are making, the same person who claims it's "easy" to make 60 to 100 mill per hour in L4s.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:05:00 - [2638] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Angst IronShard Originally by: Aurelia Rei Your reading comprehension needs improvement, sir. Anoms is one of many types of grinding in this game; having to run more of them to make the same amount of money = more grinding and less time for fun. What part of that don't you get? maybe, I'm not english fluent. my bad. But You still stick to farming anos... Stop farming anos and you'll have more time for fun, that's the point. Anos are not the only content to get isks, even in 0.0. It's only the simpliest and quickest and boring way, not sure it's the best way for the dynamical's game of 0.0 alliances. I think what he's trying to say is that he wants to spend 2 or 3 hours farming anomalies to replace his carrier. 0.0 anomaly must be really a lot if he thinks it's easy to make 60-100 mill per hour in L4s, otherwise why risk it out in 0.0 to farm anomalies? With the new path he would have to spend a lot of time to grind to replace, so he doesn't like that grinding. This is what I love about people who can't have a normal debate without relying on unfounded claims. Because ANYONE who possibly disagrees with you MUST be a nullsec dweller right? Sorry, never owned a carrier, and amusingly, I've only spent 5 days total in nullsec. Done trolling? Unless you can actually back up your claim of 2-3 hours per carrier, I suggest you stop trolling.
Indranel	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:05:00 - [2639] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? "How much will the new anomalies in -0.00 through -0.249 space give per hour?" There, I've fixed it for you. So, you don't want to answer how much the current anomalies give? Maybe it's too much, and thus justifying the nerf. bretty sure the high ends get your about 20-25 mil a pop. depending on the spend of your ass kickary of impotent NPC pirates I've made close if not over 100mil and hour, that being said has anyone voiced the possibility that CCP wants to nerf Anoms simply because it makes it that much easier to earn plex which you can't argue every time a player earns in game $$$ to buy a plex that's like 15 bucks they don't get to rake in enough people doing it <most the people I know buy plex ingame> unless there is something I don't know about like CCP some how gets the money anyway from a third party CONSPIRACY NUT JOB COMING THOUGH I just don't see mining of ABC ores and transporting them to high sec making as much money with a lot less risk, jumping to highsec can be risky biz
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:06:00 - [2640] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Unless you can actually back up your claim of 2-3 hours per carrier, I suggest you stop trolling. Unless you can actually back up your claim of 60 to 100 mill per hour L4 easy money making, I suggest you stop trolling.

Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:07:00 - [2641] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Admit to trolling yet? No, I want to find out from you what you think you are making, the same person who claims it's "easy" to make 60 to 100 mill per hour in L4s. It's not easy to make 60 to 100 mil per hour in L4s? Do I have to tell you what NPC corp and LP store item to use as well? Good riddance. I'm done with you. Just keep trolling.
Sahmul The Grimreapers.	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:12:00 - [2642] Edited by: Sahmul on 04/04/2011 09:12:27 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha This simple logic is flawed. The fabled good pilots don't go after ISK, they go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations. I have had the honor of knowing several totally epic guys, they never cried for ISK (they were good at making them) and being able making enough ISK is a discounted factor among the "good pilots" (this falls in the decade long and all MMOs encompassing "Good Player" topic). The Good Pilots who are after PvP, will join the good PvP corps / alliances and there's a bunch of well established ones that naturally attract talents. Your failure seeing this as the true drive for such individuals is what will keep them out of reach for the dime a dozen half assed alliances that struggle fielding 20 PvPers. Your theory on the motivation of "good pilots" may well be accurate, but to my mind, even the best pilots need to replace ships, especially if they are fighting for a small Alliance vs a Powerbloc. This requires ISK, which small Alliances, and their nerfed space, will be less able to provide. Whether or not the Powerblocs will be able to recruit the "best" is secondary to the fact that they will be able to recruit more, as the space they hold will support more pilots. Regardless, as I said, this doesn't really effect me at this stage, but I was curious as to how the means was connected to the projected ends.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:13:00 - [2643] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 04/04/2011 09:15:35 Originally by: Aurelia Rei I'm done with you But can you answer others who have made valid point, I may have gone overboard with the 2-3 hours, but I made that since you claim it's "easy" to make it out in empire. Yes, I do know about the Fac...., uh, L4s and LPs. But you won't see me whining if/when it gets nerfed.
Imouto Tan	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:16:00 - [2644] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Angst IronShard Originally by: Aurelia Rei Your reading comprehension needs improvement, sir. Anoms is one of many types of grinding in this game; having to run more of them to make the same amount of money = more grinding and less time for fun. What part of that don't you get? maybe, I'm not english fluent. my bad. But You still stick to farming anos... Stop farming anos and you'll have more time for fun, that's the point. Anos are not the only content to get isks, even in 0.0. It's only the simpliest and quickest and boring way, not sure it's the best way for the dynamical's game of 0.0 alliances. I think what he's trying to say is that he wants to spend 2 or 3 hours farming anomalies to replace his carrier. 0.0 anomaly must be really a lot if he thinks it's easy to make 60-100 mill per hour in L4s, otherwise why risk it out in 0.0 to farm anomalies? With the new path he would have to spend a lot of time to grind to replace, so he doesn't like that grinding. Maxed with all relevant skills, mid-tier deaspace fit tengu, missile implants, I make about 25m ticks (75m/h) in Sanctums. (What some in this thread refer to as "blizting + nicely fitted gankboat, abundant skillset and intensive in game focus.") Think I can replace a 1.5-2B carrier in 2 to 3 hours? Hell, most nullsec grunts can't even do what I do. So what, if you can't PLEX your way into a maxed tengu toon a 1.5B HAM tengu, don't go into nullsec? The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. So, yes Lost'In'Space, he doesn't want to grind. He doesn't want to grind because 1) For the Nth time, Level 4's give a lot of ISK, and only sanctum COMPARES to it. Not even beats it by any reasonable margin, just merely holds up to comparison. Anything below, and you're better off with L4's. 2) 0.0 has more ISK sinks. 3) Go [explitive] yourself. -1/10 troll
Laodell Gallente United Brothers Of Eve Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:16:00 - [2645] This is exactly what CCP wants I think. They are trying to p!ss off the older players into leaving Eve online in protest, to make room for the younger players. From a server cost perspective, removing Jump bridges from the game will increase the amount of database transactions on the system as they are forcing thousands of players to traverse MORE systems in order to get to the fight. This isn't about improvement, but p!ssing in the established alliances cheerios to make them leave the game Having run an alliance going upwards to 500 ppl, these 'improvements' would have made 0.0 completely incapable of supporting any kind of foothold without purchasing more GTC's from CCP. Nice Cash sink for the ISK sink. I don't know how these changes will improve anything. But to be certain, nobody took space before Dominion just for the ratting, and nobody is going to take space for ratting after this update. 0.0 is already pretty damn empty, and if nobody can afford to PVP then it's going to be even more empty still. Now That's not fun. - Dell. - Laodell -
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:18:00 - [2646] Originally by: Indranel pretty sure the high ends get you about 20-25 mil a pop. depending on the time spent of your ass kickary of impotent NPC pirates I've made close to if not over 100mil and hour And that, my dear friend, is what I call a complete fiction. Please, do not post hypothetical perception of what you might earn by doing sanctums in a carrier or marauder. In a Nighthawk with excellent skills against Guristats (dmg types match), I get 10-12 mil per tick without corp tax included. 10 for "light bulb" sanctum, 12 for "belt" sanctum. That's max, not average. Which comes down to 30-36 mil per hour not counting the couple of mil of minerals from loot (so max 40 mil/h in ideal case). If you want to post, post something constructive.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:19:00 - [2647] Originally by: Imouto Tan ... My 2 to 3 hours was in response to his claim of 60 to 100 mill, and that too in "easy" way. So, it must be much more isk making in anomalies right? to justify risking in the 0.0? I do admit that was exaggerated claim, but that was in response to his exaggerated claim of making "easy" 60 to 100 mill in empire.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:30:00 - [2648] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 04/04/2011 09:31:01 Quote: The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. Since the ISK generated is too much, the most logical option would be to ALSO make L4 so crap that the bad 0.0 anomalies seem good in comparison. You know we'll end up there... After all, farming hi sec roids is not much different than farming hi sec NPCs which is also not _that_ incredibly different farming 0.0 NPCs in blue NAP. The first yields crap already, the second should be nerfed to yield crap, the third should be nerfed to yield double than crap. ... and making having a carrier become a coveted privilege again like it has been. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:40:00 - [2649] Edited by: Aurelia Rei on 04/04/2011 09:45:37 Edited by: Aurelia Rei on 04/04/2011 09:44:28 Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 04/04/2011 09:14:37 Originally by: Aurelia Rei I'm done with you But can you answer others who have made valid point, I may have gone overboard with the 2-3 hours, but I made that since you claim it's "easy" to make it out in empire. Yes, I do know about the Fac...., uh, L4s and LPs. Really last response to you for the night. What valid point did you, with your overboard 2-3 hours per carrier, make that I didn't answer? I even stated that I have been for almost all of my career an empire dweller, so I find it funny that you insist on knowing how much I make in nullsec. Do you expect some outrageous number higher than given in that thread I linked you? I'm not that awesome, I assure you. Especially since, in case you missed it, I'm a career empire dweller! Sheesh. The funny thing is I'm not even boasting about my own abilities. I'm simply stating that the expected range in highsec is between 60 mil and 100 mil ISK per hour, and as such, it's only reasonable that the average player should be able to make far more than that in nullsec. If over 40% of nullsec cannot bear a return rate higher than 60 to 100 mil, adjusted by the risk of not having Concord around, then something is wrong. If the large coalitions with mostly safe nullsec space are making it too unrisky, then fix that rather than hurting those who don't have that luxury. Is 60 to 100 mil ridiculous? Forget the higher range of the estimate; if you cannot fathom making 60+ mil ISK per hour in highsec easily, I suggest you re-evaluate everything you think you know about mission running. Again, I'm not awesome. 2700 ISK/LP is the best I've found in the LP store, and no, you can do your own work and find out what it is. Others claim even higher conversion rates, but even with my 2700 ISK/LP, I far exceed 60 mil ISK/hour. If I'm lucky and get the right missions, I can hit the upper bound of my estimate. On average, I land somewhere in between. I'm sure plenty of people make more than I, since I've been playing for little more than a year, so I do not understand why you are so shocked. Yes, it's possible to NOT be a nullsec dweller and be fair about balance, and it's only fair that they nerf L4s as well. P.S. Please get off the, and I paraphrase, "because he said it was easy to get 60-100 mil/hr in highsec, he must make even more in nullsec to account for the risk," because, for the Nth time, I've lived in highsec (and W-space) for all but 5 days of my life. Get that in your head, please!
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:40:00 - [2650] Originally by: Antigue You really believe in what you are writing? That makes me laugh now. I can already hear the highsec corps whine when such a lot of renters with at least some pvp experience and a lot of pvp fun return to highsec. They will not jump through empty nullsec to get blobbed in their face when they finally hit the hotspots. They will rather learn that highsec ransoming can be a nice side business and you don¦t have to jump like 40 times to get blobbed in the face. I can already hear the pew pew demands for targets and their protests about increasing blobs in the hotspots. I can imagine young players who joined for their first time a corp to learn some stuff about eve and this corp get straight away wardecced and the young sirs get killed if they ever leave the station. So you really believe this will not have effects on all aspects of EvE? Really? Providing peons to 1000 man blobs doesn't exactly equip you to through your weight around hi sec. Nullsec bears aren't magically better than hi sec bears, infact what are you going to do when your opponents can also dock up... not something you're used to seeing because the only 'small' gang PvP you've seen is forming a blob 5 times the size of a roaming gang then using jump bridges to try and trap them. What will happen though is that competition to get into corps with good space will increase, and obviously you're crying so much because you know no one decent will have you.

Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 09:56:00 - [2651] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 04/04/2011 10:03:18 Originally by: Aurelia Rei What valid point did you, with your overboard 2-3 hours per carrier, make that I didn't answer? I was asking about the points others have made, not "my" other points. I wasn't shocked, those LPs involves luck, I make more isks than 100 mill per hour, overall, but not every hour since it's trading. My point is, it's not "easy". I don't remember how much isks/LP I was doing when I was selling certain faction fits, and other things that were way higher than 1000 isks/LP. But I have moved on to much better things that involve careful planning and luck.
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.04 10:00:00 - [2652] Originally by: Sahmul Edited by: Sahmul on 04/04/2011 09:12:27 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha This simple logic is flawed. The fabled good pilots don't go after ISK, they go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations. I have had the honor of knowing several totally epic guys, they never cried for ISK (they were good at making them) and being able making enough ISK is a discounted factor among the "good pilots" (this falls in the decade long and all MMOs encompassing "Good Player" topic). The Good Pilots who are after PvP, will join the good PvP corps / alliances and there's a bunch of well established ones that naturally attract talents. Your failure seeing this as the true drive for such individuals is what will keep them out of reach for the dime a dozen half assed alliances that struggle fielding 20 PvPers. Your theory on the motivation of "good pilots" may well be accurate, but to my mind, even the best pilots need to replace ships, especially if they are fighting for a small Alliance vs a Powerbloc. This requires ISK, which small Alliances, and their nerfed space, will be less able to provide. Whether or not the Powerblocs will be able to recruit the "best" is secondary to the fact that they will be able to recruit more, as the space they hold will support more pilots. Regardless, as I said, this doesn't really effect me at this stage, but I was curious as to how the means was connected to the projected ends. Really? The kind of stuff PL does completly contradicts what you're saying here showing that you're making stuff up because you're so desperate not to adapt. We're not the only ones, NC(dot) and Evoke aren't here whining that providence got nerfed, but have gone nomadic again. Merciless seem to be pretty successful without owning any space. Infact the general rule seems to be that the best PvP corps / alliances don't own space other than to fulfil short term goals which don't revolve around farming.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 10:06:00 - [2653] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 04/04/2011 09:31:01 Quote: The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. Since the ISK generated is too much, the most logical option would be to ALSO make L4 so crap that the bad 0.0 anomalies seem good in comparison. You know we'll end up there... After all, farming hi sec roids is not much different than farming hi sec NPCs which is also not _that_ incredibly different farming 0.0 NPCs in blue NAP. The first yields crap already, the second should be nerfed to yield crap, the third should be nerfed to yield double than crap. ... and making having a carrier become a coveted privilege again like it has been. ^This. But perhaps they won't nerf highsec because all the nullsec dwellers are making highsec alts to cover their nullsec expenses. New accounts = more money for CCP? Because, oddly, the Eve community would rather grind ~3.5 to ~6 hours (or more, apparently, for some people) of L4s than pay $11 for the month. At a rate of saving $2 to $3 per hour of grinding -- far less than minimum wage, sadly -- people are still unwilling to pay the monthly fee. More drastic measures/nerfing will be needed!
Sahmul The Grimreapers.	Posted - 2011.04.04 10:15:00 - [2654] Originally by: Dodgy Past Really? The kind of stuff PL does completly contradicts what you're saying here showing that you're making stuff up because you're so desperate not to adapt. We're not the only ones, NC(dot) and Evoke aren't here whining that providence got nerfed, but have gone nomadic again. Merciless seem to be pretty successful without owning any space. Infact the general rule seems to be that the best PvP corps / alliances don't own space other than to fulfil short term goals which don't revolve around farming. If you had actually read my post you would have seen that I am not making anything up, merely trying to understand how Greyscales means could be connected to his posited outcomes. I have zero knowledge of PL's methods, and frankly I care less, sorry if that offends you. You would deny then that the big coalitions have more recruiting power? Since that was my point and your experience "completely contradicts" that I can only assume that to be your meaning. Meh, whatever, I've said it before, I am neither for or against these changes. I'm just curious about the model that leads to: Nerf Small Alliance, Buff big Alliance, Small Alliance will attack the big one. Even if that were true, I can't see them being terribly successful.
Vorlon Kosh	Posted - 2011.04.04 10:21:00 - [2655] Well this is fun "NOT". So CCP changed the criteria for Sov in 0.0, off we all went built up the system index's installed I hubs, upgrades and outposts to accomodate the then considerd to be fair changes. Now because it does not suit CCP without so much as a by your leave they want to nerf the hell out of the anoms to disable any 0.0 players ability to make isk despite these players putting in the work to accomodate CCP's Sov system. Once this nerf is in I wonder just how many people are going to petition CCP to get back all of the Isk they have invested into the systems they have built up over the last year or so due to the total disregard by CCP to its customer base in going ahead with the nerf. This nerf at best is just plain stupid and all it will serve to do is damage Eve over the long term. Ive seen comments about game economics etc in this thread, the plain truth is CCP dont give a flying fig about player/game economics only thier own.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.04 10:22:00 - [2656] Quote: Because, oddly, the Eve community would rather grind ~3.5 to ~6 hours (or more, apparently, for some people) of L4s than pay $11 for the month. Like in EvE, the RL world is filled by tire kickers and people ready to sell their time for cheap as long as it's something stupid to do. Also, at the Fanfest CCP said they work with long term overall progression in mind. IE they will accept today loss if they believe it'll keep the boat afloat in the long run. This means they already discounted people quitting / returning to L4. Once they'll all return doing L4, the proposed L4 changes will make them scatter around and should auto-nerf the L4 income. It's probably an ongoing process. Hopefully one day we'll get to the point where those playing dumb professions (mining, L4, ratting, anoms, 0.01 ISK trading) earn very little, those pouring in some moderate effort earn more. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 10:48:00 - [2657] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? About 10 .. 15 % more than Level 4 hight quality agent in sec 0.5 if you are smart about chasing in your LP. To give you actual numbers chaining sanctums is roughly about 100 .. 110 mil / h, havens are about 90 ... 100 mil / h, doing level 4 missions in hi sec nets you around 90 mil / h. Both numbers are per person, running multiple accounts. In null sec you can get it with single account as well by using more expencive assets (Nyx chaining sanctums or officer/faction pimped marauders/pirate BS/T3) Losing havens and sanctums cuts that by roughly about 20%. So ture sec from 0.0 up to -0.24 will yield you less than level 4 missions in hi sec, unless it's NPC 0.0 ofc but that was not upgradeable anyway (but has pirate agents for compensation).
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:00:00 - [2658] Apparently, I am a sucker for trolls. Really, really last response. I swear! Originally by: Lost'In'Space I was asking about the points others have made, not "my" other points. The only other person to address anything I said mentioned: 1) me in relation with nullsec (again, I addressed that in my response to you), and 2) something about my idea of fun, which, aside from being a completely subjective standard, was completely irrelevant to what he was responding to anyway. Am I supposed to continue to discuss something that is a non-topic and only resulted from that person's lack of English comprehension? So who are these "others" that have made points that I haven't responded to? Another exaggeration? Originally by: Lost'In'Space I wasn't shocked, those LPs involves luck, I make more isks than 100 mill per hour, overall, but not every hour since it's trading. My point is, it's not "easy". I don't remember how much isks/LP I was doing when I was selling certain faction fits, and other things that were way higher than 1000 isks/LP. But I have moved on to much better things that involve careful planning and luck. Okay, see, this is why you deserve the troll title. You now say you make MORE than 100 mil ISK per hour, and yet you take offense when I said it's easy to make anywhere from about half of that to 100 mil ISK/hour? Or did you just decide you needed to argue over the proper meaning of the word "easy"? Semantics much? I find running L4s and making 60-100 mil ISK/hour "easy", because I don't have to put my thought into it; I don't need other people or an entire system in place to achieve it; I don't need to lose ships to CTAs defending the space; I don't need skills to fly a carrier; I haven't been the target of even one single attempted gank (knock on wood!); and because, quite frankly, it really IS just that easy. Are you offended that I still find it "easy"? Get real. Getting the right missions may depend on luck (I already pointed it out, lest you forget), but it's easily remedied if you don't care about declining missions (I do, unfortunately). There's no luck involved in anything else, unless a bunch of people suddenly flock into my LP store, kill the market and I have to find something else to sell. I'm starting to suspect you don't actually make more than 100 mil per hour. "Since it's trading"? You can't continue to mission while your item is on contract? If the item is on contract and sells 8 hours after you've logged off, you count that into time spent too? Ah, too funny. Originally by: Lost'In'Space Many people in empire L4 mission runners don't know about how to make good profit off LPs and other things, but those who farm anomalies, their entire alliance knows about their fully upgraded anomaly systems. Farming anomalies doesn't require at least some research, nothing other than, "IS IT MY TURN NOW???" You've got to be kidding me. Your comparison isn't even consistent, and very obviously prejudiced. The only thing that is relevant is that I can make 60-100 mil ISK per hour easily and BY MYSELF in the safety of highsec, so for the game to be fair, I should be able to make AT LEAST that, if not more, running Hubs in -0 through -0.249 space in my non-cap ship. After all, it's as easy as "IS IT MY TURN NOW???", right? Seriously.
Johnny Skullchip Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:04:00 - [2659] I find it amusing that you ask for our feedback on this change. You get a TON of negative feedback. Yet you still plan on making these changes in less than 24 hours. So when does CCP plan to listen to its player base? Or better yet its "influential" CSM? I suggest that you start soon or you will be forced to do so when you see your players leaving for a game that doesn't constantly slap them in the face.
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:13:00 - [2660] Who the f*** is the CSM?

Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:27:00 - [2661] Edited by: Aurelia Rei on 04/04/2011 11:31:34 Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Edited by: Doris Dragonbreath on 04/04/2011 10:59:11 Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? About 10 .. 15 % more than Level 4 hight quality agent in sec 0.5 if you are smart about chasing in your LP. To give you actual numbers chaining sanctums is roughly about 100 .. 110 mil / h, havens are about 90 ... 100 mil / h, doing level 4 missions in hi sec nets you around 90 mil / h. Both numbers are per person, running multiple accounts. In null sec you can get it with single account as well by using more expencive assets (Nyx chaining sanctums or officer/faction pimped marauders/pirate BS/T3) Losing havens and sanctums cuts that by roughly about 20%. So ture sec from 0.0 up to -0.24 will yield you less than level 4 missions in hi sec, unless it's NPC 0.0 ofc but that was not upgradeable anyway (but has pirate agents for compensation). Edit: To make it perfectly clear those numbers in the 100 mil/h ballpark are running multiple accounts. The 100 mil / h is sort of sweet spot around what the rewards start dimishing fast for me. Have tried it from single account all the way up to flying 5 accounts in both 0.0 anomalies and in hi sec level 4 missions. As Vaekrah pointed out "average joe" seems to hang around ~40 mil / h. Be it then lack of SP (max skills for ship in question), lack of number of accounts or questionable practices (like "permatanking"). However in per cents loss income loss should be quite propotional across the majority of spectrum starting from ~20 mil SP guys running single account all the way up to guys running multiple 100 mil / SP guys in anoms. Only ones that propably do not feel it are the pilots who are so fresh out of the char creator that they cant run Havens in an effective manner. Granted, being good at level 4 missions takes more knowledge and SP than being good at running Havens/Sanctums. I won't argue with your nullsec figures, but I hope your "both numbers are per person, running multiple accounts" isn't in reference to L4s as well. Are you saying that you're making ~100 mil running anoms per hour per account (i.e. 1 hour, 5 accounts, ~500 mil ISK gained), or ~100 mil per hour total (i.e. 1 hour, 5 accounts, ~100 mil ISK gained)? Even if it's the first case, it's ridiculous that one has to spend $55 per month and have 5 computers available just to make barely more than running a L4 with one computer and one account. And I would argue with your last statement. How many SP does it take to get a marauder with good enough skills? Surely less than it would take to be accepted into a corp in your alliance (I don't imagine you have very many half year old accounts that aren't alts)? And how hard is it to blitz L4s anyway? Everything is laid out for you on eve-survival.org. Again, I must stress this point: you don't need help to run L4s. How long would it take for someone to decide to gank me if I suddenly wandered into nullsec, all by my lonesome? Not very long, that's for sure!
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:36:00 - [2662] Can we get back to topic instead of comparing what is better to be a perfect carebear ? The topic is about CCP patch not a lesson about isk earnings. And yes i totally disapprove this PATCH like 88 pages of comments before me.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:40:00 - [2663] Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Edited by: Doris Dragonbreath on 04/04/2011 10:59:11 Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Aurelia Rei Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec How much does 0.0 fully upgraded anomalies give per hour? About 10 .. 15 % more than Level 4 hight quality agent in sec 0.5 if you are smart about chasing in your LP. Thanks for the info, I thought I may have missed the opportunity to do 0.0 anamolies, now even if the changes were reverted, I am not going to bother considering it. Except for the low respawn timer, there's no real advantage, at least for me. Originally by: Aurelia Rei Okay, see, this is why you deserve the troll title. You now say you make MORE than 100 mil ISK per hour, and yet you take offense when I said it's easy to make anywhere from about half of that to 100 mil ISK/hour? Or did you just decide you needed to argue over the proper meaning of the word "easy"? Semantics much I guess I may have gone overboard with the word "easy", and yes, I do make more than 100 mill isks per hour overall, and no it wasn't trolling. It took sometime for me to study the market and get into trading, even now it's no "easy" to pick the right ones that would double the isks. easy as in, not as simple as, LOCK.. F1..
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:43:00 - [2664] Originally by: Aurelia Rei You've got to be kidding me. Your comparison isn't even consistent, and very obviously prejudiced. The only thing that is relevant is that I can make 60-100 mil ISK per hour easily and BY MYSELF in the safety of highsec, so for the game to be fair, I should be able to make AT LEAST that, if not more, running Hubs in -0 through -0.249 space in my non-cap ship. After all, it's as easy as "IS IT MY TURN NOW???", right? Seriously. And there you show yourself to be ******ed. Once you're looking at more than 40m isk / hr from missions you're looking at expensive fits and limited systems, this ends up being far more dangerous than null sec anoms due to the amount of suicide ganking that goes on. Go to any of the better hi-sec systems and you'll notice the gates are swarming with concord from the ganks that are occurring.
Caoim Fearghul Caldari The First Church of the Azure Carrot	Posted - 2011.04.04 11:43:00 - [2665] Just a little reminder to those who are waxing on about this being a money play to discourage people from buying plexes with ISK. EVERY PLEX is paid for with cash originally. CCP gets the cash for every single plex sold on the market. Prodesse Non Nocere
Johnny Skullchip Red Sky Morning BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:08:00 - [2666] Originally by: Caoim Fearghul Just a little reminder to those who are waxing on about this being a money play to discourage people from buying plexes with ISK. EVERY PLEX is paid for with cash originally. CCP gets the cash for every single plex sold on the market. Right, and when CCP realizes that a large group of people will no longer have the isk to buy plex, which equates to less RL money for CCP, then maybe they will listen to the 88 pages of negative feedback. But I think we've all learned the hard way that CCP could care less about what its player want, all they care about is making money. But for some reason they fail to realize when you upset your CUSTOMERS, you make less money. I guess that's something they will have to learn the hard way. And tbh, after this clusterf*ck, I can't wait for them to get a little kick in the ass like they so enjoy giving their loyal customers.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:15:00 - [2667] Originally by: Dodgy Past Originally by: Aurelia Rei You've got to be kidding me. Your comparison isn't even consistent, and very obviously prejudiced. The only thing that is relevant is that I can make 60-100 mil ISK per hour easily and BY MYSELF in the safety of highsec, so for the game to be fair, I should be able to make AT LEAST that, if not more, running Hubs in -0 through -0.249 space in my non-cap ship. After all, it's as easy as "IS IT MY TURN NOW???", right? Seriously. And there you show yourself to be *****ed. Once you're looking at more than 40m isk / hr from missions you're looking at expensive fits and limited systems, this ends up being far more dangerous than null sec anoms due to the amount of suicide ganking that goes on. Go to any of the better hi-sec systems and you'll notice the gates are swarming with concord from the ganks that are occurring. Just curious, but WTF does that have to do with anything? Because some people get suicide ganked, therefore what? All people get ganked? I have been ganked? Innies are better than outies? Your logic does not flow. If I link a bunch of plexers and ratters who have been ganked in the safety of their alliance space, what does that mean then? I have seen the swirly gates, and they are not all for carebears with their 2+ bil fits. There are far too many morons flying billions in blueprints in haulers with so little eHP you can hear their hulls creaking from across the system to keep them busy. Maybe I have been insanely lucky. Maybe I've jinxed myself with this post and I'll suffer my first gank this week. Maybe you're so incensed you'll personally get all your PL buddies and hunt me down (please don't). But until that happens, I fail to see how it is more risky to run L4s solo than it is to run anythig solo in nullsec WITHOUT* the benefit of being in some large alliance with lots of friends. Not everyone has that luxury.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:17:00 - [2668] Originally by: Caoim Fearghul Just a little reminder to those who are waxing on about this being a money play to discourage people from buying plexes with ISK. EVERY PLEX is paid for with cash originally. CCP gets the cash for every single plex sold on the market. Oops, yes, touche. =P I was only teasing about it being a play for more money, anyhow. ;)
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:26:00 - [2669] If you read the latest QEN, it becomes painfully obvious why this sanctum/haven change is being implemented. Main points: The south is becoming depopulated The monetary supply is increasing dramatically, to the point where even CCP's normally muted QENs are proclaiming doom if something isn't done to fix it - from 67.6 trillion ISK added in Quarter 3 to 75.7 trillion added in Quarter 4. The bulk of this increase comes from nullsec anomaly farming; this increase is substantially greater than the mission payout increases over the same quarter. Supercaps are everywhere, and everyone is buying more capitals The tonnage of ships in demand per capita has been decreasing substantially over the last six months. This means people aren't dying and replacing their ships nearly as much as before. Too much money means too many people get along. This can be seen in everything from the ever growing urbanization of trade hubs to the aforementioned drops in demand for ships. Eve needs more conflict, and Greyscale looks like he's on the money with this change to address it.
Quaddy1	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:28:00 - [2670] If these anom changes go ahead, I will suspend my account for 30 days at the end of my current subscription in protest. I have too much invested in our system to go down without a whimper. If you dont like it, join me & hit em in the pocket guys.

Crazy Craven	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:50:00 - [2671] It does make a little sense now from reading through the QEN figures I admit, but being new to null, well it doesn't make a huge game changer for me, I was there to learn new aspects of EVE, so rethinking my current thoughts may not be a huge deal for me. I agree CCP need to have balance, and from what I see in "random" but still expensive ISK figures for living in Null space. CCP still needs to somewhat keep some kind of way for people to pay those huge fees, if they can't give that to the corps/alliances of Null then they need to reduce those figures dramatically. More-so I feel CCP Greyscale needs to have more than 3 responses here, it's become a darn flame board, and a lot of people are just fighting amongst one another. CCP step up to the customer quality would you and give your customers some answers, it's beginning to look like Walmart in this thread. In all seriousness, there is a lot of money funded to EVE from paying subscribers with multiple accounts so give us the honor of a response, either through this post or with a fresh one.
Dark Striped	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:50:00 - [2672] Who the **** are the CSM?
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:57:00 - [2673] Ze tears must flow, keep em comming NC bears
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 12:59:00 - [2674] Originally by: Aurelia Rei I won't argue with your nullsec figures, but I hope your "both numbers are per person, running multiple accounts" isn't in reference to L4s as well. Are you saying that you're making ~100 mil running anoms per hour per account (i.e. 1 hour, 5 accounts, ~500 mil ISK gained), or ~100 mil per hour total (i.e. 1 hour, 5 accounts, ~100 mil ISK gained)? Even if it's the first case, it's ridiculous that one has to spend $55 per month and have 5 computers available just to make barely more than running a L4 with one computer and one account. And I would argue with your last statement. How many SP does it take to get a marauder with good enough skills? Surely less than it would take to be accepted into a corp in your alliance (I don't imagine you have very many half year old accounts that aren't alts)? And how hard is it to blitz L4s anyway? Everything is laid out for you on eve-survival.org. Again, I must stress this point: you don't need help to run L4s. How long would it take for someone to decide to gank me if I suddenly wandered into nullsec, all by my lonesome? Not very long, that's for sure! It's 100 mil/h total, not per account. As far as running level 4 missions well goes yeah it's harder. It's not all about SP and equipment, you need to actually know stuff to be good. I.e., have meaningful in game experience on subject. Cashing in LP, what to shoot when, what is "buddy agro" if you run multiple accounts, what gets you concorded etc. It's not trivial in 0.0 either but it's simpler.
Daemonspirit Six Degrees of Separation	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:09:00 - [2675] Originally by: Indranel ... possibility that CCP wants to nerf Anoms simply because it makes it that much easier to earn plex which you can't argue every time a player earns in game $$$ to buy a plex that's like 15 bucks they don't get to rake in enough people doing it <most the people I know buy plex ingame> unless there is something I don't know about Well, you actually can argue that, because it is 100% wrong... Eve Wiki on PLEX just to make it easier... Originally by: Eve Wiki Obtaining PLEX through Account Management The following instructions are for players that wish to purchase PLEX directly from CCP using the Account Management page. 1. Log into Account Management 2. Click "Buy PLEX" in the Common Tasks column 3. Complete all fields of the PLEX Purchase Form * You can purchase bundles of 2,4,6,8 or 12 PLEX every 24 hours * Only one purchase per 24 hours is allowed. If a player purchases 2 PLEX, they will have to wait 24 hours to buy another batch. * Each PLEX is valid for 30 days of game time. * Only credit cards will be accepted as payment for PLEX. So no, isk ---> plex is NOT the issue... (sorry - this annoys me no end, when people accuse CCP of this...) ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:24:00 - [2676] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 04/04/2011 09:31:01 Quote: The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. Since the ISK generated is too much, the most logical option would be to ALSO make L4 so crap that the bad 0.0 anomalies seem good in comparison. You know we'll end up there... After all, farming hi sec roids is not much different than farming hi sec NPCs which is also not _that_ incredibly different farming 0.0 NPCs in blue NAP. The first yields crap already, the second should be nerfed to yield crap, the third should be nerfed to yield double than crap. ... and making having a carrier become a coveted privilege again like it has been. which then would defeat the purpose of the whole patch which is to make the "crap" 0.0 a stepping stone to build to attack alliances whih are richer and more powerful for their ratting space. this is where all the arguments FOR this change tend to fall to pieces. wars started to acquire better truesec ratting space. yet ccp greyscale seems to think somehow they will be in the future. yet to afford those wars players need isk, especially "new" alliances. its just a really illogical argument.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:42:00 - [2677] Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Originally by: Aurelia Rei I won't argue with your nullsec figures, but I hope your "both numbers are per person, running multiple accounts" isn't in reference to L4s as well. Are you saying that you're making ~100 mil running anoms per hour per account (i.e. 1 hour, 5 accounts, ~500 mil ISK gained), or ~100 mil per hour total (i.e. 1 hour, 5 accounts, ~100 mil ISK gained)? Even if it's the first case, it's ridiculous that one has to spend $55 per month and have 5 computers available just to make barely more than running a L4 with one computer and one account. And I would argue with your last statement. How many SP does it take to get a marauder with good enough skills? Surely less than it would take to be accepted into a corp in your alliance (I don't imagine you have very many half year old accounts that aren't alts)? And how hard is it to blitz L4s anyway? Everything is laid out for you on eve-survival.org. Again, I must stress this point: you don't need help to run L4s. How long would it take for someone to decide to gank me if I suddenly wandered into nullsec, all by my lonesome? Not very long, that's for sure! It's 100 mil/h total, not per account. As far as running level 4 missions well goes yeah it's harder. It's not all about SP and equipment, you need to actually know stuff to be good. I.e., have meaningful in game experience on subject. Cashing in LP, what to shoot when, what is "buddy agro" if you run multiple accounts, what gets you concorded etc. It's not trivial in 0.0 either but it's simpler. Sorry, my questions re: L4s were rhetorical. ;) I meant, from my experience, it didn't take much time to get into a marauder and start making very good cash. Perhaps I've overestimated you nullsec people. =P I'll concede, however, that I wouldn't be able to safely manage more than one toon running L4s, let alone 5, but I really think you're overrating mission-running. It wasn't hard to piece together how to run L4s most efficiently, and figuring out what gives an acceptable return on LP wasn't that much harder, either. The missions themselves are so simple and boring it's hard not to "get it" after the first try or two. Perhaps the actual PVE combat in nullsec is simpler, but it seems there are other things to learn, i.e. how to get around nullsec safely, how to avoid camps, etc.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:51:00 - [2678] Edited by: Skaarl on 04/04/2011 13:52:14 Originally by: bitters much Edited by: bitters much on 04/04/2011 13:25:58 Ze tears must flow, keep em comming NC bears To add some content: Maybe all you poor 0.0 scrubs should read the "[Devblog] keep on hunting your enemies" Quote: Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t. Are you guys doing anything else apart from the so called soooo boring PVE part to fund your ships ( you know the ones that are in your empire hangars with lots of bling fitted to boost your egos ) and never see any PVP action. with the playerbase growing by 9% and the amount of mission rewards growing by 3.7% it is hardly accurate to say this is due solely to too many people ratting in nullsec. also to answer your question... look at the eve-kil top 20. i am not in anyway saying these are the l33test pvpers in the game. but the alliances you like to continuously calla bunch of carebears who do nothing but rat all day long make up a good chunk of that list.
RabbidFerret Kinetic Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:53:00 - [2679] Originally by: Imouto Tan Maxed with all relevant skills, mid-tier deaspace fit tengu, missile implants, I make about 25m ticks (75m/h) in Sanctums. (What some in this thread refer to as "blizting + nicely fitted gankboat, abundant skillset and intensive in game focus.") Think I can replace a 1.5-2B carrier in 2 to 3 hours? Hell, most nullsec grunts can't even do what I do. So what, if you can't PLEX your way into a maxed tengu toon a 1.5B HAM tengu, don't go into nullsec? The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. So, yes Lost'In'Space, he doesn't want to grind. He doesn't want to grind because 1) For the Nth time, Level 4's give a lot of ISK, and only sanctum COMPARES to it. Not even beats it by any reasonable margin, just merely holds up to comparison. Anything below, and you're better off with L4's. 2) 0.0 has more ISK sinks. 3) Go [explitive] yourself. -1/10 troll This is the most constructive comment I've seen so far. --------------------------------------------------
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:53:00 - [2680] Edited by: Lt Pizi on 04/04/2011 13:55:20 Originally by: The Mittani Edited by: The Mittani on 04/04/2011 03:33:47 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? hihihihi here you have it from your glorious CSM this argument makes 90 % of the posts invalid now to income from sanctums i did a few when we were in fountain and on my combat fitted carrier the highest tick was 18m you can easily double that if you run a dedicated ship a corpmate wanted to proof that you can make 1b a day with sanctums and he did ... thats PURE ISK injected into eve , no escalation no salvaging or loot so 4 days of ratting can sport your account for a WHOLE YEAR we did run a few corp ops to make isk (semi succesfull cause most got bored after the 3 sanctum) but it neeted 10b isk over the weekend with ease thats 1 freekeng mom every other week or 1 ti t every month 1 sunctum sports you what ? 3 of your ****ty drakes you like to fly ? so no wonder you can kill ppl and they keep respawning over and over like mindless npc will this change be the end of all changes hope not because isolated it doesnt change much oh edit : after PL left fountain I DID NOT LOOSE A SINGLE SHIP in our home constelation ... it was perfectly safe to rat ther .. enemies were reported 20 jumps away .....

Gimmy Rotten	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:02:00 - [2681] Tomorrow CCP will patch on the game ! Yeah ! /me waves ! what will happened ? > some players (not so much methink, you and I are addicted mofos) will stop playing EvE, cool, less lag, less macrobots and less whiners; so we'll get a more mature community, that's a good point for EvE's futur. > some players will rethink how they will have to earn isks, great ! they'll think again... and for many it will be for the first time since they went into nullsec !!! > some players will start to party ! (not me, I live in WH and never chain/farm 0.0 anos and no I don't pilot cap ships and yes I've always paid my subscription to play the game, I never bought a plex IG to play (less farm to do, so more fun playing; for me EvE is not about gaining less or more XXM isk/hour). > some small alliances will disband, if their powerblocs don't diminish their rental fees. > some greater alliances will disband, too many renters leaving the area. > 0.0 carebears will go towards the high truesec systems or go back to empire. > Wars will begin. > 0.0 Farmers will abandon large parts of nullsec, so, the lower truesec systems will become places to go for empire corps interested to discover nullsec, and it will start creating a movement from empire, a dynamic, to get access to the best nullsec systems. > Smaller alliances will have to regroup to get down powerblocs, and so on. Again, GJ CCP. you can all flame me, my crystal ball never fails ! o7
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:04:00 - [2682] Originally by: RabbidFerret Originally by: Imouto Tan Maxed with all relevant skills, mid-tier deaspace fit tengu, missile implants, I make about 25m ticks (75m/h) in Sanctums. (What some in this thread refer to as "blizting + nicely fitted gankboat, abundant skillset and intensive in game focus.") Think I can replace a 1.5-2B carrier in 2 to 3 hours? Hell, most nullsec grunts can't even do what I do. So what, if you can't PLEX your way into a maxed tengu toon a 1.5B HAM tengu, don't go into nullsec? The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. So, yes Lost'In'Space, he doesn't want to grind. He doesn't want to grind because 1) For the Nth time, Level 4's give a lot of ISK, and only sanctum COMPARES to it. Not even beats it by any reasonable margin, just merely holds up to comparison. Anything below, and you're better off with L4's. 2) 0.0 has more ISK sinks. 3) Go [explitive] yourself. -1/10 troll This is the most constructive comment I've seen so far. Except that, like most of the blatant liars in this thread, he's completely handwaving away the 10/10 escalations and faction spawns that appear in anomalies. Which, when I was doing them fairly casually last summer, were good for an extra bill a week or so Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:05:00 - [2683] Originally by: Aurelia Rei Sorry, my questions re: L4s were rhetorical. ;) I meant, from my experience, it didn't take much time to get into a marauder and start making very good cash. Perhaps I've overestimated you nullsec people. =P I'll concede, however, that I wouldn't be able to safely manage more than one toon running L4s, let alone 5, but I really think you're overrating mission-running. It wasn't hard to piece together how to run L4s most efficiently, and figuring out what gives an acceptable return on LP wasn't that much harder, either. The missions themselves are so simple and boring it's hard not to "get it" after the first try or two. Perhaps the actual PVE combat in nullsec is simpler, but it seems there are other things to learn, i.e. how to get around nullsec safely, how to avoid camps, etc. If your 100 mil/hour via the use of 5 accounts is the norm, then the next thing CCP will need to do is nerf L4 mission income to bring the two back into parity. It's ridiculous that you need to expend so much effort and money just to make a bit more than L4s. TBH 5 accounts are approx as 2 to 3 accounts as far as actual effectivity goes in PvE be it then in level 4 missions or anoms. Number "5" was just the top number of accounts I have used. Two accounts is kinda optimal, you can still have meaningful control over them, three is already pushing it but one ncan still do it. Above three ... well thats rather ineffective already and one has to start doing heavy compromises. For example for five I had to use FoF missiles (yeah not that good idea) and ended up as good income as using three accounts. And yeah, it does not take that much time if one knows what he is doing ;) I can make 3 mil SP chararacter do level 4 missions with acceptable effectivity, but thats bcos I know exactly what I am doing in there an why. For "average joe" however bar seems to be somewhat higher. The number of "approx 15% more" is assuming one is using roughly the same number of accounts in both anoms and in lev 4 missions, they scale roughly the same.. to some extent, in those missions with some travel more accounts dont help ofc, but the combat phase of mission is about the same. The number is btw for T2 fitted BS in 0.0 vs Faction fitted Marauder in hi sec lev 4 (in particular it was Carrier + 2x Abbadons, with carrier just sitting there and transfering cap and reps vs Nightmare + Golemwith faction fits in hi sec). And I think we can agree in there that there is indeed other things one in 0.0 needs to learn fast for survival. I was more referring to the PvE side ofc, that actual anomaly content is simpler/easier than higher end level 4 missions.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:14:00 - [2684] look at the eve-kil top 20. i am not in anyway saying these are the l33test pvpers in the game. but the alliances you like to continuously calla bunch of carebears who do nothing but rat all day long make up a good chunk of that list.
IchBinEinTestChar	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:34:00 - [2685] You know, the whole thing would be entirely different if they'd just honestly say that we generate too much money in Anos and that this needs fixing. And that they lower the income in level 4s at the same time as well. That would still generate some hate but not as much as stating some goals and then coming up with measurements where only very few can even imagine that they will have the desired outcome. I'm not sure what the aim of this dev blog was but it's neither informative enough so that we could form a solid oppinion nor promosing in any way to be excited about. I agree that anos are boring and that it isn't good that systems are not too different. But what Greyscale supposed isn't going to make anos more interesting nor will the big blocks suddenly fall appart. They will review how much they can extort from their renters and give them probably a few bones and that's it. Will probably take 1-2 weeks and it's done. These changes also almost completely invalidate the investment in iHUB upgrades. IMO Anos haven't been that well designed from the start. There are only 2 (up to 5 if you're generous) that are interesting, the rest are filler noone cares about. (Not even people with 3mio SP that have just jumped to 00. They will make more money ratting with less risk.) There's also the point that only lvl5 military upgrade is actually useful (4 isn't too bad but really, you want 5). It's also quite easy to achieve and keep. For industry it's completely different. Even lvl1 is useful and lvl5 is excrusiatingly hard to get. The proposed changes would make the upgrades almost useless in some (many) systems and shift the focus almost completely to true sec. So the goal should be IMO: - let system upgrades and true sec together contribute (meaningfully!) to system performance - reduce ISK faucets (bounties, moongoo, lvl4s, and whatever else generates too much money for your taste) - make anos more diverse and interesting (they will always be rather boring and repetitive but at least try to get them to the same level as lvl4 missions) What I'd do: - number of anos in a system depends on true sec and military upgrade - when one is finished a new one is randomly selected, chances depend on true sec and military upgrade - spawns depend on true sec and military upgrade - redesign the smaller anos to spawn better rats (if true sec + upgrades are ok) and be more challenging/rewarding (but not as good as the big ones) - less bounty, more loot - escalation and faction spawns also depend on true sec and military upgrade - higher level upgrades should be harder to achieve (currently almost every system that is used by a corp is at lvl5, this should drop to 3-4 unless you are really dedicated. Kinda like industry.)
Avallarion Selara	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:36:00 - [2686] I wish I could edit the char I posted with... Not used to this board at all... Sorry.
ShadowsMirror	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:23:00 - [2687] I can understand reducing the high end anomalies, but taking them away completely from entire constellations is somewhat absurd, the change is simply staggering. The only benefit of living there is access to basic 0.0 belts & signatures. A somewhat small plate for growth. Thankfully, our system will still have at least 1 of each. best of luck to those without....
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:31:00 - [2688] Originally by: Lt Pizi Edited by: Lt Pizi on 04/04/2011 15:16:16 look at the eve-kil top 20. i am not in anyway saying these are the l33test pvpers in the game. but the alliances you like to continuously calla bunch of carebears who do nothing but rat all day long make up a good chunk of that list. you are aware that 1 ship dead counts on 5-10 alliances ..... and how big is the NC block ? 60-70k ? and your fleets are what 1k ? so basicly 1% of your block is fighting gimme a break according to the quarterly not even close to 60 or 70k. more like 18 or 19k.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:38:00 - [2689] im talkin about chars , you accounts prolly but is 5% of the accounts fighting realy better ?
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:41:00 - [2690] Originally by: Lt Pizi hihihihi here you have it from your glorious CSM this argument makes 90 % of the posts invalid Did you mean 90% of his posts, or 90% posts of this thread?

Helios Xise	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:41:00 - [2691] Originally by: ShadowsMirror I can understand reducing the high end anomalies, but taking them away completely from entire constellations is somewhat absurd, the change is simply staggering. The only benefit of living there is access to basic 0.0 belts & signatures. A somewhat small plate for growth... best of luck to those without.... Your right about that, but than again, i think this all is a CVA plot. Think about it, with no sancs in whole of Providence, according to CCP there will be noone to fight over this whole region. So CVA-Ex-Leader can return. (troll) Its rediculus, but to me this just proves the indepth knowledge of how players actually play the game they develop
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:44:00 - [2692] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 04/04/2011 16:45:09 Quote: this is where all the arguments FOR this change tend to fall to pieces. wars started to acquire better truesec ratting space. yet ccp greyscale seems to think somehow they will be in the future. yet to afford those wars players need isk, especially "new" alliances. its just a really illogical argument. It's illogical to you, because you see it thru the blinders of an average, skill-less renter alliance who just believes in blobs and ISK = EvE win. The real small PvP corps (sometimes not even organized in alliances) were those: - making EvE a name. - making EvE fun, since small-ish = agile = roams = best fun possible in this game. - making lots of non blobby, CPU friendly pew pew. - burning thru as much money they could afford and convert it in BCs, HACs and BSes that would promptly be busted shortly afterwards => healthy economy. Then came jump bridges and since then King Idiot dominates the game. The one who brings more low quality rent(er)-a-blob wins. The one with the fatter ISK wins. This is insanely damaging to EvE, the same design stupidity has killed other MMOs that peaked at above EvE max playerbase. If anything, Grayscale is going for some compromise, half hassed nerf that won't fix the situation but just **** people off without long term heavy benefits. They need to nerf jumpbridges, to make logistics count again, they need to just destroy blobs in order to restore game playability and fun. This also applies to hi sec. Jita is a growing cancer. While it's engrossing for the CCP techs to gloat about how good they are at making Jita able to sustain the next zillion of concurrent players, they are just destructuring the game into some super centralized yawn game where you either live in The Forge or it's crap. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:44:00 - [2693] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Lt Pizi hihihihi here you have it from your glorious CSM this argument makes 90 % of the posts invalid Did you mean 90% of his posts, or 90% posts of this thread? i mean 90% of this thread ( thats not my number they claiming that 90% are against this change and the main reason that they are against is that they cannot afford a ship for fighting anymore ...)
Besoina	Posted - 2011.04.04 16:59:00 - [2694] There are a % of the population unaware of the changes, definitely not expecting a change of this magnitude. When they log in after the changes are made, you can expect the forums to explode with quite a few annoyed & probably bitter customers demanding an explanation. To which they will discover this threadnaught which will baloon with the likes never seen since they removed carriers ability to pack cargo fitted iteron V. **** is about to hit the fan...
Bala Aodh	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:08:00 - [2695]
Jenny Kickaz	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:18:00 - [2696] I play maybe one hour a day. I have a job, go to college and have a wife; these responsibilities limit my game time. I am happy to be involved in a 0.0 corp and alliance that gives me the freedom to pew pew with them. I need to be smart about what ships I take with me, so to not break my bank. These changes to anomolies will ruin my ability to play eve. Honestly, if I can not do 1 sanctum a day (our systems are -0.17max) I wont be able to make the isk to PvP. Bottom Line. I am not the player that has played for 8 years, has billions or trillions saved up, and can do whatever I want. I am the guy struggling to play and pay for it with isk. If I watch my wallet empty, I will just quit eve, and leave a good comment for Greyscale and others. They are just ruining the game for a good selection of the population that doesnt have time to play 3+ hours a day.
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:26:00 - [2697] Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: Lt Pizi Edited by: Lt Pizi on 04/04/2011 15:16:16 look at the eve-kil top 20. i am not in anyway saying these are the l33test pvpers in the game. but the alliances you like to continuously calla bunch of carebears who do nothing but rat all day long make up a good chunk of that list. you are aware that 1 ship dead counts on 5-10 alliances ..... and how big is the NC block ? 60-70k ? and your fleets are what 1k ? so basicly 1% of your block is fighting gimme a break according to the quarterly not even close to 60 or 70k. more like 18 or 19k. the last time i checked the official NC nap list it was 49k blues, so please...
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:43:00 - [2698] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 17:44:26 Originally by: Jenny Kickaz I play maybe one hour a day. I have a job, go to college and have a wife; these responsibilities limit my game time. I am happy to be involved in a 0.0 corp and alliance that gives me the freedom to pew pew with them. I need to be smart about what ships I take with me, so to not break my bank. These changes to anomolies will ruin my ability to play eve. Honestly, if I can not do 1 sanctum a day (our systems are -0.17max) I wont be able to make the isk to PvP. Bottom Line. I am not the player that has played for 8 years, has billions or trillions saved up, and can do whatever I want. I am the guy struggling to play and pay for it with isk. If I watch my wallet empty, I will just quit eve, and leave a good comment for Greyscale and others. They are just ruining the game for a good selection of the population that doesnt have time to play 3+ hours a day. You do realize that running sanctums is exactly the wrong way to finance playing Eve this way? -Liang Ed: Send me an evemail and I'll outline some basic tips that can let 5-10 minutes twice a week finance your eve playing and as many PVP losses as a competent player is likely to have. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:52:00 - [2699] Originally by: Lt Pizi im talkin about chars , you accounts prolly but is 5% of the accounts fighting realy better ? just throwing these numbers out there, the North has a total population of 19,659 (page 9 of the QEN, this is Characters on Active Accounts). Assuming that the average 0.0 player has 2 accounts (probably more, but im feeling generous), the NC has around 10,000 accounts in it. Oh, and the regions that are considered the north are (Geminate, Vale of the Silent, Tribute, Venal, Branch, and Tenal). So if you take the two fronts that the NC currently has (west and east), you have approx 5,000 accounts per front (simple division by two). Considering the numbers that I see in fleet fights, which are roughly 2000 on high demand operations (LXQ2-T, O2O-2X, and other major fights), this is not anywhere close to the 1% pvp participation rate that you claim. This number may even be higher than 2000, as the NC operates in ALL timezones, so you have to at least double the numbers of people fighting to get an accurate account. So, what you can take from this is that out of the 10,000 accounts residing in the NC, approx 8,000 are people who pvp (at least part time), giving a participation rate of 80%. Try and do a little bit of research before you throw claims around, all this does is decrease the chance that people will take you seriously. Oh, if you also want to take a look at the production in 0.0, take a look at page 36 in the QEN, it shows the mass produced in all regions. Factor in the amount of supercarriers and titans produced in 0.0, and the north doesnt look to "carebear" does it? For those of you wishing to verify my claims yourself, here is the link to the most recent QEN http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf Any wishes to verify kills or battles can be found on most killboards, such as Battleclinic.com, check for yourself if you do not believe me.
Laodell Gallente United Brothers Of Eve Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:55:00 - [2700] You know, now that I think about it, I never really cared about Sanctums or Havens. I always ran the other Anomalies that everyone else ignored, and used the market to pad my wallet. Only reason I rat is to get my sec status back. That said, it's still not going to alter game play. - Dell. - Laodell -

Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:55:00 - [2701] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 17:56:38 Originally by: Aurelia Rei Just a few comments on your comments: =) - It's highly likely that your typical 0.0 PVPer has been a L4 mission runner at one point in time or another; it's less likely that your typical L4 mission runner has any clue about nullsec, unless they're a highsec mission-running alt of a 0.0 PVPer, in which case that kind of goes directly to the point, no? Then those crazy low sec people who have been to 0.0 and got disgusted with it are allowed to have an opinion? Quote: - You're right that there's less risk when you're part of a large coalition of blues, but that's not the entire point, no? The point is that it should be risky to pump 100M+ raw ISK/hr into the economy. It isn't. Quote: Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec, why would anyone not part of one of the large coalitions risk running anoms in now worthless space? Possible, yes; easy, no. Furthermore, it's just flat easier to do it in 0.0, because converting LP is a massive PITA - and ultimately is a market that can be flooded/crashed. Quote: What does it say if more nullsec dwellers create highsec L4 alts to fund their PVP activities in nullsec? I counter: what does it say when lots of carebears head to 0.0 because its almost completely safe - and then never follow up with all that "PVP" stuff? Quote: Whatever the ISK expectation per hour is in highsec, it needs to be higher in nullsec for the average person if they want to populate nullsec with more than just the large coalitions. I might agree with you if: - Anoms weren't destroying the economy by injecting huge amounts of raw ISK. - 0.0 wasn't so damn safe (even if it is a player made safety). - Personal income had anything at all to do with coalitions vs small alliances. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Trina Forrest Caldari Reliables Inc Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:56:00 - [2702] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 17:44:26 Originally by: Jenny Kickaz I play maybe one hour a day. I have a job, go to college and have a wife; these responsibilities limit my game time. I am happy to be involved in a 0.0 corp and alliance that gives me the freedom to pew pew with them. I need to be smart about what ships I take with me, so to not break my bank. These changes to anomolies will ruin my ability to play eve. Honestly, if I can not do 1 sanctum a day (our systems are -0.17max) I wont be able to make the isk to PvP. Bottom Line. I am not the player that has played for 8 years, has billions or trillions saved up, and can do whatever I want. I am the guy struggling to play and pay for it with isk. If I watch my wallet empty, I will just quit eve, and leave a good comment for Greyscale and others. They are just ruining the game for a good selection of the population that doesnt have time to play 3+ hours a day. You do realize that running sanctums is exactly the wrong way to finance playing Eve this way? -Liang Ed: Send me an evemail and I'll outline some basic tips that can let 5-10 minutes twice a week finance your eve playing and as many PVP losses as a competent player is likely to have. 67k? wow our numbers grow with each post truely amazing. What you have to understand is a lot of the NC is comprised of alts, lots of spies, and various other people who DO take breaks from the game. I would say our actual unique (per person) number is closer to about 10k. If you think this is unreasonable, you would do well to consider how many people actually have 3+ accounts. I personally have 15 accounts, and no I don't rat for an income source or have super awesome moon goo. The point is I do not invalidate how people play this game based upon my own raciest views (yes if you view carebears as a race, or pvpers, or w/e). That is what made this game great, having the ability to do what ever you wanted. Every arguement I see against it is purely 100% racism against the care bear class, or the NC for what ever reason the hatred is. The problem is in the end this wont effect the NC, we will adapt as we always do. However the smaller guys, rofl... here is the kicker, this makes it impossible for them to get a foot hold. Where do they rat to gain isk to provide their ship reimbursement? The answer is they don't they wont even be able to afford the sov. bills. Which means in the end the NC will have very little competition in the game, and it will get boring and stagnate. This is the future I do not want for eve, as I want the game to continue to develop and become bigger. However, with the current changes I do see one way or another, subs to drop. Which means cheaper plexes, so my operating costs go down, which means I keep more isk... So before you accuse every NC member who doesn't like these changes of being a "f'in care bear". Keep in mind some of us actually want to see more little guys out in the world of 0.0, to grow and expand into big power blocks too. This makes the game unique, fun, and interesting.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:58:00 - [2703] Originally by: Trina Forrest Originally by: Liang Nuren You do realize that running sanctums is exactly the wrong way to finance playing Eve this way? -Liang Ed: Send me an evemail and I'll outline some basic tips that can let 5-10 minutes twice a week finance your eve playing and as many PVP losses as a competent player is likely to have. 67k? wow our numbers grow with each post truely amazing. ... This makes the game unique, fun, and interesting. May I kindly ask what in the ** you are responding to in my post? -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Khamal Jolstien Caldari Sick Tight Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:59:00 - [2704] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Trina Forrest Originally by: Liang Nuren You do realize that running sanctums is exactly the wrong way to finance playing Eve this way? -Liang Ed: Send me an evemail and I'll outline some basic tips that can let 5-10 minutes twice a week finance your eve playing and as many PVP losses as a competent player is likely to have. 67k? wow our numbers grow with each post truely amazing. ... This makes the game unique, fun, and interesting. May I kindly ask what in the ** you are responding to in my post? -Liang There's a post about halfway through the page that says something similar to that. I suspect he just hit the quote button on the wrong message. Originally by:** McKinlay When you get on the batphone and the only people left in the phone book are Aeternus and BLAST it might be time to hang up.
Vhal Vhindiscar	Posted - 2011.04.04 17:59:00 - [2705] Edited by: Vhal Vhindiscar on 04/04/2011 18:00:08 Can we stage a recall for Greyscale? If only devs were electable. This is why 0.0 ran en mass for this years CSM. CCP does NOT understand how we live or play. Add my name to the threadnaught as voting 'No Confidence' in ccp. Nobody fights over anoms. They simply try to squeak out a living using them. Cut the anoms and you cut pvp and totally blow away the reasoning for this entire fiasco. Honestly, log off tanks for awhile and join eve 0.0. We're having a blast out here in SPITE of your meddling.
Orian NiKunni Orian's EvE Communications	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:00:00 - [2706] CCP are you even reading this thread?
Trina Forrest Caldari Reliables Inc Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:00:00 - [2707] Liang, I simply hit quote instead of reply.
bp920091	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:03:00 - [2708] On a second note, i would like to wonder why people are so concerned about inflation. Any reasonable economist KNOWS that inflation is not an issue (when it is below 50%, which it is NOWHERE near right now) because people make more and can spend more on items. Inflation is only detrimental to people holding capital, not making capital, as their purchasing power will not decrease by very much. Considering that inflation is roughly 4.1% (page 28 of QEN, with most of the inflation because of the noctis (page 27)) and the population growth rate is roughly 10.59% (page 11 of the QEN), this means that inflation should not be a problem at ALL. This is a common misconception of people who have not had any experience in economics, yet it seems to cause nothing but grief in most population, including the EVE population.
Elder Man Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:10:00 - [2709] Originally by: bp920091 On a second note, i would like to wonder why people are so concerned about inflation. Any reasonable economist KNOWS that inflation is not an issue (when it is below 50%, which it is NOWHERE near right now) because people make more and can spend more on items. Inflation is only detrimental to people holding capital, not making capital, as their purchasing power will not decrease by very much. Considering that inflation is roughly 4.1% (page 28 of QEN, with most of the inflation because of the noctis (page 27)) and the population growth rate is roughly 10.59% (page 11 of the QEN), this means that inflation should not be a problem at ALL. This is a common misconception of people who have not had any experience in economics, yet it seems to cause nothing but grief in most population, including the EVE population. Absolute load of crap. Go back to school and learn something useful. No basis of fact at all. Elder Man
Elder Man Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:19:00 - [2710] CCP reads the thread. They just don't give a S**t what anyone thinks. They don't play in 0.0 where you have to fight. If they do, there probably just razor carebears. Elder Man

bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:25:00 - [2711] Originally by: Elder Man Originally by: bp920091 On a second note, i would like to wonder why people are so concerned about inflation. Any reasonable economist KNOWS that inflation is not an issue (when it is below 50%, which it is NOWHERE near right now) because people make more and can spend more on items. Inflation is only detrimental to people holding capital, not making capital, as their purchasing power will not decrease by very much. Considering that inflation is roughly 4.1% (page 28 of QEN, with most of the inflation because of the noctis (page 27)) and the population growth rate is roughly 10.59% (page 11 of the QEN), this means that inflation should not be a problem at ALL. This is a common misconception of people who have not had any experience in economics, yet it seems to cause nothing but grief in most population, including the EVE population. Absolute load of crap. Go back to school and learn something useful. No basis of fact at all. Hmm, considering that i have had 3 economics teachers who have all told me the same thing, with them having doctorates in economics and real life experience, perhaps it is you that really need to "Go back to school and learn something useful." I will go into more detail about this here, since you obviously do not understand much about inflation. Inflation essentially means that the purchasing power of money decreases. If the income sources into an economic system were stagnant, or increasing at a lower rate than inflation, then inflation means that people's money has less purchasing power. The only problem with inflation is when it becomes Hyperinflation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation, i know, it is wikipedia, but it does give you the general idea of what hyperinflation is). Considering that the rate that money is coming into the EVE economy is 11% higher (page 18 of QEN), and inflation is below this, isk is actually buying more ships than ever before. While this may not be true for you, from a Macroeconomics perspective, the EVE economy has no danger from inflation, and inflation will not be an issue until it becomes out of control (>50% per year, and that is being VERY conservative). in fact, this means that the average person can buy roughly 2% more ships than they could before (11% increase in money, 9% increase in people, 11-9 = 2% gain per person, approximately). If you have other views, please express them and EXPLAIN them, providing general knowledge or cited sources, rather than just dismissing findings that you may not disagree with for seemingly no reason.
Draked	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:26:00 - [2712] Then i guess its back to WOW again wonder how ccp will stand WHEN they lose 10000 accounts atleast. Im guessing after about 1-2 months after everyone moved to empire they will realise that its not for them and stop playing all together
Selpy Caldari Penumbra Military Industrial Complex United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:34:00 - [2713] Originally by: bp920091 just throwing these numbers out there, the North has a total population of 19,659 (page 9 of the QEN, this is Characters on Active Accounts). Assuming that the average 0.0 player has 2 accounts (probably more, but im feeling generous), the NC has around 10,000 accounts in it. Oh, and the regions that are considered the north are (Geminate, Vale of the Silent, Tribute, Venal, Branch, and Tenal). So if you take the two fronts that the NC currently has (west and east), you have approx 5,000 accounts per front (simple division by two). Considering the numbers that I see in fleet fights, which are roughly 2000 on high demand operations (LXQ2-T, O2O-2X, and other major fights), this is not anywhere close to the 1% pvp participation rate that you claim. This number may even be higher than 2000, as the NC operates in ALL timezones, so you have to at least double the numbers of people fighting to get an accurate account. So, what you can take from this is that out of the 10,000 accounts residing in the NC, approx 8,000 are people who pvp (at least part time), giving a participation rate of 80%. Try and do a little bit of research before you throw claims around, all this does is decrease the chance that people will take you seriously. Oh, if you also want to take a look at the production in 0.0, take a look at page 36 in the QEN, it shows the mass produced in all regions. Factor in the amount of supercarriers and titans produced in 0.0, and the north doesnt look to "carebear" does it? For those of you wishing to verify my claims yourself, here is the link to the most recent QEN http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf Any wishes to verify kills or battles can be found on most killboards, such as Battleclinic.com, check for yourself if you do not believe me. Unfortunately, posting facts is a waste of time. You can have the solid evidence straight from CCP, as it is here, and you'll still get the same comments from the naysayers. They failed at Eve with their playing model, and therefore assume that if you're successful in one way or another, you must be a carebear with 15 active accounts making billions of isk running sanctums. Note that the majority "0.0 experts" praising these changes tend to be either Empire-dwelling griefers whose idea of PvP is war deccing noobs and blobbing them, or low sec pirates that sit at high sec gates blobbing anyone that comes through. The only 0.0 experience most have is going on the occasional roam in NPC 0.0 where all they do is gank industrial ships and ratters. They really have no more of a clue about 0.0 issues than apparently CCP does. ---------------------------------------- - Selpy / CEO, Penumbra Military Industrial Complex
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:35:00 - [2714] Originally by: Evelgrivion If you read the latest QEN, it becomes painfully obvious why this sanctum/haven change is being implemented. Main points: The south is becoming depopulated The monetary supply is increasing dramatically, to the point where even CCP's normally muted QENs are proclaiming doom if something isn't done to fix it - from 67.6 trillion ISK added in Quarter 3 to 75.7 trillion added in Quarter 4. The bulk of this increase comes from nullsec anomaly farming; this increase is substantially greater than the mission payout increases over the same quarter. Supercaps are everywhere, and everyone is buying more capitals The tonnage of ships in demand per capita has been decreasing substantially over the last six months. This means people aren't dying and replacing their ships nearly as much as before. Too much money means too many people get along. This can be seen in everything from the ever growing urbanization of trade hubs to the aforementioned drops in demand for ships. Eve needs more conflict, and Greyscale looks like he's on the money with this change to address it. errmmmm.... and 11% increase in bounty payout and a 9% increase in subscriptions over the same period. thats not that much of an actual increase. and a 3% increase in the amount of mission rewards means that of the 2% difference between population growth and income growth is actually accounted for in part by you guessed it, bounties from missions. however once again, CCP greyidiots changes that are upcoming have nothing to do with inflation, the economy or the number of people running anoms in 0.0. they are to generate more conflict to get people to attack "better" space for their ratting. its a non-sensical argument that pretty much everyone outside of the scrapheap challenge l33t 13 year olds recognize as being a bogus claim.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:41:00 - [2715] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Lt Pizi im talkin about chars , you accounts prolly but is 5% of the accounts fighting realy better ? just throwing these numbers out there, the North has a total population of 19,659 you forgot to mention your 23k blues in the west, hth Signature removed.
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:41:00 - [2716] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Elder Man Originally by: bp920091 On a second note, i would like to wonder why people are so concerned about inflation. Any reasonable economist KNOWS that inflation is not an issue (when it is below 50%, which it is NOWHERE near right now) because people make more and can spend more on items. Inflation is only detrimental to people holding capital, not making capital, as their purchasing power will not decrease by very much. Considering that inflation is roughly 4.1% (page 28 of QEN, with most of the inflation because of the noctis (page 27)) and the population growth rate is roughly 10.59% (page 11 of the QEN), this means that inflation should not be a problem at ALL. This is a common misconception of people who have not had any experience in economics, yet it seems to cause nothing but grief in most population, including the EVE population. Absolute load of crap. Go back to school and learn something useful. No basis of fact at all. Hmm, considering that i have had 3 economics teachers who have all told me the same thing, with them having doctorates in economics and real life experience, perhaps it is you that really need to "Go back to school and learn something useful." I will go into more detail about this here, since you obviously do not understand much about inflation. Inflation essentially means that the purchasing power of money decreases. If the income sources into an economic system were stagnant, or increasing at a lower rate than inflation, then inflation means that people's money has less purchasing power. The only problem with inflation is when it becomes Hyperinflation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation, i know, it is wikipedia, but it does give you the general idea of what hyperinflation is). Considering that the rate that money is coming into the EVE economy is 11% higher (page 18 of QEN), and inflation is below this, isk is actually buying more ships than ever before. While this may not be true for you, from a Macroeconomics perspective, the EVE economy has no danger from inflation, and inflation will not be an issue until it becomes out of control (>50% per year, and that is being VERY conservative). in fact, this means that the average person can buy roughly 2% more ships than they could before (11% increase in money, 9% increase in people, 11-9 = 2% gain per person, approximately). If you have other views, please express them and EXPLAIN them, providing general knowledge or cited sources, rather than just dismissing findings that you may not disagree with for seemingly no reason. Might I enquire how the Noctis produces inflation? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Imouto Tan	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:44:00 - [2717] Edited by: Imouto Tan on 04/04/2011 18:45:52 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: RabbidFerret Originally by: Imouto Tan Maxed with all relevant skills, mid-tier deaspace fit tengu, missile implants, I make about 25m ticks (75m/h) in Sanctums. (What some in this thread refer to as "blizting + nicely fitted gankboat, abundant skillset and intensive in game focus.") Think I can replace a 1.5-2B carrier in 2 to 3 hours? Hell, most nullsec grunts can't even do what I do. So what, if you can't PLEX your way into a maxed tengu toon a 1.5B HAM tengu, don't go into nullsec? The point is that Sanctums are already barely comparable to L4's, and anything below sanctums is significantly less. What CCP proposes is to thus make sure that empirebears have all the isk, because nullbears are now even LESS able to make isk by comparison, and are more likely to lose it. So, yes Lost'In'Space, he doesn't want to grind. He doesn't want to grind because 1) For the Nth time, Level 4's give a lot of ISK, and only sanctum COMPARES to it. Not even beats it by any reasonable margin, just merely holds up to comparison. Anything below, and you're better off with L4's. 2) 0.0 has more ISK sinks. 3) Go [explitive] yourself. -1/10 troll This is the most constructive comment I've seen so far. Except that, like most of the blatant liars in this thread, he's completely handwaving away the 10/10 escalations and faction spawns that appear in anomalies. Which, when I was doing them fairly casually last summer, were good for an extra bill a week or so 10/10 escalations have no sustainability. How many people get them a week? And generally these are the guys who sanctum enough every day for it to be a 9-5 job. In a small two-constellation area -- and I know most of the avid ratters in my alliance -- there's 0-2 a week, TOPS. Depending on your space, you need a high skill, 1-3B tengu to be 10/10 solo-capable with any reliability. There's also the matter that it is almost in someone else's space on the other side of the region. Faction spawns? Faction spawns' quality and quantity both depend on trusec(belts)/type(anom). Bad trusec systems already see crappy faction spawns in belts and have them far more rare than good trusec systems. Now there's no sanctums and havens in those systems either, so even the faction spawn at the end of an anom (which happens for me about once every ~15-20, sometimes more, anoms) can only be a BC with nary a drop? I live in null too, I've been doing 10/10s occasionally for isk too, but guess what, soloing 10/10s for isk is the exception, not the rule. So let me explain how this works: - Bad trusec systems will now be TRULY BAD (superbad, terribad, incredibad, strongbad). Small alliance pilots will be severely handicapped. They won't ever lose space (protection from Big Brother, because BFFs unless drama causes reset), nor will it be worth it for other small alliances to try to take it. - Sov Wars will still be fueled by lulz, great justice, and INTERNET HAET. And moons, apparently some people find that important. - Assuming CCP's implication that alliances (read: not the pilots) are funded by anoms is true, this will cause small alliances to flock to coalitions for moon access, and reciprocate with tighter relationships and more x's. Tl;dr stronger coalitions. - Assuming the implication isn't true, there won't be changes to alliances. Non-sov PVP will be scaled down in all manners -- frequency, size of engagements, variations in fleets -- to reflect the vast majority of grunts' thinner wallets. - Empirebears will be even richer, because they will make isk easier on average but without having to toss ships into a meatgrinder. Think Hulkageddon or those solo-sleipnir gankers are an isk sink? They're not. Whether cloakers would be necessarily more dangerous is debatable. I don't like them as is, but I can't think of a way to nerf them without severely impacting solo pvp and wulfpax negatively. Anyhow, I guess that isn't a topic for this discussion.
Karl Planck Walt Disney Productions	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:44:00 - [2718] Originally by: Selpy Originally by: bp920091 just throwing these numbers out there, the North has a total population of 19,659 (page 9 of the QEN, this is Characters on Active Accounts). Assuming that the average 0.0 player has 2 accounts (probably more, but im feeling generous), the NC has around 10,000 accounts in it. Oh, and the regions that are considered the north are (Geminate, Vale of the Silent, Tribute, Venal, Branch, and Tenal). So if you take the two fronts that the NC currently has (west and east), you have approx 5,000 accounts per front (simple division by two). Considering the numbers that I see in fleet fights, which are roughly 2000 on high demand operations (LXQ2-T, O2O-2X, and other major fights), this is not anywhere close to the 1% pvp participation rate that you claim. This number may even be higher than 2000, as the NC operates in ALL timezones, so you have to at least double the numbers of people fighting to get an accurate account. So, what you can take from this is that out of the 10,000 accounts residing in the NC, approx 8,000 are people who pvp (at least part time), giving a participation rate of 80%. Try and do a little bit of research before you throw claims around, all this does is decrease the chance that people will take you seriously. Oh, if you also want to take a look at the production in 0.0, take a look at page 36 in the QEN, it shows the mass produced in all regions. Factor in the amount of supercarriers and titans produced in 0.0, and the north doesnt look to "carebear" does it? For those of you wishing to verify my claims yourself, here is the link to the most recent QEN http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf Any wishes to verify kills or battles can be found on most killboards, such as Battleclinic.com, check for yourself if you do not believe me. Unfortunately, posting facts is a waste of time. You can have the solid evidence straight from CCP, as it is here, and you'll still get the same comments from the naysayers. They failed at Eve with their playing model, and therefore assume that if you're successful in one way or another, you must be a carebear with 15 active accounts making billions of isk running sanctums. Note that the majority "0.0 experts" praising these changes tend to be either Empire-dwelling griefers whose idea of PvP is war deccing noobs and blobbing them, or low sec pirates that sit at high sec gates blobbing anyone that comes through. The only 0.0 experience most have is going on the occasional roam in NPC 0.0 where all they do is gank industrial ships and ratters. They really have no more of a clue about 0.0 issues than apparently CCP does. Oh the humor in saying that people OUTSIDE of 0.0 are all blobbers. R O F L BTW, get your alliance to start fielding ships for its CTA's. TADA, no problem anymore. No more tears. No more whining. Moon goo = cta fleet ships. Though, please, send your PVP nub-tastic, blobbing, talentless, whiny piece of sht player base (you know 90% of nullsec) back to empire so that the orphanage can gank all of you rtards. ------------------------------------------------- Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Jeralin Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:49:00 - [2719] 91 pages of replys, and it's still in the patch notes. Clearly CCP couldn't give a **** what their subscriber base thinks. CCP Fail cascade imminent?
Trina Forrest Caldari Reliables Inc Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:52:00 - [2720] I love how more trolls continue to say this will impact the NC, with its 10000000000000 care bears, truth is it wont. Well step up our reimbursement program, well continue to dominate, and this just impacts the small guys. This actually benefits the big alliances, we already have plans to adapt and things are in motion so the majority of our alliance members will not be impacted. What this will do is prevent any small guys, like the orphans, from ever being able to compete. Yes go grind your level 4s to come out to 0.0 only to realize you were better off in high sec? This will not promote great wars, this will not reduce super caps being built (that are used for pvp). No... CCP did give everyone who upgraded their systems a big **** you which was kind of halarious, but in the end yes this will screw the little pvpers. and btw noctus does not increase inflation, in economics a good which is traded for currency and is not a currency in of its self can not contribute to inflation, currently all noctic's hope to help with the hyper rise in the cost of minerals, but if you don't understand the first principles of economics then this was all useless rofl.

Imouto Tan	Posted - 2011.04.04 18:57:00 - [2721] Originally by: Jeralin 91 pages of replys, and it's still in the patch notes. Clearly CCP couldn't give a **** what their subscriber base thinks. CCP Fail cascade imminent? In the end, no. Every MMOG is, at its core, based on the addiction model of sales. Which means no significant enough portion of playerbase will unsub to affect CCP, and thus CCP won't care. Also, if you look at CCP's history there is a certain... pride, at stake in everything they say or make. They don't ever change their minds about something unless such absolutely overwhelming evidence is slammed so repeatedly into their faces that they can't help but finally go back on it... ... and come out with something equally stupid the next day. Even when they fix an issue, they like to do it in such a way that seems to say "fine, we'll change it, but it's not like any of us were at fault anyway." Like a 5 year old, they consider their changes GOOD in the isolated universe they dreamt up in their mind that doesn't actually model or reflect reality. Also like a 5 year old, they are stubborn and hate to be wrong, and thus are more likely to stick their guns if you call them out for being stupid.
Sascha87 Gallente Out-of-Space United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:00:00 - [2722] Edited by: Sascha87 on 04/04/2011 19:04:29 it's so sad , that no one frome ccp , give a answere to this thread ! i started a petition , i was asking : what will happend with our i-hubs and our military lvl 5 , if we dont get any sanctums and heavens ,. the answere was : we cant tell you informations about the patch , read the forum ,. so the changes are classified as : TOP SECRET [EDIT] I have no idea if its alowed , but i post the petition answere now ! It is in German , so the ppl can translate it via google , and the german ppl here can have some fun , Quote: Hallo, Leider k÷nnen wir Ihnen hier keine weitergehenden Informationen zukommen lassen. Wir wissen ebenfalls nur das was in dem erwShnten Dev Blog steht. Und selbst wenn wir mehr wn¯ten dnrften wir dies nicht weitergeben. Halten Sie sich bitte an unsere Homepage und unser Forum um immer auf dem neusten Stand zu sein. Mit freundlichen Grn¯en, GM Ochlavita EVE Online Kundendienst
bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:01:00 - [2723] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Elder Man Originally by: bp920091 On a second note, i would like to wonder why people are so concerned about inflation. Any reasonable economist KNOWS that inflation is not an issue (when it is below 50%, which it is NOWHERE near right now) because people make more and can spend more on items. Inflation is only detrimental to people holding capital, not making capital, as their purchasing power will not decrease by very much. Considering that inflation is roughly 4.1% (page 28 of QEN, with most of the inflation because of the noctis (page 27)) and the population growth rate is roughly 10.59% (page 11 of the QEN), this means that inflation should not be a problem at ALL. This is a common misconception of people who have not had any experience in economics, yet it seems to cause nothing but grief in most population, including the EVE population. Absolute load of crap. Go back to school and learn something useful. No basis of fact at all. Hmm, considering that i have had 3 economics teachers who have all told me the same thing, with them having doctorates in economics and real life experience, perhaps it is you that really need to "Go back to school and learn something useful." I will go into more detail about this here, since you obviously do not understand much about inflation. Inflation essentially means that the purchasing power of money decreases. If the income sources into an economic system were stagnant, or increasing at a lower rate than inflation, then inflation means that people's money has less purchasing power. The only problem with inflation is when it becomes Hyperinflation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation, i know, it is wikipedia, but it does give you the general idea of what hyperinflation is). Considering that the rate that money is coming into the EVE economy is 11% higher (page 18 of QEN), and inflation is below this, isk is actually buying more ships than ever before. While this may not be true for you, from a Macroeconomics perspective, the EVE economy has no danger from inflation, and inflation will not be an issue until it becomes out of control (>50% per year, and that is being VERY conservative). in fact, this means that the average person can buy roughly 2% more ships than they could before (11% increase in money, 9% increase in people, 11-9 = 2% gain per person, approximately). If you have other views, please express them and EXPLAIN them, providing general knowledge or cited sources, rather than just dismissing findings that you may not disagree with for seemingly no reason. Might I enquire how the Noctis produces inflation? Of course, the noctis produces (not sure if that is the right word, but we will go with it) inflation because of the incredibly large amount of isk and minerals sunk into the production of the noctis (page 25), dramatically increasing the value of said minerals. If minerals are increasing in price due to a new ship that is created, (and 54,509 is a large number of ships (page 25), the isk value of these minerals will increase, due to there being the same amount of supply (roughly), which will increase the amount of inflation (as inflation means that isk has less purchasing power). Some data about how many minerals were used in production of the noctis in quarter 4 is as follows. Isogen, 3M units Mexallon, 18M units Pyerite, 58M units Tritanium, 209M units Some other interesting information is that about 16% of the "total quantity of Pyerite, Mexallon and isogen used for ship production in the month of december went toward production of the Noctis. The ratio was 14% of tritanium." This is a huge drop in the amount of minerals simply available for production in other items, thus increasing inflation as to buy the same amount of minerals, you have to pay more isk.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:04:00 - [2724] Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 04/04/2011 19:06:43 Originally by: bp920091 If you have other views, please express them and EXPLAIN them, providing general knowledge or cited sources, rather than just dismissing findings that you may not disagree with for seemingly no reason. If you'd actually have paid attention, you'd have known that ISK per capita has been increasing at around 2-3% PER MONTH the past year, so that would make it between 30-40% annually which is pretty much at the hyperinflation level you mentioned. And your economics doctorates (the three dirty socks you talk to since you got no friends) can go live in a place with that kind of high inflation, I'm sure it's a paradise of theoretical economics.
Bael Gar	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:09:00 - [2725] Will we get reimbursement for TCU`s, HUB`s and upgrades in 0.1 - 0.2 systems, wich will become absolutely worthless without any top level anomalies? Just another example when CCP changes the rules AFTER players paid valuable amount of ISK`s for nothing. Previous example was Industry level upgrades. They told us that mining sites will respawn EVERY DAY. We have bought expensive upgrades, spend huge amount of time to rise the industry level, and what? "We are sorry, we were wrong, you will not get what you paid for! The sites will respawn only each three days. And we are not bothered, that with this rate there are not enought asteroids in a HOLE system, to maintain 5 level of Industry index" (c) CCP
bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:12:00 - [2726] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: bp920091 If you have other views, please express them and EXPLAIN them, providing general knowledge or cited sources, rather than just dismissing findings that you may not disagree with for seemingly no reason. If you'd actually have paid attention, you'd have known that inflation per capita has been at around 2-3% PER MONTH the past year, so that would make it between 30-40% annually which is pretty much at the hyperinflation level you mentioned. And your economics doctorates (the three dirty socks you talk to since you got no friends) can go live in a place with that kind of high inflation, I'm sure it's a paradise of theoretical economics. You know, i am wondering where you are getting this 2-3% per month value, as i am getting such numbers as a 4.7% increase in the Consumer Price Index in quarter four, which is not bad at all (QEN, 30). If you could, please keep insults and personal attacks to a minimum, I definitely do have RL friends, hence the reason why i do not spend all of my time playing EVE (that, and paying for things like food is rather important). All personal attacks that you make are simply lessening others opinion of you. Also, i yet to see any real backing to your claims, other than "I said so"
bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:17:00 - [2727] Originally by: Bael Gar Will we get reimbursement for TCU`s, HUB`s and upgrades in 0.1 - 0.2 systems, wich will become absolutely worthless without any top level anomalies? Just another example when CCP changes the rules AFTER players paid valuable amount of ISK`s for nothing. Previous example was Industry level upgrades. They told us that mining sites will respawn EVERY DAY. We have bought expensive upgrades, spend huge amount of time to rise the industry level, and what? "We are sorry, we were wrong, you will not get what you paid for! The sites will respawn only each three days. And we are not bothered, that with this rate there are not enought asteroids in a HOLE system, to maintain 5 level of Industry index" (c) CCP I, unfortunately, believe that we will definitely not get any reimbursement for TCUs, IHUBS, or any upgrades. the reasons why follow 1. CCP believes that people will be "happy" to keep running Hubs in systems 2. There have been very few refunds by CCP to alliances (scanning array was one) for any Sovereignty related structure (stations, POSs, IHUBs, and TCus). I really do wish that CCP at least replied to this thread recently, if nothing else then to ignore us again by saying "Our models predict that XXX will happen."
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:23:00 - [2728] Originally by: Skaarl errmmmm.... and 11% increase in bounty payout and a 9% increase in subscriptions over the same period. thats not that much of an actual increase. Actually, that points to a very deep problem indeed - because that 9% increase in subscriptions is full of people who simply don't have the SP necessary to pump ISK into the economy in large scale. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:24:00 - [2729] Originally by: bp920091 Also, i yet to see any real backing to your claims, other than "I said so" Nope, I'll only say 'I said so' and I'm talking of money supply inflation, not price level inflation.
bloody johnroberts Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:30:00 - [2730] ccp gayscale will not reply to this thread as he has no point to make the last post was a auto response and as such proves point blank his total lack of brain matter. still theres always auditioning for gnomeo and juliet 2 he might do well

Philana Moon	Posted - 2011.04.04 19:38:00 - [2731] Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 19:45:19 -1 This patch sucks. Lot of small alliances have no chance to survive. They pay lot of isk to hold 0.0 space and need the money to pay rent and/or concord fee. Rest of the money goes to pvp. Most 0.0 space are useless now, Geminate, Insmother, Cloude Ring, Paragon Soul, Providence, Pure Blind, large part of Scalding Pass, Tribute. The biggest winner are the drone russians and goonswarm federation at deklein. So CCP Greyscale you're a russian or old goonie? if you think, that the players have to much money. Cancel the ship insurance, decrease the mission reward at 20%, lower the drop rate at officer and death space items. if you think that we have to many super capitals, adjust the refining rate at railguns. But, don't take small alliances the chance to grow at 0.0
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 20:08:00 - [2732] Originally by: Philana Moon Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 19:52:31 -1 . Lot of small alliances have no chance to survive. They pay lot of isk to hold 0.0 space and need the money to pay rent and/or concord fee. R pls i beg theee read this again and tell me whats wrong i highlighted the parts
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.04 20:18:00 - [2733] Guys stop asking CCP whether they know how 0.0 works. Answer is simple - they know exactly. I bet they knew very well what they were going in to, they were aware of all the crap that was going to come over them and the simple proof to that is right here on the forums. Radio silence - they don't even try to pretend they are surprised - let the grunts whine, they will stop eventually or die. Being a company selling their product, CCP's devs have the right to do whatever they want with that product. On the other hand, the customers have the right to decide whether to buy the product or not, that's the only thing they can do unfortuantelly. Simple as that - you like it, you pay for it; you don't like it - in our case, you quit. I understand that rule perfectly and i will absolutely abide by it, although this may very well lead to canceling supsription for all my alts since a rely pretty much on isk to pay for it, BUT i do not complain abt that. As I said before - what abuses me is the attitude CCP has towards its player base. Obviously they have sth in mind and this nerf is the tool to acomplish that. I can take an easy pick - forcing ppl to buy more plex, preventing lag by forcing ppl to move to high sec, or some other wicked idea i havent think of. The problem is that CCP tries to hide it behind the "you dont have interestng time in 0.0" curtain. I cannot accept this nerf, based on the arguments they've given. If CCP is however to address the public with official true statement abt this matter, I would at least respect them (wont cahnge the fact that this nerf is a stupid thing to do, but still it will earn ppl's respect). And unfortunatelly we all know that this is not going to happen. So, all the ppl that are gonna be affected by this (including me) have the choice to get over it, try to adapt or if they can't or they are not happy with the "take it or get the f@k out if you don't like it" attitude, just stop playng. I personally will try to work it somehow, see how thing are going and if EVE becomes too much of a burden, i will stop playing - no big drama here, no complaining or threatening either. If it comes to that, I'll probably turn all my assets(including chars) into isk and deposit it into my corp's corpwallet. CCP will be happy of course as selling my chars most probably will assure that they will stay tuned in for subscription so no change for them in the big picture. However, looking from the other side they will find a disappointed customer who has been rejected of what it really was a great game. I'll ask all the haters to read twice before posting
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.04 20:24:00 - [2734] CCP accidentally the whole 0.0!!
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 20:50:00 - [2735] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Lt Pizi im talkin about chars , you accounts prolly but is 5% of the accounts fighting realy better ? just throwing these numbers out there, the North has a total population of 19,659 (page 9 of the QEN, this is Characters on Active Accounts). Assuming that the average 0.0 player has 2 accounts (probably more, but im feeling generous), the NC has around 10,000 accounts in it. Oh, and the regions that are considered the north are (Geminate, Vale of the Silent, Tribute, Venal, Branch, and Tenal). So if you take the two fronts that the NC currently has (west and east), you have approx 5,000 accounts per front (simple division by two). Considering the numbers that I see in fleet fights, which are roughly 2000 on high demand operations (LXQ2-T, O2O-2X, and other major fights), this is not anywhere close to the 1% pvp participation rate that you claim. This number may even be higher than 2000, as the NC operates in ALL timezones, so you have to at least double the numbers of people fighting to get an accurate account. So, what you can take from this is that out of the 10,000 accounts residing in the NC, approx 8,000 are people who pvp (at least part time), giving a participation rate of 80%. Try and do a little bit of research before you throw claims around, all this does is decrease the chance that people will take you seriously. Oh, if you also want to take a look at the production in 0.0, take a look at page 36 in the QEN, it shows the mass produced in all regions. Factor in the amount of supercarriers and titans produced in 0.0, and the north doesnt look to "carebear" does it? For those of you wishing to verify my claims yourself, here is the link to the most recent QEN http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf Any wishes to verify kills or battles can be found on most killboards, such as Battleclinic.com, check for yourself if you do not believe me. New edition of powerblock map for February 2011. The top 5 powerblock based on character numbers are: Northern Coalition 52356, Drone Russian Forces 26129, StainWagon 12942, IT Block 7647 and EV0KE/NCDOT 4465. HD version of the map for download: http://i55.tinypic.com/2sb017c.jpg The 0.0 is inhabited by roughly 105.000 characters in sovereignty holding entities and about 15.000 people without territory. thats from eve24 ... THE NC news site in october 2010 you had 41k so you guys growing very fast and i asume youre at 60k now easily and now you are not fielding 2k fleets ... thats when you do a CTA to stuff a station system to deny a fight over it your typical fleet is like 500 to 800 and you are not running them 24/7 so im standing correct .... 1% of characters in NC are actually fighting you guys are so damn blind you cant even see whats the big problem is
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:00:00 - [2736] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Malcanis Might I enquire how the Noctis produces inflation? Of course, the noctis produces (not sure if that is the right word, but we will go with it) inflation because of the incredibly large amount of isk and minerals sunk into the production of the noctis (page 25), dramatically increasing the value of said minerals. If minerals are increasing in price due to a new ship that is created, (and 54,509 is a large number of ships (page 25), the isk value of these minerals will increase, due to there being the same amount of supply (roughly), which will increase the amount of inflation (as inflation means that isk has less purchasing power). Some data about how many minerals were used in production of the noctis in quarter 4 is as follows. Isogen, 3M units Mexallon, 18M units Pyerite, 58M units Tritanium, 209M units Some other interesting information is that about 16% of the "total quantity of Pyerite, Mexallon and isogen used for ship production in the month of december went toward production of the Noctis. The ratio was 14% of tritanium." This is a huge drop in the amount of minerals simply available for production in other items, thus increasing inflation as to buy the same amount of minerals, you have to pay more isk. That enough to make, what? 2 titans? 3? Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:10:00 - [2737] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Malcanis Might I enquire how the Noctis produces inflation? Of course, the noctis produces (not sure if that is the right word, but we will go with it) inflation because of the incredibly large amount of isk and minerals sunk into the production of the noctis (page 25), dramatically increasing the value of said minerals. If minerals are increasing in price due to a new ship that is created, (and 54,509 is a large number of ships (page 25), the isk value of these minerals will increase, due to there being the same amount of supply (roughly), which will increase the amount of inflation (as inflation means that isk has less purchasing power). Some data about how many minerals were used in production of the noctis in quarter 4 is as follows. Isogen, 3M units Mexallon, 18M units Pyerite, 58M units Tritanium, 209M units Some other interesting information is that about 16% of the "total quantity of Pyerite, Mexallon and isogen used for ship production in the month of december went toward production of the Noctis. The ratio was 14% of tritanium." This is a huge drop in the amount of minerals simply available for production in other items, thus increasing inflation as to buy the same amount of minerals, you have to pay more isk. That enough to make, what? 2 titans? 3? I dont think it's enough for a Titan. Unless the amount of minerals needed have changed since I last looked or I am misremembering by order of magnitude. Assuming that M there means million units. Then again I would assume there should be "billion" instead if it's for a whole quarter in witch case it would be already large enough to possibly have minor effect on market. I should note that I have not got around reading mentioned econ devblog about inflation yet.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:10:00 - [2738] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Lt Pizi im talkin about chars , you accounts prolly but is 5% of the accounts fighting realy better ? just throwing these numbers out there, the North has a total population of 19,659 (page 9 of the QEN, this is Characters on Active Accounts). Assuming that the average 0.0 player has 2 accounts (probably more, but im feeling generous), the NC has around 10,000 accounts in it. Oh, and the regions that are considered the north are (Geminate, Vale of the Silent, Tribute, Venal, Branch, and Tenal). So if you take the two fronts that the NC currently has (west and east), you have approx 5,000 accounts per front (simple division by two). Considering the numbers that I see in fleet fights, which are roughly 2000 on high demand operations (LXQ2-T, O2O-2X, and other major fights), this is not anywhere close to the 1% pvp participation rate that you claim. This number may even be higher than 2000, as the NC operates in ALL timezones, so you have to at least double the numbers of people fighting to get an accurate account. So, what you can take from this is that out of the 10,000 accounts residing in the NC, approx 8,000 are people who pvp (at least part time), giving a participation rate of 80%. Try and do a little bit of research before you throw claims around, all this does is decrease the chance that people will take you seriously. Oh, if you also want to take a look at the production in 0.0, take a look at page 36 in the QEN, it shows the mass produced in all regions. Factor in the amount of supercarriers and titans produced in 0.0, and the north doesnt look to "carebear" does it? For those of you wishing to verify my claims yourself, here is the link to the most recent QEN http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf Any wishes to verify kills or battles can be found on most killboards, such as Battleclinic.com, check for yourself if you do not believe me. New edition of powerblock map for February 2011. The top 5 powerblock based on character numbers are: Northern Coalition 52356, Drone Russian Forces 26129, StainWagon 12942, IT Block 7647 and EV0KE/NCDOT 4465. HD version of the map for download: http://i55.tinypic.com/2sb017c.jpg The 0.0 is inhabited by roughly 105.000 characters in sovereignty holding entities and about 15.000 people without territory. thats from eve24 ... THE NC news site in october 2010 you had 41k so you guys growing very fast and i asume youre at 60k now easily and now you are not fielding 2k fleets ... thats when you do a CTA to stuff a station system to deny a fight over it your typical fleet is like 500 to 800 and you are not running them 24/7 so im standing correct .... 1% of characters in NC are actually fighting you guys are so damn blind you cant even see whats the big problem is umm evenews24 is far from an accurate source especially when compared against numbers provided by CCP. also it is far from an NC news organization, i think its run by someone in xix isnt it?
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:17:00 - [2739] the numbers are for sure from dotlan or another API .. so the comming out of ccp directly
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:19:00 - [2740] Originally by: Lt Pizi the numbers are for sure from dotlan or another API .. so the comming out of ccp directly and yet CCP's OWN RELEASED NUMBERS do not agree.

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:21:00 - [2741] ?? sure they do
Green Cobra	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:49:00 - [2742] Edited by: Green Cobra on 04/04/2011 21:51:50 Here's a better idea to reach the goals stated by CCP Remove the ability to buy sub time with ISK = force players to use less accounts = witch in turn make using bots harder = witch in turn frees up space in null sec for new active paying accounts. I couldn't care less about the players that use ISK to pay for subs, it's not good for eve when player can pay for 10 accounts with ISK and have those generate even more ISK . This is a flav in the current EVE design that do hurt many player that focus on having pvp fun and only rat to replace ISK when actually needed. The result with removal of buying sub time with ISK: √ CCP want to have many fighting, accomplished as almost all left is paying character and not isk hamsters √ CCP want to free up space for NEW blood in null sec, accomplished as the accounts per active player is reduced by probaly 30% in general √ CCP want to hurt bot usage, accomplished as the profit from using bots is reduced when having to actualy pay RL cash for sub time IF CCP start to monitor every ISK transfer and limiting transfering of ISK to avoid ISK selling for RL cash
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:54:00 - [2743] Originally by: CCP Greyscale {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. And noone will rat in those systems because theres a big flashy sign over them saying "get your carebear tears from here". People will overall look into alternate methods of making isk, some will rat at belts, several will go back to grinding missions in empire. Overall, there will be less roam targets around nullsec in practise. Great job.
Smurf Dog	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:54:00 - [2744] CCP Nerf strikes once loved game, wrecking, for ultimate damage
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.04 21:55:00 - [2745] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 17:56:38 Originally by: Aurelia Rei Just a few comments on your comments: =) - It's highly likely that your typical 0.0 PVPer has been a L4 mission runner at one point in time or another; it's less likely that your typical L4 mission runner has any clue about nullsec, unless they're a highsec mission-running alt of a 0.0 PVPer, in which case that kind of goes directly to the point, no? Then those crazy low sec people who have been to 0.0 and got disgusted with it are allowed to have an opinion? Quote: - You're right that there's less risk when you're part of a large coalition of blues, but that's not the entire point, no? The point is that it should be risky to pump 100M+ raw ISK/hr into the economy. It isn't. Quote: Considering it's so easy to make 60-100 mil ISK per hour running L4s with far less risk than in nullsec, why would anyone not part of one of the large coalitions risk running anoms in now worthless space? Possible, yes; easy, no. Furthermore, it's just flat easier to do it in 0.0, because converting LP is a massive PITA - and ultimately is a market that can be flooded/crashed. Quote: What does it say if more nullsec dwellers create highsec L4 alts to fund their PVP activities in nullsec? I counter: what does it say when lots of carebears head to 0.0 because its almost completely safe - and then never follow up with all that "PVP" stuff? Quote: Whatever the ISK expectation per hour is in highsec, it needs to be higher in nullsec for the average person if they want to populate nullsec with more than just the large coalitions. I might agree with you if: - Anoms weren't destroying the economy by injecting huge amounts of raw ISK. - 0.0 wasn't so damn safe (even if it is a player made safety). - Personal income had anything at all to do with coalitions vs small alliances. -Liang I suck at quoting so I'll just number my responses, if you don't mind. =) 1) Sure, why not? As long as they have some basis of knowledge. 2) I agree with your point here, but not with your idea of how this should be corrected. Granted, as you said before, they are considering other changes as well, but that doesn't mean they should make a bad change just because it was the easiest thing to implement first. Change nullsec mechanics to make it riskier even for those with a large power bloc behind them. If you're worried about the quality of the ISK (raw bounties vs drops/salvage), then change that. The only thing the current changes are guaranteed to do is encourage smaller nullsec entities to run L4s. 3) As I stated to someone else, "easy" is a matter of opinion. I find it easy because I can do it myself with a single account without any help. If you still think that's possible in nullsec, please advise. ;) 4) I can't comment on this because I have no personal knowledge to support your statement, true or not. 5 & 6) Like I said before, address those points directly. The problem I have with the changes is they really do affect smaller nullsec entities more than the larger ones. And that the changes reek of laziness. 7) It might be because I just woke up, but I don't understand this last statement of yours. :-p Fact is, there were actually some good ideas presented in this terribly long thread (and I usually assume most posters to be idiots, so that says something). I'm sure if CCP actually gave it some more thought, they could come up with a better implementation to affect the changes they want.
Asuri Kinnes Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:03:00 - [2746] They had to do something to get people walking in stations... Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist NO!
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:08:00 - [2747] Edited by: Antigue on 04/04/2011 22:13:08 Originally by: Dodgy Past Providing peons to 1000 man blobs doesn't exactly equip you to through your weight around hi sec. Nullsec bears aren't magically better than hi sec bears, infact what are you going to do when your opponents can also dock up... not something you're used to seeing because the only 'small' gang PvP you've seen is forming a blob 5 times the size of a roaming gang then using jump bridges to try and trap them. What will happen though is that competition to get into corps with good space will increase, and obviously you're crying so much because you know no one decent will have you. Well mate you are a bit to much focused on NC. Unfortunately what you say makes perfect sense. But I¦m talking about smaller alliances not NC. These alliances can in no way compete with PL and other pr0s. They neither have the ISK, nor the skills, nor the personal skills not to speak about the lack of experience in terms of pvp. PL can field anything, counter anything (aslong as it is not a huge NC blob) and win the day. I don¦t take your last sentence as a personal insult, as for obvious reasons this would be a perfect stupid insult if you ever check my employment history. But true is, that PL would not take those guys I brought to nullsec and still these are your and maybe even my targets of the future as they will farm, bleed and hopefully learn. Then the circle starts over and over again. The only thing they never had was enough time to farm, bleed and learn over and over again. Even worse they took all their carebearing assets and put them in upgrading system to start the said cycle. Now CCP stops this cycle over night. You will agree that these guys deserved to be in nullsec simply by the fact that they took the risk to start the cycle and keep it going while others bearing in high for their third 6 billion ratting golem or whatever b**sht. What you need to take into account is, that only a few corps/alliances can compete with PL and PL corps. This does not match at all for the vast majority of alliances and corps. So PL and some other pr0s ofc have other means of income then the average alliance simply because they are in EvE a class of its own. Small alliances that consist of mostly unexperienced and low skilled players are even more limited iskwise. Still even PL needs the other guys, that can¦t compete with them coz who would be your future target if they experienced that CCP f**ed them and stay for their furture career in highsec? And btw didn¦t we all enjoy any carrier and mom that a bear lost in space to our guns? Edit: I was talking about NC not NCDOT but then again NCDOT changed a lot from where it came :)
Jack BingKaria	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:12:00 - [2748] Edited by: Jack BingKaria on 04/04/2011 22:14:30 Hmm, can some of the people, that claim only so many of the people fight of an alliance answer the following question: Did you ever bother to have 3 ships in a big pvp battle at same time? Sorry man, but I never participate with more then 1 account character in a battle. Although I have chars from 3 accounts in corp. PS: big chance, I will go back to mining, if they continue this dumb change. Got to pay pewpew with something and mining hopefully stays good. I keep my claim, that ccp does not understand 0.0 stuff, if they did it, they would have fix a lot of things, which they never did and not even bother with the current change they are planning. Lets be honest: patch after patch, showed that CCP is just goofing around and over nerving stuff left and right, every time and then it takes 2 years till they finally come to the conclusion, they overnerved stuff. Just look on how long amarr had to suffer....
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:15:00 - [2749] Originally by: Jack BingKaria Hmm, can some of the people, that claim only so many of the people fight of an alliance answer the following question: Did you ever bother to have 3 ships in a big pvp battle at same time? Sorry man, but I never participate with more then 1 account character in a battle. Although I have chars from 3 accounts in corp. Erm yes :) That¦s what I was talking about when I said there are some pr0s out there who are a class of its own
LadyOfWrath Caldari Ships N Stones Quantum Forge	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:38:00 - [2750] See this lost the sticky to try and make it go away. Even makes this more pathetic. Bottom line is CCP will not listen to the player base and will do what they want when they want. They will chalk up any reason to justify it. Only way we as the players would ever get them to stop is by canceling thousands of subs. It would have to be enough subs to offset people buying PLEX as currently more PLEX are purchased than are used in game. Even if 10,000 people unsub from this the impact to CCP would be very small. They just don't give a rats ass anymore.

Dr Kalipso	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:40:00 - [2751] CCP way to mess up the meschanics again! If it aint broke dont fix it... have youguys ever heard of that saying? I pay for my acct on a yearly basis so I dont give a sheite if ppl use bots or macros. If your gonna make changes think about it for the players and how their going to see your thoughts as we all think your wrong and completely screwing up a good thing.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:42:00 - [2752] Originally by: Aurelia Rei 2) I agree with your point here, but not with your idea of how this should be corrected. Granted, as you said before, they are considering other changes as well, but that doesn't mean they should make a bad change just because it was the easiest thing to implement first. Change nullsec mechanics to make it riskier even for those with a large power bloc behind them. If you're worried about the quality of the ISK (raw bounties vs drops/salvage), then change that. The only thing the current changes are guaranteed to do is encourage smaller nullsec entities to run L4s. .. 5 & 6) Like I said before, address those points directly. The problem I have with the changes is they really do affect smaller nullsec entities more than the larger ones. And that the changes reek of laziness. Your position doesn't make a lot of sense - ultimately because of Malcanis' Law. Consider: - Nobody has mentioned being willing to take more PVP risk while they're running their sanctums. In fact, the biggest whine up to now was how people that weren't even at their computer (AFK Cloakers) were ruining their ISK making because they might bridge a fleet of bombers in on top of them. - Decreasing the amount of ISK and increasing the amount of LP/loot/salvage would still benefit larger entities with better support infrastructures over smaller entities with low/almost non-existent support structures. - Furthermore, I don't know how you want to go about adding PVP risk to deep 0.0 PVE. And really, if you think this whine was epic... Quote: 3) As I stated to someone else, "easy" is a matter of opinion. I find it easy because I can do it myself with a single account without any help. If you still think that's possible in nullsec, please advise. ;) While I don't hesitate to say that you can pull 100M ISK/hr in high sec (I've done it), it isn't easy. It requires a lot of attention - both to what you're doing in the mission and to the overall market. The debates continually rage in Missions & Complexes over LP conversion rates and how much time should be accounted for when converting your LP. And really, converting your LP is annoying - to the point that even 60M/hr is considered ridiculous to almost all L4 runners. Contrast that with 135M ISK/hr bounties only with a Mach (the largest I've seen claimed with a single character) and the bounties only screen shots I've seen posted of 100M+ with Golems. So... Yes, it is possible. No, it's not easy. Or common (just as I'm sure 120M+ isn't terribly common in 0.0). Quote: 7) It might be because I just woke up, but I don't understand this last statement of yours. :-p Basically, the personal income of an individual in 0.0 has nothing at all to do with whether its populated with coalitions or small alliances. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Iyotaka Iyotaka Union	Posted - 2011.04.04 22:48:00 - [2753] CCP is always making changes. Adjust or leave. Nerfs get reversed, and re-reversed, etc.. The only concern I have about the validity, or lack thereof, is that the whining seems too one-sided. I learned from a legislator a long time ago: you know you have written a bad law when only one side complains; a good law - everyone complains == everyone feels different, but equivalently, restricted or taxed. Not sticky? If someone has not read this already - they are not going too. The messages are fairly monotone - too much quoting, too little original content.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.04 23:07:00 - [2754] Originally by: Liang Nuren Your position doesn't make a lot of sense - ultimately because of Malcanis' Law. Consider: - Nobody has mentioned being willing to take more PVP risk while they're running their sanctums. In fact, the biggest whine up to now was how people that weren't even at their computer (AFK Cloakers) were ruining their ISK making because they might bridge a fleet of bombers in on top of them. But you know what awoxers are? Right? And whenever we had cloakies sitting in shiny systems we also had enough guys to form up a propper blackops gang almost immediately once a juicy target appears. So maybe you want to point out your argument a bit?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.04 23:33:00 - [2755] Originally by: Antigue But you know what awoxers are? Right? I'm not sure what you think that has to do with anything. Quote: And whenever we had cloakies sitting in shiny systems we also had enough guys to form up a propper blackops gang almost immediately once a juicy target appears. So maybe you want to point out your argument a bit? Ok? I'm not sure how that increases PVE risk in 0.0. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.04 23:41:00 - [2756] Edited by: Antigue on 04/04/2011 23:44:15 Edited by: Antigue on 04/04/2011 23:42:03 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Antigue But you know what awoxers are? Right? I'm not sure what you think that has to do with anything. Quote: And whenever we had cloakies sitting in shiny systems we also had enough guys to form up a propper blackops gang almost immediately once a juicy target appears. So maybe you want to point out your argument a bit? Ok? I'm not sure how that increases PVE risk in 0.0. -Liang Take a mom to rat while there is a cloaky/awoxer in system and I promise you will find out rather sooner then later. Any other ship would do as well but the learning experience will deepen with a mom. Promised.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 00:08:00 - [2757] Originally by: Antigue Take a mom to rat while there is a cloaky/awoxer in system and I promise you will find out rather sooner then later. Any other ship would do as well but the learning experience will deepen with a mom. Promised. Ok, whatever. Massive risks. HUGE. ZOMG. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Druthellion	Posted - 2011.04.05 01:59:00 - [2758] Look, I am proud of the time I have spent learning this game but you seriously need to speed up the pace of play, not slow it down.
Kogh Ayon	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:11:00 - [2759] Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 05/04/2011 02:12:48 Originally by: Philana Moon Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 20:23:04 Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 19:52:31 -1 This patch sucks. Lot of small alliances have no chance to survive. They pay lot of isk to hold 0.0 space. Rest of the money goes to pvp. Most 0.0 space are useless now, Geminate, Insmother, Cloude Ring, Paragon Soul, Providence, Pure Blind, large part of Scalding Pass, Tribute. The biggest winner are the drone russians and goonswarm federation at deklein. So CCP Greyscale you're a russian or old goonie? if you think, that the players have to much money. Cancel the ship insurance, decrease the mission reward at 20%, lower the drop rate at officer and death space items. Cancel the moon gold ***. NC has over 120 tech moons, they make over 1.000b each month for nothing.. 'Ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin' on ? if you think that we have to many super capitals, adjust the refining rate at railguns. But, don't sht on small alliances and take them the chance to grow at 0.0 +1 CCP This change will definitely increase the chance for small alliances to survive in null. Currently any a system is very profitable and the big alliances just took everything and recruits renters and farmers. Small alliances, once they got a system then it will be thrashed by heaps super-caps just because this system can be re-leased for profit. Now it is not profitable to take many a systems even some regions, the small/industry alliance now can find a easy system to keep their sov without much trouble from big alliances: Will the NC. try to take control of providence now? lol
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:17:00 - [2760] Guys sign this and need everyone to petition the stop of change for this! If you get time open for your feedback! if you want to fix 0.0 then we need to start 'BRAIN' Storming! We are stock holders pass this on to 'CSM'! I must have been here!

Bio Fade	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:21:00 - [2761] Why do you want us to fight with Shuttles! Go after the botters. Leave us paying customers alone.
bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:24:00 - [2762] Originally by: Kogh Ayon Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 05/04/2011 02:12:48 Originally by: Philana Moon Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 20:23:04 Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 19:52:31 -1 This patch sucks. Lot of small alliances have no chance to survive. They pay lot of isk to hold 0.0 space. Rest of the money goes to pvp. Most 0.0 space are useless now, Geminate, Insmother, Cloude Ring, Paragon Soul, Providence, Pure Blind, large part of Scalding Pass, Tribute. The biggest winner are the drone russians and goonswarm federation at deklein. So CCP Greyscale you're a russian or old goonie? if you think, that the players have to much money. Cancel the ship insurance, decrease the mission reward at 20%, lower the drop rate at officer and death space items. Cancel the moon gold ***. NC has over 120 tech moons, they make over 1.000b each month for nothing.. 'Ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin' on ? if you think that we have to many super capitals, adjust the refining rate at railguns. But, don't sht on small alliances and take them the chance to grow at 0.0 +1 CCP This change will definitely increase the chance for small alliances to survive in null. Currently any a system is very profitable and the big alliances just took everything and recruits renters and farmers. Small alliances, once they got a system then it will be thrashed by heaps super-caps just because this system can be re-leased for profit. Now it is not profitable to take many a systems even some regions, the small/industry alliance now can find a easy system to keep their sov without much trouble from big alliances: Will the NC. try to take control of providence now? lol How on earth does this change allow small alliances to hold 0.0 space? All this does is turn a large portion of 0.0 into wasteland (undisputed fact, whether or not good truesec covers it is not the question I am adressing). Since it is a wasteland in terms of pve content, the only people who can feasibly survive is small industry alliances. These will also not stay very long, as you do need people to be able to pvp. Since a good portion of industry players are not as good at pvp as people who spend all of their time pvping (Again, some exceptions, but in general, pvpers dont do much industry), these alliances will not be able to hold this space when a major power block will decide to kick them out, which they will do if they take space in a tactically important region/pose a threat if they side with an enemy, or this will just be a space for big powerblock pvpers to farm killmails. Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:32:00 - [2763] Originally by: bp920091 Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it. There is nothing in 0.0 that is more profitable than anomaly? Wouldn't lower rent cost help some new alliance to move in? I do agree that I don't see how this will help a new small alliance in any way, I thought it might help if they have something to do in 0.0 other than anomalies. Wouldn't the rent go down by 10 fold?
bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:41:00 - [2764] Edited by: bp920091 on 05/04/2011 02:45:28 Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: bp920091 Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it. There is nothing in 0.0 that is more profitable than anomaly? Wouldn't lower rent cost help some new alliance to move in? I do agree that I don't see how this will help a new small alliance in any way, I thought it might help if they have something to do in 0.0 other than anomalies. Wouldn't the rent go down by 10 fold? While anomolies are not the only way for people to make cash out in 0.0, it is the way that the average 0.0 pvper does make cash (those who run DED complexes, have a highsec trading alt, or run about in wormholes are mainly highend pvpers) through anomolies. even if you have a small number of very good pvpers, small alliances simply will not make the cash to pay for rent from any large alliance (or sovereignty bills for that matter), and since these small alliances will not have the decently large number of pvpers needed to hold space, they will be evicted in short order, whether by force or by themselves.
Kogh Ayon	Posted - 2011.04.05 02:44:00 - [2765] Originally by: bp920091 Originally by: Kogh Ayon Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 05/04/2011 02:12:48 Originally by: Philana Moon Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 20:23:04 Edited by: Philana Moon on 04/04/2011 19:52:31 -1 This patch sucks. Lot of small alliances have no chance to survive. They pay lot of isk to hold 0.0 space. Rest of the money goes to pvp. Most 0.0 space are useless now, Geminate, Insmother, Cloude Ring, Paragon Soul, Providence, Pure Blind, large part of Scalding Pass, Tribute. The biggest winner are the drone russians and goonswarm federation at deklein. So CCP Greyscale you're a russian or old goonie? if you think, that the players have to much money. Cancel the ship insurance, decrease the mission reward at 20%, lower the drop rate at officer and death space items. Cancel the moon gold ***. NC has over 120 tech moons, they make over 1.000b each month for nothing.. 'Ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin' on ? if you think that we have to many super capitals, adjust the refining rate at railguns. But, don't sht on small alliances and take them the chance to grow at 0.0 +1 CCP This change will definitely increase the chance for small alliances to survive in null. Currently any a system is very profitable and the big alliances just took everything and recruits renters and farmers. Small alliances, once they got a system then it will be thrashed by heaps super-caps just because this system can be re-leased for profit. Now it is not profitable to take many a systems even some regions, the small/industry alliance now can find a easy system to keep their sov without much trouble from big alliances: Will the NC. try to take control of providence now? lol How on earth does this change allow small alliances to hold 0.0 space? All this does is turn a large portion of 0.0 into wasteland (undisputed fact, whether or not good truesec covers it is not the question I am adressing). Since it is a wasteland in terms of pve content, the only people who can feasibly survive is small industry alliances. These will also not stay very long, as you do need people to be able to pvp. Since a good portion of industry players are not as good at pvp as people who spend all of their time pvping (Again, some exceptions, but in general, pvpers dont do much industry), these alliances will not be able to hold this space when a major power block will decide to kick them out, which they will do if they take space in a tactically important region/pose a threat if they side with an enemy, or this will just be a space for big powerblock pvpers to farm killmails. Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it. Nobody will pay rent+sov.cost for a 'hub-only' system. If u want people to rent, people will withdraw, if you want to keep these systems on yourself, u will losing money.Bring a super-cap fleet to down providence for fun? kk u're welcome since hold a system there only need a level-3 pirate-detection which is not really hard.
Tiara Xiuhcoatl	Posted - 2011.04.05 04:01:00 - [2766] ok so CCP is nerfing the game and screwing things up which seems to happen more often then not. BUt good things have come from most of what they have done. HOWEVER, I seriously dont get somthing here CCP, why would you even let alliance buy and install upgrades into systems that they are not going to be usable for now. Why come up with a system then a little over a year later take it away WITHOUT anything that will compensate the alliances/corps for the now garbage upgrades they installed. OR for that matter adjusting the Sov bills accordingly. AS i see it CCP your taking away something that affects the individual players alot that live in 0.0 while handing everything to the ppl living in highsec, but cant even at least balance the loss with the decrease in expenses. You decided Sov was something to charge lots of ISK for, and added different things accordingly to make it worth paying for sov, then you remove a large part of it. If your going to screw ppl around without warning and be pretty imature and unprofesional fine, but for f u c k sakes, at least do it in a half way balanced and fair way. 0.0 is supposed ot be more profitable than highsec, being the risks of living there, now you force out large numbers of the 0.0 population. Not sure the exact reason, but I cant help but wonder, is this to also cut back on large fleet fights basically because those large numbers will no longer be fielded because they dont exist? Just give us real answers, give us soemthing to show its not to blaintely screw over every small alliance that doesnt have the good fortune of being a main part for a major power block.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.05 04:04:00 - [2767] Originally by: Kogh Ayon Nobody will pay rent+sov.cost for a 'hub-only' system. If u want people to rent, people will withdraw, if you want to keep these systems on yourself, u will losing money.Bring a super-cap fleet to down providence for fun? kk u're welcome since hold a system there only need a level-3 pirate-detection which is not really hard. And in the downtime they'll be using those moms to belt-rat in provi, so all this talk of this change giving the little guy a chance at 0.0 is lol.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.05 04:09:00 - [2768] Originally by: Tiara Xiuhcoatl If your going to screw ppl around without warning and be pretty imature and unprofesional fine, but for f u c k sakes, at least do it in a half way balanced and fair way. 0.0 is supposed ot be more profitable than highsec, being the risks of living there, now you force out large numbers of the 0.0 population. Adapt or die? That has always been the way of EVE. Originally by: Tiara Xiuhcoatl Just give us real answers, give us soemthing to show its not to blaintely screw over every small alliance that doesnt have the good fortune of being a main part for a major power block. If you're renting, then this does screw you over. If you're a small alliance that isn't renting, then this is good for you as all those renters will be heading to high-sec. Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion.
Ella Scorpio	Posted - 2011.04.05 04:46:00 - [2769] So Greyscale said they would implement the change and then evaluate it. So I think it is worth having a discussion about how to evaluate the change. I don't think watching how quickly people drop sov or move to get better space are good short term criteria, because now that CCP has shown how fickle they are, some people will try to wait it out. A far better measure will be how much time people who live in bad truesec 0.0 spend logged in. This is a critical measure for CCP, because it also suggests how much they are in danger of losing a subscriber. Another good measure will be what happens to rents, and how quickly pure renter alliances lose membership. Fundamentally, I think CCP's error here is not recognizing that people want stuff to do in a game. So if they keep the number of sites but proportion the bounties based on truesec, people will grumble, but still login to do their sanctums...but they might start eyeing a neighboring system's truesec and figuring out how to take it. The critical error here is taking away something to do, while still having profitable and engaging (to some) level 4 highsec missions. Make the anoms more interesting and varied (if less of an isk faucet) in nullsec, and you will have a vibrant player base in nullsec, and plenty of fighting to get better space. Keep with what you are planning, and you will just have empty space punctuated by big alliances...
QueenOfHotDrop	Posted - 2011.04.05 04:50:00 - [2770] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion. Before Dominion the biger aliance had no 10 sanctums which made them stronger than in other ,remove them all sanctums and it's ok.

UberDeathDealer Steel Fleet Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.05 04:57:00 - [2771] This is yet another example of CCP using the sledgehammer approach when a scalpel is needed. GG
Malus de'Adomena	Posted - 2011.04.05 05:16:00 - [2772] This is going to kill null sec
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.05 05:19:00 - [2773] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Tiara Xiuhcoatl If your going to screw ppl around without warning and be pretty imature and unprofesional fine, but for f u c k sakes, at least do it in a half way balanced and fair way. 0.0 is supposed ot be more profitable than highsec, being the risks of living there, now you force out large numbers of the 0.0 population. Adapt or die? That has always been the way of EVE. I think CCP should compensate those who spent isks and upgraded their system recently to get high end anomalies in the soon to be worthless systems. Unless CCP actually going to adjust this later, and maybe make the high end anomalies spawn, even if the frequency is less. Didn't CCP gave back the halo implants or something when they nerfed nano? Maybe they should do the same here. Originally by: QueenOfHotDrop Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion. Before Dominion the biger aliance had no 10 sanctums which made them stronger than in other ,remove them all sanctums and it's ok. WTF, you can have 10 sanctums in fully upgraded system at any time?
Degara Farat Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.05 05:30:00 - [2774] So according to QEN... Total population increase 695,693 to 768,373 (10,45%) Total bounty increase 67,6T to 75,7T (11,9%) Numbers are matching there. QEN doesn't tell exactly where the bounties are coming from. Since its called inflation when the costs increase faster then your income, I wonder what inflation does when you keep the player market at current levels and remove player income.
bp920091 Killer Koalas R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 05:45:00 - [2775] Edited by: bp920091 on 05/04/2011 05:50:17 Originally by: Degara Farat So according to QEN... Total population increase 695,693 to 768,373 (10,45%) Total bounty increase 67,6T to 75,7T (11,9%) Numbers are matching there. QEN doesn't tell exactly where the bounties are coming from. Since its called inflation when the costs increase faster then your income, I wonder what inflation does when you keep the player market at current levels and remove player income. when you keep the player market at the current levels and increase the number of people flying ships, this means that the actual value of isk will increase. This is only good for people who hold large amounts of isk, not people who hold actual modules, which are immune to inflation. It is called deflation, btw, which is the opposite of inflation. /edit Oh, by the way, this is also good for people who make things (ie. industrialists), as ships are physically worth more, as there is less ships per person.
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.05 06:31:00 - [2776] Originally by: Liang Nuren Your position doesn't make a lot of sense - ultimately because of Malcanis' Law. Consider: I'm not sure how Malcanis' Law makes my position any less tenable than the position of the current changes, unless you're saying that following Malcanis' Law, it doesn't matter what is done, whether CCP's current changes or anything else that could be proposed, because it will always screw over the little guy? I'm afraid I missed the meeting ratifying Malcanis' Law as some sort of absolute truth; as an extreme example, if the proposed change was to delete all characters over 1 year old (rapid aging syndrome due to use of clone technologies), how exactly do richer, older players benefit from that? The example is obviously a little silly, but surely with some thought and discussion, it is possible to devise changes that do benefit newer players more than older. I really don't understand the defeatist attitude. Originally by: Liang Nuren - Nobody has mentioned being willing to take more PVP risk while they're running their sanctums. In fact, the biggest whine up to now was how people that weren't even at their computer (AFK Cloakers) were ruining their ISK making because they might bridge a fleet of bombers in on top of them. I really couldn't care less what other people are or aren't complaining about. If you're referring to my statement that there were some good ideas in this thread, it was meant as a starting point and not an end all be all. Otherwise, I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Originally by: Liang Nuren - Decreasing the amount of ISK and increasing the amount of LP/loot/salvage would still benefit larger entities with better support infrastructures over smaller entities with low/almost non-existent support structures. Come on, dude, one issue at a time. When I argue that the changes hurt small entities more than large, you argue that the issue is the enormous raw ISK pumping into the economy. When I suggest a change targeting that very issue, you take the stance of my initial argument. Be reasonable; I don't get paid enough to come up with a full, multi-tiered and all encompassing solution for your entertainment. Originally by: Liang Nuren - Furthermore, I don't know how you want to go about adding PVP risk to deep 0.0 PVE. And really, if you think this whine was epic... Well, considering the main complaint seems to be that large coalitions have systems blued up to 40 jumps away, then affecting change that would limit the demarcation of such large territories would be a good start. ... continued.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.05 06:43:00 - [2777] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: This simple logic is flawed. The fabled good pilots don't go after ISK, they go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations. I have had the honor of knowing several totally epic guys, they never cried for ISK (they were good at making them) and being able making enough ISK is a discounted factor among the "good pilots" (this falls in the decade long and all MMOs encompassing "Good Player" topic). The Good Pilots who are after PvP, will join the good PvP corps / alliances and there's a bunch of well established ones that naturally attract talents. Your failure seeing this as the true drive for such individuals is what will keep them out of reach for the dime a dozen half assed alliances that struggle fielding 20 PvPers. So these "fabled good pilots" do they stuff piles of real life cash into the game or use macros miners/ratters to make the ISK to "go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations."?
Aurelia Rei	Posted - 2011.04.05 06:55:00 - [2778] ... continued. Originally by: Liang Nuren While I don't hesitate to say that you can pull 100M ISK/hr in high sec (I've done it), it isn't easy. It requires a lot of attention - both to what you're doing in the mission and to the overall market. The debates continually rage in Missions & Complexes over LP conversion rates and how much time should be accounted for when converting your LP. And really, converting your LP is annoying - to the point that even 60M/hr is considered ridiculous to almost all L4 runners. Contrast that with 135M ISK/hr bounties only with a Mach (the largest I've seen claimed with a single character) and the bounties only screen shots I've seen posted of 100M+ with Golems. So... Yes, it is possible. No, it's not easy. Or common (just as I'm sure 120M+ isn't terribly common in 0.0). Let's just agree to disagree on this matter. I find it very tiring to argue semantics on what is easy and what is not. I also find it quite disingenuous of you to focus almost entirely on the upper bound of the range I gave. Perhaps you missed the earlier, pointless debate with another person concerned with how difficult I find mission-running to be, but I did state that if I'm lucky with the mission offers, I can hit the upper bound of that range, but usually it's somewhere in between. Perhaps mission runners are so combative over this because they don't want CCP going anywhere near their income stream. You're right, blitzing L4s is SO difficult. Finding a sustainable high LP exchange rate is SO annoying. It's a terrible life us mission runners have, and we have to worry about being suicide ganked too! Answer me this: does it make sense to you that with these changes, the best anoms (Hubs) in ~43% of nullsec will provide a rate of return (per hour, per account) far less than running L4s? Any alliance new to nullsec would probably rather run L4s in the safety of highsec than Hubs to pay for their ships, while the bigger alliances retain access to Sanctums. How exactly does this help diversify nullsec? Originally by: Liang Nuren Basically, the personal income of an individual in 0.0 has nothing at all to do with whether its populated with coalitions or small alliances. -Liang Um, okay.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 07:27:00 - [2779] Quote: So according to QEN... Total population increase 695,693 to 768,373 (10,45%) Total bounty increase 67,6T to 75,7T (11,9%) Numbers are matching there. QEN doesn't tell exactly where the bounties are coming from. Since its called inflation when the costs increase faster then your income, I wonder what inflation does when you keep the player market at current levels and remove player income. The bounty increase comes from carrier / Mom etc. ratters. The population increase is mostly off new players and they surely don't farm 9 trillions within a quarter... Quote: So these "fabled good pilots" do they stuff piles of real life cash into the game or use macros miners/ratters to make the ISK to "go after achievement and fullfillment of their aspirations."? No, they play the full game and have industry alts, the corp leader lets them keep a little margin over Jita when giving stuff in corp, they trade in 0.0 hubs and much more. Some even gosh had a L4 alt but most would do 0.0 missions (in NPC 0.0) or the already available complexes. Plus we did corp ops to collectively make money. When I was in Dark Rising we would grind about 4-6 Dreads (the Good Thing back in my times) in a week end. Now how does it compare to a bunch of loonies each grinding a spawned anom in a Mom? Why do they even use a Mom? It means they got too much money to waste if they do that. And CCP noticed this. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 07:33:00 - [2780] Quote: HOWEVER, I seriously dont get somthing here CCP, why would you even let alliance buy and install upgrades into systems that they are not going to be usable for now. Why come up with a system then a little over a year later take it away WITHOUT anything that will compensate the alliances/corps for the now garbage upgrades they installed. OR for that matter adjusting the Sov bills accordingly. This is the typical hi sec bear mentality at work. CCP owes you NOTHING. You saw the glittering of Klondike/0.0 and accepted the challenge. You collectively HAD nine trillions handed to you and other renters in a quarter. You made probably more 9 trillions in this quarter. Now CCP decided to pull the ISK fountain off. It's been good till it lasted, you are not entitled to anything. The EULA itself has it written. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.05 07:45:00 - [2781] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha This is the typical hi sec bear mentality at work. CCP owes you NOTHING. You saw the glittering of Klondike/0.0 and accepted the challenge. You collectively HAD nine trillions handed to you and other renters in a quarter. You made probably more 9 trillions in this quarter. Now CCP decided to pull the ISK fountain off. It's been good till it lasted, you are not entitled to anything. The EULA itself has it written. ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium. I'd like to thank the people on SHC. May my name live on in infamy, while you revel in your bitter elitism. Your own arrogance, and inability to have a discourse on this matter (too busy not playing this game) have made yourselves irrelevant.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 07:46:00 - [2782] Originally by: Aurelia Rei I'm not sure how Malcanis' Law makes my position any less tenable than the position of the current changes, unless you're saying that following Malcanis' Law, it doesn't matter what is done, whether CCP's current changes or anything else that could be proposed, because it will always screw over the little guy? ... That's exactly what I'm saying. Your contrived example really is just that - contrived. But even it would still be to the favor of older and wiser players that know how to play the game. You're saying to target the issues one at a time in some kind of effort to not give the advantage to older/wiser/smarter/blobbier players. But it can't be done. Supposing that they must decrease the ISK faucet, then... ... they simply decrease the ISK faucet. Older/Bigger alliances move in and take what remains. ... they decrease the ISK faucets and make up for it with LP/Loot/Whatever. Older/Bigger alliances take the best space, and have better support infrastructures to deal with worse space. What you should be learning here is that virtually any change can be deconstructed as being bad for the little guy. If you feel that's a bit defeatist... so sorry. Maybe you can try actually bending your mind to the problem instead of simply saying it can easily be done. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 08:06:00 - [2783] Quote: ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium The "paying customer" and "paying product" is another typical pattern exhibited when CCP nerfed L4 loot and the affected bears flooded the forums. Anyway you pay the right to spend TIME in the game, the content is solely property of CCP and they do whatever they want with it. You signed it. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 08:09:00 - [2784] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha CCP owes you NOTHING. Ofc they do own me something. I'm here bcos of the sandbox you know and they own me sandbox with enough sand to build my castle. Even if other players manage to pee in that sand and my castle might smell funny. So I have gone and erected my little sandcastle, killed all the other kids that look like they might want to **** on my sandcastle and now CCP comes and rains on MY parade. What they own me is consistent rules, and if rules must change they own me at least believable explanation WHY the rules need change. The current reasoning does not float. I would really really like to see that "model" of theirs that predicts those changes mentioned in the devblog as a result of these changes that are going to be implemented tomorrow (as patch has been delayed a day). As my personal model, based on the experience of playing EVE Online past 6 years (and some excel tables) predicts a bit different outcome. It's ofc not complete model as there are areas in EVE where I am inexperienced even after these 6 years like wormholes, low sec piracy and ... umm ... faction warfare. Yeah I think those cover the things I have no experience with. I'm sure there are some white spots in my model even in the areas I'm well experienced with but I highly doubt these white spots would be big enough to fit the outcome predicted by CCP model for 0.0 through them. I like numbers and I like thinking so my models are not just "gut feeling". Where numbers matter there I have my little personal excel sheets. Like for example comparison of 0.0 average anomaly income vs empire level 4 mission running average income (for me in particual ofc, dont have data to generalize that in a meaningful way). I can kinda understand why CCP models often fail to take into account everything while some player models have considerably better accuracy. I think the reason is that CCP works on tight schedule, so the devs just dont have time to sit down and really concentrate for a week on getting a good picture of the "landscape". Plus ofc the increasing inertia that comes with increasing number of devs. Take for example the issue with technetium, that was predicted by Akita T with very good accuracy while CCP is still seemingly hiding their head under sand. Setting up a good model needs two key components (1) very good understanding of the field (2) thinking everything through in a systematic manner and figuring out what is relevant and what is small enough to be negligible. My current impression is that this CCP model is just some key devs "gut feeling" and not based on numerical data in meaningful way.
BIZZAROSTORMY	Posted - 2011.04.05 08:15:00 - [2785] Ill post this again because a lot of people are making the same mistake. This mass-nerf has nothing to do with isk sinks or faucets - nothing to do with income, nothing to do with deflation or inflation. CCPs stated reason for the nerf is to increase goodfights. This was clearly stated in black and white. All other considerations are moot points. So does ANYONE think this will increase 0.0 warfare? I rest my case.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.05 08:21:00 - [2786] Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 08:24:23 Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab If you're renting, then this does screw you over. If you're a small alliance that isn't renting, then this is good for you as all those renters will be heading to high-sec. Grow a spine, play eve like every other small 0.0 alliance did before Dominion. And why would a small alliance maintain sov in crappy 0.0 after these changes? Why pay 2-300 mil/month for sov if there's nothing profitable in that system? All of this assuming you're being left alone and no big coallition comes knocking and offering you the free choice between 'pay rent' and 'die' Sorry, I'm really not buying into the fact that making some space so crappy that it's not worth holding will actually make people want to hold it. Also, in regards to increasing fights, it's not going to happen. People go to war over moons, cause that's where the big money are, not over sanctums.
Crazy Craven	Posted - 2011.04.05 09:06:00 - [2787] What I find so odd is all the people ingame you question about these changes are like... "Huh? What changes?" I was shocked how many people do not read the forums, kind of crazy, we will see such a crash of hate hit these boards when the change gets applied!
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.05 09:10:00 - [2788] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium The "paying customer" and "paying product" is another typical pattern exhibited when CCP nerfed L4 loot and the affected bears flooded the forums. Anyway you pay the right to spend TIME in the game, the content is solely property of CCP and they do whatever they want with it. You signed it. You are so right, just because we 'signed' some arbitrary document it means they can do as they wish. So, how about we leave this game, because it's 'theirs' anyway and let them play their game themselves. It's 'theirs' after all, made by them for themselves.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.05 09:17:00 - [2789] Originally by: BIZZAROSTORMY Ill post this again because a lot of people are making the same mistake. This mass-nerf has nothing to do with isk sinks or faucets - nothing to do with income, nothing to do with deflation or inflation. CCPs stated reason for the nerf is to increase goodfights. This was clearly stated in black and white. All other considerations are moot points. So does ANYONE think this will increase 0.0 warfare? I rest my case. It has nothing to do with 0.0 warfare. It's about selling PLEX, nothing more, nothing less. If CCP wanted more wars they'd rebalance Technetium, but they don't want that, they just want to sell more PLEX and earn more fiat currency.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 09:36:00 - [2790] Originally by: Super Whopper Edited by: Super Whopper on 05/04/2011 09:19:32 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: ITT: paying for a product doesn't mean you actually get it, unless you have access to Technetium The "paying customer" and "paying product" is another typical pattern exhibited when CCP nerfed L4 loot and the affected bears flooded the forums. Anyway you pay the right to spend TIME in the game, the content is solely property of CCP and they do whatever they want with it. You signed it. You are so right, just because we 'signed' some arbitrary document it means they can do as they wish. Interestingly this attitude is costing Google a lot of money, as the Germans are still considering criminal proceedings against their Street View stupidity. And let's not even mention Facebook lol So, how about we leave this game, because it's 'theirs' anyway and let them play their game themselves. It's 'theirs' after all, made by them for themselves. Google, Facebook and all those companies can be sued for so much because they made enormously more. Exactly with those arbitrary documents. If you sue Facebook for 100M and they lose, they are down 100M out of many billions. It's risk capital, sometimes it goes well, sometime it doesn't, yet they are the richest out there, in Germans (and everyone else's) face. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity

Kahran Sjet	Posted - 2011.04.05 10:13:00 - [2791] Edited by: Kahran Sjet on 05/04/2011 10:14:43 Look at this poll and cast a vote TELL CCP TO STOP THE NERF!
Rooli Pelaaja	Posted - 2011.04.05 10:22:00 - [2792] Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 05/04/2011 10:22:48 you forget something, anomalies are NOT GONE from crappy space so if you are in crap space: -do hubs, 10mil bounty ticks still (OMGAD I CANT GET 60MIL PER HOUR ANYTIME I WANT WTFFFFFFFF) better than missioning or mining by far still or -stop being *****/htfu and move to better space or go conquer better space
wwut	Posted - 2011.04.05 10:30:00 - [2793] Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 05/04/2011 10:22:48 you forget something, anomalies are NOT GONE from crappy space so if you are in crap space: -do hubs, 10mil bounty ticks still (OMGAD I CANT GET 60MIL PER HOUR ANYTIME I WANT WTFFFFFFFF) better than missioning or mining by far still or -stop being *****/htfu and move to better space or go conquer better space You, Sir, win this threadnought.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 11:12:00 - [2794] Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja you forget something, anomalies are NOT GONE from crappy space so if you are in crap space: -do hubs, 10mil bounty ticks still (OMGAD I CANT GET 60MIL PER HOUR ANYTIME I WANT WTFFFFFFFF) better than missioning or mining by far still or -stop being *****/htfu and move to better space or go conquer better space The problem is not that you cant do any isk, the problem is that that alternative makes MORE isk, so you would be dumb if you would be using the space you fought for for iskmaking as space you do not need to fight for yields you better isk/h. Let me say it in very simple way: Hi sec level 4 missions are better for making isk than null sec from 0.0 down to -0.2499 if these changes go live. And it looks like they will as CCP is hiding again their head under sand going "lalalalala it will all be fine" like they did and are still doing, for example, with technetium. So only point of being in crap 0.0 is pewpew and if you need isk for that pewpew you will get your iskmaking alt and go do it where you get your battleship in .. lets say 3 hours, instead of grinding say 4 hours in your crappy 0.0 space. A wasteland as it was before dominion, moon mining towers, occasional probing alt flying thru looking for complexses, some poor pirate trying to rise sec status.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 11:24:00 - [2795] Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja you forget something, anomalies are NOT GONE from crappy space so if you are in crap space: -do hubs, 10mil bounty ticks still (OMGAD I CANT GET 60MIL PER HOUR ANYTIME I WANT WTFFFFFFFF) better than missioning or mining by far still or -stop being *****/htfu and move to better space or go conquer better space The problem is not that you cant do any isk, the problem is that that alternative makes MORE isk, so you would be dumb if you would be using the space you fought for for iskmaking as space you do not need to fight for yields you better isk/h. Let me say it in very simple way: Hi sec level 4 missions are better for making isk than null sec from 0.0 down to -0.2499 if these changes go live. And it looks like they will as CCP is hiding again their head under sand going "lalalalala it will all be fine" like they did and are still doing, for example, with technetium. So only point of being in crap 0.0 is pewpew and if you need isk for that pewpew you will get your iskmaking alt and go do it where you get your battleship in .. lets say 3 hours, instead of grinding say 4 hours in your crappy 0.0 space. A wasteland as it was before dominion, moon mining towers, occasional probing alt flying thru looking for complexses, some poor pirate trying to rise sec status. If what the guy above says about 10M ticks is true, then this 0.0 is not worse than L4. To get to 10M ticks in hi sec you have to be lucky to get one of those rarer warp in-get-1000 ships in your face missions, use a gank boat and then also convert the LP in a way that makes you waste more time (else going the quick way you get 700 ISK / LP max). But weren't those 0.0ers out there to pew pew and expand their empire? Otherwise they should have never left hi sec anyway. These millimetric comparisons about ISK here vs ISK there are really pathetic. You go to 0.0 to pew pew, carve your space and enter the EvE annals hall of fame not to farm with a Mom. Else what's different vs staying in Motsu like the average bear? Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.05 11:59:00 - [2796] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath But weren't those 0.0ers out there to pew pew and expand their empire? Otherwise they should have never left hi sec anyway. These millimetric comparisons about ISK here vs ISK there are really pathetic. You go to 0.0 to pew pew, carve your space and enter the EvE annals hall of fame not to farm with a Mom. Else what's different vs staying in Motsu like the average bear? Most 0.0 guys would very much like if it was possible to make ISK in 0.0 and not require a missioning alt in hisec.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:04:00 - [2797] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 05/04/2011 12:04:44 Originally by: Levistus Junior Most 0.0 guys would very much like if it was possible to make ISK in 0.0 and not require a missioning alt in hisec. Quote: if it was possible to make ISK in 0.0 Quote: possible .. make ISK .. 0.0
Tricia McMillan	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:04:00 - [2798] Hi, i just wanted to protest against the new update with the 0.0 nerf, that destroys the community and all low to midsize alliances and it don't help against botting miners etc pp, so please take that protest and my name and pin it to the complaining wall. i'm really against that upgrade and i don't think that eve will make fun anymore after that upgrade. would be really sad if eve get broken just because of such an fail update.
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:11:00 - [2799] Edited by: Tania Russ on 05/04/2011 12:12:53 Edited by: Tania Russ on 05/04/2011 12:11:45 Edited by: Tania Russ on 05/04/2011 12:11:24 How on earth does this change allow small alliances to hold 0.0 space? All this does is turn a large portion of 0.0 into wasteland (undisputed fact, whether or not good truesec covers it is not the question I am adressing). Since it is a wasteland in terms of pve content, the only people who can feasibly survive is small industry alliances. These will also not stay very long, as you do need people to be able to pvp. Since a good portion of industry players are not as good at pvp as people who spend all of their time pvping (Again, some exceptions, but in general, pvpers dont do much industry), these alliances will not be able to hold this space when a major power block will decide to kick them out, which they will do if they take space in a tactically important region/pose a threat if they side with an enemy, or this will just be a space for big powerblock pvpers to farm killmails. Small alliances simply cannot hold this wasteland, it is not profitable when compared to highsec, and even if they have the industry base to keep their members alive, they will be completely wiped out by large alliances whenever they feel like it. This post is right on. The major example of just what bp920091 is saying is lowsec. A veritable wasteland of pirates and people passing through but very few people actually living there and trying to eke out a living - it's not profitable. Unlss you ruin L5 missions or something, which could be profitable but basically turns into a net loss due to difficulty and the fact that as soon as one of these pirates sees you trying to run one they attack you. And PvPers say they want good fights? No they don't. They want killmails. So does CCP. That is why a PvE fitted ship, according to the game's design, has absolutely no capability versus a PvP fitted ship. It's also why mining equipment is so weak. Would these "leet" PvPers be attacking so often if PvE and industrialists' ships were set up so they could effectively defend themselves? No they'd run away like they always do when offered an even fight...
Rooli Pelaaja	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:24:00 - [2800] Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 05/04/2011 12:25:18 Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath The problem is not that you cant do any isk, the problem is that that alternative makes MORE isk, so you would be dumb if you would be using the space you fought for for iskmaking as space you do not need to fight for yields you better isk/h. Okey.. if you want to make max isk you dont do lvl4 missions then. Lots of way more profiting ways. FW missions, wormholes are better, trading is better, scamming is better... Just sit in jita 4-4 24/7 if you want to make best possible isk, but is it fun? My point is that when you are part of an alliance or corporation, you play with them and at their space, even if it isn't most profitable. You share the fun and sad with them, and you are there because you want to be, not because you want isk. Unless you are just a player who leeches from your alliance and doesn't give anything back, then you can gtfo

Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:37:00 - [2801] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha If what the guy above says about 10M ticks is true, then this 0.0 is not worse than L4. To get to 10M ticks in hi sec you have to be lucky to get one of those rarer warp in-get-1000 ships in your face missions, use a gank boat and then also convert the LP in a way that makes you waste more time (else going the quick way you get 700 ISK / LP max). But weren't those 0.0ers out there to pew pew and expand their empire? Otherwise they should have never left hi sec anyway. These millimetric comparisons about ISK here vs ISK there are really pathetic. You go to 0.0 to pew pew, carve your space and enter the EvE annals hall of fame not to farm with a Mom. Else what's different vs staying in Motsu like the average bear? Cmon, 10 mil / tick is only 30 mil / h. However, 30 mil / h is less than one can make in hi sec lev 4 missions, even if not being too smart with LP and just chasing in in some reasonably useful ammo. That number is then for single account ofc, but as I mentioned both scale up in reasonably similar manner when you add accounts. I must add that I have not figured out the exact number for hubs specifically not have tried to do them with single account. Some of these "named" hubs (forlon / hidden or something like that) are close enough to Havens. I was keeping those "named" hubs in mind when I mentioned that lower tier anoms can grant about 80% of what Havens/Sanctums can. There is some other issues tho with those named hubs, as running them with single account is not as effective as running havens/sanctums with single account as a result of relatively higher number of "elite" frigates / cruisers in them so if you dont have dedicated ship in gang for killing that small stuff you will lose in effectivity while that dedicated ship for killing small stuff is usually not that good at killing battleships in there. Good part of the lamentation is about the fact that currently it was actually making economic sense to live in this crappy true sec 0.0 compared to living in empire. That seems to be changing with this patch. And yeah empire building and stuff is all nice, but it still leaves a bit sour taste in ones mouth if you just jumpclone over for only the CTA's. As I did before Dominion. Run level 4 missions in hi sec, when there is CTA jumpclone over, shoot stuff in the face, jumpclone back to hi sec lev 4 mission hub 24h later. For smaller ops had few lower SP combat alts I could just log into on the same accounts. That does not sound like the vision under what the Dominion expansion was presented. You know - about 0.0 being actually able to support the population densities and actually being worth something. Other than moons and few systems per region with lowest true sec that is. True sec already matters as it is. It determines the propability of faction spawns in belts, quality of hauler spawns, what ore is in belts, what ice in ice belts and in general belt rat bounties. And now Geryscale tries to sell this nerf like next best thing after sliced bread.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:43:00 - [2802] Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath The problem is not that you cant do any isk, the problem is that that alternative makes MORE isk, so you would be dumb if you would be using the space you fought for for iskmaking as space you do not need to fight for yields you better isk/h. Okey.. if you want to make max isk you dont do lvl4 missions then. Lots of way more profiting ways. FW missions, wormholes are better, trading is better, scamming is better... Just sit in jita 4-4 24/7 if you want to make best possible isk, but is it fun? My point is that when you are part of an alliance or corporation, you play with them and at their space, even if it isn't most profitable. You share the fun and sad with them, and you are there because you want to be, not because you want isk. You don't care if your average income drops a small amount, because you have friendly and fun people around you. Unless you are just a player who leeches from your alliance and doesn't give anything back, then you can gtfo. Which I guess most NC corps are. I did earn my isk from level 4 missions in hi sec before Dominion and jumpcloned over for fleet stuff when there was CTA called. Dominion regardless of brining the crappier and more blobby sov system did at least something right. It made living in 0.0 make economic sense. For majority of 0.0 systems that would be changing again with the upcoming patch. As far as fun goes, grinding isk is in general rather unfun activity but one needs to do it for having isk to have fun with, right. So it makes sense to get it over with in as effective manner as possible and then go have fun with it. If anything then anoms as they are currently are even more dull than level 4 missions, as there is only 4 of them worth doing. Havens and Sanctums. In missions there are more varied, but after you have done few thousand level 4 missions that does not help a lot that there is whole 20 of them instead of just 4.
Tania Russ	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:57:00 - [2803] Edited by: Tania Russ on 05/04/2011 12:58:14 I guess that is essentially what CCP is afraid of - that the game is becoming stale. We've all had our "break moments" over the years, where we just got a little tired of the daily EVE grind, and we went off to play Fallout 3 or whatever for a few weeks. So in order to make the game new and exciting, CCP is opting for the stick rather than the carrot approach - make life harder for us, then we have to devote more time to the game to recoup losses, and so we'll be somehow motivated to devote more time to the game to get better space, by kicking out other people from their space? Seems dodgy. The problem I have with this approach is that for me it's just the opposite - the opportunity to make more isk made me more likely to PvP, not less. I was excited at having figured out a medium sized cash flow plan that supported slow growth and would allow me to recoup losses relatively easily without having to sell too many plexes. And I could contribute to my alliance and corp as well. Taking that away makes the game a lot less interesting to me. I just plain don't have time to grind low level anomalies for isk, and besides plexes, which are hard to find and usually taken before I get there due to my time zone, there is not much benefit to being out here. Sure we could mine I guess. Most "elite PvPer" types find that distasteful, I don't (I use the word elite with the greatest sarcasm; I don't know what is really "elite" about attacking people who are unable to defend themselves and then bragging about yourself, but there you go) but the fact is mining is boring, especially if it's all you do all the time, and the game is set up to make mining as difficult as possible (weak ships, low profit to risk ratio, high logistics requirements, basically it's set up to allow "elite" PvPers to shoot people who can't defend themselves and then brag about themselves.) I like the majority of the other changes with this patch. Good on CCP to address a lot of lag issues, and add fresh new content. But this removal of the really good stuff from our systems sucks CCP.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.05 12:58:00 - [2804] Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 13:00:55 Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 05/04/2011 12:04:44 Originally by: Levistus Junior Most 0.0 guys would very much like if it was possible to make ISK in 0.0 and not require a missioning alt in hisec. Quote: if it was possible to make ISK in 0.0 Quote: possible .. make ISK .. 0.0 I was referring to pilot level income, not alliance/corp owned moons. ATM it makes no sense to try and make isk in crappy 0.0 as you can make better ISK (and safer) in high sec running level 4s.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.05 13:02:00 - [2805] Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Cmon, 10 mil / tick is only 30 mil / h. But the 10 mill / tick in the soon to be crappy system is true?
Starbud Paul Amarr Shadow Incursion En Garde	Posted - 2011.04.05 13:38:00 - [2806] No alliance or corporation goes to war over bounties or drone poo. The DRF is not attacking Geminate because their players want access to Sanctums instead of Drone Hordes; new alliances almost never look for nullsec space in order to farm Havens; Goonswarm/TEST did not spend months fighting IT/BLAST/etc over Fountain and Delve so that their members would have access to better anomalies; Atlas/AAA/etc are not in conflict with PL over low truesec systems in Delve. The real conflict in nullsec is over alliance-scale resources, namely high-end moons. Of course, CCP has already spectacularly failed at 'balancing' nullsec and creating more conflict a while back: instead of balancing moon goo and reducing alliance income from it, they not merely created the Technetium bottleneck in T2 production but placed the majority of Technetium moons squarely in NC space. So I suppose this latest failure of an attempt at 'creating more conflict,' which only shows how little understanding of nullsec CCP really has, is hardly unexpected. spot on the button their: Alice Katsuko CCP CANT YOU SEE ITS NOT THE SPACE ITS THE MOON GOOOOOOOOOOOOO Through out this debate the main issue that keeps getting flagged a lot is not the true sec of systems or the anomalies or Care bear renter fee's or even the pvp levels in game Its the issue you created as a game developer and the stupid balancing of the moon goo in the game. You where warned by thousands of players before you started all this upgrade stuff that the re map of the moon minerals ie technetium dysprosium promethium was gona throw the balance of this game polar. In a sandbox that all ready heavy napped across the game you handed 1/2 entity the fringing keys to a i win button knowing fully well the number of Tec moons in the north of the game was extremely higher than in any other region of the game. This has now thrown the game to a level where its so in-balanced its now really pointless playing!!! No entity bar 1 or 2 can compete with even some of the weaker teir alliances in the NC who are just shocking; But due to the i win Tec button they have!!!! RAGE is a perfect example If u Really want to balance the game properly and make it more playable and fun again * Do away with moon goo all together!!!!!! "We have PI now why their is still a need for moon minerals'? this new idea can incorporate the invention side of eve and allow more balanced use of the existing minerals in eve" * Limited The Fleet sizes and number of allies every entity can have *The idea of fleet size penalty like the sansha incursions would be also a usefully addition "example 300 v 900 Battleships The 900 would hit/tank like cruisers/BC and the 300 normal this would balance the game and take away the blob war and actively encourage skill and tactics Head my warnings ccp FIX THIS FAST OR YOU WILL LOSE A LOT OF PLAYERS TO OTHER MMOS Simples
OmegaStalker1	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:07:00 - [2807] WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:09:00 - [2808] While I dont live in 0.0 anymore, I did want to support a couple of the comments, and then offer a different point of view and a challenge to the posters: 1) Changing the spawning of anomolies based on their true sec status is not likely to really force any wars. Perhaps some minor squabbles but nothing significant 2) Wars are based on Moon Goo. 3) Really what you are nerfing is small alliances. They wont be able to sustain themselves any longer, and you are forcing larger power-blocks to continue. This leads to the following conclusion: A) The real problem here is the Moon Goo, and the distribution of profits from the Moon Goo. Having lived in Null when R64 was the rage and profit factor, it became clear to me very quickly that the isk realized from harvesting that Goo was NEVER passed on to your average grinding pilot. It was reserved for Corp owners/leaders who made billions and billions and passed Little/NONE of it on to their player base. Ship reimbursement my *ss. Leaders of Corps STILL held billions for themselves, and reimbursement was a joke. Meanwhile I was sacrificing ship after ship and grinding hour after hour to protect others cash factory. If CCP would introduce mechanics to resolve this issue (Other than shares - or re-work shares!)then it wouldnt be a problem, and most likely this issue would dry up a little bit. B) ISK Supply in the game is too high, as is observed in QEN4. It continues to grow, and this is CCP's attempt at limiting its flow. However due to point A the issue isnt really being realized. ISK is being concentrated into the hands of folks that OWN the rare resources, and flowing out of the hands of the grinders. So the question is: How to solve this dillema? How can CCP slow the flow of ISK into the game and not hurt the grinders? As I see it it either has to come from High Sec players (ya right), Null Sec grinders, OR something has to be done about the Moon Goo. Well guys? How does CCP fix the problem? Its time to stop complaining and PROPOSE solutions.
REDRUM44	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:13:00 - [2809] Edited by: REDRUM44 on 05/04/2011 14:13:07 sense we got the nerf bat in full swing lets put a timer on the cloak's so peps cant sit cloaked for days or weeks at a time FIGHT, ATTACK OR GTFO
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:15:00 - [2810] Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 14:15:03 TBH, I can see quite a few reasons behind this move(and ignoring an 100 page threadnaught on it): -maybe there really is a problem with too much ISK entering the economy (prices for PLEX for example have risen by at almost 100 mil in the past year or so IIRC) and, as a stopgap measure, it's easier to adopt something that just reduces overall income across the board than commit large resources to bot banning. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. -maybe they had enough of the bad publicity laggy fleet fights and crappy reimbursement policy is giving them across gaming news sites and forums, so they want to force people out of 0.0 in the hope of making fights take place at a more manageable scale. Of course they could try to rewrite code to take advantage of a multi-core architecture and such, but :effort. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. This move probably makes sense for CCP, but I think the real reasons behind it have nothing to do with the bull**** they've been feeding to the public.

attendant1	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:16:00 - [2811] Originally by: Starbud Paul No alliance or corporation goes to war over bounties or drone poo. The DRF is not attacking Geminate because their players want access to Sanctums instead of Drone Hordes; new alliances almost never look for nullsec space in order to farm Havens; Goonswarm/TEST did not spend months fighting IT/BLAST/etc over Fountain and Delve so that their members would have access to better anomalies; Atlas/AAA/etc are not in conflict with PL over low truesec systems in Delve. The real conflict in nullsec is over alliance-scale resources, namely high-end moons. Of course, CCP has already spectacularly failed at 'balancing' nullsec and creating more conflict a while back: instead of balancing moon goo and reducing alliance income from it, they not merely created the Technetium bottleneck in T2 production but placed the majority of Technetium moons squarely in NC space. So I suppose this latest failure of an attempt at 'creating more conflict,' which only shows how little understanding of nullsec CCP really has, is hardly unexpected. spot on the button their: Alice Katsuko CCP CANT YOU SEE ITS NOT THE SPACE ITS THE MOON GOOOOOOOOOOOOO Through out this debate the main issue that keeps getting flagged a lot is not the true sec of systems or the anomalies or Care bear renter fee's or even the pvp levels in game Its the issue you created as a game developer and the stupid balancing of the moon goo in the game. You where warned by thousands of players before you started all this upgrade stuff that the re map of the moon minerals ie technetium dysprosium promethium was gona throw the balance of this game polar. In a sandbox that all ready heavy napped across the game you handed 1/2 entity the fringing keys to a i win button knowing fully well the number of Tec moons in the north of the game was extremely higher than in any other region of the game. This has now thrown the game to a level where its so in-balanced its now really pointless playing!!! No entity bar 1 or 2 can compete with even some of the weaker teir alliances in the NC who are just shocking; But due to the i win Tec button they have!!!! RAGE is a perfect example If u Really want to balance the game properly and make it more playable and fun again * Do away with moon goo all together!!!!!! "We have PI now why their is still a need for moon minerals'? this new idea can incorporate the invention side of eve and allow more balanced use of the existing minerals in eve" * Limited The Fleet sizes and number of allies every entity can have *The idea of fleet size penalty like the sansha incursions would be also a usefully addition "example 300 v 900 Battleships The 900 would hit/tank like cruisers/BC and the 300 normal this would balance the game and take away the blob war and actively encourage skill and tactics Head my warnings ccp FIX THIS FAST OR YOU WILL LOSE A LOT OF PLAYERS TO OTHER MMOS Simples yes they seee they dont care about actually fixing the problem just adding to it
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:17:00 - [2812] Originally by: Levistus Junior Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 14:15:03 TBH, I can see quite a few reasons behind this move(and ignoring an 100 page threadnaught on it): -maybe there really is a problem with too much ISK entering the economy (prices for PLEX for example have risen by at almost 100 mil in the past year or so IIRC) and, as a stopgap measure, it's easier to adopt something that just reduces overall income across the board than commit large resources to bot banning. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. -maybe they had enough of the bad publicity laggy fleet fights and crappy reimbursement policy is giving them across gaming news sites and forums, so they want to force people out of 0.0 in the hope of making fights take place at a more manageable scale. Of course they could try to rewrite code to take advantage of a multi-core architecture and such, but :effort. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. This move probably makes sense for CCP, but I think the real reasons behind it have nothing to do with the bull**** they've been feeding to the public. The problem is the distribution of the wealth. The wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the owners of the Moon Goo. This is what needs to be addressed. Right now in essence CCP is taxing the lower middle class instead of slapping a tax on the folks with the trillions of isk in their wallets already.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:46:00 - [2813] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Doris Dragonbreath Cmon, 10 mil / tick is only 30 mil / h. But the 10 mill / tick in the soon to be crappy system is true? It is certainly possible using "named" hubs (those are currently level 4 military upgrade stuff) currently assuming the rats themselves stay same as currently. Say .. properly skilled and fitted Nighthawk in guristas space. Then again I got impression that not only will true sec now affect what class anomalies will be present in the system but also the size of bounties of the rats inside have. So depending how it's actually implemented ... well too early to specualte I guess.
Usagi Tsukino Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:51:00 - [2814] You people do realize that there are other ships than Titans and Supercarriers, right? You don't need elevntybillion ISK in order to play EVE. ___ *Chaotic Dreams*
weasle350	Posted - 2011.04.05 14:52:00 - [2815] please Please PLEASE do not take the sanctums away, i have asked alot of my friends and alliance mates, and none of us are happy with this idea. It will not cause more pvp, but it will stop people from pvping. If you take away sanctums (which equal isk), people are not going to go and lose ships in pvp. If they cant make isk, they arent going to spend it. Please even consider what i have said. Thank-you very much. weasle350
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:10:00 - [2816] Originally by: Mithrasith Originally by: Levistus Junior Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 14:15:03 TBH, I can see quite a few reasons behind this move(and ignoring an 100 page threadnaught on it): -maybe there really is a problem with too much ISK entering the economy (prices for PLEX for example have risen by at almost 100 mil in the past year or so IIRC) and, as a stopgap measure, it's easier to adopt something that just reduces overall income across the board than commit large resources to bot banning. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. -maybe they had enough of the bad publicity laggy fleet fights and crappy reimbursement policy is giving them across gaming news sites and forums, so they want to force people out of 0.0 in the hope of making fights take place at a more manageable scale. Of course they could try to rewrite code to take advantage of a multi-core architecture and such, but :effort. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. This move probably makes sense for CCP, but I think the real reasons behind it have nothing to do with the bull**** they've been feeding to the public. The problem is the distribution of the wealth. The wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the owners of the Moon Goo. This is what needs to be addressed. Right now in essence CCP is taxing the lower middle class instead of slapping a tax on the folks with the trillions of isk in their wallets already. you do realize that moongoo doesnt inject isk into the economy ? also talk to your leaders .. maybe they share some wealth ? isnt that what BFF is all about ?
Macaij	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:13:00 - [2817] CCP, i'd just like to say that you suck. You are about to take my main income away from me. This oblivously results in -fun and +hate. Reason enough for at least 1 account to be discontinued. It seems you guys use the money i pay you to sh*t in my face.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:23:00 - [2818] Originally by: weasle350 If you take away sanctums (which equal isk), people are not going to go and lose ships in pvp. Why do some go on about how people will no longer PvP after this nerf, did you guys start to play eve after the dominion?
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:24:00 - [2819] Originally by: Antigue Edited by: Antigue on 04/04/2011 22:13:08 Originally by: Dodgy Past Providing peons to 1000 man blobs doesn't exactly equip you to through your weight around hi sec. Nullsec bears aren't magically better than hi sec bears, infact what are you going to do when your opponents can also dock up... not something you're used to seeing because the only 'small' gang PvP you've seen is forming a blob 5 times the size of a roaming gang then using jump bridges to try and trap them. What will happen though is that competition to get into corps with good space will increase, and obviously you're crying so much because you know no one decent will have you. I don¦t take your last sentence as a personal insult, as for obvious reasons this would be a perfect stupid insult if you ever check my employment history. Yeah, checking your employment history does make me look rather foolish , so please accept my apologies. What you say does make sense, and obviously you care for the guys you represent. But the sanctums / havens are providing too much isk too easily. While it may not be a prevalent point of view with the people you fly with there are too many people who believe that just by being able to dual box a carrier and a bs / t3 they're entitled to rat themselves up to a super carrier... and I think this is the ting CCP want to stop, because this is an indirect nerf to SC acquisition. Personally I'm also biassed because my first experience of null was joining a corp that kicked an alliance that was blue to stain wagon out of a pocket and even seeing them disband. We worked hard for that valuable pocket, camped the station day and night for a month, dodged hot drops, ratted in fleets for self defense against cloakers opening covert cynos... basically doing all the things that the whiners in this thread are too lazy and entitled to do. If players are prepared to put that much effort into securing the rewards of null sec then they deserve them, but joining a few blobfest fights to just press f1 when lag allows them in order to harvest a river of gold doesn't seem balanced.
Rooli Pelaaja	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:27:00 - [2820] Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 05/04/2011 15:27:55 oh no my sanctums are gone how can i get my pve nyx now ? CCP ffs you ruined my life!!! i need supercap to do sanctums!!! isnt that normal these days ?!?! ffs.. -- if you look at newest QEN there is way too much isk coming in, every noob ratter getting supercap to just rat more... yea thats the way to bring pvp out this change is needed

SynTx Caldari Ducktales	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:34:00 - [2821] Edited by: SynTx on 05/04/2011 15:34:38 Providence is now complete trash ! Milliarden investet, wth. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Providence#sec cya
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:44:00 - [2822] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Mithrasith Originally by: Levistus Junior Edited by: Levistus Junior on 05/04/2011 14:15:03 TBH, I can see quite a few reasons behind this move(and ignoring an 100 page threadnaught on it): -maybe there really is a problem with too much ISK entering the economy (prices for PLEX for example have risen by at almost 100 mil in the past year or so IIRC) and, as a stopgap measure, it's easier to adopt something that just reduces overall income across the board than commit large resources to bot banning. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. -maybe they had enough of the bad publicity laggy fleet fights and crappy reimbursement policy is giving them across gaming news sites and forums, so they want to force people out of 0.0 in the hope of making fights take place at a more manageable scale. Of course they could try to rewrite code to take advantage of a multi-core architecture and such, but :effort. WoD/Dust/walking in stations is more important. This move probably makes sense for CCP, but I think the real reasons behind it have nothing to do with the bull**** they've been feeding to the public. The problem is the distribution of the wealth. The wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the owners of the Moon Goo. This is what needs to be addressed. Right now in essence CCP is taxing the lower middle class instead of slapping a tax on the folks with the trillions of isk in their wallets already. you do realize that moongoo doesnt inject isk into the economy ? also talk to your leaders .. maybe they share some wealth ? isnt that what BFF is all about ? Yes I do realize - if you had taken the time to read my post right above it, I said that the issue is that Grinders in High and Null Sec transfer their isk to those that have the rare materials (Moon Goo). Therefore the wealth is concentrating in the hands of a very few, flowing up from those that grind and work for it to those that simply reap the rewards. This is the core of the issue that needs to be corrected. If instead the isk from the Moon Goo flowed DOWN to those that work so hard to protect it, there wouldnt be such a big issue about the reduction in pay-outs from anomolies, and that is what CCP needs to address with in-game tools.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:48:00 - [2823] Originally by: Rooli Pelaaja Edited by: Rooli Pelaaja on 05/04/2011 15:27:55 oh no my sanctums are gone how can i get my pve nyx now ? CCP ffs you ruined my life!!! i need supercap to do sanctums!!! isnt that normal these days ?!?! ffs.. -- if you look at newest QEN there is way too much isk coming in, every noob ratter getting supercap to just rat more... yea thats the way to bring pvp out this change is needed actually if you read the QEN the amount coming in is directly proportional to the subscription growth. inflation in mmo's will ALWAYS happen. so your argument is pretty much derailed at that point. also i would like to point out that this change is not based on decreasing income nor inflation or anything. i mean the mentally challenged individuals think that 0.0 entities will change staging systems based on the truesec of the system and that 0.0 alliances go to war over ratting space. all this change is going to do is over time revert 0.0 back to pre-dominion populations and playstyles. this is the most frightening part of it all.. we have a development team that truely believe truesec has ANYTHING to do with how 0.0 entities act. they have probably never logged into the game and are basically totally incompentent but CCP had to replace all the devs they sent to work on DUST with someone i spose.
Degara Farat Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:50:00 - [2824] There is only 1 reasons why there is more ISK in the economy: Planetary Interaction! Its Basicly making ISK out of the space vacuum. It removed the ISK sinks known as Outposts Components and POS Fuel, since I can now build it all with PI. And to realize they removed the old sov system because hauling fuel was tedious while you can now make it in your backyard.
Hiro Yashi	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:50:00 - [2825] hmm i thought the whole point of upgrades was to allow use of any system and make them useful instead of empty and unused. what's the point if you have to have the lowest sec status as well? aren't we back to the old system then? Forest Casual, for the leafy gent.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:59:00 - [2826] Originally by: Hiro Yashi hmm i thought the whole point of upgrades was to allow use of any system and make them useful instead of empty and unused. what's the point if you have to have the lowest sec status as well? aren't we back to the old system then? Exactly! Now we are back to only the "big boys" can afford to live in 0.0. I thought CCP was *****ing and whining that too many ppl stayed in high sec and never went to 0.0...they gave us the means and now are taking it away LOL. Dumb bunch of hypocrites!
Ze Beeblebrox Amarr Space Demolition Inc. Negotium Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:03:00 - [2827] CCP Greyscale's reaction so far: comparable to a stubborn teenager 'I am right, you are wrong, I do not listen !' 1. The proposed change is drastic, so drastic, it is implemented too quickly upon announcement. So there will be thousands of angry players who just have invested in worthless upgrades with all that logistical nightmare of bringing a freighter into 0.0 and planting that upgrade. 2. The proposed change will make 75% of 0.0 area less valuable under the same costs to sustain. So there will be a mass exodus either into better space or just out of 0.0. Many alliances in Immensea and Tenerifis are already packing their coffres straight for empire and highsec as 0.0 doesnot pay off anymore. 3. Calculation for a small alliance: now: the costs are: Mafia payment (to the local big boss 1-2bil/System) + Sov + Upgrades + Upkeep + Refining Tax imposed by Mafia and other Station usage costs + POS + PvP-Reimbursements the income is: Flat Head Tax (players have to pay about 30-100 Mil ISK/Month which they refinance by running Sanctums/Havens) future: the costs are: Mafia payment (about 1/4 of above) + Sov + Upgrades + Upkeep + Refining Tax + Station usage + POS + Reimbursements the income is: Flat Head Tax (player will max pay about 25 Mil ISK/Month) As we had an internal war, which deprived us from sanctums/havens for about 3 week, I can say that without them noone would be able to pay the necessary income. Mafia payment is doublesided. Is it big, the local Mafia cares about you. Is it just a drop in the ocean, the local Mafia will just fck you or at least not care about you. With the proposed changes, 3/4 of 0.0 are not worth paying any 'rent' for. They will eventually only be markers for the regional boss about who owns most sov. But many systems just will drop sov without a single shot having been fired, as their inhabitants will straight move out. The only reason my "Negotium Alliance" is in 0.0 now is economic. Our calculation showed that Lowsec Carebear-Paradise Taff-Ualkin-Gukarla is worth less than a decent 0.0 area and 0.0 will finance us our long dreamt for PvP fleet including all kinds of capitals. With the proposed changes we will try the following options: - pay drastically less rent for our area, as it is not worth that much anymore. And if our Masters don't agree on less rent, we will leave instantly. - drop sov for the most worthless of those systems. - demand reimbursements by CCP for those systems we have fully upgraded, but where upgrades have become worthless. - check, whether adaption to mining and production and increasing the efforts of looting and salvaging is a solution. But if, what is extremely probable, we have to move out into empire/highsec again. I will move all our goods out of 0.0. When everything is evacuated, I will sell all my stuff on the market and with the ISK I will pay out all the creditors of my alliance. When everything is paid and no open dept, I will cancel the subscription of all my 4 accounts after nearly 3 years of continued playing of eve online. After the day I will have cancelled my subscriptions, I will never ever return again ! Because I do not play games, where the game developers sht on their customer base. Implementing such drastic changes as CCP Greyscale wants should be subject to CSM, open discussion and to a adaption timeframe long enough so everyone who wasted their ISK in 0.0 infrastructure could at least write it all off. Ignoring the feedback of the player community by CCP Greyscale is not only childishly stubborn, it is outright stupid, harming customer relations beyond any recoverability and a direct insult to most of the playerbase. If you look at the development curve of EVE-Online you will realise the curve has been flattening for quite a while. New concurrent player records have quite become rare. This is a strong suggestion that EVE-Online has become saturated. Annoying the playerbase, provoking cancelled subscriptions may just kill EVE-Online !
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:22:00 - [2828] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 16:22:41 Originally by: Skaarl actually if you read the QEN the amount coming in is directly proportional to the subscription growth. inflation in mmo's will ALWAYS happen. so your argument is pretty much derailed at that point. I already debunked this. New subscriptions simply don't have the SP to pump that kind of raw ISK into the system. This implies that a smaller number of more skilled people are pumping it into the economy. And what happens when the crop of noobs matures and starts farming the unlimited ISK faucets.... ? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:35:00 - [2829] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 05/04/2011 16:39:31 Originally by: Degara Farat There is only 1 reasons why there is more ISK in the economy: Planetary Interaction! Its Basicly making ISK out of the space vacuum. It removed the ISK sinks known as Outposts Components and POS Fuel, since I can now build it all with PI. That did remove some of the isk sinks, but no, PI doesn't pump in raw isks into economy like how it is with the bounties.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:42:00 - [2830] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 16:22:41 Originally by: Skaarl actually if you read the QEN the amount coming in is directly proportional to the subscription growth. inflation in mmo's will ALWAYS happen. so your argument is pretty much derailed at that point. I already debunked this. New subscriptions simply don't have the SP to pump that kind of raw ISK into the system. This implies that a smaller number of more skilled people are pumping it into the economy. And what happens when the crop of noobs matures and starts farming the unlimited ISK faucets.... ? -Liang it takes less than 1 month, or 1/3 the quarter to train for a battleship capable of farming lvl 4's or sanctums.

Andru Ro	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:44:00 - [2831] What I don't get it it how this change is going to help small Alliances to put a foot in null sec. If they have no resources to fight already established alliances how they are going to resist there? So now beside having a handicap in having less trained people in PvP then well established Alliances now will have to struggle with the lack of resources that big Alliances do not lack. Also in the end all will go bad for a regular player that will PvP less and have less opportunities to enjoy the game. I do think that this a bad move and I may reduce my 3 accounts to only one cose I do have no use for the other 2.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:46:00 - [2832] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 05/04/2011 16:39:31 Originally by: Degara Farat There is only 1 reasons why there is more ISK in the economy: Planetary Interaction! Its Basicly making ISK out of the space vacuum. It removed the ISK sinks known as Outposts Components and POS Fuel, since I can now build it all with PI. That did remove some of the isk sinks, but no, PI doesn't pump in raw isks into economy like how it is with the bounties. sanctums arent the issue and removing them wont change the isk faucet as you all like to call it. people will just grind even more boring lvl 4's to make the same isk. PI is in fact one of the major contributors to the small amount of inflation as it removed most of the large isk removals (pos fuel) from the game. now it just recycles inside the economy. this argument is also once again ignoring the fact that sov wars are not run based off of ratting space. this is not an economic decisions its a decision to make 0.0 "more fun and vibrant" from CCP Greyscales viewpoint. its not about removing isk from the economy or any of the other crazy ass justifications.
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:48:00 - [2833] Originally by: Andru Ro What I don't get it it how this change is going to help small Alliances to put a foot in null sec. If they have no resources to fight already established alliances how they are going to resist there? So now beside having a handicap in having less trained people in PvP then well established Alliances now will have to struggle with the lack of resources that big Alliances do not lack. Also in the end all will go bad for a regular player that will PvP less and have less opportunities to enjoy the game. I do think that this a bad move and I may reduce my 3 accounts to only one cose I do have no use for the other 2. it doesn't. CCP greyscale and TEAM BFF are just showing exactly how incompetent and clueless they are.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:52:00 - [2834] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 16:52:15 Originally by: Skaarl it takes less than 1 month, or 1/3 the quarter to train for a battleship capable of farming lvl 4's or sanctums. Capable of finishing them, or capable of making 100m ISK/hr? -Liang Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: Andru Ro What I don't get it it how this change is going to help small Alliances to put a foot in null sec. If they have no resources to fight already established alliances how they are going to resist there? So now beside having a handicap in having less trained people in PvP then well established Alliances now will have to struggle with the lack of resources that big Alliances do not lack. Also in the end all will go bad for a regular player that will PvP less and have less opportunities to enjoy the game. I do think that this a bad move and I may reduce my 3 accounts to only one cose I do have no use for the other 2. it doesn't. CCP greyscale and TEAM BFF are just showing exactly how incompetent and clueless they are. Frankly, there is no change that they can make that will mean someone won't be screaming about how it screws the little guy. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:04:00 - [2835] If I have more isk, I have more fun...with less isk, I will have less fun. Yea CCP, thank you - dumbasses! I can buy lifetime subs to other games for less than the $400 it costs me to run 3 accounts here for one year...CCP may indeed see some "economic impact"....
Axell Wilkinson	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:06:00 - [2836] Well done CCP I think you just shown the gaming world how to screw a game in one patch!!!! Good Job
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:12:00 - [2837] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 05/04/2011 17:14:20 Quote: If instead the isk from the Moon Goo flowed DOWN to those that work so hard to protect it, there wouldnt be such a big issue about the reduction in pay-outs from anomolies, and that is what CCP needs to address with in-game tools. We are not in USSR. If the "peons" aka grinders are so stupid to die and lose their ships to make someone else otrageously rich, why would CCP or the rich be interested at making them look less stupid? Quote: it takes less than 1 month, or 1/3 the quarter to train for a battleship capable of farming lvl 4's or sanctums. 1 month old "L4" character is NO WAY going to kill stuff well enough to make such huge income. Quote: What I don't get it it how this change is going to help small Alliances to put a foot in null sec Apparently CCP wanted PvP alliances, what they got are PvE renters. CPU waste and no glory. Mom PvE grinding in the morning, join mega-blob with Drake (see? WELL SPENT capital!) in the afternoon! Quote: PI is in fact one of the major contributors to the small amount of inflation as it removed most of the large isk removals (pos fuel) from the game. now it just recycles inside the economy. PI stuff was so dirt cheap that did not eat so much money. Now it's player to player economy but the ISK sink is still here in the form of the various taxes, building costs etc. I'd not be surprised if making the POS fuels from bare planets up, actually increased the net ISK sink vs before PI. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:29:00 - [2838] Edited by: Antigue on 05/04/2011 17:34:24 Originally by: Dodgy Past What you say does make sense, and obviously you care for the guys you represent. But the sanctums / havens are providing too much isk too easily. While it may not be a prevalent point of view with the people you fly with there are too many people who believe that just by being able to dual box a carrier and a bs / t3 they're entitled to rat themselves up to a super carrier... and I think this is the ting CCP want to stop, because this is an indirect nerf to SC acquisition. Personally I'm also biassed because my first experience of null was joining a corp that kicked an alliance that was blue to stain wagon out of a pocket and even seeing them disband. We worked hard for that valuable pocket, camped the station day and night for a month, dodged hot drops, ratted in fleets for self defense against cloakers opening covert cynos... basically doing all the things that the whiners in this thread are too lazy and entitled to do. If players are prepared to put that much effort into securing the rewards of null sec then they deserve them, but joining a few blobfest fights to just press f1 when lag allows them in order to harvest a river of gold doesn't seem balanced. I completely agree on that so what I could come up with would be this idea: There is a maximum number of sanctum spawns each day in every system depending on truesec. This basic maximum number should be enough to give income for like 10 peeps. Once the maximum number is reached, there will be no more respawn til next downtime. Should you have more then 1 system in a region the maximum number of sanctums should drop again with each system significantly. Remove blue standings from alliances and corps other then to their own corp and alliance. Allow a sov holder to grant access to a station for neutral alliances and corps. If you combine this model it should do 2 things: 1) Create drama because you will shoot "blues" that show as neutrals. You will even have to shoot on your landlords and verca vice. 2) Small alliances will still rent but there will be drama amongst renters 3) Big alliances hate drama with small renters so there should also be some drama potential. 4) PvP should occure very frequently coz lots of renters often share one landlord station and they will all be neutral. So fightings amongst renters for at least securing access to station temporarily should happen. Just my thoughts how things could work to make nullsec really become a huge battlefield. Edit: Downtime would be a stupid idea. What you need is a timer on the Ihub so the sov holder can choose when the cycle starts. This should be fix for at least one week so there is no abuse of the mechanic.
Grog Barrel	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:35:00 - [2839] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. He must be pretty excited indeed. I'd be excited too after doing some big mess up, waiting for the day I can see the results of it. The issue is basically that, if the guy behind this logic: * 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) is the one who is deciding how will my fun within EVE be, then I would feel better trusting a Yonkee.
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:48:00 - [2840] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 16:52:15 Originally by: Skaarl it takes less than 1 month, or 1/3 the quarter to train for a battleship capable of farming lvl 4's or sanctums. Capable of finishing them, or capable of making 100m ISK/hr? -Liang Originally by: Skaarl Originally by: Andru Ro What I don't get it it how this change is going to help small Alliances to put a foot in null sec. If they have no resources to fight already established alliances how they are going to resist there? So now beside having a handicap in having less trained people in PvP then well established Alliances now will have to struggle with the lack of resources that big Alliances do not lack. Also in the end all will go bad for a regular player that will PvP less and have less opportunities to enjoy the game. I do think that this a bad move and I may reduce my 3 accounts to only one cose I do have no use for the other 2. it doesn't. CCP greyscale and TEAM BFF are just showing exactly how incompetent and clueless they are. Frankly, there is no change that they can make that will mean someone won't be screaming about how it screws the little guy. Simply incorrect. As I stated above, they need to re-work the corporation mechanics such that individual corporation members have a greater chance of reaping profits realized by large scale Corporation/Alliance activities aka: Moon Goo. If CCP improved the current "Share" mechanism mechanics such that members in a corporation had a guarnteed method of receiving profits from activities such as Moon Mining, such a reduction of ISK faucets wouldnt be a big deal.

Sealiah Minmatar Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Care Factor	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:51:00 - [2841] The only thing I don't understand is why were ihubs introduced to equal the systems and now they are nerfing that to make system as they were - different. I think all the changes except the sanctum/haven change are good, but this one thing is a disaster for all simple 0.0 dwellers... And to think I wanted to join one of those small, starting alliances to upgrade the two systems they have got... Pretty pointless now since even if they are upgraded, they won't pay for them selves. Or lower cost of upgrades if they don't give as much... Why should a crap upgrade cost the same as a great upgrade? Any way, I think 0.0 will return to square 1 of pre-sov upgrade change... 70% a barren wasteland...
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.05 17:58:00 - [2842] Originally by: Antigue Edited by: Antigue on 05/04/2011 17:40:23 Edited by: Antigue on 05/04/2011 17:34:24 Originally by: Dodgy Past What you say does make sense, and obviously you care for the guys you represent. But the sanctums / havens are providing too much isk too easily. While it may not be a prevalent point of view with the people you fly with there are too many people who believe that just by being able to dual box a carrier and a bs / t3 they're entitled to rat themselves up to a super carrier... and I think this is the ting CCP want to stop, because this is an indirect nerf to SC acquisition. Personally I'm also biassed because my first experience of null was joining a corp that kicked an alliance that was blue to stain wagon out of a pocket and even seeing them disband. We worked hard for that valuable pocket, camped the station day and night for a month, dodged hot drops, ratted in fleets for self defense against cloakers opening covert cynos... basically doing all the things that the whiners in this thread are too lazy and entitled to do. If players are prepared to put that much effort into securing the rewards of null sec then they deserve them, but joining a few blobfest fights to just press f1 when lag allows them in order to harvest a river of gold doesn't seem balanced. I completely agree on that so what I could come up with would be this idea: There is a maximum number of sanctum spawns each day in every system depending on truesec. This basic maximum number should be enough to give income for like 10 peeps. Once the maximum number is reached, there will be no more respawn til next downtime. Should you have more then 1 system in a region the maximum number of sanctums should drop again with each system significantly. Remove blue standings from alliances and corps other then to their own corp and alliance. Allow a sov holder to grant access to a station for neutral alliances and corps. If you combine this model it should do 2 things: 1) Create drama because you will shoot "blues" that show as neutrals. You will even have to shoot on your landlords and verca vice. 2) Small alliances will still rent but there will be drama amongst renters 3) Big alliances hate drama with small renters so there should also be some drama potential. 4) PvP should occure very frequently coz lots of renters often share one landlord station and they will all be neutral. So fightings amongst renters for at least securing access to station temporarily should happen. Just my thoughts how things could work to make nullsec really become a huge battlefield. Edit: Downtime would be a stupid idea. What you need is a timer on the Ihub so the sov holder can choose when the cycle starts. This should be fix for at least one week so there is no abuse of the mechanic. 2nd Edit: You could say that if there are more then 1 Ihub in a region the respawn rate will drop if this Ihub cycle starts within a 6 hour range from your other Ihub. Hate to quote myself but a 3rd edit would make me look stupid. But there are a lot of awesome things you could do with that timer. Maybe JB¦s only work while both Ihub timers match? :) Cyno jammers even? if you need 2 corresponding systems to cyno jam both... alliances would carefully check if it¦s worth to jam them.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 18:03:00 - [2843] Originally by: Mithrasith Simply incorrect. As I stated above, they need to re-work the corporation mechanics such that individual corporation members have a greater chance of reaping profits realized by large scale Corporation/Alliance activities aka: Moon Goo. If CCP improved the current "Share" mechanism mechanics such that members in a corporation had a guarnteed method of receiving profits from activities such as Moon Mining, such a reduction of ISK faucets wouldnt be a big deal. Any mechanic which forces such profits to be shared will subsequently **** over smaller and looser knit corps and alliances. I posit that if this is the problem, why don't you apply social pressure within today's system? -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 18:41:00 - [2844] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mithrasith Simply incorrect. As I stated above, they need to re-work the corporation mechanics such that individual corporation members have a greater chance of reaping profits realized by large scale Corporation/Alliance activities aka: Moon Goo. If CCP improved the current "Share" mechanism mechanics such that members in a corporation had a guarnteed method of receiving profits from activities such as Moon Mining, such a reduction of ISK faucets wouldnt be a big deal. Any mechanic which forces such profits to be shared will subsequently **** over smaller and looser knit corps and alliances. I posit that if this is the problem, why don't you apply social pressure within today's system? -Liang I didnt say force. The strongest language I used was "guarantee". If the current mechanics were strengthened/new tools were added, it wouldnt mean that looser knit/smaller corps and alliances would get screwed over. For example, if there were an option, through game mechaniccs that profits from moon harvesting activities were funneled into Corp wallets instead of private wallets, there would be a mechanism through which members in corporations could be paid out. Im my opinion this would require a flagged asset system (which would be beneficial to the market, trade and investment systems as they presently stand). But I adigress. Further examples may include the option of having transparent books for corporations so that members in the corp have access to understand the financial position of the corp, and thus whether they were being screwed over or not. Social pressure in today's system will not work as the tools are simply not present in the game in order to address this problem.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 18:53:00 - [2845] Originally by: Mithrasith I didnt say force. The strongest language I used was "guarantee". If the current mechanics were strengthened/new tools were added, it wouldnt mean that looser knit/smaller corps and alliances would get screwed over. For example, if there were an option, through game mechaniccs that profits from moon harvesting activities were funneled into Corp wallets instead of private wallets, there would be a mechanism through which members in corporations could be paid out. ... Social pressure in today's system will not work as the tools are simply not present in the game in order to address this problem. Sure there is - corp market orders. In fact, most of the time that I've seen moon mining done (as a director) or taken part in it (as an indy), its been handled purely through the corp wallet. It's really simple to buy fuel and such through the corp wallet and sell the final outputs through the corp wallet. If people aren't doing it... that's a social problem. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Usagi Tsukino Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:10:00 - [2846] Originally by: Mithrasith Further examples may include the option of having transparent books for corporations so that members in the corp have access to understand the financial position of the corp, and thus whether they were being screwed over or not. You can always request that a copy of the corp wallet be posted in your forums. All wallets are downloadable by people with the proper roles from this very website. In fact, IIRC, there may be a read only role that allows you to see the corp wallet, but not take from it. I don't remember. If that is the case, then demand that (or the former if I am mistaken - I set up the roles on my alt corp a couple of years ago; can't be assed to double check now.) If you're worried the logs will be altered, well then transparency isn't going to fix the problem. You're in the wrong corp. Originally by: Mithrasith Social pressure in today's system will not work as the tools are simply not present in the game in order to address this problem. Everyone dropping roles and leaving the CEO by himself is actually a very effective method of implementing change in a corporation. ___ *Chaotic Dreams*
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:12:00 - [2847] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mithrasith I didnt say force. The strongest language I used was "guarantee". If the current mechanics were strengthened/new tools were added, it wouldnt mean that looser knit/smaller corps and alliances would get screwed over. For example, if there were an option, through game mechaniccs that profits from moon harvesting activities were funneled into Corp wallets instead of private wallets, there would be a mechanism through which members in corporations could be paid out. ... Social pressure in today's system will not work as the tools are simply not present in the game in order to address this problem. Sure there is - corp market orders. In fact, most of the time that I've seen moon mining done (as a director) or taken part in it (as an indy), its been handled purely through the corp wallet. It's really simple to buy fuel and such through the corp wallet and sell the final outputs through the corp wallet. If people aren't doing it... that's a social problem. -Liang Let's assume the position from the point of view of the vast majority of the folks in EVE, and also on this thread: They arent directors, nor are they CEO's. -What option does the individual have to even know what sources of revenue the corporation has? -What options does the individual have to understand the current assets that the Corp has? -Shares are largely useless in their current incarnation, so what options does the individual have to ensure a percentage pay-out based on position? -What if assets are purchased from profits realized as a result of an individuals work efforts. How can the individual player understand the value of those assets if they dont know what assets the corp has, and how can they be sure to get a percentage of the payout when those assets are sold? In too many cases Corp executive teams use the Corp wallet as their own personal wallet. Ive seen it personally especially with R64 moons. Money gets pulled from it when they want for their own purposes and funds. In addition - your claim regarding CEO's and Directors using the Corp wallet to purchase items for the Corp, ("its been handled purely through the corp wallet."), if that was the case, and that was the majority, why is it that according to QEN4 there is 35 Trillion ISK in corp wallets but 285 trillion ISK in personal wallets? Wouldnt one conclude that since the most profitiable activity in EVE is to mine Moon Goo, which should be a Corporate level activity, and funds should flow into corporate wallets for that that a larger percentage of funds should be found in Corporate wallets as opposed to Personal wallets? Strange distribution of funds. The tools are completely inadequate at present in order to distribute wealth in a reliable format.
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:20:00 - [2848] Edited by: Mithrasith on 05/04/2011 19:25:12 Originally by: Usagi Tsukino Originally by: Mithrasith Further examples may include the option of having transparent books for corporations so that members in the corp have access to understand the financial position of the corp, and thus whether they were being screwed over or not. You can always request that a copy of the corp wallet be posted in your forums. All wallets are downloadable by people with the proper roles from this very website. In fact, IIRC, there may be a read only role that allows you to see the corp wallet, but not take from it. I don't remember. If that is the case, then demand that (or the former if I am mistaken - I set up the roles on my alt corp a couple of years ago; can't be assed to double check now.) If you're worried the logs will be altered, well then transparency isn't going to fix the problem. You're in the wrong corp. Originally by: Mithrasith Social pressure in today's system will not work as the tools are simply not present in the game in order to address this problem. Everyone dropping roles and leaving the CEO by himself is actually a very effective method of implementing change in a corporation. This doesnt help me at all. Its very easy to take Moon Goo, sell it yourself, and reap the rewards yourself and put it on your own private wallet, which is what happens currently. Not only that but how can I as a player figure out what assets the Corp has purchased? There is presently no real way to determine who owns what in a reliable fashion, nor the value of those goods. Edit: I think the main thrust of the point, and perhaps its silly of me to assume we are agreeing on it is as follows: 1)There is presently a lot of ISK available through moon mining in several regions of 0.0 2) In the vast majority of those cases, those billions of isk are not trickling down to the members of those alliances, but instead is aggregated into the hands of those running the corps and alliances that have access to the moons The last point, which is being disputed is: 3) There are inadequate tools/mechanics in the game at present to enable players to more reliably get a share of the ISK being generated by the alliance. 2 out of 3 aint bad, but the amount of ruckus on this thread indicates that my last point is valid, otherwise it wouldnt be the issue it is. Final thought: Why is it that the leaders of alliances and 0.0 corps end up being multi-billionaires, yet the members are usually left broke, having worked very hard to defend the assets/position of the corp?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:29:00 - [2849] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:30:07 Originally by: Mithrasith Let's assume the position from the point of view of the vast majority of the folks in EVE, and also on this thread: They arent directors, nor are they CEO's. - What option... Honestly, if you don't have the appropriate roles to audit these things, you aren't trusted with those roles. The system exists. Its a social problem that people don't have and exercise them. Quote: In too many cases Corp executive teams use the Corp wallet as their own personal wallet. This too is a social problem. Quote: why is it that according to QEN4 there is 35 Trillion ISK in corp wallets but 285 trillion ISK in personal wallets? Because I have ~4 bil in my wallets and 5 mil in my corp wallet to handle whatever offices we have open. (I keep most of my ISK invested in the market). Quote: Wouldnt one conclude that since the most profitiable activity in EVE is to mine Moon Goo, which should be a Corporate level activity, and funds should flow into corporate wallets for that that a larger percentage of funds should be found in Corporate wallets as opposed to Personal wallets? Strange distribution of funds. The mechanisms exist for your dream to be a reality. The fact that it isn't a reality is indicative of a SOCIAL PROBLEM. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:36:00 - [2850] Originally by: Mithrasith This doesnt help me at all. Its very easy to take Moon Goo, sell it yourself, and reap the rewards yourself and put it on your own private wallet, which is what happens currently. That is effectively corp theft, and corp theft is a social problem. Quote: Not only that but how can I as a player figure out what assets the Corp has purchased? There is presently no real way to determine who owns what in a reliable fashion, nor the value of those goods. What makes you feel that you as a grunt player have a right know these things? Quote: 1)There is presently a lot of ISK available through moon mining in several regions of 0.0 2) In the vast majority of those cases, those billions of isk are not trickling down to the members of those alliances, but instead is aggregated into the hands of those running the corps and alliances that have access to the moons These are both true. Quote: 3) There are inadequate tools/mechanics in the game at present to enable players to more reliably get a share of the ISK being generated by the alliance. This is a social problem, because the tools and mechanics DO exist. Quote: 2 out of 3 aint bad, but the amount of ruckus on this thread indicates that my last point is valid, otherwise it wouldnt be the issue it is. The ruckus is you saying the tools doesn't exist and the rest of us telling you where to find them. Quote: Final thought: Why is it that the leaders of alliances and 0.0 corps end up being multi-billionaires, yet the members are usually left broke, having worked very hard to defend the assets/position of the corp? IMO: because you're cattle. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:36:00 - [2851] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:30:07 Originally by: Mithrasith Let's assume the position from the point of view of the vast majority of the folks in EVE, and also on this thread: They arent directors, nor are they CEO's. - What option... Honestly, if you don't have the appropriate roles to audit these things, you aren't trusted with those roles. The system exists. Its a social problem that people don't have and exercise them. Quote: In too many cases Corp executive teams use the Corp wallet as their own personal wallet. This too is a social problem. Quote: why is it that according to QEN4 there is 35 Trillion ISK in corp wallets but 285 trillion ISK in personal wallets? Because I have ~4 bil in my wallets and 5 mil in my corp wallet to handle whatever offices we have open. (I keep most of my ISK invested in the market). Quote: Wouldnt one conclude that since the most profitiable activity in EVE is to mine Moon Goo, which should be a Corporate level activity, and funds should flow into corporate wallets for that that a larger percentage of funds should be found in Corporate wallets as opposed to Personal wallets? Strange distribution of funds. The mechanisms exist for your dream to be a reality. The fact that it isn't a reality is indicative of a SOCIAL PROBLEM. -Liang Not trusted with the roles? The roles mean NOTHING. Its just as easy for the CEO to empty out the silo, run the freighter up to Jita, sell the Moon Goo, and put 60% of the ISK in his/her own wallet. Roles mean NOTHING, and that's my point. There are elements of a social problem granted, but the tools are also inadequate to do anything about that social problem. Take shares for instance. The CEO can: "The CEO nominates a sum to dividend, and it is distributed to all shareholders proportional to the % of shares they hold in the company. There is no limitation to the frequency of issuing dividends. " In other words - sure he can issue dividends, but certainly not based on the actual profit the corp made, nor on the assets the corp holds. Its based on a fictional amount of money decided by the CEO. and there also should be a distinction between Dividend based shares for corps and voting for shares for corps. CEO oppressing the masses. Typical. I say that some-what facetiously. Nice change from 10bn to 4bn btw :P
Usagi Tsukino Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:38:00 - [2852] Originally by: Mithrasith This doesnt help me at all. Its very easy to take Moon Goo, sell it yourself, and reap the rewards yourself and put it on your own private wallet, which is what happens currently. Then you have a problem, assuming it's meant for the corp, and if leadership won't do anything about it, well see my statement about the fact that you're in the wrong corp. Originally by: Mithrasith Not only that but how can I as a player figure out what assets the Corp has purchased? There is presently no real way to determine who owns what in a reliable fashion, nor the value of those goods. The tools are there via the wallet download, but it's up to the leadership to make those available to the membership. If that's important to you and the rest of your corp, and your leadership won't budge, then see above. Originally by: Mithrasith 2) In the vast majority of those cases, those billions of isk are not trickling down to the members of those alliances, but instead is aggregated into the hands of those running the corps and alliances that have access to the moons Most moongoo money is used to maintain sov, pay for ihubs, jbs, reimbursement programs, etc. If it's not, then yeah, your alliance is squandering it and again, you need to ask yourself if you're in the right alliance. Originally by: Mithrasith The last point, which is being disputed is: 3) There are inadequate tools/mechanics in the game at present to enable players to more reliably get a share of the ISK being generated by the alliance. I disagree with this because the mechanic is there: Quit the damned corp/alliance. However so many people want to be in nullsec and throw away their shiny supercarriers on pointless sov fights for more tech moons for their masters, they won't. Originally by: Mithrasith 2 out of 3 aint bad, but the amount of ruckus on this thread indicates that my last point is valid, otherwise it wouldnt be the issue it is. If more alliances had reimbursement programs (the Goons are a great example. They reimburse everything, so long as you are out shooting people. I never thought I would say this EVER, but the Goons are a wonderful example of an alliance... ) then nullsec pilots wouldn't have to rely on ratting for money. That said, I question whether or not they actually NEED sanctum money. Roams we go out are constantly disappointing as gangs of equal size are seen fleeing to the safety of stations. This alleged 'nullsec PvP' that keeps being brought up must only apply to Goons, TEST and stationary objects. Originally by: Mithrasith Final thought: Why is it that the leaders of alliances and 0.0 corps end up being multi-billionaires, yet the members are usually left broke, having worked very hard to defend the assets/position of the corp? Because, like I said, the membership of those alliances let them. ___ *Chaotic Dreams*
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:41:00 - [2853] Edited by: Mithrasith on 05/04/2011 19:41:48 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mithrasith This doesnt help me at all. Its very easy to take Moon Goo, sell it yourself, and reap the rewards yourself and put it on your own private wallet, which is what happens currently. That is effectively corp theft, and corp theft is a social problem. Quote: Not only that but how can I as a player figure out what assets the Corp has purchased? There is presently no real way to determine who owns what in a reliable fashion, nor the value of those goods. What makes you feel that you as a grunt player have a right know these things? Quote: 1)There is presently a lot of ISK available through moon mining in several regions of 0.0 2) In the vast majority of those cases, those billions of isk are not trickling down to the members of those alliances, but instead is aggregated into the hands of those running the corps and alliances that have access to the moons These are both true. Quote: 3) There are inadequate tools/mechanics in the game at present to enable players to more reliably get a share of the ISK being generated by the alliance. This is a social problem, because the tools and mechanics DO exist. Quote: 2 out of 3 aint bad, but the amount of ruckus on this thread indicates that my last point is valid, otherwise it wouldnt be the issue it is. The ruckus is you saying the tools doesn't exist and the rest of us telling you where to find them. Quote: Final thought: Why is it that the leaders of alliances and 0.0 corps end up being multi-billionaires, yet the members are usually left broke, having worked very hard to defend the assets/position of the corp? IMO: because you're cattle. -Liang Oh you're cute Liang. Nice attempt to obfuscate. I can only assume your personal insults and assumptions are based on your lack of a valid point and/or your own desire to protect your own interests. The point is valid and it stands, there is a significant lack of financial and asset control tools for corporations to actually distribute profits in a manner which is clear, and reliable. Until CCP fixes that, issues surrounding Anomoly nerfs wont really be solved, they will only be masked. And Yes, I actually own and run my own Corp Liang. Nice assumptions though :)
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:41:00 - [2854] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:43:34 Originally by: Mithrasith Not trusted with the roles? The roles mean NOTHING. Its just as easy for the CEO to empty out the silo, run the freighter up to Jita, sell the Moon Goo, and put 60% of the ISK in his/her own wallet. Roles mean NOTHING, and that's my point. It's also just as easy for him to sell it via a corp market order. Thus, what he's doing is CORP THEFT. Quote: Take shares..dividends..Its based on a fictional amount of money decided by the CEO. Oddly enough, its a perfect parallel to real life. -Liang Ed: Post Timer Originally by: Mithrasith Oh you're cute Liang. Nice attempt to obfuscate. I can only assume your personal insults and assumptions are based on your lack of a valid point and/or your own desire to protect your own interests. It wasn't a personal insult. It's simply a fact - if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle. -Liang I guess I should point out that I too am a CEO... wheeeeee... -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:43:00 - [2855] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Mithrasith Not trusted with the roles? The roles mean NOTHING. Its just as easy for the CEO to empty out the silo, run the freighter up to Jita, sell the Moon Goo, and put 60% of the ISK in his/her own wallet. Roles mean NOTHING, and that's my point. It's also just as easy for him to sell it via a corp market order. Thus, what he's doing is CORP THEFT. Quote: Take shares..dividends..Its based on a fictional amount of money decided by the CEO. Oddly enough, its a perfect parallel to real life. -Liang How do you figure? In real life there are GAP accounting principles, audit's and auditors, hard assets which are delcared and owned by the corporation, in what way is it similar to real life?
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:45:00 - [2856] Originally by: Mithrasith How do you figure? In real life there are GAP accounting principles, audit's and auditors, hard assets which are delcared and owned by the corporation, in what way is it similar to real life? Two things: - Enron was real life, and it had all of these things. Accountants can make the numbers say anything. - All of those things assume that the CEO isn't out to embezzle funds. As you're asserting he does in Eve. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:49:00 - [2857] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:43:34 Originally by: Mithrasith Not trusted with the roles? The roles mean NOTHING. Its just as easy for the CEO to empty out the silo, run the freighter up to Jita, sell the Moon Goo, and put 60% of the ISK in his/her own wallet. Roles mean NOTHING, and that's my point. It's also just as easy for him to sell it via a corp market order. Thus, what he's doing is CORP THEFT. Quote: Take shares..dividends..Its based on a fictional amount of money decided by the CEO. Oddly enough, its a perfect parallel to real life. -Liang Ed: Post Timer Originally by: Mithrasith Oh you're cute Liang. Nice attempt to obfuscate. I can only assume your personal insults and assumptions are based on your lack of a valid point and/or your own desire to protect your own interests. It wasn't a personal insult. It's simply a fact - if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle. -Liang I guess I should point out that I too am a CEO... wheeeeee... I already guessed that by your position on this thread. No surprise there. Adding more tools isnt a threat to anybody except those that have something to lose CoughLiangCough "if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle." Wow - Not quite sure where to begin with that mis-guided statement, which oddly enough is not taken out of context. I can think of a myriad of cases where individuals arent "too lazy", nor are they "Cattle" but either dont have the time to act on it, or are unable (full time job, family, kids, just for starters maybe?). I could go all sorts of places with that one... I'll even do you the favor of not bringing your quote into an area which I assume would be out of context - that being in real-life. It would be very troubling to assume that you think that people who "stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle." in order to save their lives or their families lives for instance....Ill let you step out of that pile of sh*t gracefully. Your welcome.
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:52:00 - [2858] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:49:05 Originally by: Mithrasith How do you figure? In real life there are GAP accounting principles, audit's and auditors, hard assets which are delcared and owned by the corporation, in what way is it similar to real life? Two things: - Enron was real life, and it had all of these things. Accountants can make the numbers say anything. - All of those things assume that the CEO isn't out to embezzle funds. As you're asserting he does in Eve. -Liang Ed: A third thing... all of those things are really only required in incorporated entities. Private enterprises and Start ups (where we most frequently see profit sharing with employees) don't have all that crazy auditing stuff for the most part. But at any rate - we are getting far afield. You are basically outlining a situation in which the CEO (or an employee) steals from the company. That's a social problem, because the mechanics and auditing to detect it in game DOES exist. Two items and then I have to run to a meeting. Enron was prosecuted by the authorities for violation of those rules and regulations. Sure, people can lie, but its a lot harder when there are laws and regulations surrounding how money is supposed to be handled. What Im proposing is providing those tools in EVE such that its still possible to cheat if you want, but there are more options to audit exactly what happened. Want to steal? Sure go ahead, but at least there is a trail to follow. At least its clear what the asset values were and who owned them, even if those flags are wiped when they are sold etc. Second: Its not Stealing if the CEO thinks they are "entitled" to those profits for being the CEO, and no discussions have taken place on compensation to the Corp. In addition, if no one knows how much the Corp is bringing in, and there is no charter and no pre-defined arrangements, how is it stealing??
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:53:00 - [2859] Originally by: Mithrasith I already guessed that by your position on this thread. No surprise there. Adding more tools isnt a threat to anybody except those that have something to lose CoughLiangCough I'm the CEO of a pirate corp with ~5M ISK and absolutely no in space assets. We've had a corp hangar filled with faction/deadspace gear for years and nobody has jacked any of it. Typical corp hangar usage in my corp: Someone: "Hey, I picked up a pith B type large booster... dropped it in the corp hangar" Everyone Else: "Cool" ..... Someone: "Hey, there's a Pith booster in the corp hangar. Anyone mind if I snag it for a Sleip?" Everyone Else: "Cool" Quote: "if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle." Wow - Not quite sure where to begin with that mis-guided statement, which oddly enough is not taken out of context. Welcome to Eve? Quote: Ill let you step out of that pile of sht gracefully. Your welcome. So does this mean that you want to discuss game mechanics now instead of making petty personal insults? :) -Liang -- Eve Forum **** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:55:00 - [2860] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:56:03 Originally by: Mithrasith Enron was prosecuted by the authorities for violation of those rules and regulations. And so many aren't. And you still left alone the unincorporated and startup point. Not that any of this has anything to do with the fact that the tools and mechanics already exist in game. Quote: What Im proposing is providing those tools in EVE such that its still possible to cheat if you want, but there are more options to audit exactly what happened. What you are ignoring is that THOSE TOOLS ALREADY EXIST. YOU SIMPLY AREN'T USING THEM. Quote: Second: Its not Stealing if the CEO thinks they are "entitled" to those profits for being the CEO, and no discussions have taken place on compensation to the Corp. In addition, if no one knows how much the Corp is bringing in, and there is no charter and no pre-defined arrangements, how is it stealing?? "Wow, I don't even know where to start with that. I'll just let you gracefully step out of that pile of **." Protip: it's corp theft. -Liang -- Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire On Twitter

Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 19:59:00 - [2861] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 19:56:03 Originally by: Mithrasith Enron was prosecuted by the authorities for violation of those rules and regulations. And so many aren't. And you still left alone the unincorporated and startup point. Not that any of this has anything to do with the fact that the tools and mechanics already exist in game. Quote: What Im proposing is providing those tools in EVE such that its still possible to cheat if you want, but there are more options to audit exactly what happened. What you are ignoring is that THOSE TOOLS ALREADY EXIST. YOU SIMPLY AREN'T USING THEM. Quote: Second: Its not Stealing if the CEO thinks they are "entitled" to those profits for being the CEO, and no discussions have taken place on compensation to the Corp. In addition, if no one knows how much the Corp is bringing in, and there is no charter and no pre-defined arrangements, how is it stealing?? "Wow, I don't even know where to start with that. I'll just let you gracefully step out of that pile of ****." Protip: it's corp theft. -Liang Protip: the tools dont exist. If they did, something as simple as "voting Shares" and "Non-Voting Shares" would exist. Simple things such as "Asset Classes" would exist as well. They dont If they did exist and a Corp chose NOT to implement them, then that is their choice, and as a player I could opt out and say "You know what, since you arent using those tools, I dont want to join you". As it stands today, there is no option for a player to do that. And on the "Petty Insults" - I dont believe I actually insulted you at all. That was all you. So you can ask yourself that question.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 20:05:00 - [2862] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 20:05:54 Originally by: Mithrasith Protip: the tools dont exist. Look, it's really **ing simple: - You put 5B in the corp wallet in a division. - Buy a bunch of towers and (through the corp wallet division, so its audited) - Buy jump fuel for the JFs through the corp wallet division - Jump the ** there and back. Withdraw a fee from the corp wallet division for labor. - Sell the **** at market hub with the corp wallet division. - Everyone checks to see that there's an expected amount of moon goo sold. - Withdraw 1B from the corp wallet as a loan payment (do this until whatever agreed upon amount is taken and the original amount repaid) Wheeeeee... audits! -Liang Ed: And NO your average player has no right to know where all the corp assets are, or how much (or even what moon goo/PI/Capital production/whatever is flowing). -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.05 20:25:00 - [2863] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 05/04/2011 20:28:40 Quote: Final thought: Why is it that the leaders of alliances and 0.0 corps end up being multi-billionaires, yet the members are usually left broke, having worked very hard to defend the assets/position of the corp? These members smell like muppets, quack like muppets. Maybe they are muppets? Quote: How do you figure? In real life there are GAP accounting principles, audit's and auditors, hard assets which are delcared and owned by the corporation, in what way is it similar to real life? It's not EvE or CCP role to fill in your lack of willingness to learn what you have available. I happen to be an auditor and also posted some "almost" GAAP compliant balance sheets for EvE corporations and also many complex other statements. Have also performed audits on a 0.0 alliance, exactly about their financial performance. Just eve-search and you'll find a nice number of other examples off mine. And I am not the only auditor. So, what is the excuse again? Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Gerald Geraldson	Posted - 2011.04.05 20:31:00 - [2864] Liang you hijacked this thread too much. Nothing constructive or informative is coming out of it anymore. you have been proven wrong point by point and backed by fact and proof on every turn but you still come up to everyone and always want to have the last word. I think this should be a debate and good information discussion, but you start pickering everyone My 2 cents is this is a bad move since it will remove smaller alliances and corps from nullsec. Im a noob ratting those anoms and dont make near the isk people say they pay. If they remove it i wont be able to fly anything else but t1 cruisers and sometimes afford a battlecruiser and since i started in nullsec i have 0 standing with npcs. Please CCP consider another option. I think instead of removing stuff they should add more. Super titans? 1000 bil isk ship? -Liang
Mithrasith	Posted - 2011.04.05 20:31:00 - [2865] EVE Bank? Nuff Said. Keep jumping off the cliff lemmings.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 20:34:00 - [2866] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 20:35:51 Originally by: Gerald Geraldson Liang you hijacked this thread too much. Nothing constructive or informative is coming out of it anymore. Duly noted. I would like to additionally note that nothing constructive was coming out of it either way. -Liang Ed: Quote: EVE Bank? Nuff Said. Keep jumping off the cliff lemmings. So this is the best you can come up with after being proven wrong? -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Erichk Knaar Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.05 21:21:00 - [2867] Originally by: Mithrasith Second: Its not Stealing if the CEO thinks they are "entitled" to those profits for being the CEO, and no discussions have taken place on compensation to the Corp. In addition, if no one knows how much the Corp is bringing in, and there is no charter and no pre-defined arrangements, how is it stealing?? You could always, like, gank one of his freighters and take a look at what's inside. As others have said, this is a social problem. If your CEO is ripping you off like this, and you (not you, the proverbial you) are too much of a sheep to fix the situation, it's got nothing to do with game mechanics.
Rene Winter Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM	Posted - 2011.04.05 21:34:00 - [2868] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/04/2011 20:45:18 Originally by: Gerald Geraldson Liang you hijacked this thread too much. Nothing constructive or informative is coming out of it anymore. Duly noted. I can see how reasoned opinions that differ with yours equates to hijacking and trolling. I would like to additionally note that nothing constructive was coming out of it either way... seeing as how much actual trolling and rage was in it. ;-) -Liang How could anything constructive come out of this thread? The one party with any ability to comment/clarify/alter the changes is a non participant aside from two posts. I have seen tons of ideas proposed to fix 10 different problems because the the bulk of the people here do not have an understanding of the changes (because we have to speculate about intent and basic assumptions). Many don't agree with the stated intended consequences of the change and are trying to reverse engineer the percieved problem that these changes were created to solve and then forward engineer solutions that don't suck. Anyway, I am done caring about this topic. We will see how it shakes out in space. If it sucks too bad there is always Rift, Tanks, and Perpetuum.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.05 21:47:00 - [2869] Originally by: Rene Winter How could anything constructive come out of this thread? The one party with any ability to comment/clarify/alter the changes is a non participant aside from two posts. I have seen tons of ideas proposed to fix 10 different problems because the the bulk of the people here do not have an understanding of the changes (because we have to speculate about intent and basic assumptions). Many don't agree with the stated intended consequences of the change and are trying to reverse engineer the percieved problem that these changes were created to solve and then forward engineer solutions that don't suck. Anyway, I am done caring about this topic. We will see how it shakes out in space. If it sucks too bad there is always Rift, Tanks, and Perpetuum. I think we might have received a bit more dialog with CCP if we hadn't categorically proven that we were not interested in it or in being civil. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Metal Icarus	Posted - 2011.04.05 21:58:00 - [2870] (From someone who made his short rookie life so far in EVE in 0.0 off of Havens and Sanctums) There is so much tl;dr in this thread its amzaing. I really have no experience in any other space other then 0.0. I got a mission hub that I got to lvl 4 but I really don't care for that. I love PVP, am not expirenced enough to get any really good ships (minmatar fotm ****s caldari) for it but the only way that I can really see making money after this is mining. In our system, I rarely see anyone mining for money/corp building currently. I think this change will create a surplus in the market for rare minerals. I do not plan on picking up all my crap and running away just because havens and sanctums are gone, just find another way to not die..... As far as the huge powerblocks go, this just puts more emphasis on moongoo, thus, they make more money. tl:dr rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and even more desperate)

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:07:00 - [2871] Originally by: Metal Icarus (From someone who made his short rookie life so far in EVE in 0.0 off of Havens and Sanctums) There is so much tl;dr in this thread its amzaing. I really have no experience in any other space other then 0.0. I got a mission hub that I got to lvl 4 but I really don't care for that. I love PVP, am not expirenced enough to get any really good ships (minmatar fotm ****s caldari) for it but the only way that I can really see making money after this is mining. In our system, I rarely see anyone mining for money/corp building currently. I think this change will create a surplus in the market for rare minerals. I do not plan on picking up all my crap and running away just because havens and sanctums are gone, just find another way to not die..... As far as the huge powerblocks go, this just puts more emphasis on moongoo, thus, they make more money. tl:dr rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and even more desperate) no .. moongo income stays the same .... the large powerblocs will get less income from rents ( i hope all the renters are sane and not paying anymore) and the moon gold needs to be passed down to the grunt more because he will sitting in his station in his anomaly hub when an afk cloaker hits it its easier now to shut an hub down and you poor players get more out of eve cause (if you start thinking like you plan to ) there is more money and fun out there beside plexes i promise you
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:19:00 - [2872] Sanctums are not the only income stream in nullsec. I used to make around 60M ISK/hr in Branch, ratting in a drake a long time before Dominion. At the time that was all I could fly, and I wasn't even able to use drones. Heck, I wasn't even chaining properly! Try making 60M ISK/hr in L4s in hisec using a T1 fitted drake. -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Dark Striped	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:27:00 - [2873] Originally by: Mara Rinn Sanctums are not the only income stream in nullsec. I used to make around 60M ISK/hr in Branch, ratting in a drake a long time before Dominion. At the time that was all I could fly, and I wasn't even able to use drones. Heck, I wasn't even chaining properly! Try making 60M ISK/hr in L4s in hisec using a T1 fitted drake. thats bs. ratted pre dom in a -0.9 system chaining and max made 40mil per hour in a max skilled missiel bs pilot, and that was before the stupid rats warp in junk they added and the missiel nerf. missions were always better isk and they will be again
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:36:00 - [2874] Originally by: Dark Striped Originally by: Mara Rinn Sanctums are not the only income stream in nullsec. I used to make around 60M ISK/hr in Branch, ratting in a drake a long time before Dominion. At the time that was all I could fly, and I wasn't even able to use drones. Heck, I wasn't even chaining properly! Try making 60M ISK/hr in L4s in hisec using a T1 fitted drake. thats bs. ratted pre dom in a -0.9 system chaining and max made 40mil per hour in a max skilled missiel bs pilot, and that was before the stupid rats warp in junk they added and the missiel nerf. missions were always better isk and they will be again a 0-9 is quite likley to spawn alot of haulers and an officer every other day so hes not so far off that said its irelevant to wave your epeen about the highest m/h eve isnt a grind game believe it or not its up to you you wow guys throw the grind at every problem
Dark Striped	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:39:00 - [2875] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Dark Striped Originally by: Mara Rinn Sanctums are not the only income stream in nullsec. I used to make around 60M ISK/hr in Branch, ratting in a drake a long time before Dominion. At the time that was all I could fly, and I wasn't even able to use drones. Heck, I wasn't even chaining properly! Try making 60M ISK/hr in L4s in hisec using a T1 fitted drake. thats bs. ratted pre dom in a -0.9 system chaining and max made 40mil per hour in a max skilled missiel bs pilot, and that was before the stupid rats warp in junk they added and the missiel nerf. missions were always better isk and they will be again a 0-9 is quite likley to spawn alot of haulers and an officer every other day so hes not so far off that said its irelevant to wave your epeen about the highest m/h eve isnt a grind game believe it or not its up to you you wow guys throw the grind at every problem never played any other mmo but this one.. this change is directly realted to m/h which is now better in high sec than most 0.0 systems. exactly the same as it was before.
PNQ Stationholder	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:39:00 - [2876] CCP, i hope you read this. This is not a Forum-Whine-Thread (for your Formum-Whine-Index). I know about your plans, settling as much corps as u can into 0.0 space for the DUST Expansion. I also know about your plan - keeping up the russians "amused" to engage the "Technetium-Moongoldseller" in the North. After the North is gone, you gonna adjust the Russian Space (DRF for example). But this wont work. We aren't the Stupid Idiots you thought. I Know, that is too much isk ingame. It is ok, to put out the money out of the game - but: - It was your fault to ignore the Miningbots/Rattingbots behavior. You think its good for the economy - when all the stuff is done by robots (or better the "Most") - and you kick the Robots "in a slow burn" is the wrong solution. We want to play this game, not to work for it. Realize That ! If you have a miningbot/Rattingbot problem, find a solution. There are many peoples out there - really freaks - playing 6 accounts on 1 Time. 6 accounts, you earned money for. EVE is a Game, the player market is fine, but on the one hand you keep the prices low (by allowing bots to do the job, the normal players arent able to do earn any ISK with it (Mining btw)) - on the other hand you pump ISK in the Market, like you do with the Infrastructure Upgrades we have now. Its Fact, that you didn't realized, that the whole Players are going to upgrade their systems, to get the best profit. The monthly Fee for the Sov Upgrades / ihub upgrades have to be paid to you CCP (you took the money out of the game (balance here)). Or better reduce the bounty of the military upgrades, but dont change the "well thoughted, and accepted" ihub upgrade system. We are not amused, to get changes, in that big fashion you are planning. I mean we are flexible, personally i paid to CCP over 4 Years more than 3000 $ - but i am not planning to do this in future, if you do a "STUPID HOT FIX" - like you plan to do this true-sec based military upgrades changes. Maybe its on your roadmap that it is planned, that 0.0 space is a blurry of thousends of Corporation, wich are in war against each other, wich will be the market for the DUST Expansion. But this wont work like that. 0.0 space is player based space. Accept this. Accept this, if the changes are not elaborate, players will quit. I canceled 1 account of my 3 accounts, and you ask why... i can cancel my whole subscription - and you now KNOW - why.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:43:00 - [2877] Originally by: Dark Striped Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Dark Striped Originally by: Mara Rinn Sanctums are not the only income stream in nullsec. I used to make around 60M ISK/hr in Branch, ratting in a drake a long time before Dominion. At the time that was all I could fly, and I wasn't even able to use drones. Heck, I wasn't even chaining properly! Try making 60M ISK/hr in L4s in hisec using a T1 fitted drake. thats bs. ratted pre dom in a -0.9 system chaining and max made 40mil per hour in a max skilled missiel bs pilot, and that was before the stupid rats warp in junk they added and the missiel nerf. missions were always better isk and they will be again a 0-9 is quite likley to spawn alot of haulers and an officer every other day so hes not so far off that said its irelevant to wave your epeen about the highest m/h eve isnt a grind game believe it or not its up to you you wow guys throw the grind at every problem never played any other mmo but this one.. this change is directly realted to m/h which is now better in high sec than most 0.0 systems. exactly the same as it was before. no this patch is nerfing ONE aspect of a 00 system if you have a little idea about the game you will realize that you can milk a 00 far more than a high (with less afford)
Dark Striped	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:52:00 - [2878] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Dark Striped Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Dark Striped thats bs. ratted pre dom in a -0.9 system chaining and max made 40mil per hour in a max skilled missiel bs pilot, and that was before the stupid rats warp in junk they added and the missiel nerf. missions were always better isk and they will be again[/quote a 0-9 is quite likley to spawn alot of haulers and an officer every other day so hes not so far off that said its irelevant to wave your epeen about the highest m/h eve isnt a grind game believe it or not its up to you you wow guys throw the grind at every problem never played any other mmo but this one.. this change is directly realted to m/h which is now better in high sec than most 0.0 systems. exactly the same as it was before. no this patch is nerfing ONE aspect of a 00 system if you have a little idea about the game you will realize that you can milk a 00 far more than a high (with less afford) this nerf of one aspect of 0.0 directly effects how much isk a player or corp can make from thier system. if you can not see this, you are as blind as the idiots at ccp that think peopel fight over ratting space
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.05 22:55:00 - [2879] hope is lost with you ... but i dont want to get in trouble with your 2 man corp (pls donot wardec us ) so i stop here
Patri Andari Caldari Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer	Posted - 2011.04.05 23:15:00 - [2880] Imagine how much easier this would have been if CCP had done the following: Make upgrades and upkeep costs more in bad true sec and less in higher true sec yet leave the spawns somewhat the same in bad true sec and better as true sec improves. Damn, I am a genius! Patri I'll Roshambo You For That Titan!

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.05 23:34:00 - [2881] Originally by: Patri Andari Imagine how much easier this would have been if CCP had done the following: Make upgrades and upkeep costs more in bad true sec and less in higher true sec yet leave the spawns somewhat the same in bad true sec and better as true sec improves. Damn, I am a genius! no you are not a sanctum/haven makes 100m/h x4 is 400m ph is around 10b a day is 300b a month so to achive the same goal (nerving the income by half ) the system cost would be 150b .... now that would be an outcry =))) (the 100m/h is not my number it was stated by the carbears that run em in this thread)
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.05 23:42:00 - [2882] When you are rounding up/down it looks like you are screwing over more systems than you would from just making it follow the actual tru-sec without rounding... instead of having 0.0 to -0.2 band you chose to have a 0.0 to -0.24 band which will have a larger negative impact then on a lot of systems... why can't you just use the decimals and make them count? - I'm a nice guy!! But plz hook me up with some pew pew...
ovenproofjet Caldari Therapy. R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.06 00:09:00 - [2883] I would jsut like to point something out... CCPs own economist said in the latest QEN that there need to be more isk SINKS in Eve, not less isk faucets. I have to say I agree, Eve has lost massive isk sinks in the last year, the main one being NPC sold goods...this just seems like the completely wrong idea to solve isk inflation in Eve Mind you if CCP can't even listen to their own employees then how can we expect them to listen to players, let alone the CSM? I really am amazed with the ability of one single minded and blinkered employee to affect such large swathes of a companies customer base.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.04.06 00:13:00 - [2884] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 06/04/2011 00:15:36 Greyscale is a member of a team. He hardly did it in a vacuum. -Liang Ed: Hey, found this in the dev blog! Originally by: Dev Blog Though the Central Bank of EVE does not see a reason for alarm, it has voiced its concerns and proposed changes to be made to the faucet/ISK balance, which might include anything from bounty changes and NPC price changes to changes in taxes. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 00:15:00 - [2885] Originally by: ovenproofjet I would jsut like to point something out... CCPs own economist said in the latest QEN that there need to be more isk SINKS in Eve, not less isk faucets. I have to say I agree, Eve has lost massive isk sinks in the last year, the main one being NPC sold goods...this just seems like the completely wrong idea to solve isk inflation in Eve Mind you if CCP can't even listen to their own employees then how can we expect them to listen to players, let alone the CSM? I really am amazed with the ability of one single minded and blinkered employee to affect such large swathes of a companies customer base. 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.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.06 01:52:00 - [2886] Originally by: Liang Nuren -Liang Do you actually play EVE or just use the forums?
weasle350	Posted - 2011.04.06 02:09:00 - [2887] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: weasle350 If you take away sanctums (which equal isk), people are not going to go and lose ships in pvp. Why do some go on about how people will no longer PvP after this nerf, did you guys start to play eve after the dominion? No i started playing in Apocrypha, and i know that grinding belts was like eating cardboard. And high-sec is just plain gay.
Lord buffet	Posted - 2011.04.06 02:12:00 - [2888] Horrible guess work. Fix the lag issues so we can have decent fleet wars. Listen to your customers. Why mess with this and hangar stuff when you have people leaving because of lag issues???
Fredrick Engly Insorum Industries Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.06 02:51:00 - [2889] Edited by: Fredrick Engly on 06/04/2011 02:51:48 CCP you will soon start to see being reported on in the gaming press media outlets. Lets see what that does to your present and future subscriber base.
Laventhros Ormus	Posted - 2011.04.06 04:27:00 - [2890] The Alliance I am a part of has been in the same space it has occupied for over 3 years. Before Sanctums even existed. You REALLY think that we're going to move anywhere because you make some space a bit more useful then others? CCP obviously doesn't play its own game.

Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.06 04:29:00 - [2891] Originally by: Fredrick Engly Edited by: Fredrick Engly on 06/04/2011 02:51:48 CCP you will soon start to see being reported on in the gaming press media outlets. Lets see what that does to your present and future subscriber base. Why would they get reported in gaming press, and for what reason? You do know that 0.0 population is only 10% of the player base? and even less are the ones who are *****ing about this change. For every whine you see, there's probably 9 more who are happy with this change.
Amda Tori Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.06 05:01:00 - [2892] Edited by: Amda Tori on 06/04/2011 05:03:21 Anomaly Nerf -> Less ISK on market -> More Bots to grind for ISK -> and the price on majority of items will drop significantly. GG CCP Great way to fix things. I feel free to explore only within boundaries.
Gabriel Grimoire	Posted - 2011.04.06 05:36:00 - [2893] Originally by: Amber Villaneous Interesting, I found a secret addendum to the QEN. It seems that 37.8% of all forum post are made by Liang and of all those 99.3% show a hiden desire to suck off CCP employees.
Cyzlaki Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.04.06 06:11:00 - [2894] Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us?
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.06 06:22:00 - [2895] Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? Few hours left for the patch to go through, what do you think?
Justin Cody Caldari Instant Annihilation Everto Rex Regis	Posted - 2011.04.06 06:24:00 - [2896] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? Few hours left for the patch to go through, what do you think? There never was a chance. Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams
Azhpol Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.06 06:31:00 - [2897] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Fredrick Engly Edited by: Fredrick Engly on 06/04/2011 02:51:48 CCP you will soon start to see being reported on in the gaming press media outlets. Lets see what that does to your present and future subscriber base. Why would they get reported in gaming press, and for what reason? You do know that 0.0 population is only 10% of the player base? and even less are the ones who are *****ing about this change. For every whine you see, there's probably 9 more who are happy with this change. I wasn't gonna post in this thread, but 90% of 0.0 is not happy about losing our major income. Not everyone sees the change as a whole as bad, but even then its only like 25% who are not opposed. After this change subcap pilots will be pretty broke out here, since every sanctum will have a carrier alt grinding it 23/7 from now on, since sancs will be REALLY easy to find(5-6 each in the truesec -1.0 I hear) but really concentrated in just a couple systems. There goes my hopes of actually flying fun ships in 0.0 instead of sticking to T1
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.06 06:36:00 - [2898] Originally by: ovenproofjet I would jsut like to point something out... CCPs own economist said in the latest QEN that there need to be more isk SINKS in Eve, not less isk faucets. I have to say I agree, Eve has lost massive isk sinks in the last year, the main one being NPC sold goods...this just seems like the completely wrong idea to solve isk inflation in Eve Mind you if CCP can't even listen to their own employees then how can we expect them to listen to players, let alone the CSM? I really am amazed with the ability of one single minded and blinkered employee to affect such large swathes of a companies customer base. I agree with eve needing more isk sinks. The most elegant solution which I think nobody would oppose would be to introduce more NPC-sold goods again. I hope there are lots of them coming in incarna. And I think changing your appearance at station shoud cost isk etc. The other thing would be to reduce insurance, or heck, remove it completely. I just don't want isk-faucets being removed from where they are needed the most to keep nullsec active and happy.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.06 07:41:00 - [2899] Dumbasses...don't take away the player income, take away the play to pay ability. Totally FU'd up. Bad CCP, Bad!
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 08:15:00 - [2900] go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy.

Blackbrock	Posted - 2011.04.06 08:44:00 - [2901] Originally by: nano bobcat go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy. Uh....
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:00:00 - [2902] Originally by: Blackbrock Originally by: nano bobcat go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy. Uh.... I'll finish your sentence.. Uhh.. Dude your stupid. CCP also did this to combat the botters from NC, Red Alliance, White Noise, etc...
UKM Thorgrim Caldari Shadows Of The Federation R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:11:00 - [2903] all you have done is slow down the PVP on 0.0 as now people will have to rat for longer to replace ships. thanks CCP for F%"#G over the PVP players again.. Just for once listen to your customer base. Honour & Steel.
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:15:00 - [2904] Originally by: nano bobcat go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy. Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt.
Rooli Pelaaja	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:27:00 - [2905] Originally by: Zey Nadar Originally by: nano bobcat go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy. Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt. haha WI. ... seriously can't handle 1 cloaky afk dude? hahha didn't deserve that space anyway
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:28:00 - [2906] Originally by: Zey Nadar Originally by: nano bobcat go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy. Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt. I've got a spy-alt for ratting in branch, there are some roamers but almost no afk cloakers. You live in a wrong region, I would say.
End User	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:35:00 - [2907] Quote: seriously can't handle 1 cloaky afk dude? hahha didn't deserve that space anyway cool, where do you live again? lets see how you handle a week of 1 cloaked guy in your system. then an epic black ops bridge followed by another week of the same guy.
eye RZ	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:36:00 - [2908] Мне вот интересно, сотрудники ССР работают на чистом энтузиазме что ли? Или может ваши учредители не в курсе, чем вы там занимаетесь? Чтобы набрать 10кк и больше подписчиков вам надо упрощать игру, а не усложнять её как сейчас. Вы должны понимать, что большинство игроков на планете Земля - карибасы (ПВЕ-шники), им не нужны постоянные войны за что-либо. Придумайте уже что-то новенькое, а то опять очередной бред. Извините за русский. З.Ы. Любителям пострелять: больше карибасов - больше целей, надеюсь вы это понимаете.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:46:00 - [2909] Originally by: BinaryData Originally by: Blackbrock Originally by: nano bobcat go for better space then if your income is farming sanctums. That easy. Uh.... I'll finish your sentence.. Uhh.. Dude your stupid. CCP also did this to combat the botters from NC, Red Alliance, White Noise, etc... You are 100% wrong let me explain ..... Less isk in a system ? people will farm somewhere else, so system will be empty or close to be. With time, small gangs will avoid empty sytems because of the " no-target = no fun ". We call this the Drone Region Syndroma :) Then it will be empty enough to implement bots... Of course they won't have sanctums Heven or whatever names of top anomalies but they don't care as they farm 23h/7 days a week. So it's just helping the bots to have some space cause Drone Region is already 100% full of bots and they need more space :)
Bill Andrex Caldari The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:46:00 - [2910] This is a stupid change on behalf of CCP. CCP Greyscale might be happy at the changes over his morning coffee, but us players are certainly not happy at the changes proposed. The current system is fine, it works well and does what it intended. Now we are moving to a system that works well but doesn't do what it intended in the first place. The idea was to spread people about in nullsec so that systems could sustain a higher 0.0 population. CCP have now gone ahead and shot that idea in the foot. It will now be harder for newer up and coming Alliances to carve out a living in 0.0. It won't effect existing 0.0 Alliances as they make their ISK from moon goo, all CCP you have done here is gimp the little guy who is trying to make a living. The little guy is going to spend less time in fleets and more time trying to scratch out a living to make a little ISK to replace his losses. Why take away the incentive for people to move from empire to 0.0? CCP you have dropped the ball here.

Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:55:00 - [2911] Originally by: Bill Andrex This is a stupid change on behalf of CCP. CCP Greyscale might be happy at the changes over his morning coffee, but us players are certainly not happy at the changes proposed. The current system is fine, it works well and does what it intended. Now we are moving to a system that works well but doesn't do what it intended in the first place. The idea was to spread people about in nullsec so that systems could sustain a higher 0.0 population. CCP have now gone ahead and shot that idea in the foot. It will now be harder for newer up and coming Alliances to carve out a living in 0.0. It won't effect existing 0.0 Alliances as they make their ISK from moon goo, all CCP you have done here is gimp the little guy who is trying to make a living. The little guy is going to spend less time in fleets and more time trying to scratch out a living to make a little ISK to replace his losses. Why take away the incentive for people to move from empire to 0.0? CCP you have dropped the ball here. proposed : no deployed without any discussions so it's not proposed. The current system is fine :for the 0.0 players but not for ccp. It won't effect existing 0.0 Alliances: it will, cause Alliances need player to fight, and players need isk.
Grog Barrel	Posted - 2011.04.06 09:57:00 - [2912] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Patri Andari Imagine how much easier this would have been if CCP had done the following: Make upgrades and upkeep costs more in bad true sec and less in higher true sec yet leave the spawns somewhat the same in bad true sec and better as true sec improves. Damn, I am a genius! no you are not a sanctum/haven makes 100m/h x4 is 400m ph is around 10b a day is 300b a month so to achive the same goal (nerving the income by half ) the system cost would be 150b .... now that would be an outcry =))) (the 100m/h is not my number it was stated by the carbears that run em in this thread) since your are adding a multiplication of factor 4 into your ecuation, your whole statement is comparable to <insert anything not serious here>
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 10:02:00 - [2913] Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 10:05:21 You're wrong man, i'am a stupid carebear and a sanctum gives 500M / hour. So please use my numbers and recalculate. Edit 98 pages.... well this patch affects a few people, i don't see a 98 pages topic to welcome the incursions or something else.
Jenny d'Orrin	Posted - 2011.04.06 10:05:00 - [2914] Edited by: Jenny d''Orrin on 06/04/2011 10:07:50 I can't believe Liang is actually still talking to you nublets. If your only reason to want anoms is "cuz it's everyman's FAIR income" then I have news for you: Life/eve isn't and isn't supposed to be. Good points were made about how the current system allows for a great deal of control, but none of the players demanded it from their CEO for years. And most of the CEO's in EvE know nothing about business or corporate governance. The only voice or vote you, the grunts, have that counts, is the one with your feet. Don't like current mechanics? Leave. Don't like current leadership? Leave. Don't like current distribution? Leave.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 10:07:00 - [2915] Originally by: Jenny d'Orrin I can't believe Liang is actually still talking to you nublets. If your only reason to want anoms is "cuz it's everyman's FAIR income" then I have news for you: Life/eve isn't and isn't supposed to be. Good points were made about how the current system allows for a great deal of control, but none of the players demand it from their CEO/fellow players. I just can LOL on that... What does " life " is doing here ?
Jenny d'Orrin	Posted - 2011.04.06 10:09:00 - [2916] Edited by: Jenny d''Orrin on 06/04/2011 10:11:11 Role-playing game -> Life simulator? Ohsnap. It's no coincidence that the people actually making the valid points have some level of market/corporate-insight. While the grunts are still the ones whining here about how it all just isn't fair and those top 10% make too much ISK in accordance to their measly pay. Seems "real" enough to me :)
Tia Langs Obscure Ops Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2011.04.06 10:59:00 - [2917] 98 pages and Greyscale still think this is the best idea after sliced bread :(
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:09:00 - [2918] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 11:12:54 98 pages of bull** whine and counterwhine does mean nothing. Its still CCPs game. I respect them doing this step despite of **ed carebears across the half of eve's 0.0, but there are things which have to be done.
Karin Habibi	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:20:00 - [2919] you honestly think nerfing anomolies will make it easier for a n00b alliance/corp to take space in nullsec??? hahaha where in the blazes is a n00b corp going to get the 14 titans and 23 motherships needed to take a system? as well as the forty-lebben dozen bs's and below.... CCP, if you want ppl to take space, make space easier to take!
Civire Dissension	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:39:00 - [2920] It wasn't a personal insult. It's simply a fact - if people stand around doing nothing about social injustices because they're too lazy... they're cattle. -Liang So, tell me, Liang, what do we call someone who tells us cattle how happy we should be to be going to the slaughterhouse?? Fulla Bull sounds like a good start...

Civire Dissension	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:43:00 - [2921] Edited by: Civire Dissension on 06/04/2011 11:44:34 Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 10:05:21 You're wrong man, i'am a stupid carebear and a sanctum gives 500M / hour. So please use my numbers and recalculate. I'm a stupid nullseccer and i been running these things since they came out. will you PLEASE come out here and show me wtf i am doing wrong?? best i have EVER done is a 15mill wallet tick, and that was with a faction spawn. really, who fed you that stuff, and why do you like the flavor so much? better to fertilize the back 40 with it.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:44:00 - [2922] Edited by: Levistus Junior on 06/04/2011 11:44:36 Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 11:12:54 98 pages of bull** whine and counterwhine does mean nothing. Its still CCPs game. I respect them doing this step despite of **ed carebears across the half of eve's 0.0, but there are things which have to be done. I'd be willing to give CCP much more leeway with this 'we know what's best, trust us, it will be cool in the end' approach if they had't proven their lack of understanding of their own game mechanics and a 'promise a lot, deliver little, move to the next shiny features and don't talk of it ever again' mentality in pretty much every expansion after Apocrypha. CCP has made so many stupid moves that it's entirely understandable that most people would suppose any given move is stupid until proven otherwise.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:44:00 - [2923] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 11:12:54 98 pages of bull** whine and counterwhine does mean nothing. Its still CCPs game. I respect them doing this step despite of **ed carebears across the half of eve's 0.0, but there are things which have to be done. Basically all you are saying is that you are more pr0 then most nullsec inhabitants. But then look who is talking: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=nano+bobcat You are terrible. Seriously, EvE doesn¦t want you. No matter if this is your main or just an alt and you¦re not having the balls to post with your main. Take that Liang guy with you that is so much informed about nullsec that he never heard about awoxers. Oh LostinSpace also belongs to you guys, as he is so pr0 that he even doesn¦t know how much isk can be made an hour in a sanctum while still pretending to have any clue about life in nullsec. So go away. You are simply terrible. Us don¦t want you.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:47:00 - [2924] Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 06/04/2011 11:51:23 Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Edit 98 pages.... well this patch affects a few people, i don't see a 98 pages topic to welcome the incursions or something else. I don't see 98 pages to the dominion expansion when they introduced this 0.0 upgradable anomaly, so, what's your point? Originally by: Tia Langs 98 pages and Greyscale still think this is the best idea that's because it is Originally by: Jenny d'Orrin I can't believe Liang is actually still talking to you nublets. Yeah, I can't believe it either, even after some personal insults Originally by: Antigue http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=nano+bobcat You are terrible. OH WOW, KILLBOARD STATS Aren't you the same guy who picked on someone and said all his kills were in low-sec and accused others are failing to read killboard, when that person had his last kills in 0.0? You seemed bitter, did they crush your isk farming ability? are your systems in -0.0 to -0.245 now?
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:50:00 - [2925] CCP are you actually going to say ANYTHING on this? Nearly 100 pages on this and all we get "oops this isnt popular, well look into it" post and then all you do is sweep it under the carpet and carry on.
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:50:00 - [2926] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Edit 98 pages.... well this patch affects a few people, i don't see a 98 pages topic to welcome the incursions or something else. I don't see 98 pages to the dominion expansion when they introduced this 0.0 upgradable anomaly, so, what's your point? Originally by: Tia Langs 98 pages and Greyscale still think this is the best idea that's because it is Originally by: Jenny d'Orrin I can't believe Liang is actually still talking to you nublets. Yeah, I can't believe it either, even after some personal insults Would you guys just stop glorifying yourself with alt chars? Show me killboards and I will take you serious (maybe). Other then that it¦s just a troll.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:00:00 - [2927] Originally by: Antigue Would you guys just stop glorifying yourself with alt chars? Show me killboards and I will take you serious (maybe). Other then that it¦s just a troll. so, this is my KB: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Mark+Hadden this means, im more pro than you and you should STFU, right?
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:01:00 - [2928] Originally by: Lost'In'Space I don't see 98 pages to the dominion expansion when they introduced this 0.0 upgradable anomaly, so, what's your point? There weren't any abut that subject specifically because it was overshadowed by other more important matters. Do I need to remember you of the threadnaughts asking for Nozh's head after attempting to revert the supercap rebalance or the endless discussions about the new sov mechanics?
Triksia Bonsol	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:03:00 - [2929] Edited by: Triksia Bonsol on 06/04/2011 12:03:29 I spent some time, to help you with translation of this "soul-scream", origin message in russian: Originally by: eye RZ Мне вот интересно, сотрудники ССР работают на чистом энтузиазме что ли? Или может ваши учредители не в курсе, чем вы там занимаетесь? Чтобы набрать 10кк и больше подписчиков вам надо упрощать игру, а не усложнять её как сейчас. Вы должны понимать, что большинство игроков на планете Земля - карибасы (ПВЕ-шники), им не нужны постоянные войны за что-либо. Придумайте уже что-то новенькое, а то опять очередной бред. Извините за русский. З.Ы. Любителям пострелять: больше карибасов - больше целей, надеюсь вы это понимаете. and how I can translate this (my additions/comments marked italic) "I am really interested of what for the CCP Hf employees are working for - is it row enthusiasm ? Or may be CCP shareholders (owners) doesn't know anything about what are you doing there ? If you want to acquire more subscribers (for example your management have the goal to get the total count of 10 millions somewhere) - you do not need to make game-playing harder (not difficult but hard) - you need to make the PLAYING game easy (remember blog "little things stay little"). You should know (always remember) that the most of players are care-bears (not members of claim-holders/renters/PvP alliances who do not need in personal income - all the need for fighting - they can simply get in hangars and reimbursements after operations/CTA). They really don't need constant wars (do not care about any invasions and re-capturing space). Better make something really new, not like this another nonsense. Sorry for Russian language (sorry for not so good English) Post Scriptum. To those who like to shoot: more care-bears/npc-hunters more targets, I wish you can understand this" P.S. from me CCP did not understand how much part of their subscribers who are NOT using bots or macros, and simply trying to play interesting MMORPG game for only 1-3 hours a day to get some ISK to spent them to fun and they simply did not post at this forum because of they can't speak/write English here (but may at Russian/French/Deutsch)
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:03:00 - [2930] Originally by: Lost'In'Space OH WOW, KILLBOARD STATS Aren't you the same guy who picked on someone and said all his kills were in low-sec and accused others are failing to read killboard, when that person had his last kills in 0.0? You seemed bitter, did they crush your isk farming ability? are your systems in -0.0 to -0.245 now? You are so clueless that it is almost lovely again sweetheart. Some people can read killboards. So they know more then just some stats. Weird, isn¦t it? So maybe your misinterpretation "OH WOW KILLBOARD STATS" may result from a little lack of knowledge? I challenge you to join a nullsec corp and start learning before you make yourself look stupid on forums mate.

Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:04:00 - [2931] Originally by: Levistus Junior Do I need to remember you of the threadnaughts asking for Nozh's head after attempting to revert the supercap rebalance or the endless discussions about the new sov mechanics? Yes
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:09:00 - [2932] Originally by: Lost'In'Space Edited by: Lost''In''Space on 06/04/2011 12:07:11 Originally by: Levistus Junior Do I need to remember you of the threadnaughts asking for Nozh's head after attempting to revert the supercap rebalance or the endless discussions about the new sov mechanics? Yes P.S. No, I am not an alt of anyone whom I tried to "glorify" Dominion related treadnaught: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1217073
Antigue	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:09:00 - [2933] Originally by: nano bobcat so, this is my KB: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Mark+Hadden this means, im more pro than you and you should STFU, right? Nope that means you should post with your main char and not pretend to be someone you might not be. Then we could see if you are living in nullsec and got nullsec experience. Then we can propperly discuss nullsec issues. So got nothing to do with stats. Got it now?
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:13:00 - [2934] Please remember that we are here to make a game that you all love to play. None of us comes to work thinking of ways to enrage the playerbase. As the Lead Game Designer, I take my responsibility seriously and that includes taking responsibility for any decisions made by our team. To me, EVE is much more than a job, itÆs something IÆm passionate about constantly improving. I promise you I want EVE to thrive just as much as you do. Thanks for listening CCP Hammerhead Lead Game Designer Well times are changing ....
Myz Toyou APOCALYPSE LEGION	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:16:00 - [2935]
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:17:00 - [2936] Originally by: Civire Dissension Edited by: Civire Dissension on 06/04/2011 11:44:34 Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 10:05:21 You're wrong man, i'am a stupid carebear and a sanctum gives 500M / hour. So please use my numbers and recalculate. I'm a stupid nullseccer and i been running these things since they came out. will you PLEASE come out here and show me wtf i am doing wrong?? best i have EVER done is a 15mill wallet tick, and that was with a faction spawn. really, who fed you that stuff, and why do you like the flavor so much? better to fertilize the back 40 with it. just for informaton: Angel Sanctums/Havens have 1.1/1.2 mil BS using 1 thanatos, you'll get abt 60-90 mil/h. Depends on how lazy you are and if you have fast access to free anoms 2 thanatoses will get you in 90-120 mil/h range 1 thanny + nyx and you are in 120-150 mil/h range 2 nyxes equals 150-180 mil/h Good combo is thanny + machariel also, but havent tried it as it requires more efforts and control. These numbers, again, are for Angel anomalies and with 10% corp tax. Ratting in Pure Blind for instance will get you less isk/h ratio as the BS there have worse bounty.
Iago TwoHeart	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:19:00 - [2937] DAMN YOU CCP!!! I ONLY JUST STARTED PLAYING IN THE LATE PART OF LAST YEAR. LIKE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER. I'VE TRIED A LOT OF STUFF SINCE I GOT HERE. I'VE ONLY JUST JOINED A 0.0 CORP. THE RATS ARE BOUNTIFUL. AFTER SPENDING OVER 250 QUID TO PLAY THUS FAR AND FUEL MY ADDICTION FOR PAIN(SARCASM!!!!) NOW I FIND THAT EVERYONE IS UNHAPPY CAUSE OF WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TO OUR STOMPING GROUNDS. YOU WANT MORE CONFLICT? GET THE RATS TO FIGHT EACH OTHER YOU GITS. CAUSE I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK I'M RESUBSCRIBING AFTER THIS MONTH IF THE COUNTLESS RICHES I WAS PROMISED BY MY RECRUITER TURN OUT TO BE, WELL, THERE 2 DAYS AGO, NOT AFTER TODAY. SO, POTENTIALLY YOU LOSE A PASSIONATE PLAYER. BUT BLEGH. If you can so easily ignore so many pages of veteran's complaints then what do you care about losing noob blood?
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:19:00 - [2938] Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 12:20:48 you forgot 1 point : This numbers are for 1 member as there is not enough valuable anom to farm at 2 people in the same system with 2 caps and chaining anoms.... Edit: and you know that it is really easy to have 1 player by system in eve...
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:23:00 - [2939] Come on everybody, we can't be slacking NOW!!! There's still a couple hours before the patch goes live so we can get 100 pages of whine to show CCP we care.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:25:00 - [2940] Cause you think they care about that ? They have their goals players have different ones. We are on eve to play they are on eve to earn REAL money.

Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:27:00 - [2941] it is posible atleast was. chanin with 2 chars 1 system. And gived good amiunt off isk to fast recover from battles, but now that wil end wie agein wil see less battles. Pilots in small ainces wioth dont have reinbursments wil fight less then befor or bring high sec alts alts out to empire to farm missions. This days was 1 hour almost 1 BS if you farm with 2 chars and atleast tengu or carrer, ader hour interceptor plus fiting, and fiting for BS. Now if agein wil need belt rating that wil take 4-5 hours to gain the same so les time for battles, ccp calcualtions its wrong they not looking from isk/h but looking over all and that wrong.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:27:00 - [2942] Originally by: Bill Andrex This is a stupid change on behalf of CCP. CCP Greyscale might be happy at the changes over his morning coffee, but us players are certainly not happy at the changes proposed. The current system is fine, it works well and does what it intended. Now we are moving to a system that works well but doesn't do what it intended in the first place. The idea was to spread people about in nullsec so that systems could sustain a higher 0.0 population. CCP have now gone ahead and shot that idea in the foot. It will now be harder for newer up and coming Alliances to carve out a living in 0.0. It won't effect existing 0.0 Alliances as they make their ISK from moon goo, all CCP you have done here is gimp the little guy who is trying to make a living. The little guy is going to spend less time in fleets and more time trying to scratch out a living to make a little ISK to replace his losses. Why take away the incentive for people to move from empire to 0.0? CCP you have dropped the ball here. thats you ? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bill+Andrex#kills looks like you are pvp ing 1 a week and look at your losses ... if you cant replace that .. then hope is lost
Civire Dissension	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:29:00 - [2943] Originally by: Mithrasith Let's assume the position from the point of view of the vast majority of the folks in EVE, and also on this thread: They arent directors, nor are they CEO's. -What option does the individual have to even know what sources of revenue the corporation has? -What options does the individual have to understand the current assets that the Corp has? -Shares are largely useless in their current incarnation, so what options does the individual have to ensure a percentage pay-out based on position? -What if assets are purchased from profits realized as a result of an individuals work efforts. How can the individual player understand the value of those assets if they dont know what assets the corp has, and how can they be sure to get a percentage of the payout when those assets are sold? In too many cases Corp executive teams use the Corp wallet as their own personal wallet. Ive seen it personally especially with R64 moons. Money gets pulled from it when they want for their own purposes and funds. In addition - your claim regarding CEO's and Directors using the Corp wallet to purchase items for the Corp, ("its been handled purely through the corp wallet."), if that was the case, and that was the majority, why is it that according to QEN4 there is 35 Trillion ISK in corp wallets but 285 trillion ISK in personal wallets? Wouldnt one conclude that since the most profitiable activity in EVE is to mine Moon Goo, which should be a Corporate level activity, and funds should flow into corporate wallets for that that a larger percentage of funds should be found in Corporate wallets as opposed to Personal wallets? Strange distribution of funds. The tools are completely inadequate at present in order to distribute wealth in a reliable format. you are a truck driver for kookooo kola. why do you think you are entitled to oversight, and dividends? IRL,as in game, you need to be a "shareholder" to do this. and, as in real life, if you own enough shares, you get to decide who the CEO is. and again, as in real life, if you DON'T own shares, you only get to vote with your feet. further: why should the sum total of corps hold more ISK than the sum total of players? are there more corps than there are players now? how did that happen??
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:30:00 - [2944] Agree with you, but you need 2 characters to get your isk .... Then go and try to find a good belting place to rat, then try to farm in belts with 2 characters.... You won't earn the same amount. ou will earn 50% less and remember to change your ship... Farming in belts with carrier or nyx is not a good idea
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:31:00 - [2945] Originally by: Grog Barrel Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Patri Andari Imagine how much easier this would have been if CCP had done the following: Make upgrades and upkeep costs more in bad true sec and less in higher true sec yet leave the spawns somewhat the same in bad true sec and better as true sec improves. Damn, I am a genius! no you are not a sanctum/haven makes 100m/h x4 is 400m ph is around 10b a day is 300b a month so to achive the same goal (nerving the income by half ) the system cost would be 150b .... now that would be an outcry =))) (the 100m/h is not my number it was stated by the carbears that run em in this thread) since your are adding a multiplication of factor 4 into your ecuation, your whole statement is comparable to <insert anything not serious here> in case you are not aware that in the current system there are in fact 4 sanctims/havens per any updated system i tell you now ... thats why x4
Haoibuni Solar Nexus. -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:32:00 - [2946] Wanna hit 100 pages. Have a rethink CCP.
Civire Dissension	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:34:00 - [2947] Originally by: Rainus Max CCP are you actually going to say ANYTHING on this? Nearly 100 pages on this and all we get "oops this isnt popular, well look into it" post and then all you do is sweep it under the carpet and carry on. Welllllll,......... they did say they were looking for "ISK Sinks." Apparently, the best one thy;ve come up with is, "Hey look, spend your money. Wait, we changed our minds, you just flushed all that ISK down the toilet. Nope, we're not even going to say 'sorry about that stuff '"...
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:35:00 - [2948] Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Agree with you, but you need 2 characters to get your isk .... Then go and try to find a good belting place to rat, then try to farm in belts with 2 characters.... You won't earn the same amount. ou will earn 50% less and remember to change your ship... Farming in belts with carrier or nyx is not a good idea not ift wil be not 50% less but wil be araund 20% from curent sanctum farming. even with faction spawns with moslty have ****y loot this days.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:37:00 - [2949] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Grog Barrel Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Patri Andari Imagine how much easier this would have been if CCP had done the following: Make upgrades and upkeep costs more in bad true sec and less in higher true sec yet leave the spawns somewhat the same in bad true sec and better as true sec improves. Damn, I am a genius! no you are not a sanctum/haven makes 100m/h x4 is 400m ph is around 10b a day is 300b a month so to achive the same goal (nerving the income by half ) the system cost would be 150b .... now that would be an outcry =))) (the 100m/h is not my number it was stated by the carbears that run em in this thread) since your are adding a multiplication of factor 4 into your ecuation, your whole statement is comparable to <insert anything not serious here> in case you are not aware that in the current system there are in fact 4 sanctims/havens per any updated system i tell you now ... thats why x4 First go there: Guristas Sanctum Then remember it takes time to run them, and when you have 4 anoms in 1 sytem most of time you are not alone. So generally you have time to run 2 anoms/h with 2 accounts.
Kabars Saint Industrial Services Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:38:00 - [2950] Originally by: Iago TwoHeart DAMN YOU CCP!!! If you can so easily ignore so many pages of veteran's complaints then what do you care about losing noob blood? Well said but they don't care as long as the bigger alliances flursh and the smaller ones fail thats what they want i guess. Its almost like certin alliances have Devs in there back pocket.

Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:38:00 - [2951] Originally by: Civire Dissension Originally by: Mithrasith Let's assume the position from the point of view of the vast majority of the folks in EVE, and also on this thread: They arent directors, nor are they CEO's. -What option does the individual have to even know what sources of revenue the corporation has? -What options does the individual have to understand the current assets that the Corp has? -Shares are largely useless in their current incarnation, so what options does the individual have to ensure a percentage pay-out based on position? -What if assets are purchased from profits realized as a result of an individuals work efforts. How can the individual player understand the value of those assets if they dont know what assets the corp has, and how can they be sure to get a percentage of the payout when those assets are sold? In too many cases Corp executive teams use the Corp wallet as their own personal wallet. Ive seen it personally especially with R64 moons. Money gets pulled from it when they want for their own purposes and funds. In addition - your claim regarding CEO's and Directors using the Corp wallet to purchase items for the Corp, ("its been handled purely through the corp wallet."), if that was the case, and that was the majority, why is it that according to QEN4 there is 35 Trillion ISK in corp wallets but 285 trillion ISK in personal wallets? Wouldnt one conclude that since the most profitiable activity in EVE is to mine Moon Goo, which should be a Corporate level activity, and funds should flow into corporate wallets for that that a larger percentage of funds should be found in Corporate wallets as opposed to Personal wallets? Strange distribution of funds. The tools are completely inadequate at present in order to distribute wealth in a reliable format. you are a truck driver for kookooo kola. why do you think you are entitled to oversight, and dividends? IRL,as in game, you need to be a "shareholder" to do this. and, as in real life, if you own enough shares, you get to decide who the CEO is. and again, as in real life, if you DON'T own shares, you only get to vote with your feet. further: why should the sum total of corps hold more ISK than the sum total of players? are there more corps than there are players now? how did that happen?? Ting its such that corps usualy colecting money in to accounts then spending in one big wave, lets say how much yyou need to colect to get nyx bpo and meny corps start duing that to colect them after soem time corps again wil trow out all isk and wil be situation ader way. And meny corps as ours making reinbursments for his meber loses, atleast wie done that i dont know if wil be posible now generate so meny isk from tax to cover it. usualy to reinburse lets say 10 member fleet you need araund 1,2 bilj depends on ship types that means corps need more money than players eny way.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:39:00 - [2952] Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Agree with you, but you need 2 characters to get your isk .... Then go and try to find a good belting place to rat, then try to farm in belts with 2 characters.... You won't earn the same amount. ou will earn 50% less and remember to change your ship... Farming in belts with carrier or nyx is not a good idea not ift wil be not 50% less but wil be araund 20% from curent sanctum farming. even with faction spawns with moslty have ****y loot this days. Don't know where you live but link me some belts system where we can farm :) And remember that A LOT of players will have to change their isk earning method and ccp won't add more belts....
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:41:00 - [2953] Originally by: Kabars Originally by: Iago TwoHeart DAMN YOU CCP!!! If you can so easily ignore so many pages of veteran's complaints then what do you care about losing noob blood? Well said but they don't care as long as the bigger alliances flursh and the smaller ones fail thats what they want i guess. Its almost like certin alliances have Devs in there back pocket. now and befor in eve was and is sitiation than you have no chois if you are smal allaince you cant hold space by you own. You need go to soem power block for protection and be a pets there is no choise and this pach actualy brings smaler alalince look more for peting than befor. Main income form small allinces is taxes from corporations per members in corp, with usualy goid into a space holding payments, and was berly inaf to cover it.
Kabars Saint Industrial Services Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:44:00 - [2954] Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Kabars Originally by: Iago TwoHeart DAMN YOU CCP!!! If you can so easily ignore so many pages of veteran's complaints then what do you care about losing noob blood? Well said but they don't care as long as the bigger alliances flursh and the smaller ones fail thats what they want i guess. Its almost like certin alliances have Devs in there back pocket. now and befor in eve was and is sitiation than you have no chois if you are smal allaince you cant hold space by you own. You need go to soem power block for protection and be a pets there is no choise and this pach actualy brings smaler alalince look more for peting than befor. Main income form small allinces is taxes from corporations per members in corp, with usualy goid into a space holding payments, and was berly inaf to cover it. Ok but if you wanna be a pet or rent space the cluster **** of a patch will make it harder for those alliance to get the isk to pay there bills
Civire Dissension	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:45:00 - [2955] Originally by: Danastar Originally by: Civire Dissension Edited by: Civire Dissension on 06/04/2011 11:44:34 Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 10:05:21 You're wrong man, i'am a stupid carebear and a sanctum gives 500M / hour. So please use my numbers and recalculate. I'm a stupid nullseccer and i been running these things since they came out. will you PLEASE come out here and show me wtf i am doing wrong?? best i have EVER done is a 15mill wallet tick, and that was with a faction spawn. really, who fed you that stuff, and why do you like the flavor so much? better to fertilize the back 40 with it. just for informaton: Angel Sanctums/Havens have 1.1/1.2 mil BS using 1 thanatos, you'll get abt 60-90 mil/h. Depends on how lazy you are and if you have fast access to free anoms 2 thanatoses will get you in 90-120 mil/h range 1 thanny + nyx and you are in 120-150 mil/h range 2 nyxes equals 150-180 mil/h Good combo is thanny + machariel also, but havent tried it as it requires more efforts and control. These numbers, again, are for Angel anomalies and with 10% corp tax. Ratting in Pure Blind for instance will get you less isk/h ratio as the BS there have worse bounty. sounds good. got 2 nyx's i can borrow? and the toons to fly them? we still fall far short of the "500 million an hour" mentioned earlier... oh, and is our isk/hour income taking into account the expense when, not if, these nyx's get hot-dropped?
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:46:00 - [2956] Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Agree with you, but you need 2 characters to get your isk .... Then go and try to find a good belting place to rat, then try to farm in belts with 2 characters.... You won't earn the same amount. ou will earn 50% less and remember to change your ship... Farming in belts with carrier or nyx is not a good idea not ift wil be not 50% less but wil be araund 20% from curent sanctum farming. even with faction spawns with moslty have **y loot this days. Don't know where you live but link me some belts system where we can farm :) And remember that A LOT of players will have to change their isk earning method and ccp won't add more belts.... and take into acount that ppl loking for easy ways to ern money they wil go to empire farming, that means les ppl in 0.0 and less in fleets leess battles and ader tings wath ccp actuly hoped toget, I tink only ting wath ccp culd do for 0.0 its leave sanctums alone , but if they wished implement more reflect true sec status than they culd do simply ting, there are 2 ore more ways to do that. 1. sanctums stay in systems how they are but in crease bountys on rats i nsanctums acording true sec. 2. sanctums stay but increase sanctum count in sustme with beter true sec . 3. both version. eny way no one runing thos smol ** and ccp see that. PPl beter wil go to empire and sefe runing misions then run somting less then sanctum.
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:48:00 - [2957] Originally by: Kabars Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Kabars Originally by: Iago TwoHeart DAMN YOU CCP!!! If you can so easily ignore so many pages of veteran's complaints then what do you care about losing noob blood? Well said but they don't care as long as the bigger alliances flursh and the smaller ones fail thats what they want i guess. Its almost like certin alliances have Devs in there back pocket. now and befor in eve was and is sitiation than you have no chois if you are smal allaince you cant hold space by you own. You need go to soem power block for protection and be a pets there is no choise and this pach actualy brings smaler alalince look more for peting than befor. Main income form small allinces is taxes from corporations per members in corp, with usualy goid into a space holding payments, and was berly inaf to cover it. Ok but if you wanna be a pet or rent space the cluster **** of a patch will make it harder for those alliance to get the isk to pay there bills and that means more taxes on corps more taxes on corps more taxes on members more taxes on mebbers lesss members in 0.0
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:50:00 - [2958] 500M/H was from me and was 100% ironic in response to the most stupid way to calculate isk/H for running anoms... I could have said 159B/H it would have been the same :) Anyways, CCP is removing ISK from null sec that is the point... Whatever people say, yes you cn go rat in belt, try to find ded plexs, go WH, run missions etc.... But they are still removing isk from null sec that's all... Less isk less pvp, less pvp less buying demand etc etc.. Sell your trita stock in Jita guys in the next 6 months trita will be back at 1.5 isk. And yes miner will whine....
Kabars Saint Industrial Services Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:53:00 - [2959] You know with 99 pages of b**ing and complaining at the end of the day and patch it will all be the same because CCP does not give a flying ** about its memebers who have been here for years playing the game. With the new "improvements" and " we know whats best " attuide Its all going to boil dow to we will still be playing and thats all they care about is getting that 15 bucks a month and to hell with there complaints or suggestions.
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:54:00 - [2960] Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit 500M/H was from me and was 100% ironic in response to the most stupid way to calculate isk/H for running anoms... I could have said 159B/H it would have been the same :) Anyways, CCP is removing ISK from null sec that is the point... Whatever people say, yes you cn go rat in belt, try to find ded plexs, go WH, run missions etc.... But they are still removing isk from null sec that's all... Less isk less pvp, less pvp less buying demand etc etc.. Sell your trita stock in Jita guys in the next 6 months trita will be back at 1.5 isk. And yes miner will whine.... Wil be not just drop off trit biut wil drop all minerals eve megacyte from wat lived miners and ader good minerals that wil make useles even thos hiden belts. That will impact even t2 market, ppl wil be not able buy t2 ships with curent PI POS fuel prices rections to not generating inof money cover everiting so thos wil stay at the same price but ppl will need lat more time to get them.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:55:00 - [2961] So close to 100 pages of wine, come on, work it up guys!
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:56:00 - [2962] Originally by: Kabars You know with 99 pages of b**ing and complaining at the end of the day and patch it will all be the same because CCP does not give a flying ** about its memebers who have been here for years playing the game. With the new "improvements" and " we know whats best " attuide Its all going to boil dow to we will still be playing and thats all they care about is getting that 15 bucks a month and to hell with there complaints or suggestions. I tink need make sotming protest agans this pach dercrease conflict count to minimum stop fighting at all just protect space no roming noting until pach not fixed.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:59:00 - [2963] Originally by: Kabars You know with 99 pages of b**ing and complaining at the end of the day and patch it will all be the same because CCP does not give a flying ** about its memebers who have been here for years playing the game. With the new "improvements" and " we know whats best " attuide Its all going to boil dow to we will still be playing and thats all they care about is getting that 15 bucks a month and to hell with there complaints or suggestions. And ? Even if most of us will keep on playing, i assume a lot of people will cancel 1 alt or leave game. But it doesn't really matters for CCP as it is just a statistic. Even it hey loose 1000 accounts directly due to this patch they will earn more money. Less isk in game means more plex buying to CCP so they won't loose anything. Removing high anoms in null sec is also a way to fight the bots. The less anoms they have the less isk they have. So even if good and real players are affected, there is no direct impact to CCP RL wallet so.. They don't care for sure. But Eve is a game where there uses to be a dialog between players and CCP that's why we are on this topic. But it seems, that there is a new vision of future that doesn't include dialog.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 12:59:00 - [2964] New t-shirts ready to buy at the eve online shop! "I went to null sec and all i got was this crappy anom"
Kabars Saint Industrial Services Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:00:00 - [2965] Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Kabars You know with 99 pages of b**ing and complaining at the end of the day and patch it will all be the same because CCP does not give a flying about its memebers who have been here for years playing the game. With the new "improvements" and " we know whats best " attuide Its all going to boil dow to we will still be playing and thats all they care about is getting that 15 bucks a month and to hell with there complaints or suggestions. I tink need make sotming protest agans this pach dercrease conflict count to minimum stop fighting at all just protect space no roming noting until pach not fixed. You must be in one of the alliances that have good space so when this patch drops you only stand to gain by it unlike my self and my small corp were we will just be hamstrung by this *hat of a patch
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:02:00 - [2966] Originally by: Red Morbo New t-shirts ready to buy at the eve online shop! "I went to null sec and all i got was this crappy anom" you are my HERO !!!!!!!!! Anyways what i most regret is: No CSM point of view, and no CCP response.
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:03:00 - [2967] Originally by: Kabars Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Kabars You know with 99 pages of b**ing and complaining at the end of the day and patch it will all be the same because CCP does not give a flying about its memebers who have been here for years playing the game. With the new "improvements" and " we know whats best " attuide Its all going to boil dow to we will still be playing and thats all they care about is getting that 15 bucks a month and to hell with there complaints or suggestions. I tink need make sotming protest agans this pach dercrease conflict count to minimum stop fighting at all just protect space no roming noting until pach not fixed. You must be in one of the alliances that have good space so when this patch drops you only stand to gain by it unlike my self and my small corp were we will just be hamstrung by this *hat of a patch Yes wie are but stil they wil be all the time full so run them wil be verry verry hard conclusion the same.
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:03:00 - [2968] Like to take this time to get good core feedback on 'CCP' thinks of all this 'GREAT' feedback! MOST! I ever seen in long time! Almost 3k in feedback on topic, of how it should not change! Yet to see "CCP Zymurgist" comment on this topic, of almost 100 pages! I look around a bet and yet to see any time other then walking in stations topic! This topic is HOT, and has hit over 125k in hits! So all I got to say now what will you do not you can't deny you didn't see this topic up front. So once again I ask 'CCP" staff member's what do you thing of all this feedback! I must have been here!
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:03:00 - [2969] Originally by: Civire Dissension Originally by: Danastar Originally by: Civire Dissension Edited by: Civire Dissension on 06/04/2011 11:44:34 Originally by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 10:05:21 You're wrong man, i'am a stupid carebear and a sanctum gives 500M / hour. So please use my numbers and recalculate. I'm a stupid nullseccer and i been running these things since they came out. will you PLEASE come out here and show me wtf i am doing wrong?? best i have EVER done is a 15mill wallet tick, and that was with a faction spawn. really, who fed you that stuff, and why do you like the flavor so much? better to fertilize the back 40 with it. just for informaton: Angel Sanctums/Havens have 1.1/1.2 mil BS using 1 thanatos, you'll get abt 60-90 mil/h. Depends on how lazy you are and if you have fast access to free anoms 2 thanatoses will get you in 90-120 mil/h range 1 thanny + nyx and you are in 120-150 mil/h range 2 nyxes equals 150-180 mil/h Good combo is thanny + machariel also, but havent tried it as it requires more efforts and control. These numbers, again, are for Angel anomalies and with 10% corp tax. Ratting in Pure Blind for instance will get you less isk/h ratio as the BS there have worse bounty. sounds good. got 2 nyx's i can borrow? and the toons to fly them? we still fall far short of the "500 million an hour" mentioned earlier... oh, and is our isk/hour income taking into account the expense when, not if, these nyx's get hot-dropped? yeah - i have 2 nyxes with 2 chars capable of using them :) and no - you can't borrow them :). As i said in my post - it is just for information, so you have better idea how much isk/h you can generate. As for hot dropping - I used these nyxes for realtively short period of time and so far i guess i was lucky. Still, if you know what you are doing, it is reasonable risk. You risk more - you get more. After all - if you are afraid of the big bad wolf, dont go to the forest :)
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:04:00 - [2970] Originally by: Kabars You must be in one of the alliances that have good space so when this patch drops you only stand to gain by it unlike my self and my small corp were we will just be hamstrung by this ***hat of a patch Delicious pleb tears.

Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:06:00 - [2971] Come to null sec the future home of budget wars, T1 frigs welcome ;)
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:07:00 - [2972] Edited by: Th3bl4ckr4bbit on 06/04/2011 13:08:09 Well here we are ! 100 pages !!!! I want my t-shirt: " I was on the page 100 of complaints "
Kabars Saint Industrial Services Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:07:00 - [2973] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Kabars You must be in one of the alliances that have good space so when this patch drops you only stand to gain by it unlike my self and my small corp were we will just be hamstrung by this ***hat of a patch Delicious pleb tears. well now IM have taken the long Goon tradition of trolling nice work mate
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:08:00 - [2974] 100 pages
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:09:00 - [2975] Originally by: Kabars Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Delicious pleb tears. well now IM have taken the long Goon tradition of trolling nice work mate I didn't get the memo... Am I supposed to not point and laugh?
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:10:00 - [2976] but stil no answers from CCP or some feedback from CSM
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:10:00 - [2977] 100 pages, soon to be the same number of toons in null sec
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:11:00 - [2978] Quote: Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt. When I was in 0.0, the cloakies would usually get caught when trying to enter the system or would get 30 people on their toes the second they uncloaked. We were always some dozens online, playing like a team. We were not even in an alliance in that time... Do I have to suppose there are whole "alliances" that can't field a dozen sentinels during the day? Do they belong to 0.0, aka where security is made by yours truly? Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Torenc	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:13:00 - [2979] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt. When I was in 0.0, the cloakies would usually get caught when trying to enter the system or would get 30 people on their toes the second they uncloaked. We were always some dozens online, playing like a team. We were not even in an alliance in that time... Do I have to suppose there are whole "alliances" that can't field a dozen sentinels during the day? Do they belong to 0.0, aka where security is made by yours truly? Yes meny cloaky ships are c cached but stil hoo uses DT side effect that gets inside and stays longtime in one system.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:20:00 - [2980] Welp, bottoms up to CCP's latest grand design for a better world. Where have we heard that one before?

Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:20:00 - [2981] Originally by: Torenc Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Sigh. All thats needed is for me to plant a cloaky covcyno alt in that 'valuable' system 24/7 and lets see how many people actually go out and try to farm those 'valuable' anomalies. The problem in that there are so few of them is this. Easy to disrupt. When I was in 0.0, the cloakies would usually get caught when trying to enter the system or would get 30 people on their toes the second they uncloaked. We were always some dozens online, playing like a team. We were not even in an alliance in that time... Do I have to suppose there are whole "alliances" that can't field a dozen sentinels during the day? Do they belong to 0.0, aka where security is made by yours truly? Yes meny cloaky ships are c cached but stil hoo uses DT side effect that gets inside and stays longtime in one system. Well, I recall very well doing mining and plexes and whatever with my corp mates for long hours and no one would break our balls. When someone would come in or uncloak we'd just rally to PvP ships and go give them a warm welcome. I had to leave once my RL turned into crap and made me unable to attend corp ops, but Lt Pizi is still in Dark Rising and surely may describe the easy ways to keep cloakers and campers we did. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Weyoun Pegasus Battle Group	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:21:00 - [2982] Nerfing the sanctums and havens is also for me very dissapointing. Live in null sec requires large amounts of energy, time and therefore ISK. Think of the all the equipment, upgrades, bases, ship losses, and time involved to setup and uphold a temporary foothold in null. Not even taking into account the time that the ratting sites are not available due to afk cloakies or because it is too crowed with other ratters. Let's evaluate the upcoming days very carefully and make your own decision to continue/quit the game.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:21:00 - [2983] looks like you guys were right on top 0 , zero , null players online ... eve is dead .. now we can move on
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:23:00 - [2984] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 13:26:40 if you want anoms, get a better space. It will be a tough times for c*cksucking pets and similar scum but hey, IS THERE ANY BAD WITH THAT?? No, damn, NO THERE IS NOT!! Now, joining a random corp of the blue blob is not sufficent anymore if you want goodies in 0.0, you are required to bring it finally and either get into one of the better alliances or kick their asses! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:24:00 - [2985] Originally by: Lt Pizi looks like you guys were right on top 0 , zero , null players online ... eve is dead .. now we can move on Not yet, we still have one and a half hour to post!
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:25:00 - [2986] Now that this marks 100 PAGES yet to see any CCP in put on this hard topic! Here first of other player of eve can offer for feedback! Since CCP is busy with other projects keep in mind at any time they can pull people to do a quick fix on this matter! Here's idea! Keep all -HIGH END SITES OPEN- but rate the -HIGH ENDS SITES- to the systems rating mount. In other words, -0.10 would give you 10m total, from one -High End Site-, with chance of getting -1.0 site after so many runs of -0.10 high end sites. SO systems with -0.50 would place out 50m per high end site. Now to fix this with a timer, base on sec level, meaning -1.0 would take 10 mines to load next level, and would place out 100m per high end site. I must have been here!
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:27:00 - [2987] Not yet, we still have one and a half hour to post! somehow i dont believe you :)
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:27:00 - [2988] Originally by: nano bobcat if you want anoms, get a better space. It will be a tough times for ccksucking pets and similar scum but hey, IS THERE ANY BAD WITH THAT?? thats like walking into the white house and urinating in the big mans coffee pot, aint going to hapen and you going to look like a tat trying to do so
Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:28:00 - [2989] CCP Please hurry up with this patch, I've got to get an Arazu to Nulli Secunda space.
Myz Toyou APOCALYPSE LEGION	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:29:00 - [2990] I wonder why mostly alts post here. Maybe their NC mains are in fear to get flaimed because everyone knows that mostly NC pets are the ones who will now have to belt rat and are upset about it No more EVE-Easymode for you

Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:29:00 - [2991] Originally by: zxsteel Now that this marks 100 PAGES yet to see any CCP in put on this hard topic! Here first of other player of eve can offer for feedback! Since CCP is busy with other projects keep in mind at any time they can pull people to do a quick fix on this matter! Here's idea! Keep all -HIGH END SITES OPEN- but rate the -HIGH ENDS SITES- to the systems rating mount. In other words, -0.10 would give you 10m total, from one -High End Site-, with chance of getting -1.0 site after so many runs of -0.10 high end sites. SO systems with -0.50 would place out 50m per high end site. Now to fix this with a timer, base on sec level, meaning -1.0 would take 10 mines to load next level, and would place out 100m per high end site. always keep in mind that isnt the patch to fix it all there will be more tears i fear , but they may also give you guys some love (but it will not something that injekts raw isk)
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:31:00 - [2992] I fear you maybe right on that topic, top on their list is fixing Sov then POS! I must have been here!
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:31:00 - [2993] Originally by: Myz Toyou I wonder why mostly alts post here. Maybe their NC mains are in fear to get flaimed because everyone knows that mostly NC pets are the ones who will now have to belt rat and are upset about it No more EVE-Easymode for you Just as many alts posting on both sides of this fence.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:32:00 - [2994] Originally by: Red Morbo Originally by: nano bobcat if you want anoms, get a better space. It will be a tough times for ccksucking pets and similar scum but hey, IS THERE ANY BAD WITH THAT?? thats like walking into the white house and urinating in the big mans coffee pot, aint going to hapen and you going to look like a tat trying to do so if its not goint to happen then get the f*ck out and STFU whining. You made your choice.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:32:00 - [2995] there are still many alts active that got reactivated with buddy codes to fig the CSM vote so its hard to say
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:34:00 - [2996] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Red Morbo Originally by: nano bobcat if you want anoms, get a better space. It will be a tough times for ccksucking pets and similar scum but hey, IS THERE ANY BAD WITH THAT?? thats like walking into the white house and urinating in the big mans coffee pot, aint going to hapen and you going to look like a tat trying to do so if its not goint to happen then get the f*ck out and STFU whining. You made your choice. Use your main to smack. The only time I've seen you in space you were flying a bomber.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:41:00 - [2997] Originally by: Lev Aeris Use your main to smack. The only time I've seen you in space you were flying a bomber. if you look some previous pages you will find a posting with a reference to main. My alliance posting policies restrict my board activities to some degree.
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:44:00 - [2998] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Lev Aeris Use your main to smack. The only time I've seen you in space you were flying a bomber. if you look some previous pages you will find a posting with a reference to main. My alliance posting policies restrict my board activities to some degree. Fair enough, you actually did link your KB. Your alliance is going to get hit as hard as anyone on this change, so hell...proceed with your hate ;).
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:47:00 - [2999] Originally by: Lev Aeris Fair enough, you actually did link your KB. Your alliance is going to get hit as hard as anyone on this change, so hell...proceed with your hate ;). so? I dont give a **** about that. I found a different way to earn more ISK than I'll ever spend and I'm not the one who is whining about the changes.
Lev Aeris b.b.k Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:48:00 - [3000] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Lev Aeris Fair enough, you actually did link your KB. Your alliance is going to get hit as hard as anyone on this change, so hell...proceed with your hate ;). so? I dont give a **** about that. I found a different way to earn more ISK than I'll ever spend and I'm not the one who is whining about the changes. What? Why so serious?

Verity Auger	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:51:00 - [3001] 100 pages of mostly reasonable EVE players expressing their disappointment with this decision CCP. 100 pages of "look at me I'm so cool" trolls basically saying they like the changes because they like carebear tears. Got any better arguments? Don't you trolls have RMT to take care of? Run along. The costs and hassle of 0.0 for the average player have always been very high. This removal of nullsec resources just amounts to a removal of one of the main incentives to bother with the gankers and the griefers and the afk cloakers and their frat boy asshattery (so well displayed in these 100 pages.) If a return to the days of basically wasteland nullsec is what you were going for Greyscale, well mission accomplished. All you folks in favor of this change, you are either hypocrites or 16 years old, "moar tears! nom nom nom" etc. ad nausem. Grow up please. Those of us who are over 25? We've been playing this game a long time and we see no need to make it even more of a full time job than it already is. So long.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:52:00 - [3002] LOL 3000 whines, way to go nul-bears. A new dawn awaits us.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:56:00 - [3003] why not just drop all sov, rework standings and farm those new shiny plexes in the "crappy" space after the downtime??
Miso Hawnee	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:57:00 - [3004] Edited by: Miso Hawnee on 06/04/2011 13:58:41 Edited by: Miso Hawnee on 06/04/2011 13:58:22 Asperger's syndrome is an attempt by Dr. Hans Asperger to worm his way into the history books by labelling people who are simply *****s with a fake mental illness. (The name itself is a euphemism for what he called "Autistic Sociopaths"). Like all mental illness there is absolutely no physical evidence that it actually exists. Asperger-monsters are the most self-centered, selfish pieces of on the planet. Devoid of empathy, social reasoning, social context, or self awareness, they are subhuman meat-calculators, who live to collect and catalogue items like barcodes and bottletops. Such losers believe that having Asperger's Syndrome excuses all forms of social **ation, attention whoring and ty self-absorbed bull, while also allowing them to lay claim to its supposed symptom of "higher than average levels of intelligence". For these reasons, Asperger's has greatly outstripped ADHD as the chic diagnosis of choice for pretty much every group of **tards on the internet.
Draked	Posted - 2011.04.06 13:59:00 - [3005] Edited by: Draked on 06/04/2011 14:00:07 Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Lev Aeris Fair enough, you actually did link your KB. Your alliance is going to get hit as hard as anyone on this change, so hell...proceed with your hate ;). so? I dont give a ** about that. I found a different way to earn more ISK than I'll ever spend and I'm not the one who is whining about the changes. Nano bobcat, every post iv read that you have posted have been **ed up, you talk as if you are a alliance leader that get 10bil / month to do nothing, if thats so, good for you but for us smaller fish, removing the sanctums from our spaces is totally crap, have you tried to belt rat with 10, 20, 30, 100 people in local? its not happening! We need isk to pvp, NO ISK MEANS NO WARS, ALLIANCES MAY BE RICH BUT THOSE WHO FIGHT WILL GET BROKE! NO PILOTS = NO FIGHTS = NO WARS! CCP... $hitting on the little guy.
Major Templar Caldari Steel Daggers Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:01:00 - [3006] I'm not some carebear who only rats but I am someone who rats from time to time just to make enough ISK to go out and shoot someones face off. I just think that taking these out of 0.0 will simply make 0.0 dead. Less resources in 0.0 won't make people fight over more space, it will just make more people head into Empire. Grats CCP, you wanted to see null dead, your gonna get it. Oh and thanks for taking my targets away from me. That's one thing I used to love to do, jump into a system and warp to Sanctums that people thought they were safe in. Major Templar Steel Daggers Gentlemen's Agreement
Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:01:00 - [3007] Originally by: Miso Hawnee Edited by: Miso Hawnee on 06/04/2011 13:58:41 Edited by: Miso Hawnee on 06/04/2011 13:58:22 Asperger's syndrome is an attempt by Dr. Hans Asperger to worm his way into the history books by labelling people who are simply *****s with a fake mental illness. (The name itself is a euphemism for what he called "Autistic Sociopaths"). Like all mental illness there is absolutely no physical evidence that it actually exists. Asperger-monsters are the most self-centered, selfish pieces of on the planet. Devoid of empathy, social reasoning, social context, or self awareness, they are subhuman meat-calculators, who live to collect and catalogue items like barcodes and bottletops. Such losers believe that having Asperger's Syndrome excuses all forms of social **ation, attention whoring and ty self-absorbed bull, while also allowing them to lay claim to its supposed symptom of "higher than average levels of intelligence". For these reasons, Asperger's has greatly outstripped ADHD as the chic diagnosis of choice for pretty much every group of **tards on the internet. Further to this, I just want to say, Miso, you have a very impressive set of funbags there. Good job.
Kalbrun	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:05:00 - [3008] Ok 101 pages of complaints, and trolls and CCP Grayscale or CCP Zymurgist have not even made a attemt at posting a defence it eather they have the day of ( convenent), they don't give a Fly **, or they are 2 chicken ** and embarsed to show themselfs and fess up that this was a bad idea. personally i am going with all 3
Copy Dude2	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:06:00 - [3009] Ahh, u guys have missed the subtleties of CCP. More isk in Null sec Players hands means more time to fight. That means much bigger blobs and bigger fleets which can be quickly reinfoirced as plenty of isk and guys willing to use it. Hey, they can just do 4 sanctums for a new 1. Thsi leads to laggy fights and peopel moaning at CCP to fix Lag. Now, nerf income and nerf pvp. This reduces the fleets and u get less lag, so less moaning about lag, and they can divert more of their devs to incarna to attract women and many more opportunities for people to spend real money on a fancy pot plant and lava lamp for their captains quarters. Or they get more plex income as peeps try to make up for the shortfall. GENIUS CCP>
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:07:00 - [3010] Originally by: Draked Nano bobcat, every post iv read that you have posted have been ****ed up, you talk as if you are a alliance leader that get 10bil / month to do nothing, if thats so, good for you but for us smaller fish, removing the sanctums from our spaces is totally crap, have you tried to belt rat with 10, 20, 30, 100 people in local? its not happening! you know what does survival of the fittest mean? Its time to leave the blob possibly, there is no reason to stick to that useless space and protect your lord's moons.

Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:08:00 - [3011] Originally by: Copy Dude2 Ahh, u guys have missed the subtleties of CCP. More isk in Null sec Players hands means more time to fight. That means much bigger blobs and bigger fleets which can be quickly reinfoirced as plenty of isk and guys willing to use it. Hey, they can just do 4 sanctums for a new 1. Thsi leads to laggy fights and peopel moaning at CCP to fix Lag. Now, nerf income and nerf pvp. This reduces the fleets and u get less lag, so less moaning about lag, and they can divert more of their devs to incarna to attract women and many more opportunities for people to spend real money on a fancy pot plant and lava lamp for their captains quarters. Or they get more plex income as peeps try to make up for the shortfall. GENIUS CCP> This guy has it all figured out!
Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:10:00 - [3012] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Draked Nano bobcat, every post iv read that you have posted have been ****ed up, you talk as if you are a alliance leader that get 10bil / month to do nothing, if thats so, good for you but for us smaller fish, removing the sanctums from our spaces is totally crap, have you tried to belt rat with 10, 20, 30, 100 people in local? its not happening! you know what does survival of the fittest mean? Its time to leave the blob possibly, there is no reason to stick to that useless space and protect your lord's moons. Always makes me laugh seeing geeks quoting "survival of the fittest" and applying it to an internet spaceships game. If survival of the fittest were really true, you wouldn't have time to be sitting on your skinny geek butt playing this game mate. You'd be extinct.
Draked	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:10:00 - [3013] Originally by: Copy Dude2 Ahh, u guys have missed the subtleties of CCP. More isk in Null sec Players hands means more time to fight. That means much bigger blobs and bigger fleets which can be quickly reinfoirced as plenty of isk and guys willing to use it. Hey, they can just do 4 sanctums for a new 1. Thsi leads to laggy fights and peopel moaning at CCP to fix Lag. Now, nerf income and nerf pvp. This reduces the fleets and u get less lag, so less moaning about lag, and they can divert more of their devs to incarna to attract women and many more opportunities for people to spend real money on a fancy pot plant and lava lamp for their captains quarters. Or they get more plex income as peeps try to make up for the shortfall. GENIUS CCP> So you basicly wanna decrease the numbers of wars, the exact opposite than ccp wants? think about this, most of us work 8 hours a day, then traveling from / to work, thats about 1 hour, you sleep around 6 hours, thats 15 hours, then shopping, cleaning, cooking, hobbies, so that gives you about 1-2 hours / day to make isk, weekends you fight.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:12:00 - [3014] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:12:30 Originally by: Kleinjan Always makes me laugh seeing geeks quoting "survival of the fittest" and applying it to an internet spaceships game. If survival of the fittest were really true, you wouldn't have time to be sitting on your skinny geek butt playing this game mate. You'd be extinct. stick to the topic. sotf methaphor suits very well the current situation!
Copy Dude2	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:16:00 - [3015] Originally by: Draked Originally by: Copy Dude2 Ahh, u guys have missed the subtleties of CCP. More isk in Null sec Players hands means more time to fight. That means much bigger blobs and bigger fleets which can be quickly reinfoirced as plenty of isk and guys willing to use it. Hey, they can just do 4 sanctums for a new 1. Thsi leads to laggy fights and peopel moaning at CCP to fix Lag. Now, nerf income and nerf pvp. This reduces the fleets and u get less lag, so less moaning about lag, and they can divert more of their devs to incarna to attract women and many more opportunities for people to spend real money on a fancy pot plant and lava lamp for their captains quarters. Or they get more plex income as peeps try to make up for the shortfall. GENIUS CCP> So you basicly wanna decrease the numbers of wars, the exact opposite than ccp wants? think about this, most of us work 8 hours a day, then traveling from / to work, thats about 1 hour, you sleep around 6 hours, thats 15 hours, then shopping, cleaning, cooking, hobbies, so that gives you about 1-2 hours / day to make isk, weekends you fight. No, I dont want to nerf it. I believe that CCP has decided that it is a good way to stop people moaning about lag by preventing more peeps from swelling fleets to the point where they cause lag, thereby leaving them to sell us other pointless items for real life money.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:18:00 - [3016] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:19:03 Originally by: Copy Dude2 No, I dont want to nerf it. I believe that CCP has decided that it is a good way to stop people moaning about lag by preventing more peeps from swelling fleets to the point where they cause lag, thereby leaving them to sell us other pointless items for real life money. less ball licking pets = smaller blobs. You got it right, dude!! This is the proper way of fixing the lag. Gratz, CCP for this awesome step!
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:20:00 - [3017] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Red Morbo Originally by: nano bobcat if you want anoms, get a better space. It will be a tough times for ccksucking pets and similar scum but hey, IS THERE ANY BAD WITH THAT?? thats like walking into the white house and urinating in the big mans coffee pot, aint going to hapen and you going to look like a tat trying to do so if its not goint to happen then get the f*ck out and STFU whining. You made your choice. ROFL i'm not whinning,look at my post's. Taking the pee would be closer, nice too see i bush peeps up the wrong way in and out of game
Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:20:00 - [3018] Edited by: Kleinjan on 06/04/2011 14:21:16 Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:12:30 Originally by: Kleinjan Always makes me laugh seeing geeks quoting "survival of the fittest" and applying it to an internet spaceships game. If survival of the fittest were really true, you wouldn't have time to be sitting on your skinny geek butt playing this game mate. You'd be extinct. stick to the topic. sotf methaphor suits very well the current situation! So what you are saying is, you are the fit and the rest of us are not? Ok. Well, I think you've had your allotment of ego w4nking for the day. Any other thoughts?
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:23:00 - [3019] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:19:03 Originally by: Copy Dude2 No, I dont want to nerf it. I believe that CCP has decided that it is a good way to stop people moaning about lag by preventing more peeps from swelling fleets to the point where they cause lag, thereby leaving them to sell us other pointless items for real life money. less ball licking pets = smaller blobs. You got it right, dude!! This is the proper way of fixing the lag. Gratz, CCP for this awesome step! Seen bigger blobs in low sec faction wars,more often than null imo
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:24:00 - [3020] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:24:35 Originally by: Kleinjan So what you are saying is, you are the fit and the rest of us are not? Ok. Well, I think you've had your allotment of ego w4nking for the day. Any other thoughts? You are not, as it seems you whine after your sanctums, unable or unwilling to adapt to the new eve world.

Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:28:00 - [3021] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:24:35 Originally by: Kleinjan So what you are saying is, you are the fit and the rest of us are not? Ok. Well, I think you've had your allotment of ego w4nking for the day. Any other thoughts? You are not, as it seems you whine after your sanctums, unable or unwilling to adapt to the new eve world. Ah yes, the "new EVE world"! Great turn of phrase there. No actually I am well adapted to the "real world", and so your corny chest thumping just makes me chuckle. Turn off your EVE client and get out there and explore the "real world" a bit more and maybe you will become more fit to survive in it without making yourself appear so ridiculous.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:33:00 - [3022] lol? Are your serious? If you like discussing reality issues, this is a wrong board for you.
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:33:00 - [3023] Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? When did you guys become such massive carebears? I remember when we used to survive pretty well off plexing and ratting in stain supplemented with the odd jaunt to empire to suicide gank. But then I also remember when flying T2 was considered a luxury and made people particularly careful with them, wheras now it seems players aren't happy unless they can shrug off expensive losses painlessly.
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:35:00 - [3024] Originally by: nano bobcat You are not, as it seems you whine after your sanctums, unable or unwilling to adapt to the new eve world. I don't. I just can't suffer stupidity when I see it, and this patch and supposed ideas behind it are an epitome of stupidity. This patch propably doesn't affect me much personally, but there will be less people joining roams and less targets for those roams since people will be busy trying to make isk elsewhere. Null fleets are going to suffer a slow attrition of personnel, and those ****-out-of-luck renters who are struggling with their sov upgrades are just going to pack it and leave. I fail to see what good this does to the game. This patch most certainly isn't going to make big alliances move a muscle, something that was supposedly the prime reason behind it.
Verity Auger	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:40:00 - [3025] Edited by: Verity Auger on 06/04/2011 14:41:05 Originally by: Dodgy Past Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? When did you guys become such massive carebears? I remember when we used to survive pretty well off plexing and ratting in stain supplemented with the odd jaunt to empire to suicide gank. But then I also remember when flying T2 was considered a luxury and made people particularly careful with them, wheras now it seems players aren't happy unless they can shrug off expensive losses painlessly. Your logic is circular. In the past nullsec population was much lower, allowing for the few who lived there to make a reasonable living. Higher populations nullify the benefits of nullsec while taking away very little of the risks. I think PL knows what botting is? :) Botting, and moon goo, provide unlimited isk to larger alliances. So losses that the average honest player accumulates, be they T2 or otherwise, do not equate to losses by elite PvP groups with bot/goo supported SRF's. Sanctums actually (somewhat) levelled the playing field there, if "carebears" (ergo, honest players) were willing to rat to support PvP. You sound like you are happy because you will still be able to afford T2 and will be up against straw men who can only afford T1. But, I thought EVE was supposed to be hard? Awww. I guess only hard for the other guy, huh.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:41:00 - [3026] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:42:18 Originally by: Zey Nadar This patch most certainly isn't going to make big alliances move a muscle, something that was supposedly the prime reason behind it. if the pet shell crumbles, those "big alliances" get into trouble easily. This is a good thing, go get your share out of that.
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:42:00 - [3027] Edited by: CBBOMBERMAN on 06/04/2011 14:42:24 This patch is like having pizza without cheese! This also proves ccp is blind and does not know its game. This is not gonna encourage more wars. The main reason why ppl do not do wars is cos its a lot of work and most of all is the LAG! No one wants so sit their ass haiting 10 minutes for 1 round cycle. You want lots of fights and realy good ones, then fix the lag. This is not gonna make the big alliances reduce their number ithr drastically. Besides it will fall into the same thing. Alliances will hire mercs and the server willl have a spasm and crash as usual. We have seen servers falling after been reinforced so this is no gonna help either. And alot less ppl would want to pvp under those and the new policy of rich gets richer and poor gets poorer.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:44:00 - [3028] Quote: Now that this marks 100 PAGES yet to see any CCP in put on this hard topic! Regardless of the fact I think this is: - quite of a quick "catch the low hanging fruit" opportunistic patch - that a good part of the whole truth has not been disclosed I still think CCP Grayscale expected ideas to put in a future patch, not just stupid ass whines. He likely discounted to get pages and pages of rage, this is what happens everytime you take away something. Now, I am sad to say that I can recall just 3-4 suggestion posts made, the rest is ... not useful, even if he wanted to listen to feedback for real and bring it to the team and consider implementing it. Auditing \| Research \| 3rd Party \| Collateral Holding \| EvE RL Charity
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:45:00 - [3029] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:42:18if the pet shell crumbles, those "big alliances" get into trouble easily. This is a good thing, go get your share out of that. And this promotes more fights how? If there are fewer people, there is effectively less conflict.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:48:00 - [3030] Originally by: Zey Nadar And this promotes more fights how? If there are fewer people, there is effectively less conflict. really?? Moar blobs guarantee fights you say? Thats new to me, my experience tells me people hate blobs and lag. Well, maybe I'm just wrong.

Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:48:00 - [3031] Originally by: Red Morbo Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:19:03 Originally by: Copy Dude2 No, I dont want to nerf it. I believe that CCP has decided that it is a good way to stop people moaning about lag by preventing more peeps from swelling fleets to the point where they cause lag, thereby leaving them to sell us other pointless items for real life money. less ball licking pets = smaller blobs. You got it right, dude!! This is the proper way of fixing the lag. Gratz, CCP for this awesome step! Seen bigger blobs in low sec faction wars,more often than null imo This move will reduce 0.0 blobs by reducing the overall population of 0.0, that's pretty much a given IMHO. However the reduction is happening in the wrong direction IMHO. Big, rich alliances that live in good space have much less to suffer from this nerf, so will bleed way less members than smaller, poorer alliances that live in crappier space. Not to mention guys in crappy space that will try to move to good space. This means that, although the overall numbers involved in a hypothetical conflict might drop, the balance will be skewed further in favor of the rich&powerful, as their numbers will be dropping by a smaller fraction than their poorer opponents. Second issue: supercaps. It is unlikely supercap owners will leave null-sec over this. Which, coupled with overall reduction in nullsec numbers means that the proportion of supercaps per active pilot, which further moves the game in the direction of Supercaps Online. I really believe this patch will change nothing in the long run(apart from some feeling of bitterness toward CCP that keeps accumulating in the playerbase); the rich will still be rich and powerful, and the poor will still be poor and unable to challenge them due to lack of resources.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:51:00 - [3032] The new null sec where the big alliances wear top hats and the average pilot is the chimney sweeper. congrates to ccp for adding the classes system to eve pilots, the rich get richer the poor stay poor. "penny for a shine gov"
Verity Auger	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:52:00 - [3033] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Zey Nadar And this promotes more fights how? If there are fewer people, there is effectively less conflict. really?? Moar blobs guarantee fights you say? Thats new to me, my experience tells me people hate blobs and lag. Well, maybe I'm just wrong. And there is where your argument fails. The fact is, in EVE right now wars aren't won except with big blobs. That is what Dominion handed us. It was still the case before Dominion as well I suppose. Have you actually been involved in any big nullsec conflicts? There's this thing, it's called the momship blob. Without it you lose. So love or hate blobs and lag, that is how EVE works. Nerfing sanctums does not change that.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:53:00 - [3034] Originally by: Levistus Junior Big, rich alliances that live in good space have much less to suffer from this nerf, so will bleed way less members than smaller, poorer alliances that live in crappier space. then go kick them the f*ck outta there!! Angry crowd will always win about fat farts living in luxury!! Even their supers wont save them. If things get serious, those fat dudes wont risk their shiny supers to the angry mob. Of course, nothing will change for them if you just keep your asses for them and trying living from crumbs. Its your decision.
Dodgy Past Amarr Zor Industries Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:54:00 - [3035] Edited by: Dodgy Past on 06/04/2011 14:56:37 Originally by: Verity Auger Edited by: Verity Auger on 06/04/2011 14:41:05 Originally by: Dodgy Past Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? When did you guys become such massive carebears? I remember when we used to survive pretty well off plexing and ratting in stain supplemented with the odd jaunt to empire to suicide gank. But then I also remember when flying T2 was considered a luxury and made people particularly careful with them, wheras now it seems players aren't happy unless they can shrug off expensive losses painlessly. Your logic is circular. In the past nullsec population was much lower, allowing for the few who lived there to make a reasonable living. Higher populations nullify the benefits of nullsec while taking away very little of the risks. [/QUOTE]Was referring to when I was in Br1cksquad, I'm truly sad to see people from there joining the whiners. Originally by: Verity Auger [QUOTE]I think PL knows what botting is? :) Botting, and moon goo, provide unlimited isk to larger alliances. So losses that the average honest player accumulates, be they T2 or otherwise, do not equate to losses by elite PvP groups with bot/goo supported SRF's. Sanctums actually (somewhat) levelled the playing field there, if "carebears" (ergo, honest players) were willing to rat to support PvP. You sound like you are happy because you will still be able to afford T2 and will be up against straw men who can only afford T1. But, I thought EVE was supposed to be hard? Awww. I guess only hard for the other guy, huh. Go read the PL forum mirrors as you'll notice the only to reference to botting is people found doing it being killed and kicked. As to moon goo, well PL get thier hands on it from time to time, but only on a temporary basis till we move again, it's hardly a key part of our income. Contracts and selling stations / systems make far more. Also this doesn't see it's way into any of our personal pockets, but covers the usual expenses such as logistic / hic / dic replacements. From what I can tell most people in PL make their incomes through plexing, trading and manufacturing... i.e. honestly, though generally less as an isk faucet except the amount of insurance money we cause to be paid out. Infact my understanding is that one of the biggest contributions to the alliance's earnings comes from winning the alliance tournament.
Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:54:00 - [3036] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Levistus Junior Big, rich alliances that live in good space have much less to suffer from this nerf, so will bleed way less members than smaller, poorer alliances that live in crappier space. then go kick them the f*ck outta there!! Angry crowd will always win about fat farts living in luxury!! Even their supers wont save them. If things get serious, those fat dudes wont risk their shiny supers to the angry mob. Of course, nothing will change for them if you just keep your asses for them and trying living from crumbs. Its your decision. You really know nothing about how large scale nullsec sov works, do you? "Angry mob"? lolz. Ok, keep on living in lala land there mate. It seems to suit you.
WisdomPanda Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:56:00 - [3037] Originally by: Kleinjan Always makes me laugh seeing geeks quoting "survival of the fittest" and applying it to an internet spaceships game. If survival of the fittest were really true, you wouldn't have time to be sitting on your skinny geek butt playing this game mate. You'd be extinct. When Charles Darwin, a geek by geek standards (A bird watcher, no less!) said those now famous words, he was not talking about the physical nature of an animal, but rather those who are best able to adapt to their surrounding environment. Yay pics! ----- Cheesecake, Natures ultimate weapon.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:59:00 - [3038] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Levistus Junior Big, rich alliances that live in good space have much less to suffer from this nerf, so will bleed way less members than smaller, poorer alliances that live in crappier space. then go kick them the fck outta there!! Angry crowd will always win about fat farts living in luxury!! Even their supers wont save them.* If things get serious, those fat dudes wont risk their shiny supers to the angry mob. Of course, nothing will change for them if you just keep your asses for them and trying living from crumbs. Its your decision. And this is where you're wrong. Have you ever fought a properly supported supercap fleet? And by fleet I mean 20-30+. It's simply impossible to combat that kind of numbers without a supercap blob of your own.
Draked	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:02:00 - [3039] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 14:19:03 Originally by: Copy Dude2 No, I dont want to nerf it. I believe that CCP has decided that it is a good way to stop people moaning about lag by preventing more peeps from swelling fleets to the point where they cause lag, thereby leaving them to sell us other pointless items for real life money. less ball licking pets = smaller blobs. You got it right, dude!! This is the proper way of fixing the lag. Gratz, CCP for this awesome step! well, then i got another suggestion, remove plexes so everyone has to pay, then upgrade the servers and the optimize the code, becouse large fleet fights is a big part of eve and 0.0
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:03:00 - [3040] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 15:04:00 when a supercap blob flies around, there will be always another party out there lurking for a r*pe. But with your attitude of a poor helpless mob, you're doomed anyways, there is no longer something worth ball sucking anymore for you.

BensBig Specter Syndicate Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:22:00 - [3041] While I agree with whole idea of makes system of differing values, you are really taking it to the extreme CCP. As far as your other goals which you think these anomaly changes will accomplish........quit having liquid lunches and then coming up with these ideas. There are three things you need to do to accomplish what you want. 1. Use your true-sec method but allow corps/alliances a way of getting at least minimal sanctum/haven/hordes. Additional Ihub mod with additional sov cost maybe. 2. Break up the moon goo monopolies. I like a PI style solution with depletion and maybe random moon rotation, but there are other ways...PICK ONE!!! 3. Create isk sinks which directly affect blobs and napfests. Make alliances pay for setting blue standings to another, higher the standing the higher the cost with more benefits. (+5 station access, +6 med clone access, +7 jumpclone access, +9 Titan bridging, +10 Jump bridge access). Have the standing cost go up exponentially (wont cost alot for friends, but you might need a loan if you want a blob) OR how about making alliances designate a HQ system and sov bill is based on distance from HQ (you and your 30,000 closest buddies can still have Jumpbridge superhighway but you might be driving fiats and kias on it instead of ferraris). Quit trying to manipulate players into playing a certain way and just make it cost them isk.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:27:00 - [3042] Originally by: BensBig 1. Use your true-sec method but allow corps/alliances a way of getting at least minimal sanctum/haven/hordes. Additional Ihub mod with additional sov cost maybe. the patch must hurt. Your proposal does not enough. Originally by: BensBig 2. Break up the moon goo monopolies. I like a PI style solution with depletion and maybe random moon rotation, but there are other ways...PICK ONE!!! eve is a sandbox, right? So let people do the job. Originally by: BensBig 3. Create isk sinks which directly affect blobs and napfests. Make alliances pay for setting blue standings to another, higher the standing the higher the cost with more benefits. (+5 station access, +6 med clone access, +7 jumpclone access, +9 Titan bridging, +10 Jump bridge access). Have the standing cost go up exponentially (wont cost alot for friends, but you might need a loan if you want a blob) OR how about making alliances designate a HQ system and sov bill is based on distance from HQ (you and your 30,000 closest buddies can still have Jumpbridge superhighway but you might be driving fiats and kias on it instead of ferraris). rules will be always circumvented? Punish blobs or exponential cost, they will just split up into smaller ones, but still working together. The only effective method is restricting resources. This is only what will break up coalitions since there will simply be not enough for all. This was pre-patch not the case. Originally by: BensBig Quit trying to manipulate players into playing a certain way and just make it cost them isk. This is what you're suggesting in your cost rules :)
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:28:00 - [3043] Edited by: CBBOMBERMAN on 06/04/2011 15:30:40 Edited by: CBBOMBERMAN on 06/04/2011 15:28:56 So CCP wants war but its doing it the wrong way. Let help steer them the proper way! If you want continious war then there are a number of ways of doing this. All of the ideas i am posting here are based on bounty. Bounty per ship type killed. Alliance (A) wardecs alliance (B). Their bounties increased based on the system true sec level of their systems the alliance holds. (A) kills (B) who was in an abbadon, gets 10m but (B) looses 11m(to avoid cheating). There are many ways something like this can work. It can work during war dec, or at any time. The money is drawn from Alliance/Corp wallet rather than player and the alliance could go on debt(minus isk due to failure to pay) and as we all know if no isk in wallet....loose all sov at the end of month. You can also implement and increased based on the amount of people you kill as an accumulative (on the killers). Problems solved. Every one makes decent isk from pvp and everyone wants to kill the big boys cos of bounty and moon prospects if conquer system. Konetz
Cyzlaki Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:30:00 - [3044] Originally by: Dodgy Past Edited by: Dodgy Past on 06/04/2011 14:58:16 Originally by: Verity Auger Edited by: Verity Auger on 06/04/2011 14:41:05 Originally by: Dodgy Past Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? When did you guys become such massive carebears? I remember when we used to survive pretty well off plexing and ratting in stain supplemented with the odd jaunt to empire to suicide gank. But then I also remember when flying T2 was considered a luxury and made people particularly careful with them, wheras now it seems players aren't happy unless they can shrug off expensive losses painlessly. Your logic is circular. In the past nullsec population was much lower, allowing for the few who lived there to make a reasonable living. Higher populations nullify the benefits of nullsec while taking away very little of the risks. Was referring to when I was in Br1cksquad, I'm truly sad to see people from there joining the whiners. I don't know. I guess we picked up some carebears since we became a sov holding alliance. Perhaps this change will "trim the fat" so to speak for us. Sorry to cause you sadness.. In fact I wasn't joining the whiners... I simply think it is a silly idea to go back to using truesec as I predict it will significantly lower the amount of PVP targets in nullsec. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:41:00 - [3045] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 15:04:00 when a supercap blob flies around, there will be always another party out there lurking for a r*pe. But with your attitude of a poor helpless mob, you're doomed anyways, there is no longer something worth ball sucking anymore for you. I love this dude. When did you last time counter NC/PL/DRF/AAA superblob? Proof or it never happened
traderu	Posted - 2011.04.06 15:58:00 - [3046] so 12 days after they announce these changes they already patch them on Tranquility,without listening to us,and not even testing it properly on test server. No wonder they need a whole day to patch it up about changes,no point to talk again,i`m sure no1 is reading them bcz otherwise 3000+ posts would make them think better
Botchla Lazzaro	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:04:00 - [3047] Thanks CCP the System i live in and the rest of my corp lives in and any of the surrounding systems have a true sec of less then -0.4 witch mean we no longer will have no sanctums or havens, ratting is our primary source of income, you just turned our space into a waste land, our member will no longer have the ability to make money ratting, witch mean less combat , witch is the exact opposite of what you want.We may we loose crop member ship over this; youll probly lose a bunch of subs also. You truly have ruined your game and screwed over most of your player base. If Im not able to go run a few sanctums easily, I wont be doing any pvp.
Verity Auger	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:10:00 - [3048] Edited by: Verity Auger on 06/04/2011 16:12:53 Originally by: Dodgy Past Edited by: Dodgy Past on 06/04/2011 14:58:16 Originally by: Verity Auger Edited by: Verity Auger on 06/04/2011 14:41:05 Originally by: Dodgy Past Originally by: Cyzlaki Is there any way we can stop this change from being implemented, or is it too late for us? When did you guys become such massive carebears? I remember when we used to survive pretty well off plexing and ratting in stain supplemented with the odd jaunt to empire to suicide gank. But then I also remember when flying T2 was considered a luxury and made people particularly careful with them, wheras now it seems players aren't happy unless they can shrug off expensive losses painlessly. Your logic is circular. In the past nullsec population was much lower, allowing for the few who lived there to make a reasonable living. Higher populations nullify the benefits of nullsec while taking away very little of the risks. Was referring to when I was in Br1cksquad, I'm truly sad to see people from there joining the whiners. Originally by: Verity Auger I think PL knows what botting is? :) Botting, and moon goo, provide unlimited isk to larger alliances. So losses that the average honest player accumulates, be they T2 or otherwise, do not equate to losses by elite PvP groups with bot/goo supported SRF's. Sanctums actually (somewhat) levelled the playing field there, if "carebears" (ergo, honest players) were willing to rat to support PvP. You sound like you are happy because you will still be able to afford T2 and will be up against straw men who can only afford T1. But, I thought EVE was supposed to be hard? Awww. I guess only hard for the other guy, huh. Go read the PL forum mirrors as you'll notice the only to reference to botting is people found doing it being killed and kicked. As to moon goo, well PL get thier hands on it from time to time, but only on a temporary basis till we move again, it's hardly a key part of our income. Contracts and selling stations / systems make far more. Also this doesn't see it's way into any of our personal pockets, but covers the usual expenses such as logistic / hic / dic replacements. From what I can tell most people in PL make their incomes through plexing, trading and manufacturing... i.e. honestly, though generally less as an isk faucet except the amount of insurance money we cause to be paid out. Infact my understanding is that one of the biggest contributions to the alliance's earnings comes from winning the alliance tournament. Nobody bots with their mains. That's all I have to say about that.
BensBig Specter Syndicate Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:18:00 - [3049] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: BensBig 1. Use your true-sec method but allow corps/alliances a way of getting at least minimal sanctum/haven/hordes. Additional Ihub mod with additional sov cost maybe. the patch must hurt. Your proposal does not enough. CCP will make vast areas of null sec a wasteland and will likely destroy these small alliances/corps that inhabit these systems already. Painful enough for you? Originally by: BensBig 2. Break up the moon goo monopolies. I like a PI style solution with depletion and maybe random moon rotation, but there are other ways...PICK ONE!!! eve is a sandbox, right? So let people do the job. Exactly. Go ahead and get the moon goo but it should take more than showing up and hauling the stuff away from a PoS. Originally by: BensBig 3. Create isk sinks which directly affect blobs and napfests. Make alliances pay for setting blue standings to another, higher the standing the higher the cost with more benefits. (+5 station access, +6 med clone access, +7 jumpclone access, +9 Titan bridging, +10 Jump bridge access). Have the standing cost go up exponentially (wont cost alot for friends, but you might need a loan if you want a blob) OR how about making alliances designate a HQ system and sov bill is based on distance from HQ (you and your 30,000 closest buddies can still have Jumpbridge superhighway but you might be driving fiats and kias on it instead of ferraris). rules will be always circumvented? Punish blobs or exponential cost, they will just split up into smaller ones, but still working together. The only effective method is restricting resources. This is only what will break up coalitions since there will simply be not enough for all. This was pre-patch not the case. Breaking up into smaller alliances will accomplish the goal nicely. Make them pay for positive and negative standings, while your clicking on "show info" for each target before its called, the hostiles who can afford to set your alliance red have primaried you. Originally by: BensBig Quit trying to manipulate players into playing a certain way and just make it cost them isk. This is what you're suggesting in your cost rules :) Eve is not a sandbox and has not been a sandbox since the first "nerf". Eve is game which needs to be balanced and managed to meet the developer's goals. Im tired of them trying to coerce players into playing a certain way. You dont have to make it impossible to play another way just make it cost them.
Crazy Craven Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:19:00 - [3050] Can we stop replying to this thread now please CCP are too busy laughing at all the posts and it's delaying the upgrade. -- if (Troll == "idiot") return "Troll is an Idiot"; else if (Troll != "idiot") return "Troll is still an idiot"; --

Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:22:00 - [3051] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: BensBig 1. Use your true-sec method but allow corps/alliances a way of getting at least minimal sanctum/haven/hordes. Additional Ihub mod with additional sov cost maybe. the patch must hurt. Your proposal does not enough. Originally by: BensBig 2. Break up the moon goo monopolies. I like a PI style solution with depletion and maybe random moon rotation, but there are other ways...PICK ONE!!! eve is a sandbox, right? So let people do the job. Originally by: BensBig 3. Create isk sinks which directly affect blobs and napfests. Make alliances pay for setting blue standings to another, higher the standing the higher the cost with more benefits. (+5 station access, +6 med clone access, +7 jumpclone access, +9 Titan bridging, +10 Jump bridge access). Have the standing cost go up exponentially (wont cost alot for friends, but you might need a loan if you want a blob) OR how about making alliances designate a HQ system and sov bill is based on distance from HQ (you and your 30,000 closest buddies can still have Jumpbridge superhighway but you might be driving fiats and kias on it instead of ferraris). rules will be always circumvented? Punish blobs or exponential cost, they will just split up into smaller ones, but still working together. The only effective method is restricting resources. This is only what will break up coalitions since there will simply be not enough for all. This was pre-patch not the case. Originally by: BensBig Quit trying to manipulate players into playing a certain way and just make it cost them isk. This is what you're suggesting in your cost rules :) This guy is literally the latest self-important ******ed kid who ran into the room from the kiddie table, drooling. What an amusing jerk-off. That constant background noise, over which he is trying so desperately (look at the number of posts) to shout his confused, failed, tired, and utterly clueless rhetoric, is our laughter. I don't think he's even capable of admitting to himself that we are not and never have been laughing _with_ him but _at_ him. Man, he does think he's the coolest, toughest pixels on the Internet, though. But keep up the good poasting! Cheers and thanks for the laughs!
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:23:00 - [3052] Originally by: Crazy Craven Can we stop replying to this thread now please CCP are too busy laughing at all the posts +1 Originally by: Crazy Craven and it's delaying the upgrade. Nay crappy patch is crappy programmed. Servers won¦t come back today
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:25:00 - [3053] Originally by: Verity Auger ts with their mains. That's all I have to say about that. So what has out of alliance character botting got to do with PL? Just like I think it was SCOOTER1 saying on the comms recording I heard recently, it isn't our job to police bots...however at least in PL you get caught your going to get popped without hesitation. Better than majority of alliances in Eve I can say.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:25:00 - [3054] :Now insert his self-important, authoritative, and self-righteous justification comeback right here, just like every comment he's made. = "I try so hard.":
Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:36:00 - [3055] Originally by: Botchla Lazzaro Thanks CCP the System i live in and the rest of my corp lives in and any of the surrounding systems have a true sec of less then -0.4 witch mean we no longer will have no sanctums or havens, ratting is our primary source of income, you just turned our space into a waste land, our member will no longer have the ability to make money ratting, witch mean less combat , witch is the exact opposite of what you want.We may we loose crop member ship over this; youll probly lose a bunch of subs also. You truly have ruined your game and screwed over most of your player base. If Im not able to go run a few sanctums easily, I wont be doing any pvp. you little bears keep saying this over and over again, but we all know you are simply full of it. you hardly pvp, and when you do so, it is highly likely that you are very bad at it (which is why all you people can do is complain on the forums, instead of mobilizing to adapt). furthermore, via simple ratting, ~the old way~, you will be able to fund your crappy drake blobs. everything will be fine - your alliance will remain just as bad as it was before this patch.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:38:00 - [3056] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 16:38:18 Originally by: BensBig Breaking up into smaller alliances will accomplish the goal nicely. Make them pay for positive and negative standings, while your clicking on "show info" for each target before its called, the hostiles who can afford to set your alliance red have primaried you. lol, you expect ISK being a regulative measure to a group like the NC, which swims in ISK from moongoo and endless ratting? Even if you reach a point, where standings really hurt their wallet(lol), nobody else will be ever able to affort them at that point. Dont you think so?
lpttpnalt	Posted - 2011.04.06 16:55:00 - [3057] i dunno about everyone else. but i see nothing in the new patch notes upon the download of the patch that say anything about any anomalies change.its not there
Kleinjan	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:01:00 - [3058] Waay back somebody suggested buffing dreads as a way to increase nullsec combat. This is an idea that I like. Moms and titans are not accessible to smaller start up alliances in highsec. Dreads are. Currently let's face it, dreads suck. They've been nerfed to death. "Siege mode" and crap like that make them an expensive liability. Mine sits in the hangar for months on end because I don't want to make our killboard look bad by flying and losing a useless ship. What if dreads were a weapon useful against just about anybody you ran into out here? Deadly versus momships, titans, carriers, even battleships? A ship that is accessible to all, buildable in lowsec, capable of turning the tide of battles instead of uselessly missing over and over again versus anything that can move? That would shake things up. Small alliances that could field a 20 man dread fleet could actually take on larger alliances with mom-blobs, and the risk to the large alliance? Even if they win the dreads would be able to kill a mom or two. There's your nice isk sink CCP. Grow a pair and make dreads a battlefield weapon and we will see nullsec shaken up. Keep up this mom-blob foolishness while nerfing anomalies and other useless activites and you are creating the end of this game.
BensBig Specter Syndicate Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:02:00 - [3059] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 16:38:18 Originally by: BensBig Breaking up into smaller alliances will accomplish the goal nicely. Make them pay for positive and negative standings, while your clicking on "show info" for each target before its called, the hostiles who can afford to set your alliance red have primaried you. lol, you expect ISK being a regulative measure to a group like the NC, which swims in ISK from moongoo and endless ratting? Even if you reach a point, where standings really hurt their wallet(lol), nobody else will be ever able to affort them at that point. Dont you think so? I dont really care specifically about the NC, I was trying to put ideas that could accomplish what CCP says they want out of nullsec. But since you brought it up, there are entities in the NC which are swimming in the deep end and others in the kiddy pool. You balance moon goo and make blobs cost and it would force a redistribution of wealth which the rich are always reluctant to do.(thats why they are rich)
Apollo A	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:02:00 - [3060] Originally by: lpttpnalt i dunno about everyone else. but i see nothing in the new patch notes upon the download of the patch that say anything about any anomalies change.its not there hes right, its not in the patch notes

Pesadel0 the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:04:00 - [3061] Edited by: Pesadel0 on 06/04/2011 17:04:34 Originally by: Panda Name Originally by: Botchla Lazzaro Thanks CCP the System i live in and the rest of my corp lives in and any of the surrounding systems have a true sec of less then -0.4 witch mean we no longer will have no sanctums or havens, ratting is our primary source of income, you just turned our space into a waste land, our member will no longer have the ability to make money ratting, witch mean less combat , witch is the exact opposite of what you want.We may we loose crop member ship over this; youll probly lose a bunch of subs also. You truly have ruined your game and screwed over most of your player base. If Im not able to go run a few sanctums easily, I wont be doing any pvp. you little bears keep saying this over and over again, but we all know you are simply full of it. you hardly pvp, and when you do so, it is highly likely that you are very bad at it (which is why all you people can do is complain on the forums, instead of mobilizing to adapt). furthermore, via simple ratting, ~the old way~, you will be able to fund your crappy drake blobs. everything will be fine - your alliance will remain just as bad as it was before this patch. Thank you for you for your preaching , i mean i hear pvping in imperial academy is hard ****.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:09:00 - [3062] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 17:11:06 Originally by: BensBig I dont really care specifically about the NC, I was trying to put ideas that could accomplish what CCP says they want out of nullsec. But since you brought it up, there are entities in the NC which are swimming in the deep end and others in the kiddy pool. You balance moon goo and make blobs cost and it would force a redistribution of wealth which the rich are always reluctant to do.(thats why they are rich) I dont think ISK will ever be a balance factor for large/rich coalitions, as long as they have unlimited access to resources. Resouces are the critical point, the blob will shrink according to the available amount of resources. Its always work. Everything else can and will get circumvented most likely. Originally by: Apollo A Originally by: lpttpnalt i dunno about everyone else. but i see nothing in the new patch notes upon the download of the patch that say anything about any anomalies change.its not there hes right, its not in the patch notes click the link and look in the Player owned structures section (where they were all the time already)
BinaryData Gallente Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:13:00 - [3063] Originally by: Apollo A Originally by: lpttpnalt i dunno about everyone else. but i see nothing in the new patch notes upon the download of the patch that say anything about any anomalies change.its not there hes right, its not in the patch notes That's because, it's happening later this week. =)
lpttpnalt	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:15:00 - [3064] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 17:11:06 Originally by: BensBig I dont really care specifically about the NC, I was trying to put ideas that could accomplish what CCP says they want out of nullsec. But since you brought it up, there are entities in the NC which are swimming in the deep end and others in the kiddy pool. You balance moon goo and make blobs cost and it would force a redistribution of wealth which the rich are always reluctant to do.(thats why they are rich) I dont think ISK will ever be a balance factor for large/rich coalitions, as long as they have unlimited access to resources. Resouces are the critical point, the blob will shrink according to the available amount of resources. Its always work. Everything else can and will get circumvented most likely. Originally by: Apollo A Originally by: lpttpnalt i dunno about everyone else. but i see nothing in the new patch notes upon the download of the patch that say anything about any anomalies change.its not there hes right, its not in the patch notes click the link and look in the Player owned structures section (where they were all the time already) i see it now. but wow thats in a odd place. please disregard my previous post. i see it now
serenity 83	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:17:00 - [3065] complete bull****. and alliances make profit out of moon mining. anomalys are just for players. meaning less income less ships less pew pew. less interested in 0.0 meaning more players (back) in empire since you wanted em in 0.0 at the first place. and yes incursions sucks in many ways you failed with that one totaly.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:25:00 - [3066] Originally by: serenity 83 complete bull**. and alliances make profit out of moon mining. anomalys are just for players. meaning less income less ships less pew pew. less interested in 0.0 meaning more players (back) in empire since you wanted em in 0.0 at the first place. and yes incursions sucks in many ways you failed with that one totaly. yes. this is how it works. Coalitions consist of players, less players -> smaller blobs -> chance to defeat. You are not longer supposed to work together with your fcking NAP against all smaller groups but against it... or get the out! Its an awesome patch!**
Myk'arius	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:25:00 - [3067] Hurp;Derp. Aw ****, I just spent 3 months training for a carrier and joined a renter alliance. Now I've gotta manage to pay rent in this crap space or my corporation will think I'm a noob and leave. Hurp;De-Derp. God damn it. Why do people keep bringing up moon income? Can't we just forget that exists? With anomalies I was able to bring down renter corps like hotcakes, all of them happy to pay rent, and too dumb to ask about moon resources. Stupid carebears, don't they realize people have been living in 0.0 for years before anomalies were introduced? But GAH - now that my renters cant afford ships, how am I gonna keep my moon goo flowing into my wallet! Hurp DeDeDurpDurp Durp.
Everyone Get Safe	Posted - 2011.04.06 17:37:00 - [3068] Edited by: Everyone Get Safe on 06/04/2011 17:37:39 I'm offering prizes for quoting the most butt hurt rage releasing teary 'ccp just finger banged my cat' post in the last 100 pages. NC carebear preferred but not essential.
Garager Extreme	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:05:00 - [3069] Edited by: Garager Extreme on 06/04/2011 18:06:17 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........... I had to laugh so hard... smaller alliances, the players make most of there ISK by ratting/anos/plexes, so if you have only some crappy systems given by your major Powerblock, you are so f....... How you wanna ever be able to get enough ISK to field the needed SCs/Dreads/Carrier/Titans to stand up and fight for space, you never will, so this patch will make the Big blocks even stronger, they got enough moonincome, that they dont really care about. So it will be less players in 0.0. But guys, they maybe dont have to fix lagproblems, there will be only lag in highsec, but if all Missions have only one Quality , so no more mission Hubs, less Lag, only the need to field one strong Server for Jita!!! Great Failpatch - Cya 0.0, was nice to be there for a while :-)
Johnny Guns	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:10:00 - [3070] this patch is so awesome. and i mean no sarcasm. all you bears out there rolling in isk have just had your plex buying scam shattered. back to level 4s with all of you! you now have to earn that game time plex.

Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:11:00 - [3071] Originally by: nano bobcat You are not longer supposed to work together with your fcking (already oversized) NAP against all smaller groups but exactly the opposite... or get the fck out! Its an awesome patch!* Actually, people are known to defy what they're 'supposed to do' and go their way regardless. Blobs will continue to exist just fine after this patch, even if only to **** off 'l33t PVPers' like you, that instead of fighting other 'l33t pvp' alliances pick up on a blob 10x their size, get blobbed as expected and then run to the forums to whine. Even if the current batch of renters/pets/allies/whatever from a certain region leave, sooner or later the vacuum will soon enough be filled by fresh meat, and if you really believe there's a chance for somebody moving into NC/DRFs backyard without being blue to them, then you really need a serious comeback to reality Just for the record, this is what happens when you fight the supercap blob with a conventional fleet: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=9298031
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:14:00 - [3072] Originally by: Everyone Get Safe Edited by: Everyone Get Safe on 06/04/2011 17:37:39 I'm offering prizes for quoting the most butt hurt rage releasing teary 'ccp just finger banged my cat' post in the last 100 pages. NC carebear preferred but not essential. Originally by: Antigue The first bigger alliances have already claimed their right for 32er Moons and ordered their renters to dismantle POSes there. Yeah it¦s getting more and more vibrant and interesting MR. Greyscale. And wohoo I heard of exactly 0 and I repeat for you dumb.ass ZERO alliances that called in their members to resettle and start a war for better sanctum systems. What does that tell you Mr. Greyscale? Can¦t wait for the day til this epic failure gets booted. link
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:25:00 - [3073] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 18:34:26 Originally by: Levistus Junior Actually, people are known to defy what they're 'supposed to do' and go their way regardless. Blobs will continue to exist just fine after this patch yeh, then the patch is not that hard as you're trying to tell us, right? Btw., my ratting alt in tenal will still have sanctums, in oppisite to you guys in pb :-D
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:26:00 - [3074] Originally by: Levistus Junior Originally by: nano bobcat You are not longer supposed to work together with your fcking (already oversized) NAP against all smaller groups but exactly the opposite... or get the fck out! Its an awesome patch!* Actually, people are known to defy what they're 'supposed to do' and go their way regardless. Blobs will continue to exist just fine after this patch, even if only to **** off 'l33t PVPers' like you, that instead of fighting other 'l33t pvp' alliances pick up on a blob 10x their size, get blobbed as expected and then run to the forums to whine. Even if the current batch of renters/pets/allies/whatever from a certain region leave, sooner or later the vacuum will soon enough be filled by fresh meat, and if you really believe there's a chance for somebody moving into NC/DRFs backyard without being blue to them, then you really need a serious comeback to reality Just for the record, this is what happens when you fight the supercap blob with a conventional fleet: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=9298031 well you only telling half the story this is what happens when pvpers meet you guys http://kb.bunkerhub.de/?a=kill_related&kll_id=148771 then on the way home they got dropped by goons(3-1) and lost 23 BS .. im sure they shrug it off and are not running sanctims 24/7 now
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:41:00 - [3075] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 18:34:26 Originally by: Levistus Junior Actually, people are known to defy what they're 'supposed to do' and go their way regardless. Blobs will continue to exist just fine after this patch yeh, then the patch is not that hard as you're trying to tell us, right? Btw., my ratting alt in tenal will still have sanctums, in oppisite to you guys in pb :-D And my trade alt makes 3x of what you do running sanctums with 10% of the time you spend in sanctums; your point is?
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:46:00 - [3076] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Levistus Junior Originally by: nano bobcat You are not longer supposed to work together with your fcking (already oversized) NAP against all smaller groups but exactly the opposite... or get the fck out! Its an awesome patch!* Actually, people are known to defy what they're 'supposed to do' and go their way regardless. Blobs will continue to exist just fine after this patch, even if only to **** off 'l33t PVPers' like you, that instead of fighting other 'l33t pvp' alliances pick up on a blob 10x their size, get blobbed as expected and then run to the forums to whine. Even if the current batch of renters/pets/allies/whatever from a certain region leave, sooner or later the vacuum will soon enough be filled by fresh meat, and if you really believe there's a chance for somebody moving into NC/DRFs backyard without being blue to them, then you really need a serious comeback to reality Just for the record, this is what happens when you fight the supercap blob with a conventional fleet: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=9298031 well you only telling half the story this is what happens when pvpers meet you guys http://kb.bunkerhub.de/?a=kill_related&kll_id=148771 then on the way home they got dropped by goons(3-1) and lost 23 BS .. im sure they shrug it off and are not running sanctims 24/7 now What makes you think NC is running sanctums 24/7? We surely did PvP enough to send your dear SirMolle&friends packing in no time during MAX2. And we did the same to every invasion attempt ever. Oh wait...we did that from a sanctum, didn't we?
Dexterous Spider	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:48:00 - [3077] Wow, I'm going to jsut say this: This will strengthen larger coalitions/alliances because they will have MORE blob in LESS space, to hold it down. all they will be doing in condensing null sec, and not in good ways. More people will quit because the AVERAGE null sec PVP pilot, fars sanctums and havens between blob fights, so we can afford more ships, better fits, etc to match training ques. what this will do is essentially MAKE IT HARDER for smaller corps/alliances to hold space as they wont be able to afford it when the GIGANTAOMFG blob comes crawling out en masse ona roam from their smaller pocket. sure, lets make it harder on the bigger boys? hmmmm. last i checked when things condensce so do the big stuffs. so now isntead of 1-2 titans being a risk the big boys will have 30-40-50+ supers all held up within one pocket, thats now smaller then the normal pocket. hmmmmm. this makes it easier how? however, this doesnt just S* on the lower guys, this does it to a few bigger guys as well. some people run havens/sanctums to keep our cap ships maintained. when i speak on this, i mean my carrier, and fellow regular cap pilots out there that dont want to go into the realm of supers even though it is a shiney coffin. lol. but seriouslly, make it harder for people to afford the jump fuel, replace lost drones, or even the rare capital ship loss? hmmm. so let me get this straight? smaller guy gets the shaft : check Larger guys gets the shaft : check null sec now turns into jita in certain pockets : check pvp'ers who strictly runs sanctums to maintain pvp get screwed : check smaller alliances and NAPS meet the rear admiral : check larger alliances become safer by tucking into well, smaller pockets :check null sec now becomes a mass of prety useless space as PI got screwed on last dev deployment? : check DRONE SPACE RUSSIANS STILL HAVE FARMING BOTS : check tell me again how this is a good idea? there is no getting around this. we make null sec less of a "valued target" for the small guy, the bigger guys condensce into smaller pockets with larger blobs equalling more lag, ISK to replace ships is ahrder to find, and null sec losses its "shiney draw" from carebear space, ( which means less carebears find insentive to discover what we all know as the "real eve"), hmmmmm. someone is low on their vitamins and forgot to eat their wheaties when they decided to impliment this idea. next they will be making super super caps, for the super super rich who live in the "super null sec" what they should have done is make more wormholes or something. BETTER yet, fix it where incursions only happen in low/null sec if they do that. everyone knows that incursions in high sec make no sence. real players cant fight concord, but concord runs when incursions happer and real players can pwn incursions? wait a minute- something is off here. I vote that we can launch bombs and light cynos in high sec if this goes through. cuz with no isk to replace the ships we live to pvp in happens, the ONLY real interesting thing would be covert ops cynos in JITA and a mass of bombs hitting the main stations so we can scoop up the uber lewts. lets unbalance the game some more, so more people quit. then we can REALLY afford to have dumb ** implimented, like walking in stations. if you are a fan of THAT idea, then obviouslly, you miss the point of FLYING IN A SPACE SHIP.....oh, and you will be dissapointed to, because well, with the massive "f" this idea rage quits that will ensue once people cant afford to replace their ships, its going to take another 2+ years to impliment anything cool into the game. can we say marketting disaster. what is CCPS stock ticker so I know not to invest.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:51:00 - [3078] Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 18:53:42 Originally by: Levistus Junior And my trade alt makes 3x of what you do running sanctums with 10% of the time you spend in sanctums; your point is? oh yes, trading doing it too, awesome income. My point is that you were plain stupid keep sucking your lords balls even after the changes.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:57:00 - [3079] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 06/04/2011 18:53:42 Originally by: Levistus Junior And my trade alt makes 3x of what you do running sanctums with 10% of the time you spend in sanctums; your point is? oh yes, trading doing it too, awesome income. My point is that you were plain stupid keep sucking your lords balls even after the changes. Meh, I guess you 'l33t PVPers' really don't get what NC and BFF stands for.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:59:00 - [3080] Originally by: Levistus Junior Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Levistus Junior Originally by: nano bobcat You are not longer supposed to work together with your fcking (already oversized) NAP against all smaller groups but exactly the opposite... or get the fck out! Its an awesome patch!* Actually, people are known to defy what they're 'supposed to do' and go their way regardless. Blobs will continue to exist just fine after this patch, even if only to **** off 'l33t PVPers' like you, that instead of fighting other 'l33t pvp' alliances pick up on a blob 10x their size, get blobbed as expected and then run to the forums to whine. Even if the current batch of renters/pets/allies/whatever from a certain region leave, sooner or later the vacuum will soon enough be filled by fresh meat, and if you really believe there's a chance for somebody moving into NC/DRFs backyard without being blue to them, then you really need a serious comeback to reality Just for the record, this is what happens when you fight the supercap blob with a conventional fleet: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=9298031 well you only telling half the story this is what happens when pvpers meet you guys http://kb.bunkerhub.de/?a=kill_related&kll_id=148771 then on the way home they got dropped by goons(3-1) and lost 23 BS .. im sure they shrug it off and are not running sanctims 24/7 now What makes you think NC is running sanctums 24/7? We surely did PvP enough to send your dear SirMolle&friends packing in no time during MAX2. And we did the same to every invasion attempt ever. Oh wait...we did that from a sanctum, didn't we? then why are you so paralyzed about that patch ? oh wait ... cause it May be the end of the superblob and you feeling change comming

mr hippy	Posted - 2011.04.06 19:02:00 - [3081] 1> high sec will be more profitable >>> against CCP goals 2> you will make 3 regions effectively worthless >>> foothold for n00bs (ahh i live here!) 4> i skipped 3 because it would have been offensive, i will make my isk regardless. wherever it takes me. from a financial pont of view all it seems that will be done here is that your trying to push up the value of ISK. yes it will work, but against the fundamental goals. I see the economist partially to blame for this. From the last nef you made dronelands less profitable mre so than anywhere else is this way of balancing this finally??? this is my perspective L4 missions should = x1 L5 missions shuld = x2 Genaeral anom running in 0-0 should be x1.5+ we all know lowsec is more dangerous than 0-0 and i wouldnt like to live there personally unless i wanted a ****ton of kills ^^ (love you guys in M008) :-p
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.06 19:03:00 - [3082] Originally by: Levistus Junior Meh, I guess you 'l33t PVPers' really don't get what NC and BFF stands for. you??? I'm part of you too, your my BFF... when I rat :-D
Dexterous Spider	Posted - 2011.04.06 19:19:00 - [3083] Oh? and if you got a problem with NC holding massive amounts of space? It will not change. A BFF is a BFF, we will jsut condesnce. dont like fighting the blob of BFF then stay out of BFF space, and d sopmething usefull, like shoot drone russians. thats the REAL threat to the entire make up of the game, bots. now you screw over the entire mechanics of null sec living? and still do nothing on rissian bots? if you got something against BFF check yourself. we banned together. we fight together, die together, drink together. sounds like REAL faction warfare. we pwn any invasions when they come, and though we may bicker amongst ourselves like whiney *****es fromt ime to time, we are each other. I'm in VE, but a R.A.G.E. pilot or FCON pilot is still my brother. I even like goons . dont like it? join a force that can try to repel the beauty of brotherhood. But ALL that, has nothing to do with this stupid fail implimentation of an idea on true sec. make bounties worht more and more the more true sec it gets, fine. but simply put, my above points cannot falter (earlier post). so stop using this thread to whine about km's. there are other threads for that. you got issues with how a particulair player pvps? set up a cat fight and go blow each other up! then we can see who emerges victorious and who is skilled. otherwise, lets get back on topic. this isnt about KM's in full, but in truth, it will lead to less KM cuz less people will be able to afford to replace ships. STILL a fail idea to nerf null sec sanctums and havens and base them simply off true sec. sure, you make it "harder" to hold space due to financial applications, but what you dont see is even if the "noobs" want to come take null sec space, they wont be able to hold it, long run, cuz the deeper true sec pockets is where the big boys wil condesnce. jsut makes roams more interesting, but in the long run, bigger truesec=bigger blobs, = more isk to replace lsot ships= stronger military= longer term due to isk, attrition ( if you do not know this word dont argue, period), and lack of ability for the smaller guy to hold space for longer. all in all, fail.
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 19:48:00 - [3084] Originally by: Dexterous Spider Oh? and if you got a problem with NC holding massive amounts of space? It will not change. A BFF is a BFF, we will jsut condesnce. dont like fighting the blob of BFF then stay out of BFF space, and d sopmething usefull, like shoot drone russians. thats the REAL threat to the entire make up of the game, bots. now you screw over the entire mechanics of null sec living? and still do nothing on rissian bots? if you got something against BFF check yourself. we banned together. we fight together, die together, drink together. sounds like REAL faction warfare. we pwn any invasions when they come, and though we may bicker amongst ourselves like whiney *****es fromt ime to time, we are each other. I'm in VE, but a R.A.G.E. pilot or FCON pilot is still my brother. I even like goons . dont like it? join a force that can try to repel the beauty of brotherhood. But ALL that, has nothing to do with this stupid fail implimentation of an idea on true sec. make bounties worht more and more the more true sec it gets, fine. but simply put, my above points cannot falter (earlier post). so stop using this thread to whine about km's. there are other threads for that. you got issues with how a particulair player pvps? set up a cat fight and go blow each other up! then we can see who emerges victorious and who is skilled. otherwise, lets get back on topic. this isnt about KM's in full, but in truth, it will lead to less KM cuz less people will be able to afford to replace ships. STILL a fail idea to nerf null sec sanctums and havens and base them simply off true sec. sure, you make it "harder" to hold space due to financial applications, but what you dont see is even if the "noobs" want to come take null sec space, they wont be able to hold it, long run, cuz the deeper true sec pockets is where the big boys wil condesnce. jsut makes roams more interesting, but in the long run, bigger truesec=bigger blobs, = more isk to replace lsot ships= stronger military= longer term due to isk, attrition ( if you do not know this word dont argue, period), and lack of ability for the smaller guy to hold space for longer. all in all, fail. what you fail to see is that you are not BFF .. if you are wouldnt need to pay to get blue standings and you may like the goons .. but sure as hell they dont like you
Master Hu Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:04:00 - [3085] " what is CCPS stock ticker so I know not to invest." I believe they are still a private company and don't answer to either stock holders or customers. They don't give a **** since they are used to dealing with socialist business models.
Bong Ki	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:12:00 - [3086] TRULY THE MOST AWESOME PATCH EVER! I've seen some major gaffles in this game. I know a player that is able to rob other players of tech III cruisers, carriers, freighters and rorqs almost daily. But nothing like this! CCP convinces all of the HiSec crowd to pool their isk, brave the dangers and expense of getting their gear down to the remote nullsec regions that the giant alliances will allow them to inhabit, and spend every last isk that buying thousands of dollars worth of GTCs will get you to upgrade the systems.... AND THEN THEY YANK THE CHAIR OUT FROM UNDER 'EM! When you convince a nub that you'll jump all of his gear down down to nullsec where he'll be happy and carefree, and then you repackage his ships and sell them right in the station he contracted them in, you get maybe 30, 50, maybe 100 dollars worth of GTC bought isk? This blows all of that away! How many millions did CCP just score? The only downside is that we can't fraps this and repeatedly enjoy hearing all of these players beg "no...please...stopy it!....I don't wanna..." as CCP slips its foot into their collective asses. Well, all is not lost, you can go back to ratting level 4s...em....er....oh yeah, they nerfed them a couple of patches ago. Well, Duke Nukem 4ever is out soon. Good luck selling your IHubs in hisec. That is if you can even get them out. MORE CCP! LET IT RAIN!
john roe BearingPoint	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:13:00 - [3087] empire/high sec, the most profitable space there is for a single pilot. why bother doing sites/whatever in 0.0 when you can gank ppl in empire and scoop it :]? ka-ching
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:26:00 - [3088] Originally by: Bong Ki ... Good luck selling your IHubs in hisec. ... Ah, good point. This patch also gives the shaft to some PI-related industries, diminishing the potential market for IHubs and other stuffs (TCUs, POS towers and POS mods) related to planting a flag in null-sec. I see how this will help continue build the basis for Dust 514, yes, I do.
David Mairne Endless Destruction Imperial 0rder	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:33:00 - [3089] Usual i avoid the trolls, being in sheens corners . But when i read these patch notes i almost unsubscribed... I love the way that 0.0 changed with the new sov system. I have never seen so many pilots out in 0.0 space. But now that it's back to what it was like two years ago what is the point?
Heathyy	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:48:00 - [3090] Edited by: Heathyy on 06/04/2011 20:49:30 wuts an anomily? i make my isk from extracting the LO in tears.

Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.06 20:52:00 - [3091] I'm offering prizes for quoting the biggest troll trying oh-so-hard in the last 100 pages to feel important, special, and Internet-tough. Low-sec pirate butthurt over inability to be validated in RL preferred but not required.
Bong Ki	Posted - 2011.04.06 21:28:00 - [3092] STOP CRYING!
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.06 21:55:00 - [3093] KEEP TRYING!
Eielson	Posted - 2011.04.06 22:13:00 - [3094] Well looks good for the Industrialist..... I wonder if they going to nerf the belts next? I mean makes sence....First the moon goo isk making ability, now the Anoms/Havens/Sactums, so it should only be natural that they take all the rare ore out of the belts....oh wait they going to do away with the belts all together in the next patch.....
Grog Barrel	Posted - 2011.04.06 23:11:00 - [3095] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Grog Barrel Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Patri Andari Imagine how much easier this would have been if CCP had done the following: Make upgrades and upkeep costs more in bad true sec and less in higher true sec yet leave the spawns somewhat the same in bad true sec and better as true sec improves. Damn, I am a genius! no you are not a sanctum/haven makes 100m/h x4 is 400m ph is around 10b a day is 300b a month so to achive the same goal (nerving the income by half ) the system cost would be 150b .... now that would be an outcry =))) (the 100m/h is not my number it was stated by the carbears that run em in this thread) since your are adding a multiplication of factor 4 into your ecuation, your whole statement is comparable to <insert anything not serious here> in case you are not aware that in the current system there are in fact 4 sanctims/havens per any updated system i tell you now ... thats why x4 Oh i am sorry, you must suffer of multi-personalities problems, 4 indeed. Or you have 8 alts, 4 in thanatos and 4 in tengus, doing thanny+tengu comp in each sanct/haven. Not to mention you are supposing a haven will give you the same reward as a sanctum with this setup. You seem too to be assuming there is also zero wait time for respawns. I hope you are no the same guy, who uses to time stamp the l4 missions in high sec, brainfarting all around that he is able to do 250m /h. On a side-note, all this extremly intelligent and well made assumptions are, in fact, the ones, that fit in the average player in null sec. I hereby bow myself to your respectable thinking and I aknowledge your thinking superiority.
balgara	Posted - 2011.04.06 23:13:00 - [3096] ever since intiative fell i guess ccp found a way to help them out..no new player now is going to want to live in 0.0 anyway..how is a new player gonna make money competing with older players that are going to fight over ded plexs..no new alliance is going to set foot in zero..then when ccp's knee pad pets take fountain,etc back and they will change it back..hmm i forsee alot of hi sec ganking and small gangware fights are going to be in low sec..because 0.0 is going to empty out because there will be no reason to live there..thank you ccp for ****ing up people's gameplay to kiss your dev pet's asses..hope a new better game than this comes out..u guy's suck
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 23:15:00 - [3097] Edited by: Lt Pizi on 06/04/2011 23:15:15 Oh i am sorry, you must suffer of multi-personalities problems, 4 indeed. Or you have 8 alts, 4 in thanatos and 4 in tengus, doing thanny+tengu comp in each sanct/haven. Not to mention you are supposing a haven will give you the same reward as a sanctum with this setup -------- in case you are not aware that eve is a MMO heres the suprise IT IS so noone forces you to milk all the sanctums alone 23/7 -------------- I hereby bow myself to your respectable thinking and I aknowledge your thinking superiority. <<< thank you mate
Lt Pizi Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2011.04.06 23:29:00 - [3098] Originally by: balgara ever since intiative fell i guess ccp found a way to help them out..no new player now is going to want to live in 0.0 anyway..how is a new player gonna make money competing with older players that are going to fight over ded plexs..no new alliance is going to set foot in zero..then when ccp's knee pad pets take fountain,etc back and they will change it back..hmm i forsee alot of hi sec ganking and small gangware fights are going to be in low sec..because 0.0 is going to empty out because there will be no reason to live there..thank you ccp for ****ing up people's gameplay to kiss your dev pet's asses..hope a new better game than this comes out..u guy's suck http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=balgara#kills at the rate you pvp and loose ships youle be fine for the next 10 years
Heathyy	Posted - 2011.04.06 23:42:00 - [3099] So from the whole threadnaught the main gist I've gathered. ppl that do not live in 0.0: ty for making 0.0 more in-line with empire and low sec isk per hour ty for giving ppl a chance to attack 0.0 and setup there / have a chance vs long time settlers. ppl that do: why nerf something that was only crazy for players that have a passive income and still rat(or have other ventures), vs the average joe that just runs a couple of sanctums each week to pay for the stream of losses (which is probably 80-90% of an alliance amirite?). then why make 0.0 more conflicting, why do fights inside alliances need to be force-patched in, whats stopping anyone making a large alliance to challenge a large alliance instead of ppl whining about large alliances existing comfortably isn't this the idea? ie part of the game.. very boring reading the never ending jita campers, the same old, boo large blob alliance fail.. without the blob you don't win (or better yet stand a chance) against the other blob its that simple. I don't see this creating enemies inside an alliance just because they can't find anoms to run that is pretty weak if it was the intention. if anything I can see more ppl mining more ppl building more ppl belt chaining or maybe its back to WH isk. I'm not in the tears crowd, or the pleased crowd. It'll be interesting to see what its like in a few months time, yet it comes across as a complete stab at large alliances or even fleets (for being too comfortable maybe?), less isk less blob, less lag.. more ppl back in empire.. which is where ill probably end up if I can't make enough isk to keep throwing ships into the fire. but maybe there will be less fire so it might work out. i do agree with the statement 'what will new alliances to 0.0 do with their useless systems?'. taking away the incentive to be in 0.0 doesn't make it more attractive to move out to it. the concept of the patch shot itself in the foot there.
Everyone Get Safe	Posted - 2011.04.07 00:00:00 - [3100] News for you guys, eve isn't meant to be easy. Remember back in the day before all this easy ISK when it was hard to rat or mine to buy the ship you really wanted? These days its asy for most to pay their eve subscription, furnish themselves in faction fitted ships and buy supers. CCP has imbalanced the game by making it too easy for the bears. Now they're redressing the balance by making it harder to make isk and putting some more isk sinks into the game (hello clothes, piercings etc etc). This is just the natural balance of things. You should be happy you had it so good for so long, and people that didn't plan for these tough economic times deserve what they get - begging outside 4-4 for the isk to buy just one more drake.

XxCoeusxX	Posted - 2011.04.07 01:04:00 - [3101] I hope you all realize this thread stopped being worth reading to CCP and players alike when the same five people posted for the 100th time each. You know who you are. We've heard what you've had to say and we don't care how well you think you know how 0.0 works or doesn't, state your opinion and move on. It doesn't matter how many times you reiterate the same garbage, it isn't going to bring anyone around to your view who isn't there already. We aren't posting here to get response from you or your opinion on our opinion, but rather a response from CCP who seems to be ignoring us. Is CCP wrong for doing this? Maybe, time will tell. Is CCP wrong in the way they are handling this (or not handling)? Yes, for sure. Do we need to see the same ******* post six times a page? NO! A wise man once said better to say nothing and leave people wondering rather then speaking and remove all doubt. Yet some of you just keep convincing us how stupid you really are.
Saris Volto	Posted - 2011.04.07 02:33:00 - [3102] In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more. So let me get this right?: 0.0 to -0.2 = no high ends -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 high ends -0.5 to -0.6 = 3 high ends -0.7 to -0.8 = 4 high ends -0.9 to -1.0 = 5 to 6 high ends something like that with full upgrades?
Tehg Rhind	Posted - 2011.04.07 02:56:00 - [3103] Good job CCP. Definitely a step in the right direction. Ignore the c-bear junkies threatening to biomass. The day I bet on a crackhead going cold turkey because the price just went up is the day I stop smoking crack. Also, interested to see what happens to PLEX prices over the next 2 months.
Valhala King Caldari United Space Sphere Coalition United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.07 03:00:00 - [3104] Edited by: Valhala King on 07/04/2011 03:01:08 here we go even more for those 0.0 sec, groups, orgs, corps, alliance's, that followed the ccp guidelines, regulations, requirment, followed the required time frames, trained the required skills to have and hold a system, spent the ikies, flew the upgrades, defended with not only pos, capsule, ship, mod, implants and hardwire loss's, built a system in 00. ccp just threw them all under the bus...talk about uking your player base.. why am i not shocked no comments Yesterday is history, Tomorrow a Mystery, Today a Gift that is why We call it the Present. "Sentinal Lives" a sleeper has awoken
marcelojj	Posted - 2011.04.07 03:20:00 - [3105] Plain and simple: i tried some Hubs tonight. It was the WORST game experience i had since i started playing. Missions are way funnier. Right now i¦m already with one foot out of the game. Let¦s see what the next days will bring. Fly safe. marcelojj
Peralandra	Posted - 2011.04.07 07:30:00 - [3106] Originally by: Tehg Rhind Good job CCP. Definitely a step in the right direction. Ignore the c-bear junkies threatening to biomass. The day I bet on a crackhead going cold turkey because the price just went up is the day I stop smoking crack. Also, interested to see what happens to PLEX prices over the next 2 months. ^^ THIS For all the people still complaining... did you read the recent economic report? If you did, and understood it, you would know exactly why this change is going through. CCP know what they're doing, and why this needs to happen. It is their game after all, so just chill the funk out and let's see what happens...
Insane Nutmunch	Posted - 2011.04.07 07:44:00 - [3107] All good things have to come to an end, but that said this will change the way I play the game. The options I have will include : 1, Move my ratting alt back to Hi Sec and run missions to raise ISK. 2, Let my 3rd account go, no more buying Plexs. If the ISK is not there to make, for the usual null sec drone, then for all the "C-bear hating ratter catchers" will have to remember that your "prey" will be reduced. Every action will have consequences. So while you are roaming around NC space wondering where all your usual victims have gone and why your kill rate has dropped, just remember your gloating here! If the ISK generating opportunities are reduced, then players will alter their game play and it will be interesting to see how this effects Plex prices. As for changing the map, I think changes will be minimal. The big changes will be for Alliances who rent out systems. With the reduction in ISK making opportunities per system, then rent will have to drop. Infrastructure requirements will stay the same, Jump Bridge systems etc. I'll give it some time to calm down then decide what I'm going to do.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.07 08:20:00 - [3108] Originally by: Valhala King Edited by: Valhala King on 07/04/2011 03:01:08 here we go even more for those 0.0 sec, groups, orgs, corps, alliance's, that followed the ccp guidelines, regulations, requirment, followed the required time frames, trained the required skills to have and hold a system, spent the ikies, flew the upgrades, defended with not only pos, capsule, ship, mod, implants and hardwire loss's, built a system in 00. ccp just threw them all under the bus...talk about uking your player base.. yeah yeah, and you rat the f*ck enough ISK from them already.
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.07 08:42:00 - [3109] This is for all those people who think that the blob will seaze to exist. You are smoking too much wakky tobaccy! No one wants to fight fair. Everyone wants to win and greater numbers can win you the war. Everyone gathers the biggest blob they can find and when they think its not enough they get a few mercs. Alliances always make promises to other entities and they come. This is not new thing. So there will always be the blob wether its alliance members, coalition members or mercs!
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.07 08:52:00 - [3110] Edited by: nano bobcat on 07/04/2011 08:53:02 Originally by: CBBOMBERMAN This is for all those people who think that the blob will seaze to exist. You are smoking too much wakky tobaccy! No one wants to fight fair. Everyone wants to win and greater numbers can win you the war. Everyone gathers the biggest blob they can find and when they think its not enough they get a few mercs. Alliances always make promises to other entities and they come. This is not new thing. So there will always be the blob wether its alliance members, coalition members or mercs! nobody expects the blob to disappear - but its very likely reduced by all pet f*gs who now live in a worthless space and cant carebear. Its a good thing.

The Offerer Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.07 09:01:00 - [3111] Edited by: The Offerer on 07/04/2011 09:01:45 Originally by: Tehg Rhind Good job CCP. Definitely a step in the right direction. Ignore the c-bear junkies threatening to biomass. Ignoring your customers after screwing them over isn't the right practice. Threatening? Who's threatening? My alt account has been deactivated as of a couple of hours ago, this one will follow when I get bored enough. No one is threatening or "crying" or "whining". It's just the fact - when the game stops being fun and there's nothing you can look forward to, it's simply time to find another game. Simple.
Kogh Ayon	Posted - 2011.04.07 09:57:00 - [3112] Edited by: Kogh Ayon on 07/04/2011 10:00:10 Originally by: Insane Nutmunch All good things have to come to an end, but that said this will change the way I play the game. The options I have will include : 1, Move my ratting alt back to Hi Sec and run missions to raise ISK. 2, Let my 3rd account go, no more buying Plexs. If the ISK is not there to make, for the usual null sec drone, then for all the "C-bear hating ratter catchers" will have to remember that your "prey" will be reduced. Every action will have consequences. So while you are roaming around NC space wondering where all your usual victims have gone and why your kill rate has dropped, just remember your gloating here! If the ISK generating opportunities are reduced, then players will alter their game play and it will be interesting to see how this effects Plex prices. As for changing the map, I think changes will be minimal. The big changes will be for Alliances who rent out systems. With the reduction in ISK making opportunities per system, then rent will have to drop. Infrastructure requirements will stay the same, Jump Bridge systems etc. I'll give it some time to calm down then decide what I'm going to do. Seems there were nobody in null sec before the Domination Originally by: The Offerer Edited by: The Offerer on 07/04/2011 09:13:13 Originally by: Tehg Rhind Good job CCP. Definitely a step in the right direction. Ignore the c-bear junkies threatening to biomass. Ignoring your customers after screwing them over isn't the right practice. Threatening? Who's threatening? My alt account has been deactivated as of a couple of hours ago, this one will follow when I get bored enough. No one is threatening or "crying" or "whining". It's just the fact - when the game stops being fun and there's nothing you can look forward to, it's simply time to find another game. Simple. edit: And, yeah... I'm definitely not going to recommend this game to someone I know. I mean, what can I say? "The game is cool, complex and hard, but achieving the end game by going to unprotected PvP area is really going to be the end of your game, unless you join a large group of players that fight battles so big that the whole server lags for hours" For those people sustain themself by ratting for plex and found PVP expensive because a rapier would takes 2Hours(!) ratting so the whole of his time should be in pvp otherwise he would have too much money to spend.
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.07 10:01:00 - [3113] Originally by: Peralandra [ For all the people still complaining... did you read the recent economic report? If you did, and understood it, you would know exactly why this change is going through. CCP know what they're doing, and why this needs to happen. It is their game after all, so just chill the funk out and let's see what happens... Dominion sov system, supercarriers, Technetium, PI, faction warfare and a few others I won't bother to name. All exquisite proofs how well CCP know what they're doing.
Brannor McThife Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.07 10:32:00 - [3114] I think the changes to the exploration system broke Caldari (Guristas) High sec spawning... -G
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.07 11:44:00 - [3115] I don't wanna troll but i can't resist.... about anoms : " 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. " Well changes were done already after i logged in.
Myz Toyou APOCALYPSE LEGION	Posted - 2011.04.07 11:58:00 - [3116] Originally by: Insane Nutmunch 1, Move my ratting alt back to Hi Sec and run missions to raise ISK. 2, Let my 3rd account go, no more buying Plexs. So that 2 characters less in the next blob, GJ CCP
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:14:00 - [3117] haha, indeed... more are following (hopefully)
Spc One Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:35:00 - [3118] Edited by: Spc One on 07/04/2011 12:35:48 1, Move my ratting alt back to Hi Sec and run missions to raise ISK. 2, Let my 3rd account go, no more buying Plexs. So that 2 characters less in the next blob, GJ CCP I already did that. -2 accounts. Maybe i'll reactivate them if i see sanctums in normal 0.0 again. ____________________________________________________________________________ Angel 0/A
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:41:00 - [3119] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Thanks for holding the line, Greyscale. Keep on interating! o7 Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Les Rosco	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:42:00 - [3120] Moved my isk maker Nightmare to Jita and is up for sale, since it won't be needed for generating the ISK I need to buy replacement ships for alliance operations in 0.0 If they want null to be emptier, then this patch will work at doing that. People won't be ratting near as much, and maybe PVP more. People will have to get industrial alts to fund their war toons, and I think the market out in null with all the stations will suffer. Its a different world out here now, i'm very interested to see where it goes.

Kentai Samica	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:48:00 - [3121] Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game?
Malcanis Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2011.04.07 12:51:00 - [3122] Originally by: Kentai Samica Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game? Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
REDRUM44	Posted - 2011.04.07 13:12:00 - [3123] Originally by: Peralandra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ For all the people still complaining... did you read the recent economic report? If you did, and understood it, you would know exactly why this change is going through. CCP know what they're doing, and why this needs to happen. It is their game after all, so just chill the funk out and let's see what happens... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exactly its their game and now they have proved it sandbox my A**
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.07 13:26:00 - [3124] Originally by: Malcanis Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! lol yeah, there is no easy mode anymore for some people
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.07 13:31:00 - [3125] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kentai Samica Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game? Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! Troll rating: 2/10. There are many ways to make ISK in EVE. Obvious point is obvious. The issue at-hand is that for the ~15 months since Dominion's release, CCP sold a product and service based around entities sinking significant amounts of ISK into one or more systems, enabling a particular play style and level of income. And a higher null-sec population. Finally, more people moving into risky null-sec living. A good thing, right? With less than a month's notice and zero CSM interaction, CCP yanked the rug out from underneath many of these ventures, some of which had just gotten underway. And CCP's official response: thanks for the comments, but go **** yourselves; we are going to do whatever we like, customers be damned. That's akin to a premium laptop manufacturer selling a great piece of kit and then taking the hardware back after a month and swapping in bargain machine chipsets, expecting the customer to suck it up after having invested serious coin.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.07 13:43:00 - [3126] Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara The issue at-hand is that for the ~15 months since Dominion's release, CCP sold a product and service based around entities sinking significant amounts of ISK into one or more systems, enabling a particular play style and level of income. so, ISK were sinked, you say. Not enough, as it seems, there is far too much of them anyways. Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara Finally, more people moving into risky null-sec living. A good thing, right? if they would try to achieve something by themselves it would be a great thing. But that was not the case, instead most of them just crawled under NCs skirt for endless carebearing and made the political map more static as it ever was before. Its not a good thing at all. Some nullsec entities abused unlimited resources of dominion to form megablobs and steamroll everything in their way.
End User	Posted - 2011.04.07 14:15:00 - [3127] well it's my first day playing since the changes, I made 100m isk in high sec running level 4 missions which is a good deal less then I could heave made running sanctums.... talking to some of my alliance mates it seems like we are losing people to bigger alliances who hold better space. looks like this patch is turning out to a kick in the teeth for the little guy. yeah I know people laugh about farming sanctums but it's not as if CCP is removing them from the game, just giving them to alliances who are large enough to hold the best space and taking them away from the small fry who live on the fringes. good job CCP.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.07 14:24:00 - [3128] Originally by: Danastar just for informaton: Angel Sanctums/Havens have 1.1/1.2 mil BS using 1 thanatos, you'll get abt 60-90 mil/h. Depends on how lazy you are and if you have fast access to free anoms 2 thanatoses will get you in 90-120 mil/h range 1 thanny + nyx and you are in 120-150 mil/h range 2 nyxes equals 150-180 mil/h Good combo is thanny + machariel also, but havent tried it as it requires more efforts and control. These numbers, again, are for Angel anomalies and with 10% corp tax. Ratting in Pure Blind for instance will get you less isk/h ratio as the BS there have worse bounty. P.S. I... am... liar. Fixed and yes, you are a liar. Running sanctums with two carriers does not earn you 60-90m/hour. Originally by: Danastar somehow i dont believe you :) And I somehow don't believe you, not in the least because you're trying to show off your epeen by lying.
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.07 14:26:00 - [3129] Originally by: End User well it's my first day playing since the changes, I made 100m isk in high sec running level 4 missions which is a good deal less then I could heave made running sanctums.... talking to some of my alliance mates it seems like we are losing people to bigger alliances who hold better space. looks like this patch is turning out to a kick in the teeth for the little guy. yeah I know people laugh about farming sanctums but it's not as if CCP is removing them from the game, just giving them to alliances who are large enough to hold the best space and taking them away from the small fry who live on the fringes. good job CCP. LIES! CCP said this patch would help the little guy and it is helping them, because the gospel according to CCP says so (in other words it's helping people back to empire).
Levistus Junior Caldari Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.04.07 14:26:00 - [3130] Originally by: nano bobcat if they would try to achieve something by themselves it would be a great thing. But that was not the case, instead most of them just crawled under NCs skirt for endless carebearing and made the political map more static as it ever was before. Its not a good thing at all. Some nullsec entities abused unlimited resources of dominion to form megablobs and steamroll everything in their way. Not like that is going to change; not while technetium is still there. Some small time carebears might go, but the big boys will still be here, bloting out the sun with their technetium funded supercap blob(or botting/RMT funded in the case of DRF).

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2011.04.07 14:30:00 - [3131] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kentai Samica Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game? Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! Look at him feel hurt that CCP are implementing an ill out thought idea (like there is any other way of doing things when it comes to EVE) and hurting his play style. Look at him! Troll harder
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.07 14:37:00 - [3132] Originally by: Levistus Junior Not like that is going to change; not while technetium is still there. Some small time carebears might go, but the big boys will still be here, bloting out the sun with their technetium funded supercap blob(or botting/RMT funded in the case of DRF). the big boys will go to RZR, MM or one of the core alliances, leaving all scrubs behind in pb and border crap regions. The rest will either spin ships in stations or go back to empire. Its a good thing.
xsnakebytex Wayfarer Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2011.04.07 15:15:00 - [3133] Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kentai Samica Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game? Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! Troll rating: 2/10. There are many ways to make ISK in EVE. Obvious point is obvious. The issue at-hand is that for the ~15 months since Dominion's release, CCP sold a product and service based around entities sinking significant amounts of ISK into one or more systems, enabling a particular play style and level of income. And a higher null-sec population. Finally, more people moving into risky null-sec living. A good thing, right? With less than a month's notice and zero CSM interaction, CCP yanked the rug out from underneath many of these ventures, some of which had just gotten underway. And CCP's official response: thanks for the comments, but go **** yourselves; we are going to do whatever we like, customers be damned. That's akin to a premium laptop manufacturer selling a great piece of kit and then taking the hardware back after a month and swapping in bargain machine chipsets, expecting the customer to suck it up after having invested serious coin. Agree 100%, my thoughts exactly.
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.07 15:28:00 - [3134] Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Levistus Junior Not like that is going to change; not while technetium is still there. Some small time carebears might go, but the big boys will still be here, bloting out the sun with their technetium funded supercap blob(or botting/RMT funded in the case of DRF). the big boys will go to RZR, MM or one of the core alliances, leaving all scrubs behind in pb and border crap regions. The rest will either spin ships in stations or go back to empire. Its a good thing. This guy's page after page pleading for recognition is to boost his puny RL self-esteem through playing this game. It's a good thing.
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.07 15:47:00 - [3135] Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Levistus Junior Not like that is going to change; not while technetium is still there. Some small time carebears might go, but the big boys will still be here, bloting out the sun with their technetium funded supercap blob(or botting/RMT funded in the case of DRF). the big boys will go to RZR, MM or one of the core alliances, leaving all scrubs behind in pb and border crap regions. The rest will either spin ships in stations or go back to empire. Its a good thing. This guy's page after page pleading for recognition is to boost his puny RL self-esteem through playing this game. It's a good thing.
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.07 15:49:00 - [3136] Originally by: Cloba Originally by: Xel Ra Originally by: nano bobcat Originally by: Levistus Junior Not like that is going to change; not while technetium is still there. Some small time carebears might go, but the big boys will still be here, bloting out the sun with their technetium funded supercap blob(or botting/RMT funded in the case of DRF). the big boys will go to RZR, MM or one of the core alliances, leaving all scrubs behind in pb and border crap regions. The rest will either spin ships in stations or go back to empire. Its a good thing. This guy's page after page pleading for recognition is to boost his puny RL self-esteem through playing this game. It's a good thing. 10/10 Unimportant little Evoke troll needs some loving. Just ignore him Evoke does the same.
Soldarius Caldari Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.10 00:26:00 - [3137] Hmm, on further thought, I just realized something. Band 2 (-.25 to -.44 1 haven space) will lose the haven when folks stop running plexes due to the military index dropping too low. So no havens or sanctums all the way up to -.44? Can anyone confirm at which military index level the single haven vanishes? Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:27:00 - [3138] LOL CCP...your plan to create more conflict has backfired already. Since the space I live in no longer has sanctum and havens the reds aren't even bothering to stop by cause they know there are no juicy targets out in the anomolies. LOL, FAIL, EPIC, etc. You guys don't even understand the game you have created - sad...how sad.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:28:00 - [3139] I'm sure having people shoot rats in highsec rather than shoot rats in nullsec is going to radically change the isk faucet issues.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2011.04.10 01:30:00 - [3140] Originally by: Peralandra Originally by: Tehg Rhind Good job CCP. Definitely a step in the right direction. Ignore the c-bear junkies threatening to biomass. The day I bet on a crackhead going cold turkey because the price just went up is the day I stop smoking crack. Also, interested to see what happens to PLEX prices over the next 2 months. ^^ THIS For all the people still complaining... did you read the recent economic report? If you did, and understood it, you would know exactly why this change is going through. CCP know what they're doing, and why this needs to happen. It is their game after all, so just chill the funk out and let's see what happens... hahaha oh my sides hahahahahahaahaha

Caldorian Gorvachi	Posted - 2011.04.10 04:27:00 - [3141] Since it has now been a while since this was implemented, is there any preliminary data on what has occurred in Null-sec. It seems like the space we occupy is emptier, but I have no actual numbers to support this. I guess what I am asking is whose model was correct, the players? or CCP? or is it somewhere in between?
Chuck Wilson Sasen	Posted - 2011.04.10 05:55:00 - [3142] OK ALL THE 0.0 FANS THAT OPOSE THIS CRAZY IDEA PROPOSAL GO TO HIGHSEC AND JUST START GANKING EVERYONE SENCE CCP WANT TO KILL THE GAME LETS CUT TO THE CHASE AND GO OUT WITH A BANG
Banished Mist	Posted - 2011.04.10 06:02:00 - [3143] This would be bad idea in terms of trying to "support the smaller people." The strongest alliances would be the only holders of those sanctum systems. This would actually monopolize alliances and corps more. Making the big guys, bigger. This does not help out the small people at all. I cannot help but to comment on the lack of foresight CCP has had on this matter.
Kandarus Minmatar Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.10 06:13:00 - [3144] Edited by: Kandarus on 10/04/2011 06:13:51 "Ha-Ha" -Nelson Muntz Directed at CCP
Nobani Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.10 06:24:00 - [3145] Even "have" systems are worse off than before the patch. Currently in a -0.8 system with 1 sanctum.
Biidama Bong	Posted - 2011.04.10 06:24:00 - [3146] "Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec"? Yeah, cuz they'll be left with the bigger alliance's leftovers.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.10 10:04:00 - [3147] Originally by: Banished Mist This does not help out the small people at all. There are no small people in 0.0. They always suck someones d*ck. We dont need.
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.10 11:04:00 - [3148] Originally by: Super Whopper Originally by: Danastar just for informaton: Angel Sanctums/Havens have 1.1/1.2 mil BS using 1 thanatos, you'll get abt 60-90 mil/h. Depends on how lazy you are and if you have fast access to free anoms 2 thanatoses will get you in 90-120 mil/h range 1 thanny + nyx and you are in 120-150 mil/h range 2 nyxes equals 150-180 mil/h Good combo is thanny + machariel also, but havent tried it as it requires more efforts and control. These numbers, again, are for Angel anomalies and with 10% corp tax. Ratting in Pure Blind for instance will get you less isk/h ratio as the BS there have worse bounty. P.S. I... am... liar. Fixed and yes, you are a liar. Running sanctums with two carriers does not earn you 60-90m/hour. Originally by: Danastar somehow i dont believe you :) And I somehow don't believe you, not in the least because you're trying to show off your epeen by lying. No it doesn't :) if you try to read more carefully, (probably) you will notice that 60-90 mil range is with 1 (one) thanatos. 2 thanatoses geve you 90-120 mil isk/h. Average transaction when i was doing anomalies woth 2 thanatoses was 20 - 25 mil per char. Do your own math. and yeah - me epeen is huge... enormous... but again, if you see first line of my post (which you haven't moderated) you'll (probably) see that this is not the subject of the post. as for "somehow i dont believe you" - i didn't belive that CCP will manage to get servers running online without delay when deploying 1.4 Guess i was lying for that too :))
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.10 11:19:00 - [3149] Originally by: Peralandra Originally by: Tehg Rhind Good job CCP. Definitely a step in the right direction. Ignore the c-bear junkies threatening to biomass. The day I bet on a crackhead going cold turkey because the price just went up is the day I stop smoking crack. Also, interested to see what happens to PLEX prices over the next 2 months. ^^ THIS For all the people still complaining... did you read the recent economic report? If you did, and understood it, you would know exactly why this change is going through. CCP know what they're doing, and why this needs to happen. It is their game after all, so just chill the funk out and let's see what happens... I do understand why they want to decrease the ist inflow. And I do embrace changes that would make eve harder. But it has to happen in a reasonable and balanced way. To nerf 60% of 0.0 space below high sec profitability does not appeal to me reasonable. I guess they expect the renters not be willing anymore to pay rent to their overlords. So the overlords will have to leave them "alone" and thus indenpendant. Thus more smaller entities in 0.0. But why the hell should someone fight for this space and pay the bills for the sov? You can have almost the same income in high sec without the threat to lose you assets to some roamers or a bored powerblock fleet. They should have kept the balance between high and 0.0 sec and nerfed the income of both. So that 0.0 ist still more profitable.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.10 11:23:00 - [3150] Originally by: The Offerer Edited by: The Offerer on 07/04/2011 09:13:13 Ignoring your customers after screwing them over isn't the right practice. CCP's product is not isk, it is the game experience...

Deb Dukar Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.10 11:25:00 - [3151] Originally by: Panda Name you little bears keep saying this over and over again, but we all know you are simply full of it. you hardly pvp, and when you do so, it is highly likely that you are very bad at it (which is why all you people can do is complain on the forums, instead of mobilizing to adapt). furthermore, via simple ratting, ~the old way~, you will be able to fund your crappy drake blobs. everything will be fine - your alliance will remain just as bad as it was before this patch. u fail to see that u cant shoot us now anymore simply becaue we cant afford it to buy a new ship everytime we played ur cannonfodder, or got droped by a 50+ fleet pretending to do "pvp" while shooting 10 BC's u also fail to see the bigger picture. big allies can farm money for pvp and wars, small allies become pets now (if), soon we have 2 big allies fighting each other. huurayy what a great fun. personaly i barely care about this patch because i barely do any ratting at all. ------------------------- horray for typos
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.04.10 12:18:00 - [3152] Originally by: REDRUM44 Originally by: Peralandra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ For all the people still complaining... did you read the recent economic report? If you did, and understood it, you would know exactly why this change is going through. CCP know what they're doing, and why this needs to happen. It is their game after all, so just chill the funk out and let's see what happens... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exactly its their game and now they have proved it sandbox my A** yeah i totally trust ccp to get stuff right. i mean boot.ini, new forums, supercaps reballance...
Ryan Starwing Gallente Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.04.10 14:22:00 - [3153] Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 10/04/2011 14:22:50 Went to some -1.0 systems and they were like prenerf sanctum wise with a few extra havens, but overall cloudring is useless, and half of fountain is **ed. PS:Snipe Edit:So solution is to run level 4's**. Just means we have to spend 10% more time making isk to pvp.
phantomshura Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.10 15:42:00 - [3154] ccp turn this back 0.0 should earn more than most empire activities because of the famous "risk vs rewards"...
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.10 16:01:00 - [3155] Originally by: Ryan Starwing Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 10/04/2011 14:22:50 Went to some -1.0 systems and they were like prenerf sanctum wise with a few extra havens, but overall cloudring is useless, and half of fountain is **ed. PS:Snipe Edit:So solution is to run level 4's**. Just means we have to spend 10% more time making isk to pvp. Angel missions in Fountain NPC space perhaps? Or time to train up the hulk pilot alt(s)? Otherwise, I feel your pain. So many organizations invested countless billions of ISK into Sov modules, upgrades, outposts, etc. and CCP rewards those monumental efforts with the super nerf bat. Classic CCP move, really.
Dark Striped	Posted - 2011.04.10 16:03:00 - [3156] what i loved was that ccp chose not to port this to the new forums and bury there heads further in the sand about the issue they have caused. people and corps are leaving 0.0 to go back to mission running to pay for 0.0 pvp. why are you so dumb you can not see making 0.0 a wasteland will not fix inflation, increase isk sinks first.
onestopop	Posted - 2011.04.10 16:13:00 - [3157] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. when can u write a blog that makes sense and explains each level -.1 to -.9 individually we thought we would get one extra sanctum but now we seemed to have lost one in a -.5 system this is just **** up we spend ** loads of ISK on upgrades/logistics we cannot even get back i bet all the GM's alliances are happy especially the NC nerf the moons not the players as its hitting us the hardest, what complete bollox you have come up here with ur excuses why this should be done get ur fingers out of ur arses and stick them where they can do some use please, oh yeah im not happy, like the TEN's of THOUSANDS of other players LISTEN to your community
DeepFlyer	Posted - 2011.04.10 16:39:00 - [3158] Originally by: Lt Pizi Originally by: Bill Andrex This is a stupid change on behalf of CCP. CCP Greyscale might be happy at the changes over his morning coffee, but us players are certainly not happy at the changes proposed. The current system is fine, it works well and does what it intended. Now we are moving to a system that works well but doesn't do what it intended in the first place. The idea was to spread people about in nullsec so that systems could sustain a higher 0.0 population. CCP have now gone ahead and shot that idea in the foot. It will now be harder for newer up and coming Alliances to carve out a living in 0.0. It won't effect existing 0.0 Alliances as they make their ISK from moon goo, all CCP you have done here is gimp the little guy who is trying to make a living. The little guy is going to spend less time in fleets and more time trying to scratch out a living to make a little ISK to replace his losses. Why take away the incentive for people to move from empire to 0.0? CCP you have dropped the ball here. thats you ? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bill+Andrex#kills looks like you are pvp ing 1 a week and look at your losses ... if you cant replace that .. then hope is lost He is PRO, Gang only ;) go pro with singlekills, you PRO... lol lol lol
1OF NINE Minmatar WE BLOCK SANCTUMS	Posted - 2011.04.10 16:40:00 - [3159] after they had left only a few even have a bug that did not find any rats there
Gimmy Rotten	Posted - 2011.04.10 17:11:00 - [3160] well, there are no more havens where my friends are living, as expected, and after some tests they realized they earned more isks with hubs but lost some loots/salvages compared to havens/sanctums.

WisdomPanda Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.10 17:29:00 - [3161] Originally by: Saris Volto So let me get this right?: 0.0 to -0.2 = no high ends -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 high ends -0.5 to -0.6 = 3 high ends -0.7 to -0.8 = 4 high ends -0.9 to -1.0 = 5 to 6 high ends something like that with full upgrades? Incorrect. -0.3 to -0.4 has one haven. With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; 0.0 to -0.2 = 1 Haven -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 Haven -0.5 to -0.6 = 1 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.7 to -0.8 = 2 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.9 to -1.0 = 2 Sanctum, 4 Haven The change is a decent idea, but it has been horribly executed. No community involvement, virtually no lead time, insufficient and horrendously flawed reasoning, terrible community feedback. 100 pages of people voicing real concerns, opinions that at least warrant a response, even if you disagree with them. We deserve better man. (What people deserve in a game is muddy water at best, but what we deserve for paying a subscription is something totally different. Simple communication really isn't that hard.) Above all else CCP and CCP Greyscale in particular, you should be ashamed at the way you have handled this. Screw the impact, screw the outcomes, you just totally missed the mark from a community stand point by a sizable amount. With fanfest and the amount of time you put back into the community, we are left to wonder; How did you manage to drop the ball so badly? You are nerfing one of the core reasons for people to be in nullsec, nerfing a major part of why people pay for upgrades (and related industries, I might add), and effecting every nullsec system in EvE in some way. You had to know this was going to end badly if handled incorrectly... The irony is that you asked us to spread the word to help reach 500,000 subs... Giving us lip service and not thinking through radical changes to the most unique thing about EvE does nothing for your cause. ----- Cheesecake, Natures ultimate weapon.
Marley Browning	Posted - 2011.04.10 18:21:00 - [3162] Originally by: WisdomPanda Incorrect. -0.3 to -0.4 has one haven. With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; 0.0 to -0.2 = 1 Haven -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 Haven -0.5 to -0.6 = 1 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.7 to -0.8 = 2 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.9 to -1.0 = 2 Sanctum, 4 Haven The change is a decent idea, but it has been horribly executed. No community involvement, virtually no lead time, insufficient and horrendously flawed reasoning, terrible community feedback. 100 pages of people voicing real concerns, opinions that at least warrant a response, even if you disagree with them. We deserve better man. (What people deserve in a game is muddy water at best, but what we deserve for paying a subscription is something totally different. Simple communication really isn't that hard.) Above all else CCP and CCP Greyscale in particular, you should be ashamed at the way you have handled this. Screw the impact, screw the outcomes, you just totally missed the mark from a community stand point by a sizable amount. With fanfest and the amount of time you put back into the community, we are left to wonder; How did you manage to drop the ball so badly? You are nerfing one of the core reasons for people to be in nullsec, nerfing a major part of why people pay for upgrades (and related industries, I might add), and effecting every nullsec system in EvE in some way. You had to know this was going to end badly if handled incorrectly... The irony is that you asked us to spread the word to help reach 500,000 subs... Giving us lip service and not thinking through radical changes to the most unique thing about EvE does nothing for your cause. I think your wrong, I am in a -.62 system and I only get 3 havens, no sanctums since the patch.
Forum Troll Trolling Forum Trolling Corp	Posted - 2011.04.10 18:58:00 - [3163] CAPS LOCK AWAY!!! Originally by: "" WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA U NERFED MY ISK FOUNTAIN WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YOU TEARS SUSTAIN ME
Mibad	Posted - 2011.04.10 19:49:00 - [3164] I hear all the drone region renters a leaving 0.0 back to high sec. How can there be more conflict in null sec when its more profitable to live in high sec now?
Ford Pr3f3ct	Posted - 2011.04.10 20:20:00 - [3165] Originally by: WisdomPanda Originally by: Saris Volto So let me get this right?: 0.0 to -0.2 = no high ends -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 high ends -0.5 to -0.6 = 3 high ends -0.7 to -0.8 = 4 high ends -0.9 to -1.0 = 5 to 6 high ends something like that with full upgrades? Incorrect. -0.3 to -0.4 has one haven. With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; 0.0 to -0.2 = 1 Haven -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 Haven -0.5 to -0.6 = 1 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.7 to -0.8 = 2 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.9 to -1.0 = 2 Sanctum, 4 Haven Well, you are incorrect too... I play in Immensea Region, in Systems with -.5 and -.6 Sec, there are at Lvl 5 only 3 havens, thats all... And in -.7 Systems ther is 5 havens but only the small Sanctum... But, whats the use of so much Havens??? You can only be in one at a time so 2 is enough to switch back and forth... So i am deeply disappointed at the changes in general and on top of this the Lip Service that they still try to sell us, the reality is far more worse then what they say in their devblogs!!
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.10 21:13:00 - [3166] Originally by: Ford Pr3f3ct But, whats the use of so much Havens??? You can only be in one at a time so 2 is enough to switch back and forth... [ ] bcaus there should be max 1 person per system farming anomalies
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.11 01:05:00 - [3167] Yup CCP screwed the pooch on this one....less isk = less players in 0.0 = LESS CONFLICT. Exactly the opposite from what they were trying to do - go CCP!
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.11 01:13:00 - [3168] Originally by: Gimmy Rotten well, there are no more havens where my friends are living, as expected, and after some tests they realized they earned more isks with hubs but lost some loots/salvages compared to havens/sanctums. I don't see how that is possible...when I run sanctums/havens I get 8-12M per wallet tick where running Hubs gives me 3-4M per tick....
Florentis	Posted - 2011.04.11 01:54:00 - [3169] Good job CCP (again)! We are in the 2nd null band, and we only have one - big/gas; what i personally don'T like - Haven with mil5. The system sink billions of ISK, and it's only able to serve one, or two people(char) in same time, with some incidental risk! Useless roids, and then now useless anomalies... it's a good way make this game to evebot-online...
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.11 02:13:00 - [3170] signed needs to change! back more pvp! I must have been here!

Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.11 02:39:00 - [3171] Originally by: Makumba Aki Originally by: The Offerer Edited by: The Offerer on 07/04/2011 09:13:13 Ignoring your customers after screwing them over isn't the right practice. CCP's product is not isk, it is the game experience... Yeah, that's why they developed a way to put GTC's directly onto the market. Ergo, ISK for cash. HURP-Durp?
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.11 05:37:00 - [3172] oh yeah and BTW jamming is ****ed too....worse now than it EVER was before. Weak ass battleships now jam me 100% of the time...dumb asses!!
ma perke	Posted - 2011.04.11 09:58:00 - [3173] People don't fight over sanctums. People fight because they want to fight and are in game. Sanctums just provide means for a fight. If you reduce sanctums you will reduce means for a fight i.e will reduce fighting it self. If you want to increase fights create more conditions to fight. Fight can occur when people meet in 0.0 so create more 'meeting' places in 0.0. Make hunting targets more easy, right now I have to spend couple of hours just to find target to fight with solo in 0.0 If you want to tweak sanctums then leave their number per security status, however increase the rate system military status drops. This way people will be pushed to rat in one system and the chance to find ratters in anomaly will increase i.e. more fights. The ratters will be forced to organize defense fleet, not just hide in POS/Station when red shows up in local. Otherwise their income will drop. Also in order to fight bots increase number of scrambling frigs in anomalies so that pirate can find boters before they POS up.
CyrusRO	Posted - 2011.04.11 10:09:00 - [3174] Edited by: CyrusRO on 11/04/2011 10:09:43 ok , i understand nerfing the income but their attitude is so f@cking annoying. I live in a -0.4 system and i only get a haven and according to their charts i should get at least 2 havens/sanctums. So i file a petition and a bug report , now check their answer to the bug report : "// Could you please provide us with a link to the source of the information which leads you to the conclusion then number of anomalies is wrong? // BH Eriweal" the guy has some nerve , like i`m working for CCCP ( no spelling check required)and not him.This kind of answer i only give to my clients when they don`t pay up or haven`t payed their full fee. i have no problem except they don`t f@cking respect the chart they`ve released and tbh i`m thinking to take my 4 paying accounts somewhere else if they keep this attitude towards paying customers.
AstarothPrime	Posted - 2011.04.11 10:25:00 - [3175] Instead of introducing "bat" to 0sec where is least needed -> remove the "carrot" from hisec. If you mean to bash 0sec, not NPC, but sov one -> where you pay loads of ISK just to have it running and defended then do the following prior to that: 1) Remove all L4 missions from hisec, even losec perhaps 2) Heck, remove all L3 missions from hisec 3) Dammit no rat with 100k+ bounty should be smelled in any hisec system let alone spawned... Then introduce 0sec nerfs. I.
AstarothPrime	Posted - 2011.04.11 10:30:00 - [3176] Originally by: Quincy Taggart Originally by: Gimmy Rotten well, there are no more havens where my friends are living, as expected, and after some tests they realized they earned more isks with hubs but lost some loots/salvages compared to havens/sanctums. I don't see how that is possible...when I run sanctums/havens I get 8-12M per wallet tick where running Hubs gives me 3-4M per tick.... If you shoot with T1 fited drake on EM weak rats - you definitely wouldnt "feel" the difference between a hub and anythign bigger. Dual boxing 2 tengus or apoc is a different story tho - ppl dont understand how that even feels I.
Eris Alamina	Posted - 2011.04.11 10:55:00 - [3177] CCP is terrible at the game. That's all.....
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.11 11:53:00 - [3178] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 11/04/2011 11:53:01 Originally by: ma perke People don't fight over sanctums. People fight because they want to fight and are in game. Sanctums are just one of the things, which define better space. Besides that, there are better rats and better ore. Either you're trying to say there is not enough difference between good and bad space (more nerf required?) or that peeps don't fight for space at all, which is obviously wrong.
ma perke	Posted - 2011.04.11 12:15:00 - [3179] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 11/04/2011 11:53:01 Originally by: ma perke People don't fight over sanctums. People fight because they want to fight and are in game. Sanctums are just one of the things, which define better space. Besides that, there are better rats and better ore. Either you're trying to say there is not enough difference between good and bad space (more nerf required?) or that peeps don't fight for space at all, which is obviously wrong. people fight because of the fight it self. - NC and DRF fight in Geminate for more than a month now, lost zilions of ISK and only couple systems changed ownership - so the fight is not economically motivated. it is for fun Fight happens to be in good quality space not because space there is good quality. Fight is there because there are people to fight with.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.11 12:39:00 - [3180] all those, who dont fight for a good space, shouldnt get one. This logic is simple and proper.

Loki Feiht	Posted - 2011.04.11 13:03:00 - [3181] Edited by: Loki Feiht on 11/04/2011 13:03:21 lmao, loved it please carebears cry more about not being able to afford you drakes, i mean pvp ships
T Nips	Posted - 2011.04.11 13:05:00 - [3182] I'm just going to sound like a broken record here along with everyone else. WTF have you done CCP? If you seriously fail to comprehend why your educated guesses (I do hope this wasn't a thoughtful, meticulous computation on your part, because then your about smart as a 5th grader) to the way nullsec works have utterly screwed the pooch, then you really aren't worthy of anyone's subscription. Remove the barriers to entry for new nullsec players? Er, FAIL. All those fringe systems which could have been made previously useful are now worthless token systems. Go ahead spend billions to get a foothold in a less desirable hi-trusec system, and you rewarded with some filler sites, which aren't worth the screen real estate they take up on my scanner. Increase 0.0 combat activity. Who the effing hell goes to war because someone has a good ratting system 26 jumps away? Where the hell do you get your intel you complete imbeciles? I go to fight people because they will show up to fight and I can laugh and cry with my mates. Think there is too much inflation? Too many ISK fountains? Fine, reduce them at a slow, even, and consistent pace. Hi-sec has truly become more profitable, sure we have to go through your terrible "game content" that is the mission text, but you have removed a system that so many mid-range SP pilots use to prop up their war efforts. I play on average 4 days a week for about an hour, that was enough to make about 240m (Thanny+Tengu sanctum @60m/h, stfu naysayers its true), which afforded me the ability to fit, fly and lose any subcapital in PVP without worry. Now in those same 4 hours, I spend half of them jumping around low trusec systems only to find them filled with one sanctum, 5 havens, and about 20 blues. I can afford to lose a cruiser a week now. Lvl 4s look like a gold-mine now I can't wait for your further improvements, your force-projection solution should be a stunner. Let me guess just kill off JBs? Your epic Forum fail is truly indicative of the caliber of your work. You guys seriously are like King Midas' cousin, except instead of everything you touch turning to gold, its turns to absolute horse **. When was the last time you make any significant changes that you didn't horrible screw up? This whole walking-in-station crap is ridiculous, this is a internet spaceship game. If i wanted to put on night elf costume and dance with a bunch of stay-at-home moms I'd go play WoW. You continually do stumble upon some improvements, then you must say to yourself "wow, this is working really proper. We've got to botch it" So one account has been terminated, let's see how long the other one lasts. Spread the word to get 500,000 million subs? Haha, I'm spreading the word but I don't think its the words you'd like. Sadly, I think this game might have reached the end of its life-cycle. I just wish SWTOR when it comes out can satisfy my desire for a sci-fi MMO, cause this one isn't cutting it. It's monday today CCP, re-balance the game so that the risk vs reward isn't an inverse function, or don't with it at all. umadbro? Hell yeah, I hope Iceland's tourism trade picks up, cause you absolutely suck at implementing change, and I hear its pretty hard to ** up a Fjord or hotspring. It was a good run
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.11 13:21:00 - [3183] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 11/04/2011 13:21:47 Originally by: T Nips bahhhhwwwww, no more easy isk Being one of many dck sucking pets isn't rewarded anymore, that is just awesome. How about getting better space? Either this or fck the hell off back to empire. Blobs are getting smaller in any case, an awesome change IMO.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.11 13:58:00 - [3184] Originally by: T Nips I'm just going to sound like a broken record here along with everyone else. WTF have you done CCP? If you seriously fail to comprehend why your educated guesses (I do hope this wasn't a thoughtful, meticulous computation on your part, because then your about smart as a 5th grader) to the way nullsec works have utterly screwed the pooch, then you really aren't worthy of anyone's subscription. Remove the barriers to entry for new nullsec players? Er, FAIL. All those fringe systems which could have been made previously useful are now worthless token systems. Go ahead spend billions to get a foothold in a less desirable hi-trusec system, and you rewarded with some filler sites, which aren't worth the screen real estate they take up on my scanner. Increase 0.0 combat activity. Who the effing hell goes to war because someone has a good ratting system 26 jumps away? Where the hell do you get your intel you complete imbeciles? I go to fight people because they will show up to fight and I can laugh and cry with my mates. Think there is too much inflation? Too many ISK fountains? Fine, reduce them at a slow, even, and consistent pace. Hi-sec has truly become more profitable, sure we have to go through your terrible "game content" that is the mission text, but you have removed a system that so many mid-range SP pilots use to prop up their war efforts. I play on average 4 days a week for about an hour, that was enough to make about 240m (Thanny+Tengu sanctum @60m/h, stfu naysayers its true), which afforded me the ability to fit, fly and lose any subcapital in PVP without worry. Now in those same 4 hours, I spend half of them jumping around low trusec systems only to find them filled with one sanctum, 5 havens, and about 20 blues. I can afford to lose a cruiser a week now. Lvl 4s look like a gold-mine now I can't wait for your further improvements, your force-projection solution should be a stunner. Let me guess just kill off JBs? Your epic Forum fail is truly indicative of the caliber of your work. You guys seriously are like King Midas' cousin, except instead of everything you touch turning to gold, its turns to absolute horse **. When was the last time you make any significant changes that you didn't horrible screw up? This whole walking-in-station crap is ridiculous, this is a internet spaceship game. If i wanted to put on night elf costume and dance with a bunch of stay-at-home moms I'd go play WoW. You continually do stumble upon some improvements, then you must say to yourself "wow, this is working really proper. We've got to botch it" So one account has been terminated, let's see how long the other one lasts. Spread the word to get 500,000 million subs? Haha, I'm spreading the word but I don't think its the words you'd like. Sadly, I think this game might have reached the end of its life-cycle. I just wish SWTOR when it comes out can satisfy my desire for a sci-fi MMO, cause this one isn't cutting it. It's monday today CCP, re-balance the game so that the risk vs reward isn't an inverse function, or don't with it at all. umadbro? Hell yeah, I hope Iceland's tourism trade picks up, cause you absolutely suck at implementing change, and I hear its pretty hard to ** up a Fjord or hotspring. It was a good run ^ This! Someone else gets it! Now CCP why don't you rat for 6 hours until you get enough isk to buy a clue!
Caldron Shinigami	Posted - 2011.04.11 14:01:00 - [3185] Heres my Thoughts to your Expectations after these changes LOL funny stuff wont happen but hey keep up the good work but whoever came up with the idea must be focused in tetris. Cyas out there
Vendictus Prime	Posted - 2011.04.11 14:39:00 - [3186] Edited by: Vendictus Prime on 11/04/2011 14:41:10 Edited by: Vendictus Prime on 11/04/2011 14:40:48 Ok, this is a business decision that DOES not have the affect they thought it would. So, when a company make a poor decision that affects it's customers, then you best way to complain is to write a formal letter to the CEO of the company. I suggest that we organize such a letter, maybe attach a petition of player signatures and send it directly to Hilmar Petursson. On a related issue, if they want to create more conflict in 0.0, I would first suggest they fix the game breaking lag that happens with the CURRENT level of conflict in the game before adding or changing features that will make it even worse. Fly safe, or not 07
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.11 14:44:00 - [3187] Originally by: Vendictus Prime On a related issue, if they want to create more conflict in 0.0, I would first suggest they fix the game breaking lag that happens with the CURRENT level of conflict in the game before adding or changing features that will make it even worse. lag cant be fixed, since people will always bring more than server can handle.
Dark Striped	Posted - 2011.04.11 15:53:00 - [3188] Originally by: Robert Caldera Originally by: Vendictus Prime On a related issue, if they want to create more conflict in 0.0, I would first suggest they fix the game breaking lag that happens with the CURRENT level of conflict in the game before adding or changing features that will make it even worse. lag cant be fixed, since people will always bring more than server can handle. lag can be fixed and ccp are trying the reduction of people in 0.0 plan. less 0.0 residence less in fleet less lag, guess we all win with this one
Mctana Caldari Dead's Prostitutes White Angels.	Posted - 2011.04.11 17:28:00 - [3189] Originally by: Marley Browning Originally by: WisdomPanda Incorrect. -0.3 to -0.4 has one haven. With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; 0.0 to -0.2 = 1 Haven -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 Haven -0.5 to -0.6 = 1 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.7 to -0.8 = 2 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.9 to -1.0 = 2 Sanctum, 4 Haven The change is a decent idea, but it has been horribly executed. No community involvement, virtually no lead time, insufficient and horrendously flawed reasoning, terrible community feedback. 100 pages of people voicing real concerns, opinions that at least warrant a response, even if you disagree with them. We deserve better man. (What people deserve in a game is muddy water at best, but what we deserve for paying a subscription is something totally different. Simple communication really isn't that hard.) Above all else CCP and CCP Greyscale in particular, you should be ashamed at the way you have handled this. Screw the impact, screw the outcomes, you just totally missed the mark from a community stand point by a sizable amount. With fanfest and the amount of time you put back into the community, we are left to wonder; How did you manage to drop the ball so badly? You are nerfing one of the core reasons for people to be in nullsec, nerfing a major part of why people pay for upgrades (and related industries, I might add), and effecting every nullsec system in EvE in some way. You had to know this was going to end badly if handled incorrectly... The irony is that you asked us to spread the word to help reach 500,000 subs... Giving us lip service and not thinking through radical changes to the most unique thing about EvE does nothing for your cause. I think your wrong, I am in a -.62 system and I only get 3 havens, no sanctums since the patch. In -0.64 with full index full upgraded sytsem, literally ratting until the servers shut down, and we've had zero sanctums since the patch. The nerf is either bugged or not working as advertised.
Skilo the muppets RED.OverLord	Posted - 2011.04.11 17:45:00 - [3190] Bumping on a fail thread On a fail CCP response Ups my mistake On a regular CCP response thread

MuppetsSlayed Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.11 19:31:00 - [3191] I have put off from posting in this thread until now. CCP you must have lost your mind. With the latest changes to 0.0 anomolies a lot of people who live in my region now sit in worthless space. Months and years or work building this space and our community into something worth fighting to defend has been destroyed in a single move. And you expect us to now go and fight some of our friends for access to better ratting so we can grind enough isk to be able to fight. Why in gods name would we do that? The discussions we are having at the moment arent to do with what region we will go to rat in, they are to do with WHICH OTHER MMOPG WILL WE ALL JOIN WHEN OUR SUBS RUN OUT AT THE END OF THE MONTH.
Kenjie94	Posted - 2011.04.11 20:07:00 - [3192] confirming 2 accounts will expire by the end of the month. good bye EVE. i love this game but CCP ****ed it hard!!!
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.11 20:08:00 - [3193] Originally by: MuppetsSlayed The discussions we are having at the moment arent to do with what region we will go to rat in, they are to do with WHICH OTHER MMOPG WILL WE ALL JOIN WHEN OUR SUBS RUN OUT AT THE END OF THE MONTH. The only reason my four accounts are still here is that I made the mistake of subbing for a year, six months to see if CCP gets their collective head out of their collective a$$.
MuppetsSlayed Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.11 20:19:00 - [3194] Edited by: MuppetsSlayed on 11/04/2011 20:19:56 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kentai Samica Thanks CCP We are a small corp that rents from AAA and live in 2 systems ranging from -0.35 to -0.43. We no longer have sanctums just a single haven and some hubs. After your patch around 30%-40% of our members are no looking at 3 options. 1. Join a major power block alliance that has access to systems with 6-8 sanctums. 2. Return to empire and try level 4 misisons. 3. Give up and try another game. So much for increasing conflict and providing the motive for smaller groups to take better space. How do you expect a newer corp to keep members and make enough isk to even consider planning a sov campaign when our members are joining the huge blob alliances, leaving to empire or quitting game? Look at this guy pretending that there's no other way to make ISK than to farm Sanctums. Look at him! Actually mate - this guy is bang on the money. I can confirm 100% what he said is exactly what is currently happening in 0.0.
Lord Lightcloud	Posted - 2011.04.11 20:50:00 - [3195] CCP disgust me in the respect they have shown to their player base. Here is to a large portion of their player base/income moving to other games.
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.04.11 21:01:00 - [3196] I wouldn't be surprised they want to make everyone use their RMT and kill big alliances. Theny they'll be like oh hey look what we're doing we're gonna add sanctums again.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.11 21:17:00 - [3197] Originally by: Lord Lightcloud CCP disgust me in the respect they have shown to their player base. Here is to a large portion of their player base/income moving to other games. lol, large portion? didn't you read that report that said only 10% of the playerbase is in 0.0? For every whiner here, there's probably 9 more who are happy with this change, that CCP reduced the isk fountain in 0.0
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2011.04.11 21:19:00 - [3198] Edited by: Nikgah Plz on 11/04/2011 21:21:38 Originally by: Lost'In'Space Originally by: Lord Lightcloud CCP disgust me in the respect they have shown to their player base. Here is to a large portion of their player base/income moving to other games. lol, large portion? didn't you read that report that said only 10% of the playerbase is in 0.0? For every whiner here, there's probably 9 more who are happy with this change, that CCP reduced the isk fountain in 0.0 And you trust CCP because... (look up Star Wars Galaxies)btw if you had half a brain maybe some of these people complaining are doing it for their corp members. I was never a forum person until this happened and everyone was complaining.
Lost'In'Space	Posted - 2011.04.11 21:55:00 - [3199] Originally by: Nikgah Plz some of these people complaining are doing it for their corp members. And all those who show support for this change might represent all those who are happy with this change, what's your point?
Kalpel Caldari United Systems of the Allegiance Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.11 22:09:00 - [3200] Originally by: Lord Lightcloud CCP disgust me in the respect they have shown to their player base. Here is to a large portion of their player base/income moving to other games. Agreed, I'm looking ...... and I refuse to give CCP any IRL cash for PLEX's to fund my PvP in 0.0, once my saved up ISK is gone, I'm gone

Zxmagus GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.12 05:23:00 - [3201] Could some one at CCP please explain to us why null sec needed a near global nerf to below high sec mission running isk earning rates? I'm in a -8 system right now that for the last week hasn't spawned more then 1 sanctum at a time, making isk gains for every one slower just encourages more people to bot or worse leave 0.0 and go back to high sec.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.12 08:34:00 - [3202] Originally by: Zxmagus Could some one at CCP please explain to us why null sec needed a near global nerf to below high sec mission running isk earning rates? I'm in a -8 system right now that for the last week hasn't spawned more then 1 sanctum at a time, making isk gains for every one slower just encourages more people to bot or worse leave 0.0 and go back to high sec. The 0.0 population will just level out at a new low, according to the available resources. They try to reduce ISK/lag in game. Its good.
Th3bl4ckr4bbit	Posted - 2011.04.12 09:25:00 - [3203] I just can lol at the troll about 0.0 .... CCP is currently nerfing all the isk income even in high sec so stop trolling about how happy you are for the 0.0 nerf it is also coming in high sec. Huge reduce of plex, npc jamm higly reinforced so you can't blitz guristas missions... It's a general nerf, but a part of it is just easier to see.
MoarMining	Posted - 2011.04.12 12:16:00 - [3204] I have thought long and hard about the 0.0 nerf and I have come to a few conclusions with it. 1st of all people who say its well worth it to try and take someones space to gain a -.9 -1 system in order to get sanctums for themselves dont realize a huge flaw in their logic. If you even managed to take over some space with a -.9 system or better you wouldn't even be able to do sanctums in the system. The first thing that came to mind when I heard that -.9 systems were the only ones that were going to have a decent ammount of sanctums in them, and that was "it would be fun to log an alt off in a system like that and just catch people trying to run sanctums." I can guarentee if someone were to actually take space from someone else who held a -.9 system that there would be a handful of people that would logoffski just to catch them while ratting. On top of that there are already people who are flying to random -.9 systems to try their luck at pirateing anomolies. The dilemma this leaves you in is the fact that if you go ratting in an expensive ship that can actually run anomolies quickly to generate a high isk revenue then you dont want to be out ratting when there are neuts/reds in the system, But if those neuts/reds know that the only place anyone is going to be ratting / running anoms is in the one or two sanctums in the entire region, then I guarentee you know where they will be found just sitting, waiting for someone to slip up. So essentially no one is making very good isk off of anoms anymore even when their are -.9 systems in the region. Next thing I tackled was the though of, why would CCP do a nerf like this knowing the outcome. People you cant believe that CCP is actually as dumb as they are leading us to believe. Their Job is eve online, they can look at every little thing that every little person in the game is doing. Which means that they already know exactly how this nerf is going to effect us even before we do, or they Would Not Implement it, its as simple as that. I have been with eve for a long time, like many of you, and when a change happens, it has its reasons, but they are not always good reasons. Or even reason that are meant to help us the subscribers out. Here is what i have picked up on with this nerf. Peoples first instinct is to rebel and say they are not going to subscribe anymore to eve, i'm sure some people actually will stop their subs, but the majority of us will stick through it like we always have. Their have been some pretty off times, "like the nano nerf" where people just sucked it up and counted it as part of the game. This is going to be one of those times when CCP knows we mostly will just suck it up after we are forced to accept this ludacris idea that they know wont cause the effects they are telling us. Now the real thing we need to look at is why would they do somthing like this knowing how it was going to effect everyone? Back in my day ;), years ago before Sanctums in the day of the dinosaur... Lots of people use to stare at rocks for hours on end watching that ugly beam turn on and off. Yes my friends... People in 0.0 use to mine... One things i would love to point out is the fact that Grav sites seems to be pretty uneffected by the Patch, there are still lots of them. My thought is that CCP wants the real isk to come from mining once again, Why you ask? Because before people use to really have multiple accounts, and by multiple i mean having subs for 5 accounts to run hulk pilots and pull in lots of isk. That stopped when it became more profitable to run sanctums / level 4's. CCP i'm sure would love to have all those mining subs back up and running, +the new subs for new accounts who will be training chars for mining to meet the high demand for mining alts. Which in turn means more people buying plexes because plex prices will go up, and people will buy plexes with irl cash even more so when they are worth more isk. Food For Thought ;) DENY THIS CCP...
Syndiaan	Posted - 2011.04.12 12:32:00 - [3205] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog. Syndiaan is concerned that CCP Greyscale is excited about screwing over 75% of the server. Read all about it by listening to your EvE subscribers on their latest rants.
Goin Off	Posted - 2011.04.12 12:33:00 - [3206] Now that 30 days+ of training I have done for the Tengu ratter seems to have been in vain. There will be no place for us to make isk for pvp and the "cloaky campers" will effectively cut off access to what'st left of the sanctums. I for one know that it will have the opposite effect you're looking for and my future may lie in griefing high sec mission runners for their NPC bounties and faction mods on their mission running ships. I don't see the alliances changing their way of doing business at all. All we fight for in the NC is access to the tech moons, not anomalies. WTG, CCP the only ones you have affected is the average low-sec inhabitants primary income, killing ratys in sanctums and havens. Now too much pressure on the remaining havens, and the other anomalies are not worth the time. Probably won't buy that tengu now, I'll buy a couple of more canes to ruin high sec mission runners days. Now I will invest the training time in enhancing my probing skills!!!
JeanLuc Blindtard	Posted - 2011.04.12 12:50:00 - [3207] Wonder if CCP employs r-e-t-a-rd-e-d monkeys, I got one thats almost dead and it would make a great game designer. Might as well mail it to them maybe it will have better ideas about "how to create conflict". Proposal to fix CCP's Anom FoKing: Get a alt on a cloaky T1 frigate pop it in a sanctum, move 200km away and stay there cloaked. That will stop the sanctum from re spawning and so the CCP's idea of ever **ing with the players like this. I got 3 accounts and currently Il make more isk ratting mining building ** in empire than using them in 0.0. But the 3 accounts will make great cloaky alts on 3 sanctums. Im thinking thats how il end my eve life. F--cking, or trying to, CCP in the brains.
Filay Six	Posted - 2011.04.12 13:41:00 - [3208] REMOVE THE O.O NERF!!
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.12 14:00:00 - [3209] 95% of my gear moved out of worthless 0.0. Either grind 4's in high sec which are getting packed (new lag central) or just like others quit the game. Red hits the cancel sub on 2 accounts, been fun while it was worth it Remove the null nurf!
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.12 14:24:00 - [3210] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 12/04/2011 14:24:56 so, if the tech moons are the money and not ISK, why dont you just get them?? RF them day after day and even the strongest alliance in eve will crumble to constant pressure some day. But, sitting under their skirt wont give you any ISK, because they take it all by themselves. Its your choice, being a part of the blob and living from crumbs or taking the pie.

Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:11:00 - [3211] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 12/04/2011 14:24:56 so, if the tech moons are the money and not ISK, why dont you just get them?? RF them day after day and even the strongest alliance in eve will crumble to constant pressure some day. But, sitting under their skirt wont give you any ISK, because they take it all by themselves. Its your choice, being a part of the blob and living from crumbs or taking the pie. Typical reply from some one that has nothing to do with 0.0/ grinds 4's. Pos costs/pos's are corp setup not solo. alliances are the one's that have the power to run pos and move moongoo in j/f or frieght it through jump bridges, normal pilots grind isk in havens etc. we dont live in a "blob" i hardly ever see blob warfare, small gangs are the flavor, we dont jump from system to system in 000's most of the gangs i see/been in are from 1-30. will peeps that really dont have a qlue please not put silly ar*ed coments that they have no idea about on here like "so, if the tech moons are the money and not ISK, why dont you just get them??"
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:19:00 - [3212] Originally by: Red Morbo alliances are the one's that have the power to run pos and move moongoo in j/f or frieght it through jump bridges, oh, I wasnt aware JFs cant be piloted by individuals. Originally by: Red Morbo normal pilots grind isk in havens etc. not anymore!! Adapt or GTFO. Originally by: Red Morbo we dont live in a "blob" i hardly ever see blob warfare, small gangs are the flavor, we dont jump from system to system in 000's most of the gangs i see/been in are from 1-30. ever thought about living in NPC 0.0?? It exactly fits your playstyle. Originally by: Red Morbo "so, if the tech moons are the money and not ISK, why dont you just get them??" exactly this is the way to go. If you cant, GTFO or stop whining because there is no easy ISK for renters.
Geralden	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:29:00 - [3213] sub's run out in 9 and 14 days. Been fun while it lasted. @CCP: If you need to grind level 4's for 3 to 4 hours, for a session of PVP, players like me (who cant log in after DT, so plex'es are GONE) will just find other games. EVE PvE sucks ass... I have not found a game where it's worse. And, I've played a LOT of other games in my "gaming career". So going back to empire to grind level 4 missions is NOT an option i will take. I have done my last mission several years ago, having saved the same damsel in distress 100 times or more. As it is, i am fond of EVE, really i am. But, unless you dont have a job or a family, how can you now support a line of fleetships, unless you buy PLEX and sell them for ISK ? I wont go there - i have a hard time supporting my family as it is, spending real life money on "internet spaceships" is not what i'll resort to. I have found my replacement for EVE, not quite the same, i will really miss the tense fleetfights, but i dont see how i can field anything worthwhile, now that the sanctums are gone.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:33:00 - [3214] Originally by: Robert Caldera Originally by: Red Morbo alliances are the one's that have the power to run pos and move moongoo in j/f or frieght it through jump bridges, oh, I wasnt aware JFs cant be piloted by individuals. Dont have almost 6 bill to buy a jf do you been in this game almost 4 years you gtfo! npc space is not something for me, you dont know me or my play style so please refrain from being a f*ktard not a renter, but dont expect a forum griefer/ 4 grinder to understand so gtfo of this thread
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:37:00 - [3215] Edited by: Red Morbo on 12/04/2011 15:38:23 Edited by: Red Morbo on 12/04/2011 15:37:25 Originally by: Geralden sub's run out in 9 and 14 days. Been fun while it lasted. Feel for you, in the same boat. we have been pushed out by ccp
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:38:00 - [3216] -1 dude in the next blob fight. Patch is working. Dont let hit ya by the door on the way out. btw learn quoting.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:40:00 - [3217] Originally by: Robert Caldera -1 dude in the next blob fight. Patch is working. Dont let hit ya by the door on the way out. btw learn quoting. i play the game not a geek ;) where do you think the blobs are going to get that isk, your high sec hub lol, enjoy the permalag in high sec
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.12 15:49:00 - [3218] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 12/04/2011 15:52:53 I expect a reduction of numbers in 0.0 since not everyone and his dog will farm lvl 4 for pewing in 0.0. There are a lot of people being there solely for farmin rats. Those participated in CTAs strictly for holding their foot there and being allowed to farm their precious sanctums in the rest of their time. - all those people during the next CTA. A wonderful patch! If you only faced a cluster**** blob of 800 noob drakes, hurricanes and myrmidons once, you would welcome the nerf as I do.
OnoSendai Caldari Tolerance Training Academy	Posted - 2011.04.12 16:37:00 - [3219] Let me start off by saying that I am a miner so this nerf has no direct effect on my own actions or abilities but, I am part of a corp that makes it possible to be in 0.0. Many members in that corp are now considering the move back to empire or not playing at all. Several have just stopped logging on since they would run a sanctum or two and that was all the time they had. What I find to be the most interesting argument here is that the claim of only 10% of the Eve population is in 0.0. I would have thought that it would be more desirable to find ways to push more people out of empire than to push null sec dwellers back to empire. This was the stated desire of CCP not so long ago. Change your minds? I was an empire carebear for years, now I'm a 0.0 carebear. Without my corp to defend me I will have no choice but to move my mining crew back to empire where I can continue to mine and research without having that support structure. So glad I now have a rorqual so I can jump all the way in and not lose my mining ships along the way. The whole purpose of the ihub was to be able to improve a crappy piece of space and make it viable. With an ihub you can decide what you like and improve it. The most common improvement is in anomolies. This was a win win for everyone. If you like wormholes you could upgrade those although the increasing popularity of living in a wormhole has made that difficult since it is usually undesirable to attract a way for people to get into your space without following a known route. But the ability is there all the same. Now there is little reason to bother defending that space if it can't be improved. At this point you have taken a great upgrade to the game and made it useless in 80% of the space its used. (80% May be an understatement or an exaggeration.) Will this change have the desired effect? I doubt it. Those that have the power now will shift their control to lock down those desirable systems and continue to rent out the remainder to others of lesser size but those of lesser size will no longer have the resources to grow to challenge the spacelords that hold the reins. This change only hurts those that are struggling to be in 0.0. It will only make the strong, stronger and the weak, weaker. The idea of using the truesec value is great but this is not a good application or perhaps too severe an application of the idea. Good luck and safe flying to us all.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.12 17:31:00 - [3220] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 12/04/2011 15:57:17 I expect a reduction of numbers in 0.0 since not everyone and his dog will farm lvl 4 for pewing in 0.0. There are a lot of people being there solely for farmin rats. Those participated in CTAs strictly for holding their foot there and being allowed to farm their precious sanctums in the rest of their time. All the unsub and back to empire threats related to the patch tell me that my expectation is legitimate and proper. - all those people during the next CTA. A wonderful patch! If you only faced a cluster**** blob of 800 noob drakes, hurricanes and myrmidons once, you would welcome the nerf as I do. if i faced blobs like that ever then 0.0 wouldn't be for most, never seen blobs bigger in null-sec than is in low-sec Faction wars. the effect's of this change will effect all null/low and high. the only peeps that benifit from this are the massive alliances and the bot bot bots.

xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.12 17:46:00 - [3221] I gotta say CCP, you did **** up on this one. And this is coming from a guy who has access to sanctums still. Suggest you wise up, mates.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.12 17:53:00 - [3222] Originally by: xxxak I gotta say CCP, you did ** up on this one. And this is coming from a guy who has access to sanctums still. Suggest you wise up, mates. everytime an NC * cries, its a good sign of success :-D
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:06:00 - [3223] Originally by: Robert Caldera Originally by: xxxak I gotta say CCP, you did ** up on this one. And this is coming from a guy who has access to sanctums still. Suggest you wise up, mates. everytime an NC * cries, its a good sign of success :-D u mad, bro?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:07:00 - [3224] no im excited! :-D
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:19:00 - [3225] it dosnt matter if its NC, DC, DRF, or anyone else, all 0.0 is screwed by this, only short sighted trolls and ccp think otherwise.. i mean its not liek either of you are in 0.0 is it
Mibad	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:29:00 - [3226] Shame 108 pages and this topic goes ignored... Why does CCP always keep us in the dark?
Mistchaser	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:32:00 - [3227] In case anyone was curious, here's the response to requesting reimbursement: "Hi, Unfortunately we can not offer any reimbursement for or remove installed Infrastructure Hub Upgrades. Please note that there has been no change in the function of such upgrades and they will continue to work exactly as they used to. What will change is the type of anomalies available to systems, as detailed by CCP Greyscale in his DevBlog "those anomaly changes in full" which was released 2011.03.25. There also the reasons for those changes are explained. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact us again."
Mibad	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:37:00 - [3228] Originally by: Mistchaser In case anyone was curious, here's the response to requesting reimbursement: "Hi, Unfortunately we can not offer any reimbursement for or remove installed Infrastructure Hub Upgrades. Please note that there has been no change in the function of such upgrades and they will continue to work exactly as they used to. What will change is the type of anomalies available to systems, as detailed by CCP Greyscale in his DevBlog "those anomaly changes in full" which was released 2011.03.25. There also the reasons for those changes are explained. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact us again." No change in upgrades? hah! You don't get what you paid for anymore, how is that not a significant change???
Les Rosco	Posted - 2011.04.12 20:22:00 - [3229] Originally by: Mibad Originally by: Mistchaser In case anyone was curious, here's the response to requesting reimbursement: "Hi, Unfortunately we can not offer any reimbursement for or remove installed Infrastructure Hub Upgrades. Please note that there has been no change in the function of such upgrades and they will continue to work exactly as they used to. What will change is the type of anomalies available to systems, as detailed by CCP Greyscale in his DevBlog "those anomaly changes in full" which was released 2011.03.25. There also the reasons for those changes are explained. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact us again." No change in upgrades? hah! You don't get what you paid for anymore, how is that not a significant change??? Oh no, they are totally right in what they said. Just too bad the modules aren't affecting anything, 5x0=0 HAHA. Not really funny cause our space got wasted by these changes. 5-6 ratting systems down to 0.
Ephenos Gallente Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.04.12 23:50:00 - [3230] Huh, so much for my being able to live in a crappy region like provi and be able to pay my eve subscription by running anoms. I guess oh could go join a bffcoallition....OH WAIT....I dont like thats so thats why im living in provi... So I guess I'll just pay 35$ a month for my accounts...but im a poor college student. So what now...Option A: drop both accounts due to lack of playtime after grinding 700mil a month for plex's in a ****poor region. Option B: do some research on botting and learn russian. Which sounds better to CCP?

Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.13 01:38:00 - [3231] Originally by: Ephenos Huh, so much for my being able to live in a crappy region like provi and be able to pay my eve subscription by running anoms. I guess oh could go join a bffcoallition....OH WAIT....I dont like thats so thats why im living in provi... So I guess I'll just pay 35$ a month for my accounts...but im a poor college student. So what now...Option A: drop both accounts due to lack of playtime after grinding 700mil a month for plex's in a ***poor region. Option B: do some research on botting and learn russian. Which sounds better to CCP? But, but, you're in NC(DOT), not NC - everybody keeps saying it's only NC tears that are fueling this thread... wtf!?!? I is confused now. Does this mean it's not* just the NC who don't like this change? Who would have thunk it. Seriously though, the worst part of this is how much CCP have shown a complete lack of concern for their paying customers. I really do hope that EVE doesn't go the way of SW:G - CCP's export income is propping up the Icelandic economy for now.
Jboyxz	Posted - 2011.04.13 03:32:00 - [3232] Edited by: Jboyxz on 13/04/2011 03:32:27 Thanks CCP for the Nuke to Null. I thought the idea was to get more people into 0.0, guess I was wrong. CCP wants us all to to mission runners, thats a great idea. o/, Hope you fix this other wise you will see a huge hit to your bottom line. Don't think people wont play other games. Remember CCP this Doesn't allow for new alliances to get a foothold in null. There is no reason for them to come to null, you cant make money unless you are a Huge ass alliance with supers who can hold the Golden space. Nice Work CCP =
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2011.04.13 10:10:00 - [3233] LOL Those tears here are hilarious! Especially considering that the situation right now is still MUCH BETTER than before Dominion. And yeah, no one was then in 0.0, right? Providence was completely deserted, the other 0.0 was also dead and empty ... The whining shows only how much broken these anomalies had been! Good that this is slowly getting fixed!
killerco Gallente Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.04.13 10:46:00 - [3234] Remove all jump bridges CCP. That will make 0.0 life interesting again
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.13 11:06:00 - [3235] Originally by: Gnulpie LOL Those tears here are hilarious! Especially considering that the situation right now is still MUCH BETTER than before Dominion. And yeah, no one was then in 0.0, right? Providence was completely deserted, the other 0.0 was also dead and empty ... The whining shows only how much broken these anomalies had been! Good that this is slowly getting fixed! why should high sec be more rewarding than 0.0 for a normal eve player? thats what dom fixed, now thats broken again. almost everyone i knew in 0.0 before dom farmed missions to pay for pvp, since that they have farmed anoms. the ones that arnt leaving are going back to mission farming. dom made people come to 0.0, that was its intention. now the intention is to make peopel mission again? risk reward is broken if missions pay more than you can make in 0.0 say a 100 man corp has 2 systems, the corp makes about 10bil a month, members make about 50bil say that 100 man corp goes back missioning, the corp will make its 10bil a month, its members make 50bil isk and 30-50 bil in lp. how teh **** does that stop inflation? ccp's current reason for this, cos everyone knows no one fights for ratting space been both sides of that fence and currently that corp is better off in empire farming missions. way to go ccp
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2011.04.13 12:32:00 - [3236] Originally by: BackStreet Babe why should high sec be more rewarding than 0.0 for a normal eve player? thats what dom fixed, now thats broken again. almost everyone i knew in 0.0 before dom farmed missions to pay for pvp, since that they have farmed anoms. That shows even more how broken it was. You just shouldn't be able to "farm" stuff in 0.0 as if you were in high-sec. In many 0.0 areas was/is no risk at all any more, why should be there then a MUCH higher reward? Originally by: BackStreet Babe say a 100 man corp has 2 systems, the corp makes about 10bil a month, members make about 50bil say that 100 man corp goes back missioning, the corp will make its 10bil a month, its members make 50bil isk and 30-50 bil in lp. how teh **** does that stop inflation? The problem is not that they made 50bil per month with those anomalies but 500bil. And that is WAY too much. And LP? That is not an isk source but an isk sink, you have to pay isk to the lp-store to get items, thus isk is removed from the game during the lp<->item conversion. It doesn't matter for farmers where they farm their money. It doesn't matter to them if the money comes from farming 0.0 anomalies, from farming high-sec missions or farming cuddly bears with cowbells. The only thing that matters to them is the income. And THAT got reduced a lot - and that is good. It was way, way too high. Of course everyone affected whines now that the free money is gone. But it is GOOD that the exorbitant money supply without increased risk is reduced at least a little bit.
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.13 12:48:00 - [3237] Edited by: BackStreet Babe on 13/04/2011 12:53:59 the lp generates isk to the player for missioning, so they are better off missioning than with anoms. there should always be a higher reward for being in 0.0. there are constant battles small and large for every player in 0.0. in empire unless your a moron you are totaly safe, that can not be said for 0.0. at the end of teh day this isnt about the game, inflation or anything else. ccp want more hard cash, cut off peopels income and they think peopel will go buy plex's for cash to sell. that wont happen, peopel are leaving as we speak. you might say tahts good for the game, but it truely isnt. tbh i love teh guys i play this game with, without them there isnt a reason to play. and i guess that is teh same for many of the peopel that are quiting due to this dramatic fu to all the work people put in by ccp. time will tell, hope that ccp burn in the end from the bottom of my heart
7Up Man	Posted - 2011.04.13 13:05:00 - [3238] Long, long time ago the great nation of B.O.T.S. told me in my deepest nightmares: We will back!
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.04.13 13:23:00 - [3239] Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: BackStreet Babe why should high sec be more rewarding than 0.0 for a normal eve player? thats what dom fixed, now thats broken again. almost everyone i knew in 0.0 before dom farmed missions to pay for pvp, since that they have farmed anoms. That shows even more how broken it was. You just shouldn't be able to "farm" stuff in 0.0 as if you were in high-sec. In many 0.0 areas was/is no risk at all any more, why should be there then a MUCH higher reward? Originally by: BackStreet Babe say a 100 man corp has 2 systems, the corp makes about 10bil a month, members make about 50bil say that 100 man corp goes back missioning, the corp will make its 10bil a month, its members make 50bil isk and 30-50 bil in lp. how teh ** does that stop inflation? The problem is not that they made 50bil per month with those anomalies but 500bil. And that is WAY too much. And LP? That is not an isk source but an isk sink, you have to pay isk to the lp-store to get items, thus isk is removed from the game during the lp<->item conversion. It doesn't matter for farmers where they farm their money. It doesn't matter to them if the money comes from farming 0.0 anomalies, from farming high-sec missions or farming cuddly bears with cowbells. The only thing that matters to them is the income. And THAT got reduced a lot - and that is good. It was way, way too high. Of course everyone affected whines now that the free money is gone. But it is GOOD that the exorbitant money supply without increased risk is reduced at least a little bit. once again this change has nothing to do with the economy. it is based on creating more conflict by making some space more desireable than other space. which means to say that people will attack MM, RA, SOLAR, GOON, RZR, RO, -A- etc for their good true sec systems. basically CCP greyscale and team BFF have no clue how 0.0 works, don't like the fact that they have no clue how 0.0 works and are now going to do everything they possibly can to make sure that you play exactly the way they want you to in their sandbox. this change is not about decreasing the isk coming into the system or anything else along those lines. it is based on a REALLY screwed up theory that somehow null entities will fight each other for better ratting (and you can be sure hidden belts will be nerfed next) and that staging systems are based on truesec. hes an idiot who doesnt understand the game he is sposedly designing. he might understand the code behind the games but lets face it, eve is made special because of the players not the coding. spying? all playerbased, CCP has nothing to do with it. Corp thefts all players, CCP doesnt have anything to do with it. Greyscale and his team dont get that. they think THEY are the ones who make eve great. face it... ui pretty crappy, very laggy. gates, laggy, system loads laggier than ever after this last patch, loading up chat channels on log in, laggy. ship control laggy, fleet functions awkward, eve-voice...lawls... taken on its own merits eve is a mediocre game at best. its the players stupid, and all this does is ** em off while not accomplishing the actual goal which is to increase the amount of 0.0 conflict and make it interesting again. the real question is who are they trying to make it interesting for, surely not the people who all went out there after domininion who are now taking it in the ass.
nano bobcat	Posted - 2011.04.13 14:14:00 - [3240] Edited by: nano bobcat on 13/04/2011 14:16:28 Originally by: BackStreet Babe say a 100 man corp has 2 systems, the corp makes about 10bil a month, members make about 50bil say that 100 man corp goes back missioning, the corp will make its 10bil a month, its members make 50bil isk and 30-50 bil in lp. wrong. lvl4 give much less revenue than farming sanctums non-stop. Farming ISK with missions requires more efforts than warp into anomaly, kill everything and go on with the next anomaly. Originally by: BackStreet Babe the lp generates isk to the player for missioning, so they are better off missioning than with anoms. wrong again. LP generate no ISK, LP stores remove ISK. Originally by: Skaarl it is based on creating more conflict by making some space more desireable than other space. which means to say that people will attack MM, RA, SOLAR, GOON, RZR, RO, -A- etc for their good true sec systems. basically CCP greyscale and team BFF have no clue how 0.0 works yeah, but team Z pet knows more about 0.0, amrite? People always fought over valuable chunks of space. Its the reason PL was in fountain, bob in delve and core NC in tribute, tenal and deklein. You're right, small entities have never contributed much to conflicts, they were pulled with their lords whereever they were needed as cannon fodder/meatshields. This is what changed with the recent nerf, those meatshields will die (which is good).

Zig McJigg	Posted - 2011.04.13 16:58:00 - [3241] Since these changes my corp barely even logs on and my alliance is pretty inactive as well.. what a waste.
Metal Icarus	Posted - 2011.04.13 19:20:00 - [3242] I live in 0.0 and with the new patch, our system is pretty much crap. Its 0.04 so we get a couple hubs max. Our hub is fully upgraded with about a billion isk worth of implants. Truly, now useless for the isk they provide. All that and the rent we pay.... Hasn't changed at all.... So for all you thinking this will let younger corps get to null, it wont because the big players already own most of it. You want conflict, put a damn limit on the amount of systems your alliance can hold to a ratio of members. (1 system for every 30-60 players) That and these anomalies is how we got newbs to null and helped them out. Now, they can hardly make any money to do anything. The only thing we can really do now is mine. So, coming from a newb corp in null, we are dead in the water. Thanx CCP!!! PS: I can now hardly afford filling up ppls killboards with my name and fail fits.... ;_;
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.13 19:20:00 - [3243] Edited by: Darth Gustav on 13/04/2011 19:21:51 Edited by: Darth Gustav on 13/04/2011 19:20:50 Originally by: Zig McJigg Since these changes my corp barely even logs on and my alliance is pretty inactive as well.. what a waste. ^---this. Did anybody who actually supports this (for whatever reason, luls i guess) notice Greyscale's claims, reasons, and predictions? Greyscale has discussed nothing, despite his (and CCP's) claim that there would be actual discussion. He claimed there wasn't as much conflict in nullsec as they expected, despite enormous upheaval in nullsec and record-breaking capital losses. He predicted that people would be stirred to try to take better space from those who have it, despite hundreds of kilobytes of forum posts to the contrary. Yet he (and CCP) seem utterly unwilling to consider that people may actually not do what the models predicted. What CCP have done here is another bait and switch. I don't know how things work in Iceland, maybe fish, salt, and hot springs act as some kind of ad-hoc bartering currency to help support the ôIRL ISK.ö But in the civilized world, informed customers don't take kindly to the bait and switch maneuver. Ghost training was a feature, once touted as being good for the game. That model seems to have been obviously flawed, since CCP took it away and then lied about it (just like they're doing now), saying in turn that it was a bug, and that players who took advantage of it were ôstealing from them.ö Then we were told that ihubs were a feature, too, that would bring balance to the game. When their models were once again proven wrong, we were given this latest round of bull**** about our ihubs still retaining all of their prior functionality. Right, and nullsec is currently filling up with droves of new corps and alliances all slathering for...Hubs? Why did we even bother listening to CCP's intentions for ihubs? Are we, the paying customers, imbeciles? Shouldn't we have learned from CCP's past folly? Perhaps we should have. Perhaps we yet will.
Zxmagus GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.13 20:20:00 - [3244] A goon named Toshimo Kamiya crunched the numbers on deklien and here they are. Pre-patch = 136 Sanctum / 136 Haven (50/50) = 272 Post-patch = 45 Sanctum / 226 Haven (16.6/83.3) = 271 dek is one of the best true sec regions in the game and it's pretty damn huge the change, the numbers get scary bad if you look at other regions. This patch has been a massive global nerf to null sec, we'd really like some sort of conversation on this.
Jimbase	Posted - 2011.04.13 21:25:00 - [3245] Great job CCP you may of just cut your number of players half. This has to be the worst change I have ever seen in any game. Kudos to you CCP you found a way to finally fix lag, just make every one quit the game.
Daedalus Imperator Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.13 21:41:00 - [3246] Since these changes have been made. I have noticed a considerable less amount of players logging in. No one is active. The reason is because the majority play this game to PvP. Without consulting us, listening, or using your brains CCP - you have made PvPing harder because players have to ISK up for hours and hours just to lose one ship. Are you trying to turn the game into a space version of WOW raiding or something? You will lose a large portion of your members when an alternative game pops up now. Nice to see how much you respect and communicate with your player base.
Nobani Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.13 22:42:00 - [3247] Edited by: Nobani on 13/04/2011 22:42:44 Originally by: Daedalus Imperator You will lose a large portion of your members when an alternative game pops up now. A lot of people have been saying this recently. Sadly no new game with comparable features has popped up to test the theory. I think the suits think "non-consensual PvP" doesn't sell.
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.14 08:04:00 - [3248] Originally by: nano bobcat Edited by: nano bobcat on 13/04/2011 14:16:28 Originally by: BackStreet Babe say a 100 man corp has 2 systems, the corp makes about 10bil a month, members make about 50bil say that 100 man corp goes back missioning, the corp will make its 10bil a month, its members make 50bil isk and 30-50 bil in lp. wrong. lvl4 give much less revenue than farming sanctums non-stop. Farming ISK with missions requires more efforts than warp into anomaly, kill everything and go on with the next anomaly. Originally by: BackStreet Babe the lp generates isk to the player for missioning, so they are better off missioning than with anoms. wrong again. LP generate no ISK, LP stores remove ISK. Originally by: Skaarl it is based on creating more conflict by making some space more desireable than other space. which means to say that people will attack MM, RA, SOLAR, GOON, RZR, RO, -A- etc for their good true sec systems. basically CCP greyscale and team BFF have no clue how 0.0 works yeah, but team Z pet knows more about 0.0, amrite? People always fought over valuable chunks of space. Its the reason PL was in fountain, bob in delve and core NC in tribute, tenal and deklein. You're right, small entities have never contributed much to conflicts, they were pulled with their lords whereever they were needed as cannon fodder/meatshields. This is what changed with the recent nerf, those meatshields will die (which is good). lv4 missions make more isk than sanctums for the player, i have done both. with missions ok isk is removed form game via lp, it is not removed from the player he actaully gains isk via selling teh lp. so thats a fu to teh corp tax system, can live with that. but the player is far better off in teh safty of empire in his faction ship than ever having to worry about teh next red gang in 0.0. missiosn no afk'ing at a pos waiting for that gang or cloaker to leave, just dock hit accept and undock. isk per hour is better in empire. thats wrong. clearly you dont get this. this now comes down to one thing, do you have good moons or not. if you do yay you can replace alliances ships, make supers and fight. if you dont have good moons, well forget it, you cant take them as you cant replace ships and afford supers. your suplimental income just vanished over night. so even sov bills will be a *** this just kicks sand in the little guys face as he gets *** slapped by the big guys. if you belive anything else will happen you are a greyscale blind alt. more conflict my arse, more lv4 whoring is what this patch is for
AGORAPHOBIC NOSEBLEED	Posted - 2011.04.14 08:19:00 - [3249] Yup. If you wanted to do something extreme, you could have just nerfed the moons. Then at least an alliance could pool individual player contributions in order to pay bills, make supers, and go to war. Now... well, who cares? What is the point of mobilizing to fight over space? I could care less about moons. How many times are you going to throw your isk into the lag fire? And for what reward? Moons don't put hulls in my hanger or mods on my ships. Sanctums did. So we end up with a few power blocks that have the resources to make the Supers to hold on to their space, and if you don't have the resources to tip their bull, well, why bother?
CBBOMBERMAN	Posted - 2011.04.14 10:03:00 - [3250] This is gonna have more of a negative effect than a positive one. -Yes, its unquestionable that people will leave 0.0 as e have seen already it has had the effect. -Yes it may encourage some wars but in truth be said, in the last two years we had very large wars and long wars too. I dont think this is something thats gonna help it. -Large alliances and coalition will not let go of people cos numbers do count too and in this game you try and take all the advantages. -While you can still make isk runing level 4s, we can agree its not the most convenient nor the most effective way. Clone jumping to high sec and back is a pain as you can only do it every 24 hours. While alts help, most people want also their alt in 0.0 for scouting or dual boxing. Jumping 20+ systems to high sec runing missions and runing back to 0.0 for an opp is alot to ask for many people. -The rich do get richer and the poor gets poorer, this is a fact. -In the last few years we have seen alliances grow massive, so people did more into 0.0 in very large numbers. Today we see many more gate camps even on enemy territory than before. -Thanks to sanctums we have seen an explosion in carriers and supper caps. And we have seen many of those so called "noobs in supper caps" due to it. While i agree getting into supper caps should not be easy i disagre that everyone else in caps should get punished too for it. All those people in caps are you current capital warriors, and with this patch they just got their legs cut under them. You can forget about them using caps to pvp. There is no way the can replace them now effectivelly. -The reason why not many alliances move into 0.0 is simply cos its a lot of work. Yes making war on others, logistics of moving stuff, setting posses and refulling, cost of ships and CTAs among other things. A lot of alliances like to be more mobile and get pvp rather than tiying themselves to property cos once you do, you have to deffend it. One thing is for sure. This is not gonna encourage more wars. If it did, we will already be experincing massive wars. Strangelly enought this has not happened already....I wonder why? All the current wars have been there for some time now. So, no new wars atm. The wars you can perhaps say would be here evoke attacked the north. But this was very much expected as they want revenge for the last war, so this is a grudge/revenge thing, a very common thing in eve. Alliances that can survive will survive, those that cant will will leave and rich ill get richer and poorer gets poorer, wars will not be cos effective for average joe so h will not be able to replace his pvp ship as frequently. After all wagging war is an expensive thing.

Gunman1982	Posted - 2011.04.14 10:18:00 - [3251] Edited by: Gunman1982 on 14/04/2011 10:19:43 Well I guess until someone posts links to warez or child ****ography sites not a single soul of the CCP dev or mod team will even look at all your posts and opinions. Mh maybe it would be a good idea to push the report button on every single post so that we are sure that at lesat someone reads them.
Vengeance Thirst	Posted - 2011.04.14 11:12:00 - [3252] After almost 3 bill invested in system upgrades (bought new ihub, ship to move it and upgrds... time waste ratting... and everything else) I decided to start a personal "Get a cloaky ship block a sanctum" campaign. If ** works out il get more alts on it. CCP took my sanctums so I adapt. 50mil a day per sanctum to let it respawn Is my price, see me in local you know thats what I'm there for. Pay up or do havens. Your precious -1 system is ** like mine is now :)
PortMoresby	Posted - 2011.04.14 13:49:00 - [3253] I like the change. If you dont log in after the patch and your alliance is dead then you should ask yourself why you where in null sec anyway? Ive never done sanctum/haven, but earning isk enough for PvP has never been a problem.
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.14 16:25:00 - [3254] CCP might as well just lock this thread. Their ignorance and refusal to read the 3000+ responses in this thread prove that they already don't give a ** about the players and what we want. So why not just lock it already? Prove to us that you just don't give a damn. NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!**
Genevio	Posted - 2011.04.14 22:12:00 - [3255] My take on whatÆs really behind this. Dust 514 is on the horizon. As I understand it, this will make planets part of sov warfare. Also the Dust Mercs will be supported by EVE alliances who want to use them for sov wars/sov defense. So, two points: 1)With all the viable systems out there, the number of alliances who can afford to enter the bidding, and have space they care to defend, outstrips CCPÆs projected number of Dust players. Having the effect of diluting the mercs across many systems and resulting in no good fights for the console guys, and the possible failure of the whole Dust endeavor. 2)With Havens and Sanctums creating so much isk for the average pod pilot, there is less need for folks to go through the tedium of PA to make isk. Since PA complexes will be vulnerable to planetary warfare. Less complexes, spread over more systems, means less objectives for the console folks per campaign. Consolidation of the planetary battle zones is what this is about. Might be out in deep space on this one, but thatÆs my two isk.
Neon Trotsky	Posted - 2011.04.15 00:04:00 - [3256] Originally by: Genevio My take on whatÆs really behind this. Dust 514 is on the horizon....... Consolidation of the planetary battle zones is what this is about. Might be out in deep space on this one, but thatÆs my two isk. I think that Dust plays a role. I'd describe it that they want planetary resources to be more and more important to the player base for Dust to be a success. This might be OK if we can make a decent amount of isk with less grind except the cost of these changes to null sec alliances in members and particpation could really hurt CCP. While I never made my money in sanctums, a lot of people do, and are months from the skills and assets to make consistent cash with the alternatives. So people are leaving null sec by the thousands--probably to spend a few months in empire to eventually unsub out of boardom. CCP has delt a serious blow to my corp and alliance with this --taken away much of what has taken a year for us to build such that I am close to unsubbing all 8 of may accounts and taking a long break--perhaps forever. Thats not somesort of vengful ragequit statement at CCP, but its the consequenses of losing faith that what I work my ass off to build over the next year won't be torn usunder by the next whimsical missguided decision.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.15 01:24:00 - [3257] Originally by: Neon Trotsky Originally by: Genevio My take on whatÆs really behind this. Dust 514 is on the horizon....... Consolidation of the planetary battle zones is what this is about. Might be out in deep space on this one, but thatÆs my two isk. I think that Dust plays a role. I'd describe it that they want planetary resources to be more and more important to the player base for Dust to be a success. This might be OK if we can make a decent amount of isk with less grind except the cost of these changes to null sec alliances in members and particpation could really hurt CCP. While I never made my money in sanctums, a lot of people do, and are months from the skills and assets to make consistent cash with the alternatives. So people are leaving null sec by the thousands--probably to spend a few months in empire to eventually unsub out of boardom. They should not chase people out of nullsec, then. Here's an interesting stat players should be interested in: How many POS's total will be taken down (dismantled and shipped out, not destroyed) in nullsec in the 30 days after this idiocy went live? Another might be actual nullsec population before and after this nerf. Quote: CCP has delt a serious blow to my corp and alliance with this --taken away much of what has taken a year for us to build such that I am close to unsubbing all 8 of may accounts and taking a long break--perhaps forever. Thats not somesort of vengful ragequit statement at CCP, but its the consequenses of losing faith that what I work my ass off to build over the next year won't be torn usunder by the next whimsical missguided decision. Bolded for emphasis. These changes are so laughable it hurts my brain. CCP Greyscale: I defy you to provide us with real useful data on this, such as how many POS's are willingly taken down in nullsec due to this (not destroyed, just removed), or perhaps the ratio of sovereign systems to the whole of systems in nullsec before the nerf and 30 days after. Also, please keep a tally of all the SC's being destroyed over ratting systems, we want to see real proof that this worked. Maybe you could make a sweet video about your litterbox, er, sandbox. Emergence my ass.
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.15 10:58:00 - [3258] dispite the dev blog not mentioning it a gm has just confirmed to me, that no system below -0.85 is ment to have any sanctums at all. way to cover up your lies in that blog greyscale
Ze Beeblebrox Amarr Space Demolition Inc. Negotium Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.15 11:13:00 - [3259] At the moment CCP and its representatives react like a stubborn deaf-mute-teenager who absolutely ignores any parental argument ! This behaviour is not acceptable for any company with respect towards its customers ! It is my guess that CCP will pay dearly for this stubborn and rightous stupid behaviour towards its clients. The misbehaviour on behalf of CCP is: - CCP Greyscales publicised intentions are either a lie or result of inability to comprehend 0.0 realities, or even worse pure disinterest of 0.0 realities and blatant stupidity. - CCP didn't give all those smaller entities neither the time to write off their investitions (e.g. 2 months of adaption), as fully upgraded systems do cost about 3 bil ISK each and now are quite wortless, nor is CCP willing to at least partially reimburse the pirate upgrades which now became worthless crap. - CCP does not communicate at all by any appropriate means, except stubborn, idiotic and obviously non-listening blabla. CCP should give direct reason underlying with statistics to its customerbase. There should be clear numbers why there were too many ISK generated in 0.0, there should be clear progress-data whether intended goals are at least partially reached or whether they will do any kind of adjustments at a given time, numbers become clear enough. - CCP undermined any kind of legimity of the CSM as this institution was fully ignored upon such a change with that huge impact on major parts of EVE-Online. There seems to have been no consulting, no discussion, no seeking of any kind of feedback on behalf of the CSM. If such changes are to be undertaken without any kind of inclusion of the CSM, CSM becomes a worthless institution being nothing more than an ignorable PR-stunt. What do these changes do: - Major Powerblocks immediately handed over all those "good" Truesec-Systems over to their privileged members, likewise to good moons. Their members direct Income stays or even gets increased. - Smaller Entities find themselves forced to move out of 0.0 or to accept systems with smaller ratting-Income. Some will revert to mining, some will optimize the harvesting of the remaining anomalies. - Within a Powerblock Noone will ever fight for better systems as this will result in an immediate kickout by the Powerblock rulers. - Renting Income for Powerblocks will drastically sink and thus get into a margin, where Powerblocks will still want to rent out systems for a bargain with the consequence of having complaining renters, wanting their Powerblock to clean their systems of visiting unfriendly neighboring entities. The trouble might not be worth the rent and thus only fewer entities who can deliver their masters some value, will be allowed to rent. The slightest doubt in loyality, the slightes trouble a smaller entity delivers, will get it kicked. In short: first consequence is that many smaller 0.0-entities will leave and 0.0 immediately gets depopulated. - Instead of introducing equality or even some slight disatvantage proportional to the size of alliances, CCP moved even further to give an advantage to greater entities, making it even more impossible for smaller ones to grow and stand up against established ones. Larger entities with privileged access to more valuable systems will easily be able to replace capital sized ships, whereas smaller entities will struggle to even replace battleship-class and functional T2 ships. Members of larger entities will eventually not pay any headtax or likewise, because the alliance gets its income by Moons and Rent, where members of smaller entities will most likely have a head tax and much less offered by their alliance. The advantage of the established alliances is so huge, you do not have any chance as smaller alliance to recruit established corporations into your alliance, as you cannot deliver them advantages they demand. In short: Established Alliances get richer, the Underdogs have no chance to grow. EVE only for established ones is EVE dying
Filay Six	Posted - 2011.04.15 13:27:00 - [3260] People, your points, both pros and cons, are valid and well brought forward but how many here really think CCP will read this or even care?

Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.15 14:34:00 - [3261] Funny how people think CCP has to discuss or ask players or CSM what to do with the game. Its CCPs game, not CSMs, they may do what they want without asking anyone, if there are good reasons for that. CSM is good for gathering information from the playerbase but if they think, there is no need for it, its their decision.
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.15 15:21:00 - [3262] Originally by: Robert Caldera Funny how people think CCP has to discuss or ask players or CSM what to do with the game. Its CCPs game, not CSMs, they may do what they want without asking anyone, if there are good reasons for that. CSM is good for gathering information from the playerbase but if they think, there is no need for it, its their decision. What CCP doesn't seem to understand is that you can't stop selling chocolate to your customers and replace it with **. You lose customers that way. If CCP continues this trend of "screw the players, we will do what we want" that Greyscale clearly expressed in one of his responses in this very thread then people WILL leave. Will it be the droves of players the doomsayers are predicting. Probably not. Will some people leave for sure? Yeah... NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!**
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.15 15:28:00 - [3263] they gave you your sanctums and they took some people their sanctums again as they realized making all space to carebear heavens was a mistake.
Michael McDonald	Posted - 2011.04.15 16:47:00 - [3264] Originally by: Robert Caldera Funny how people think CCP has to discuss or ask players or CSM what to do with the game. Its CCPs game, not CSMs, they may do what they want without asking anyone, if there are good reasons for that. CSM is good for gathering information from the playerbase but if they think, there is no need for it, its their decision. True.. CCP can do as the will. It is after all their game. Having said that... Their game is populated by a "Player Base" that supports, through RL money and interest, the continuation of Their Game. I feel the more that they do what They want to do will begin to have a Direct effect of what WE the players want to do. That, at least for many of us will be to log in less, care less, and maybe find a new game at some point. Just saying.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.15 17:46:00 - [3265] yeah right, its what you, customer, may do. However, what you cant demand, is CCP asking you for game changes. People will always whine, as you take them something away (which may be required).
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.15 19:02:00 - [3266] Originally by: Robert Caldera yeah right, its what you, customer, may do. However, what you cant demand, is CCP asking you for game changes. People will always whine, as you take them something away (which may be required). Except, CCP Greyscale said they were going to take another serious look at this. Then, in the same post, he kind of said that they don't care: 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 This all happened after people had forked out thousands of dollars to fly to an iceberg to drink beer and eat fish with their beloved game designers. No mention of this there, though... Then, the very next day, still hung over from fan-fest: Originally by: CCP Greyscale Hi again, Update on the above post: we've looked at the concerns brought up here, and done another evaluation pass as mentioned above. The outcome of this is that, while we understand and appreciate that these changes will negatively impact residents in some areas of space in the short term, we feel that on balance they are still likely to result in a noticeably positive overall outcome in the long run. This decision is mainly predicated on the fact that we still have a sufficient degree of confidence in our models of nullsec causality. We understand that many players have alternate models that predict negative outcomes; we will of course be monitoring developments post-deployment to confirm whether or not things are developing in the way we are predicting, with an eye to modifying the proposed system if we see unexpected negative outcomes occurring, but we don't believe that the arguments raised by players in this thread weaken our model sufficiently to justify changing our plans at this stage. We appreciate that this decision is not going to be regarded as a positive one by most participants of this thread, and we of course respect your right to continue to express your previously-noted disapproval here in a civil manner. That's all for today, -Greyscale Noticeably positive for whom, exactly? This looks to me like a GIANT bait-and-switch conspiracy with very specific motive and intent. Sorry if you disagree.
Michael McDonald	Posted - 2011.04.15 23:45:00 - [3267] Originally by: Robert Caldera yeah right, its what you, customer, may do. However, what you cant demand, is CCP asking you for game changes. People will always whine, as you take them something away (which may be required). Yeah man.. I understand the the "players" are not in the driver's seat driving the vehicle that is EVE. But we are along for the ride. The only thing that we do decide is how long to stay in the car. I am cool with that, but it just sounds like everyone in the backseat is grumbling loudly about the destination. Can ppl adapt and find some entertainment value? Sure. Do ppl feel upset that a system that was implimented (see IHUB and Upgrades) was cumbersome and very expensive to get up and running only to be rendered mostly useless for intended effect? You betcha. PPL might tire of following CCP out on these limbs only to have them break and no longer support them. I guess I am just feeling kinda meh about the whole thing at this point. The changes don't inspire me to play. They missed the mark. I just don't see how this holds any advantage. I does not stimulate PVP or anything. Why fight over space anymore. There is no promise that that space will be worth tomorrow what is seems to be worth today.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.16 03:22:00 - [3268] sovereignty - breaking the chains reported by CCP Abathur \| 2009.09.09 11:56:50 Home Improvement One issue that we intend to specifically address is that of æinfrastructure'. This is a word you are going to hear a lot more of in the months and years to come. Essentially, we are going to give you the tools to improve the space you hold. There will be many ways you can do this, but they will all fall under one of three categories: Military, Economic and Industrial. These are not set æpaths' that you can follow, simply a classification of daily activities that take place in EVE. The idea is that some areas of space are obviously considered of less worth than others and always have been. This is going to change. YOU are going to change it. Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold. This will consist of things as simple as investing in improvements that allow your members to discover new riches in systems long thought barren and useless. The resources were always æout there', hidden or out of sight, and now you will have the tools to access them. Other developmental areas will concern the expansion and efficiency of your industrial base. In essence, you are going to be able to make your space more attractive to both your current alliance members and also smaller entities that might be looking for incentives to take their first steps out of Empire. The goal is to provide incentives for you and your allies to not have to spread out so much in order to provide reasonable rewards for your pilots. Just Sayin.
Cpl Punnishment Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.04.16 05:49:00 - [3269] Originally by: Amber Villaneous sovereignty - breaking the chains reported by CCP Abathur \| 2009.09.09 11:56:50 Home Improvement One issue that we intend to specifically address is that of æinfrastructure'. This is a word you are going to hear a lot more of in the months and years to come. Essentially, we are going to give you the tools to improve the space you hold. There will be many ways you can do this, but they will all fall under one of three categories: Military, Economic and Industrial. These are not set æpaths' that you can follow, simply a classification of daily activities that take place in EVE. The idea is that some areas of space are obviously considered of less worth than others and always have been. This is going to change. YOU are going to change it. Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold. This will consist of things as simple as investing in improvements that allow your members to discover new riches in systems long thought barren and useless. The resources were always æout there', hidden or out of sight, and now you will have the tools to access them. Other developmental areas will concern the expansion and efficiency of your industrial base. In essence, you are going to be able to make your space more attractive to both your current alliance members and also smaller entities that might be looking for incentives to take their first steps out of Empire. The goal is to provide incentives for you and your allies to not have to spread out so much in order to provide reasonable rewards for your pilots. Just Sayin. I knew I should have held on to the reciept for that IHUB and Upgrades... LOL! Has it been thirty days??
Imperator Ceasar	Posted - 2011.04.16 05:53:00 - [3270] Originally by: Kerosene Edited by: Kerosene on 25/03/2011 16:59:31 Ghetto Quote from Blog: * 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) On all 5 of them points I'd like to say 'my arse'. 1. Alliances don't base their location on the number of sanctums available. 2. Why? Do you think people fight over sanctums? 3. People won't move because of the change (see points 1 and 2 above) so why would alliances get a better foothold? 4. Coalitions will be less stable why? 5. Not while jump bridges exist. You think you over estimate the power of anomolies. They are a nice-to-have, not a reason for living somewhere. edit: typo GOOD ANALYSIS AND QUITE CORRECT - CCP HAS MISREAD THINGS AGAIN.

Imperator Ceasar	Posted - 2011.04.16 06:18:00 - [3271] Originally by: Mistchaser In case anyone was curious, here's the response to requesting reimbursement: "Hi, Unfortunately we can not offer any reimbursement for or remove installed Infrastructure Hub Upgrades. Please note that there has been no change in the function of such upgrades and they will continue to work exactly as they used to. What will change is the type of anomalies available to systems, as detailed by CCP Greyscale in his DevBlog "those anomaly changes in full" which was released 2011.03.25. There also the reasons for those changes are explained. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact us again." ========================== Translation: We dont care what you say or what you think...
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.16 08:05:00 - [3272] http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1216357 CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance Posted - 2009.11.18 15:05:00 Originally by: RedClaws -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by: RedClaws on 18/11/2009 15:02:56 Nice, improvements have been made since the last time. Can we get some numbers on the new cost of outpost upgrades please? Finding an empty anomoly might be a pain with a lot of people in the same system, is there any way to know or communicate reliably which are taken? Edit: I noticed there was no mention of the anomolies being better once you upgrade , just more of them , is that still in? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The anomalies available increase in quality with the upgrades. So at level five, you will have more and better anomalies available. There are some low level ones in there as well that can be done by relatively young players, so the benefits aren't restricted to older players. So what's this BS about "they function the same but are distributed differently"
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.16 08:11:00 - [3273] Posted - 2009.11.18 16:58:00 CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance Originally by: Aprudena Gist -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Isaac Starstriker -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 18/11/2009 16:10:47 Originally by: Aprudena Gist -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Soundwave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The anomalies available increase in quality with the upgrades. So at level five, you will have more and better anomalies available. There are some low level ones in there as well that can be done by relatively young players, so the benefits aren't restricted to older players. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you **ing kidding or something you stupid idiot. Soffer i know you aren't this stupid shut the hell up. CA ing suck. Every single rat in a CA is worse then a belt rat, they have ty salvage, they have ty payout, they are instance and you can end up finding another person in one. CA ing suck as a mechanic and unless you are going to instance them the way missions are level 4 missions will always beat them in isk/time so fix it already. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did an anomaly on Si-Si in the Catch region with a buddy. I made many times more isk doing that anomaly than I ever did ratting belts that are so effed up due to imbeciles. isk/hr is higher, considering it was with help. Is it higher than lvl 4s? Probably not, but a lot of players don't give a crap about isk/hour. If people are overly concerned with isk/hr, guess what, nothing is going to incite them to come to 0.0. Unless you move concord in. Also, you people are hilarious. First, its not enough isk, now, its isk INFLATION!!! Are you ever going to quit complaining? Give it a rest. These changes are great and really, I am quite pleased with it. The fact that grav sites are on par (or close to it) with Wormholes is insanely good. Thank you very much CCP for continuing to listen. --Isaac -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See you dont even understand all the problems associated with an easily scan down able site that anyone can enter that isn't gated in 0.0 not that i would expect you too not being in a 0.0 corp or ever living in 0.0 for an extended period of time. Go back to empire and get out and leave 0.0 to the real players. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's a massive misconception that anomalies are not profitable. As said before, the top ones (which you'll have permanently** available through the top tier upgrades) isk for isk match the most profitable missions, and certainly blow ratting out of the water. Added to that, we're looking at more ways to improve on the planned content, hopefully building on the foundation we're laying now.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.16 08:15:00 - [3274] Posted - 2009.11.18 17:43:00 CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance Originally by: EvilweaselFinance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Soundwave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's a massive misconception that anomalies are not profitable. As said before, the top ones (which you'll have permanently available through the top tier upgrades) isk for isk match the most profitable missions, and certainly blow ratting out of the water. Added to that, we're looking at more ways to improve on the planned content, hopefully building on the foundation we're laying now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not. We constantly have people decide to give them a shot, and invariably they realize they are not worth it. I don't know how you've messed up the math badly enough to think they're profitable, but if you are starting from the assumption they are this is going to fall flat on its face. Top-tier CA's are not worth it right now. If you can run one of those, you can do something much better with your time. I had hoped you realized how bad these were and were going to introduce more but this statement makes me think that's not the case, that you will just be seeding some of these "high-end" sites nobody bothers to run right now anyway. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not worth it currently because whenever you enter a system, you're given a mixed bag of anomalies. Currently, you'd have to warp from system to system, tracking the high end ones. With the new system, you'll have them constantly available. So saying "I cleared out two systems of anomalies yesterday and didn't make a lot of money" might certainly be true, but saying "I ran the top anomalies of a level five system and didn't make a lot of money" isn't.
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.16 09:43:00 - [3275] Try using proper quotemarks please..
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.16 10:07:00 - [3276] Originally by: Zey Nadar Try using proper quotemarks please.. No quote function on old closed threads, but I'm glad you are concerned with the facts and aren't just a douche troll.
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.16 10:14:00 - [3277] you could have edited th quotes in yourself..
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.16 10:49:00 - [3278] Originally by: Zey Nadar you could have edited th quotes in yourself.. Could have given my dog a handjob also.
True Rasta	Posted - 2011.04.16 13:47:00 - [3279] this isn't worst patch but stupid patch that whoever had this idea.. what r dumb.
True Rasta	Posted - 2011.04.16 14:16:00 - [3280] ** the sandbox, butterfly effect. player don't change ** but ccp

MoonglumX	Posted - 2011.04.16 14:18:00 - [3281] I don't understand why pilots in the huge 0.0 corps don't just break off from their overlords and take the moon goo for themselves. If it is better isk, just take it. Isn't that the point of EVE? It's just a suggestion, or question actually.
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.16 15:03:00 - [3282] Originally by: MoonglumX I don't understand why pilots in the huge 0.0 corps don't just break off from their overlords and take the moon goo for themselves. If it is better isk, just take it. Isn't that the point of EVE? It's just a suggestion, or question actually. i totally understand that you don't understand
Kayla B	Posted - 2011.04.16 15:07:00 - [3283] Well ccp you got your feedback not to change the anomalies!?!? So I'm calling you as 'stock holder'! and keep you in line of what players want, read 149k now and over 3k in feedback! What now? I think you should give back old set up and find other way to make us fight over systems. Point is, add more income to grid, base on sec rating and leave how it was before.
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.16 18:49:00 - [3284] i used to respect the ccp of old. there work towards maintaining teh game and making it better. the new ccp is just milking the cash cow these days, this is just the latest of its attempts to extract as much cash from teh player base. 'if they cant make money ingame they will buy more plex's' thats what this is really about. hope it actually back fires and hurts that bottom line, screw dust and vimpires tbh
nMeh North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.04.16 23:06:00 - [3285] anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i
FireIceHulk	Posted - 2011.04.16 23:09:00 - [3286] Originally by: nMeh anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i
qfedo	Posted - 2011.04.16 23:11:00 - [3287] Originally by: nMeh anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i
Zenturias	Posted - 2011.04.16 23:13:00 - [3288] Originally by: nMeh anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i 0.0 is too easy at the moment. If you are going have 0.0 rewards you need to have the risk. So i agree with this guy 100 percent. empire is just as safe as 0.0. remove 0.0 local and jb's, then I agree with making the difference between 0.0 and empire isk gained astronomically different.
mkint	Posted - 2011.04.16 23:14:00 - [3289] Originally by: nMeh anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i When you use alts to empty quote yourself, try not to be so obvious about it. One person saying the same troll 3 times does not make it a better troll.
Rupert VonDraken Shade.	Posted - 2011.04.17 09:14:00 - [3290] All these tears from bears... bears that used to be soo very effectively culled by nano-gangs. The very same people that screamed that nano's needed to be nerfed... are now screaming that their game is ruined, because they cant run sanctums non-stop. So it feels oh so very fitting that i can say this..... "adapt or die".

Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.17 13:49:00 - [3291] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 17/04/2011 13:50:44 Originally by: Danastar Originally by: MoonglumX I don't understand why pilots in the huge 0.0 corps don't just break off from their overlords and take the moon goo for themselves. If it is better isk, just take it. Isn't that the point of EVE? It's just a suggestion, or question actually. i totally understand that you don't understand yeah ofc, they have supers and all, right? welp MoonglumX is absolutely right, this is what you supposed to do now - you were the stupid monkeys, who protected their moons, so now go and get them for yourselves or stop ****ing whines and head back to high sec.
Vertisce Soritenshi O.W.N. Corp OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.17 17:08:00 - [3292] Originally by: MoonglumX I don't understand why pilots in the huge 0.0 corps don't just break off from their overlords and take the moon goo for themselves. If it is better isk, just take it. Isn't that the point of EVE? It's just a suggestion, or question actually. I don't understand why a mom and pop store doesn't just buy out Wal-Mart... NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND!
Vasentic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.17 17:35:00 - [3293] OMG gaiz! Since these changes people are logging in less, conflict in 0.0 has stayed the same or decreased, no one is trying to take space from anybody else. The NC is not collapsing and fighting amongst each other for epicz anoms systems. WHY OH WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL CCP THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!!?? owait.................
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.04.17 17:55:00 - [3294] Originally by: nMeh anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i can't wait :D
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.17 21:12:00 - [3295] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat Originally by: nMeh anomalies are fine. now remove local and jump bridges. i can't wait :D Ya that would be awesome. Null sec even less populated that it is about to be and less targets WooHoo!!!
Korben Serbaker	Posted - 2011.04.17 21:29:00 - [3296] Quote from : http://www.ccpgames.com/en/company/about-us.aspx Quote: CCP's mission is to attract and retain customers by providing top quality online entertainment. CCP does this by establishing and nurturing a trust relationship with customers both in terms of quality of content as well as quality of service. CCP encourages respect, dialog, interaction and cooperation on a deeper level between its employees and customers than is common in online games. By this and through this CCP provides a unique way for improving the quality of its products and creates an inspiring and challenging environment for talent to thrive. We care more. We work harder. Lies to me. You don't care, all you want is sell more PLEX because the average player in 0.0 can't buy his PvP ship anymore. Bad management for your new MMO if you don't have enough budget. What's the point in farming in 0.0 when carebearing in 1.0 is GREATER ? Where's the risk/reward ? 1 - Ok, we want to take a -0.9 system with dozens of BS and a support cap fleet.... OH WAIT, they have Titans, Supercarriers and 4x moar BS. 2 - So, try another system... Oh wait, the same. 3 - So, try another constellation... Oh wait the same. 4 - So, try another region.... Oh wait the same. 5 - So, try another game... Oh wait it means stop Eve Online. Too far, or maybe not anymore viable ? 6 - Go to n¦1 and repeat until you're disgusted of the game, because powerblocks are now more solids than ever, and small/medium independent alliances are weaker than ever. And you can't do anything but survive. I'm ashamed of playing this game right now, and I'm playing it since 2004. I hate farming anomalies, and I can't anymore farm 3 hours in a row killing frigates and cruisers to pay my pvp ships. Not EVEN saying about cap fleet. A mate and I farmed for 5 hours to have each only a pvp battleship. Sorry to say that guys, but you are incompetent right now with the wrong game balancing. 10 people in your office say "that's cool", 30000 players say "wrong way". What other proof do you want seriously ? You don't listen to your community, and we don't asking for the moon (lol). Just know your own game, and 30000 people can't be wrong. Quote: We are CCP. We care more, we work harder. Advise : listen harder to your community.
Lusulpher Sinister Elite	Posted - 2011.04.18 07:45:00 - [3297] Originally by: Korben Serbaker Quote from : http://www.ccpgames.com/en/company/about-us.aspx Quote: CCP's mission is to attract and retain customers by providing top quality online entertainment. CCP does this by establishing and nurturing a trust relationship with customers both in terms of quality of content as well as quality of service. CCP encourages respect, dialog, interaction and cooperation on a deeper level between its employees and customers than is common in online games. By this and through this CCP provides a unique way for improving the quality of its products and creates an inspiring and challenging environment for talent to thrive. We care more. We work harder. Lies to me. You don't care, all you want is sell more PLEX because the average player in 0.0 can't buy his PvP ship anymore. Bad management for your new MMO if you don't have enough budget. What's the point in farming in 0.0 when carebearing in 1.0 is GREATER ? Where's the risk/reward ? 1 - Ok, we want to take a -0.9 system with dozens of BS and a support cap fleet.... OH WAIT, they have Titans, Supercarriers and 4x moar BS. 2 - So, try another system... Oh wait, the same. 3 - So, try another constellation... Oh wait the same. 4 - So, try another region.... Oh wait the same. 5 - So, try another game... Oh wait it means stop Eve Online. Too far, or maybe not anymore viable ? 6 - Go to n¦1 and repeat until you're disgusted of the game, because powerblocks are now more solids than ever, and small/medium independent alliances are weaker than ever. And you can't do anything but survive. I'm ashamed of playing this game right now, and I'm playing it since 2004. I hate farming anomalies, and I can't anymore farm 3 hours in a row killing frigates and cruisers to pay my pvp ships. Not EVEN saying about cap fleet. A mate and I farmed for 5 hours to have each only a pvp battleship. Sorry to say that guys, but you are incompetent right now with the wrong game balancing. 10 people in your office say "that's cool", 30000 players say "wrong way". What other proof do you want seriously ? You don't listen to your community, and we don't asking for the moon (lol). Just know your own game, and 30000 people can't be wrong. Quote: We are CCP. We care more, we work harder. Advise : listen harder to your community. 1) Pvpers only go to -.9 to kill players. Now they will be in there all huddled. 2) Carebearing in highsec has always been more profitable, no interruptions/less ship losses/can go afk in misisons. 3) Those contellations will have less BS due to this change. Inflation helps buy supers too. 4) Medium alliances can't survive because Titans and Jbs/cynos and moons, put their Supers at your Sov in 10 minutes. 5) CCP hates losing subs, they are only doing this so their franchise is not redefined by newer players realizing their currency is inflated to hell and back. Getting PvP money has to hurt, or pvp is dead, and EvE is dead. If you can't grasp that EvE has never been the game for you. Creative Customer Person 7
PhantomArcanus	Posted - 2011.04.18 09:26:00 - [3298] because nerfing one of the easiest income for a normal player is going to bother a huge coalition with lots of moon goo... good luck small alliances that don't have enough super capitals to take moons, just saying... Nerf moons(money printers) and buff some ways to make more isk in nullsec than in empire. atm im going back to empire, good job ccp...
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.18 12:25:00 - [3299] Originally by: Lusulpher 1) Pvpers only go to -.9 to kill players. Now they will be in there all huddled. 2) Carebearing in highsec has always been more profitable, no interruptions/less ship losses/can go afk in misisons. 3) Those contellations will have less BS due to this change. Inflation helps buy supers too. 4) Medium alliances can't survive because Titans and Jbs/cynos and moons, put their Supers at your Sov in 10 minutes. 5) CCP hates losing subs, they are only doing this so their franchise is not redefined by newer players realizing their currency is inflated to hell and back. Getting PvP money has to hurt, or pvp is dead, and EvE is dead. If you can't grasp that EvE has never been the game for you. 1) Beacuse elitepvpers have no need to make isk, their ships magically appear in their hangars. 2) stuff 3) stuff 4) stuff 5) ? Yes getting ISK to PVP must hurt so that there will be more and better PVP... with less stuff and ships...after grinding for isk... ummm...
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.18 18:10:00 - [3300] Now that everything has come to pass, I would be interested in knowing what effect this has had on the alliance types out there in null sec. Is anything changing? "A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."

Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.18 18:35:00 - [3301] Edited by: Darth Gustav on 18/04/2011 18:36:37 Originally by: Gogela Now that everything has come to pass, I would be interested in knowing what effect this has had on the alliance types out there in null sec. Is anything changing? At this point, the odds of them admitting they were wrong about this seem pretty scant. In fact, we probably won't ever see any data of any sort pertaining to this change. It's done, it's over with, those who want to make their opinions felt can either buy more subs in support (ccp's gonna need it) or quit paying for their subs in protest. I doubt very sincerely that this change will produce a net increase on overall subs, though...
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.18 21:17:00 - [3302] Originally by: Darth Gustav Edited by: Darth Gustav on 18/04/2011 18:36:37 Originally by: Gogela Now that everything has come to pass, I would be interested in knowing what effect this has had on the alliance types out there in null sec. Is anything changing? At this point, the odds of them admitting they were wrong about this seem pretty scant. In fact, we probably won't ever see any data of any sort pertaining to this change. It's done, it's over with, those who want to make their opinions felt can either buy more subs in support (ccp's gonna need it) or quit paying for their subs in protest. I doubt very sincerely that this change will produce a net increase on overall subs, though... well it seems that CCP will not disclose the true reason for implemenitng this nerf - that is to remain a subject for specilation. one thing is for sure though - it has nothing to do to with the reasons stated by grayscale in his dev blog
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2011.04.19 00:35:00 - [3303] Originally by: Danastar well it seems that CCP will not disclose the true reason for implemenitng this nerf - that is to remain a subject for specilation. one thing is for sure though - it has nothing to do to with the reasons stated by grayscale in his dev blog What makes you say that? I live in low sec. I camp haulers at gates. It's easy work.
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.19 05:19:00 - [3304] its designed to increase the grind and also if space is a wall of blues with some areas getting more income than other areas this puts pressure on non aggression pacts and creates drama and reduces the amount of super caps by increaseing the time it takes to acquire them, combined with ccp dev alts in russian, IT,PL and NC stirring up the whips of war and increase in ccp devs alts engaging in corp thefts their target is the NC and to destablise it Emo drama bombs an war = lost ships = stimulates markets = more drama = more accounts = more $$$ for ccp the invisible dev alts are at it again
Carniflex StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.19 05:29:00 - [3305] Originally by: Gogela Now that everything has come to pass, I would be interested in knowing what effect this has had on the alliance types out there in null sec. Is anything changing? My corp lost about 10% of it's members. The number it'self is not THAT bad ofc, for a corp of that size 10% is kinda normal kneejerk reaction. What really hurts, however, is that most of these were the long time very dedicated players. Several directors and their alts. People who make stuff happen. Those people who build stations and infrastructure out there in null sec and work hard for building their empire. They were disgusted by the changes. Not exactly bcos it's harder to make isk. They know enough ways to make isk, they are close enough to the top of the pile to see some moongoo, have the skills and ships for level 4, wormholes, whatever. What seems to have been disgusting however was turning the spot of null sec they have spent past year of their life building up into a wasteland overnight in combination with really really crappy way of communicating it. I mean really ? 2 weeks headsup on "oh btw we will be nerfing your whole region" without even "sorry about your stations you made there". Just ... whimsical kick at the antnest to see how the ants run around. I myself lost my faith in CCP competence with this change as well. I am no longer capable of believing that they know what they are doing if they really believe that these changes bring about the "more pvp" what they claim as a reason for it. I guess I was just hiding my head under the sand for a while, refusing to go with "whines" in the forums. Moongoo, supercaps, etc ... Overall I do not expect CCP to care. Only 11 % of people live in null sec at any given time, if 10% of them quit over it it's only a 1% of their subscription base. They will be releasing avatar asses in latex in this summer and do a lot of advertising so 1% is not big enough change probably to ring alarm bells. So what now ? Well I have downgraded my expectation of EVE being awesome in the future as well and no longer are like "15 years down the road, pffft, EVE is the game for your entire life, m8". The underlying idea of the game is awesome. CCP has put a lot of work and love into this game. However, empire building takes some ... stability. The change was a bad one as it has cost CCP dearly in the most dedicated section of players, the "serious business spaceships game" type of people. They will be back down the road one day to see if CCP has got their ** togehter before moving on permanently I would say. Let's hope CCP has got it's ** together by that time.
Vasentic Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.04.19 06:47:00 - [3306] Originally by: HeliosGal its designed to increase the grind and also if space is a wall of blues with some areas getting more income than other areas this puts pressure on non aggression pacts and creates drama and reduces the amount of super caps by increaseing the time it takes to acquire them, combined with ccp dev alts in russian, IT,PL and NC stirring up the whips of war and increase in ccp devs alts engaging in corp thefts their target is the NC and to destablise it Emo drama bombs an war = lost ships = stimulates markets = more drama = more accounts = more $$$ for ccp the invisible dev alts are at it again Ohai... Let me introduce you to the way 0.0 works seeing as you obviously have no idea and/or most likely have lived in empire your whole life. It will not have any affect on NAPs because alliances will never fight each other so their pilots can have a handful of systems with sanctums to carebear in. You really think all these supercaps come from sanctums? Are you that daft? And please explain to me in what reality are markets stimulated by REMOVAL of income? Congrats bro, I think you just won the most dense eve player award. Be sure to share it with CCP as they deserve it as much as you do.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.19 08:58:00 - [3307] Originally by: Vasentic It will not have any affect on NAPs because alliances will never fight each other so their pilots can have a handful of systems with sanctums to carebear in. so, then the nerf is not nearly that hard as some attempt us to believe it is?? Stop whining then.
S1r Minealot Shade. Penumbra Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.19 09:00:00 - [3308] moar tears pls !
Ecoskii	Posted - 2011.04.20 07:45:00 - [3309] Edited by: Ecoskii on 20/04/2011 07:46:08 So the nerf has been out for a few days now. grats on a completely dumbass change. So far i've closed one account and more than halved my play-time. Thanks for giving me back my summer! Now I log in one account, check for cta announcements, check our 1 Haven anomaly to see if it's available, then log out - there is almost nothing else to do that is worth logging in for Roams are a waste as systems are deserted as renters fall away doing 1 Haven repeatedly - do you not think we have brains ??? how much tedium should I be bothered with??) Go on - prove me wrong - leave it another week then post a graph of people active across 0.0 over the past 6 weeks and the number of fuelled POS's then see how 'excited' you are about this piece of %%%
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.20 08:28:00 - [3310] I just wonder if we can get some real feedback how worse the sanctum nerfs hit the small entities. As for our small alliance we are done with nullsec for 3 reasons 1) with 3 belts in a -0.1 system we can¦t afford the rent 2) saying this we can¦t even afford the sov bills 3) mining doesn¦t work for us as our alliance is not big enough to keep industry up. The common member has no way to make ISK in nullsec anymore. As a result of this corps either left to highsec or joined large entities. We were bleeding at this time 45% of our members we had prior to this infamous patch. Our landlords will not adjust the rents, we already talked to them. They prefer to keep the rents high even if they will have some more white spots on their map. The remaining guys who would love to stay in nullsec and not teaming up with large entities are helpless and players stopped logging in. I¦m afraid this patch will completly destroy our young alliance. Sorry for posting with an alt but I don¦t want to increase the mess we are experiencing right now. Is this happening on a larger scale? Could anyone give me honest answers about how the situation really is out there? Has anyone any experience about how to solve this mess without going back to highsec or teaming up with a large entity?

Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.20 08:57:00 - [3311] what you describe, is a totally expected result for me. Pets die out, shrinking blobs, less ISK ingame. If you want to reduce ISK inflation, there are always sacrifices. In this case its those "small alliances" at powerblock borders.
Andrea Roche	Posted - 2011.04.20 09:16:00 - [3312] Edited by: Andrea Roche on 20/04/2011 09:17:19 Originally by: Cloba I just wonder if we can get some real feedback how worse the sanctum nerfs hit the small entities. As for our small alliance we are done with nullsec for 3 reasons 1) with 3 belts in a -0.1 system we can¦t afford the rent 2) saying this we can¦t even afford the sov bills 3) mining doesn¦t work for us as our alliance is not big enough to keep industry up. The common member has no way to make ISK in nullsec anymore. As a result of this corps either left to highsec or joined large entities. We were bleeding at this time 45% of our members we had prior to this infamous patch. Our landlords will not adjust the rents, we already talked to them. They prefer to keep the rents high even if they will have some more white spots on their map. The remaining guys who would love to stay in nullsec and not teaming up with large entities are helpless and players stopped logging in. I¦m afraid this patch will completly destroy our young alliance. Sorry for posting with an alt but I don¦t want to increase the mess we are experiencing right now. Is this happening on a larger scale? Could anyone give me honest answers about how the situation really is out there? Has anyone any experience about how to solve this mess without going back to highsec or teaming up with a large entity? I am part of a small alliance too. During this patch we have lost a few members. Yes there is a lot less people showing up now for ops. Also it has created some other drama. Seems as if people lost their enthusiasm in some ways. Its evident in the tax as we see less action. We so far are scrapping by. Rent has not been lowered either. People are selling their capitals. This is bad considering when we got a large number of people in capitals. I guess i am saying this, cos once you get into capitals, you are suppose to maintain that route, not go back and sell you capitals. Mining has become a problem also as less people are logging in. So far the biggest mining op i have seen latelly is 6 hulks, very bad turn out. I guess people used to do their mining op and do some sanctums for that instant isk, that way they can afford to wait for their minerals to sell, now they have to drag their minerals all the way to high sec and is not cost effective. They are defenetly disolusioned by the whole thing. The participation in pvp has gone drastically down too. The future does not look bright :(
Andrea Roche	Posted - 2011.04.20 10:04:00 - [3313] Edited by: Andrea Roche on 20/04/2011 10:15:45 Edited by: Andrea Roche on 20/04/2011 10:05:50 Originally by: Robert Caldera what you describe, is a totally expected result for me. Pets die out, shrinking blobs, less ISK ingame. If you want to reduce ISK inflation, there are always sacrifices. In this case its those "small alliances" at powerblock borders. While i partially agree with you, there is one thing thought. Large alliances deal with Trillion of ISK if not more. Small alliances deal with less than 10 billion of isk in wallet. In a market, you cant resolve a serious issue in the market by making the richer richer and the poorer poorer cos basically you are going backwards, more like a feudal type of system specially when the gap is in the trillions of isk. Put a trillion and a billion sid by side and look at the zeros. 1 000 000 000 000 . 00 1 000 000 000 . 00 You cant wage war on these terms.
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.20 10:39:00 - [3314] Originally by: Robert Caldera what you describe, is a totally expected result for me. Pets die out, shrinking blobs, less ISK ingame. If you want to reduce ISK inflation, there are always sacrifices. In this case its those "small alliances" at powerblock borders. Well that is exactly what I want to find out. Are other small alliances smarter then we are? Do they know a way of keeping the wheel spinning we don¦t? The result I see in our alliance is horrible. Half of the guys left for large alliances and the rest doesn¦t log in anymore. For days our system is completly empty. We don¦t know how to go on anymore tbh. So what I wanted to find out if it¦s only our problem or is it a problem for the majority of small bearing alliances.
Copy Bird	Posted - 2011.04.20 11:31:00 - [3315] Originally by: Robert Caldera what you describe, is a totally expected result for me. Pets die out, shrinking blobs, less ISK ingame. If you want to reduce ISK inflation, there are always sacrifices. In this case its those "small alliances" at powerblock borders. tbh our alliance has got smaller, but most if not all have just gone to a bigger alliance. so the blob isnt getting smaller at all. the amount of isk produced by anoms compared to that produced by moons is tiny. this anom nerf wont change inflation at all, nerf moons and it may will have an impact. this chnage only hurts the small guy/corp/alliance it dosnt help it one bit. so that among most other things in the blog are therfore lies.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.20 11:36:00 - [3316] leaving to a bigger alliance wont help you at all, since there is a limited number of very good systems worth farming and the alliances get bloated quickly, leaving you no sanctums again because of 300 people squeezed in one -0.8 system.
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.20 12:29:00 - [3317] Originally by: Robert Caldera leaving to a bigger alliance wont help you at all, since there is a limited number of very good systems worth farming and the alliances get bloated quickly, leaving you no sanctums again because of 300 people squeezed in one -0.8 system. I disagree. Large alliances have system miners can and do use frequently and they got the number of miners to keep industry up. Large alliances will need stuff so traders will favour to go there. In and around our systems there are no miners, no ratters (worthless systems) and no trading anymore. It is all empty around. So it is not all about ratting.
Copy Bird	Posted - 2011.04.20 14:24:00 - [3318] Originally by: Robert Caldera leaving to a bigger alliance wont help you at all, since there is a limited number of very good systems worth farming and the alliances get bloated quickly, leaving you no sanctums again because of 300 people squeezed in one -0.8 system. of course going to teh big alliance will help, they have all the moon goo, full replacment programs taht the small boys cant have because of the moon goo. if a full bs loss only costs to replace 50mil in a larger alliance, that takes no time to recover from. if it costs 150mil to replace in a smaller alliance that has sucky space, thats gonna take ages to replace. where would i currenty be better off. oh thats right the bigger alliance with all teh isk, not the one i spent over a year help to build.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.20 14:39:00 - [3319] yes, for all those who are for pvp there, its a good decision. For the rest, who just wants carebearing, its no way.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.20 14:44:00 - [3320] Originally by: Copy Bird Originally by: Robert Caldera what you describe, is a totally expected result for me. Pets die out, shrinking blobs, less ISK ingame. If you want to reduce ISK inflation, there are always sacrifices. In this case its those "small alliances" at powerblock borders. tbh our alliance has got smaller, but most if not all have just gone to a bigger alliance. so the blob isnt getting smaller at all. the amount of isk produced by anoms compared to that produced by moons is tiny. this anom nerf wont change inflation at all, nerf moons and it may will have an impact. this chnage only hurts the small guy/corp/alliance it dosnt help it one bit. so that among most other things in the blog are therfore lies. Not to mention that anybody who thinks this will help inflation is a ****wit. Sure, they removed a small ISK fountain, but they easily removed more players from the market through sub losses and inactivity than the small divot in the isk influx could possibly accomodate. It's possible this change could actually worsen the effect of inflation, as the total ISK in the market remains similar while the active trades drops (again, due to the double-whammy of sub losses and interest waning).

Copy Bird	Posted - 2011.04.20 14:46:00 - [3321] Originally by: Robert Caldera yes, for all those who are for pvp there, its a good decision. For the rest, who just wants carebearing, its no way. so you argued you want smaller blobs, but when people join the bigger alliances and produce bigger blobs thats ok with you?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.20 15:15:00 - [3322] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 20/04/2011 15:17:17 Originally by: Copy Bird Originally by: Robert Caldera yes, for all those who are for pvp there, its a good decision. For the rest, who just wants carebearing, its no way. so you argued you want smaller blobs, but when people join the bigger alliances and produce bigger blobs thats ok with you? there were still lots(!!) of ratter pets, joining CTA fleets occassionally. They arent a part of the blob anymore as they move back to empire. Really, not that hard to grasp, is it? Those, who just joined up their lords wont login more frequently as they did before in their pet alliances, so no difference for the blob size. However, those, who leave their worthless space toward empire, are!
Copy Bird	Posted - 2011.04.20 15:24:00 - [3323] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 20/04/2011 15:17:17 Originally by: Copy Bird Originally by: Robert Caldera yes, for all those who are for pvp there, its a good decision. For the rest, who just wants carebearing, its no way. so you argued you want smaller blobs, but when people join the bigger alliances and produce bigger blobs thats ok with you? there were still lots(!!) of ratter pets, joining CTA fleets occassionally. They arent a part of the blob anymore as they move back to empire. Really, not that hard to grasp, is it? Those, who just joined up their lords wont login more frequently as they did before in their pet alliances, so no difference for the blob size. However, those, who leave their worthless space toward empire, are! these renter/pets as you call it are just joining bigger alliances, with the bear alts too, ok a small amount of mission alts are going back to empire. but most are going to increase the blob size. you really seam clueless on whats going on in 0.0. are you a ccp alt cos you seam to know as much as they do?
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.20 15:32:00 - [3324] Originally by: Robert Caldera yes, for all those who are for pvp there, its a good decision. For the rest, who just wants carebearing, its no way. It's not even good for PVPers, who ya gonna shoot at?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.04.20 15:33:00 - [3325] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 20/04/2011 15:35:15 you assume there is only a small amount of people in said pet alliances who were there just for ratting?? Discussion is over, believe what you want. If nothing relevant changes for people as they may simply join up their lords, I really dunno why there is that much whine about the nerf. Just business as usual as you say, so then stop whining.
Copy Bird	Posted - 2011.04.20 15:47:00 - [3326] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 20/04/2011 15:35:15 you assume there is only a small amount of people in said pet alliances who were there just for ratting?? Discussion is over, believe what you want. If nothing relevant changes for people as they may simply join up their lords, I really dunno why there is that much whine about the nerf. Just business as usual as you say, so then stop whining. its not a whine when you see something bad happening and state the reasons that its bad. this is bad for all small corps and alliances in the game. its short sighted and ignorant to make this change and state the reasons ccp has for it. rich get richer poor get poorer. or the big get bigger and the small fail and fade away.
Cloba	Posted - 2011.04.20 16:01:00 - [3327] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 20/04/2011 15:35:15 you assume there is only a small amount of people in said pet alliances who were there just for ratting?? Discussion is over, believe what you want. If nothing relevant changes for people as they may simply join up their lords, I really dunno why there is that much whine about the nerf. Just business as usual as you say, so then stop whining. Well I did raise a couple of very serious questions. And all I got from you was a half decent troll. Why is that? I told you from first hand experience how this nerf has almost destroyed our small alliance and it is a matter of a very short period of time until this alliance will come to an end. If you are happy about our sudden death so be it. If you think we did not deserve to exist in first place so be it. If you really think that this nerf was needed to counter inflation so be it. But if you don¦t mind: I¦m not happy about our alliance death because CCP made it impossible for us to survive. I¦m sure we got a right to exist just because we are a part of the eve universe. I¦m also sure that infaltion got nothing to do with it and it was only made up by some guys who are as clueless as anyone else why this tremendous nullsec destruction had to happen. It is not about whining. We are just trying to survive in any way we can. Unfortunately it seems that nobody has a clue how to handle this mess as a small carebear alliance that put all their assets into their nullsec home and are now left alone with worthless systems and extraordinary dropping numbers. And all I hear from ppl like you is: You deserved to get treated this way. Why? When I came to eve it was ment to be a sandbox where people¦s decision would define the outcome. Is our way of playing really that disgusting for you that you can openly say "you guys don¦t deserve to be in eve"? Why is there all this bitterness about carebears? Are we not players? Are we useless because it is not our joy to pump up our egos pointing towards killboards and personal stats? If you are speaking the mind of the majority, then eve became a game that I personally don¦t want to play anymore as I don¦t like to be treated as a second class person just because I prefer to play the game my way. I really would like to hear other small alliance members experience so we can figure out a way to survive and CCP got the opportunity to learn from seeing us suffering. And again it is not whining just a struggle to survive.
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.20 16:04:00 - [3328] Edited by: zxsteel on 20/04/2011 16:06:21 Checking in to see any thing new to come as of yet? NOTE: I don't understand why ccp wants to make it hard for groups of people wanting to make income, they are making it easier for bots! I tho ccp was all about groups of people in 0.0! I must have been here!
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.20 17:52:00 - [3329] CCP Greyscale, consider this as an alternative to these abysmally terrible anomaly changes. People who have left might actually re-sub, and you'll be using a model that stands a chance in hell of actually working. Or, that's my two ISK.
7Up Man	Posted - 2011.04.20 18:36:00 - [3330] Edited by: 7Up Man on 20/04/2011 18:38:08 Edited by: 7Up Man on 20/04/2011 18:36:45 If CCP wants war why not reshuffle moons? Cause their friends or what? Wants to stop Inflation? As others said before rich get richer, big get bigger. That was the most stupid and illogical thing what I have ever seen in all my life.

Raven Zulu	Posted - 2011.04.20 20:39:00 - [3331] The chess pieces have already started moving - in the opposite direction of CCP's stated intent. VAST areas of 'worthless' 0.0 are being given up. The larger alliances are retreating to their high value systems - making them citadels in the void. Are they to become hermits in their retreats? How difficult is it to take sov from an alliance when 5% of its members lived there? How much more difficult will it be when 33% of members live there? Is one system worth an invasion with costs so high? Sure, before the 'patch' you could siege a constellation and make isk from every system in it. Lowsec just got bigger.
The GreenT	Posted - 2011.04.21 20:15:00 - [3332] Originally by: Raven Zulu The chess pieces have already started moving - in the opposite direction of CCP's stated intent. VAST areas of 'worthless' 0.0 are being given up. The larger alliances are retreating to their high value systems - making them citadels in the void. Are they to become hermits in their retreats? How difficult is it to take sov from an alliance when 5% of its members lived there? How much more difficult will it be when 33% of members live there? Is one system worth an invasion with costs so high? Sure, before the 'patch' you could siege a constellation and make isk from every system in it. Lowsec just got bigger. been following this post with an occasional trolling comment, in general i like to see the tears. its like sitting outisde jita to watch the orphans wtf pwn so many of the 0.0 bears. Anyhoo...First, people are not moving in droves to low sec, but I wish they did. Low sec is a hell of a lot harder to control with having to lose sec to maintain control, plus, more targets \o/ Second, while it is speculation, I believe that even though the short term is predicting much of what players said, I think this is short term. What drives people to run these sites is iskies, but that is not the only reason and I don't believe it's what people REALLY do them for. People run sites for activity. While PVE isn't the most fun part of the game for many of us, it sure beats the hell out of ship spinning. People want to run these sites because they are something to do, with a group, that is rewarding. What has been taken away (apart from isk) is the ability to have a certain playstyle in every system. What is going to drive conflict is not fights over isk (moongoo will always be the major isk focus) but over internal strife. Its no fun when you have no rats to clean out, no sites to run, nothing to do. When your bored out of your mind, or circle jerking while the CTA is firing up, people do dumb things. Bored players doing stupid sh*t is whats going to drive conflict. And after you see these prime systems start bulking up just wait and I am sure you'll hear about plenty of internal drama. My prediction, get ready for lots of espionage, a lot of backstabbing and a lot of drama (conflict always follows).
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.21 23:49:00 - [3333] Any idea how much this will grow, change back old ways we liked to do more in 0.0 as groups, and you removed only options to do so. I must have been here!
Wolf Spyder	Posted - 2011.04.22 02:27:00 - [3334] Not sure what forum to put this under so I will put it here. I just want to say thanks to the people that decided to screw up the missions for people that want to run solo. In their marxist way they have once again tried to force people together when they prefer to be ALONE. Before the patch, I was able to handle level four missions without a problem using my drake. Yeah I would have to warp out now and again so that my shields can recharge. Now, I have to kill a ship, warp out, kill a ship, warp out, kill a ship, warp out, kill a ship, warp out, kill a ship, warp out, kill a ship, warp out, kill a ship, warp out. Is there anything else those people can do to totally screw things up for those of us that choose a solo option in eve? I mean really, what has been done was totally ludicrous in making the missions that annoying. Hell they should have just went ahead and remove all the bonuses to every single ship and made the npc rats more incursion like. Why didn't they do that?
Laura Izia	Posted - 2011.04.22 08:26:00 - [3335] This is good for me as not renewing my subs for 5 accounts will save me quite a bit of money each month. It'll also give me a chance to catch up with real life that has passed me by in the last 4 years. For the trolls out there these are tears of joy that I will not have to read your cringing attempts of humour anymore. For the Jita-bugs, get a life...like me.
Heathyy	Posted - 2011.04.22 10:27:00 - [3336] Edited by: Heathyy on 22/04/2011 10:31:45 quite amazing how many pages there actually are now and no response whatsoever, since it has been active for a while now i have to concur with my fellow 0.0 nieghbours that it is infact just taking longer to make isk (we want less grinding more pvp not more grinding and less pvp), at one point i left my corp and was sitting in empire until i was told that i can take some time to make isk if really needed. still compared to pre patch the 1 sanctum every 2 days or so was perfect and kept me in battlespounges now though im falling back to BC's and more specialist ships i think the only battleship you'll catch me flying now is a scorpion since its cheap enough to lose often. still prepatch you could replace a loss within a few hours (if your like me and ratting takes hours anyway) now it just takes twice as long. i dont think it will take long before i ** someone off making isk instead of pvping but, you can't do one without the other. i did leave once on my own accord the next time i think ill be getting kicked from 0.0. when that happens im throwing in the towel. the ignorance of this whole change is beyond. btw what happened to the week before it actually changes, i logged in patch day and it had already been nerfed, there was no 'gradually over a certain period'. i do feel for the players who put alot of effort into improving these systems only to log in one day and have it ** all over.
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.22 13:34:00 - [3337] since this change we only get havens. its not so bad for us, apart from these havens(cloud one) are bugged so now in reality we only get 1 ****ing haven. fix the bugs, sick of a company beliving a 3rd rate service is accepitble
Dutschetss Vilhelmena Caldari Ordo Rosa Crux Templaris	Posted - 2011.04.22 18:01:00 - [3338] You have again caused me to spend months setting up a safe place, risking great loss to move my ships, BP's and all the stuff you need in 0.0 space, out to 0.0 space... and now AFTER I spent months building a successful location, NOW, you pull the plug on the anomalies? SO you strengthen the big alliances at the expense of the average solo player. Now I have to abandon my stuff, or sell it at a loss, or try to get the best out, back to empire, without dying (running low sec gate camps AGAIN), all because you can not create a stable environment for players. You are driving us away everytime you nerf features that make players successful. When it takes me weeks to earn enough for a battle ship, I sure am not going to gladly risk it fighting gangs who have all the advantages. Back to Empire. o.o sucks again. CCP FAIL
NeuroSpike	Posted - 2011.04.22 22:59:00 - [3339] I joined a 0.0 corp in hopes to learn how to play the game and make friends, I guess it was a bad time. Members screaming to get there crap back to empire, directors being rude with CEO's and so on. I left the corp and alliance and headed back to empire. I feel for the guys who spent all that isk after the learning skills went away. used there points on capitals only to sale there carriers and beat them selfs up for not investing the SP in other areas. Wow. I just hate it. 1 stupid nerf and everyone packs up and heads in different directions.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.04.23 02:06:00 - [3340] Yup CCP you screwed the pooch on this one..really wtf is it with you guys? You whine whine that too many ppl are in empire...no one will go to 0.0. So you finally did ONE thing right and let space anywhere be improved via isk and effort. Finally...0.0 with rewards worth the risk. So we put in our effort and we spent our isk and we moved out to 0.0 Finally we were able to sustain ourselves in 0.0 without having to join a huge power block...and then CCP made it all worthless...so back to empire we go. And I'd better not hear you whine about it CCP. Just wonder how long before you boys grow some *******, admit that you ass *d every single player without lube, apologize and roll things back...? I'll put you on my Christmas list this year and make sure I send each Dev a copy of "How to win Friends & Influence People*"

5entinel	Posted - 2011.04.23 02:09:00 - [3341] Unf*** this, CCP. Signed -Paying Customer.
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.04.23 03:16:00 - [3342] Originally by: Eielson Well looks good for the Industrialist..... I wonder if they going to nerf the belts next? I mean makes sence....First the moon goo isk making ability, now the Anoms/Havens/Sactums, so it should only be natural that they take all the rare ore out of the belts....oh wait they going to do away with the belts all together in the next patch..... Yep, Next month CCP is going to lengthen the cycle times to 30 minutes and you will get 1/4 of what you get now. Your mining bonuses will be reduced by 75%. Its in the patch notes. I think CCP is trying to kill its client base or they have some disgruntled employees that gotten written up recently. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"
Mr Cleann Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2011.04.23 03:21:00 - [3343] CCP's solution to dealing with people that complain about issues in the released updates........ignoring them. Be the kind of man that when your feet hit the floor each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up!"
NeuroSpike	Posted - 2011.04.23 11:23:00 - [3344] Most of my friends don't even login any more, Say to Q up skills. I'm most likely going to play out what time i have left on my account and be done with eve. Things change in eve that cause more frustrations than the games worth. For a new player just starting, Hope you have a better corp than me. I'm left wondering what the hell do I do now, Wondering around eve empire is getting old and fast.
bomberman302	Posted - 2011.04.23 18:27:00 - [3345] Edited by: bomberman302 on 23/04/2011 18:32:34 I forsee for the future of eve Players please select your difficulty!!!! EAZY MEDIUM HARD INSANE That what it comming to. Look ccp I pay for this game and i want my anolomys back all you did was now, 1 create a way for campers to not have to work so hard which ****s everyone up not just myself,2 caused problems for us that do are 1v1 pvp this is crap isk now, 3 im done read pages before to see everything else, 4 get someone in there that know wtf they are looking at,5 do yall even play this game <edited for this> I now play battlestar galactica which is free and fun also google it which i might add they dont nerf because they want peeps to work together or whatever yall did this crap for.
Blign bannaray	Posted - 2011.04.23 22:02:00 - [3346] No thank you CCP. Leave it as it is and go work on WIS/Dust 514 or how about this, go work on WIS/Dust 514. Leave me nulsec alone.
Crye MultiCam	Posted - 2011.04.24 14:35:00 - [3347] So let's examine a situation where an average player is grinding to save for a capital, or even a supercapital. She would previously run sanctums like it was a job, making roughly 20-30mil/tick. This comes to 60-90mil/hour. That's the equivalent of earning 3-4.5 USD per hour (less than half the federally-mandated minimum wage), or 2.06-3.09 Euros per hour. Said player would probably prefer to just save money from a real-life job (even when working at minimum wage), than work in eve. But since ratting/running sanctums can be done relatively pain-free from a computer chair, she may be willing to take a pay cut in order to keep her hard-earned real-life currency for more important things. Now with less sanctums, that ability to earn a virtual 3 USD/2 Euros per hour has been dropped significantly. Let's combine this with CCP's recent 'crackdown' on RMT, the pressure on the player to pay CCP cash on top of their monthly bill(s) likely shows us the true intent of these changes: Force self-sufficient players to either buy GTCs or farm level 4's for 2x the amount of time they would have spent in sanctums or ratting. Those players would probably get tired of working twice as hard, so they will leave. But now we have incursions, captain's quarters, and planetary interaction - so more players will (in CCP's mind) hopefully take their place. Can your new subscriptions keep up with those with 4-5 accounts who are quitting in droves? We're still playing the same game, but the cost of living has gone up - while the minimum wage has gone down. Many ship prices are holding at the SP gold-rush prices and never dropped. Perhaps with dominion, CCP felt they let too much isk into the economy; I disagree. They made ships more accessible to those who wish to use them in combat. So now we're faced with what is essentially a mirror of the current real-world economic situation, but in eve, more people are willing to just stop playing.
megaman mike	Posted - 2011.04.24 16:21:00 - [3348] Edited by: megaman mike on 24/04/2011 16:21:21 Same old storie here , i finaly made it out to null a lil over a mounth ago , been playing over a year to get the skills i need to do so . i get out there with a good bunch of guys and ..Zap! my only income is gone . turn around go back run 4s nope im done with 4s ... cancel 4 acounts is more like it. bye eve it was good while it lasted
StryP1	Posted - 2011.04.24 16:41:00 - [3349] Confirming you've dropped the income of a 10 mil SP, 8 month old player in nulsec. They were perfect for a guy with 30-60 mins of time to make ISK.
Eos Astraios	Posted - 2011.04.25 07:08:00 - [3350] Confirming I have already unsubbed 3 accounts due to CCP's completely ass-hattery regarding this matter. CCP seems to think they know so much about how people's social nature. Well, diddle me this CCP: What happens when things become too hard you push people into a corner? 1) They give up and try something else 2) They find a way around the problem. Usually via illegal means So the outcome of said changes will result in either of the above. Some people will leave for greener grass as you have completely violated and torched their current pasture. Or they will resort to illegal means to survive as it is the easiest solution to the problem and often at times a way to 'stick it to the man' as it were. So in the near future I predict less subs, more bots and possibly worse. Perhaps someone will save a few hundred dollars they would normally pay to CCP and pay someone to hack CCP's GTC algorithm or develop increasingly advanced hacks the likes of which CCP could not even begin to comprehend or combat (Seeing as they do not even comprehend their OWN game code currently). Bravo CCP. Bravo. When CCP announces the impending cancellation of EVE due to low subs just remember you read it here first! The end is nigh!

HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.25 09:52:00 - [3351] low sec got borked as well those sits were an income earner but now i take my scanner out and 80% of sites are wormholes, i went into 00 and noticed less wormholes so more lead into low sec now, less into null sec making the NC and other 00 blobs safer. More empty womrholes into low sec into already low sec space, the carebears in empire now have no reason to go beyond their 0.5 level 4 missions. So ccp has just killed most of the game all in the name of breaking up blobs are us in 00 income generation for moons is the same concentrating isk making in the hnads of the mega blobs, ccp would have been better to put in comets with moon goo in wh space in 00 low and high sec, nerf 00 moons and low sec moons or dynamic changes. to make a bit of everything and left the rats in 00 nerf alone. Now grind is up enjoyment in 00 and low sec is down and ccp has screwballed it again
Ghazu	Posted - 2011.04.25 10:32:00 - [3352] eveonline 2011 welcome to the ghetto, but you can still enjoy the view from your captain's quarter
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.25 11:39:00 - [3353] Soooo still no ccp answer, can we get a report from ccp on how this "Excited change" has really paned out. Graphs and pritty picutures showing the month before and after numbers in 0.0 center'd round this patch (done in crayon if needs) Really want to see if "In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals" Or is this a bit closer, "Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space" Its called high sec! "Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec" why would they want to rent a worthless system "Coalitions will be marginally less stable" More stable dont you mean, as no one wants to pee the big alliance off with the isk holes and super cap blob fleet when the smaller can just scratch a few cruisers together. "Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on" Develop for what? the new staging systems are jita and dodixie, if anyone logs on now that is. Please CCP tell us how well this patch has worked from your planned ideas or we'll just take the silence as tears of failure. I've found something better than grinding isk for weeks to pay for a few moments of pvp, it called other games with a splash of not paying for 2 accounts every month. The end is nigh, guess i just won eve
WisdomPanda Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.04.25 15:16:00 - [3354] Originally by: Marley Browning Originally by: WisdomPanda Incorrect. -0.3 to -0.4 has one haven. With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; 0.0 to -0.2 = 1 Haven -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 Haven -0.5 to -0.6 = 1 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.7 to -0.8 = 2 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.9 to -1.0 = 2 Sanctum, 4 Haven I think your wrong, I am in a -.62 system and I only get 3 havens, no sanctums since the patch. This has been miss quoted a few times, so to correct it; With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; It was my opinion how the changes SHOULD be, not how they ARE. The -0.3 to -0.4 having one haven is correct though. (At Lv5 military) To all the haters out their trying to grow their self importance by bashing on the "carebears", you fail to see why this is an issue. 1) CCP made these changes in Dominion because they acknowledged that most of these systems are totally worthless. They also put isk sinks in place. If anything, the sinks should be increased, gradually, until a happy spot is found. 2) The changes can not be inflation related as they are ISOLATED. If this were really about turning off the taps, empire should have been equally hit. After all, as you all keep reminding us; it has a larger population thus a greater potential to generate isk. (Many 0.0 carebears already doing so, in fact) 3) The changes were put in last minute, as a foot note, and they are terribly unbalanced. 4) It is far more expensive to live in 0.0 than empire/low-sec. On top of the damage we do to each other on a daily basis, 0.0 also has maintence costs that empire/low-sec people are not exposed to. 5) They did this with no community support, input or discussion. Do you remember seeing the CSM being consulted? 6) They gave inaccurate, flawed or just plain false reasoning for the change. 7) The (very) limited response so far has been short sighted at best. This isn't about opposing the changes (at least not for me) it's about either making them global (nerf ALL isk fountains) or at least give real, solid, irrefutable reasoning for not only implementing the changes, but also doing so WITHOUT any community interaction. If those aren't reason enough to get you fired up or at least slightly agitated, I doubt any reason presented will sway you beyond your own prejudice. As far as reasoning goes, from CCP Grayscales second response: Quote: - 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. So basically what he's saying is that CCP expects you to drop billions into system development, dropping outposts, etc. Then move because you don't like your current rats, you will need to invest trillions (spread across many accounts) into getting new space, by forcing out it's current owners. You'll also need to do all of this with space that is so worthless that no self respect power block wants it. (Because if they did, they would have it by now) Apparently, this reasoning made sense at CCP. /facepalm Also, help keep this thread alive! 200 pages is the new goal. If we still have no proper response from CCP by then, we'll need to take more drastic steps. ----- Cheesecake, Natures ultimate weapon.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.04.25 15:44:00 - [3355] Originally by: WisdomPanda Originally by: Marley Browning Originally by: WisdomPanda ... I think your wrong, I am in a -.62 system and I only get 3 havens, no sanctums since the patch. This has been miss quoted a few times, so to correct it; With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; It was my opinion how the changes SHOULD be, not how they ARE. The -0.3 to -0.4 having one haven is correct though. (At Lv5 military) To all the haters out their trying to grow their self importance by bashing on the "carebears", you fail to see why this is an issue. 1) CCP made these changes in Dominion because they acknowledged that most of these systems are totally worthless. They also put isk sinks in place. If anything, the sinks should be increased, gradually, until a happy spot is found. 2) The changes can not be inflation related as they are ISOLATED. If this were really about turning off the taps, empire should have been equally hit. After all, as you all keep reminding us; it has a larger population thus a greater potential to generate isk. (Many 0.0 carebears already doing so, in fact) 3) The changes were put in last minute, as a foot note, and they are terribly unbalanced. 4) It is far more expensive to live in 0.0 than empire/low-sec. On top of the damage we do to each other on a daily basis, 0.0 also has maintence costs that empire/low-sec people are not exposed to. 5) They did this with no community support, input or discussion. Do you remember seeing the CSM being consulted? 6) They gave inaccurate, flawed or just plain false reasoning for the change. 7) The (very) limited response so far has been short sighted at best. This isn't about opposing the changes (at least not for me) it's about either making them global (nerf ALL isk fountains) or at least give real, solid, irrefutable reasoning for not only implementing the changes, but also doing so WITHOUT any community interaction. If those aren't reason enough to get you fired up or at least slightly agitated, I doubt any reason presented will sway you beyond your own prejudice. As far as reasoning goes, from CCP Grayscales second response: Quote: - 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. So basically what he's saying is that CCP expects you to drop billions into system development, dropping outposts, etc. Then move because you don't like your current rats, you will need to invest trillions (spread across many accounts) into getting new space, by forcing out it's current owners. You'll also need to do all of this with space that is so worthless that no self respect power block wants it. (Because if they did, they would have it by now) Apparently, this reasoning made sense at CCP. /facepalm Also, help keep this thread alive! 200 pages is the new goal. If we still have no proper response from CCP by then, we'll need to take more drastic steps. Quoting this entire post for truth and justice. And so, CCP's customers are left holding steaming bags of ****, having sunk countless billions of ISK into now worthless space. It is fair to ask: what were CCP's true motivators for taking this action?
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:02:00 - [3356] Don't stop replying keep the message out! Keep replying! I must have been here!
Sebastian Hoch	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:25:00 - [3357] Checking back in here. This is still a really bad idea and the consequences are widely felt. Outside of schadenfreude from the trolls this is not making anyone's game better. Looking forward to some kind of additional comment/dialogue/feedback from CCP Data---with pretty charts would be nice. Where is this ship sailing? What is the vision? <crickets> chirp...chirp....chirp... Anyone??? Bueller Bueller??
Danastar	Posted - 2011.04.25 18:30:00 - [3358] yeah CCP, tell us how well your model is working... dare you

CCP Zymurgist Gallente C C P	Posted - 2011.04.25 19:25:00 - [3359] Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP NA, EVE Online Contact Us

Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.04.25 19:44:00 - [3360] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. OMFG!!! A crappy response to something thgat has NOTHING to do woth the subject at hand! Inflation is a *** huh? Then get rid of the damn PI altogether and put POS fuel back in NPC hands, there's your ISK sink, not **ing the casual player who does not see EVE as a second job that he pays for.

Karl Planck Walt Disney Productions	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:06:00 - [3361] Lol, you shouldn't have fueled the fire. Everyone who posts on this topic is either a troll or is just butthurt about the change. Fact: its still extremely easy to make isk Fact: if you can't afford to pvp your doing it wrong Fact: if your butthurt about this change then you are/were in a pet alliance and you were just bearing it up in 0.0 where you got to think you were 1337 Cry moar, pls cry moar ------------------------------------------------- Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
xxxak Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:30:00 - [3362] This came at the perfect time for me. I just moved to a house on the beach near Malibu. F*** you CCP. I am going to score a LOT of RL chicks this summer. Bye.
Heathyy	Posted - 2011.04.25 20:34:00 - [3363] Edited by: Heathyy on 25/04/2011 20:35:51 Originally by: Karl Planck Lol, you shouldn't have fueled the fire. Everyone who posts on this topic is either a troll or is just butthurt about the change. Fact: its still extremely easy to make isk if you own a moon pos or have 10 bot alts mining away 24/7 < i agree Fact: if you can't afford to pvp your doing it wrong or your not a neckbeard that sits there carebearing all day. Fact: if your butthurt about this change then you are/were in a pet alliance and you were just bearing it up in 0.0 where you got to think you were 1337 < being a 0.0 resident is more fun than never leaving jita 4/4 be it pet powerbloc, hell even pirate. pvp without a steady isk income = boring Cry moar, pls cry moar I fixed it for you. I think the only ppl that are allowed to cry in this topic are the ones that actually spent all the isk upgrading their space. its isk they wont get back or even have a chance to reverse. the fact is you never read any of the pages of this topic, im not denying some ppl do carebear nonstop yet alot of ppl do this with alts while their main is actually out defending space or just roaming around. if you fail to see that the only players this change affects is mainly the average joe that has no passive income or multiple alts hell even time to just sit there all day grinding. then you are seriously short sighted.
Karl Planck Walt Disney Productions	Posted - 2011.04.25 21:32:00 - [3364] Edited by: Karl Planck on 25/04/2011 21:33:10 Originally by: Heathyy Edited by: Heathyy on 25/04/2011 20:35:51 Originally by: Karl Planck Lol, you shouldn't have fueled the fire. Everyone who posts on this topic is either a troll or is just butthurt about the change. Fact: its still extremely easy to make isk if you own a moon pos or have 10 bot alts mining away 24/7 < i agree Fact: if you can't afford to pvp your doing it wrong or your not a neckbeard that sits there carebearing all day. Fact: if your butthurt about this change then you are/were in a pet alliance and you were just bearing it up in 0.0 where you got to think you were 1337 < being a 0.0 resident is more fun than never leaving jita 4/4 be it pet powerbloc, hell even pirate. pvp without a steady isk income = boring Cry moar, pls cry moar I fixed it for you. I think the only ppl that are allowed to cry in this topic are the ones that actually spent all the isk upgrading their space. its isk they wont get back or even have a chance to reverse. the fact is you never read any of the pages of this topic, im not denying some ppl do carebear nonstop yet alot of ppl do this with alts while their main is actually out defending space or just roaming around. if you fail to see that the only players this change affects is mainly the average joe that has no passive income or multiple alts hell even time to just sit there all day grinding. then you are seriously short sighted. lol, i while your "fixes" are funny they are still wrong. I have read roughly 50% of these pages, and I say 50% because I began skipping the reposts by the same butthurt 0.0 carebears. Making enough isk is relavent I guess. if you need to afford your own caps, then yes, you either need bots or moon support. Sub caps, which is what the majority of the 'poor' players of 0.0 fly are easy to make the isk to get. And as i said, it is easy to make that isk without carebearing* all day and really hardly at all. This points more to my second point about 'pvp, your doing it wrong'. If you are losing so much that you need to grind all day to make up your losses then something has gone wrong. If you doing it right, then the losses from drops and salvage should be enough to cover your losses, and if you doing it WELL, then you make a profit off of those. As far as the last comment you modified you just missed the point. Everyone on here complaining doesn't deserve to live in 0.0 if they can't handle adding more risk to they isk fountains. Living in high sec, yes it is boring (least it was while i was there). But if you think you are any better than those bears in high sec you are wrong. All you are giving yourself is a badge, and the only people you are impressing is yourselves. I agree, the only people that deserve to have tears is the people who spent isk on sov, but lol, cmon everyone has felt that wrath in one form or another so its not it deserves an apology from CCP. We all know its coming at some point. As for you last point, you are only half correct. Yes, Joe Pod is the one who is immediately affected as many alliances have forced them to be self sufficient. Now the game isn't as fun for them because they can't be. So they are moving back to empire or rage quitting. Who does this have a larger impact on? The alliances themselves and the power players that are sippin on moon goo. Your overlords need peons to run their game, and soon many of them will be in a threatened position because of it. Wait and see, once their isk gets threatened alliances will start offering better incentives to Joe Pod or die. Alliance shuffle = conflict, CCP nerf working as intended. ------------------------------------------------- Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.25 21:32:00 - [3365] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. Sorry. Construction requires a medium or media in which to be expressed. For example, a sand castle requires both a sandbox and some sand. This change occurred in a vacuum, and as such there is literally no medium or media available for construction of any kind, feedback or otherwise. CCP's confidence in their models of nullsec causality provides the (quite unreasonable) pressure to remove any media at all pertaining to this change, be it an appeal to reason, good will, or even good business sense. What kind of constructive criticism does CCP want from us on this? There's literally nothing to build with or upon. CCP shattered the perception of a sandbox where decisions matter by ***ing on the decisions made by thousands upon thousands of players predicated solely upon CCP's word.* Not only that, but by continuing in arrogant and stubborn silence after a truly half-assed attempt to reconcile this change with the exact customers they sold the original Dominion upgrade system to, CCP then removed the bulk of the sand from the box, kicking it into the collective eyes of everyone who took advantage of the benefits provided by Dominion. However, this arrogance betrays CCP's hubris. CCP are clearly blind to their own flaws, introducing these changes while dealing from a position of weakness (the original blog indicated that greyscale admitted he was wrong to implement Dominion's bountiful havens and sanctums). At the end of the day, it's precisely this hubris that will keep this nerf in the game. How can someone blinded to their own weakness ever see criticism of said weakness as "constructive?" The fact is, Greyscale believes he was wrong before, what makes him so damned certain history hasn't repeated itself with this (abysmal) change?
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.25 21:35:00 - [3366] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. OMG i just wee'd a little! CCP your killing the Average player not the isk fountain, Kill the moongoo, kill the jump bridges, that'll stop the mass. then these's large alliance's need corps and not meat shields. This has only effected the small and they will not survive. Ban the bots perm! loosing a skilled player will put alot off the "my wallet wins button" Kill off jump bridges- For real, that'll break up large groups(or make it alot harder to have sov here and there and defend/cta that space Moongoo only fuels the Massive alliance's- cap it and you cap the blob. Remove the null nerf! small alliance's-corps can not live totaly in 0.0 if they can't pay the bills, buy the ships to attack or defend their space. We dont want to grind 4's in high sec 2 weeks out of 4, we want to live-defend-attack in space we call our Home! Part time griefers we are not, north,south,east or west - we are 0.0
Heathyy	Posted - 2011.04.25 22:34:00 - [3367] Edited by: Heathyy on 25/04/2011 22:35:19 Originally by: Karl Planck Making enough isk is relavent I guess. if you need to afford your own caps, then yes, you either need bots or moon support. Sub caps, which is what the majority of the 'poor' players of 0.0 fly are easy to make the isk to get. And as i said, it is easy to make that isk without carebearing* all day and really hardly at all. As far as the last comment you modified you just missed the point. Everyone on here complaining doesn't deserve to live in 0.0 if they can't handle adding more risk to they isk fountains. Living in high sec, yes it is boring (least it was while i was there). But if you think you are any better than those bears in high sec you are wrong. All you are giving yourself is a badge, and the only people you are impressing is yourselves. this is mainly my problem though, I would one day love to be able to fly a carrier even if it only gets used for boring pos repping or other utility jobs. what this change means is that i will never make any profit because all of my isk goes into new ships etc. there is no profit in 0.0 unless you deliberately avoid pvp. it would be nice to see some of the isk fountain shared amongst the peons although there are replacement programs up in most corps you never really know 'who has what' noone wants to be spoon fed, yet not many ppl want to have to baby sit a structure either. im happy being self sufficient although that has been taken away now, at least the pace of it, you can still make isk sure, noone is saying they took it away completely, but they have made it so it is just better to sit in empire, the risk .... is now ... not worth the reward.. does this actually make sense? its not cryptic its honest and truthful. this is the complaint
Karl Planck Walt Disney Productions	Posted - 2011.04.26 00:59:00 - [3368] Originally by: Heathyy this is mainly my problem though, I would one day love to be able to fly a carrier even if it only gets used for boring pos repping or other utility jobs. what this change means is that i will never make any or enough profit (its going to take me a long time to get the skill books even) because all of my isk goes into new ships/mods etc. there is no profit in 0.0 unless you deliberately avoid pvp. it would be nice to see some of the isk fountain shared amongst the peons although there are replacement programs up in most corps you never really know 'who has what' noone wants to be spoon fed, yet not many ppl want to have to baby sit a structure either. im happy being self sufficient although that has been taken away now, at least the pace of it, you can still make isk sure, noone is saying they took it away completely, but they have made it so it is just better to sit in empire, the risk .... is now ... not worth the reward.. does this actually make sense? its not cryptic its honest and truthful. this is the complaint. noone is trying to impress anyone, i dont need to lecture anyone on what 0.0 is like everything is player driven, take away the players its a barren waste land. anything you want in 0.0 needs to be made or brought in from high sec. the risk is evident the rewards just got slashed (i would say in half but its worst than that). So, I see that you are more reasonable than most the whiners on this thread, so my agression WAS unwarrented, my apologies. But you still fail to see what I am saying in that if you need to PvE that often something is going wrong. If you fly mainly BC's, then even now as it stands that equates to about 1 hour of bearing to get a new one. IF you fly BS's, that is about 3 hours. That amount of pve is perfectly necessary, if not even to little. And this is why. In eve losses are supposed to hurt, they are SUPPOSED to mean something. That something is your time. Its what makes the PvP so great. If no one had to 'waste' their time making isk then it wouldn't matter when we lost ships and this game would turn into hello kitty online and suck. That said, if you can't be bothered to pve for an hour or two to get your ships back up then wtf do you expect from this game? As said before, if isk was this easy for everyone then the whole point of the working economy would be go away. If what you wanted happened, there would be no point to pvp, which i think is a negative as far as most are concerned, because it would make the greatest aspect fo the game (pvp, imo) boring. ------------------------------------------------- Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Heathyy	Posted - 2011.04.26 01:25:00 - [3369] having pvp losses hurt is fine and they do, already did! the problem comes when living in 0.0 costs so much that your only making isk TO pvp, moving to high sec or not pvping for a month is probably the only real way of actually saving a few bil as a peon. this is all im saying on this topic this change is so deep rooted it effect all players in all situations its crazy really.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.26 02:58:00 - [3370] Edited by: Darth Gustav on 26/04/2011 02:59:54 Originally by: Karl Planck So, I see that you are more reasonable than most the whiners on this thread, so my agression WAS unwarrented, my apologies. But you still fail to see what I am saying in that if you need to PvE that often something is going wrong. If you fly mainly BC's, then even now as it stands that equates to about 1 hour of bearing to get a new one. IF you fly BS's, that is about 3 hours. That amount of pve is perfectly necessary, if not even to little. And this is why. In eve losses are supposed to hurt, they are SUPPOSED to mean something. That something is your time. Its what makes the PvP so great. If no one had to 'waste' their time making isk then it wouldn't matter when we lost ships and this game would turn into hello kitty online and suck. That said, if you can't be bothered to pve for an hour or two to get your ships back up then wtf do you expect from this game? As said before, if isk was this easy for everyone then the whole point of the working economy would be go away. If what you wanted happened, there would be no point to pvp, which i think is a negative as far as most are concerned, because it would make the greatest aspect fo the game (pvp, imo) boring. What about an ihub? How many hours of ratting will the average player have to rat to earn enough for, say, an ihub? And, with the new system, where would the average player's corp put that ihub? You keep talking about income, like CCP intended this as a change to lower the average player's income. The stated purpose wasn't about how much a PVP loss would hurt, it was actually put in place to encourage more conflict. If CCP's stated goals were to make nullsec combat even more consequential, yeah sure they were successful. Surprise, that was not one of the stated goals of this change. If you want to talk about PVP that stings, it's the kind where it's dev people against player people. That's what this change amounts to. In that match, the devs will obviously always win. They seem to act like they've always got to prove it, just for proving its sake. We are not impressed by arguments that PVP should sting more, or that income can "still be made." People bought ihubs and upgraded systems for a reason: They trusted CCP's stated intent for the game's future.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.26 04:13:00 - [3371] The tears of broken promises are so lol-worthy. Reminds me of the thousands of Saudi princes that consider their monthly dues a birthright. CCP never made a promise the game never would change, and in fact the one thing we CAN be sure of is that anything may change. There was a vision of Dominion, however when the devblog listed the costs of various system upgrades a loud whine threadnoughted the excessive costs. A year later it turns out the nerfed system upkeep costs weren't a big enough ISK sink, and thus we see the change to anom distribution. You guys complain that CCP doesn't listen, yet we are here today BECAUSE CCP were stupid enough to listen and lower the costs.
mkint	Posted - 2011.04.26 06:49:00 - [3372] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. Fuck you asshole. 112 pages in and you say "constructive feedback"? Players have 113 pages of saying that just like a $2 hooker, you suck ass at your job. Well, fucking BUMP, SIGNED, EVADING PROFANITY FILTER, and non-constructive feedback. So tell us dickweed, what 0.0 alliance has their cock so deep in your mouth that you can only mumble some pathetic "stop being mean at me" hypocrisy bullshit? You want a "discussion" then fucking discuss, or get the fuck out of my game bitch.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.26 07:18:00 - [3373] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab The tears of broken promises are so lol-worthy. Reminds me of the thousands of Saudi princes that consider their monthly dues a birthright. CCP never made a promise the game never would change, and in fact the one thing we CAN be sure of is that anything may change. There was a vision of Dominion, however when the devblog listed the costs of various system upgrades a loud whine threadnoughted the excessive costs. A year later it turns out the nerfed system upkeep costs weren't a big enough ISK sink, and thus we see the change to anom distribution. You guys complain that CCP doesn't listen, yet we are here today BECAUSE CCP were stupid enough to listen and lower the costs. This change had nothing to do with ISK sinks, when will the rest of Eve realize this? Those sanctums and havens still **ing exist, for the most part. That ISK can still be injected into the market by the large power blocks. Christ, some of you "pro-nerf" people really are utter **wits.
Ghazu	Posted - 2011.04.26 14:21:00 - [3374] Karl Planck- mega church christian, likes to hurt for his sins, likes to flogg himself and wish the rest of us do as well at least he is going to heaven. i was gonna blow like 100m a month gambling on blinks but now none of that now was gonna go all fancy with factions but none of that now but its more meaningful that way right?
Metal Icarus Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.26 14:29:00 - [3375] Truly, the only real reason for me not liking this patch is that this made the I-hub useless unless you're in -0.4 space or better. All those billions spent on those full military and pirate detection upgrades now mean 2 hubs instead of 1.... woo Hey, I found the isk sink, but I think there is a giant hole in it and all the isk just fell out instead going down the drain. :(
Vengeance Thirst	Posted - 2011.04.26 14:30:00 - [3376] This is my final post here as my 3 accounts expire soon and *I just dont give a c-r-a-p anymore.* All I can say is that CCP should give us the money back for the game time spend upgrading our system. It took 15 of us ratting crap anoms around the clock for a month(2 belt system) , it took 15 of us to make and put the isk together to buy the IHub, upgrades, a freighter to move them and scan for wormholes to get all **** from empire. It was a good team effort with good time spent (and a good reword). Paying CCP for that time. Now they made all that work worthless so basically we payed CCP for a broken product that doesn't work anymore. I want money back both for me and for everyone that payed for the game time they put in to upgrade the systems. A months pay will do it.
Banlish Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas.	Posted - 2011.04.26 14:38:00 - [3377] Edited by: Banlish on 26/04/2011 14:49:13 Perhaps a voice of reason? As we've seen from 113 pages of replies, the player base that lives in 0.0 does not like these changes. Perhaps it is time to be the company we 'hope you are' and consider changing this 'feature' to something a tad more reasonable. Consider the following: Instead of removing sanctums and whatever else people run in ratting. (no I don't rat for isk sorry) Consider giving it a slider of spawning. For every .10 of sec the system has, or portion therefor of the system will spawn 1 extra sanctums/hubs/whatever people really want. So lets take 3 systems. -0.04 system ABC, -0.51 system STU and -1.00 system XYZ the -0.04 system with full upgrades would spawn 20 sites, with the 'change' they would only spawn 1 sanctums. the -0.51 system STU with full upgrades would spawn 20 sites, with the 'change' they would only spawn 5 sanctums. the -1.00 system XYZ with full upgrades would spawn 20 sites, with the 'change' they would spawn a tremendous 10 sanctums. Now with this change that seems to be required every system in the pile is infact changed and of course the numbers can be tweaked to whatever is required. However it would not turn 75% of 0.0 into practically uselessness which is why tempers are flaring, people are angry and this thread is getting so long. After I thought 50 pages CCP would at least give some feedback and say "well maybe this wasn't exactly the desired result" After I thought 100 pages CCP would say "whoa there, we're seriously looking at this." After I thought 200 pages CCP would say "Holy crap, get Tom, **** and Harry on the line they need to hotfix patch this BACK to what it was before we changed this, obviously the players as a majority don't like this change." Please consider at least something like this, I've seen entire alliances have their space become useless by this change and I'm one of those people that has spent literally less then 8 hours ratting in the past 3 YEARS. Just a thought, hopefully it helps CCP. Remember, the player base applauded you for reversing your decisions to the motherships. Please consider that with this thread as the responses are about as similar in quantity at this point. EDIT: Also consider this. Why would I, as a player, run sites in 0.0 if I could run the same crappy sites in -0.01 to -0.75 in level 1 to level 3 missions and then have an agent in EVE in empire all nice and safe that would spawn me missions that are the equivalent of the best 0.0 has to offer? It only takes a single alt for practically unlimited and uninterrupted income. Or we could say that's the way it should be and teamwork in 0.0 is practically dead. Of course we'll have people say "Zomg, CCP only wants us to buy MOAR accounts zomg, emo, rage!1!!11!!eleven!! Again something to consider.
Shmak DatAsh Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2011.04.26 14:59:00 - [3378] Originally by: Banlish Edited by: Banlish on 26/04/2011 14:49:13 Perhaps a voice of reason? As we've seen from 113 pages of replies, the player base that lives in 0.0 does not like these changes. Perhaps it is time to be the company we 'hope you are' and consider changing this 'feature' to something a tad more reasonable. Consider the following: Instead of removing sanctums and whatever else people run in ratting. (no I don't rat for isk sorry) Consider giving it a slider of spawning. For every .10 of sec the system has, or portion therefor of the system will spawn 1 extra sanctums/hubs/whatever people really want. So lets take 3 systems. -0.04 system ABC, -0.51 system STU and -1.00 system XYZ the -0.04 system with full upgrades would spawn 20 sites, with the 'change' they would only spawn 1 sanctums. the -0.51 system STU with full upgrades would spawn 20 sites, with the 'change' they would only spawn 5 sanctums. the -1.00 system XYZ with full upgrades would spawn 20 sites, with the 'change' they would spawn a tremendous 10 sanctums. Now with this change that seems to be required every system in the pile is infact changed and of course the numbers can be tweaked to whatever is required. However it would not turn 75% of 0.0 into practically uselessness which is why tempers are flaring, people are angry and this thread is getting so long. After I thought 50 pages CCP would at least give some feedback and say "well maybe this wasn't exactly the desired result" After I thought 100 pages CCP would say "whoa there, we're seriously looking at this." After I thought 200 pages CCP would say "Holy crap, get Tom, **** and Harry on the line they need to hotfix patch this BACK to what it was before we changed this, obviously the players as a majority don't like this change." Please consider at least something like this, I've seen entire alliances have their space become useless by this change and I'm one of those people that has spent literally less then 8 hours ratting in the past 3 YEARS. Just a thought, hopefully it helps CCP. Remember, the player base applauded you for reversing your decisions to the motherships. Please consider that with this thread as the responses are about as similar in quantity at this point. EDIT: Also consider this. Why would I, as a player, run sites in 0.0 if I could run the same crappy sites in -0.01 to -0.75 in level 1 to level 3 missions and then have an agent in EVE in empire all nice and safe that would spawn me missions that are the equivalent of the best 0.0 has to offer? It only takes a single alt for practically unlimited and uninterrupted income. Or we could say that's the way it should be and teamwork in 0.0 is practically dead. Of course we'll have people say "Zomg, CCP only wants us to buy MOAR accounts zomg, emo, rage!1!!11!!eleven!! Again something to consider. Didnt i ban you from posting walls o text???
Karl Planck Walt Disney Productions	Posted - 2011.04.26 15:23:00 - [3379] Originally by: Ghazu Karl Planck- mega church christian, likes to hurt for his sins, likes to flogg himself and wish the rest of us do as well at least he is going to heaven. i was gonna blow like 100m a month gambling on blinks but now none of that now was gonna go all fancy with factions but none of that now but its more meaningful that way right? Most of the time in EVE I get called an ahole, griefer, jerk and lots of other fun names, first time someone thought I am a self righteous religious zealot. Good times. Try gambling on EOH poker, more fun and you aren't throwing isk away. I hardly carebear at all and I fly tons of shiny faction stuff. But oh wait, you suck at pvp, thats right i forgot. Well, learn to play the game better then you can get what you want, oh you could just post here about how your butthurt cause you should be allowed to suck at pvp, have major losses AND gable you isk away for no effort. gb2wow. and @Darth Gustav, bro, I did JUST say that I did feel bad for people that upgraded those system, but many of us have felt that pinch. A single change that nerfs our efforts and training. While I feel bad for you guys, its not like you situation is unique, and certainly doesn't warrant a change when CCP has never changed their nerfs before. YOU SHOULD KNOW that at any time your efforts can be jeopardized by game changes, how did it take till this patch for you to realize it? Originally by:** Darth Gustav They trusted CCP's stated intent for the game's future. lol, they made a change for a certain effect, they didn't get what they wanted so they changed it again. If you were actually paying attention to what CCP originally wanted (more people in more conflict) then you might have thought about the RISK you were taking trying to set up shop. I'll say it again though, I do feel bad, just not 113 pages of thread bad ------------------------------------------------- Don't debate with morons. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
shortylt	Posted - 2011.04.26 16:58:00 - [3380] CCP is failing with EVE no anoms = no ISK = no play = no fun = no money for CCP

Chuck Wilson Sasen	Posted - 2011.04.26 20:22:00 - [3381] Well ccp you have done it this time ive decided to cancel my 3 account my main and my 2 alts wich i might add that 2 of them were paid by recuring payment by credit card so now go f urselves every time i get somewhere in eve we all get knocked back down and ive been playing for 3 years with my charcters and your **** aint helping the game ccp wake up.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.26 22:47:00 - [3382] Well there's plenty of feed back on here ccp, minus the trolls There's better ways to effect a change, we're not getting more accounts/buying gtc's to sell to balance the loss. But hell at least we're getting "T2 ship spinning" If i wanted to spend my time looking at a toon walking around doing f*ck all i would have played WOW.
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.04.27 01:46:00 - [3383] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. CCP Zymurgist, I think we need to have more feedback from 'CCP" in forums period! Not saying things will change but to help community "FEEL" you care about us players. "CCP Zymurgist" I thank you for posted sir. you are a good true person to your word. Wish we had more people like you, to help make us feel loved! Next thing I ask, for "CCP" to have player ask all of CCP to give a nice reply, and take time to show a thumbs up for all this feedback! I mean giving up 5 mins to say hey we are here, reading this TOPIC! As this is growing topic, then "WALKING IN STATIONS" Thanks again, and under no way will CCP do this :-(... I don't feel you do look... You know this is not asking much! I must have been here!
Ghazu	Posted - 2011.04.27 02:05:00 - [3384] karl planck- your opinions are like http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qhkcyMXQ5ug/TStJ3M-3sYI/AAAAAAAAAtc/zpDmy0IdqHk/s1600/westborobaptistchurch.png you might as well be speaking in tongues and you are just FOTM supporting the nerf cus if you don't your not uber, aint you special now your in the uber club SPECIAL!
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.27 05:55:00 - [3385] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. shall i fix this for you. say and do what you like we couldnt give a **** but are having a good laugh at the winers
minelat	Posted - 2011.04.27 12:10:00 - [3386] As a member of 0.0 alliance this change did a few things i can see: 1. Lot of guys left for high sec, so they can do some lv 4, cause CCP don't forget most of players don't have 12 hours per day to earn a lot of ISK thru industry, trade or whatever(farming sanctums) 2. 0.0 in some regions became totally empty 3. Peeps are to afraid to join roam fleet cause they don't have isk to cover they ships (they still attend blob fights cause alliance gona give them BS if they lose it, but who love blob fights anyway) 4. it's boring in 0.0 thru the daytime, if you are not miner or pvper what the hell can you do there, farming hubs to get 3 mill per one? 5 no wars still for sanctums sistems So i'm askin you is this nerf really so good, big alliances still getting tons of isk from moongoo or farming drones mindlessly, and regular player who is playing 2-3 hours per day can chose- go to high sec to do lv4 missions or do some mining which he never done before so he don't have skills at all. If this change was all about to get a lot of peeps out of 0.0 to reduce lag would say you done it perfectly.Thou from mine exsp a lot of supers are causing lag anyway, and we all know that they are coming from moongoo- so NERF moonming and let normal players to earn some isk so they can do whatever they like in game, cause after all we all play this game to enjoy and not like this is our second job (well at least most of us) mine 2 isk about this
Xel Ra	Posted - 2011.04.27 18:39:00 - [3387] As predicted, the nerf utterly decimated our burgeoning little corp despite our best efforts and good attitudes about rolling with the punches in corp. Now, noobs have left, can't get remaining guys to pvp, less of a recruitment attraction, our upgrades are virtually worthless, and why defend something were someone to bother attacking (they don't). Call it what you want, but it worked counter to CCP's stated purpose. That is all.
Darth Gustav Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.04.27 20:27:00 - [3388] Originally by: Xel Ra As predicted, the nerf utterly decimated our burgeoning little corp despite our best efforts and good attitudes about rolling with the punches in corp. Now, noobs have left, can't get remaining guys to pvp, less of a recruitment attraction, our upgrades are virtually worthless, and why defend something were someone to bother attacking (they don't). Call it what you want, but it worked counter to CCP's stated purpose. That is all. Can CCP prove that this isn't the case? Based on current values do their nullsec causality models continue to indicate that it won't be an ongoing trend that leads to less conflict? I doubt this seriously, since their logs never show a damned thing and their nullsec causality models are obviously as accurate as a drunk chimpanzee.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.28 10:48:00 - [3389] Still no reply from CCP? My perception is that many corps are leaving alliances and join alliances with better space, break apart or are leaving 0.0 for WH or high. Let us look at some NPC kill numbers: Providence Cloud Ring Pure Blind and now compare it with the Region with probably lowest true sec on average Deklein So what happened? Smaller entities have left 0.0 or joined big powerblocks. No small entites dare to attack big powerblocks for better space (suprise, surprise!!!) There are no more smalle conflicts. We basically have one huge conflict. DRF, Trivoke, PL and Raiden vs. NC, Goons and -A-. Could CCP please post their perception of the situation? They should have more, and better data sources than I do. I mean really, no flame or whine intended here. I would just like to know CCP's POV on that.
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.28 11:25:00 - [3390] as predicted the changes backfired on ccp, not thought through once again a rough attempt at creating conflict in 00 When the easier way of doing this would be have more wormholes between known space 00 to 00 , 00 to high sec 00 to low sec. More traffic more interaction but they dont think outside the box. U can rat in the belts for zzzz, lower quality systems are simply resulting in a flow back into empire into the level 4 mission hubs. As it is looks like this is going thro low sec is no mans land so meh enjoy falling numbers not rising numbers ccp

Lenthall Scorpus	Posted - 2011.04.28 12:06:00 - [3391] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: zxsteel SIGNED! Once a day until CCP replies! To show ccp we want this topic looked at, I ask everyone to please keep replying once a day once a week or month! Please keep discussing this and how it has changed things, but please don't spam the thread with /signed posts . Constructive feedback is the best response. A 113 pages and this is all that CCP has to say - don't spam I've been living in 0.0 for 1.5 years and I can tell you this, we are back to the pre-dominion grave yards. Going 10 jumps without seeing a soul, whole regions (and yes this is firsthand experience) emptying of players quite rapidly. So have CCP Grayscale achieved his goal? Alliance's marginally less stable blah blah blah. All this has done is broken the social aspects of select regions in 0.0 not reduced isk income. The isk will flow some way or another and players will adapt eventually. But the problem that CCP so grandly tried to address in Dominion about whole regions being devoid of players is effectively back. No player in his right mind would even consider doing anomolies in 0 - 0.2 systems. I ran a Forsaken Den last night and though to myself there is just no way CCP no f.... way that I will run this crap for a "living". Hubs are still ok but other than that it's like pulling teeth. O and if you thought that the exploration got fixed, guess again, they re- spawn of plexes is so bad that if you are not online for the first few hours after DT nada zip thanks for coming now go dock up. What makes this worse is that Drone spawns are more prevalent meaning unless I clear the drone crap it takes up exploration "slots" that will not re spawn reducing this even more. So yes CCP Greyscale and team BFF - (Btw for a team about friends you have a strange way of showing it) rethink this one, not saying undo but rethink since this aint working as intended
Diomedes Calypso	Posted - 2011.04.28 22:33:00 - [3392] The game really isn't as much fun when people can't earn their income very close to where they stage for pvp roams and cta's It means that its harder to get people there for a pickup roam or defensive fight. It means there are less targets for people hunting for pve players on a pvp roam.. (and less pitchforks etc) It means that many people will spend time on alts in high sec, increasing their chances of slipping away from the social group... the more people are together, the more they interact, and its not a linear thing... there are little hurdles that need to be overcome before people start working together and frequency and developed comfort based on hapenstantial contact is often the first step. But, CCP has the data easily at hand. Are there more characters active for as many hours in 0.0 or is it far less? Have the number of lvl 4 missions run gone up in relation to the past level and also ratio of them to anomolies ? Can we move it away from hearsay and hear it first hand ? Or, as usual, is this going to be a situation where a senior developer doesn't have the pride or willinngness to post mortem the results to (if the results warrant)eat crow and admit uninteded consequences and not rationalize that the result is actully what they hoped for ? Or, did they lie to us and achieve their real goal and dish us a load of orwellian dubble speak ? We're not entitled to know every motivation of game developers by any means.. just tell the truth when you do speak. (being lied to on a out of character level is a pesonal afront to consumers whehter the lie is about a game or not.)
Spc One Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.29 00:55:00 - [3393] Originally by: Makumba Aki Still no reply from CCP? My perception is that many corps are leaving alliances and join alliances with better space, break apart or are leaving 0.0 for WH or high. Let us look at some NPC kill numbers: Providence Cloud Ring Pure Blind and now compare it with the Region with probably lowest true sec on average Deklein So what happened? Smaller entities have left 0.0 or joined big powerblocks. No small entites dare to attack big powerblocks for better space (suprise, surprise!!!) There are no more smalle conflicts. We basically have one huge conflict. DRF, Trivoke, PL and Raiden vs. NC, Goons and -A-. Could CCP please post their perception of the situation? They should have more, and better data sources than I do. I mean really, no flame or whine intended here. I would just like to know CCP's POV on that. I am pretty sure ppl left to high sec and are doing missions. Even level 3 mission gives more isk than -0.2 systems. ____________________________________________________________________________ Angel 0/A
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.04.29 06:30:00 - [3394] Originally by: Makumba Aki Still no reply from CCP? My perception is that many corps are leaving alliances and join alliances with better space, break apart or are leaving 0.0 for WH or high. Let us look at some NPC kill numbers: You're using NPC kill numbers to judge a patch aiming at reducing NPC kill numbers and increasing conflict? Did you completely miss the point of the change? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#kills24 http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind/2011-04-01#kills24 Four week ago and there were FEWER PvP kill than this friday, so what does that tell us by the way of anecdotal evidence? That the patch is working as intended.
BackStreet Babe	Posted - 2011.04.29 08:17:00 - [3395] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Makumba Aki Still no reply from CCP? My perception is that many corps are leaving alliances and join alliances with better space, break apart or are leaving 0.0 for WH or high. Let us look at some NPC kill numbers: You're using NPC kill numbers to judge a patch aiming at reducing NPC kill numbers and increasing conflict? Did you completely miss the point of the change? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#kills24 http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind/2011-04-01#kills24 Four week ago and there were FEWER PvP kill than this friday, so what does that tell us by the way of anecdotal evidence? That the patch is working as intended. so your saying that these kills are over ratting space? this conflict was in place before these changed and would have taken place with or with out them. its just in the last 3-4 weeks its seen an escalation with pl, nc., and the RMT (plus others)alliances all banding together with a common goal. no alliances gives a **** about ratting space, its about the moon gold and common hate for each other
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.29 08:24:00 - [3396] Originally by: Spc One Originally by: Makumba Aki Still no reply from CCP? My perception is that many corps are leaving alliances and join alliances with better space, break apart or are leaving 0.0 for WH or high. Let us look at some NPC kill numbers: Providence Cloud Ring Pure Blind and now compare it with the Region with probably lowest true sec on average Deklein So what happened? Smaller entities have left 0.0 or joined big powerblocks. No small entites dare to attack big powerblocks for better space (suprise, surprise!!!) There are no more smalle conflicts. We basically have one huge conflict. DRF, Trivoke, PL and Raiden vs. NC, Goons and -A-. Could CCP please post their perception of the situation? They should have more, and better data sources than I do. I mean really, no flame or whine intended here. I would just like to know CCP's POV on that. I am pretty sure ppl left to high sec and are doing missions. Even level 3 mission gives more isk than -0.2 systems. Nope! You still make more money with hubs on avg. compared with missions. Provided that you can pay your sov bills from moon goo. Additionally you get some income from PI in 0.0.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.04.29 08:28:00 - [3397] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Makumba Aki Still no reply from CCP? My perception is that many corps are leaving alliances and join alliances with better space, break apart or are leaving 0.0 for WH or high. Let us look at some NPC kill numbers: You're using NPC kill numbers to judge a patch aiming at reducing NPC kill numbers and increasing conflict? Did you completely miss the point of the change? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#kills24 http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind/2011-04-01#kills24 Four week ago and there were FEWER PvP kill than this friday, so what does that tell us by the way of anecdotal evidence? That the patch is working as intended. No NPC kills means no activity. No activity --> no ganking --> no PVP. And this patch didn't aim to decrease the 0.0 population as far I know.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.04.29 17:31:00 - [3398] CCP about time you give some feedback to your paying customers. Numbers and graphs on how the indended idea has outcome, 1: Has pvp increased or decreased in 0.0? 2: Has population increased or decreased in 0.0? 3: How meny new alliances have moved to 0.0 since the patch? 4: Where does CCP go from the aftermath. We just want some simple answers, you look at the numbers, were in the trenches.
Imperator Ceasar	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:28:00 - [3399] CCP Greyscale said: Expected consequences 1) Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space 2) In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals 3) Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec 4) Coalitions will be marginally less stable 5) 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) #1 - it still seems CCP fails to understand WHY conflict happens - isnt over "better space" and entrenched alliances arent going to move. #2 - this is dreamland.. again, CCP seems incapable of understanding their own game and why conflicts happen. #3 - this may or may not be the case.. I fail to see how this will make anything easier about a new or small alliance taking space. #4 - again, this may nor may not be the case... I fail to see how this will make coalitions "marginally less stable." - this seems to be a CCP pipedream #5 - alliances set up systems and locations due to strategic concerns, not "true sec" of systems.. again, CCP seems incapable of understanding what motivates their player base.
Imperator Ceasar	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:35:00 - [3400] However, this arrogance betrays CCP's hubris. CCP are clearly blind to their own flaws, introducing these changes while dealing from a position of weakness (the original blog indicated that greyscale admitted he was wrong to implement Dominion's bountiful havens and sanctums). At the end of the day, it's precisely this hubris that will keep this nerf in the game. How can someone blinded to their own weakness ever see criticism of said weakness as "constructive?" The fact is, Greyscale believes he was wrong before. So what makes him so damned certain history hasn't repeated itself with this (abysmal) change? NOW THAT IS A NICELY MADE POINT AND QUITE CORRECT... CCP, pay attention and fix this.

Imperator Ceasar	Posted - 2011.04.29 19:50:00 - [3401] Originally by: WisdomPanda Originally by: Marley Browning Originally by: WisdomPanda Incorrect. -0.3 to -0.4 has one haven. With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; 0.0 to -0.2 = 1 Haven -0.3 to -0.4 = 2 Haven -0.5 to -0.6 = 1 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.7 to -0.8 = 2 Sanctum, 2 Haven -0.9 to -1.0 = 2 Sanctum, 4 Haven I think your wrong, I am in a -.62 system and I only get 3 havens, no sanctums since the patch. This has been miss quoted a few times, so to correct it; With full upgrades, this is how I feel it should break down; It was my opinion how the changes SHOULD be, not how they ARE. The -0.3 to -0.4 having one haven is correct though. (At Lv5 military) To all the haters out their trying to grow their self importance by bashing on the "carebears", you fail to see why this is an issue. 1) CCP made these changes in Dominion because they acknowledged that most of these systems are totally worthless. They also put isk sinks in place. If anything, the sinks should be increased, gradually, until a happy spot is found. 2) The changes can not be inflation related as they are ISOLATED. If this were really about turning off the taps, empire should have been equally hit. After all, as you all keep reminding us; it has a larger population thus a greater potential to generate isk. (Many 0.0 carebears already doing so, in fact) 3) The changes were put in last minute, as a foot note, and they are terribly unbalanced. 4) It is far more expensive to live in 0.0 than empire/low-sec. On top of the damage we do to each other on a daily basis, 0.0 also has maintence costs that empire/low-sec people are not exposed to. 5) They did this with no community support, input or discussion. Do you remember seeing the CSM being consulted? 6) They gave inaccurate, flawed or just plain false reasoning for the change. 7) The (very) limited response so far has been short sighted at best. This isn't about opposing the changes (at least not for me) it's about either making them global (nerf ALL isk fountains) or at least give real, solid, irrefutable reasoning for not only implementing the changes, but also doing so WITHOUT any community interaction. If those aren't reason enough to get you fired up or at least slightly agitated, I doubt any reason presented will sway you beyond your own prejudice. As far as reasoning goes, from CCP Grayscales second response: Quote: - 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. So basically what he's saying is that CCP expects you to drop billions into system development, dropping outposts, etc. Then move because you don't like your current rats, you will need to invest trillions (spread across many accounts) into getting new space, by forcing out it's current owners. You'll also need to do all of this with space that is so worthless that no self respect power block wants it. (Because if they did, they would have it by now) Apparently, this reasoning made sense at CCP. /facepalm Also, help keep this thread alive! 200 pages is the new goal. If we still have no proper response from CCP by then, we'll need to take more drastic steps. I concur on every point - well said. CCP, fix it or lose more customers.
Mina Scalleto	Posted - 2011.04.30 04:13:00 - [3402] Well, this is how it works, CCP looks at all of these posts and laughs all the way to the bank. Why? Because of the separate set of numbers they have that they don't tell us about. It's more important to attract new customers than to worry too much about current ones. Until pocketbooks start shrinking over there (at a rate at which new customers cannot recoup), then I hate to say it fellow EVE players, CCP just took ONE BIG DUMP on you. That is all.
Dark Damus	Posted - 2011.04.30 10:46:00 - [3403] Edited by: Dark Damus on 30/04/2011 10:46:10 What you can see on this pic. the Accounts what is log in at same time go down http://www.eveger.de/serverstatus/serverstatus_p_month_server_1.png?date=050002 Because 0.0 is now borring. We will see what ccp do next to stop this trend
Azgard Majik Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.30 18:36:00 - [3404] Are CCP even gonna repay alliances for all the systems upgrades?
Davelantor Caldari Ore Exploration Team	Posted - 2011.05.01 07:16:00 - [3405] RESULT: Large alliances migrating to good areas, small alliances migrating back to high sec, because the good vs bad systems balance has been shifted more to "generally piece of crap" systems bar. It feels like the general value of staying at 0.0 has decreased, because now if you want good stuff, you need to take over a good system from a large alliance, and we all know how easy that is. Also ****s up the current alliance balance system completely, now we will have high concentration of players in specific place, instead spreading out relatively evenly. The Hunt
GrindAllStar	Posted - 2011.05.01 14:38:00 - [3406] Honestly if they really wanted to increase chances for small alliances to succeed/have a starting point while increasing conflict, all they should of done was go back to the beginning of eve. Back then when we had 10k dudes in the entire game looking for a gathering to get into a fight. When people were "war decing" others for the weird reason of owning a high sec mission hub. Why it was like that then?... Because there were a Few players spread over 5k or so systems maybe? Modern day numbers show around 35k players online at some times. So why no simply escalate the eve world to a enormous 15/20 or 25k 0.0 solar systems???. Make it so if alliance x needs help from alliance y they will have to wait for a month for them to get there. So how about that? seed about 4/5/6 ... 10x more 0.0 systems. Don't link them so they can be easy access from everywhere. Link them so people actually put there minds together when setting up a invasion at a 100+ jumps away location. (like in real world they will actually have to think about logistics and fleet movements and ****) I think that will kill the massive blobs and yes will make some localized power blocks but not like we don't have those now.... Overall think it would create conflict at a smaller scale, give small alliances a chance and as for the big-boys they will have to secure their space/borders better ans many small dudes will be on the rise. Fell free to poke me how ever you want I still think this idea is better than killing the anoms. (just checked 23 days left on my 3 accounts still waiting for a reason to refresh counter)...
Skaarl	Posted - 2011.05.01 15:20:00 - [3407] Originally by: GrindAllStar Honestly if they really wanted to increase chances for small alliances to succeed/have a starting point while increasing conflict, all they should of done was go back to the beginning of eve. Back then when we had 10k dudes in the entire game looking for a gathering to get into a fight. When people were "war decing" others for the weird reason of owning a high sec mission hub. Why it was like that then?... Because there were a Few players spread over 5k or so systems maybe? Modern day numbers show around 35k players online at some times. So why no simply escalate the eve world to a enormous 15/20 or 25k 0.0 solar systems???. Make it so if alliance x needs help from alliance y they will have to wait for a month for them to get there. So how about that? seed about 4/5/6 ... 10x more 0.0 systems. Don't link them so they can be easy access from everywhere. Link them so people actually put there minds together when setting up a invasion at a 100+ jumps away location. (like in real world they will actually have to think about logistics and fleet movements and ****) I think that will kill the massive blobs and yes will make some localized power blocks but not like we don't have those now.... Overall think it would create conflict at a smaller scale, give small alliances a chance and as for the big-boys they will have to secure their space/borders better ans many small dudes will be on the rise. Fell free to poke me how ever you want I still think this idea is better than killing the anoms. (just checked 23 days left on my 3 accounts still waiting for a reason to refresh counter)... but but but ccp greyidiots models show that this wil work to increase conflict!!! and that you will base staging systems on true sec!!! basically until they replace this idiot 0.0 is gonna be fairly crappy.
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.05.01 16:21:00 - [3408] Edited by: Red Morbo on 01/05/2011 16:21:13 In the aftermath: Conflict has dropped, our null sec area is a waste land. our small alliance gave 3 optoins: 1: Drop sov in half the systems we own 2: merge our alliane into a powerblock 3: quit null and move back to high-sec This is a small alliance on the par with ccp thinks will have a better time moving into null- your so wrong. considerable drop in nuets and reds venturing through the region-less pvp. More time spent afk-less to do less intrest in the game. Still not a decent reply from CCP so i guess they have a hard time reading.
h4kun4	Posted - 2011.05.02 10:50:00 - [3409] Edited by: h4kun4 on 02/05/2011 10:54:13 Many people just want to have comfort, it is not comfortable to fly 6 jumps for a sanctum which is safely enganged by another one since downtimes end. I havent gained money Incursion 1.4, because there is no sense for me flying a Hub or a Den with a Tengu im Risking more money than i can get... Its obviously more comfortable to get into higsec. There you have your missions, you can undock and gain ISK, in Nullsec you have to scan Complexes, fly Hubs, or try to get a Sanctum which is nearly impossible, you can get some money with hubs, but people just do not want to fly for peanuts. Second point, in highsec its safe to fly instead in nullsec its more dangerous, I dont risk a milliard of ISK (Tengu) to get 5 Million in 20 minutes, for this I can use a crappy drake wothed 50 million, level four missions are more rentable. So people leaving nullsec, because in high its not only easier to gain money, if you try hard, you get more money. Nullsec dies! The conflicts source with DRF, NC and PL is not on Incursion 1.4, its because DRF wants this strategic territory in northeast. Maybe CCP would understand Nullsec rules better if they would play with a non omnipotent acc in Nullesc alliances, because they are recuiting people.
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.05.02 18:19:00 - [3410] This is what you get when you dont play the game. Do not click this ad.

Woodywilson	Posted - 2011.05.02 22:06:00 - [3411] CCP turning into FLS????? I never...
Lord of cocksuckers	Posted - 2011.05.03 07:04:00 - [3412] being a ceo of a 170man corp in 0.0 fighting for our lives. this patch has screwed us. the guys are having to spend so much extra time making isk to replace ships there not fighting as much as they were. no way we can afford to replace the ships as the corp income has crashed as a result. the moons we have access to dont make anywhere near enough to compenstae for the 50% drop in corp tax income. so the changes you put in ccp are having the total oposite effect on small corps and alliances. would like it if you stoped lying and just state the true reasons for this change, as the current reasons even a blind man could see are bullsh*t
John Maynard Keynes	Posted - 2011.05.03 12:30:00 - [3413] Well, the patch seem to be working as intended. People leaving 0.0 = less lag... mission accomplished [/irony]
Azgard Majik Gallente	Posted - 2011.05.03 13:09:00 - [3414] Even Sony are not this vague when communicating with its customers. Please answer us CCP.
Khamal Jolstien Caldari Sick Tight Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.05.03 19:54:00 - [3415] Originally by: Woodywilson CCP turning into FLS????? I never... Zing! Originally by: McKinlay When you get on the batphone and the only people left in the phone book are Aeternus and BLAST it might be time to hang up.
Kandarus Minmatar Lyonesse. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.05.04 06:46:00 - [3416] Edited by: Kandarus on 04/05/2011 06:47:10 Making mistakes are ok, just as long as you 'fess up to them. 114 pages later ... well that's just stupid. I don't even plex/rat much, but seeing how the players are being ignored (no response as of yet) is very disconcerting. Unfortunately space-holders cannot band together in letting subs lapse for a month or so because that invites vultures to move on in. Because of this, eve (lower-case intended) is losing interest for me. Lets see what the next month brings otherwise a hiatus or possible cancellation is looming. Would be a shame, eve was a great game. And, I'd rather trash all assets than give them to anyone out of corp.
Mortus Valitum	Posted - 2011.05.04 08:02:00 - [3417] +1 My 3 accounts are under cancelling.
d4refiner	Posted - 2011.05.04 09:32:00 - [3418] Originally by: Kandarus And, I'd rather trash all assets than give them to anyone out of corp. Well, devs were saying there needs to be a new isk sink. Seems stupid to try to do that through ragequits, but they let that scrub dumbass push this change through so that might actually be the plan. "guess what! If we have no more users, there'll be no one to complain any more!"
Pres Obama	Posted - 2011.05.04 20:40:00 - [3419] just canceled all 4 of my autorenews. get f'd ccp & greyscale
slevik Minmatar	Posted - 2011.05.04 21:19:00 - [3420] So sorry...I'm not exactly sure what you'd call a "High End Player"!! WTF is that anyway?! Apart from an insult to players that don't meet your set criteria to class as a high end player. Our money doesn't have the same value as theirs? For the layman, in layman's terms..what does this upgrade do for us "low end players" that run missions from high and low sec? Anything? Is it REALLY worth me getting excited about?

Bubanni	Posted - 2011.05.05 01:18:00 - [3421] Edited by: Bubanni on 05/05/2011 01:19:51 From what I understand, less than 10% of eves population lives in 0.0, if you really want more action in 0.0, make it so more people "can" and "will" live there, with that said... that only about 10% live in 0.0, it's not the most optimal place to try and reduce "isk", the place to hit is high sec, even with the so called "lp isk sink", missions pay out decent isk itself if you know what your doing, just like 0.0... (heck, im hearing about some people being able to get 250+ mil hour from running missions... while thats next to impossible with anomalies unless you count multiple characters in, or using a titan) I personly canceled an account because of this, still keeping main for pvp
Ghazu	Posted - 2011.05.05 01:29:00 - [3422] Originally by: slevik So sorry...I'm not exactly sure what you'd call a "High End Player"!! WTF is that anyway?! Apart from an insult to players that don't meet your set criteria to class as a high end player. Our money doesn't have the same value as theirs? For the layman, in layman's terms..what does this upgrade do for us "low end players" that run missions from high and low sec? Anything? Is it REALLY worth me getting excited about? in layman's term your stupid, try again and rephrase your thoughts with coherence
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.05.05 02:24:00 - [3423] Originally by: Bubanni Edited by: Bubanni on 05/05/2011 01:19:51 From what I understand, less than 10% of eves population lives in 0.0, if you really want more action in 0.0, make it so more people "can" and "will" live there, with that said... that only about 10% live in 0.0, it's not the most optimal place to try and reduce "isk", the place to hit is high sec, even with the so called "lp isk sink", missions pay out decent isk itself if you know what your doing, just like 0.0... (heck, im hearing about some people being able to get 250+ mil hour from running missions... while thats next to impossible with anomalies unless you count multiple characters in, or using a titan) I personly canceled an account because of this, still keeping main for pvp The funny thing is that the people behind that "10%" of the populace may have 2, 3, or more characters based in high-sec working hard to ensure that their null-sec characters are well-supplied and ready for action. Make no mistake about it, much of high-sec EVE, including trading, logistics and industry, is focused on furthering the interests of null-sec characters and alliances.
slevik Minmatar	Posted - 2011.05.05 03:40:00 - [3424] Originally by: Ghazu Originally by: slevik So sorry...I'm not exactly sure what you'd call a "High End Player"!! WTF is that anyway?! Apart from an insult to players that don't meet your set criteria to class as a high end player. Our money doesn't have the same value as theirs? For the layman, in layman's terms..what does this upgrade do for us "low end players" that run missions from high and low sec? Anything? Is it REALLY worth me getting excited about? in layman's term your stupid, try again and rephrase your thoughts with coherence If you are having difficulty following such a simple thought I'm guessing English isn't your first language?? Let me help you....Greyscale states in his blog "Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players" My question was very easy to understand..what's his definition of a High End player? The way he has explained the mechanics of the changes is a little difficult to follow and, in regards to calling me stupid, finish school and work harder on grammar...the correct spelling would be 'you're stupid'...Need a mirror?
Ghazu	Posted - 2011.05.05 05:45:00 - [3425] Originally by: slevik So sorry...I'm not exactly sure what you'd call a "High End Player"!! WTF is that anyway?! Apart from an insult to players that don't meet your set criteria to class as a high end player. Our money doesn't have the same value as theirs? For the layman, in layman's terms..what does this upgrade do for us "low end players" that run missions from high and low sec? Anything? Is it REALLY worth me getting excited about? what is your point? insult from greyscale? don't like to be called a low end player? and what does it have to do with the anomaly changes? having trouble arousing yourself? so thanks for the spell check, but 'you're still sounding kinda stupid.
Ryan Starwing Gallente Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.05.05 21:56:00 - [3426] Originally by: slevik Originally by: Ghazu Originally by: slevik So sorry...I'm not exactly sure what you'd call a "High End Player"!! WTF is that anyway?! Apart from an insult to players that don't meet your set criteria to class as a high end player. Our money doesn't have the same value as theirs? For the layman, in layman's terms..what does this upgrade do for us "low end players" that run missions from high and low sec? Anything? Is it REALLY worth me getting excited about? in layman's term your stupid, try again and rephrase your thoughts with coherence If you are having difficulty following such a simple thought I'm guessing English isn't your first language?? Let me help you....Greyscale states in his blog "Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players" My question was very easy to understand..what's his definition of a High End player? The way he has explained the mechanics of the changes is a little difficult to follow and, in regards to calling me stupid, finish school and work harder on grammar...the correct spelling would be 'you're stupid'...Need a mirror? Highend player is anyone who can at least fly a bc competantly, and for an example a drake with 1 or 2 months worth of sp total. So if you can fly a bc and been playing a month+ you are a highend player.
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2011.05.06 00:19:00 - [3427] Originally by: Ryan Starwing Highend player is anyone who can at least fly a bc competantly, and for an example a drake with 1 or 2 months worth of sp total. So if you can fly a bc and been playing a month+ you are a highend player. ah no...doing 200dps in a drake with your meta 1 launchers and t1 hobygoblins is not high end (except maybe in TEST). High end is t2 fit battleship. If you let noobs come and hog your pve content with their poop ships taking 3 hours to complete a haven then that is your fault.
Bubanni	Posted - 2011.05.06 01:15:00 - [3428] :) actually the "high end" are the battleships, tech 3 ships, and carriers (or titans and supercarriers) players who do sanctums within 10-30 mins...
Lord of cocksuckers	Posted - 2011.05.07 12:24:00 - [3429] so still no responce from ccp? how is this change doing with increasing conflict? why does it look like thier account base has dropped because of this and or has it? are you still reading and laughing now? do you actually give a **** about your players?
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.08 08:50:00 - [3430] Originally by: Lord of **suckers so still no responce from ccp? how is this change doing with increasing conflict? why does it look like thier account base has dropped because of this and or has it? are you still reading and laughing now? do you actually give a **** about your players? The account base always drops around this time... summer and stuff... people go rather outside than playing with spaceships...

Geralden	Posted - 2011.05.09 15:08:00 - [3431] How can it be, that Dev's will "answer any questions" in a different thread, but not post ONE relevant or usefull answer in this ?
h4kun4 Cold Steel Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.09 15:27:00 - [3432] Edited by: h4kun4 on 09/05/2011 15:27:57 What I¦m interested in, is if ccp would retreat this part of incursion because nobody likes it, or if theyre thinking when they dont talk about it, players will forget...
Gunman1982	Posted - 2011.05.10 12:33:00 - [3433] Originally by: Makumba Aki The account base always drops around this time... summer and stuff... people go rather outside than playing with spaceships... I was waiting for that point and I have to say: partly right. Yes there are going to be less people online because of summer and stuff but they normally don't cancel their subscription. Outcome in our corp:5 accounts canceled, about 7 pending, mostly people who have lost their faith that we can hold the space.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.05.10 21:20:00 - [3434] Edited by: Quincy Taggart on 10/05/2011 21:20:55 Tried making isk with hubs...too many jammers isk/hour too low. Taking down my POS's not going to give these asshats $400 USD next year sorry CCP you lost it. Try paying attention to the customer base...
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.05.11 00:57:00 - [3435] And here we thought that CCP was terrible for ****ing up anoms. Now CCP tells us that we need to have twice the IHUB-installed systems in-place in order to maintain the same jump bridge networks that have planned and installed in various regions. One Bridge / One System. So, not only has income been reduced, but costs have dramatically increased. It is true that the trail of tears will fuel many a forum warrior, but CCP's game design department needs to put on some leg irons and do a group swim in the Northern Sea.
Reina Solar	Posted - 2011.05.11 11:29:00 - [3436] Hello CCP, That is a stupid thing you did there . Don't think I will go to the next fanfest .
Aphrodite Skripalle Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2011.05.11 11:58:00 - [3437] After so many years playing eve i deeply think about quitting now. The latest nerfs really suck and ccp is not listening to customerbase. Who want haz my stuff ?
Red Morbo	Posted - 2011.05.11 12:40:00 - [3438] I'm still in 0.0 Isk made since patch - 0 Combat experianced - 3 engagements There is and was already a mass 0.0 deployment just b4 patch, so CCP probably think that this patch is working, it is for the power block that paid PL 600 bill (so talk tells) to super cap super blob steam roll the north. Large numbers have left 0.0 coz it just not affordable. It's looking like the power blocks will just steam roll 0.0 with super lag fleets with less resistance. CCP just gave 0.0 to the russians (and other power blocks)
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.11 16:12:00 - [3439] Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle After so many years playing eve i deeply think about quitting now. The latest nerfs really suck and ccp is not listening to customerbase. Who want haz my stuff ? I would take it... :)
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.11 16:17:00 - [3440] Originally by: Gunman1982 Originally by: Makumba Aki The account base always drops around this time... summer and stuff... people go rather outside than playing with spaceships... I was waiting for that point and I have to say: partly right. Yes there are going to be less people online because of summer and stuff but they normally don't cancel their subscription. Outcome in our corp:5 accounts canceled, about 7 pending, mostly people who have lost their faith that we can hold the space. Well, I agree that this nerf was the most stupid thing CCP ever did. I do like the new upconing 0.0 tweak (JB nerf an stuff) though. However, this JB nerfs will increase the sov costs while the last patch nefed the 0.0 income. Overall, this greatly reduces the incentives to stay in 0.0. My corp has left 0.0 and is a WH/high-sec/small gang roaming corp now. I am really curious about the next quarterly economic report....

Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.05.11 18:29:00 - [3441] Guys, come on, you need to up your game here. The tears in the JB tweak thread are already at 55 pages in 24 hours. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Vaju Katru	Posted - 2011.05.11 18:34:00 - [3442] Good change.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.11 19:51:00 - [3443] Originally by: Malcanis Guys, come on, you need to up your game here. The tears in the JB tweak thread are already at 55 pages in 24 hours. The JB nerf is actualy a very good thing..... :)
Major Stallion The Dark Horses.	Posted - 2011.05.11 20:59:00 - [3444] Originally by: Makumba Aki Originally by: Malcanis Guys, come on, you need to up your game here. The tears in the JB tweak thread are already at 55 pages in 24 hours. The JB nerf is actualy a very good thing..... :) he was pointing more to the fact that the people crying in this thread need to cry more...if you know anything about his posting, youd know malcanis is in favor of the JB changes.
Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.05.12 01:42:00 - [3445] I can't believe that these dumb asses haven't figured it out yet. You're killing 0.0. One thing I didn't think about was that once the havens/sanctums were gone ppl stopped running anoms...them the MIL index dropped so now with MIL 2 in the system I lived in there aren't even any HUBS. It is now a fu king wasteland...we were going to deploy an outpost there but no more. Three accounts back to high sec. I don't want to hear anymore whining about "there's too many ppl in high sec", CCP, cause YOU caused it. dumb asses....dumb fu king assess
Vengeance Thirst	Posted - 2011.05.12 11:15:00 - [3446] Same here. No one is ratting anymore, 4 dudes moved to low sec, 2 dudes committed to scanning for plexes all day long 10/15jumps away, 10-15 dudes ask for mining upgrades for the system so they can mine although they never thought to do it before (wihch make me wonder if mining will be nerfed soon). So bottom line: If we ALL that got crap systems now retool for mining. Will the mining upgrades get a nerf next??? You f-u-c-k-i-n-g r-e-t-a-r-d-s...........
Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.12 12:43:00 - [3447] Holy ** you lot can ing whine. HTFU or GTFO. "WAAAAA cancelling 8 subscriptions... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" No, you aren't. Since every **ing bear in 0.0 was just grinding anoms and buying PLEX. What this will do to PLEX supply / demand is the interesting part ... I have my theory and assets applied accordingly
Amanda Bolton	Posted - 2011.05.12 13:52:00 - [3448] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher Holy ** you lot can ing whine. HTFU or GTFO. "WAAAAA cancelling 8 subscriptions... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" No, you aren't. Since every **ing bear in 0.0 was just grinding anoms and buying PLEX. What this will do to PLEX supply / demand is the interesting part ... I have my theory and assets applied accordingly what is this i dont even... ...and do some research on PLEX(60d sub) before embarrassing yourself again
Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.12 14:03:00 - [3449] Originally by: Amanda Bolton what is this i dont even... ...and do some research on PLEX(60d sub) before embarrassing yourself again Your point, there is none.
Amanda Bolton	Posted - 2011.05.12 15:06:00 - [3450] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher Originally by: Amanda Bolton what is this i dont even... ...and do some research on PLEX(60d sub) before embarrassing yourself again Your point, there is none. You are forgetting one important thing: Every PLEX seller/buyer has its limit on grind/buy ratio for his subscription. Less subscribtions funded with ingame isk leads to reduced damand, reduced damand leads to lower prices, lower prices leads to people switching from Buying PLEX with real money and selling them for isk TO grinding ingame, and that leads only to lost income for CCP... Every active account in EVE is paid by someone with RL money... And if u think that CCP is not loosing money after this patch u are delusional, i know lots of ppl in my corp/ally, who just droped their ratting alts, and the space where im living now is deserted.

Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.12 16:27:00 - [3451] Originally by: Amanda Bolton You are forgetting one important thing: Every PLEX seller/buyer has its limit on grind/buy ratio for his subscription. Less subscribtions funded with ingame isk leads to reduced damand, reduced damand leads to lower prices You see the part where I said Originally by: Lady Go Diveher What this will do to PLEX supply / demand is the interesting part I seriously doubt there will be fewer PLEX bought due to the changes, tbh. The cheaper PLEX gets, the more attractive it becomes for the person buying to activate ... Not to mention someone buying PLEX > ISK needs to buy more. It may balance at a different price, but you'll see the total number remain pretty constant. All these people going "THATS IT I AM UNSUBSCRIBING!!!" can be seen on the forums saying the same thing back in 2010....2009....2008.... and so on. CCP will do well to ignore the emo.
Amber Villaneous	Posted - 2011.05.12 20:13:00 - [3452] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher All these people going "THATS IT I AM UNSUBSCRIBING!!!" can be seen on the forums saying the same thing back in 2010....2009....2008.... and so on. CCP will do well to ignore the emo. Really? Proof please. I've never said that til now, then again I've never had CCP encourage me to spend my time and money do to something and then have it turned out to be a lie til now either.
Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.12 21:43:00 - [3453] Originally by: Amber Villaneous Really? Proof please. I've never said that til now, then again I've never had CCP encourage me to spend my time and money do to something and then have it turned out to be a lie til now either. Just trawl through eve-search. You'll find quite a number of people (HINT: focus on the nano-nerf months) who were waaa waaaa quitting. Oddly, a lot seem to now have Incursion profile pics and active accounts .... But whatever. Just unsubscribe. Any player who can't think of another way to make money than grinding anoms whilst flitting about on their impervious JB network doesn't belong in the game anyway. So I imagine you'll trolololl with pithy vitriol on the forums until your sub expires? Guess it's better you do get back out into the real world :/
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.12 22:37:00 - [3454] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher Originally by: Amber Villaneous Really? Proof please. I've never said that til now, then again I've never had CCP encourage me to spend my time and money do to something and then have it turned out to be a lie til now either. Just trawl through eve-search. You'll find quite a number of people (HINT: focus on the nano-nerf months) who were waaa waaaa quitting. Oddly, a lot seem to now have Incursion profile pics and active accounts .... But whatever. Just unsubscribe. Any player who can't think of another way to make money than grinding anoms whilst flitting about on their impervious JB network doesn't belong in the game anyway. So I imagine you'll trolololl with pithy vitriol on the forums until your sub expires? Guess it's better you do get back out into the real world :/ I think the plex thing is a non-issue. Because in the long run, inflation will decrease due to lower ISK supply so that the real prices for ships and plex will stay about the same. The isk prices will increase at a slower pace or even drop. For me the problem ist not that I can't make money anymore, because I make now more money in the WH than I did before in 0.0. The problem is that there is no strong incentive anymore to stay in bad true sec 0.0. So the population of 0.0 will (and i think it already does) drop as a consequence. Why should someone invest in ifrastructure in bad true sec 0.0? You don't need iHubs for plexes and anos are barely worth the sov costs.
Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.12 23:36:00 - [3455] Originally by: Makumba Aki For me the problem ist not that I can't make money anymore, because I make now more money in the WH than I did before in 0.0. The problem is that there is no strong incentive anymore to stay in bad true sec 0.0. So the population of 0.0 will (and i think it already does) drop as a consequence. Why should someone invest in ifrastructure in bad true sec 0.0? You don't need iHubs for plexes and anos are barely worth the sov costs. Nullsec was never meant to be a region of space where cash flow was the primary reason for heading out and living out there. It was meant as a region where player politics and decisions affected the "landscape" to a greater degree than it does in empire. That it has become just another region of space to carebear and roll in the iskies is a problem that CCP are trying to work against. Can't you see what they're trying to do? JB networks and upgraded space are two ways in which the large powerblocks maintain their power and it's members are able to do their **** with little to no risk (unless they seek it). Bad vs good 0.0 is effectively a reversal back to how it was - creating regions of space (theoretically) worth fighting over again. What is the incentive in fighting over new space if you make just as much ISK by installing a few upgrades locally?
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.05.13 02:07:00 - [3456] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher Originally by: Makumba Aki For me the problem ist not that I can't make money anymore, because I make now more money in the WH than I did before in 0.0. The problem is that there is no strong incentive anymore to stay in bad true sec 0.0. So the population of 0.0 will (and i think it already does) drop as a consequence. Why should someone invest in ifrastructure in bad true sec 0.0? You don't need iHubs for plexes and anos are barely worth the sov costs. Nullsec was never meant to be a region of space where cash flow was the primary reason for heading out and living out there. It was meant as a region where player politics and decisions affected the "landscape" to a greater degree than it does in empire. That it has become just another region of space to carebear and roll in the iskies is a problem that CCP are trying to work against. Can't you see what they're trying to do? JB networks and upgraded space are two ways in which the large powerblocks maintain their power and it's members are able to do their **** with little to no risk (unless they seek it). Bad vs good 0.0 is effectively a reversal back to how it was - creating regions of space (theoretically) worth fighting over again. What is the incentive in fighting over new space if you make just as much ISK by installing a few upgrades locally? Here's the thing: Self-determination (player politics) is figuring out what you and your mates want to do with your time and available resources. If a block of players have determined that they want to harvest the rewards available in null-sec, then so be it. That's the beauty of null-sec. Players do not have to conform to YOUR desire to have them be PvPers when YOU go roaming their space. Perhaps they PvP and HTFU a few hours before YOU get online. Doesn't matter. They play as they wish and within the parameters of their corp and alliance missions. This argument is as old as time. Additionally, how do you think that legitimate players (non-bots) get all of the ISKies to fund their hangers of expensive ships? If they aren't in high-sec mission hubs, buying GTCs, selling characters, mining Veld with Chribba or trading on an alt, then they are likely hanging with their mates in null-sec grinding for ISK. And that is their choice. When players vacate poor quality null-sec for high-sec ventures, there are fewer targets for you and your buddies. Null-sec can be a quiet place. We do not need it to be even more devoid of life. CCP's meddling is like a ham-fisted 3 year old attempting open heart surgery with a utility knife. The youngster might have good intentions and make the right cut. But a great deal of damage to the surrounding tissue will also occur.
Kenny Fookin Powers	Posted - 2011.05.13 02:14:00 - [3457] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher What is the incentive in fighting over new space if you make just as much ISK by installing a few upgrades locally? moons.... the actual "real" money maker the anomalies helped the little guys make isk to pvp moon goo is what drives the large corp/alliance wallets
ArmyOfMe V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.05.13 06:42:00 - [3458] Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 13/05/2011 06:44:06 bah
Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.13 08:33:00 - [3459] Originally by: Kenny **in Powers moons.... the actual "real" money maker the anomalies helped the little guys make isk to pvp moon goo is what drives the large corp/alliance wallets Yeah I know moon-goo is a major issue here, hence not saying CCP have fixed 0.0 - I assume a goo-change will follow, tbh. As for "the right to carebear in null" - you are free to do it, of course. CCP just wants you to fight for the region you do it in, which I agree with.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.13 08:45:00 - [3460] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher Originally by: Makumba Aki For me the problem ist not that I can't make money anymore, because I make now more money in the WH than I did before in 0.0. The problem is that there is no strong incentive anymore to stay in bad true sec 0.0. So the population of 0.0 will (and i think it already does) drop as a consequence. Why should someone invest in ifrastructure in bad true sec 0.0? You don't need iHubs for plexes and anos are barely worth the sov costs. Nullsec was never meant to be a region of space where cash flow was the primary reason for heading out and living out there. It was meant as a region where player politics and decisions affected the "landscape" to a greater degree than it does in empire. That it has become just another region of space to carebear and roll in the iskies is a problem that CCP are trying to work against. Can't you see what they're trying to do? JB networks and upgraded space are two ways in which the large powerblocks maintain their power and it's members are able to do their **** with little to no risk (unless they seek it). Bad vs good 0.0 is effectively a reversal back to how it was - creating regions of space (theoretically) worth fighting over again. What is the incentive in fighting over new space if you make just as much ISK by installing a few upgrades locally? I like the new JB changes and I like the ideo of creating space with differnt value to create incentives for conflicts. However, I don't see how nerfing the income in majority of 0.0 almost under high level helps here. In the long run, the people will simply leave bad true sec 0.0 while big powerblocks will keep fighting for the north. So the IMHO better solution would have been to nerf high sec income as well and mybe decrease the sov costs a little bit, so that there is still a strong incentive to stay in (low true sec) 0.0.

Lady Go Diveher	Posted - 2011.05.13 09:34:00 - [3461] Well, perhaps there needs to be another ISK faucet in 0.0 to replace the anom grind ... perhaps new material worth fighting over(?) The answer wasn't, however, sitting mostly AFK in anoms grinding ISK in your Drake / Raven. All. ****ing. Day. Crying like a big baby when an AFK cloaker pops up in the system because, heaven forbid, there should be any risk in nullsec. Finally, the anom nerf is an indirect nerf towards botting, which I'm all for, too.
Est3ll3	Posted - 2011.05.13 11:35:00 - [3462] Originally by: Lady Go Diveher Finally, the anom nerf is an indirect nerf towards botting, which I'm all for, too. No it's not. Drone region has a large amount of bots yet there anoms were increased with this change. The only thing this nerf has changed is that smaller corps have moved out of ** sec space and back into empire. This intern has led to less PvP due to there being nobody in systems which were once populated. It's a crazy change in all honesty the case should have been lets get rid of all sanctums and havens not, lets take from those guys and give to those guys over there who already have ** loads of good anoms to run so they can get even richer. It's not caused anymore conflict at all and it's not removed any isk from the game it's just transplanted the isk printing machine to a different area. And so what if people want to run anoms all day let them it's a game....
State Citizen	Posted - 2011.05.13 22:25:00 - [3463] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies CCP Greyscale is clearly an idiot.
rastavelli Minmatar Mortis Angelus	Posted - 2011.05.14 11:11:00 - [3464] Originally by: State Citizen Originally by: CCP Zymurgist CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies CCP Greyscale is clearly an idiot. long live the changes
Humpfgrunz Gallente Nex Exercitus Raiden.	Posted - 2011.05.15 16:37:00 - [3465] Edited by: Humpfgrunz on 15/05/2011 16:42:15 Lets see, I have been a small alliance leader in 0.0 by the end of april this year (2011). - We moved in Eastern Tenerifis with the start of february, placed SBUs at the places we were interested in, took over the station with a horribly small gang, got a deal with WN and had our constellation. - There were daily roamings of ROL/-A-/EnGarde visiting us, so enough PvP and enough time to recreate as well. - Then in march we had some internal issues, where Helljumpers/EnGarde worked together with kicked Ex-Members, so we had plenty of PvP, but still good income in corner systems of our constellation. - Then in april, we hade peace most of the time, but CCP devalued properties of about 15bil ISK (all those nice upgrades) and as the alliance had financed all that by taking depts from its members, it was a real blow. - End of April, we decided that this worthless piece of crap was not worth the effort to defend it by any way against -A- and friends, so we evacuated. -- The only reason why the alliance could make ends meet and pay its depts was, because we were able to work on the expenses side by doing plenty of jobs for WN and got our rent drastically reduced. Then we farmed some r64 moon which gave us some further income. -- In the end, most of the PvP staff, including me had talks how to continue. We came to the decision that 0.0 is now only for PvPers of large alliances and for miners. As my alliance was definitely not anymore able to grant them any kind of decent income. Result: - many of our PvPers are now moving to RAIDEN. where we have some friends. - the other PvPers went to EVE-Union which is a small and more freelance PvP alliance with some really good FCs and often leads the action of the G-Block - for our miners and producers the rest of the alliance will rent some lone 0.0 system which is more easy to supply (max 2 Jumpfreighter Jumps distance towards the empire). They will do absolutely no PvP there, just get safe the second reds/neuts arrive in local. - the dream to build up a small alliance without connections from the beginning and have it grown to be seen on the sovereignity map and be respected has just ended. This is just not possible anymore, the hurdles have become too big. The reason why I gave up my dream to build an alliance from scratch was just simple: Small Alliance: Huge Tax -> Crappy Income -> Crappy Reimbursements -> PvPers gone Huge Alliance: Small Tax -> Good Income -> Good Reimbursements -> PvPers attracted A Small Alliance can make up much just with its personal character and their leaderships charisma as long as the difference and the hurdles are manageable. With the new hurdles, the difference is too much ! Why should ever a good PvPer go trhough grinding hell in a small alliance when he can have paradise in one of the privileged ones ? I personally have adapted, but I was on the brink of cancelling all my accounts and I am still very angry at CCP because they ripped my alliance off 15bil ISK without even the slightes will to reimburse those investments which I would never have done, if I had known in time of such a horrible nerf to arrive. CCP has lost tons of customers recently and there is no growth of active players over the last year. CCP trying to get it fixed by their new buddyprogram is a worthless and crappy effort to fix the loss in customers. In fact CCP has ripped off thousands of its players/customers in this game off billions of ISK and they should have at least gradually reimbursed all those Pirate Upgrades for all the systems where they were put up for less than 4 months. And they should have reimbursed even the IHUBs where the only mounted and farmed upgrades where the Pirate ones. Finally: Being ripped off by other players is ok, this is EVE. Being ripped off by CCP is not ok ! This is interference with the sandbox and in fact CCP f*cking off their customers off their own game. This Nerf has cost CCP dearly ! The next one about JB will cost them as well ! I like pirates - for lunch
Ghazu	Posted - 2011.05.16 03:43:00 - [3466] LOL Humpfgrunz STUPID NC BEAR TEARS BEST TEARS OH WAIT?!
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.05.16 04:48:00 - [3467] So ccp, how many fights haven been lately over ratting? You seem to know what starts a war in all alliances, so.. How many? 0. Awesome work. Im glad that plex sales are through the roof.
Makumba Aki	Posted - 2011.05.16 12:39:00 - [3468] Ok, now they are buffing the income in High sec... CCP found a way to win the war on lag... they will simply turn 0.0 into a wasteland.. :D
h4kun4 Cold Steel Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.16 15:55:00 - [3469] Edited by: h4kun4 on 16/05/2011 15:57:53 I wanted to play this game for a long time, I dont pay a hundred euros into your mouth and leave then, but this patch killed me absolutely, since the patch I made 10 Million ISK, leeching friends lvl 4 reward in a fleet, but thats crappy if we are true. Its cool that some Sanctums are left, but when I scanned for them, 5 People were in ONE sanctum, also in the next 4 or 5 sanctums, also in the havens in the whole region. So flyig jamming forlorn hubs with a Tengu, the Ammo is more expensive then my ticks... I have the skills to fly a big bunch of ships but after Incursion 1.4 I have depts of 1 billion, my fault, I see it, but without the patch I could have them payd since 4 weeks, no chance to earn real money without an overkilled amount of time. Of course i could pay the whole next year, buy 10 plexes fly a big ship and go to a wh, but i do not want to bay antoher hundred euro into a game which isnt worth the half anymore... And still no damn answer of you guys, stop watching TV or doing Alliance Tournaments which no alliance can affort after this patch, undo the patch and nobody will complain....
The Newface	Posted - 2011.05.17 15:44:00 - [3470] Really amazes me that we still waiting for a real response to the biggest thread in here...

Quincy Taggart	Posted - 2011.05.17 18:58:00 - [3471] 0.0 is now the safest it's ever been. The systems I live in...never see a red anymore. When we had sanctums and havens the reds were here everyday trying to catch us. It was exciting and frustrating and dynamic...after the anom nerf...it's boring. You know what happens when the game gets boring? People stop playing! Epic fail CCP!
Est3ll3	Posted - 2011.05.17 19:08:00 - [3472] Originally by: Quincy Taggart 0.0 is now the safest it's ever been. The systems I live in...never see a red anymore. When we had sanctums and havens the reds were here everyday trying to catch us. It was exciting and frustrating and dynamic...after the anom nerf...it's boring. You know what happens when the game gets boring? People stop playing! Epic fail CCP! This is so true, no more roaming gangs in are area anymore as theres no ratters to catch it's boring as ****
Frisky Bunny	Posted - 2011.05.18 00:49:00 - [3473] Still in 0.0 nothing worth mentioning other than loving the idea of jumping up to high sec to run some missions once the new patch comes out.
Royaldo Gallente Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance	Posted - 2011.05.18 01:28:00 - [3474] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 13/05/2011 06:44:06 bah so eager to answer with the alt
Imigo Montoya Hysterically Unforgiving Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2011.05.19 11:21:00 - [3475] Well, looks like it might be time to recap on the original purpose of these changes to see if any of the "expected consequences" have shown any sign of eventuating. It's especially interesting to look at this again now that we've seen the more recent changes planned (JB and Mission changes) Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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) 1. I haven't seen any group attacking any other group based on truesec rating. If there is a group out there that has done so, please let me know. Alliances have been looking for better space for a long time now, but most of what alliances seem to look for is moon goo. I have however heard of plenty of (particularly smaller/newer) alliances look to highsec for better space. Unfortunately that's not really driving more conflict in 0.0 2. How long exactly is this "longer run" supposed to be exactly? I haven't seen more conflicts with more localised goals, just the same old global conflict with universal goals. Again, if anybody is involved in a locally oriented player sov conflict I'd really like to know about it. 3. As Humpfgrunz, and others, posted earlier (I will point out here, Humpfgrunz is not and was not a member of the NC), as a small alliance these changes have shafted them completely. So Humpfgrunz has joined a bigger alliance that already holds space. That seems like a reasonable course of action, and funnily enough one that involved interacting with other players, something that CCP are trying to promote with the JB change, but that interaction is not in a conflicting way (what CCP is trying to promote with both the anom and JB changes). Ultimately, newer alliances have not had an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec at all. It seems that diplomacy is still the best way for new alliances to get space in 0.0, and even more so with these changes. 4. I'm not seeing this either, at least not as a result of these changes. There are three main coalitions currently in the game - NC/DC, DRF and CAAASEROL. This change really hasn't had any effect on any of these coaltions' stability. The fact that they are all involved in a massive brawling conflict might have some effect, but that conflict has absolutely nothing to do with these changes and everything to do with the player politics that have been playing out for a long time regardless of any of CCP's changes. 5. Has anybody changed their staging systems lately? Perhaps some of the DRF forces have as they've made headway through Gem/Vale, but again that has nothing to do with the truesec of the systems and more to do with how close they are to systems where the fighting is/will be. NC members have changed staging systems too, again based on where the fighting is and being able to get there with minimal fuss. Has anybody based any decision regarding staging systems on the truesec of the systems they are choosing from? I'm not seeing it. In summary, it appears to me that CCP Greyscale either got this completely wrong or has outright lied to us about what the changes were supposed to achieve. So I ask this: CCP Greyscale - Which is it? Either provide some evidence that your expected changes have in fact taken place or admit that you've made a mistake.
i hatechosingnames Gallente Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.05.23 17:03:00 - [3476] CCP doesn't make mistakes... we aren't making our sandcastles to CCP's liking so they are changing the rules as it is their sandbox.
Fredrick Engly Insorum Industries Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.05.24 02:32:00 - [3477] Originally by: Imigo Montoya In summary, it appears to me that CCP Greyscale either got this completely wrong or has outright lied to us about what the changes were supposed to achieve. So I ask this: CCP Greyscale - Which is it? Either provide some evidence that your expected changes have in fact taken place or admit that you've made a mistake. Waiting on this as well...hurry up and justify your existence as an employee.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.05.24 05:02:00 - [3478] Originally by: Fredrick Engly Originally by: Imigo Montoya In summary, it appears to me that CCP Greyscale either got this completely wrong or has outright lied to us about what the changes were supposed to achieve. So I ask this: CCP Greyscale - Which is it? Either provide some evidence that your expected changes have in fact taken place or admit that you've made a mistake. Waiting on this as well...hurry up and justify your existence as an employee. Heh. He's probably dodging volcanic ash if he lives in Iceland. If he lives in GA (USA), then he's probably planning on his next M-series BMW covertable lease as EVE subscribers continue to inject cash into CCP Games. In all sincerity, customers should have no say over the employment status of a given employee. But we have every right to express our dissatisfaction with how CCP Games markets and delivers service for the fee that we pay to access and use the EVE Online product.
Om'en Minmatar Hyperion LTD.	Posted - 2011.05.24 06:17:00 - [3479] @ Lady Go Diveher.
Ze Beeblebrox Amarr Negotium Holding Negotium Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.24 08:52:00 - [3480] CCP Greyscale: 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) Reality: - All smaller alliances went for better space: High Sec / Empire - More conflicts: More Empire Missirunner Ganks and more Empire wars - 'Newer Alliances' obviously refers to Alliances born out of the crumbles of old Alliances with at least 1'000 Members and coalition friends and the filled wallets of old 0.0 corporations as well as the ability to capture some tech moons. - like e.g. RAIDEN. (Obviously smaller and jounger alliances are not meant, as those all have left 0.0 and as there is absolutely no movement of them getting into 0.0) - As many coalitions have lost members and corporations due to those changes, they have gotten less stable by some unimportant margin indeed. - Yes, only develop systems below -0.7 and place your staging system 1 carrier jump out of empire near your enemy. 0.0 has become the best place for PvPers with an Empire-Level4-Alt and for Miners ! Looking at statistics: - CCP Greyscale has managed to bring growth in EVE Online to an absolute halt ! - CCP Greyscale has managed to drive many players directly off the game ! - CCP Greyscale has managed to kill the perspective of many smaller alliances, so their members reduced their time playing EVE Online ! - CCP Greyscale has just managed to reverse all what dominion promised by making 0.0 economically even worse than before dominion for most of its inhabitants ! - CCP Greyscale has just managed to put up a barrier between havenots and haves in EvE Online so huge that 0.0 will be the playground for some few elite alliances among themselves for a long time to come with no really new entity to have any kind of chance to get into that league. He made sure that there will be no really new coalition, no really new alliances being able to earn themselves the ISK needed to dwell against the established ones. - CCP Greyscale has proven that you don't need any kind of knowledge about 0.0-mechanisms and psychology to be allowed and able to implement a drastic and game devastating change at CCP Games. Fortunately I am not a major shareholder of CCP Games. Otherwise I just would have had CCP Greyscale and those who ought to be his supervisors fired and I would have immediately instated a reimbursement program for all those entities who lost fortunes in too fast devaluated 0.0-infrastructure-assets. I even would have gone further and after an investigation reversed some of the changes by some means. As neither CCP Greyscale, nor CCP Games is able to confirm their huge mistake and their obvious annoying of a good percentage of their playerbase/customers, they will have to live on with the fact that they just have trashed about 10-15% of possible growth in their game this year and thus wasted several millions of RL-ISK which they could have spent on bonuses for their board's members, on dividends for their shareholders, on future projects, on personnel for making EVE a better place to play, on whatever. The consequences may be even harder for CCP, as there are creditors/banks, who have an eye on your corporation. Banks are not very intelligent, though and so they act simply as long as your customerbase/playerbase grows, you are creditworthy as they calculate with further growth. But as soon as your growth reduces or gets to 0 as it is now, they get suspicious and start to see the end of life of your product and they will start to withdraw your credit lines. No buddy program can repair that damage done by CCP Greyscale ! Believe me !

The Newface	Posted - 2011.05.25 15:03:00 - [3481] Much, much later, most of 0.0 that is not held by top alliances empty. Great change and even better communication CCP
Gunman1982	Posted - 2011.05.25 15:18:00 - [3482] Seems to me that its normal practice to make changes, through them into the room, tell everyone to discuss and give feedback, leave the room and lock it from the outside so that the feedback is ignored from then on. Dear CCP devs: If you don't need/want the feedback: DON'T FCKING ASK FOR IT. If you want the feedback: FCKING REACT TO IT. At least give a comment other than "Don't spam". Bitter post? Sure is, but at this time not anymore so much about the nerf but rather about the way CCP handles the situation. Hey maybe thats the plan, just ignore the people until they are more fed up with CCP then the actual nerf. Good plan.
Estelle McDeal	Posted - 2011.05.25 17:19:00 - [3483] Guys Gayscale is busy at the moment. I¦m sure he is happily sitting in his hulk mining in 0.0. How vibrant and interesting all these roids are in a 24/7 empty system. Until he is done sitting in his hulk he won¦t answer and considering the amount of roids there are now without him ever getting shot out of his pink hulk, it will take ages for him to answer. Would the gay community (if there is any out there) consider to tell CCP that even for them he is a pain in the a...? Could help who knows?
Swynet	Posted - 2011.05.26 10:22:00 - [3484] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player. Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly. About the same thaughts, but if you want something that will not be a better cow than sanctum rushed by cap pilots doing billions per weak while you still have low income thx to your belt rats, this must be done by huge changes of how corps/alliances wallets function actually. There is no reason your ship/implants shouldn't be reimboursed by the corp/alliance wallet when you loose one vs an enemi, either in campaigns or smal engagements. The system could perfectly work thanks to kill mails and and to those the implants loss when you're poded. CCP is looking for more isk syncs, so many ways to make those RMT'rs and trilionaire corps/alliance have to despite they r will, spend some.
Fredrick Engly RaVal Thyokill Industies Inc. Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2011.05.30 02:44:00 - [3485] Way to **** up a good game.. Why bother having a feedback thread when it makes fuk all difference
Estelle McDeal	Posted - 2011.05.31 17:00:00 - [3486] I fixed it for you CCP: CCP Players are excited about your silence following the sanctum nerf patch. Expected consequences Some CCP employees will leave your corporation as they don¦t want to go on looking extremly stupid. In the longer run the law of nature says that the most ******ed will vanish anyway. Newer employees will have an easier time coming up with working ideas. Your corporation wallet will be marginally less stable until then. CCP will have to choose more carefully what r.etarded and unfinished ideas they will implement, who they will pay to run the show and so on (low performers generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places) What¦s next? You are seeing this first, because it was an obvious mistake to empty out nullsec which is easy to remove. Let us know if there are any other low performers in need of some love that you¦d like to get kicked right out of the solar system and we will bring it to the top of your priorities. Best regards - No more excited Gayscales
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.06.01 05:12:00 - [3487] Edited by: zxsteel on 01/06/2011 05:12:45 Hello, their! Was whole point of 0.0 is to have more then one accounts hehe.... last I checked plex's are good! for CCP and good for my wallet! I must have been here!
Atkyaz Dreadstalker Minmatar Society of lost Souls	Posted - 2011.06.01 15:31:00 - [3488] One thing I would like to say about this. Look at what has happened to other games where the developers pursued an game changing idea without considering the players bases opinion on it. The developers at SOE were positive the introduction of the NGE in Star Wars Galaxies was the best thing for improving the game. make the game easier, let the little kiddies start the game as a jedi, etc. The reality was it completely destroyed the game. It was not what the majority of players wanted and they lost 70-80% of the subscriptions in just a few months. players left. Huge player built cities turned into ghost towns. And no matter what changes and improvements they made after that most did not return. Many of those players myself included even refuse to buy/subscribe to any SOE game due to the complete lack of trust in the SOE development team. Not just for making such a big mistake, but refusing to acknowledge that it was a mistake. One bad decision not only destroyed a game that could have been one of the greatest games ever. But also severely damaged the company's credibility for any future games they develop. If this change to Sovereignty mechanics is received as badly across the board as it is in this thread it could not only cost EVE 60-70% of its subscriptions but will severely gimp any future developments CCP pursues. Fix it ASAP before you lose the subs. because even if you fix it later once the players leave most will not come back. When the population of active players starts droping the amount of PVP drops even faster as it is harder to get the remaining PVPers together in the same area. the more the PVP drops the more players leave. A downward spiral that will continue until the game is only a shadow of what it once was. I have quit many games with the intention of coming back once the developers got around to fixing a few things. But guess what. I never actually did return to any of them. EVERQUEST, EQOA, DAC, SWG, AOC, And a few others. And I had 3-4 accounts in most of them. 3 active accounts in EVE that may not be getting renewed when they expire over the next 3 months. Money to pay for subscriptions has never been an issue for me, but I will not pay for a game I do not enjoy playing. I am getting bored quickly. If I do not soon find a new niche to fill my game time, and make it entertaining rather than a mindless grind running missions and mining, This game will be added to that list. Maybe I will try a FTP game until SWTOR comes out. I hear D&D is doing well since it went Free To Play. Only thing I can say for sure is I will not pay to play a game I do not find entertaining while I am playing. If it feels to much like work, well, I get paid to work, I do not pay for the privilege to work. I was only in Null for a few months, I joined a small alliance, we worked hard helping a larger alliance capture some space and were rewarded with a few systems to call our own. It was a lot of work and a lot of fun. Then the new Sov mechanics were introduced and all that hard work went out the window. Our space we worked so hard for was now useless. I have moved back to high sec for now, but the things I used to enjoy doing in high sec seem boring after living in null for a few months. These changes have not helped small alliances get a foot hold in null. the changes have turned the space we were able to get into useless filler that is now only held by larger alliances looking to control the high sec pipe leading to their good space deeper into null.
Viperslayer1 Caldari Dark Wolf Development Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.06.03 06:38:00 - [3489] Congrats CCP Greyscale, I've bit my tongue and shrugged it off thinking that you all would come to realize that you are bleeding customers. But I'll post this anyways, It's funny how your customers aka us, have given you some idea's on how to improve the game, and yet you ignore us or respond something like "we haven't seen a good argument". Well neither have you. How can we post one, when you edit post that you don't like. I saw plenty of people who posted on your facebook on how crappy this was and then it was gone, poof magically dissapeared. You show video's about the sandbox where players dictate the outcome, well so far your screwing with it in a bad way. Your company doesn't even state really anything on the topic. I've heard some comments that the CSM's have made, and consider them idiots. Hey dumb a$$, you state that it doesn't effect alliances, you idiot who makes up the alliance, corp's and then players. If you effect the players, the players leave the corp, which in turn leave the alliance. As far as your grand plan of creating more conflict, the only conflict you've created is with your player base. I'm not angry I'm just happy that the $897.00 U.S. Dollars that I spend a year for your game will be better spent elsewhere. Cause like most your players, who are leaving or have left, know one wants to make this a full time job that they have to pay for. I've had more fun playing World of Tanks, constant pvp battles. So since I want to be like you, I don't give a $hit, peace!!! Quote: Ti's better to be unborn than untaught for ignorance is the root of all misfortune.
Anistazana	Posted - 2011.06.03 11:46:00 - [3490] Originally by: Viperslayer1 Congrats CCP Greyscale, I've bit my tongue and shrugged it off thinking that you all would come to realize that you are bleeding customers. But I'll post this anyways, It's funny how your customers aka us, have given you some idea's on how to improve the game, and yet you ignore us or respond something like "we haven't seen a good argument". Well neither have you. How can we post one, when you edit post that you don't like. I saw plenty of people who posted on your facebook on how crappy this was and then it was gone, poof magically dissapeared. You show video's about the sandbox where players dictate the outcome, well so far your screwing with it in a bad way. Your company doesn't even state really anything on the topic. I've heard some comments that the CSM's have made, and consider them idiots. Hey dumb a$$, you state that it doesn't effect alliances, you idiot who makes up the alliance, corp's and then players. If you effect the players, the players leave the corp, which in turn leave the alliance. As far as your grand plan of creating more conflict, the only conflict you've created is with your player base. I'm not angry I'm just happy that the $897.00 U.S. Dollars that I spend a year for your game will be better spent elsewhere. Cause like most your players, who are leaving or have left, know one wants to make this a full time job that they have to pay for. I've had more fun playing World of Tanks, constant pvp battles. So since I want to be like you, I don't give a $hit, peace!!! can I haz ur stufs?

Cola Man	Posted - 2011.06.05 18:41:00 - [3491] Originally by: Anistazana can I haz ur stufs? Another stupid geek, who can not leave the priceless virtual thingies and lives all day in that world.
Nabuch Sattva	Posted - 2011.06.07 19:35:00 - [3492] Its been a while since the high end anomalies are gone from Pureblind where i live. Ive adjusted to new living conditions, Found a nice dry spot under a bridge, its pretty cheap, meals are the usual rats only now they are smaller and are hard to hit with my 425's. One thing i did think might backfire with these changes is that now whole swats of land are undesirable and the fight will be for the high end regions/constellations. So to me it makes the universe a bit less interesting, either get the best places or grind your ass to boredom. I mean if you think about it shouldn't true sec be changed depending on the development index of a system, something similar to what it was before? Or maybe something more interesting, The best rats could be where there is less development as they can build bigger bases. And the more developed spaces could have other goodies.. well, just a thought..
zxsteel Darkness Of Absolution	Posted - 2011.06.11 16:49:00 - [3493] I think to help smaller alliances to get foot hold, to allow them to have one good system guard-less of system rating. Make them take 3 systems total, and give one of them option of fully upgradeable system. I must have been here!
Alundil Gallente Galactic Salvage Inc.	Posted - 2011.06.21 05:48:00 - [3494] So how's this working out for everybody? Funny that important, game altering, changes as the posts related to them get unstickied. Can you hear us now?
Devil tiger	Posted - 2011.06.21 06:04:00 - [3495] How silly of us to even think that CCP would give a ****... Le sigh.
The Newface	Posted - 2011.06.23 23:05:00 - [3496] Give them a break, they worked hard comming up with new idea to get money. Buy a monacle...
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.05 22:05:00 - [3497] I wonder if CCP has noticed yet on their few recent changes that is suppose to improve the game and attract new players is ruining the game and less and less people are online and playing, canceled accounts etc. First this then then vanity items. Anymore good changes like this and I hate to see what would happen then. Not sure who is making the decisions like this in CCP HQ, but replace him / her and listen to your player base. All the answers we need are inside of us.
Kahtah Gallente Black Star Decievers	Posted - 2011.07.07 18:14:00 - [3498] So no new news on when/if this change is even being reconsideered yet? I love you, my little exit wound
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.09 00:28:00 - [3499] Not that I've heard of yet, though if they want to see the amount of people online to start to go up again, this surely would be a good start to nerf the nerf on null sec.
Heavenly Blues	Posted - 2011.07.11 01:52:00 - [3500] Personally I am starting a letter campaign to the Prime Minister of Iceland requesting that CCP Greyscale be chemically castrated so that he can not further contaminate humanity. Zulu and Soundwave will also be gaining a letter campaign. This may all prove to be a non-factor for as CCP dies they will become unemployed and will no longer have the salary necessary to rent a woman's affection. I highly doubt they are capable of gaining such a thing without a micro transaction.

Soldarius Caldari Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.07.11 01:59:00 - [3501] Originally by: Heavenly Blues Personally I am starting a letter campaign to the Prime Minister of Iceland requesting that CCP Greyscale be chemically castrated so that he can not further contaminate humanity. Zulu and Soundwave will also be gaining a letter campaign. This may all prove to be a non-factor for as CCP dies they will become unemployed and will no longer have the salary necessary to rent a woman's affection. I highly doubt they are capable of gaining such a thing without a micro transaction. I sense a permaban coming. As far as the changes go, good true sec systems with full upgrades are perfectly capable of handling many ratters. Or you can just go belt ratting or plexing. So sorry you have to put forth some effort now to make isk. Fact is CCP recognized that the previous mechanics were breaking the game by opening a huge isk faucet. Faucet has now been closed down from a flash flood to a normal flow. Originally by: Krutoj You dont have a supercapital? buy PLEX trade it for ISK, buy supers. Just like any other mmo you can use your RL to pimp your character out (or tank for that matter).
Heavenly Blues	Posted - 2011.07.11 02:14:00 - [3502] Originally by: Soldarius I sense a permaban coming. As far as the changes go, good true sec systems with full upgrades are perfectly capable of handling many ratters. Or you can just go belt ratting or plexing. So sorry you have to put forth some effort now to make isk. Fact is CCP recognized that the previous mechanics were breaking the game by opening a huge isk faucet. Faucet has now been closed down from a flash flood to a normal flow. A permaban means next to nothing. This account runs out in 5 days. I will not be giving CCP another cent as long as I live. To offer $68 virtual items in the midst of a global economic depression is distasteful and morally reprehensible. To make it even worse, the monocles look like total ** when applied to the character models. For that kind of dough you should have an artist spend the time to fit it to each avatar. You know, kind of like the eye doctor does for about the same price with real eye wear. As far as :effort: to earn isk, that is beyond funny coming from a renter puke that didn't actually fight for your sov. You drafted in behind the NC cap fleet and now you squat on decent space. Your ** alliance couldn't even hold space in providence. You won't be in your current home much longer.
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.11 20:51:00 - [3503] It takes a lot of ISK to fund a alliance level campaign for Sov warfare in 0.0. at both personal and corp / alliance. I can understand on making incentives to generate more warfare, but making it longer to get the ISK up to do it, kinda defeats the purpose. Especially for them alliances that not have all the good tech moons, they rely heavily on taxes from their pilots ratting / anons. Maybe a system where for each system an alliance conquers, that said alliance gets a reward, like alliance level LP or such. Has to be conquered to,. not just picked up, transfered or such, but conquered. Nerf the Nerf so easier for pilots, corps and alliances to make ISK to fund the warfare. All the answers we need are inside of us.
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.07.16 17:49:00 - [3504] Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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) What is CCP's current assessment of Null-Sec pertaining to the anomaly changes? What data points are being used to make the assessment? And have CCP's goals been met?
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.20 01:03:00 - [3505] Also I've been noticing a lot less people online then normal. Think they need to look at the numbers they used to make decisions like this to make Eve better and throw them out and come up with other ones. Cause it surely isn't working. All the answers we need are inside of us.
Soldarius Caldari Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.07.20 02:40:00 - [3506] Originally by: Heavenly Blues ...kind of like the eye doctor does for about the same price with real eye wear. As far as :effort: to earn isk, that is beyond funny coming from a renter puke that didn't actually fight for your sov. You drafted in behind the NC cap fleet and now you squat on decent space. Your ** alliance couldn't even hold space in providence. You won't be in your current home much longer. The hypocricy of your words leaves me somewhat agast. Went looking for your combat record. Found absolutely zilch. That earns you a big fat "post with your main or gtfo." $68 for eyeglasses? Have you even priced actual eyewear? My gf sells prescription Maui Jims and such. Multiply that price by 5 just to start. Monocle =/= rl eyeglasses. Get a clue. Wtf are you going on about Providence for? I've never even been there. What has it got to do with me or the anom changes if BDEAL was in Provi sometime in the past when I was not a part of it? Irrelevant and off-topic. As far as the Cluster's current situation, [url=http://bdeal.org/killboard/?a=home&w=29&y=2011"]our killboard[/url] speaks for itself. Originally by:** Krutoj You dont have a supercapital? buy PLEX trade it for ISK, buy supers. Just like any other mmo you can use your RL to pimp your character out (or tank for that matter).
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.07.24 23:25:00 - [3507] Wondering if we can get a official CCP comment on this threadnaught, with most in favor of unnerfing this change.? They have gotten quite a bit of feedback, so would be nice to get some CCP's feedback on it. All the answers we need are inside of us.
sakana Sebiestor Tribe	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:47:00 - [3508] "and to give people running anomalies a little more safety from marauding enemies." ha
Kelevana	Posted - 2011.08.02 20:48:00 - [3509] As long as they watch local, is all the protection they need, if they want relative safety, go to high sec
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.08.02 21:58:00 - [3510] In a surprising turn of events, now that 0.0 space is only worth 2-3 times on average what it was before Dominion, the mass exodus has not occurred. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.

Smoking Blunts	Posted - 2011.08.02 22:11:00 - [3511] Originally by: Malcanis In a surprising turn of events, now that 0.0 space is only worth 2-3 times on average what it was before Dominion, the mass exodus has not occurred. systems are empty all over the place, renters are paying through the nose for the very few good systems and the pcu is way down on what it was. it happened, just not everyone can see it. id bet ccp can though
Roland Knighthawk Gallente Nephite Tribe Zero Hour Alliance	Posted - 2011.08.04 19:04:00 - [3512] We're a lowsec Alliance and a couple of months ago we started to notice 0.0 Alliances showing up in our space, bringing their super caps with them. We got to wondering "what's this all about?" ... well guess what? ... nerfing 0.0 has moved some of the smaller 0.0 guys to our space. Not a big deal, but we see more combat then we used to. could this spill over to hisec as well? Will it keep hisec corps from making the move to lowsec? I'm guessing CCP didn't think about this at all.
Kirkland Langue	Posted - 2011.08.05 02:40:00 - [3513] Originally by: Roland Knighthawk We're a lowsec Alliance and a couple of months ago we started to notice 0.0 Alliances showing up in our space, bringing their super caps with them. We got to wondering "what's this all about?" ... well guess what? ... nerfing 0.0 has moved some of the smaller 0.0 guys to our space. Not a big deal, but we see more combat then we used to. could this spill over to hisec as well? Will it keep hisec corps from making the move to lowsec? I'm guessing CCP didn't think about this at all. Yes because, as we all know... caps and supercaps cyno into HS all the time. I'm guessing you didn't think about this at all.
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.05 22:04:00 - [3514] When did he ever mention abut super caps in high sec? He is referring to all the 0.0 exodus corps / alliances that is going to low sec and high sec since most of 0.0 sucks again to make a decent living off of. What they should do is unnerf 0.0 and nerf the moons. Give the ISK to the pilots, not to a few big alliances that now control most of the tech moons. All the answers we need are inside of us.
Asuri Kinnes Caldari Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.08.24 12:40:00 - [3515] I'm just wondering how this all played out, five months down the line? Wormholes: The NEW end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs. NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA!
Ding Charvez	Posted - 2011.08.25 05:31:00 - [3516] Originally by: Asuri Kinnes I'm just wondering how this all played out, five months down the line? Can't you see, it works as designed: NC is dead NC 2.0 (aka. DRF and Friends) needs another month for the Donut and than the hole 0.0 is peacefull because the Anti-Blue-Anti-Blob Force has everyone on blue and nobody is able to kill them. oh, wait...
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.08.25 21:33:00 - [3517] Still wondering when CCP will see, this nerf did nothing but force people back to high sec. Drf invaded NC for revenge and the rich tech moon north. All they've managed to do is **** off a lot of players All the answers we need are inside of us.
for thelulz	Posted - 2011.08.25 22:56:00 - [3518] Originally by: Sarrgon Still wondering when CCP will see, this nerf did nothing but force people back to high sec. Drf invaded NC for revenge and the rich tech moon north. All they've managed to do is ** off a lot of players The people I know that ended up in highsec for various reasons just left the game. It was weird seeing it cascade, it was only a couple at first but within a month I knew of around 10 people who left, mostly because their friends had left. 10 is sod all, I know, no need to quote and troll it...but the bottom line is that I miss those people. There was no 'emoragequit' or 'bittervet' from them. None got rich from Sanctums as they used to buy ships and lose them in PvP on a regular basis. The 'stock piling of ISK' from them simply didn't happen in my experience apart from a very few select people, which was no different to people blitzing L4s. Hopefully the recent 'look' at 0.0 by CCP will shake things from the very bottom, and not just alter things with accompanying 'strange' reasons. I mean, look back at the dev blog. Does anyone believe for a second this change was about causing conflict and other things? 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) Given that CCP have split the recent look at 0.0 into multiple sections, with the above falling in varying ones....just thinking that the Sanctum nerf was going to do the above is cringe worthy.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.09.01 10:57:00 - [3519] just for your info guys, the anomaly upgrades werent that long around, before they were introduced, eve worked as well very fine, so it will again. Just because you cant farm sanctums in every 0.0 system all day doesnt mean there werent rats at all, farm belts like before dominion.
Sarrgon Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.09.03 22:47:00 - [3520] That is true, but that also brought a lot more people out to 0.0. And a lot of them people and then some from the chaos afterwards left 0.0 for empire yet again. Anons don't drive 0.0. The DRF kicking NC's butt is for revenge and moon goo. Not for better ratting space. Most alliances in 0.0 can't moon mine, so they relied on the anons to pay for the corps and alliances via taxes. People didn't really mine cause they could make ISK fairly easily. Once that was gone, most people couldn't afford to live in 0.0. Corps and alliances alike moved back to empire. Who ever controls the moons in this enviroment controls Eve. Right now that is DRF and unless someone with trillions and trillions of ISK to burn steps up, is going to be that way for some time. All the answers we need are inside of us.

Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.09.05 02:46:00 - [3521] Originally by: Robert Caldera just for your info guys, the anomaly upgrades werent that long around, before they were introduced, eve worked as well very fine, so it will again. Just because you cant farm sanctums in every 0.0 system all day doesnt mean there werent rats at all, farm belts like before dominion. The Dominion anomaly changes were around for 15 months, enough to cover at least two of the ~6 month player subscription cycles that people like to talk about. There were generations of players who knew only of the Dominion Sovereignty mechanic. Additionally, many players need the income stream provided by anomaly grinding in order to keep up with the R32 / R64 owning alliances and their capital fleets. Removing that revenue puts the smaller guy at an insurmountable disadvantage compared to those with the never-ending moon goo supply and those taking advantage of CCP's lax enforcement on botting rules. Furthermore, null-sec entities, small and large, invested fairly substantial amounts of ISK into Outposts and sovereignty improvements in order to take advantage of this mechanic -- a mechanic that was changed on a whim with only a few weeks notice (right after fanfest!) and not a chance in hell of preventing. Some entities based their existence on a business model that got yanked out from underneath of them with almost no warning. That is no way to manage a gaming service where people put significant time and sometimes even RL currency (GTCs) into executing on their plans. EVE is cold, harsh and sometimes makes grown men cry. CCP does not have to add to the tears through poor game development practices.
mkint	Posted - 2011.09.06 08:46:00 - [3522] Originally by: Asuri Kinnes I'm just wondering how this all played out, five months down the line? lessee... the rich RMTing alliances are more entrenched than ever, and keeping up their illicit $ bribes to Greyscale. So, working as intended.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: [one 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.