| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Guillaume Conquerant
10
   |
Posted - 2014.02.17 20:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
TL;DR version - increase the difficulty and isk/hr for Havens and Sanctums.
The scaling (difficulty, investment, payout) on anoms needs serious attention; the higher-end anoms need a serious buffing. That is, they need to be harder and significantly more rewarding.
When just viewing Anoms (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Cosmic_Anomaly#Difficulty) , the peak isk/hr is generally at the Forsake Hubs for most folks. Havens and Sanctums lack enough sufficient rewards to compensate for their extra time to run thereby nerfing their comparative isk/hr.
Generally speaking, as the difficulty of anoms increases so should the investment required (isk & SP) as well as the payout in isk/hr.
A couple of things could be done for Havens & Sanctums:
1) increase the number of BSs and decrease the number of frigate per spawn
2) increase the number of waves
3) increase the probability of the faction/officer spawns
4) increased ESS LP for Havens and more so for Sanctums (this may be hard to do)
--Of course, these numbers will need to be tweeked to ensure the appropriate gradient.
Basically, I think Havens should require ~5 people to run them effectively and Sanctums should require ~10. Isk/hr per person should also be buffed. |
Guillaume Conquerant
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 23:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
^^ Anyone have better ideas on how to buff PVE in 0.0? Basically, this adapts the cooperative aspects of incursions into anoms while giving people looking for PVP an additional opportunity to generate content ;)
|
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1181
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 00:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree that SovNull needs some love, however CCP can't do it by just increasing bounty payouts. Those bounties, at least at one point, were atrociously large and caused economic issues. Hence the FH nerf.
However, if you add LP rewards to SovNull you increase earning potential without increasing a faucet. In fact, LP spent in the LP store when including the ISK requirements for items in the LP store acts as an increased sink.
There is a lot of talk on topics of this nature that highsec needs a nerf. I don't think a blanket nerf of highsec achieves the goal of getting SovNull residents out of highsec or giving them the economic incentives to fight over.
In Stoicfaux's most recent mission study, he found that 44m ISK/hr was achievable in HighSec level 4s (this applies ONLY to the faucet portion of his earnings ie. Mission Rewards, Time Bonus, and Bounties). Even is you were to cut this amount in half or more, say to 20m ISK/hr, the amount a person would still be able to make in HighSec would not be enough to get SovNull residents back into Null. The reason is that the real value of running missions in HighSec is in the ISK value of LP. Even the Loot and Salvage would match the faucet portion of the reduced total take.
And SovNull would still be unable to compete.
If you want to make SovNull better and if you want SovNull residents to be able to make their ISK in the systems they have conquered and occupy or that they rent, you can't do that with a nerf to HighSec.
You do it by buffing SovNull Red Cross Shooting.
Better loot and higher chances of better loot - Maybe. Not being a faucet of ISK is good but - if the chances of loot are higher the value of those items depreciates with the higher supplies. You'll want to consider that.
Higher level of LP acquisition - This is my personal favorite. Not an ISK faucet and actually acts as a sink when the LP is redeemed at an LP store (provided the item being purchased also has an ISK requirement). As a side effect it acts as an indirect nerf to highsec as they see the value of their own LP drop due to higher supplies of the same items they are selling in the market. Ideally, it would be similar to CONCORD LP in that it is universal and can be used at any LP store for any faction/corp.
There is also the matter of industrial endeavors, but with my limited experience in this part of the game I will have to defer to others who can speak more vibrantly on the subject.
"Grr Kimmi-á
Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |
Arthur Aihaken
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
2917
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 01:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
TL;DR - since Goons are apparently capable of camping both null and high-sec as well as fielding an insane amount of supercapitals, perhaps we should be looking at an income nerf instead...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
381
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 02:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:
1) increase the number of BSs and decrease the number of frigate per spawn
ccp tried this with some other CA content.
end result was running them in tier 3 bc's became real popular. Want to say it was a serp space CA that naga ran quite well. Problem being here it was real low cost to farm some serioud (edit: serious even) isk here.
Basically Snipe at range and plink away. Mix speed tanking with rat falloff damaeg bleed off (if they hit at all) and mix in one of the more cut and dry tanking setups for resists and basically it was like going to an ATM to withdrawal cash.
IIRC it had a few frigates only (at long range which 425 II does real easy even on rokh without any tracking or damage bonuses). Once popped the bs were fish in a barrel basically. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Empire
Flying Dangerous
646
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 03:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Get rid of all off the current nullsec anioms. Get rid of the terribad rats. These should be feared pirates. 0 SP scrubs are better than these guys.
First, pirates fly real ships in miniature fleets. We are talking fleets with combat ships, EWAR, recons, logi, etc. Those ships are fit like people would actually fit them for combat.
Second, apply an even more advanced rat AI. These rats need to think and like PvPers. If they are dying and not pointed they need to warp away. Not scrammed? MJD out. Ratters have logi? EWAR it down.
Third, the new anioms are based upon the fleet comps and sizes of the pirate fleets. Sanctums should take 40 ratting man fleets to complete. Havens take 20 man. The lower anioms take 10, 5, 3 and 1.
Fourth, isk per hour goes up as you form larger fleets. From ~lvl 4 missions income for the smaller sites to better than incursion income for the larger sites.
Why will this work/some benefits:
First PvEers will learn to fit their ships to PvP, and fleet up to essentially "PvP" the pirate rats for isk. This brings a few benefits such as the fits will not not terribad PvE fits that die to t1 frigates, they are preformed in to defense fleets, and as a whole they need to work together to succeed. No longer will the best way to rat be 1 man, terrible fit, that POSes up when a neutral comes in to local.
Also, very difficult to bot.
The pirates won't be push overs. You are going to have to work as a group, from the lowly tackle frigate to the T2 fit BS, to kill these pirate fleets.
You need fewer systems. Instead of 100 ratters spread over 20+ systems you have 100 ratters working in fleets in just a few systems. So fewer systems would be needed to support more people.
This would tie in well with an activity based SOV system.
Thoughts?
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Guillaume Conquerant
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 04:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ok, we got some REALLY good ideas going here IMHO.
I completely agree with Kimmi Chan's analysis and reasoning for not increasing faction/officer spawns ... so if you did increase their likelihood, it should only be slightly. The ESS does help with the LP issue which is great - so perhaps that's the mechanisms to look at how you increase the Haven/Sanctum payout?
So given the ESS paying out LPs, you could then:
1) increase the number of BSs and decrease the number of frigate per spawn
2) increase the number of waves
....
and because the number of chances per hour for faction/deadspace loot decreases, you should also increase their probability (slightly) to compensate.
Maybe there's also an ESS type structure or mode for the existing structure that increase the LP/bounty ratio?
Aliventi, as for your idea - I agree that this would be the best solution but I'm not sure CCP has the time to implement that immediately. Perhaps as an interim solution towards your idea, they increase the number of ships per wave and the number of waves for Havens (adding mostly BSs and a few BCs) For Sanctums they throw everything at you (frigates, logi, erc) but the final reward is much higher (maybe a faction spawn who may/may not drop loot but has a crazy uber-bounty) to account for the lower bounty payouts from frigate rats. I think the idea here is to force some sort of fleet composition for Sanctums - not just all blinged out BSs. I think this would then lead to what you're talking about as a second iteration. |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1184
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 09:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Get rid of all off the current nullsec anioms. Get rid of the terribad rats. These should be feared pirates. 0 SP scrubs are better than these guys.
First, pirates fly real ships in miniature fleets. We are talking fleets with combat ships, EWAR, recons, logi, etc. Those ships are fit like people would actually fit them for combat.
Second, apply an even more advanced rat AI. These rats need to think and like PvPers. If they are dying and not pointed they need to warp away. Not scrammed? MJD out. Ratters have logi? EWAR it down.
Third, the new anioms are based upon the fleet comps and sizes of the pirate fleets. Sanctums should take 40 ratting man fleets to complete. Havens take 20 man. The lower anioms take 10, 5, 3 and 1.
Fourth, isk per hour goes up as you form larger fleets. From ~lvl 4 missions income for the smaller sites to better than incursion income for the larger sites.
Why will this work/some benefits:
First PvEers will learn to fit their ships to PvP, and fleet up to essentially "PvP" the pirate rats for isk. This brings a few benefits such as the fits will not not terribad PvE fits that die to t1 frigates, they are preformed in to defense fleets, and as a whole they need to work together to succeed. No longer will the best way to rat be 1 man, terrible fit, that POSes up when a neutral comes in to local.
Also, very difficult to bot.
The pirates won't be push overs. You are going to have to work as a group, from the lowly tackle frigate to the T2 fit BS, to kill these pirate fleets.
You need fewer systems. Instead of 100 ratters spread over 20+ systems you have 100 ratters working in fleets in just a few systems. So fewer systems would be needed to support more people.
This would tie in well with an activity based SOV system.
Thoughts?
I am not sure how difficult a much more advanced AI would be coding wise but I like where this is going. Particularly in enabling a single system to support more than a single pilot or a single pilot with a few alts (due to the enhanced nature of the rat AI). I think it also helps quite a bit with avoiding FOTM ships and fittings.
I also support anything that keeps people out in space making ISK versus docking up because a neutral just showed up in system. I think it makes it more dynamic to have anything that encourages ratters to stand their ground against intruders to the system they have conquered and occupied.
"Grr Kimmi-á
Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
194
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 10:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:
3) increase the probability of the faction/officer spawns
I think you should skip that point. Or it had to be done VERY cautious. More faction/officer spawns will lead to cheaper prices for those modules. So after a few weeks/months when the market gets flooded with them, you would perhaps end up making fewer ISK than before. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
775
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 10:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:TL;DR version - increase the difficulty and isk/hr for Havens and Sanctums.
The scaling (difficulty, investment, payout) on anoms needs serious attention; the higher-end anoms need to be harder and significantly more rewarding.
When just viewing Anoms (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Cosmic_Anomaly#Difficulty) , the peak isk/hr is generally at the Forsake Hubs for most folks. Havens and Sanctums lack enough sufficient rewards to compensate for their extra time to run thereby nerfing their comparative isk/hr.
Generally speaking, as the difficulty of anoms increases so should the investment required (isk & SP) as well as the payout in isk/hr.
A couple of things could be done for Havens & Sanctums:
1) increase the number of BSs and decrease the number of frigate per spawn
ccp deliberately nerfed them. doubt they'll ever change it back
Quote:
2) increase the number of waves
no it takes forever already. it escalates to the ded 10, and last thing I want is it to take even longer.
Quote:
3) increase the probability of the faction/officer spawns
not currently required. may be able to do so once they work what their un-patchnoted nerf to escalation timers does to the faction loot volume, if they did, I'd prefer it was concentrated into these for sure.
Quote:
4) increased ESS LP for Havens and more so for Sanctums (this may be hard to do)
--Of course, these numbers will need to be tweeked to ensure the appropriate gradient.
Basically, I think Havens should require ~5 people to run them effectively and Sanctums should require ~10. Isk/hr per person should also be buffed.
that is a total reimagining of them, that I wouldn't mind so much. Have to consider capitals though.
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
775
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 10:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:Ok, we got some REALLY good ideas going here IMHO.
I completely agree with Kimmi Chan's analysis and reasoning for not increasing faction/officer spawns ... so if you did increase their likelihood, it should only be slightly. The ESS does help with the LP issue which is great - so perhaps that's the mechanisms to look at how you increase the Haven/Sanctum payout?
So given the ESS paying out LPs, you could then:
1) increase the number of BSs and decrease the number of frigate per spawn
2) increase the number of waves
....
and because the number of chances per hour for faction/deadspace loot decreases, you should also increase their probability (slightly) to compensate.
Maybe there's also an ESS type structure or mode for the existing structure that increase the LP/bounty ratio?
Aliventi, as for your idea - I agree that this would be the best solution but I'm not sure CCP has the time to implement that immediately. Perhaps as an interim solution towards your idea, they increase the number of ships per wave and the number of waves for Havens (adding mostly BSs and a few BCs) For Sanctums they throw everything at you (frigates, logi, erc) but the final reward is much higher (maybe a faction spawn who may/may not drop loot but has a crazy uber-bounty) to account for the lower bounty payouts from frigate rats. I think the idea here is to force some sort of fleet composition for Sanctums - not just all blinged out BSs. I think this would then lead to what you're talking about as a second iteration.
in all honesty the ESS is a bad patch for both economic issues, and for single player issues, that should go away. Reimagining some content so its group based to begin with, would be better.
|
TehCloud
Mastercard.
202
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 11:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nullsec ISK Faucets are not in need of a buff.
My Condor costs less than that module! |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1186
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 11:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
TehCloud wrote:Nullsec ISK Faucets are not in need of a buff.
I agree. That is why I am not advocating increasing ISK faucets. I am advocating increased income from non-faucet, even pro-sink sources.
"Grr Kimmi-á
Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |
Tauranon
Weeesearch
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
775
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 11:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:TehCloud wrote:Nullsec ISK Faucets are not in need of a buff. I agree. That is why I am not advocating increasing ISK faucets. I am advocating increased income from non-faucet, even pro-sink sources.
the next release has a change to drone region drops, which is about addressing the actual issue (negative progression between null and highsec). The actual max income certainly doesn't have to rise, and the addressing is very natural - ie increase competition for valuable object, rather than instant nerf.
I agree that more raw isk/hr is not desirable.
|
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
Bright Side of Death
149
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 11:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
Buffing null sec multiboxers is most important thing? |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1188
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 13:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Vizvig wrote:Buffing null sec multiboxers is most important thing?
Guillaume Conquerant in a previous thread wrote:Maybe I'm doing things wrong .... but given that I'm able to make around ~100M isk/hr in High Sec L4's and only around 120M isk/hr in 0.0 (running FHs) something doesn't add up given the risks.
Personally, I think CCP has hit 0.0 PVE income with the nerf bat a little too hard.
CCP - Please re-look at 0.0 and the risk vs reward and skill/isk investment vs return for 0.0 activities. Please consider the progression within 0.0 and compared to HS.
This narrative is not uncommon. Additionally, the data that has been collected suggests that the income/hr in Null Sec is not fitting with the added risk. As a result the SovNull line member (not the Alliance leader rich guys), are relegated to engaging in their PVE activities in HighSec so they can compete financially with those who live full time in HIghSec.
I will add the data as soon as I can get you a link for it.
"Grr Kimmi-á
Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
124
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 13:49:00 -
[17] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:
Why will this work/some benefits:
First PvEers will learn to fit their ships to PvP, and fleet up to essentially "PvP" the pirate rats for isk. This brings a few benefits such as the fits will not not terribad PvE fits that die to t1 frigates, they are preformed in to defense fleets, and as a whole they need to work together to succeed. No longer will the best way to rat be 1 man, terrible fit, that POSes up when a neutral comes in to local.
Thoughts?
Some Drawbacks
Your faction drops from anoms have less isk value, as the bling fits previously used for ratting are no longer viable.
Ratters will still pos up when a neut enters local, an Improved PVP style NPC AI will simply encourage them to warp out sooner - Who wants to be tanking NPC's that fight like PVP'rs and risk being hotdropped.
Unless you gate every Anom, a multiboxer (or a few friends) with carriers is still going to clean up.
Less systems needed to support more people = More empty systems. I don't see alliances giving up sov because "they no longer need them for income"
In theory I really like the idea of a smart npc AI that really pvp's - in practice it is not practical, except maybe as additional special anoms, like mini incursions with true PVP NPC's.
|
Aliventi
Southern Cross Empire
Flying Dangerous
650
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 16:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Aliventi wrote:
Why will this work/some benefits:
First PvEers will learn to fit their ships to PvP, and fleet up to essentially "PvP" the pirate rats for isk. This brings a few benefits such as the fits will not not terribad PvE fits that die to t1 frigates, they are preformed in to defense fleets, and as a whole they need to work together to succeed. No longer will the best way to rat be 1 man, terrible fit, that POSes up when a neutral comes in to local.
Thoughts?
Some Drawbacks Your faction drops from anoms have less isk value, as the bling fits previously used for ratting are no longer viable. Ratters will still pos up when a neut enters local, an Improved PVP style NPC AI will simply encourage them to warp out sooner - Who wants to be tanking NPC's that fight like PVP'rs and risk being hotdropped. Unless you gate every Anom, a multiboxer (or a few friends) with carriers is still going to clean up. Less systems needed to support more people = More empty systems. I don't see alliances giving up sov because "they no longer need them for income" In theory I really like the idea of a smart npc AI that really pvp's - in practice it is not practical, except maybe as additional special anoms, like mini incursions with true PVP NPC's.
-Counter point: Incursions. Those ships are mainly faction fit as that increases the isk/hr. People will still fancy fit their ships. That is what people do when they have isk to pay for better performance or a lack of proper skills to use the T2 mods.
And you may not have the option to warp out. Imagine most of those pirate rats fitting points/scrams or dictor/hictor bubbles going up around your fleet. So chances are you may not have a say between fighting or warping to a POS.
-Not to say that the AI can't be coded to defenders advantage. Imagine coding the AI so when a new fleet warps in the pirates keep the first fleet tackled, but start primarying the second fleet. Consider it "Defender's advantage."
-Dictor/Hictor bubbles and lots of point/scrams are a pretty good way to discourage Caps from showing up. You could include an escalation mode similar to escalations you see in WHs. Nothing that says the pirates can't escalate with caps also. You would have to make the pirate capital ships, perhaps when you kill them there is a small chance of a BPC drop. If you start bringing in carriers they may very well drop dreads and neuting bhaalgorns. They should love cap kills as much as the next PvPer.
More empty systems is great for Eve. There have been mass debates in Failheap about what a new SOV system should entail. The general consensus is large empires should still be possible, but they shouldn't be able to easily control half of nullsec. The idea is to make it so the smaller alliances can get in to nullsec without sucking enough **** to be blued by this or that coalition. They are ways to make it so say the CFC or N3 or RUS can't reasonably control the vast amounts of space they already do. That will make it so more dedicated smaller alliances can enter SOV. This will bring a sorts of "balkanizing" of nullsec where you may have a dozen different alliances owning SOV, living (Unlike now where there are vast amounts of owned but not lived in space), PvPing, and PvEing in the same region. That is for another thread.
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1808
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 17:15:00 -
[19] - Quote
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:Basically, I think Havens should require ~5 people to run them effectively and Sanctums should require ~10. Isk/hr per person should also be buffed.
None of your suggestions is even close to making this part of your proposal a reality.
"CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1097
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 17:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
im hesitant to agree with the increased payouts of null, not because it shouldnt pay out, it really should when compared to hi-sec. but its very easy to avoid being attacked in null thanks to local, and a lot of ppl will say to u that ratting in null is even safer than ratting in hi-sec.
so id agree reward needs to go up in order for null to live up to its reputation, but so does risk from other players.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1456
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 20:17:00 -
[21] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:im hesitant to agree with the increased payouts of null, not because it shouldnt pay out, it really should when compared to hi-sec. but its very easy to avoid being attacked in null thanks to local, and a lot of ppl will say to u that ratting in null is even safer than ratting in hi-sec.
so id agree reward needs to go up in order for null to live up to its reputation, but so does risk from other players.
I'm going to try and phrase this question the same way I would for HighSec miners who want HighSec to be safer.
How much risk is enough to warrant an increase in income? And when I say "income", I am not referring to faucet ISK from bounties but overall. I don't think now is the right time to increase bounty payouts. But having something else to supplement the existing bounty ISK can work imho.
Also, how does that added risk manifest itself? I think Aliventi has some good concepts to start from and I really like the idea of the NPC AI going after new targets on grid. I think his ideas are a good start for this.
I also appreciate everyone's constructive comments in this discussion. This discussion has been had many times in GD but ends up being run down by people not being constructive. So thanks for that! 
"Grr Kimmi-á
Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |
Guillaume Conquerant
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 01:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Guillaume Conquerant wrote:Basically, I think Havens should require ~5 people to run them effectively and Sanctums should require ~10. Isk/hr per person should also be buffed. None of your suggestions is even close to making this part of your proposal a reality.
I think if you greatly increased the number of BSs / wave that may force more people to run them safely.
Alternatively, for havens and sanctums - you can just make the AI harder and buff their stats ... like incursions |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
253
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 03:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
Havens and sanctums should get capital escalations like wormholes do where each capital ship warped to the site causes some additional number of battleships to spawn. This might give people some incentive to rat together without completely destroying their isk/hr |
Guillaume Conquerant
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 03:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:im hesitant to agree with the increased payouts of null ...
so id agree reward needs to go up in order for null to live up to its reputation, but so does risk from other players.
Ok, I think I wasn't clear.
I'm not talking about more absolute payouts .. I'm talking about better SCALING of payouts and a higher upper bound on that scale based on more resources committed (corp mates, isk, sp, etc) ... more risk, more reward . Part of that risk will be non-consensual PVP ;) I believe that's what was Andrea was also referring to when she said ...
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Havens and sanctums should get capital escalations like wormholes do where each capital ship warped to the site causes some additional number of battleships to spawn. This might give people some incentive to rat together without completely destroying their isk/hr
So - as an interim step towards more PVP focused PVE in 0.0, having sanctums and havens run a similar AI & NPC difficulty as incursions/WH might be a positive stepping stone towards a better pvp-like- PVE experience. If 0.0 corps have a meaningful PVE reason to put several bill isk worth of assets in a sight for PVE, then that offers up more PVP opportunities.
Effects:
1) You'll start to see 0.0 PVE concentrating into tight pockets which would represent nice PVP targets who might be better prepared to offer a good fight back ... more good fights
2) If you can combine this with a increase in sov bills based on a lack of player activity (mining, anoms, sights, pvp kills, etc), larger alliances may divest themselves of unused space. Optionally, if alliances could change tax rate based on the system in order to increase activity levels (and reduce sov bills) - you'll get more PVP targets further away from the PVE clusters ... again, more good fights.
3) Increase scaling will result in increase tax revenue streams for 0.0 alliances so that ship replacement plans can again be a near given for 0.0 alliances ... again, more good fights |
Guillaume Conquerant
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 03:38:00 -
[25] - Quote
TehCloud wrote:Nullsec ISK Faucets are not in need of a buff.
Think of it this way, nerfs to passive 0.0 income need to be made up from somewhere in order to drive 0.0 SRPs and conflict. Don't believe me? As anyone from TEST or N3 if having an SRP influences their desire to fight ...
The best way is to make up for it is in active 0.0 income .... which can then be taxed to fund SRPs and conflict. Additionally, those actively generating 0.0 income are at risk for non-consensual pvp while those passively generating 0.0 income are not (by definition) |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
125
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 06:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:
More empty systems is great for Eve. There have been mass debates in Failheap about what a new SOV system should entail. The general consensus is large empires should still be possible, but they shouldn't be able to easily control half of nullsec. The idea is to make it so the smaller alliances can get in to nullsec without sucking enough **** to be blued by this or that coalition. They are ways to make it so say the CFC or N3 or RUS can't reasonably control the vast amounts of space they already do. That will make it so more dedicated smaller alliances can enter SOV. This will bring a sorts of "balkanizing" of nullsec where you may have a dozen different alliances owning SOV, living (Unlike now where there are vast amounts of owned but not lived in space), PvPing, and PvEing in the same region. That is for another thread.
The idea is great, the implementation somewhat more difficult.
As long as the Mega Coalitions can drop hundreds to thousands of ships into a system there will never be space for the small independent alliances. It is way too easy for the likes of PL/N3 and the CFC to simply decide - we don't want them there. Once that decision is made, anyone trying to defend their right to be in nulsec either blues or leaves. It is no longer "SOV Warfare", it has simply come down to - the biggest bully wins.
An infamous leader of 1 of the large coalitions recently said - We don't want it but will stop them from having it. (not the exact quote but you get the idea)
I can think of nothing better than each alliance having to defend the SOV they hold but as long as mega coalitions exist that will never happen.
Quote:That is for another thread Really it is part of this thread. What is considered "good" nulsec will always be more highly sought after. Any changes to nulsec, whether income sources, the way income is generated, revolves to a very large extent around mega coalitions. Increasing the difficulty to earn income in nulsec only serves the large entities.
Until SOV becomes less about who is biggest - all the buffs or nerfs in the universe will mean nothing. |
Tragot Gomndor
Krautz WH Exploration and Production
Cerberus Unleashed
25
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 09:21:00 -
[27] - Quote
0.0 need more nerfs not more buffs. Eve needs more interessting pve content anyway, not just higher numbers. Currently eve pve is the worst pve of all games i know.
And yes, fix sov too. Tidi/lag/crash and sovwarfare made me go away from 0.0 forever. And bad alliances. 0.0 is dead.
0.0 = GOONS = SAAAMMMMEEE!!!!1111222 |
Arh Mezz
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 09:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
I only read the OP post.
really bad idea. that increases the sov holders isk/hour even more. they just drop a thanny (like they do today) and do at minimum 100m isk per hour. when you increase the difficulty, nodody who not sits in a carrier will do pve sites (lets say drakes, drone boats, marauders and tengus). it forces players to skill into carriers.
keep it as it is. |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1472
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 10:42:00 -
[29] - Quote
Arh Mezz wrote:I only read the OP post..
Could you read the rest of the thread and then let us know if you still feel this way?
Not being an ass. I think it's a complex situation and should not be dismissed immediately.
"Grr Kimmi-á
Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |
Arh Mezz
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 11:26:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Arh Mezz wrote:I only read the OP post.. Could you read the rest of the thread and then let us know if you still feel this way? Not being an ass. I think it's a complex situation and should not be dismissed immediately.
so i did now. doesnt change anything. a few good arguments, but the OP's statements stay.
he said make certain sites only doable with 5-10 groups. or in other words, drop one carrier.
but some people enjoy to rat alone in their tengus, marauders, carriers and whatnot.
it's sadly the mechanics of carriers, being excellent in destroying anything from frigs to battleships, while having a shi*ton of ehp and cap, while not costing more isk than marauders and pirate faction battleships.
personally i would say, IF you make certain sites harder in any way, change the payout like in incursions. less people wont get more isk, the payout is fixed to a max number of people participating (for example: a completed site gives max payout for up to 5 people. with more people, the payout decreases). in that way, carrier pilots can still solo their stuff, sub cap pilots too (marauders), but dont have any advantage of doing so, when the site is designed for 5 peoples.
the sites can be made "harder" in making the rats more tanky or having more waves. im not sure about that point.
exclude thanny pilots from having escalations is a bit unfair. apart from pve'ing, no one really uses thanatos's. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |