EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Summer of Sov

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Summer of Sov - Nullsec PVE and Upgrades

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:39:21 - [1] - Quote Regarding the proposed ESS change -- it is likely that the proposed changes will make these structures used less, not more. Contemporary ESS usage involves anchoring it in an anomaly, triggering all the spawns, and performing the sharing of bounties in a pod. Requiring the entosis link will exclude the capsule from doing the sharing, and I can't imagine the desire to restrict the locations where an ESS can be deployed to have any other logic behind it but denying the use of a "hell-spawned anom" to cover the ESS. That all being said, there's no way I can really argue that the contemporary use case should be maintained -- it is emergent gameplay, after all. The point here is that without some other compelling reason to use it, you'll likely not achieve the goal of "[the ESS doing] much better." This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:40:24 - [2] - Quote Also, as noted above, it's good to see garbage truesec getting some love. As the individual who broke open the horrors of Greyscale's anom nerf back in 2011, it's good to see it being partially reversed in this manner. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:41:22 - [3] - Quote Bienator II wrote: Quote: Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples) why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work. if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine. CCP's kills to LP/money calculation has been found to be pretty flawed in the past. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:48:29 - [4] - Quote Gideon Enderas wrote: Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid. Seems like a decent change to me -- it should allow PVPers based in wormhole space to hit a larger breadth of targets without having to resort to as much laborious hole-rolling. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:49:59 - [5] - Quote Gideon Enderas wrote: Axloth Okiah wrote: Gideon Enderas wrote: Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid. It makes perfect sense: it equals to less time when nullsec krabs need to stay docked. I'm sure it was supported by all CSMs. Ah yes, I forgot that people need to be able to rat in supers in peace. Wormholes are not the only vector by which you can catch and execute ratters. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:03:21 - [6] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Querns wrote: Gideon Enderas wrote: Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid. Seems like a decent change to me -- it should allow PVPers based in wormhole space to hit a larger breadth of targets without having to resort to as much laborious hole-rolling. I'm sorry, but it will result in exactly the opposite - smaller amount of viable nullsec holes (out of which we hunt) in any given chain. Hence more rolling to get some non-****, non-EOL hole. The breadth of targets will diminish, time time window will diminish -> less targets, more rolling, safer nullsec. Sounds like they are trying to nerf the chain itself. I doubt you'll get much traction on getting this reversed, no matter how much you crow about a "safer nullsec." This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:06:31 - [7] - Quote Edwin Wyatt wrote: CCP needs to understand their own game better. An ISK faucets is an activity that require next to no player input. Prime example, Moon mining. Calling a PVE activity that should require player input an isk faucet is wrong, if you put in the time and effort, the rewards should be endless. But we will let your subscription number continue to tell you how bad of a job you're doing CCP, and it speaks loud and clear. An ISK faucet is the opposite of what you think it is. "ISK faucet" refers to the generation of ISK by the server. Think of the entire game's ISK supply as existing in a huge barrel. An ISK faucet adds material to the bucket. Moon miners don't generate ISK; they don't add to the content of the barrel. Moon miners simply shift around the material already in the barrel (actually, they make a small amount of ISK leak out of the barrel due to market transaction taxes.) If you don't like that moon materials are expensive on the market, there are multiple vectors to combat this, only some of which require military might. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:09:23 - [8] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever. I love that everyone considers Imperium space unassailable by default. It is another instance of the most ingratiating position of surrender possible, and it makes me feel great every time I see it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:13:55 - [9] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Querns wrote: Axloth Okiah wrote: stuff Sounds like they are trying to nerf the chain itself. I doubt you'll get much traction on getting this reversed, no matter how much you crow about a "safer nullsec." I agree 100%, especially since safer nullsec (in general, not just from us) seems to be at least one of the goals and theres noone on CSM to push against a nerf like this. It's not a goal. A sentiment does not automatically become rooted in deliberate intent if you feel strongly enough about it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:15:01 - [10] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: Querns wrote: Ab'del Abu wrote: Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever. I love that everyone considers Imperium space unassailable by default. It is another instance of the most ingratiating position of surrender possible, and it makes me feel great every time I see it. I was using the words of a fellow goon of yours. Still, the reality is that there currently is no force/coalition that could actually invade the CFC and take their highly condensed space ... Of course a "fellow goon of [mine]" would say that -- we have a vested interest in perpetuating that vignette. This does not exclude me from enjoying it being projected back towards me from without. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:28:10 - [11] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Querns wrote: Axloth Okiah wrote: Querns wrote: Sounds like they are trying to nerf the chain itself. I doubt you'll get much traction on getting this reversed, no matter how much you crow about a "safer nullsec." I agree 100%, especially since safer nullsec (in general, not just from us) seems to be at least one of the goals and theres noone on CSM to push against a nerf like this. It's not a goal. A sentiment does not automatically become rooted in deliberate intent if you feel strongly enough about it. devblog wrote: We are beginning with a set of tweaks to Nullsec wormhole connections in Aegis, intended to ease some of the concerns around WH power projection without negatively impacting wormhole residents or eliminating the ability of Nullsec entities to roam through wormholes. It seems like the intent is to curb power projection through wormholes into nullsec. This imho means making it safer for the locals, because their would be killers have much harder time (or much lower probability) getting there to do the killing. If this is not the deliberate intent of the change, then I wonder why they state it in the devblog and what the real intent is. The intent of the change is actually to curb power projection through the C5 -> nullsec highway. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:33:49 - [12] - Quote Soldarius wrote: I find much irony in that, after this effectively caused the downfall of the old NC, those changes are being reversed 4 years later. (Ref: senior members of the coalition telling ME/RAGE/etc that their space (Geminate and Vale) wasn't worth saving anymore.) This is not really the case. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:41:09 - [13] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Querns wrote: Soldarius wrote: I find much irony in that, after this effectively caused the downfall of the old NC, those changes are being reversed 4 years later. (Ref: senior members of the coalition telling ME/RAGE/etc that their space (Geminate and Vale) wasn't worth saving anymore.) This is not really the case. It's fairly close, one of the big problems with anomalies is the fact that so few systems would produce enough of the good ones to be worth doing, forcing everyone who wanted to rat to bundle up and trip all over each other while creating nice red Dotlan Beacons for everyone who wanted to come disrupt you. That cause me and a lot of PVErs I know to make and keep high sec pve alts. These changes don't cure the disease, but they definitely lessen the symptoms. I meant as being the cause for the downfall of the Northern Coalition. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:45:35 - [14] - Quote Lim Yoona wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Syrias Bizniz wrote: Was almost pissing my self in excitement on the +75% anomalies thing, left disappointed when 0 (ZERO) Rally Points were added. 6/10 farmer detected. Named rally points are good even if their escalations aren't as great. I do nothing but rally points exclusively because when a roamer comes into my system in his uncatchable interceptor the first thing he does is warp to a forsaken hub or sanctum while my butt is getting safe Nice job, now someone is running locators to find you. :V This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:04:33 - [15] - Quote The Mach wrote: Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it? I wouldn't really expect any word on this (if anything) to happen until/if the new POS/deployables start showing up next year. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:22:38 - [16] - Quote Lashawna Krause wrote: Querns wrote: The Mach wrote: Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it? I wouldn't really expect any word on this (if anything) to happen until/if the new POS/deployables start showing up next year. What makes you say year? Just assumption based on CCP's speed of smell release mechanics? Any word on Outpost/Outpost upgrade revamp? It was a Fanfest presentation for the new structures. It was the only time that anyone at CCP had even hinted at providing a way to defang AFK cloaking ships. Hence, I suspect that it won't really be visited until then. Also, I said "next year", not "in a year" -- 2015 is more than half over, after all. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1752	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:42:56 - [17] - Quote Sadew42 wrote: Gideon Enderas wrote: Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid. I have to agree with this. I daytrip, and when i get the time to search around for WHs, and get inside and map a few WH systems, I usually don't have much time to run the sites. If It was 16 horus from the time I found the WH, that'd be plenty, but that's usually not the case. Either please keep it at 24 hours, or allow the quantum flux generator to increase the lifetime of WHs. If the reduction of Null-Null and Null-C5 connections is to encourage use of the quantum flux generators, this might backfire as those are some of the more popular types of connections. Why not allow alliances to set the kinds of connections they would like to be more likely? But not guarantee that, of course. Could be done with different versions of the quantum flux generator. C5s are not the only wormholes in eve, and this change specifically targets them. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1753	Posted - 2015.07.08 22:14:15 - [18] - Quote Bienator II wrote: Querns wrote: Bienator II wrote: Quote: Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples) why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work. if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine. CCP's kills to LP/money calculation has been found to be pretty flawed in the past. the fw issue is fixed :shobon: This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1755	Posted - 2015.07.08 23:41:33 - [19] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: Ab'del Abu wrote: Heh nice try. Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever. If large groups such as yours were forced to hold more space, said space would be more easily contested. You catching my drift? Resources need to be limited, why would anyone fight over them if they weren't? That's some straight-forward logic that even you can understand. You're welcome. our unassailable space shrunk because owning half of the entire map was not worth the effort and was not vital when things become vital for us, anything in the way gets crushed but let us discuss how insane your claim that if we were to own more space, it would be easier for smaller groups to carve out their own portion of that space than if we did not own that space, elaborate on that, let us talk about how your tiny worthless corp would have an easier time not getting brutally murdered as an example to everyone else if you attacked space we want vs. space we dont want Oo tiny worthless corp ... you're getting personally very quickly there, I like your style. I also think you're confusing the words "vital" and "viable". If the CFC could have continued to hold that amount of space, they would have. You're pretty delusional if you think otherwise m8 Please tell us more about how the Imperium operates. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.