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

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
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.

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

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