Originally by: Vaju Katru

---

Put all LvL4 in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 12:02:17
You should consider also removing the effect of truesec on rewards, and simply have just three reward "tiers" (for highsec/lowsec/0.0).

---

Originally by: CCP Spitfire

---

CCP Soundwave and CCP Soundwave talk about the upcoming changes related to agent divisions and agent quality that were unveiled at this year's Fanfest. In particular, these changes affect the Connections skills, so all pilots are advised to read the dev blog.

---

Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o

---

I don't get it, why exactly are you forum guys think that empire will be buffed wherease nullsec or lowsec will be nerfed ? Can't see that in the blog.

---

Originally by: Vuk Lau

---

:golfclap:

We definitely need emoticon for this.

---

Originally by: Solomon XI

---

Break up the 0.0 powerblock's so that we can do missions in 0.0 NPC space without getting podded @ the undock and we'll talk about doing missions in NPC null-sec.

I think no alliance should be allowed to hold SOV over more than 10 systems. Period. Eliminate powerblock alliances and over-sized NAP orgies.

0.0 is NOT fun anymore.

---

Originally by: Garia666

---

Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o

---

I don't get it, why exactly are you forum guys think that empire will be buffed wherease nullsec or lowsec will be nerfed ? Can't see that in the blog.

---

read the previouse blogs.. about your upgraded system not having havens and up anymore. Jump bridges which been altered, capitals with jump drive not being able to use jump bridges. and loads of more crap..

---

Originally by: Ivan Tradealtovici

---

Sanctum nerf+high sec missioning buff. Pretty clear where CCP wants players to be spending their time.

---

Originally by: VCBee 2fast2furious

---

EVE Online 2011: We don't ever want our players to leave highsec!

---

Originally by: Sepha Chetokk

---

yes, totally supporting this change, this might be the only way to get players back into highsec, we can't leave that many systems so deserted...
*facepalms deeply

---

Originally by: WisdomPanda

---

Nerfing nullsec and buffing high-sec can only come from one place, I have changed your post to reflect this.

---

Originally by: John Maynard Keynes

---

so you basically nerf the anos in 0.0 and buff the missions in high. Are you trying to turn 0.0 in wasteland again?

---

Originally by: Garia666

---

making empire even a biggerplace not to get out from. 0.0 is getting harder by the day and empire easier. you sure you want people to get in to 0.0 ?

---

Originally by: Gondebine

---

The most stupid changes ever imo. I have nothing more to say about it.

---

Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o

---

I don't get it, why exactly are you forum guys think that empire will be buffed wherease nullsec or lowsec will be nerfed ? Can't see that in the blog.

---

Originally by: Garia666

---

read the previouse blogs.. about your upgraded system not having havens and up anymore. Jump bridges which been altered, capitals with jump drive not being able to use jump bridges. and loads of more crap..

---

Originally by: Psycho Therapy

---

The agent quality change should help spread players out from the current mission hubs, too, which is going to be good for the lag issue.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

@Degasser Nacs, what are you trying to say? Because it is just a fact that 0.0 income is heavily nerfed and that this is a significant boost to high sec income. Also how is boosting risk free income while nerfing risky income (like it or not, 0.0 is alot riskier than high sec) making eve harder?

---

Originally by: Degasser Nacs

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Degasser Nacs

---

Edited by: Degasser Nacs on 16/05/2011 13:08:42

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

@Degasser Nacs, what are you trying to say? Because it is just a fact that 0.0 income is heavily nerfed and that this is a significant boost to high sec income. Also how is boosting risk free income while nerfing risky income (like it or not, 0.0 is alot riskier than high sec) making eve harder?

---

I think its the "radical changes" that are more important here. It keeps people guessing, moving, constantly changing and adapting to whats happening around them. Alot of the time people get bored with doing activities over and over again, and if some external force comes in and disrupts that, it forces the player to find new ways to survive. Adapt or die goes the saying, it spices things up.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Now lets ask if CCP removes all your SP as radical change, that makes about as much sense. Stuff should be balanced, making stuff OP so everyone can run to it is not how you make a game. And Adapt or die? It isnt exactly hard to get yourself a lvl 4 alt or JC to your high sec clone, it is just stupid you make more in high sec than in 0.0.

---

Originally by: Degasser Nacs

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Now lets ask if CCP removes all your SP as radical change, that makes about as much sense. Stuff should be balanced, making stuff OP so everyone can run to it is not how you make a game. And Adapt or die? It isnt exactly hard to get yourself a lvl 4 alt or JC to your high sec clone, it is just stupid you make more in high sec than in 0.0.

---

Perhaps re-evaluate the ability of 0.0 leaders to find new ways to keep their members happy? I'm not sure there. But I would imagine for those people traveling back to high sec for missions would be like a trip down memory lane. Nice refreshing break from null eh? Even if it was only a few weeks.

---

Originally by: Tommy Blue

---

Originally by: Degasser Nacs

---

stuff

---

I hope you know that the comments section for the blogs do not have to focus solely on the specific blog. I'm sure CCP actually wants to know what people think regarding the connection between buffing highsec and nerfing 0.0. And I will continue to believe so until I am told otherwise. If CCP doesn't hear it, they won't know about it (since I guess they can't predict this **** anyways). Just because you disagree, it doesn't mean that others can't post their opinions. Coming from nullsec it does look like a slap in the face from CCP.

---

Originally by: Scandal Caulker

---

Oh, I just noticed the title of this thread!

"Eve made easy"

There! I fixed it for you CCP.

Idiots

---

Originally by: CCP Atropos

---

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

You call being forced to run high sec missions for your income when you want to live in 0.0 a refreshing change? (Why would it only be a few weeks btw, at the very least it will be many months, since the 0.0 boost wont come before winter expansion). And how is it the fault of the 0.0 leaders that CCP nerfs the income of their members?

I still am not sure if you are just trolling or if you are serious, I hope for your sake that you are trolling, since it doesnt make any sense what you say.

---

Originally by: Regat Kozovv

---

Does this mean we could be seeing better mission variety now that many of the categories have been combined? If so, it might be something to mention, the feel of "added content" will be nice. =)

---

Originally by: Dirk Decibel

---

What's all the fuss about? Is this really going to boost mission running income significantly? Seems like minor changes to me.

---

Originally by: Mara Rinn

---

Perhaps start a few wars.

---

Originally by: Imnar Blade

---

LP rewards are about to go through the roof. If my calcs are right, 10k LP for a top end level 4 in a 0.5 system and 15k LP with divisional connections 5 and a minimum (for something like an extravaganza) of 5000/7500 in high sec.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

You call being forced to run high sec missions for your income when you want to live in 0.0 a refreshing change? (Why would it only be a few weeks btw, at the very least it will be many months, since the 0.0 boost wont come before winter expansion). And how is it the fault of the 0.0 leaders that CCP nerfs the income of their members?

I still am not sure if you are just trolling or if you are serious, I hope for your sake that you are trolling, since it doesnt make any sense what you say.

---

Originally by: Vaju Katru

---

Put all LvL4 in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Perky C

---

Originally by: Vaju Katru

---

Put all LvL4 in lowsec.

---

As long as all Lvl5 agents get moved to high sec

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

You call being forced to run high sec missions for your income when you want to live in 0.0 a refreshing change? (Why would it only be a few weeks btw, at the very least it will be many months, since the 0.0 boost wont come before winter expansion). And how is it the fault of the 0.0 leaders that CCP nerfs the income of their members?

I still am not sure if you are just trolling or if you are serious, I hope for your sake that you are trolling, since it doesnt make any sense what you say.

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

Considering the pool of agents now in 0.0, most with not so good quality. All of those agents just got a huge buff. Most people runnign missions in high sec already try and use +20 agents because they are a lot easier to find, so comparatively this is a ****** buff to 0.0 than high sec. It really screws low-sec tho....

---

Originally by: Kronos

---

I think the changes are good. I do not understand those moaning about 0.0 being effected. You have players who mission which is gonna be good for them. Those working in 0.0 sec I thought did lvl5 missions

---

Quote:

---

or didnt do missions at all but rat in the roid belts as you can make more ISK that way

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Making a ****load of divisions and forcing people to check on the internet what each type is, is not how you want to make a hard game.

---

Originally by: Lt Pizi

---

while i dont run missions anymore ... i notice a trend to simplify eve alot ...
wich conserns me a bit

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

Originally by: Vaju Katru

---

Put all LvL4 in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

No connection skills. No effective quality. Think again.
Before, you were able to pimp +12 agent to +30 or so, now it's always +20 no matter what you do.

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

No connection skills. No effective quality. Think again.
Before, you were able to pimp +12 agent to +30 or so, now it's always +20 no matter what you do.

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

No connection skills. No effective quality. Think again.
Before, you were able to pimp +12 agent to +30 or so, now it's always +20 no matter what you do.

---

Originally by: Bonnie Beaver

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

No connection skills. No effective quality. Think again.
Before, you were able to pimp +12 agent to +30 or so, now it's always +20 no matter what you do.

---

devblog says you could gain 10%/level bonus LP from the old connection books, because there were 2 books covering each division.
the new books provide 10% more LP/level to boot at twice the training time.
so now all agents give the same base LP ammount of +20 agenst, regardless of their location

---

Originally by: Ghurthe

---

Originally by: Bonnie Beaver

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

recursion

---

is

---

funn

---

I'm not sure about that. All the people on sisi are saying there are changes in LP gain from all the agents they see. Now it could be that they played with the security status based gains and screwed it all up.

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

No connection skills. No effective quality. Think again.
Before, you were able to pimp +12 agent to +30 or so, now it's always +20 no matter what you do.

---

But that doesn't nerf 0.0 any more than it does high sec, instead it makes all the 0.0 agents +20 which overall increase the quality of agents (even taking the +30 down to +20 into consideration) available in 0.0...

---

Originally by: Zifrian

---

Really like these changes from a solo standpoint. Although, while crowding in mission hubs is annoying however, less mmo like? Maybe people will cluster elsewhere but since the majority of pve is solo, I'm not sure how speading out the player base is positive. Also, may result in less conflict/wardecs?

Also, it will be interesting to see where the trade hubs move to. Assuming .5 systems due to truesec.

---

Originally by: Selpy

---

Is it just me, or does it are they seriously dumbing Eve down these days? [...] Eve is going the way of society in general where those at the top dumb stuff down and lower standards to cater to the lowest common denominator, removing the rewards for excellence, and adapting the counter-Darwin motto of "no one left behind" rather than sticking with the "only the strongest survive" model it's always followed.

---

Originally by: Lilith Evangiline Testu

---

How much more like WOW can we make the game YAY for making it simple and easier! Let's make it WOW in space. Go CCP!

---

Originally by: WisdomPanda

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Popsikle

---

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... Correct me if I a wrong but Agent payouts are going up across the board, to +20 payouts...

---

No connection skills. No effective quality. Think again.
Before, you were able to pimp +12 agent to +30 or so, now it's always +20 no matter what you do.

---

But that doesn't nerf 0.0 any more than it does high sec, instead it makes all the 0.0 agents +20 which overall increase the quality of agents (even taking the +30 down to +20 into consideration) available in 0.0...

---

The point being that you can't hold sov in the systems with said agents. You will find 90% of the issue of the nullsec nerfs revolves around space you are paying for being totally worthless, now even more so.

When mining the rarest ore in the game in the lawless regions barely matches the income of a decent high-sec mission runner facing zero risk, you know something is messed up. The point of nullsec is to be high risk, high reward. (According to CCP) If it is not high-reward, it shouldn't be high risk. If it is high-risk and low-reward, you might as well just stay docked until the next fleet/gang leaves and mission in fluffy/cuddly high-sec to replace any losses that might not be covered.

That's my 2 Yuan at least.

---

• Enemies abound
• Angel/Gurista/Kidnappers Strike
• Greater Good
• In the midst of Deadspace
• New Frontiers
• They robots
• Whispers in the Dark
• The Heiress

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Not anymore the ridiculous number of agent divisions: good

Less forcing people to be in crowded systems for missions: good (could be better with dynamic agent quality).

---

Originally by: Danton Marcellus

---

If the whole country is corrupted then it's no longer corruption but culture.

---

Originally by: VE Vengeance

---

(...) Next Eve-Trailer has to be About a lonley Golem shooting some stupid Gurista-Battleships for 3hours! (...)

---

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

---

Making SoE combat missions inaccessible to members of Gallente and Minmatar FW is kind of suboptimal. Please change the division of the Gicodel agent to Security.

Additionally, please revisit some of the corporations that now have no combat agent at all. That's seriously suboptimal.

Also, please revisit the idea that system security affects payout. It would be much more sensible if, say, 0.5 - 1.0 would all pay out as 1.0 does right now, and +0.0 - 0.4 would all pay out like 0.0 does right now: Low-sec boost and simplified agent interface all in one.

Finally, what happened to the dynamic agent payout that was talked about on FF? Is that still upcoming?

---

Originally by: Ghurthe

---

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

---

Making SoE combat missions inaccessible to members of Gallente and Minmatar FW is kind of suboptimal. Please change the division of the Gicodel agent to Security.

Additionally, please revisit some of the corporations that now have no combat agent at all. That's seriously suboptimal.

Also, please revisit the idea that system security affects payout. It would be much more sensible if, say, 0.5 - 1.0 would all pay out as 1.0 does right now, and +0.0 - 0.4 would all pay out like 0.0 does right now: Low-sec boost and simplified agent interface all in one.

Finally, what happened to the dynamic agent payout that was talked about on FF? Is that still upcoming?

---

+1

---

Originally by: Vuk Lau

---

:golfclap:

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

Edited by: Kiyohime Ronuken on 16/05/2011 14:59:30
Good Change.
*CCP* If you want to help add some variety to these missions - it might help to include the occasional 'bonus' in missions. Doing this will help keep 'single minded' missions from becomming too dull.

For example - you're mining away, filling your hold to complete a mining mission. Suddenly you notice a little red + appear on your screen. Your mission agent convos you saying "That's the notorious Angel pirate so-and-so... kill him and bring me the (insert item here) he's carrying and I will see you are suitably rewarded." This might require some tweaks to the mission mechanic but I think it would help keep things interesting, and give my drones something to do.

This might be harder in courrier missions, but I still think it could be done. You get to your end point and your agent says... "Yeah - about that 5000 M3 you were supposed to haul - well we had a production overage and it's actually 7500 M3 - if you can take the entire cargo we'll pay a bonus, if not you can take the original amount at the originally-contracted rate." etc.

It would take some content development on your part but I think it would help keep things interesting.

---

Originally by: Scandal Caulker

---

Originally by: Psycho Therapy

---

The agent quality change should help spread players out from the current mission hubs, too, which is going to be good for the lag issue.

---

No it won't. Human beings are lazy creatures of habit. They will not move from their mission hub unless there is a very good reason to do so.

---

Originally by: VCBee 2fast2furious

---

EVE Online 2011: We don't ever want our players to leave highsec!

---

Originally by: Chaotic Dude

---

It will create new hubs, because Lvl 4 Q20 Agents in a 0.5 System pay more than in a 0.9 system :)

---

Originally by: Imnar Blade

---

My take on this:

LP rewards are about to go through the roof. If my calcs are right, 10k LP for a top end level 4 in a 0.5 system and 15k LP with divisional connections 5 and a minimum (for something like an extravaganza) of 5000/7500 in high sec.

Methinks this might see a quick nerfing to 2% per level if that 5%/level wasn't a typo in the devblog. Even so that's a lot more LPs to spend.

This will almost certainly mean cheaper faction modules for wormholing and T3 fitting and for you violent types to use to blow each other up.

I also suspect this opens up the posibility of level six agents (now or soon) at standing 9.0.

Oh and tears? Level 4s in low sec only?

Just why on Erfworld would we want to give you people free PvP with us on your terms (with additional hinderances to us) when we just plain do not wish to play with you.

Every advantage to you lot and every disadvantage to us? I really don't think so.

Keep squealing tho, because if there's anything sweeter than our tears to you, it's yours to us.

---

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

---

Making SoE combat missions inaccessible to members of Gallente and Minmatar FW is kind of suboptimal. Please change the division of the Gicodel agent to Security.

Additionally, please revisit some of the corporations that now have no combat agent at all. That's seriously suboptimal.

Also, please revisit the idea that system security affects payout. It would be much more sensible if, say, 0.5 - 1.0 would all pay out as 1.0 does right now, and +0.0 - 0.4 would all pay out like 0.0 does right now: Low-sec boost and simplified agent interface all in one.

Finally, what happened to the dynamic agent payout that was talked about on FF? Is that still upcoming?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 12:02:17

You should consider also removing the effect of truesec on rewards, and simply have just three reward "tiers" (for highsec/lowsec/0.0).

P.S. You might want to make it similar to incursions, with lowsec giving better rewards than 0.0

---

Originally by: Ghurthe

---

Can anyone confirm if sisi is giving bigger LP pay outs or lower LP Pay outs? All i've heard are that LP pay out is going down from sisi.

---

Originally by: Lockefox

---

This will be implemented similarly to the learning change? Credited SP for removed skills, right?

---

Quote:

---

Second, as any good missioner knows, every agent has TWO connection books, resulting in two bonuses (though I can't remember how they stack). Will the bonuses for the new rank 2 skills replace the equivalent bonus from the old two books?

---

Originally by: Lo Res

---

0.0 nerf and highsec buffs are designed to drive people out of 0.0,

But...

They are trying to drive a specific kind of player out of 0.0.

can you guess who?

---

Originally by: Kain Simmons

---

Make a Division that gives out Missions vs other Empire Factions and make a division that give out Missions only vs Pirates. The Carebears wish for it

---

Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe

---

before anom nerf, huge number of carebears lived in nullsec running the anoms for same (or more) profits hisec lvl4s had. they also acted as militia force of nullsec - gathered for space defense when called - thus making nullsec safer and reducing conflict.

now all those carebears are forced to move to high sec and grind lvl4. effects? no (or much less) militia in nullsec, thus more reason and ease of conflict, more risk in nullsec.

all they left to do (and they are planning to) is increasing reward in nullsec so the risk vs reward formula would be reinstated. although I have no idea how will they make a reward that would not attract carebear militia again... we'll see though.

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

Edited by: Kiyohime Ronuken on 16/05/2011 16:26:23
Yeah - move all L4s to lowsec so you pirates have someone to shoot at? SERIOUSLY?!

---

Originally by: Kno Bodees*****

---

Originally by: VCBee 2fast2furious

---

EVE Online 2011: We don't ever want our players to leave highsec!

---

Here is a news flash... THEY DON'T WANT TO lEAVE HI-SEC!!!!!

Guess What else? IT'S THEIR GAME!!!! They can do what they want to do. Am I correct? Is this the "Eve sandbox" or does that only apply when it works for the so called "end game" player? Which after all of the non-sense that has come to light regarding botting and RMTing I'm not so sure I want to be a part of the "null sec lie". (I left the "f" out on purpose)

Hi-sec players are what keeps the lights on at CCP. This allows us to have our silly little wars over moons in 0.0. Let them play as they like, and lets get back to the dangerous practice of ratting in our super carriers, in a cyno jammed and gate camped system.

I have never seen such a whiny group of sissies in my life.

---

Originally by: Kadesh Priestess

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

Edited by: Kiyohime Ronuken on 16/05/2011 16:26:23
Yeah - move all L4s to lowsec so you pirates have someone to shoot at? SERIOUSLY?!

---

Did you ever hear about risk vs reward concept?

---

Originally by: Solo Player

---

Missions should be dangerous and unpredictable. Make agent quality dynamic, to make it worth finding that station nobody has been to in ages. Add random elements. Include mission trees, with choices and unexpected turns, where you need to be ready for anything. Make us scout out missions before daring our next step. Spawn competitive or even public missions. Have a mission market in every station, for EVE's sake.

---

Originally by: Lo Res

---

0.0 nerf and highsec buffs are designed to drive people out of 0.0,

But...

They are trying to drive a specific kind of player out of 0.0.

can you guess who?

---

Originally by: Kadesh Priestess

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

Edited by: Kiyohime Ronuken on 16/05/2011 16:26:23
Yeah - move all L4s to lowsec so you pirates have someone to shoot at? SERIOUSLY?!

---

Did you ever hear about risk vs reward concept?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

You should consider also removing the effect of truesec on rewards, and simply have just three reward "tiers" (for highsec/lowsec/0.0).

P.S. You might want to make it similar to incursions, with lowsec giving better rewards than 0.0

---

Originally by: WisdomPanda

---

In fairness, if you're looking for risk, you shouldn't be looking in high-sec. It implies a level of safety. Do I agree it's reward is just? Based on high-risk environments, no, it's not. If you want to apply risk to people though, do it in areas that are setup for it.
(aka, populate low-sec if 0.0 is too "omgahsovwar" for you.)

---

Quote:

---

In general, these divisions and values did little other than adding complexity to an already complex game.

---

Quote:

---

With such depth and complexity, it is hardly surprising that Eve Online attracts a good number of senior executives and business professionals.

---

Quote:

---

...Let me echo the overwhelming thoughts of players IÆve met since starting in Eve.

That thought is, ôEveÆs complexity is a GOOD thingö.

Eve Online is a complex online game, but because of that complexity it allows for an amazing variety of game play and experiences in CCPÆs sandbox.

---

Quote:

---

The complexity of EVE Online goes without saying. Although the challenge is one of the reasons why so many people engage in the game.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

You should consider also removing the effect of truesec on rewards, and simply have just three reward "tiers" (for highsec/lowsec/0.0).

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

There's no REAL difference between 0.5 and 0.9

---

Originally by: Imnar Blade

---

Originally by: Kadesh Priestess

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

Edited by: Kiyohime Ronuken on 16/05/2011 16:26:23
Yeah - move all L4s to lowsec so you pirates have someone to shoot at? SERIOUSLY?!

---

Did you ever hear about risk vs reward concept?

---

Our risk. Your reward. Uh, pass.

---

Originally by: El'Niaga

---

I believe the scanner change will end up being an even greater detriment to the game than the agent change in empire. Already you have no risk for most pirates roaming 0.0 and you just made their job easier so they don't have to use scan probes etc. In the end combined with other 0.0 changes in recent times the end result is going to be fewer people playing in 0.0, and ultimately fewer people playing EVE if this continues.

Its claimed that Jump Bridges were to little risk for the reward. Yet the covert cloaking device used by many toons as young as just a couple months has absolutely no downturns. There is no way to turn off an enemies, he has complete control to pick and choose when and where he will attack. A skilled covert pilot can easily avoid any gate camps which are meaningless. If defenders form up they cloak and hide waiting til the defenders leave, before once again picking a soft target that has no chance of survival. Yet CCP takes not measure towards ending this. Instead they give an additional tool for these pilots to grief other players by lowering scan times and removing the need for probes.

I tell you I see dangerous signs that EVE is getting ready to leave its golden age, the changes are counterproductive to getting more people to move to 0.0. There is almost no reason to considering the risk compared to the rewards. SOE used focus groups to form the NGE, and it ended up being an utter disaster for SWG. I fear that CCP should seriously reconsider what they are doing and the path they are taking. Once they cross the line there is no taking it back. Once you lose the people you can't roll stuff back and hope they return, they've already lost trust in you. Don't be like SOE looking over at the mythical greener field, then find you burned your field to try to get over the fence and then failed to climb the fence.

---

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

---

If you are looking into the possibility of reshuffling some agents, I would suggest you take mission variation into account while doing it. Not everyone hates the variation the old system offered, so it would be nice, if there would be intentionally made locations where agents of the same level but different division could be found in the same station/system.

Basicly this would be catering to players who want to do different types of missions for a short period of time to add variation to the grind. With some mixed division hubs they wouldn't have to travel far to be able to do that. I think this is an important consideration, since the old system catered in a limited way to more play styles in the same location, but the new system doesn't because the agent distribution is inherited instead of being designed for the new system from the start.

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

I could point out that the risk in W-Space is even higher for potential invaders. No way to know how many people are logged off in there. One small pos could mean 3-4 people or 100+ alts logged off ready to fight - or even logged IN.

The risk for the invader is being stranded, cut off and trapped with loss of all ships and pods. Sure it happens all the time that a few invaders crush a small pos and set up shop themselves. Then again sometimes big groups get their guts stomped out wholesale. That's why it's RISK not 'certainty of utter doom'.

Anyhow - you're not talking risk vs reward. You're talking about changing the DEGREE of risk already present.

---

Originally by: Carola Kessler

---

Edited by: Carola Kessler on 16/05/2011 17:32:23
I'm also worried about the Change not longer beeing able to see Pilots NPC and Faction standings via Info:

òInformation on a pilot's standings towards NPC corporations is no longer visible from 'Show Info'. You now see the standings information between you and the other pilot and the factions you each belong to.

This will crush Recruiting or make it ways harder as it is now for some Corps have Standing requirements in their agenda this change i think will have also an huge impact oon new and allready existing Corps within the Game.

---

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

---

Making SoE combat missions inaccessible to members of Gallente and Minmatar FW is kind of suboptimal. Please change the division of the Gicodel agent to Security.

Additionally, please revisit some of the corporations that now have no combat agent at all. That's seriously suboptimal.

---

Originally by: San Guine

---

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

---

Making SoE combat missions inaccessible to members of Gallente and Minmatar FW is kind of suboptimal. Please change the division of the Gicodel agent to Security.

Additionally, please revisit some of the corporations that now have no combat agent at all. That's seriously suboptimal.

---

+1 Don't force my Gallentian derriFre into Caldari space since that will be the only lvl 4 combat agent left ( highsec that is) for SoE.

---

Originally by: Chaotic Dude

---

Originally by: Scandal Caulker

---

Originally by: Psycho Therapy

---

The agent quality change should help spread players out from the current mission hubs, too, which is going to be good for the lag issue.

---

No it won't. Human beings are lazy creatures of habit. They will not move from their mission hub unless there is a very good reason to do so.

---

It will create new hubs, because Lvl 4 Q20 Agents in a 0.5 System pay more than in a 0.9 system :)

---

Originally by: Kno Bodees*****

---

Originally by: VCBee 2fast2furious

---

EVE Online 2011: We don't ever want our players to leave highsec!

---

Here is a news flash... THEY DON'T WANT TO lEAVE HI-SEC!!!!!

Guess What else? IT'S THEIR GAME!!!! They can do what they want to do. Am I correct? Is this the "Eve sandbox" or does that only apply when it works for the so called "end game" player? Which after all of the non-sense that has come to light regarding botting and RMTing I'm not so sure I want to be a part of the "null sec lie". (I left the "f" out on purpose)

Hi-sec players are what keeps the lights on at CCP. This allows us to have our silly little wars over moons in 0.0. Let them play as they like, and lets get back to the dangerous practice of ratting in our super carriers, in a cyno jammed and gate camped system.

I have never seen such a whiny group of sissies in my life.

---

Originally by: CCP Molock

---

We had to change a few other things to suit the division overhaul, all having to do with the seven "Connections" skills from the Social skill set (i.e., Financial Connections, Political Connections, etc.). These skills each granted a +5% yield per skill level to Loyalty Point payout for each of 5 or 6 divisions; in total, it was possible, with all seven skills maxed out, to gain a 10% LP boost for every division.

---

Quote:

---

-20% effective quality to access
+20% effective quality for payouts

---

Originally by: Makumba Aki

---

Originally by: El'Niaga

---

I believe the scanner change will end up being an even greater detriment to the game than the agent change in empire. Already you have no risk for most pirates roaming 0.0 and you just made their job easier so they don't have to use scan probes etc. In the end combined with other 0.0 changes in recent times the end result is going to be fewer people playing in 0.0, and ultimately fewer people playing EVE if this continues.

Its claimed that Jump Bridges were to little risk for the reward. Yet the covert cloaking device used by many toons as young as just a couple months has absolutely no downturns. There is no way to turn off an enemies, he has complete control to pick and choose when and where he will attack. A skilled covert pilot can easily avoid any gate camps which are meaningless. If defenders form up they cloak and hide waiting til the defenders leave, before once again picking a soft target that has no chance of survival. Yet CCP takes not measure towards ending this. Instead they give an additional tool for these pilots to grief other players by lowering scan times and removing the need for probes.

I tell you I see dangerous signs that EVE is getting ready to leave its golden age, the changes are counterproductive to getting more people to move to 0.0. There is almost no reason to considering the risk compared to the rewards. SOE used focus groups to form the NGE, and it ended up being an utter disaster for SWG. I fear that CCP should seriously reconsider what they are doing and the path they are taking. Once they cross the line there is no taking it back. Once you lose the people you can't roll stuff back and hope they return, they've already lost trust in you. Don't be like SOE looking over at the mythical greener field, then find you burned your field to try to get over the fence and then failed to climb the fence.

---

HTFU or leave 0.0.. honestly.. it is on thing to complain about broken risk vs. rewards ratio... but complaining about high risk space being high risk is kinda stupid...

---

Originally by: KristineKochanski

---

I assume you were all drunk at the meeting when this one was agreed, it really is the only explanation.

I have always assumed that the reason for varied mission types from the same agent was to encourage (require) a new eve player to train and experience different ares of the game.

I think I'm right in saying now you can train a Hauler alt and run lvl 4 missions with him without any problems or the need for any other skills. Did anybody give any thought to these changes? You are going to create a whole new class a idiot EVE players or is that the idea appeal to the under 10s.

Also spreading out missioners away from the current hubs will make War Decs less effective.

0/10 really poor effort

---

Originally by: Makumba Aki

---

HTFU or leave 0.0.. honestly.. it is on thing to complain about broken risk vs. rewards ratio... but complaining about high risk space being high risk is kinda stupid...

---

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat

---

so are lvl5 agents now give higher payouts? They are currently quality 12.

Also what standing will they require? Currently 8.6

---

Originally by: Vaju Katru

---

Put all LvL4 in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 16/05/2011 18:41:59
The rich are going to get richer and the 0.0 experience will be diminished by inevitable player behaviors.

---

Originally by: Valora Asatru

---

Why?
Because you have been carebearing out there for a long time now, with little risk. And little risk comes from loads of systems with anomaly upgrades making disruptive activities harder. Now there will be fighting over resources other than moongoo, which can only be good. I don't understand why people in 0.0 boast of it beeing for though guys only and then whine like girls when they just can't sit and carebear 23/7 in a system with only blues.

---

Originally by: Vaju Katru

---

Put all LvL4 in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Care Bear King

---

Love the changes, of course.

In a moment of selfless honesty,
I'll suggest doing this instead:

For all agents (including R&D):
High Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as -20
Low Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as +20
Null Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as 0

Note: Keep the impact of system security on
payouts or everyone will move to 1.0 systems.

It seems like you're missing a golden
opportunity to slip in long needed changes.

---

Originally by: Care Bear King

---

Love the changes, of course.

In a moment of selfless honesty,
I'll suggest doing this instead:

For all agents (including R&D):
High Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as -20
Low Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as +20
Null Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as 0

Note: Keep the impact of system security on
payouts or everyone will move to 1.0 systems.

It seems like you're missing a golden
opportunity to slip in long needed changes.

---

Originally by: gascanu

---

CCP i hope you use this patch to fix the damn 0.0 mission distribution thingy!
i understand why you implemented that system in empire, but sending a player 4-5 jumps away in 0.0 space for a combat mission it's just ******ed

---

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken

---

Assigning player intelligence by the sec status of the systems they game in has always been an invalid argument of generalizations and name-calling. Enough of this, already. This is not a thread for name calling - nor should any exist.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Heavily nerfing main 0.0 income in several ways while boosting main high sec income: Never go full retard



@Degasser Nacs, what are you trying to say? Because it is just a fact that 0.0 income is heavily nerfed and that this is a significant boost to high sec income. Also how is boosting risk free income while nerfing risky income (like it or not, 0.0 is alot riskier than high sec) making eve harder?

---

Originally by: Fuel Technician

---

what a load of crap..........

So all that grinding i did to get standings with corps that have 3 lvl 4 agents in one station was for nothing, and you are going to remove some of them so that i end up with only one agent!, i use this station to avoid faction missions not courier ones!

I also have standings with corps with good quality lvl 4 agents where the standings were hard to get because they have very few agents, i did this to avoid missioning in the mission hubs, seems i also wasted my time here too!

Why are you making EVE so easy, the attraction for me (with my 3 acc) is/was it's complexity.

overall pointless and demeaning changes

---

Originally by: Scandal Caulker

---

Oh, I just noticed the title of this thread!

"Eve made easy"

There! I fixed it for you CCP.

Idiots

---

Originally by: Fix Lag

---

"Adding complexity in an already-complex game" is terrible justification for removing anything when the basic premise of the game is that it is much more complex (and therefore in-depth) than its competitors.

Also, you seem to have forgotten to nerf mission running to match the anomaly nerf. Pretty sure I'll be running missions in highsec for income after this change if it does what I think it does.

---

Originally by: Ghorrn Kranthil

---

hm... sorry, but i cannot really see any sense in this change.
if u delete some skills just to replace them a lower amount of the same skills of the same effect... that is just a bit of sorting, ok... spring cleaning, perhaps?
but making agetn quality equal everywhere... i still remember when i was looking for agents i could use, the quality barriers were a great obstacle (how many time i have swon onto that! :-D ), but it made me travel to different locations on my way to l4 agents and thus i saw many systems i'd otherwise never looked into. i think, agent quality is an important item in the game's complexity that should not be taken away...
about the agents' division... i cannot see why there should be 100% of fixed mission types. again, it always made me use swearwords when my combat agents made me do courier missions, but "so what?"! in my opinion mixing mission types in a modest way adds to the realism of the game rather and should not be handled as "too complex" for us players...
maybe ccp wants to make a great spring cleaning action, but i retain it rather useless and subtracting due complexity and game experience from eve.
besides... if ccp starts reviewing (that is, displacing, deleting, creating...) agents everywhere... maybe that many systems & stations, be it carebear-highsec or slaughterhousemaniacs-lowsec these changes would suffer from big effects also: imagine less ("redundant") agents, so more players in station/system to get missions there.. market hubs would potentially have to move, player poses might become useless for changes in market...
for me, too much side effects for only undusting a system that could also stay like it is.

---

Originally by: Adamantor

---

Edited by: Adamantor on 16/05/2011 20:58:14
Not a good change for the long term game. Complexity adds depth and the agent mechanic wasn't really that complex. In the time spent making this change, some drill-downs into agent types and missions could have been added to agent info, giving new players an easy way to learn how agent types and quality worked.

I also think removing the 'depth' of agent quality is bad. Before, you had high end agents you could strive for, now L4 opens all L4 agents. This change shallows the mission mechanic.

This also removes the need for going to low-sec or null-sec for Q20 agents. Yes, it's easier for newer players or players who lack standings, but it also removes the carrot of even attempting those Q20 agents. Again, Risk vs Reward is diluted.

Lastly, the simplification of agent types isn't horrible but making them 100% mission types is bad. Now, courier missions can be completely bypassed. When I started playing, I found courier missions interesting and began to invited in a industrial ship in that hub to complete them. This also lead me to train some non-combat skills. Again, depth, diversification can be a good thing.

If the goal was to dilute some null sec agents, why not consider a dynamic agent where the more pilots running missions for an agent lowered the payout - this could have even go as far we limiting the number of missions available in a given time. This would have the result of pushing more pilots out of commonly run mission hubs. You could also adjust some agents Q level, add agents, or remove agents to balance this more dynamically. This type of mechanic could even lead to more fighting for top agents in low/null?

I was also against the removal of learning skills for many of the same reasons. I realize EVE needs players, but I'd challenge anyone to point to this mechanic as being so complex that new players simply left the game over it.

I'm not a veteran (2 year player) and I don't usually run low-sec or null-sec missions so I'm not personally impacted by the change but I still think it's the wrong change and a dilution of the rich and complex game that EVE is.

I'd love for CCP to elaborate on their new found 'wisdom' for the changes that have been coming. If they continue to dilute their core game in an effort to get new players, they'll find the core players deciding to the game isn't going in the direction they hope - Deeper, and more challenging.

---

Originally by: Cyno Me'in

---

What about COSMOS agents? I have been grinding away at my faction standings to do the 9.3 required mission and hopefully get a BPC for a shiny new faction BS. Guess anyone that can do a lvl 4 for your faction can do that now.

---

Originally by: Care Bear King

---

Love the changes, of course.

In a moment of selfless honesty,
I'll suggest doing this instead:

For all agents (including R&D):
High Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as -20
Low Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as +20
Null Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as 0

Note: Keep the impact of system security on
payouts or everyone will move to 1.0 systems.

It seems like you're missing a golden
opportunity to slip in long needed changes.

---

Originally by: Solomon XI

---

Break up the 0.0 powerblock's so that we can do missions in 0.0 NPC space without getting podded @ the undock and we'll talk about doing missions in NPC null-sec.

I think no alliance should be allowed to hold SOV over more than 10 systems. Period. Eliminate powerblock alliances and over-sized NAP orgies.

0.0 is NOT fun anymore.

---

Originally by: Ginger Lynn

---

Originally by: Care Bear King

---

Love the changes, of course.

In a moment of selfless honesty,
I'll suggest doing this instead:

For all agents (including R&D):
High Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as -20
Low Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as +20
Null Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as 0

Note: Keep the impact of system security on
payouts or everyone will move to 1.0 systems.

It seems like you're missing a golden
opportunity to slip in long needed changes.

---

Qouted for truth.

---

Originally by: Adamantor

---

Edited by: Adamantor on 16/05/2011 20:58:14
Not a good change for the long term game. Complexity adds depth and the agent mechanic wasn't really that complex. In the time spent making this change, some drill-downs into agent types and missions could have been added to agent info, giving new players an easy way to learn how agent types and quality worked.

I also think removing the 'depth' of agent quality is bad. Before, you had high end agents you could strive for, now L4 opens all L4 agents. This change shallows the mission mechanic.

This also removes the need for going to low-sec or null-sec for Q20 agents. Yes, it's easier for newer players or players who lack standings, but it also removes the carrot of even attempting those Q20 agents. Again, Risk vs Reward is diluted.

Lastly, the simplification of agent types isn't horrible but making them 100% mission types is bad. Now, courier missions can be completely bypassed. When I started playing, I found courier missions interesting and began to invited in a industrial ship in that hub to complete them. This also lead me to train some non-combat skills. Again, depth, diversification can be a good thing.

If the goal was to dilute some null sec agents, why not consider a dynamic agent where the more pilots running missions for an agent lowered the payout - this could have even go as far we limiting the number of missions available in a given time. This would have the result of pushing more pilots out of commonly run mission hubs. You could also adjust some agents Q level, add agents, or remove agents to balance this more dynamically. This type of mechanic could even lead to more fighting for top agents in low/null?

I was also against the removal of learning skills for many of the same reasons. I realize EVE needs players, but I'd challenge anyone to point to this mechanic as being so complex that new players simply left the game over it.

I'm not a veteran (2 year player) and I don't usually run low-sec or null-sec missions so I'm not personally impacted by the change but I still think it's the wrong change and a dilution of the rich and complex game that EVE is.

I'd love for CCP to elaborate on their new found 'wisdom' for the changes that have been coming. If they continue to dilute their core game in an effort to get new players, they'll find the core players deciding to the game isn't going in the direction they hope - Deeper, and more challenging.

---

Quote:

---

I find this to be a wonderful, customer-oriented solution to unnecessary complexity.

---

Originally by: Kadesh Priestess

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

There's no REAL difference between 0.5 and 0.9

---

Suicide ganking is much easier in 0.5, so that's not actually true.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

---