EVE Search - Propsed changes to Anomalies

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Propsed changes to Anomalies - Debate 'n' Rate

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Emperor Ryan Amarr The Illuminatii Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:38:00 - [1] Edited by: Emperor Ryan on 26/03/2011 00:41:24 Greetings all of the EVE community, On Friday the 25th of March CCP greyscale announced the new changes that CCP wishes to implement regarding sovereignty space which can be found in the latest Dev blog here: Linkage Before anyone jumps to any conclusions lets first look at what CCP is really attempting to accomplish by doing this. As stated before by CCP when birthing Dominion in 2009 they wanted to improve the population in Low Sec and Null Sec by adding æfeaturesÆ such as Faction warfare and the ability to upgrade any player owned Null Sec system respectively. For Null sec they were successful as people rushed to purchase I-HUBs and began to run anomalies with 2 Havens 2 Sanctums and the other 18 low end anomalies that re-spawned. Many corporations quickly jumped at the new opportunities occupied space otherwise known as æworthlessÆ besides a possible valuable moon or planets (Since PI was added) that might reside in the system. And one can see by looking in the sovereignty map that there are now very few unclaimed systems than there were since these additions. It was also said by CCP that each system should be able to keep approximately 20 characters satisfied at any one time, now of course for a mining group this could be true, for a ratting group those numbers are shot down due to player skill though it is fair to say that newer players could rat in Burrows/Dens/Yard and such without any problem. So things are working out how and now CCP have decided to revise their opinion on their decision by changing what type of anomalies spawn based upon the true sec of the system. While this actually is a fantastic idea by allowing more high end anomalies to appear and Re-spawn constantly in lower true sec systems this will mean that more players with decent combat skills will be able to make their money in a single system it also has a downside of making all the systems with terrible true sec very unappealing from an isk making point of view. æ In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for droneÆ This statement makes one wonder what does CCP believe a æhigh-endÆ player is? A 3-4 month old character in a drake can run a Haven on his own, and with buddy of equal age they together could run a sanctum. Give them another few months and they can run Sanctums on their own and as their skill develops so will their Isk per hour. æ0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the changeÆ so in other words 742 systems (Only counting player sovereignty held space) will now be classified as undesirable for the greater majority of the EVE player base. In addition to that a less than half of those systems are easy to reach for these æNewer AlliancesÆ to get their foothold in Null Sec and for the ones that are easily accessibleà I wonÆt let bias get the better of me but letÆs just say we know that new smaller alliances wonÆt stand a chance. CCP also state that æCoalitions will be marginally less stableÆ û Probably one of the only statements which is agreeable coalitions will feel a pinch but make adjustments to make sure there are no issues, But then what happens to the newer alliances that want a foothold? Are they to take on the larger coalitions? Or is CCP gambling that coalitions will just drop those undesirable systems all together? On the other side of the fence as the true sec become lower we can expect an increase in the amount of sites we have per system but of course there are much fewer systems which will fall under this category so the question is still upon us and not explain in the Dev Blog. CCP states they want more people in Null Sec space however they are implementing a patch which will in fact make all those corporations/Alliances which jumped at the ventures that Dominion originally offered now take a second look at what they are doing and consider leaving once again and resulting in less people in Null Sec. Continued.. - Emperor
Emperor Ryan Amarr The Illuminatii Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:39:00 - [2] A suggestion that could come to be a compromise would be for the 2/2 Sanctum haven per upgrades system to be permanent and as True Sec becomes lower anomalies improve the 0.0-0.2 systems seeing remaining around where they are currently, and as the systems True Sec becomes lower Burrows become Hideaways, Dens become yards, and eventually hubs become havens and so forth and they would increase depending on True sec as the scale shows now without making a quarter of a thousand systems undesirable for such purposes. In closing this thread is to openly discuss the proposed changes in CCP Greyscales Blog with a different arguments, and ideas therefore not a direct response to the Blog, So to CCP please do not refer me to your æcomments page æas this is not a comment but an open debate. - Emperor
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:48:00 - [3] I disaprove of removing havens and sanctums from ANY upgraded 0.0 space. Making more available with the lower truesecs? Thats ok. Making it so we have to shell out enormous amounts of money in 0.0 to -0.2 to have more "hidden hubs"?! Go to hell. ____________ I like woman because breasts
White Tree	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:13:00 - [4] Good luck to anyone living Pure Blind. You guys are basically ****ed entirely.
Kaptajn Snaps	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:15:00 - [5] "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" I cant see how these goals are gonna be possible with the changes they suggests. I don't think the people who live in the 740 ≤-0.2 system are gonna start fighting for better. They are probably gonna get deals with major coalitions to get better systems, or they find profit in lowsec/highsec.
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:21:00 - [6] Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 01:22:36 Exactly. No sane small alliance will throw themselves at the lion's mouth to try and take better truesec systems. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Ori Empress United Systems of the Allegiance Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:24:00 - [7] I love Fountain, especially since it'll be even more valuable after the update.
Lady RAWR	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:39:00 - [8] Worst update a CCP dev has ever released. Congradulations mate, you have ruined the game for the majority. Good thing the new star wars game is coming out soon
Xercodo Amarr Daj'Juntar	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:43:00 - [9] Originally by: Renan Ruivo Edited by: Renan Ruivo on 26/03/2011 01:22:36 Exactly. No sane small alliance will throw themselves at the lion's mouth to try and take better truesec systems. Of course, they will now be able to slide in unopposed and nab a lower trusec system that no one wants ^^ -------------------------------------------------- The drake is a lie
Jireel	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:43:00 - [10] Originally by: Lady RAWR Worst update a CCP dev has ever released. Congradulations mate, you have ruined the game for the majority. Good thing the new star wars game is coming out soon Can I have your stuff ?
WhyAmIPoor	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:04:00 - [11] What a joke. I'm all for making some parts of null better than other's but removing sanctum and havens entirely for some systems is stupid. Make what it is now a base and the better null sec means more. How am I meant to fund the 150m ships that i get blown up daily after this change?
Renan Ruivo Caldari Hipernova Tribal Conclave	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:10:00 - [12] Originally by: WhyAmIPoor What a joke. I'm all for making some parts of null better than other's but removing sanctum and havens entirely for some systems is stupid. Make what it is now a base and the better null sec means more. How am I meant to fund the 150m ships that i get blown up daily after this change? Doing level 4 missions, because these won't get nerfed. oh wait.. ____________ I like woman because breasts
Captain Mung	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:15:00 - [13] I'm glad almost all of the bot-russi... ahem I mean drone-russian space will be boosted. Hurray for the Bot-Russian-Federation! Hurray for bots!
Emperor Ryan Amarr The Illuminatii Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:22:00 - [14] Originally by: Captain Mung I'm glad almost all of the bot-russi... ahem I mean drone-russian space will be boosted. Hurray for the Bot-Russian-Federation! Hurray for bots! I did find that to be Odd, Out all 8 regions in the drone lands 62 systems will be nerfed and the majority buffed. However when ccp added these regions in 2007 They did make them high exceptionally high true sec. - Emperor
Col Callahan Caldari Boogie Monsters	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:37:00 - [15] Edited by: Col Callahan on 26/03/2011 02:38:59 Once apon a time there were static Plexs seeded thru out eve. these plexs were farmed every day and controlled by the power blocks that controled the space around them. CCP is just making the same mistake again. True sec is static and the systems are what they are. They will be / are already upgraded and farmed to no end and all the isk will go to the coalitions that control that space and give them the edge in defending there space with the magic fountain's of static liquid isk. So lets see whats changed in the last 4 years........ 10/10 , 8/10 static Plex's are now upgraded system with 6 Hi-end cosmic anomaly's Moon goo is still Moon goo, just Tech instead of Dyspo. The names have changed, but the game just keeps staying the same.....next "New" idea CCP . . . I heard you the last time.
Dunkler Imperator N.F.H.P. Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:42:00 - [16] wow. I live in CR and the whole region has ONE good system. So these changes will basically make one region worthless for ratting ( still got good moons). i can think of a few regions that are like this. PB Provy. If this is implemented it will completely suck for small alliances. First off a few thing PVP alliances need Moons For alliance/corp programs like replacement programs and SC production and Ratting "Space" for members to pay for pvp ships. While i agree There should be some space that's better. it doesn't mean you should make Wastelands too. While this will mean more small alliances in crappy space. What exactly can they do with it? Any good moons can be easily taken by any alliance with a good SC fleet. So what will they have? Space that they can have (sov bills) Space with no good ratting Moons if they can get em. Why the hell would any player want to go through the hardship of joining an alliance like that? An alliance needs both moons and ratting space to survive and retain good players. So how can ccp fix this? First off don't get rid of sanctums and havens from crappy space. It's fine If you reduce the numbers but don't out right get rid of em. A system is only as good as the resources. If the system can't maintain players than there is no reason to own it. No reason to fight over it. If all it has is moons you can anchor a pos and be done with it. If your intent is to help small alliance than please for the love of god. Stop drinking and Game designing.
Tu Ko	Posted - 2011.03.26 02:56:00 - [17] Edited by: Tu Ko on 26/03/2011 02:56:58 How the crap is these changes going to make fights happen? Really for a space to be used for sanctum ratting its got to be deep inside the territory of the owner so that Intel will reveal incoming gangs. As far as I have seen this coincides with high true sec as the best true sec systems seem to be at the edge of a branch. Which is where people(like myself) carrier rat. Which is why the sanctums produce so much isk because we can use huge hardware to clear them in minutes. What does this actually do other than nerf the 'lesser' systems? Really the network and coding teams do awesome work but I think the game design department needs to shake the sleep off and really examine what they are doing. Almost every proposed change to Null sec benefits the entrenched interests and makes it harder and harder to inflict any significant damage to them. This is one of them. If you want smaller alliances to break into Null sec they're going ot have to have some level of a shield against the coalitions just wiping them away at the first fight. This change just will just tie the hands of alliance that rent space which won't really help anything.
Don't	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:19:00 - [18] Honestly i can't see what CCP is trying to accomplish here, Don't take away what we have already worked for and invested into, Come up with a way to make Sec worth something more than less valuable space like the proposed idea by the OP
Desert Ice78 Gryphon River Industries R-I-P	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:42:00 - [19] I am completely aghast at the stupidity of this idea. I thought PI was a terribly job, well this very well may trump that. While I am aghast at the idea, I am even more aghast at the sheer stupidity of Greyscale. Does he simply have an idea and then promptly fall asleep half-way through, waking up an hour later and only being able to remember the light bulb going off but not the incomplete thought process. There will be only one result of this change; the rich will get richer, and more entrenched. They have all the tech moons, and now they will get all the anomalies as well. IÆm off to the comments page to vent my fury at the fool.....
Grath Telkin Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.03.26 04:53:00 - [20] Originally by: Dunkler Imperator While this will mean more small alliances in crappy space. What exactly can they do with it? Any good moons can be easily taken by any alliance with a good SC fleet. First, super carriers don't take moons, at least not efficiently, thats still the Dreads domain. Second, the small alliances in crappy space can start, they can spark, and grow, and become larger. They don't really need to ask for permission to get the space, because the larger alliances don't want it, who wants to pay those bills for ** systems when you are already paying bills for much more expensive systems that are significantly higher in resource value. Now alliances won't want** to hold whole regions, the bills won't justify the returns on all of it, whereas a smaller entity of 20 or 30 guys might be able to make a start in some broke down ass dump of a back system and become something greater over time without having to constantly pay homage to a larger entity.
Pres Obama	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:07:00 - [21] Derp Derp. -4 subscribed accounts if this goes in, and probably before in expectation. The space I'm currently in will be utter trash and won't be able to support PVP operations. I have no interest in mission running. Get ****ed ccp.
Emperor Ryan Amarr The Illuminatii Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:11:00 - [22] Edited by: Emperor Ryan on 26/03/2011 05:11:30 Originally by: Grath Telkin Originally by: Dunkler Imperator While this will mean more small alliances in crappy space. What exactly can they do with it? Any good moons can be easily taken by any alliance with a good SC fleet. First, super carriers don't take moons, at least not efficiently, thats still the Dreads domain. Second, the small alliances in crappy space can start, they can spark, and grow, and become larger. They don't really need to ask for permission to get the space, because the larger alliances don't want it, who wants to pay those bills for ** systems when you are already paying bills for much more expensive systems that are significantly higher in resource value. Now alliances won't want** to hold whole regions, the bills won't justify the returns on all of it, whereas a smaller entity of 20 or 30 guys might be able to make a start in some broke down ass dump of a back system and become something greater over time without having to constantly pay homage to a larger entity. See now i would fully agree with you, Lets say I would move to a region call Querious from low sec, Into some crappy security space, maybe even take a r64 moon because it's in my crappy space, and then oh wai.... - Emperor
ivar R'dhak Minmatar	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:18:00 - [23] Make all Sov. structures impact truesec negatively(the good negative). Problem solved. CCP Greyscale is happy because his OZOM ideas get done, and the poor bastards who put all the work into improving their space don¦t get surprise butsecsd(that much). ______________ Mal-¦Appears we got here just in a nick of time. What does that make us?¦ Zoe-`Big damn heroes, sir.` Mal-¦Aint we just.¦
mkmin	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:20:00 - [24] Originally by: Grath Telkin Originally by: Dunkler Imperator While this will mean more small alliances in crappy space. What exactly can they do with it? Any good moons can be easily taken by any alliance with a good SC fleet. First, super carriers don't take moons, at least not efficiently, thats still the Dreads domain. Second, the small alliances in crappy space can start, they can spark, and grow, and become larger. They don't really need to ask for permission to get the space, because the larger alliances don't want it, who wants to pay those bills for ** systems when you are already paying bills for much more expensive systems that are significantly higher in resource value. Now alliances won't want** to hold whole regions, the bills won't justify the returns on all of it, whereas a smaller entity of 20 or 30 guys might be able to make a start in some broke down ass dump of a back system and become something greater over time without having to constantly pay homage to a larger entity. Or that small alliance could NOT pay the sov, billions of isk in infrastructure costs, but instead run lvl 4 missions, and only make day trips to 0.0, because even living in regions like providence would be absolutely poop-eating-retahded. No, if you want sov to be less stable, CCP needs to make it more easy to disrupt. A T1 cruiser gang of 10 people should be able to hit an upgraded system, temporarily disable (but not destroy) upgrades, and be out fast enough that there isn't time to cyno in the supers. The value of the sov would then be decided completely by players. Border systems would be vulnerable to raids reducing the amount of time the high end sites are available, reducing it's value. If the holders want to prevent the value from dropping, they defend against raids. Renters won't be content with crappy border systems and will have the means and experience to push for better systems. Conflict will drive conflict. Making most of 0.0 arbitrarily worthless is flat out stupid.
Spartan 019	Posted - 2011.03.26 05:24:00 - [25] I believe that they should look at making lower tru-sec space better without ruining the rest of the universe... Also, wtf is CCP wasting resources working on something like this when there are a ton of other more demanding issues to be figured out!?
Alysina Gallente Everset Dropbears Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:36:00 - [26] I'm just wondering why would anyone want to take space which is not worth taking it. Why waste billions of ISK in sov structures, ships whatever for a system which can not sustain the pilots supposed to live in there? Hell why would any new alliance take any risks by taking those systems when people can just stay in hisec and do lvl 4 missions and make more isk that way? CCP likes to talk about risk vs reward ratio, so with this move the risk stays the same and there's no reward. Just add tougher rats with better loot, like faction module BPCs or something into the havens/sanctums of the really low truesec systems. Or make the bounty of the rats in the havens/sanctums match the truesec of the system. Like 800k/battleship in the crappy systems and like 1,6, 1-8 in the good ones. Or make anoms in the low truesec systems have a chance to start an epic arc-kind of escalation with good rewards or something. You guys should make content and not take it away. You guys have good game designers, I bet they can get up with something cool and which makes more sense than this planned change.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:01:00 - [27] The only way they will be able to keep people (carebear types mostly) from bailing on 0.0 after this change will be to nerf lvl 4 missions. meh I don't think anybody wants to grind longer to be able to pvp/stick money in a pile
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:47:00 - [28] Everybody having good space is boring. Now if you have goodspace, you need to watch out that people will try to steal it from you, and if you live in a poor region, get your invasions ready. Better change for the entire game. Quit crying you can't line your wallet in platium because you paid somebody X ISK to live in Pure Blind. ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
Autaris Valaar	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:36:00 - [29] So so much rage. Seriously... As a former large alliance pilot, medium alliance leader and current 'wanna live in a broke ass dump system' to paraphrase the ray of sanity shed by the PL poster far above, this change is welcome. Contrary to what the raging srs bzns majority seem to think, thisd change will stimulate growth. Those of you crying out 'next change plz ccp lololol' thinking this changes nothing - you are the problem. You are the people propping up the status quo. Moon mins OR Rats. Self sufficiency OR Alliance support. Learn to adapt. Mandatory 'have fun, don't let the door hit your ass' to anyone in PB, Tribute and Providence - We small fry will love having a chance to grow in what has become your graves. It's about time some of the all fat no muscle alliances went into cardiac arrest under the weight of their ratting divisions.
Ace Frehley Minmatar Mercenaries of Andosia Northern Coalition.	Posted - 2011.03.26 09:19:00 - [30] Im fine with this, but needs some tweaking first and I live in "lol-provi". Why does Pure-blind and Provi have much worse trusec then for instas Tribute. CCP needs to balance that out cuz all 3 regions live near empire. But my main thing is to spice it up more and make more stratigic choices for alliances. Crap true-sec region, awsome moons, good true-sec crap moons. The the alliance leader has to now decide, wealth of the alliancepocket basiclly his own or let the avarge joe player get isk. And no way they will be renters of crap regions if they cant have the moongoo. Hopefully this will lead to less bluefest, smaller fights, less dead hamsters

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.