EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Summer of Sov

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)

CCP Phantom C C P C C P Alliance 5839	Posted - 2015.07.08 14:59:56 - [1] - Quote The big changes to nullsec sovereignty coming on July 14 have been outlined in several previous blogs, but there was one large part missing: PVE and space upgrades. Improvements are coming to PVE and space upgrades, for example: More anomalies in upgraded systems "Bad" space becoming more valuable and interesting to own and upgrade Increased potential of group activities through an higher cap for bigger player incursion fleets More data and relic sites Changes to wormhole spawn rates Read all about those lucrative improvements in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Summer of Sov - Nullsec PVE and Upgrades! CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager


Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire 14564	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:07:31 - [2] - Quote Woosh! GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' Twitter @Chribba

EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1087	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:10:18 - [3] - Quote Quote: Both of these upgrades are a bit below the curve nowadays, and so weGÇÖre making some fairly large changes to both. The spawn rates generated by all levels of Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays will be doubled in the July 14th Sov update. We will be keeping a close eye on the results of these changes to ensure that we donGÇÖt flood the market with the drops from these sites, and weGÇÖll step in and make more changes if needed. However we currently believe that these new spawn rates will be much closer to the ideal balance for these two system upgrades. How do these upgrades even work? That's part of the reason they're not common, we don't even really know if they work and the best current theory (there are a group of upgrade-only sites) means that the more popular they are, the more useless they are.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 698	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:15:59 - [4] - Quote Why do you keep making nullbears safer? You already made it so they can leave wormholes unspawned, now you decrease the number alltogether. Are wormholers killing too many ratting carriers? Is the CSM nullbloc too strong? SSC Brokering Service
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1742	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:18:57 - [5] - Quote Well, we sorta do know how they work. They just suck. Really bad. Change that pooling system. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Jay Amazingness Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:19:46 - [6] - Quote thank you.
Chitsa Jason Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 1325	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:21:34 - [7] - Quote There is entire gameplay involved around roaming our exits to null sec, you are basically nerfing it. I want names of those CSMs! Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
GimmeDatISK Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:23:04 - [8] - Quote Quote: Some members of the CSM (IGÇÖll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them. Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that small group. It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change? The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind.
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 114	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:25:23 - [9] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Why do you keep making nullbears safer? You already made it so they can leave wormholes unspawned, now you decrease the number alltogether. Are wormholers killing too many ratting carriers? Is the CSM nullbloc too strong? Doubtful, more likely they noticed nullsec powers are using them to get around the cancer-inducing aspects of Phoebe. It will mean less opportunities for wormholers to hunt day-trippers and come out to mess with ratters.
Bairfhionn Isu Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 74	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:26:28 - [10] - Quote Give us a goddamn reason what the problem about the WH is. You take away content from us or make it harder to get but you won't give a clear reason why. If it is a balancing problem with fozziesov, maybe the whole concept is flawed.

EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1087	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:27:44 - [11] - Quote The anom change is a great change, by the way, especially undoing the over-nerfing of garbage truesec in the original greyscale anom nerf. It might be tolerable to live in now.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1742	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:27:51 - [12] - Quote GimmeDatISK wrote: Quote: Some members of the CSM (IGÇÖll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them. Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that group. (small? big? who knows - you won't tell us) It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change? The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind. In this particular case, it was probably the correct decision. There is a way to invalidate the change in practical effect but it is unlikely the groups using it the most will. This was a pretty big asymmetric warfare multiplier that could be abused to hell and back. We abused it, others abused it more. Not saying I like the nerf but it probably was for the better. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 316	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:28:48 - [13] - Quote Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right? I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do. A Pirate Detection Array should only increase the chances that sites spawn in a system, however, it shouldn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes). You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period.
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1087	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:30:54 - [14] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right? I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes). You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period. uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post
GimmeDatISK Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:31:09 - [15] - Quote Aryth wrote: GimmeDatISK wrote: Quote: Some members of the CSM (IGÇÖll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them. Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that group. (small? big? who knows - you won't tell us) It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change? The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind. In this particular case, it was probably the correct decision. There is a way to invalidate the change in practical effect but it is unlikely the groups using it the most will. This was a pretty big asymmetric warfare multiplier that could be abused to hell and back. We abused it, others abused it more. Not saying I like the nerf but it probably was for the better. Yea, I should have clarified a bit - I'm indifferent to the change and must differ to those who use WHs. What really concerns me is how quickly this went through and we don't know who requested it. It reads like someone on CSM cried about this not benefiting them and CCP made this change for them.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3338	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:37:17 - [16] - Quote 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. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:39:21 - [17] - 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.
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1087	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:39:24 - [18] - 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. please provide how you calculate the isk value of the gain from the multiplier don't worry, i'll wait
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:40:24 - [19] - 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 - [20] - 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.

Gideon Enderas Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 0	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:41:39 - [21] - Quote Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1742	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:42:20 - [22] - Quote GimmeDatISK wrote: Aryth wrote: GimmeDatISK wrote: Quote: Some members of the CSM (IGÇÖll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them. Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that group. (small? big? who knows - you won't tell us) It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change? The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind. In this particular case, it was probably the correct decision. There is a way to invalidate the change in practical effect but it is unlikely the groups using it the most will. This was a pretty big asymmetric warfare multiplier that could be abused to hell and back. We abused it, others abused it more. Not saying I like the nerf but it probably was for the better. Yea, I should have clarified a bit - I'm indifferent to the change and must defer to those who use WHs. What really concerns me is how quickly this went through and we don't know who requested it. It reads like someone on CSM cried about this not benefiting them and CCP made this change for them. Sure, but that is also sorta how the CSM is supposed to work. They bring concerns to CCP's attention, CCP investigates, decides if it has merit and implements a change, or not. You could argue the process needs more transparency thought and I tend to agree. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 698	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:46:12 - [23] - 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. 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. SSC Brokering Service
Drew Li Space Exploitation Inc The Bastion 54	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:47:24 - [24] - Quote Make the defensive index values bleed into neighboring systems. That way really ****** systems can generate some defensive values without needing targeted explicitly for a defensive index. So 100% in primary system, 50% in neighboring systems, 25% a jump out form those, etc. More anoms in a single system will lead to more difficulty finding open ones. Using agents to provide missions that acted like current anoms would be preferrable. That would be an easy way to open up group ratting. Just give them really be tasks to complete. Agents could be set to limit available missions as well. Consider changing the Quantum Flux Generators to create static, unlimited mass wormholes that last for a specified duration. That way both sides can find it and go back and forth fighting without crashing the wormhole. They would then act like player incursions.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1474	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:47:46 - [25] - Quote I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody. Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat. The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there. You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes. Yaay!!!!
Gideon Enderas Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 0	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:48:10 - [26] - Quote 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:48:29 - [27] - 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 - [28] - 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.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 698	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:52:47 - [29] - Quote 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. SSC Brokering Service
DaReaper Net 7 2307	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:56:18 - [30] - Quote I'm only here to add a few comments: 1) The spawn rate for anoms sounds great. as a former sov holder that was one of my biggest issues, was having enough rats for my members to run. This would help some, but more is needed 2) I'll add to the echo chamber: why the null wh changes? they worked fine as they were... And my last comment will be on its own post, it needs to start alone. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

DaReaper Net 7 2307	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:57:14 - [31] - Quote 3) Consider removing moon goo and making it ACTIVE mining. Enough with the poassive mining, you wan tto see null sec mining rates go up? Give the miners in null the gold. T2 ore (former moon goo) needs to be added to null, and moon mining needs to die. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 114	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:57:28 - [32] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody. Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat. The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there. You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes. That'll be great just as soon as we can cyno into w-space with a supercap fleet. The space types are separate for a reason. Blend them at your peril.
Fredric Wolf Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team 94	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:57:46 - [33] - Quote When changing the amount of sites by security level and the increase of isk was there ever any talk of taking part of the isk and converting it into LP. It would help limit inflation as well as still provide a little extra income for null members.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1935	Posted - 2015.07.08 15:58:02 - [34] - Quote Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned. Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them... Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ? Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Azrael Sheriph Original Sinners The Bastion 4	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:00:42 - [35] - Quote We are investigating an update pass on the ESS in which we would simplify its operation by converting it to use the Entosis Link for sharing and stealing, restrict its deployment locations somewhat, and increase the potential value to match the higher risk. The ESS has great potential for allowing Sov holders to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with and receive rewards that match. A revamped ESS also has potential to provide excellent content for roaming PVP forces as well. - See more at: http://evenews24.com/2015/07/08/dev-blog-summer-of-sov-nullsec-pve-and-upgrades/#sthash.x9uFBcfB.dpuf why not use the hacking moduals instead rather than the modual that cost 100mill each. that way you can 1 use the mini game.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1474	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:00:49 - [36] - Quote Altrue wrote: Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned. Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them... Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ? More null to highs would be a backdoor buff to freighters and logistics. It would kill the attempted progress towards null industry. Yaay!!!!
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 164	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:02:04 - [37] - Quote Quote: Pirate Detection Array Changes The goals of these changes are to: Obey Goons Homogenize nullsec by making sec. status irrelevant FTFY
Edwin Wyatt In Utter Darkness 70	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:02:37 - [38] - Quote 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:03:21 - [39] - 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.
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 114	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:03:31 - [40] - Quote DaReaper wrote: 3) Consider removing moon goo and making it ACTIVE mining. Enough with the poassive mining, you wan tto see null sec mining rates go up? Give the miners in null the gold. T2 ore (former moon goo) needs to be added to null, and moon mining needs to die. This change alone would be a massive shock to the nullsec ecosystem, in a good way. No more could any major power sit idly by controlling a moon empire butressed by a massive supercap fleet whilst safely staging in npc nulsec and immune to the changes in the new sov system. (PL and BL are the worst offenders since they rarely control sov in the area of their moons.) Add to this the ability to use Entosis on npc null and lowsec stations and this might be a good system.

Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 316	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:03:55 - [41] - Quote EvilweaselSA wrote: Ab'del Abu wrote: Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right? I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes). You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period. uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post 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.
Freelancer117 so you want to be a Hero 294	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:04:25 - [42] - Quote Quote: sets of changes that we are implementing in Aegis This is basically all the Aegis update is, hardly worthy calling it an expansion. What ever happened with bold ideas for like implementing Treaties or a Mercenary Marketplace ? Source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sovereignty-breaking-the-chains http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/with-friends-like-these...-new-ally-system I would like to see at least one proper Expansion per year, and then these 6-7 weekly updates. Why am I paying a minimum of Gé¼ 131.40 for 12 months when all we get is database number tweaks ? Regards, a Freelancer The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Azrael Sheriph Original Sinners The Bastion 4	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:05:48 - [43] - Quote Also why not give us a modual that can create a wh to a constellation and or collapse an existing WH without shoving mass though it. mabey take like 1 hour to make one. use something juicy like a super or something.
captain foivos State War Academy Caldari State 282	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:06:27 - [44] - Quote These wormhole changes are dumb and reduce the opportunities for people to shoot each other, which would be bad enough even if this game weren't totally stagnant after Phoebe. There are better ways of preventing large fleets from using nullsec to nullsec connections than simply getting rid of them.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:06:31 - [45] - 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.
Edwin Wyatt In Utter Darkness 70	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:07:01 - [46] - Quote Urziel99 wrote: DaReaper wrote: 3) Consider removing moon goo and making it ACTIVE mining. Enough with the poassive mining, you wan tto see null sec mining rates go up? Give the miners in null the gold. T2 ore (former moon goo) needs to be added to null, and moon mining needs to die. This change alone would be a massive shock to the nullsec ecosystem, in a good way. No more could any major power sit idly by controlling a moon empire butressed by a massive supercap fleet whilst safely staging in npc nulsec and immune to the changes in the new sov system. (PL and BL are the worst offenders since they rarely control sov in the area of their moons.) Add to this the ability to use Entosis on npc null and lowsec stations and this might be a good system. I would love to have seen the Entosis module used in FW!
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 115	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:07:24 - [47] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Altrue wrote: Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned. Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them... Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ? More null to highs would be a backdoor buff to freighters and logistics. It would kill the attempted progress towards null industry. The concept of destructible stations killed that long before any wormhole change ever could. That CCP or anyone for that matter thinks any sane industrialist is going to risk their bpo's and assets in something that can be dfestroyed and run the risk of loosing it all in a matter of days is downright laughable. To say nothing of the cost of any upgrades for the new structures.
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1334	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:08:21 - [48] - Quote CCP wrote: Team Five 0 is hoping to be able to take what we have learned from developing Burner Missions and combine it with the new NPCs and AI under development by Team Space Glitter to create some compelling new content that would only be available to groups of pilots working together within Sov Null. Our leading concepts at this point make use of an Incursion-like scaling payout based on character numbers. Drifter incursions confirmed? CCP wrote: We are also making some slight tweaks to the Quantum Flux Generator system upgrade in our July 14th release. These are intended as a slight buff to anyone who uses Quantum Flux Generators for PVE daytripping, while also addressing concerns expressed by some CSM members. With these changes we still donGÇÖt expect that most alliances will find the Quantum Flux Generators to be extremely valuable, but hopefully their PVE value should increase somewhat. Ok. Details? You went and said you're tweaking it. Then didn't say how. tia http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1743	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:09:03 - [49] - Quote Altrue wrote: Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned. Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them... Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ? Likely a pool bonus tweak. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:09:23 - [50] - 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.

Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 316	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:09:37 - [51] - Quote DaReaper wrote: 1) The spawn rate for anoms sounds great. as a former sov holder that was one of my biggest issues, was having enough rats for my members to run. This would help some, but more is needed I call bullshit on that. Back in the day Tribal Band (in the end it had ~4k members) lived almost completely off Period Basis, which is a comparatively small region. Only few of those systems were actually upgraded and it was still a non-issue to chain-run high-end anomalies in systems with good truesec. People should be forced to travel around to find PvE content and make isk rather than sit in a single system and make money with virtually zero risk involved.
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1334	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:10:24 - [52] - Quote Drew Li wrote: Consider changing the Quantum Flux Generators to create static, unlimited mass wormholes that last for a specified duration. That way both sides can find it and go back and forth fighting without crashing the wormhole. They would then act like player incursions. inb4 titans in your wormhole. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 699	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:11:12 - [53] - Quote 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. SSC Brokering Service
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11703	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:11:14 - [54] - Quote EvilweaselSA wrote: The anom change is a great change, by the way, especially undoing the over-nerfing of garbage truesec in the original greyscale anom nerf. It might be tolerable to live in now. Amen
Edwin Wyatt In Utter Darkness 70	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:13:06 - [55] - Quote Querns wrote: 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. You looking at this a prespective of isk in game, Im looking at this as a perspective of isk in players pocket. PVE is about generating income, and has nothing to do with the overall amount of isk in the game. Moon mining regardless if it generates actual isk, puts income into players pockets without much effort. If CCP wants to balance isk in the game, they need to learn a little something about economic inflation and not punish players putting in the effort and time. Maybe economics 101 might help.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 316	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:13:19 - [56] - Quote 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 ...
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:13:55 - [57] - 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 - [58] - 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.
DaReaper Net 7 2308	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:16:12 - [59] - 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. moon mining is not an isk faucet. You gather the resource of moon goo and you sell it to anothe rplayer. No new isk is added to the economy. So no, moon mining is not a faucet.. A Faucet is a device that adds isk to the economy out of thin air. Pirate bounties form killing NPC's is a faucet. A Sink is something that removes isk from the economy... NPC sell orders is a sink, taxes are a sink, fees are a sink. Moon mining is merly a passive income source. it only adds moon goo, not isk. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11703	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:18:53 - [60] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right? I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do. A Pirate Detection Array should only increase the chances that sites spawn in a system, however, it shouldn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes). That would make people spread out and travel, the Faction Warfare and high sec incursions. Null anomalies don't pay what wormhole anoms do and other forms of k space pve are competitive with null anoms. The ONLY way to make a living off null anoms is chaining them unlike wormhole anoms that can pay enough to be worthwhile before they run out Without a significant rise in the value of each null anom, The end result of what you propose would be a replay of what happened when this change went into effect.: ie less null activity rather than more.

Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1334	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:20:04 - [61] - 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. You have literally no clue what you are talking about. I'm feeling generous because of so many dev blogs. So I'll help you to understand. An isk faucet is an activity which literally generates isk out of nothing. Bounties (ratting) and NPC buy orders are isk faucets. Moon mining generates only an item, and at a set rate per moon. The defining attribute as to whether something is an isk faucet or sink is simple: does it create or destroy isk? Any amount of materials (minerals, ores, gases, etc) is irrelevant. Moon mining is passive income once you sell the goo for isk. But it is not an isk faucet. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
DaReaper Net 7 2308	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:20:13 - [62] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: DaReaper wrote: 1) The spawn rate for anoms sounds great. as a former sov holder that was one of my biggest issues, was having enough rats for my members to run. This would help some, but more is needed I call bullshit on that. Back in the day Tribal Band (in the end it had ~4k members) lived almost completely off Period Basis, which is a comparatively small region. Only few of those systems were actually upgraded and it was still a non-issue to chain-run high-end anomalies in systems with good truesec. People should be forced to travel around to find PvE content and make isk rather than sit in a single system and make money with virtually zero risk involved. we did, i rented 5 systems in WC, and you would not believe the bitching my people did when someone was runnign sanctums. The worst bitching was form the miners when someone took there ABC ore from the anomalies.. gods i wanted to smack people OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Edwin Wyatt In Utter Darkness 70	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:21:18 - [63] - Quote DaReaper wrote: 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. moon mining is not an isk faucet. You gather the resource of moon goo and you sell it to anothe rplayer. No new isk is added to the economy. So no, moon mining is not a faucet.. A Faucet is a device that adds isk to the economy out of thin air. Pirate bounties form killing NPC's is a faucet. A Sink is something that removes isk from the economy... NPC sell orders is a sink, taxes are a sink, fees are a sink. Moon mining is merly a passive income source. it only adds moon goo, not isk. To bad CCP doesn't know anything about isk sinks. Why does it still costs 1 Billion isk to create an alliance, why does it only cost 2m per month for each member corp in an alliance. Their is better ways to balance isk in the game instead of nerfing PVE activities. And you have been brain washed by nullsec holders. Moon mining in its current form is broken, and is the stem of all issues in null today. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 699	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:22:22 - [64] - Quote Querns wrote: 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. 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. SSC Brokering Service
DaReaper Net 7 2308	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:22:53 - [65] - Quote Edwin Wyatt wrote: Querns wrote: 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. You looking at this a prespective of isk in game, Im looking at this as a perspective of isk in players pocket. PVE is about generating income, and has nothing to do with the overall amount of isk in the game. Moon mining regardless if it generates actual isk, puts income into players pockets without much effort. If CCP wants to balance isk in the game, they need to learn a little something about economic inflation and not punish players putting in the effort and time. Maybe economics 101 might help. I still don;t think you understand economics 101. However, i agree with you moon mining needs to STOP BEING PASSIVE. It no longer generates fights, no one cares, its time to end it and let the miners mine it. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
TurboX3 Hax. Wrecked. 129	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:23:28 - [66] - Quote CCP - WHY WHY WHY WHY DO YOU DO THIS.......... I disagree with the CSM members "A significant decrease in the spawn rate of direct Nullsec to Nullsec wormhole connections". This is OUTRAGEOUS - keep it as it is.... No Trolling Please
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1744	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:27:30 - [67] - Quote Edwin Wyatt wrote: Querns wrote: 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. You looking at this a prespective of isk in game, Im looking at this as a perspective of isk in players pocket. PVE is about generating income, and has nothing to do with the overall amount of isk in the game. Moon mining regardless if it generates actual isk, puts income into players pockets without much effort. If CCP wants to balance isk in the game, they need to learn a little something about economic inflation and not punish players putting in the effort and time. Maybe economics 101 might help. if you are going to try to be smug about your economic arguments you should at least know the correct definitions of the terms you are using. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 116	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:27:48 - [68] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: 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. It's just as much a hindrance to us using w-space and k to k holes to power project from nullsec as well. And I suspect that nullsec was the real target of this change. W-space dwellers are taking collateral damage from the side of the sledgehammer.
Javajunky Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 150	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:27:49 - [69] - Quote Looks like someone is worried about null sec actually logging back in. +1 for talking to the business side of the house....
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:28:10 - [70] - 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.

Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1334	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:29:48 - [71] - Quote 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.) http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Desert Ice78 Gryphons of the Western Wind 505	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:30:07 - [72] - Quote Well the anomaly changes read like an almost complete reversal of Greyscales failed nerf from 2011. Maybe all that empty space will be viable again. Hate to rub it in....actually no, I love doing it actually. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:33:49 - [73] - 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.
Syrias Bizniz KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 412	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:35:02 - [74] - Quote Was almost pissing my self in excitement on the +75% anomalies thing, left disappointed when 0 (ZERO) Rally Points were added.
Kant Boards GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 31	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:36:12 - [75] - Quote 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. Sorry about your low-risk pvp
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1092	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:36:55 - [76] - Quote Edwin Wyatt wrote: You looking at this a prespective of isk in game, Im looking at this as a perspective of isk in players pocket. PVE is about generating income, and has nothing to do with the overall amount of isk in the game. Moon mining regardless if it generates actual isk, puts income into players pockets without much effort. If CCP wants to balance isk in the game, they need to learn a little something about economic inflation and not punish players putting in the effort and time. Maybe economics 101 might help. it is ... problematic ... for your argument when you botch the basic meaning of the terms being used and then try to talk down to people if you thought that moon mining was an isk faucet you have a fundamental lack of understanding of, well, anything related to balancing the economy
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1744	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:38:48 - [77] - Quote I would also point out that nerf was directed at PL and us. The only two major groups using that mechanic to hit remote hostiles regularly. We are ok with it, I am sure PL might be a bit miffed though. There is a compensating control but I don't think we will roll it out yet. Maybe later though! Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11703	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:39:31 - [78] - Quote 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.
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1092	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:40:16 - [79] - Quote 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
Hendrink Collie Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club 47	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:40:18 - [80] - Quote 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. To be fair, no one in the current null situation has even remote chance of taking down your fort. I'd be pretty proud of that too.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11703	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:40:42 - [81] - Quote 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:41:09 - [82] - 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.
Insidious Hax. Wrecked. 6	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:42:59 - [83] - Quote shame about the direct null sec wormhole nerf, its literally the only thing that makes eve interesting
Hendrink Collie Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club 47	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:43:14 - [84] - Quote Kant Boards 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. Sorry about your low-risk pvp What, don't you know that boosted nano cruisers are totally balanced and high-risk pvp ships that are super easy to tackle and kill.
Lim Yoona 12	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:44:52 - [85] - Quote 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
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:45:35 - [86] - 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.
Lim Yoona 12	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:48:11 - [87] - Quote Insidious wrote: shame about the null sec wormhole nerf, its literally the only thing that makes eve interesting * nerf local (anonymize it, delay it whatever) * nerf watch list (slightly irrelevant considering titans and supers will be useless) lets hope the random fights over entosis links will be interesting.. Have you tried fighting each other in wormhole space?
Gideon Enderas Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 1	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:50:31 - [88] - Quote Hendrink Collie wrote: Kant Boards 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. Sorry about your low-risk pvp What, don't you know that boosted nano cruisers are totally balanced and high-risk pvp ships that are super easy to tackle and kill. So, what I'm hearing from you is that the issue is actually the current meta? We often risk fighting heavily outnumbered and outgunned, as a result we pick ships that we can easily engage and disengage.
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:52:55 - [89] - Quote Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one. Why not replace anoms with missions? A few advantages: - Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell)
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11703	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:53:35 - [90] - 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 Oh me too lol, which is why I mentioned named Rally Points.

Hendrink Collie Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club 47	Posted - 2015.07.08 16:57:27 - [91] - Quote Gideon Enderas wrote: Hendrink Collie wrote: Kant Boards 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. Sorry about your low-risk pvp What, don't you know that boosted nano cruisers are totally balanced and high-risk pvp ships that are super easy to tackle and kill. So, what I'm hearing from you is that the issue is actually the current meta? We often risk fighting heavily outnumbered and outgunned, as a result we pick ships that we can easily engage and disengage. Actually, yes. And risk aversion by both parties. One side for dogpiling and the other side for picking ships that snipe off tackle and can easily avoid fights. We all suck is what i'm trying to say.
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 172	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:00:00 - [92] - Quote Damn! CCP Seagull been spanking the devs hard for them to put out so many dev blogs lately! Good job guys!
The Mach STEEL CITY. Illuminati Confirmed. 5	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:00:46 - [93] - Quote Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:04:33 - [94] - 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.
Lashawna Krause GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:15:10 - [95] - Quote 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?
alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:16:01 - [96] - Quote EvilweaselSA wrote: The anom change is a great change, by the way, especially undoing the over-nerfing of garbage truesec in the original greyscale anom nerf. It might be tolerable to live in now. PB/Fade rejoice!
Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 49	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:16:57 - [97] - Quote Any news on the Relic sites for the rogue drones? If not could we at least have a small chance of one of the other pirate faction's sites spawning?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1750	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:22:38 - [98] - 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.
Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 285	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:25:44 - [99] - Quote Overall I like most of these changes. I think it's a good start. I don't see anything in these changes about being able to remove or offline specific IHUB upgrades. Considering how the current system works, once they are plugged in they cant be removed, and the upkeep cost keeps going up. This is why many sov holders had multiple IHUBS in system so they could online one with limited system upgrades for ratting/mining bonuses, but switch on a different IHUB if they needed more expensive bonuses - like Supercap building, Cyno Jammer, Jump Bridge/Beacon. Since the new system only allows one IHUB per system, how will we be able to micromanage this? Can we plug and unplug upgrades? Turn them on/off individually? It's kinda important to know this. Adding more bonuses to make lower truesec systems more attractive - finally an incentive to actually want to take sov space, and upgrade it; as well as partially addressing the population density issue for systems to be able to support more pilots in a smaller footprint. Whether it will be enough incentive for smaller groups to try to grab currently unwanted space remains to be seen - but at least you're finally showing us a carrot instead of just beating us with a stick. The increased bonuses from the Pirate Detection Array, Survey Networks, Entrapment Arrays all sound good. For the Data/Relic Sites, the value of most of that loot has ALREADY been depressed, and people have been complaining about it for months. The last change from Team Space Glitter did nothing to fix the issues. So start planning to step in and make changes NOW, because it's already bad. For reference, please read this thread. Will the Survey Network also increase the chance of spawning Sleeper Cache or Ghost Sites? Keep in mind that truesec affects more than anomalies and rat difficulty. Sounds like the mining yields won't be adjusted from the Ore Prospecting upgrades. How will lower truesec systems be upgraded to increase Planetary Interaction yield, or Booster Gas sites? Pretty pissed off at the wormhole changes to be honest. Absolutely no discussion on it publicly - so basically specific CSM members complained, and you're making more changes to increase safety for nullsec at the expense of wormholers. At least this devblog has more information than the patchnotes- and I think it's the lack of transparency that has most of us upset. Would definitely want to see some deployment location restrictions for the ESS. Placing the ESS inside an active anomaly, then purposefully spawning multiple waves to protect it; or putting it on a POS to guard it is clever, but the goal is to make the inhabitants actually undock to defend their riches. I'd like to see the ESS limited to being anchored on a planet, so these kind of tricks are harder to do. Whether or not it can be on grid with one of the new Citadel structures is another discussion - especially if it has to be gunned to fire at something. Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 172	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:32:32 - [100] - Quote Azrael Sheriph wrote: We are investigating an update pass on the ESS in which we would simplify its operation by converting it to use the Entosis Link for sharing and stealing, restrict its deployment locations somewhat, and increase the potential value to match the higher risk. The ESS has great potential for allowing Sov holders to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with and receive rewards that match. A revamped ESS also has potential to provide excellent content for roaming PVP forces as well. - See more at: http://evenews24.com/2015/07/08/dev-blog-summer-of-sov-nullsec-pve-and-upgrades/#sthash.x9uFBcfB.dpuf why not use the hacking moduals instead rather than the modual that cost 100mill each. that way you can 1 use the mini game. this sounds like a great idea!

Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1692	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:35:09 - [101] - Quote Ransu Asanari wrote: Would definitely want to see some deployment location restrictions for the ESS. Placing the ESS inside an active anomaly, then purposefully spawning multiple waves to protect it There's no reason to put in arbitrary restrictions when a more natural solution is available: Why wouldn't rats do their level best to destroy something that makes killing them more attractive? Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 250	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:38:56 - [102] - Quote Aryth wrote: I would also point out that nerf was directed at PL and us. The only two major groups using that mechanic to hit remote hostiles regularly. We are ok with it, I am sure PL might be a bit miffed though. There is a compensating control but I don't think we will roll it out yet. Maybe later though! The big thing was "PL always won because of Slowcats/Supers/Titans" then Pheobe came and we starting using wormholes and subcaps We still killed ** tons of capitals using ALL SUBCAPS Now, it has morphed into PL can't login or I might lose my fleet boo hoo boo hoo Next, fatty gay will apply to gate jumps We will find a way around this, abuse the living ** out of something else, we are good at it, be sure of that
Denidil Cascade Crest 645	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:46:37 - [103] - Quote EvilweaselSA wrote: Ab'del Abu wrote: Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right? I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes). You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period. uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post he's been rage shitposting on Reddit about this too. we just had to downvote him to oblivion and tell him to shut up and go back to his wormhole Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Tribal Trogdor The Lobster Farm 6	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:49:14 - [104] - Quote Wormhole groups crying about how safe null is. Good laughs
Alexis Nightwish 308	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:54:09 - [105] - Quote Dev Blog wrote: In this release, we are increasing the number of guaranteed anom spawns provided by each Pirate Detection Array level from 4 to 7. This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase). This allows more pilots to operate at their current levels within the same solar system, increasing potential population density. Translation: We here at CCP can see the massive amount of ISK that is generated at will by the players via the PDA. Since we hold the interests of SOV nullsec well above all the other areas of space, we're going to increase the ISK faucet per system by 75%. By doing so we increase population density so nullbears won't have to leave the safety of their jump bridge network to make dank, afk ISK. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Denidil Cascade Crest 645	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:56:26 - [106] - Quote Increasing the number of ratting sites in 0.0 systems decreases the incentive to log over/jump clone to play incursions. increasing populations in 0.0 systems means more pvp targets. quit your "zomg nullbears so safe" bitching. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
SpaceSaft Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 155	Posted - 2015.07.08 17:56:57 - [107] - Quote Not feeling it. The space compression and shrinking of difference between true and less valueable nullsec might be nice and so are the value buffs to some upgrades and the ESS, but I doubt very much they're going to make anyone move to null. It's certainly not motivating to fight people 15 jumps away over whatever slight difference in bounties they might get. We'll see. The UI is still bad.
Sadew42 SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club 14	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:17:24 - [108] - 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. 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.
Saisin State War Academy Caldari State 269	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:21:52 - [109] - Quote At last, the ESS revamp is coming! This was the subject that started me posting on these forums, and I am glad to see CCP acknowledging that defenders have it too easy today with the capability to deploy them in anomalies and get the rewards from a simple pod! Can't wait! "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. solo? There is a new hope...
Cpt Buckshot Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 24	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:25:48 - [110] - Quote Reserved *** speechless atm !

Saisin State War Academy Caldari State 269	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:30:50 - [111] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: 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. I would disagree with that. CCP has increased the ratio of WHNull Sec exit on July 4th, from what the patch notes are saying, and they are just changing the duration of NS WH from 24 hours to 16 hours, which is not a bad change. It will allow K346 and their likes to cycle more often, not less into NS. I also like the reduction of direct NS to NS WHs. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. solo? There is a new hope...
Akrasjel Lanate Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance 1789	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:41:05 - [112] - Quote Quote: Team Five 0 is hoping to be able to take what we have learned from developing Burner Missions and combine it with the new NPCs and AI under development by Team Space Glitter to create some compelling new content that would only be available to groups of pilots working together within Sov Null. Drifter Incursions only for null you say... Akrasjel Lanate Member of Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance Citizen of Solitude
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1752	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:42:56 - [113] - 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.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 122	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:44:42 - [114] - Quote Quote: This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase) This sounds great, but surely your statistics show that there is a huge drop off in the number of anomalies that are run below Forsaken Hubs. So in the example Quote: +2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. Only 7 of those are sites that will likely be run. Are you looking into the reasons why players have deemed half of the anomalies in a system to be useless?
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 706	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:48:52 - [115] - Quote Saisin wrote: CCP has increased the ratio of WHNull Sec exit on July 4th, from what the patch notes are saying source? SSC Brokering Service
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 92	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:51:16 - [116] - Quote The CSM is an elected representative body, and as such any change implementation sought, recommended, and most certainly approved/implemented absolutely MUST be made public, and most certainly IS NOT voluntary disclosure by the CSM members. I assume this is just the ignorance of the dev that put together the blog, but seriously, name the CSM members making the proposal along with the justification in the actual blog now please. Don't make us read random forums or have to go digging to find out. The CSM members are there because they have been elected and should be given the due credit or criticism for their recommendations. It's not like they were part of an anonymous testing group, or a few concerned pod pilots that came forward from the shadows. Make it so, now please.
Di Mulle 107	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:52:36 - [117] - 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. You, the young padavan, are apparently still too young to decide who needs to understand the game better. ISK faucet is commonly understood as activity which is rewarded with ISK by a game - or you may say, by CCP. So PVE activity is a pure ISK faucet. Moon mining is not rewarded with ISK by the game. Moon goo is sold to other players, so it is not an ISK faucet, but an exchange of ISK. No new ISK, not even 0.01 appear in the game due to moon mining. I am not arguing there whether moon mining is good or bad. But ISK faucet it certainly is not. `<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>`
V1P3RR Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:56:01 - [118] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Quote: This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase) This sounds great, but surely your statistics show that there is a huge drop off in the number of anomalies that are run below Forsaken Hubs. So in the example Quote: +2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. Only 7 of those are sites that will likely be run. Are you looking into the reasons why players have deemed half of the anomalies in a system to be useless? so much this...
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 328	Posted - 2015.07.08 18:58:04 - [119] - Quote Urziel99 wrote: DaReaper wrote: 3) Consider removing moon goo and making it ACTIVE mining. Enough with the poassive mining, you wan tto see null sec mining rates go up? Give the miners in null the gold. T2 ore (former moon goo) needs to be added to null, and moon mining needs to die. This change alone would be a massive shock to the nullsec ecosystem, in a good way. No more could any major power sit idly by controlling a moon empire butressed by a massive supercap fleet whilst safely staging in npc nulsec and immune to the changes in the new sov system. (PL and BL are the worst offenders since they rarely control sov in the area of their moons.) Add to this the ability to use Entosis on npc null and lowsec stations and this might be a good system. How dare you judge us. We don't 'rarely control sov'. We only 'accidentally' sov.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11704	Posted - 2015.07.08 19:07:19 - [120] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Quote: This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase) This sounds great, but surely your statistics show that there is a huge drop off in the number of anomalies that are run below Forsaken Hubs. So in the example Quote: +2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. Only 7 of those are sites that will likely be run. Are you looking into the reasons why players have deemed half of the anomalies in a system to be useless? This may be true where you are at, but actually people do run other anom types ever since CCP upped the escalation chances across the board. Forsaken Rally points have always been good and knowledgeable anom runners do them instead of F.Hubs because of the awfulness of the 9/10 (8/10s across the board have horrible drop rates, but it's better than doing a 30 jump Fleet Staging point). And Forlorn Hubs pay better while being easy to afktar or sniper-rat in. Regular Hubs are great for new players. The only 'useless' addition is the Forlorn Rally point and all the "Hidden" null anoms, those need some work.

Anita Name Perkone Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.07.08 19:09:50 - [121] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Quote: So in the example [quote]+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 123	Posted - 2015.07.08 19:16:45 - [122] - Quote Anita Name wrote: I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs I'm not complaining that they are increasing the number of anomalies, I'm wondering if they are looking into patterns of what anomalies are actually run and the underlying reasoning.
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 590	Posted - 2015.07.08 19:18:20 - [123] - Quote Hmm... I tend to think that these proposed PVE changes will end up making null even more stagnant, and encourage less PVP, in the long run. Most players only have a limited amount of RL time to spend in gaming, and more time spent running PVE missions means less time spent in PVP. If CCP really wants to encourage more PVP, then it should be looking to improve the ISK payout to individual players on PVP activities rather than trying to turn null PVP players into mission-running and mining nullbears. Essentially, I believe that the proposed changes will just be pushing undesired high sec gameplay, ie. less PVP, into null sec. Also, I think that these changes are also going to further escalate the supercap proliferation problem, since the significant increase in alliance income and materials directly fuels additional supercap production. Note, too, that FozzieSov is already going to have serious impacts on null sec gameplay, particularly due to the contraction of held space by the alliances. This is likely to result in less PVP, too, due to increased buffer space between the alliances and less contested space, and due to the exponentially increased defensive strength that comes with fewer held systems, under the new FozzieSov system. Less alliance PVP means fewer supercap losses, which, ofc, exacerbates the supercap proliferation problem. Adding these proposed PVE incentives immediately on top of FozzieSov, without first waiting to see the result of the FozzieSov changes, is a very problematical decision. In short, I'd suggest waiting for 3-6 months to see how FozzieSov actually affects null sec gameplay, before even considering to throw these PVE changes into the mix.
Alexander the Great Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 168	Posted - 2015.07.08 19:18:59 - [124] - Quote While you're looking at anoms I have one more thing to suggest: remove escalation chance from anoms completely Especially it you're increasing spawn rate. Make exploration viable again!
Anita Name Perkone Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.07.08 19:22:46 - [125] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Anita Name wrote: I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs I'm not complaining that they are increasing the number of anomalies, I'm wondering if they are looking into patterns of what anomalies are actually run and the underlying reasoning. Then you should look at what you quoted. +2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. Will likely turn into 1 ring sanctum, 1 gate haven, 2 gas havens, 2 forsaken hubs, 4 forsaken rally points all of which are commonly run, for an extra 10 anoms per -1 system. Even a -.1 system gets an extra 7 "good" anoms. You should know very well that gas havens and forsaken rally points are being run, if not only because the "good" gate havens / fhubs / ring sanctums are taken. They're going to just add 15 more of those.
Mostlyharmlesss GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 178	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:14:02 - [126] - Quote I don't get it. Where's the incentive? From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk. Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3789	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:25:43 - [127] - Quote So CCP adds more PvE... ...in nullsec. Right where it is needed. 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3338	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:35:46 - [128] - Quote 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 since payout caps, safety buffer and reasonable market averages are used. you think CCP doesn't exactly know how much a site is worth in ISK average? or how much a system is worth total with min/max upgrades per day? Furthermore the pvp modifier would not be the only modifier. If you kill 10 isharts per day you should not spawn 10 new sites if 10 sites are more worth than 10 ishtars (and they are). If you lose more isk with your exploit than gain from it there is no exploit. Its how bounties and lp payouts have been fixed. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 338	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:37:00 - [129] - Quote GimmeDatISK wrote: Quote: Some members of the CSM (IGÇÖll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them. Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that group. (small? big? who knows - you won't tell us) It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change? The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind. It was being abused. CCP balanced it. Deal. Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1745	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:38:12 - [130] - Quote Mostlyharmlesss wrote: I don't get it. Where's the incentive? From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk. Nah, while we do benefit, really crap regions benefit wayyyy more. Provi? Pure Blind? The entire SE quad? A whole lot of space we wouldn't wipe our boots on is now worth living in. That is good overall. You could argue this is a net nerf for us if you consider the ratio of how good Dek is compared to say Scalding Pass. I am not arguing that it is but you could make that point. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Inquisitor Tyr Phantom Squad The Blood Covenant 73	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:38:28 - [131] - Quote Will Ship Spinning feed into the Activity Defense Multipliers ? I believe ship spinning and sitting AFK in station are important indicators of nullsec activity and that systems with a high number of AFK bittervets should receive significant bonuses to their Defence Multiplier.
Zifrian Licentia Ex Vereor Phoebe Freeport Republic 1647	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:39:34 - [132] - Quote Like the idea of coop pve in null. I too dislike anoms for this purpose and think this is something really needed. I think the idea of the ESS has come and gone. Using an entosis is a bad idea as well. I appreciate the innovative approach but I just don't think it works. It's too much hassle and just easier not to deploy. All the other changes I like. Good job! GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3338	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:39:52 - [133] - Quote EvilweaselSA 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. please provide how you calculate the isk value of the gain from the multiplier don't worry, i'll wait i can't do that since i don't know the pve value of a nullsec system. CCP does, otherwise they couldn't even ask their "economy" experts to look over the new changes. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 247	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:49:41 - [134] - Quote Mostlyharmlesss wrote: I don't get it. Where's the incentive? From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk. Those areas aren't being utilized because the cost of living in and defending them (beyond passive Dominion-era HP grind defense) is greater than the income they produce. These changes are intended to increase the income from such areas such that with some effort put into it, they can support pilots living and dying there, making it much more likely that pilots actually will move there.
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:51:01 - [135] - Quote I would not worry too much about swamping the markets with deadspace gear from the increase in site spawns. The spawns will only happen in systems with these upgrades installed, and compared to the absolute avalanche generated by anomaly escalations it will be a drop in the bucket. Pith X-type hardeners are so cheap they are showing on common ratting fits for cripes sakes. As for hacking and archeology sites, I guess you will have to wait and see. There is a lot more demand for their outputs. If the pace of ship destruction picks up and the amount of ultra-safe space decreases it could help quite nicely. This is not to say I am complaining that exploration is broken. I made good money off of it and have since 2011. But the changes you are making here will have local (probably positive) impact without even getting close to the scope needed to change the overall market.
Zappity WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 2339	Posted - 2015.07.08 20:59:47 - [136] - Quote Impressive devblog. Thanks for going over the results of the Mosaic changes - very interesting. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
SCom Thor Erebus Innovations Erebus Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.07.08 21:38:58 - [137] - Quote I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around. Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC. No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today. Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game. FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion. Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer. Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it.
DaReaper Net 7 2316	Posted - 2015.07.08 21:42:01 - [138] - Quote SCom Thor wrote: I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around. Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC. No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today. Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game. FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion. Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer. Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it. Why do you want to make alliances have to spread out more? An alliance should have no issues making everything it needs in a single constellation, or region. Many alliances peppered all over, a better null sec makes. I think it might be you thats has no idea what you are talking about. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1753	Posted - 2015.07.08 22:14:15 - [139] - 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.
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 357	Posted - 2015.07.08 22:16:01 - [140] - Quote Great changes to the livability of null sec space so far, though I have mixed feelings about the N->N wormhole nerf. I am also worried that there is going to be an increase in the incoming isk to the economy with these major null sec PVE buffs. IMO...nerf high sec incursions to compensate, as mad as this would make some groups... In addition, the data/relic site loot economy is already tanked, and will likely fall even further with this change. I suggest lowering the base spawn rate in all of null sec to compensate for the added rate in upgraded systems... Finally, add in a delayed local chat to all of null sec please. Been asking for the change for years ayyyy just do it.

Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 323	Posted - 2015.07.08 23:26:26 - [141] - Quote 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
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 323	Posted - 2015.07.08 23:27:25 - [142] - Quote Denidil wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: Ab'del Abu wrote: Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right? I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes). You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period. uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post he's been rage shitposting on Reddit about this too. we just had to downvote him to oblivion and tell him to shut up and go back to his wormhole I made an argument, I didn't shitpost. But thanks for your valuable input ...
Galphii Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn 313	Posted - 2015.07.08 23:36:12 - [143] - Quote I'd like to read more about what Team Space Glitter has accomplished so far with AI and NPC improvements in a devblog, at their convenience :) "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1755	Posted - 2015.07.08 23:41:33 - [144] - 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.
Aneu Angellus Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 66	Posted - 2015.07.08 23:57:19 - [145] - Quote PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot.
Gideon Enderas Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 5	Posted - 2015.07.09 00:51:02 - [146] - Quote Aneu Angellus wrote: PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1747	Posted - 2015.07.09 00:54:22 - [147] - Quote Gideon Enderas wrote: Aneu Angellus wrote: PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair. Welcome to our world since....forever Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2540	Posted - 2015.07.09 01:23:27 - [148] - Quote S199's are not that prevalent, and are no harder to collapse than a N432 or K162 to C5. Really, who is giving you this information, or are you guys literally blind and dumb? I rarely find an S199 when I go to nullsec. Most wormholes are C5's, followed by C1-2-3's, and very, very rarely a B499 or N944. So, great, you are cutting down on S199's which are already quite rare. Good work on making pirate detection arrays more efficient. You know whatthe hardest part about ganking caps in nulsec is? When there is 60 anoms in system, it's hard to filter through for the Hubs and Sanctums past all the abandoned low-grade chaff. Ratters best protection is having more sigs in the list, more green dots on the overview, because it's harder for a hunter to find them amngst the debris. So, good work, CCP. Nullsec is now confirmed a giant farm, and wih sov timers coming to the API, the number of landholders will shrink. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Gideon Enderas Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 5	Posted - 2015.07.09 01:33:02 - [149] - Quote Aryth wrote: Gideon Enderas wrote: Aneu Angellus wrote: PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair. Welcome to our world since....forever Yeah, I'm probably going to quit EVE if the wormhole changes go through in their current state. Taking a chainsaw to something just because it's being used effectively is ridiculous. I'm fine with altering one thing at a time, slowly. Knee jerk reactions like the ones CCP seems to make are merely bandaid solutions. Bandaids given to little kids to stop them from crying. From what I understand CCP has a history knee jerk reactions, however I was under the impression that CCP was going to stop making them and work more so on tweaking the current system. CCP needs to stop making drastic changes to perceived problems that may or may not actually exist. I feel that changes should be done for gameplay reasons, not to appease people. For Example, limiting jump range to 5 LY for caps is rather boring. I think carriers should have been able to jump 7 LY, but at the cost of gaining extra fatigue associated with it. These jump changes were heavy handed, and in my opinion a bit too much. The nerf to the lifetime of the null wormholes doesn't really hurt groups like PL who (I'm guessing) have multiple chains set up. A few from their home system, and several from their target system(s). It can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to a several hours to find a route close to your target system.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance 64	Posted - 2015.07.09 01:41:08 - [150] - Quote THIS is the dev blog I have been waiting for. Excellent stuff. My only suggestion (and as you mentioned - you are working on it) - more PVE content for groups! Excellent!!! Love the changes to Incursions and WH's....Bob will still be pleased. I like the array changes too. As someone else mentioned, please REMOVE moon mining and make it a MINING activity equivalent to gold! :) Then people will really flock to null and low to feed the T2 industrial machine. Excellent changes that will reinvigorate SOV along with the capture the flag mechanics. Looking forward to the next year in EVE. o7 Let's get those subscriber numbers back up.

Kant Boards GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 31	Posted - 2015.07.09 02:18:22 - [151] - Quote Gideon Enderas wrote: Yeah, I'm probably going to quit EVE if the wormhole changes go through in their current state Delicious
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 705	Posted - 2015.07.09 03:02:56 - [152] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: MINING activity Ms Michigan wrote: get those subscriber numbers back up ummmmmmmm
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 705	Posted - 2015.07.09 03:14:03 - [153] - Quote boy howdy the first thing i think of when approaching the problem of eve retention rate is making more mining activities
Eodp Ellecon Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team 18	Posted - 2015.07.09 03:34:57 - [154] - Quote Survey and Entrapment arrays "...We will be keeping a close eye on the results of these changes to ensure that we donGÇÖt flood the market with the drops from these sites, and weGÇÖll step in and make more changes if needed. However we currently believe that these new spawn rates will be much closer to the ideal balance for these two system upgrades." Survey Networks. Increasing spawn rate, ok. Meaningful change comes only if accompanied by loot table adjustment. Please no more Caldari Encryption and eveN worse, Jury Rigging skill books in these sites. At least add the 'storyline' bpc's to drops if you are going to continue to have 'Armor Blocks' and other 'faction material' to make this stuff useful since we no longer have the Interface Tools. Still getting empty cans at times. Mix up the loots a bit....While Drone Lands gets all the Faction/Storyline drone bpc's it would be nice to see these pop up once in a while in regional flavor. Also mix in stuff that would have dropped from PVP activity. Neither of those likely to happen but thinking out loud.
Zappity WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 2339	Posted - 2015.07.09 04:48:03 - [155] - Quote Yes if you are going to increase Data and Relic spawn rates you should also increase the industry usage of the dropped materials a little. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Sabriz Adoudel Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 5175	Posted - 2015.07.09 06:34:53 - [156] - Quote Wormhole hunters can operate out of Thera just fine. They'll need to relocate and adapt but I don't think this change kills the playstyle. If they also own sov or have allies that do, they can use Thera to shortcut to somewhere near home too. If Thera didn't exist I'd be more concerned about the WH changes. On increasing anomolies - this will be a massive ISK faucet, and a massive (indirect) faucet of exploration combat site drops. Right now the better two types of X-type large armor reppers trade at around 380m ISK or 70m units trit. I wouldn't be surprised if this changes to 300m ISK and 50m units trit (Trit supply staying constant, ISK supply increasing, X-type repper supply dramatically increasing). Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out. I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3791	Posted - 2015.07.09 06:52:21 - [157] - Quote SCom Thor wrote: (...) FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion. (...) Here lies a common misconception, so let me adresss it: choosing a security level it's not about the "reward" part of the risk/reward ration. Pumping up the reward of a certain securiy level just fills up the pockets of those who adopted that certain risk. So no. More rewards don't will make people move out of highsec. But they certainly will allow nullbears to rake up ISK even faster than before, as if iSK was an issue in nullsec. I just find ironical how, suddenly, nullsec PvE has become the most important issue to adress right now. Oh yes. Forget about the 73% of guys who log into highsec: it's not as if they were quitting in hordes as PCU digs itself below 2008 levels, no. It's all about poor nullerites and incursion runners who don't rack up enough billions per month! Frankly, each time I ask myself "What has CCP done for me in the last years?" I feel stupider and stupider about giving them any money... 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
Sigras Conglomo 1036	Posted - 2015.07.09 07:18:25 - [158] - Quote I fully support the idea of group only content in null sec, but I'm not the biggest fan of artificial limits. Couldnt we simply make a type of anom that is unable to be soloed? I'm thinking a gated anom so no carriers, and 1000 DPS omni damage output with a really high active tank to EHP ratio... So something like a 1300 DPS active tank. Top all that off with a respawning neut tower or two and you got yourself an anom that cant be soloed... Thoughts?
Rek Seven Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 1981	Posted - 2015.07.09 07:29:34 - [159] - Quote These are intended as a slight buff to anyone who uses Quantum Flux Generators for PVE daytripping, while also addressing concerns expressed by some CSM members. With these changes we still donGÇÖt expect that most alliances will find the Quantum Flux Generators to be extremely valuable, but hopefully their PVE value should increase somewhat. Then why not make them even better? +1
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1612	Posted - 2015.07.09 08:36:43 - [160] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Then why not make them even better? One Thera is enough. -- I am very well aware of what I am suggesting now: With the increase in anomaly clutter in system and the scan result window, can we have a way to permanently hide certain anomalies? Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective

SiKong Ma Raging Tapirs Illuminati Confirmed. 17	Posted - 2015.07.09 09:35:18 - [161] - Quote From my personal point of view, making changes to spawn rates of -0.1 systems is a good move. New sov mechanics require grinding up military index of all systems we hold. Making more spawns in -0.1 systems makes ratting in them up tolerable. Can't speak of impact to economy but at least small groups have an increased incentive to live in -0.1 space. Looking forward to see small groups of newer nullsec players.
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 93	Posted - 2015.07.09 10:49:37 - [162] - Quote Harry Saq wrote: The CSM is an elected representative body, and as such any change implementation sought, recommended, and most certainly approved/implemented absolutely MUST be made public, and most certainly IS NOT voluntary disclosure by the CSM members. I assume this is just the ignorance of the dev that put together the blog, but seriously, name the CSM members making the proposal along with the justification in the actual blog now please. Don't make us read random forums or have to go digging to find out. The CSM members are there because they have been elected and should be given the due credit or criticism for their recommendations. It's not like they were part of an anonymous testing group, or a few concerned pod pilots that came forward from the shadows. Make it so, now please. Seriously, this is not optional...as a subscriber that ran for the last election cycle I want to know what those that won are doing and focusing on, along with their reasons/rational/observational experience so that I might compare to what they ran on and will run on in the next cycle.
X4me1eoH AirGuard LowSechnaya Sholupen 225	Posted - 2015.07.09 11:31:56 - [163] - Quote Nerf 0.0-0.0 WH not good. I think it will be better opposite boost quantity 0-0 WH like as lowsec-lowsec.
Orca Platypus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 27	Posted - 2015.07.09 11:45:11 - [164] - Quote How surprising, another gewn buff. 20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing. I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters. Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 122	Posted - 2015.07.09 11:58:52 - [165] - Quote Orca Platypus wrote: How surprising, another gewn buff. 20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing. I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters. Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable. How pray tell does all nullsec getting potential improvements with sov upgrades only favor one alliance? If you are indeed a nullbear in -.1 space you wold also benefit when you raise your military index and install the upgrade.
Sgt Ocker Military Bustards FUBAR. 651	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:04:26 - [166] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody. Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat. The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there. You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes. You realize of course you would then have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to pos's until the location of those entering it was known? My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11707	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:07:06 - [167] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody. Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat. The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there. You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes. You realize of course you would then have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to pos's until the location of those entering it was known? You wouldn't have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to POSes, you'd have them running to Faction Warfare, High Sec SOE missions or High Sec Incursions....again....
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 122	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:09:12 - [168] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody. Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat. The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there. You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes. You realize of course you would then have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to pos's until the location of those entering it was known? You wouldn't have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to POSes, you'd have them running to Faction Warfare, High Sec SOE missions or High Sec Incursions....again.... It's been a recurring theme for jones to attempt to foist the w-space condition upon k-space. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of separate parts of the game.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11707	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:09:31 - [169] - Quote Sigras wrote: I fully support the idea of group only content in null sec, but I'm not the biggest fan of artificial limits. Couldnt we simply make a type of anom that is unable to be soloed? I'm thinking a gated anom so no carriers, and 1000 DPS omni damage output with a really high active tank to EHP ratio... So something like a 1300 DPS active tank. Top all that off with a respawning neut tower or two and you got yourself an anom that cant be soloed... Thoughts? People will just stick Level 5 Mission fit passive Tengus/Lokis into it...and solo it.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 325	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:10:35 - [170] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: S199's are not that prevalent, and are no harder to collapse than a N432 or K162 to C5. Really, who is giving you this information, or are you guys literally blind and dumb? I rarely find an S199 when I go to nullsec. Most wormholes are C5's, followed by C1-2-3's, and very, very rarely a B499 or N944. So, great, you are cutting down on S199's which are already quite rare. Good work on making pirate detection arrays more efficient. You know whatthe hardest part about ganking caps in nulsec is? When there is 60 anoms in system, it's hard to filter through for the Hubs and Sanctums past all the abandoned low-grade chaff. Ratters best protection is having more sigs in the list, more green dots on the overview, because it's harder for a hunter to find them amngst the debris. So, good work, CCP. Nullsec is now confirmed a giant farm, and wih sov timers coming to the API, the number of landholders will shrink. It's not over yet. Somehow, CCP hasn't managed to completely nerf combat probing into the ground, yet (although the fleet warp changes probably go some way towards making it generally harder to quickly land tackle). But they will eventually come up with some bs reason to do so ...

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11707	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:13:46 - [171] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: SCom Thor wrote: (...) FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion. (...) Here lies a common misconception, so let me adresss it: choosing a security level it's not about the "reward" part of the risk/reward ration. Pumping up the reward of a certain securiy level just fills up the pockets of those who adopted that certain risk. So no. More rewards don't will make people move out of highsec. But they certainly will allow nullbears to rake up ISK even faster than before, as if iSK was an issue in nullsec. I just find ironical how, suddenly, nullsec PvE has become the most important issue to adress right now. Oh yes. Forget about the 73% of guys who log into highsec: it's not as if they were quitting in hordes as PCU digs itself below 2008 levels, no. It's all about poor nullerites and incursion runners who don't rack up enough billions per month! Frankly, each time I ask myself "What has CCP done for me in the last years?" I feel stupider and stupider about giving them any money... And yet you will continue to, so don't act like you won't. Some of those 73% are US, captive "nullbears" who in some cases will be free to go home to null where we belong, unchained from the shackless of high sec where people like you get rich from selling us ammo to use in your incursions. Null Sec Libre!
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 99	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:32:36 - [172] - Quote When will we get the patch with deploy-able 18 hole golf courses and BMW dealerships? Stop making null-sec richer and safer, ffs. It's already too rich, and it's already too safe. Look, it would be one thing if all of this wealth generation was creating 100s of warlords all over the galaxy who are constantly at each other's throats, creating excitement and content. It's not. Can't you see that? It's all being funneled up massive wealth pyramids that are controlled by a number of people that you could fit in a mini-van. They're all fat and happy. None of them have any interest in trying to topple each other. It's killing your game, and you're making it easier. More wealth, more safety, more wealth, more safety. Why? You need to be making it hard to impossible to build a sprawling bureaucratic empire. Sprawling bureaucratic empires are BORING, except to the handful of self-styled moguls who sit on top of them, and their sycophants. Instead, you're making it easier. Who are these concerned CSMers who pull so much weight with you? The CSM is supposed to be about transparency, not back-room influence.
Sgt Ocker Military Bustards FUBAR. 651	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:33:08 - [173] - Quote 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 So all those soon to be ok systems in Branch (that might see 1 person active in them a day) are still off the table without a blue tick next to your name.. Shame - that space could be put to good use by smaller groups. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2015.07.09 12:36:38 - [174] - Quote Orca Platypus wrote: How surprising, another gewn buff. 20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing. I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters. Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable. You are wrong. This actually favors all the alliances that live in crap system like the southern regions. Goons are actually the least favored by this, since we already live in the best region there is in terms of anomalies. Have you ever been to Deklein? Try going there in a ceptor and count the high value anomalies. (not saying it's bad for us, just saying it's better for everyone else)
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:00:35 - [175] - Quote davet517 wrote: Stop making null-sec richer and safer, ffs. It's already too rich, and it's already too safe. highsec incursions
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:01:29 - [176] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: So all those soon to be ok systems in Branch (that might see 1 person active in them a day) are still off the table without a blue tick next to your name.. Shame - that space could be put to good use by smaller groups. i mean you're certainly welcome to try to put it to use yourself it is not like the space becomes unusable by hostiles the second it gets conquered you could also try to, y'know, conquer the space yourself
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:02:59 - [177] - Quote Orca Platypus wrote: How surprising, another gewn buff. 20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing. I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters. Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable. where the hell do you get a pocket in deklein, the entire region is on the pipe also confirming that goons own all anomalies in the game in all regions and that any increase in anoms is strictly to the benefit of GOonswarm Federation
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:04:53 - [178] - Quote "if goons benefit even a little from a change then the change is fundamentally flawed and i must spite my face by cutting off my nose"
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1100	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:12:09 - [179] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Orca Platypus wrote: How surprising, another gewn buff. 20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing. I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters. Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable. where the hell do you get a pocket in deklein, the entire region is on the pipe also confirming that goons own all anomalies in the game in all regions and that any increase in anoms is strictly to the benefit of GOonswarm Federation that is basically true, anyone who possesses anything does so at our sufferance
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 708	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:18:54 - [180] - Quote also the idea of a cynojammer meaning anything in deklein is hilarious because approximately 2% of deklein is reachable from adjacent NPC space at a 5LY range, which means the only things that can even attack into deklein are blops (drops), which ignore cynojammers, or WHs, which also ignore cynojammers

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:19:44 - [181] - Quote basically the whole post is fundamentally flawed and it only takes a few SNIPES from the periphery to reveal it as unfounded garbage
Sgt Ocker Military Bustards FUBAR. 651	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:33:33 - [182] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: So all those soon to be ok systems in Branch (that might see 1 person active in them a day) are still off the table without a blue tick next to your name.. Shame - that space could be put to good use by smaller groups. i mean you're certainly welcome to try to put it to use yourself it is not like the space becomes unusable by hostiles the second it gets conquered you could also try to, y'know, conquer the space yourself Yeah every small group wants to invite the wrath of the CFC by stepping into the blue donut of protection. (don't care what you call your selves now - You will always be CFC) My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:40:05 - [183] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: blue donut lmbo
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 172	Posted - 2015.07.09 13:54:41 - [184] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Yeah every small group wants to invite the wrath of the CFC by stepping into the blue donut of protection. (don't care what you call your selves now - You will always be CFC) There are currently 58 alliances with 5 or fewer systems owned, seems there is room for "little guy". There are 25 alliances that own sov with fewer than 200 members, which is smaller than your alliance. What is holding you back? Is there something particularly special about us, that you will only throw your hat in the ring if you can have the space we own and not any other?
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2015.07.09 14:08:11 - [185] - Quote Klyith wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Yeah every small group wants to invite the wrath of the CFC by stepping into the blue donut of protection. (don't care what you call your selves now - You will always be CFC) There are currently 58 alliances with 5 or fewer systems owned, seems there is room for "little guy". There are 25 alliances that own sov with fewer than 200 members, which is smaller than your alliance. What is holding you back? Is there something particularly special about us, that you will only throw your hat in the ring if you can have the space we own and not any other? Effort. It's easier to come to the forums and "grr goons" than actually do something about it. With fozzie sov, even the last excuse of the massive DPS required to grind sov will be out of the way.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise 86	Posted - 2015.07.09 14:22:47 - [186] - Quote Does this mean Provi won't be the most poor kid anymore??? And just think - more people per system - means we might not run as much when reds show up... xoxo Amarisen Gream
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1101	Posted - 2015.07.09 14:36:58 - [187] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Yeah every small group wants to invite the wrath of the CFC by stepping into the blue donut of protection. (don't care what you call your selves now - You will always be CFC) oh good, so you realize you are not good enough do you complain that the [best sports team in the sport popular in your local area] also does not let you play for them and only lets the people actually good at [sport popular in your local area] play for the team we are motherfucking lebron james you work your way up to being even allowed to be discussed in the same sentence as us
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1101	Posted - 2015.07.09 14:39:02 - [188] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Does this mean Provi won't be the most poor kid anymore??? And just think - more people per system - means we might not run as much when reds show up... absolutely not, under the wise leadership of Maximilian Singularity Providence will enter a new age of prosperity you won't be around to benefit from it of course, but such is the price of the march of progresss
Anthar Thebess 1221	Posted - 2015.07.09 14:44:16 - [189] - Quote This will generate TONS of additional isk that will flow into the system. Do we have ANY new isk sink? Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1751	Posted - 2015.07.09 14:58:17 - [190] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: This will generate TONS of additional isk that will flow into the system. Do we have ANY new isk sink? As though a new sink would be needed with a 20-30% playerdrop? Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Nergal Hurrian Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc. Euphoria Pharmaceuticals 7	Posted - 2015.07.09 15:26:37 - [191] - Quote Orca Platypus wrote: How surprising, another gewn buff. 20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing. I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters. Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable. Take your tinfoil hat off. Not only you are lying in your post by attesting (falsely) that you are a "nullbear living in -0.1 system", you also inevitably reveal your ignorance about null by arguing that anyone (much less Goons) rat in Nyxes. We need legitimate feedback in this thread, not your feeble attempts at meta-gaming (poorly).
Nergal Hurrian Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc. Euphoria Pharmaceuticals 8	Posted - 2015.07.09 15:41:49 - [192] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody. Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat. The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there. You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes. No. A certain type of space will never be your trophy grounds while at the same time, you are having almost perfect control of where and how your home wormhole is connected to, therefore, ensuring perfect safety for your PvE activities. All you are proposing is to make null farming grounds whenever you feel like going and ganking ratters. Nullsec does not exist to gratify your effortless lolpwnmobile playstyle. You will not get to choose where your hole connects to by ragerolling it continuously until you get a connect to the certain null constellation you wish to trophy in. If you are in need of such easy gratification, why don't you go and cancel the non-invasion treaties between your wormhole alliance and other large wormhole alliances? (w-space blue donut)
Nergal Hurrian Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc. Euphoria Pharmaceuticals 8	Posted - 2015.07.09 15:44:31 - [193] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Altrue wrote: Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned. Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them... Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ? More null to highs would be a backdoor buff to freighters and logistics. It would kill the attempted progress towards null industry. Again, you are masquerading as providing constructive feedback and acting like you are voicing your legitimate concerns, but in reality, everything you say and point out is trying to push for having constant null-sec connections from your wormhole systems so that you can go gank ratters and miners any time you feel like doing it. Needless to say, if even I'm personally able to figure this out, you've failed big time.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 483	Posted - 2015.07.09 16:34:01 - [194] - Quote Raising the property value of large parts of null - good! WH changes - terrible. Awful. Seriously, if anything, it should be changed the other way, and null-null connections should be even more common. If you want to reward stewardship of space, and people actually 'living" in their constellations, then you should encourage people to find and deal with problematic WHs in their backyard, instead of just removing them. With how spread and thin people are becoming on the map, you want to give as many ways to force interaction as possible, not remove them. The Phoebe capital changes have made it incredibly hard to counter or punish capital usage on a local level, with good WH connections being one of the only ways to actually weave a more complex local conflict. It's actually engaging that people have to look and even possibly fight for WHs before a major fight, because that is literally the only way help for either side will arrive. It was bad before with the entire server showing up, but you don't want the opposite effect where conflict is so localized and one dimensional that fewer people choose to even fight. You absolutely need WHs if you are to fight locally against an entity that has more capitals than you. This threatens even more post-phoebe stasis. It's still a terrible idea to live in null. Even if you raise the bar of the bad true-sec systems, you still haven't addressed that higher, less hassle income than the best true-sec systems is available elsewhere, namely FW space or HS. Why would I ever want to deal with a 2 hour commitment everyday defending against entosis for less isk/hr opportunities than I could find elsewhere? A single character carrier ratting is only turning about 100m/hr before escalations, which as others have mentioned, has killed the exploration profession due to how saturated deadspace loot is at the moment. Let's try expressing this another way. Currently.... WH>FW/HS Incursions > Null. It needs to be... WH> Null > FW > HS Incursions/L4 blitz. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1487	Posted - 2015.07.09 17:13:40 - [195] - Quote Nergal Hurrian wrote: A certain type of space will never be your trophy grounds while at the same time, you are having almost perfect control of where and how your home wormhole is connected to, therefore, ensuring perfect safety for your PvE activities. On the contrary, I dislike the concepts of critting holes and closing oneself off from the world so they can farm. I want the concept of a shattered highway to exist in wormhole space, and to move 75% of the farming and escallations in c5 and c6 space into shattered space, with unclosable regenerating shattered wormhole entrances (so no matter what, there is a connection, and a substantial sized one to go attack). Wormholers can still roll holes, they can still play with mass, but if you want to do massive isk making, you have to go into shattered space. I wrote this out about 8 days ago on the 1st of July. Do note this was pertaining to specifically c5 and c6 space and not the nullsec interaction. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5858241#post5858241 In the end, I want perfect intel in nullsec to go away. I am ok with keeping how character info pops up in local, but local itself needs to expand to constellation chat (so no more perfect intel, just imperfect intel. I want wspace to not turn into endless logoff traps to go kill escallation fleets because there is no way to do it due to them critting or rolling their hole, as now there will be no entrance into them. I want people to risk their ships, in both wspace and nullsec when they rat. Both area's have come up with perfect ways to close each other off to gain isk in safety. I want both areas of space to change. Yaay!!!!
Sadew42 SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club 14	Posted - 2015.07.09 17:25:21 - [196] - Quote Querns wrote: C5s are not the only wormholes in eve, and this change specifically targets them. The way it was worded, it seems to imply all WHs in null will be affected. At any rate, I finally have the tools to daytrip into C5s now, and this happens out of nowhere for no discernible reason?
kai il Stimulus Rote Kapelle 29	Posted - 2015.07.09 18:14:31 - [197] - Quote I remember when CCP said "we think wormholes are in a good spot and probably the most balanced part of space" then ccp started to change it and it all went down hill and now we have A giant krab empire in highclass with no fights because everyone ****** off and getting fights in null is now 10 times as hard. These changes to null wormholes are bad and you should feel bad, The only thing worse then large null blobs using wormholes to get fights is ccp nerfing wormholes even more to fix this problem, congrats you took a part of space that was working fine for the most part and absolutely destroyed with awful changes.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 713	Posted - 2015.07.09 18:27:25 - [198] - Quote kai il wrote: I remember when CCP said "we think wormholes are in a good spot and probably the most balanced part of space" then ccp started to change it and it all went down hill and now we have A giant krab empire in highclass with no fights because everyone ****** off and getting fights in null is now 10 times as hard. nerf diplomacy
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1752	Posted - 2015.07.09 18:50:01 - [199] - Quote Sort Dragon just pointed the finger at Manny (PL) championing these changes. Cats/Dogs/Up/Down What do we believe anymore! Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 254	Posted - 2015.07.09 19:59:18 - [200] - Quote Aryth wrote: Sort Dragon just pointed the finger at Manny (PL) championing these changes. Cats/Dogs/Up/Down What do we believe anymore! We are making the antidote for finger pointing

Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 254	Posted - 2015.07.09 20:15:04 - [201] - Quote It is heating up https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3cpfp0/wormhole_gate_heats_up_snort_dragon_blames_manny/csxqnwr https://twitter.com/PLIRC/status/619238039361994757/photo/1
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1752	Posted - 2015.07.09 20:42:56 - [202] - Quote The new meta. Snitches get Stitches. Anyone that gets null nerfed gets invaded. Lol Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2578	Posted - 2015.07.09 22:24:25 - [203] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: blue donut lmbo I think a better term nowadays would be blue croissant
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 123	Posted - 2015.07.09 23:51:38 - [204] - Quote Rowells wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: blue donut lmbo I think a better term nowadays would be blue croissant I blame French localization.
GeeBee Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 86	Posted - 2015.07.10 01:39:41 - [205] - Quote Good changes all around with the exception of Incursions and ESS. Suggestion for the Activity Defense Multipliers, Allow POS's in a limited way to contribute to the activity defense multipliers, both hostile and friendly. Similiar to the sov system of olde, but with severe limitations. Numbers could be generated to a working balanced system, I'm not going to do that just expressing the interest in this form of content to help keep capital ships somewhat useful. Future group PVE, it would have to be incursion style content. There probably is a place for this but keeping it balanced while being profitable to non-multibox and non-multibox viable may be an issue, there's still probably some people using isboxer without mirror to run incursions. Incursions, the basis of this is Sanshas raiding space and stealing pilots for drones/clones, After years of failing the Sansha's have given up on this endeavor and Incursions have stopped. The basis of incursions and the content they exclusively provide has no real purpose and should be migrated elsewhere and incursions removed. ESS - This is a failed attempt at forcing content, just get rid of it, I mean you're about to remove how many SBU's from the game, the ESS can go with it.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1266	Posted - 2015.07.10 05:45:39 - [206] - Quote SCom Thor wrote: I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around. Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC. No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today. Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game. FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion. Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer. Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it. Exactly. CCP, you have been encouraging players to clump up more and more, rather than encouraging them to spread out more. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1266	Posted - 2015.07.10 05:47:07 - [207] - Quote Gideon Enderas wrote: Aneu Angellus wrote: PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair. That's how it always goes. Once a process gets industrialized, CCP has to nerf it. They could have just removed the API data pull so that you have to do your own scouting. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
GeeBee Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 86	Posted - 2015.07.10 06:38:31 - [208] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: SCom Thor wrote: I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around. Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC. No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today. Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game. FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion. Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer. Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it. Exactly. CCP, you have been encouraging players to clump up more and more, rather than encouraging them to spread out more. This entire sov patch is designed to make holding vast amounts of space impossible. Groups have been clumping up for their own survival. Whether there will be any new groups to take sov to fill the vacuum is a completely different story. I guess BL trolling/farming brave out of fountain was just the start. If new blood is to get into nullsec and stay either the playerbase needs to sing kumbaya and go here ya go, or CCP needs to rework the skill system to allow new players a chance. Constantly changing meta's for doctrines is very skillpoint intensive for a newer player that doesn't even have core skills done yet. I propose a removal of the majority of core skills to level the playing field. Any core skill that is removed is then re-added upon subscription, trial accounts would get somekind of lower level of core skills. One of the biggest problems with this game attracting and retaining new players is due to the overhead of skills that need to be trained. Unless this problem is addressed eve is likely going to slowly die. Any core skill that is removed is not reimbursed / refunded either, I'm talking about the removal of at least 20mil Skillpoints.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3799	Posted - 2015.07.10 06:55:27 - [209] - Quote At some point it should be noted that Sovereigny as a game system is faulty. When you create a "race to the top" system, the natural outcome is someone on top too big to fall, followed by not-so-top forces too dangerous and bothersome to defeat, and a variable amount of fools who will never be top and can lose everything as soon as some of the top dogs focuses on them. Of course, that mimics RL. We know that (enter rogue state) can not do anything meaningful to the USA and we know Russia and China are too big and dangeorus to mess with even if you're the USA. What nobody said is that RL balance of power is fun or at all worthy to experience in a game... "Welcome to EVE Online, the 12 years old MMO. These guys are the USA, there's Russia and there's China. The ultimate goal of the game is to topple any of them without being nuked to the ground as soon as your gang shows any potential to topple any of them. Alternatively you may enjoy staying irrelevant or aligning with any of the top dogs. Have fun" 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
Napo BonaParte KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.07.10 07:37:09 - [210] - Quote CCP Phantom for president! thnx damn it more incursion more combat yea this is the way... i cant wait new jews moment :D

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 312	Posted - 2015.07.10 09:48:01 - [211] - Quote Omg. Almost all proposal are so wrong I don't even know where to start. Survey Networks and Entrapment Array WTH? Explo sites spawn generator? Do you even know what exploration means? Those sites will be from the regional pool or added to regional pool? Because both ways are wrong. Added will flood the market, sucked from region will make them easy, riskless money for nullbears. Quote: We will be keeping a close eye on the results of these changes to ensure that we donGÇÖt flood the market with the drops from these sites, and weGÇÖll step in and make more changes if needed. Bite me. You have no idea how to fix data sites loot and now you introduce devices to increase the spawn rate? Every time you mess with explo loot, sites become worthless for 3 to 5 months. Now you'll be keeping close eye...? Riiiight. Pirate Detection Array Changes What a wonderfull conflict driver... Alliance with huge amount of memebers don't need to conquer anymore, they just upgrade their own systems? What is the reason to go to war? ESS Entosis Link? For real? Conflict driver? Whoever you discuss those with think again. Ppl must have reasons to shoot each other, not hide in bubbled, fortified constellations, full of possibilities to make money. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1151	Posted - 2015.07.10 10:59:34 - [212] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Whoever you discuss those with think again. Ppl must have reasons to shoot each other, not hide in bubbled, fortified constellations, full of possibilities to make money. Like hisec? Better null income is better to get players into null and reward them for having to defend their stuff 4 hours a day. I can't claim to know whether this is the perfect balance of risk vs. reward, but certainly something needed to be done to get players actually to bother to take, upgrade and defend Sov rather than just ninja sites (like you seem to do) or stay in high/low sec and run incursions/FW missions all-day (which will still be a problem).
Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative. 419	Posted - 2015.07.10 11:12:30 - [213] - Quote I still find it funny that you classify the "Quantum Flux Generator upgrades" as Upgrades rather than Penalties, Frankly I would never install this "upgrade" in any system that I actually intended to use for any form of PvE/Industry, Heck I would like to see an upgrade that does the reverse of this.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 174	Posted - 2015.07.10 11:18:08 - [214] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: At some point it should be noted that Sovereigny as a game system is faulty. When you create a "race to the top" system, the natural outcome is someone on top too big to fall, followed by not-so-top forces too dangerous and bothersome to defeat, and a variable amount of fools who will never be top and can lose everything as soon as some of the top dogs focuses on them. Of course, that mimics RL. We know that (enter rogue state) can not do anything meaningful to the USA and we know Russia and China are too big and dangeorus to mess with even if you're the USA. What nobody said is that RL balance of power is fun or at all worthy to experience in a game... In the past there were alliances / coalitions that were at "the top" who fell. Sometimes it happened because the guy at the top got lazy and weak, but at least once it was because a group of plucky heroes put in literally years of war and labor. It doesn't happen all the time. If you want to dethrone the king, you should need to put in at least as much effort at taking the throne as the king does at holding on to it. Not everyone can win. The flip side is that when the balance of power does shift, it's an epic story that no other game can match. Most of the people now playing were probably attracted because they heard or read about one of those events and it caught their imagination. The game does currently have a problem where the balance is tilted towards incumbents, but it's not in the Sov system (and fozziesov will be extremely level). The issue is in PVP balance and the way that the loser of a battle is generally crushed. There aren't moral victories these days where you can say that you lost but bloodied the other guy's nose. So the upstarts don't stick around through the hard times; they just get discouraged and leave.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 312	Posted - 2015.07.10 11:46:27 - [215] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Like hisec? Better null income is better to get players into null and reward them for having to defend their stuff 4 hours a day. I can't claim to know whether this is the perfect balance of risk vs. reward, but certainly something needed to be done to get players actually to bother to take, upgrade and defend Sov rather than just ninja sites (like you seem to do) or stay in high/low sec and run incursions/FW missions all-day (which will still be a problem). becuase you OWN pirates datas or old relics in your space? Owning the space means you owe pirates in it? What a twisted concept. Do you pay them for a chance to shoot them? Ninja? Do you have problem with that? Come and get me. I'm chased by nullsec dwellers that actively hunt me. I have zero interest to be number in fleet etc. It's my gamestyle, like it supposed to be in the sandbox, what I see here is less playstyle opportunities than creating new ones. This will be exactly like hisec but with far better income (because null income is sooo looow curenlty, right?). Do we need that? Where is risk vs reward here? "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1151	Posted - 2015.07.10 12:09:14 - [216] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: becuase you OWN pirates datas or old relics in your space? Owning the space means you owe pirates in it? What a twisted concept. Do you pay them for a chance to shoot them? Ninja? Do you have problem with that? Come and get me. I'm chased by nullsec dwellers that actively hunt me. I have zero interest to be number in fleet etc. It's my gamestyle, like it supposed to be in the sandbox, what I see here is less playstyle opportunities than creating new ones. This will be exactly like hisec but with far better income (because null income is sooo looow curenlty, right?). Do we need that? Where is risk vs reward here? Like anything in Eve, those sites belong to a Sov-holding alliance if they can defend them. Unlike highsec, where CONCORD provides free protection, the only claim a nullsec dweller has to anything comes out of the end of blaster. They are completely responsible for their own protection and enforcing any claims to space that they make. As you say, there is no mechanism locking these sites to an alliance, nor any protection from someone coming to take them. I am not sure what you are complaining about. If you are so confident in your abilities to outwit those dim-witted nullsec dwellers, you should have no problem grabbing those sites from under their noses. Individual nullsec income has been significantly lower than what an individual can earn in wormholes, faction warfare or highsec incursions for a long time now. I agree you do not want unassailable ISK/resource fountains pumping non-stop into the economy, but it seems to me that FozzieSov has been designed to make space very easy to attack and therefore require constant effort defend. Let's wait and see how these changes shake out before the whining about how "safe" nullsec is begins again.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11719	Posted - 2015.07.10 12:18:17 - [217] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Pirate Detection Array Changes What a wonderfull conflict driver... Alliance with huge amount of memebers don't need to conquer anymore, they just upgrade their own systems? What is the reason to go to war? This is the faulty thinking of the past.: Quote: Expected consequences Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec Coalitions will be marginally less stable Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places) NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space. When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol. Sov space became renter space because generally only renters (and scrub frontline alliance members to dumb to to get high sec incursion and FW alts) valued the space then. CCP is partially fixing this by upping the amount of people who can actually live in a system. They aren't directly boosting null resident income (sure, you can use more alts to farm, but that means you have higher overhead in the form or more plex or subscription fees to pay), just making it space more livable by more people. More people in null means more chances for conflict because raiders WILL come into your space and WILL tackle ratting carriers and WILL form defense fleets to save said carriers etc etc, wormholes or not. It amazes me after years of seeing the effects of bad thinking (like this example of thinking that keeping sov space nerfed in "Greyscale 2011" will drive conflict) people still cling to it. How many more years of proof do we need to see that something doesn't work?
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.10 12:46:11 - [218] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Like anything in Eve, those sites belong to a Sov-holding alliance if they can defend them. Philip II of Macedon once sent a message to Sparta saying, "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again," to which the Spartans sent back one word: "If." Most of them don't defend them, and I have completely opposite opinion who owns pirates... Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure what you are complaining about. If you are so confident in your abilities to outwit those dim-witted nullsec dwellers, you should have no problem grabbing those sites from under their noses. First of all when CCP "take a look" at something, escacially loot I'm feeling insecure. Second what is the spawn mechanics here? Both above examples may lead to non good results. Third exploration should be seeking the sites not magnet them into you. This is suppose to be reward for 4 hour window? They won't have time to farm these, EvE is full of griefers, E-links will be used all the time. Jenn aSide wrote: NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space. and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all. Jenn aSide wrote: When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol. It's the problem of incursions and FW that pay such amount of ISK. Jenn aSide wrote: CCP is partially fixing this by upping the amount of people who can actually live in a system. What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1152	Posted - 2015.07.10 13:14:21 - [219] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Like anything in Eve, those sites belong to a Sov-holding alliance if they can defend them. Philip II of Macedon once sent a message to Sparta saying, "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again," to which the Spartans sent back one word: "If." Most of them don't defend them, and I have completely opposite opinion who owns pirates... Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Black Pedro wrote: I am not sure what you are complaining about. If you are so confident in your abilities to outwit those dim-witted nullsec dwellers, you should have no problem grabbing those sites from under their noses. First of all when CCP "take a look" at something, escacially loot I'm feeling insecure. Second what is the spawn mechanics here? Both above examples may lead to non good results. Third exploration should be seeking the sites not magnet them into you. This is suppose to be reward for 4 hour window? They won't have time to farm these, EvE is full of griefers, E-links will be used all the time. Yes, this ability to increase the spawn rates of sites is a reward for spending the time to defend and upgrade a system. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Whether they are new spawns, or taken from a pre-existing pool doesn't really matter - both will result in more sites being run as the sites will be found easier and thus cause a decrease in the value of exploration loot. More of that loot will go to Sov holders however as a reward for holding and upgrading a system. PvE is there for there to be something to fight over, not your personal ISK printing machine. Adding the ability to control where those site spawn is a boon for a group of players taking space thus encouraging them to fight for the space in the first place. Whether this will work out as designed is really anyone's guess at this point, but this is clearly why CCP is making these changes. Perhaps you should wait and see how these changes play out before painting yourself as a victim of these changes.
Ijesz ToKolok Harmless People 0	Posted - 2015.07.10 13:20:23 - [220] - Quote I noticed that the German translation for the dev blog has been posted on the forums. Figured I would go ahead and show you another way to provide the Germans their "must-read"s :) Translation: https://de-de-w5ub09gv.app.easyling.com/news/dev-blogs/summer-of-sov-nullsec-pve-and-upgrades/ Reddit thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3cs7il/germans_of_eve_forum_thread_translation_this/ Note to CCP: if you need me to nuke the site out of existence, give me the word (preferably on reddit) - I read it more often.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11720	Posted - 2015.07.10 13:40:27 - [221] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space. and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all. Players don't fight over anomaly space. CCPs un-nerfing of the anomaly upgrades system (it is an un-nerfing rather than a 'buff') means pve players will be able to spread out a bit more from the "ratting hub" systems that were easily cloaky camped. This means more targets for roaming gangs as someone will slip up and not watch intel channels. More content like this is good for the game, and CCP didn't understand this when they nerfed system military upgrades in 2011. Quote: Jenn aSide wrote: When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol. It's the problem of incursions and FW that pay such amount of ISK. Which CCP isn't going to fix. So since they aren't, they have to do something to make null livable for grunt pve pilots (which in turn makes null more attractive for roaming raiders, it's an eco system). More anoms is a step (but only a step) in the right direction. Quote: What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so. Goons have nothing to do with anything.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 175	Posted - 2015.07.10 13:57:27 - [222] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all. People fight because fighting is fun. And the ones who don't fight just for fun will fight because some other guy is hanging around in their space and they want to kick them out. Most of the people who are in null are there because they want pvp -- if they really wanted nothing but pve why not stay in empire. Many supposed "nullbears" are actually weekend warriors. Jeremiah Saken wrote: What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so. Totaling up all the members of the alliances listed on dotlan holding at least 1 system equals 143,811 characters. Obviously that's a lot more than players or even active players. But the top 50 sov-holding alliances outnumber the members of the top 50 everyone-else alliances by almost exactly 2 to 1. The evidence says lots of people live in null. But what's your point? The reason for increased density in nullsec isn't just to allow more people to live there in total. Even if not a single new person moves to null after this change, it's still a good thing. Increased density makes nullsec more interesting even if it means people clump up and more systems are completely empty. Clumps means you have targets on the map, and clumps mean ratters can switch to defenders easily.
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2015.07.10 14:20:13 - [223] - Quote Duffyman wrote: Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one. Why not replace anoms with missions? A few advantages: - Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell) I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space?
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1754	Posted - 2015.07.10 14:42:10 - [224] - Quote Duffyman wrote: Duffyman wrote: Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one. Why not replace anoms with missions? A few advantages: - Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell) I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space? While they have teased agents in null (not NPC) stations it does present some issues. The main thing would be it requires a complete refactoring of LP rewards and ISK payouts for the missions themselves. Not a horrible task but not trivial either. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2015.07.10 14:44:12 - [225] - Quote Aryth wrote: Duffyman wrote: Duffyman wrote: Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one. Why not replace anoms with missions? A few advantages: - Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system - Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent) - Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions) - Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell) I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space? While they have teased agents in null (not NPC) stations it does present some issues. The main thing would be it requires a complete refactoring of LP rewards and ISK payouts for the missions themselves. Not a horrible task but not trivial either. True, it would require tuning, but the advantages I mentioned I think outweigh that.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 717	Posted - 2015.07.10 14:45:35 - [226] - Quote there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2015.07.10 14:47:05 - [227] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost That is a technical issue. It's up to CCP to solve it. I'm more concerned about the impact on the gameplay.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1754	Posted - 2015.07.10 14:53:02 - [228] - Quote Duffyman wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost That is a technical issue. It's up to CCP to solve it. I'm more concerned about the impact on the gameplay. I would rather see a mix. What we have today and adding agents. Perhaps a limit per region or const. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 717	Posted - 2015.07.10 16:11:50 - [229] - Quote yeah i can see like conquerable stations (read: stations in systems like NOL and VFK that are not player dropped outposts) in regions getting mission agents maybe? that would be a one time expenditure of effort and give some life back to stations that are currently 100% worthless
Kant Boards GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 32	Posted - 2015.07.10 16:41:13 - [230] - Quote Gimme Guristas agents in VFK thanks.

Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 786	Posted - 2015.07.10 16:42:51 - [231] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost The agent doesn't have to be installed in an outpost, they can be placed in space like the SOE epic arc Empire agents. Have the agent hang out around the I-Hub. Still have to go to actual Empire/NPC null space to cash in on the LP, like with the ESS (does anybody use those things?) There you go, no intern having to F5 for a new outpost, and the players decide if they want one or not by installing an upgrade in an I-hub. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.10 18:10:13 - [232] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally. Why do I get the feeling you have no idea how exploration looks like? How those new upgrades will work? How high will be the spawning bonus? They double it, but what is the base stat? What will happen if corp spawn all of them at max level all around one constellation? For example in Omist? Do they suck up all sites from region? What is the max spawn bonus? If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them. Black Pedro wrote: Yes, this ability to increase the spawn rates of sites is a reward for spending the time to defend and upgrade a system. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Whether they are new spawns, or taken from a pre-existing pool doesn't really matter - both will result in more sites being run as the sites will be found easier and thus cause a decrease in the value of exploration loot. More of that loot will go to Sov holders however as a reward for holding and upgrading a system. You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that? Black Pedro wrote: Perhaps you should wait and see how these changes play out before painting yourself as a victim of these changes. I will survive, there are plenty of space to explore for me, lot's of ways to earn money. I hope you are not some dev or csm alt, no hope then. Klyith wrote: But what's your point? Point is how many players we can expect to be there. Jenn aSide wrote: Which CCP isn't going to fix. So since they aren't, they have to do something to make null livable for grunt pve pilots (which in turn makes null more attractive for roaming raiders, it's an eco system). More anoms is a step (but only a step) in the right direction. Easiest thing: security agents in null. Unlimited players in system. I'm kinda dissapointed with CCP proposals. I was hoping for agents in null. It would be mirroring hisec for pve content. Either there are some obstacles in the game code or devs lack imagination. Now they will waste resources on ESS... "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 718	Posted - 2015.07.10 19:17:28 - [233] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally. Why do I get the feeling you have no idea how exploration looks like? How those new upgrades will work? How high will be the spawning bonus? They double it, but what is the base stat? What will happen if corp spawn all of them at max level all around one constellation? For example in Omist? Do they suck up all sites from region? What is the max spawn bonus? If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them. "sov is not something i have, therefore it should not have things"
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6719	Posted - 2015.07.11 03:32:36 - [234] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). Such defeatism. They're not that prepared, they want to rat. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 198	Posted - 2015.07.11 06:05:28 - [235] - Quote So basicly more income and safety for null sec and less content , less targets and more tedium for wh-space. No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1153	Posted - 2015.07.11 11:49:20 - [236] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there). You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them. Yes, as I said several times before the nullsec alliance wins here. That is why CCP Fozzie released these devblog as part of sweeping changes to nullsec to make it more vibrant, active and fun. Part of that is making players want to live there and this is a reward to make players want to live in null. Let me show you the man behind the curtain: all PvE, and I mean all, is in the game so you make yourself "in-game content" in your words. PvE rewards are the carrot that induces you to expose yourself to other players as a target. Exploration is no different. It is not there to allow you to earn ISK at no risk to yourself. It is there so you decide to make yourself "content" for other players in exchange for a reward. That is the social compact of Eve: you get a reward if you make yourself a target. As an aside, this is why the current state of highsec incursions is so insidious - it is all reward with no player-driven risk (or any risk at all really), and thus provides only marginal content to the game. They should be nerfed/changed/eliminated immediately just like ISboxing was for the greater good. But back to exploration, you stand a chance against them - embrace your inner ninja. If you don't want that risk, there are plenty of exploration sites in NPC null, low and wormholes which will provide you with an income. Don't let your selfishness make the game as a whole worse - we have enough of that already in these forums. Black Pedro wrote: You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that? I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value. This also is why ratting and incursions should reward primarily LP not mainly ISK so that there is a feedback regulating the impact of these activities on the greater economy.
Marech Bhayanaka The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance 33	Posted - 2015.07.11 22:24:36 - [237] - 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. You need to understand Eve economics better. Anything that adds to the amount of isk in the game is an isk faucet. It has nothing to do with how hard someone worked to earn it, or how profitable it is. Marech.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6721	Posted - 2015.07.12 02:22:15 - [238] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Black Pedro wrote: You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that? I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value. This also is why ratting and incursions should reward primarily LP not mainly ISK so that there is a feedback regulating the impact of these activities on the greater economy. If there's tons of isk then prices of everything else goes up, which makes the ratting less worthwhile in terms of things you can buy... Well if only it went far enough that people in nullsec would mine rather than rat but it seems you'd need a lot of inflation to push that, so start 'flatin' ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.12 08:40:27 - [239] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value. Last time CCP messed with data sites loot value drop to the level of prechange lowsec sites. Why? Because they were buffing invention. Why there's no point of salvaging wrecks? Because of the flood of salvage materials coming from exploration sites. It's all connected. You can't just rise one value and call it done, it don't work that way. When you buff nullsec beyond some point, exploration sites everywhere in new eden and part of WHs space will get hit. For those doing exploration only it's no go. Market after odyssey never recover to the point before release (part of it is good thing, rigs are cheaper) but every antoher nerf to explo income won't do any good. Items from it are not reserved for exploration only, they can be obtained from other sources. When CCP telling me we will take look on them I know they are already fail, such as with data sites. Exploration is driven by ISK, low ISK and nobody will do it, just like data sites all around new eden. To the part that giving big carrot for the null is good for the game. Really? Reducing the null WHs, increasing ISK earning possibilities, reducing jump drives range will made a perfect condition to grow safe regions. New sov with elink will be similiar to FW. Regions like Tenal or Omist will be very safe. Should they, Black Pedro? Why null is so great that it must deregulate whole new eden market? "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2260	Posted - 2015.07.12 09:08:32 - [240] - Quote Mmmm, Interesting change list. Lot of good stuff like the Incursion changes. More Anoms also increases population density nicely. For the people talking rubbish about 100 people living in a single system, seriously, go to null, try and have 100 people farm a single system at once currently. Hell, try and have 10 people farm a single system at once now. If this turns active density from 10 to 15 in a system, that's progress, but it is certainly not the be all & end all. As for Data/Relic sites & loot becoming cheaper. So it becomes cheaper..... Just move more volume, you will get the same income overall right? It's what you always tell miners. It will also actually become used loot if it is cheaper, and used loot is good. It increases destruction of said loot which provides a counterbalance to said production. High turnover is good for EVE, it means things are happening, low turn over is bad even if it's high value as it means things are quiet.

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1155	Posted - 2015.07.12 11:35:48 - [241] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: To the part that giving big carrot for the null is good for the game. Really? Reducing the null WHs, increasing ISK earning possibilities, reducing jump drives range will made a perfect condition to grow safe regions. New sov with elink will be similiar to FW. Regions like Tenal or Omist will be very safe. Should they, Black Pedro? Why null is so great that it must deregulate whole new eden market? Giving sovereign null a slight boost in PvE income isn't going to "deregulate" the whole economy. Altering how exploration sites spawn so there slightly more or less sites isn't going to "deregulate" whole economy. All it will do is make is actually possible for a larger group of players to earn an income in the space that they have claimed instead of forcing them to farm incursions or FW missions on an alt. If the new design for nullsec proves too safe and farmable or is flooding the economy with something, CCP has many levers they can pull to change things. But a vibrant and active null is extremely important to the long-term health of the game. There are not headlines in international newspapers about how some carebear mined his billionth unit of Veldspar or some explorer got really lucky running sites on the weekend. Players join this game to be part of the battle for this virtual universe and that struggle is most obviously epitomized by the nullsec sovereignty system. That is why nullsec is "so great" and it is important for the continued health of the game for CCP to get this right. Players should be rewarded for taking and defending sov, or no one is going to put up with the effort of defending that space for very long. I agree it is a tough balancing act to get right such that the income in this space doesn't destabilize the whole economy, but these announced changes are really quite conservative and don't do much to increase overall player income, just make higher player densities more feasible. Get over yourself. Like carebears everywhere you are fixated on your ISK. The game is changing and you might have to adapt. Arguing against change just because your source of income might be slightly diminished is really poor form.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1755	Posted - 2015.07.12 15:11:17 - [242] - Quote The only big danger on the horizon is the learning implant removal. That is a highly disruptive event when it comes to the economy. Still very needed and doable just tricky. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 486	Posted - 2015.07.12 16:05:05 - [243] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: To the part that giving big carrot for the null is good for the game. Really? Reducing the null WHs, increasing ISK earning possibilities, reducing jump drives range will made a perfect condition to grow safe regions. New sov with elink will be similiar to FW. Regions like Tenal or Omist will be very safe. Should they, Black Pedro? Why null is so great that it must deregulate whole new eden market? Maybe there are more ISK earning opportunities by virtue of more combat anomalies, but it still doesn't make them good ISK earning opportunities. Given the amount of set up, organization, maintenance, and defense that is required to have them, the income they afford is not really sufficient. It is still better to just have alts in FW space or doing HS incursions, even though now there is a reason to keep the military index high. I completely understand that more liquid ISK is a terrible idea, but there needs to be something more; they simply aren't competitive with other income sources until you start to multibox. Income in null may be more accessible and available after these changes, but it still doesn't justify the hassle except for the largest organizations. I'm not sure what size alliance was considered 'right' for the new sov, but as it stands, it seems vastly more attractive for many to set up in lowsec or NPC null and outsource income, and just farm sov aspirants for content. The available income should support the intended play style. FW and HS incursions/L4s way overcompensate the risks and costs of the HS and LS play styles, whereas the null anomalies really don't compared to risk, set up, and intended conflict scopes null is supposed to harbor. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Anthar Thebess 1223	Posted - 2015.07.12 17:53:14 - [244] - Quote CCP you are boosting PVE in Sov system by greatly boosting anomaly spawns in all systems. What is most important , that the biggest boost get currently worsts systems : In contrast, a fully upgraded -0.1 system would gain the following 15 anomalies in addition to those that already spawn there now: +3 Havens, +1 Forsaken Hub, +3 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +2 Hubs, +2 Forlorn Rally Points, +1 Port, and +1 Hidden Rally Point. Why this is bad? Because this will directly affect number of escalations and faction spawns. Why this is bad for pirate LP stores? As almost every faction item you can get from LP store is also able to drop from escalation and faction spawn, currently the only item that is faction store specific ( so cannot drop ) is XL ammo. Ammo that is less and less desired ,and after sov changes it will be even less needed. Currently LP price vary between Pirate LP stores, but for most of them it is getting closer and closer to 1.8k isk per LP ( after next patch this will drop even more) Usual LP payout for lvl 4 pirate mission is from 4 to 15k ( old missions) 20-25k ( burner missions) Just for example FW mission payout at tier 4 or 5 give you 60-100k lp . What is also important , each of those items have high demand item that can easily give you around 1k is for LP. Each change to escalation rate lead to lower and lower value of pirate lp stores. They urgently need balancing, by : - increasing LP payout for all non burner missions ( but this is bad direction ) - balancing pirate faction items, and moving more of them to pirate LP stores ( as almost for every lp store you can find something useful ) Without this most of the pirate lp stores will become even much less profitable , when compared to FW , incursions, or simple anomaly ratting. People that want to live in NPC null regions are totally different people that desire to live in sov space. What is also important , they use this isk to harass people in all regions around them , and this means only one thing. More roaming gangs, more fights ... more content. This increase of anomaly spawn , just shifted a lot of income from those groups to people inhabiting SOV space. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2580	Posted - 2015.07.12 19:30:17 - [245] - Quote That assumes there is a sudden influx of people into null, rather than a condensing of existing players. If the latter, the increase is marginal.
Anthar Thebess 1223	Posted - 2015.07.12 20:04:38 - [246] - Quote Number of places you can havens will increase dramatically , and escalation from them. Remember that faction drops are mostly from faction spawns that also show up without escalations. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2580	Posted - 2015.07.12 20:26:05 - [247] - Quote Are havens unique with escalations or drops?
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 486	Posted - 2015.07.12 21:18:10 - [248] - Quote Rowells wrote: Are havens unique with escalations or drops? Everyone wants to be doing Havens/Sanctums to get the 10/10 escalation, whereas the other escalations aren't even worth the time to do them. People were forced to do lower tier anomalies in crowded systems before, but with more total Havens/Sanctums, there will be more total escalations unless the rate is changed again. Just changing the rate of escalations a few months back caused most dead space loot to lose ~50% of its value. It's really sort of sad because exploration as a profession really took a huge hit from that. Its also sort of sad, as escalations were the only thing that made sov pve at times more lucrative than HS incursions or FW, and yet now they are totally devalued, as is the loot from the reprocessing changes, so....sov pve is really in a bad spot. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
MadKing101 Interstellar ORE INC. 0	Posted - 2015.07.12 21:49:04 - [249] - Quote will CCP ever listen? they are just ruining this damn game every day. Nerf wormhole for what cause? saving carebare? u Nerf capital, then stupid sov macanics and now Wh so u can bring peace in even universe... ?????? u should name the guys responsible for this .. **** my life
Anthar Thebess 1223	Posted - 2015.07.12 22:18:23 - [250] - Quote Yes the faction stuff will drop again, the same thing happened to pirate lp stores, but after this change they will be much worst in terms of actual payout than some of the higsec LP stores. There will be just not to many profitable items that you could actually pull and sell. Not checked , but for pirate faction stores i know , the only unique item you can get is XL ammo, and people will be using it less. What is also important stuff you can get from faction drops is in much bigger variety that you can actually get from LP store, adding all those items to faction store will reduce price of those items but will provide more different stuff that you can trade. This is not perfect solution, but best one is rework of the lp stores, introducing new items, so a lot of work . Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 719	Posted - 2015.07.12 23:18:40 - [251] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Rowells wrote: Are havens unique with escalations or drops? Everyone wants to be doing Havens/Sanctums to get the 10/10 escalation nah
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.13 06:28:38 - [252] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Giving sovereign null a slight boost in PvE income isn't going to "deregulate" the whole economy. Judging from your previous posts in this thread you have no idea how economy works in this game, so that's just your wishfull thinking. Black Pedro wrote: If the new design for nullsec proves too safe and farmable or is flooding the economy with something, CCP has many levers they can pull to change things. Like they did with data sites? They have problem with only one feature and you think they can handle economy in macro size? Just beacuse we need to buff nullsec? It's not like -5% on some hull. Black Pedro wrote: Get over yourself. Like carebears everywhere you are fixated on your ISK. The game is changing and you might have to adapt. Arguing against change just because your source of income might be slightly diminished is really poor form. This is main goal of exploration. Hit the jackpot. If there will be none of it there no point of doing sites, especially when they will be spawned by new nullsec upgrades. Loop, but you don't understand it. No, it's not like ppl don't do them and they will become worth more, data sites are moslty abbadoned and didn't increase in value. I have to adapt to what? For 2 years CCP fail to interest me in content named "pirates data sites". Black Pedro wrote: There are not headlines in international newspapers about how some carebear mined his billionth unit of Veldspar or some explorer got really lucky running sites on the weekend. Players join this game to be part of the battle for this virtual universe and that struggle is most obviously epitomized by the nullsec sovereignty system. Big If. I want healthy null, it's obvious. CCP want to lure players there and I hope they succeed by not nerfing other aspects of the game (maybe incursions and FW). "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5066	Posted - 2015.07.13 06:59:52 - [253] - Quote Another dev blog, and still no mention of the promised and greatly overdue Rorqual overhaul. May 1st, 2014. Never forget, nor let CCP Fozzie forget.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1160	Posted - 2015.07.13 08:18:24 - [254] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Judging from your previous posts in this thread you have no idea how economy works in this game, so that's just your wishfull thinking. CCP should really hire you. Someone who seems to have complete knowledge of how the most sweeping changes in nullsec in years are going to play out would be a valuable addition to the team. The economy is a complex beast that will be influenced by many factors, most importantly how many people actually start living in nullsec. That number alone will completely dominate any effects on the economy, certainly compared to a slight change in the spawn location or number of spawns of exploration sites. I don't doubt there will be effects, but CCP has ways to tweak the economy. Certainly not buffing site spawning because it might impact one small portion of the economy is not an option - these changes are needed to make the space livable to large groups. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Like they did with data sites? They have problem with only one feature and you think they can handle economy in macro size? Just beacuse we need to buff nullsec? It's not like -5% on some hull. Again you are fixated on your ISK. This is a player driven economy, if players decide they like doing an activity, the value of the rewards from that activity will go down. CCP can tweak things a bit if they so choose, but ultimately it is the players that will determine the value of the rewards. Buffing nullsec is needed. The economy will adjust. There will be winners and losers in that adjustment. Time to adapt friend - you can't stand in the way of progress. Jeremiah Saken wrote: This is main goal of exploration. Hit the jackpot. If there will be none of it there no point of doing sites, especially when they will be spawned by new nullsec upgrades. Loop, but you don't understand it. No, it's not like ppl don't do them and they will become worth more, data sites are moslty abbadoned and didn't increase in value. I have to adapt to what? For 2 years CCP fail to interest me in content named "pirates data sites". I understand it perfectly. Some of those sites will now go to nullsec alliances. CCP is giving some of your candy to other players as reward for living in and defending a nullsec system. And like any small child you are here crying that someone has taken away your candy. Let me make this clear. CCP knows it is taking some of your candy. They are doing it on purpose and not by mistake, all for a greater game reason. They have also left you plenty of other candy, but yet you are still here crying because you want all the candy. Get over it. Jeremiah Saken wrote: Big If. I want healthy null, it's obvious. CCP want to lure players there and I hope they succeed by not nerfing other aspects of the game (maybe incursions and FW). They will not. Incursions will have to be changed, reworked, or nerfed - this is already underway (see: Drifter Incursions) and Sugar Kyle was talking about rumblings of a major Faction Warfare rework. Both of these farm-fests need to be toned back a bit to encourage players to participate in activities that actually generate content. If FozzieSov is going to have a chance players have to see null as the place to make their living rather than relying on their incursion or FW alt. It's going to be a tough juggling act though so I wish them luck.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.13 08:35:20 - [255] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Again you are fixated on your ISK. Not on ISK, but on how exploration should look. What they propose is stagnation. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 581	Posted - 2015.07.13 10:06:21 - [256] - Quote Cross posting my GD thread here - because I can't be ****** typing it out all over again. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5882960#post5882960 doing what falcon told me to do v0v. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Anthar Thebess 1223	Posted - 2015.07.13 10:31:38 - [257] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Cross posting my GD thread here - because I can't be ****** typing it out all over again. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5882960#post5882960 doing what falcon told me to do v0v. I personally hate Burner missions. 1. They lock you from using specific ships - as they become easy and unbalanced at this point, but when you put word "alts" into the equation , they are unbalanced in any possible way. 2. They pretend to teach you PVP under the c0ver of PVE content , but best fit to do it , is utterly worthless for any PVP , most of them don't have any prop mod , or EHP buffer. 3. Because this repetitive PVE content , you can just farm them. There is no easy way to find the balance. From my perspective , constant inflation and changes enforced by CCP ar ruining game. We have rich and experienced people from one side and poor new players from the other side. When i started to play eve , we had : - mixed fleets, - battle cruiser fleets It was hard for me to earn 100mil , but this 100 mil allowed me to lose 5 battle cruisers , thanks to insurance. Now , we have specialized fleets: - 1-2 basic dps hulls ( T2 ahacs , faction battleship, T3 Cruisers) Each lost ship is 150 to 400mil lose - so something that is totally out of range for a new player. You could think , that anomaly income was boosted, but actually it was not. It was just made more available to bigger group of people in one system, and in one constellation. This is good , but at the same time you need to still spend a lot of time of farming this anomalies to get isk. New players are happy to get 15mil ticks, so this is around 45mil per hour. So when this new guy need to buy himself a T2 hac, he need to rat for 3 hours , and then lose it in 5min during fleet - as you know , worst skills, less experience.... I told this more than once. We need to : - make T1 battle cruisers and battleships worth to be used in fleets again - reduce the cost of T1 battleships - bring back mixed fleets ( nothing is so demotivating like email stating, "we shift doctrines from caldari to amarr , buy zealots" - when you finished training necessary skills to use caldari doctrine ships 3 days ago , and zealot skill plan states 3 months) Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.13 11:01:17 - [258] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: I personally hate Burner missions. When puzzles are figured they may become boring. Null need missions, for solos and groups. Anoms are the most boring part of PvE ever. I tried to do them in null with rattle. After 3 days I've started to wonder what I'm doing with my life. I can't imagine someone could be doing them on daily basis, only mining was more boring, I even felt asleep once. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 581	Posted - 2015.07.13 11:37:55 - [259] - Quote Well I would conjecture that if losing 400mil ships is expensive for you then perhaps change your doctrine to one that utilises less expensive ships. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Anthar Thebess 1223	Posted - 2015.07.13 12:42:44 - [260] - Quote It is not expensive for me. Some hint even , dps ships have no SRP , so all go from my wallet . I can manage it , but it is hard for new players. Yes they can join some big blob that will even SRP lost ratting ships, but i think whole point of all current changes is to move away from blobs. CCP stated at some point , that battleship fleet should be rare , but i don't think that by this CCP wanted battleships to be rare because they are much worst than hac/t3 cruiser fleets. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 11750	Posted - 2015.07.13 12:54:40 - [261] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: I personally hate Burner missions. When puzzles are figured they may become boring. Null need missions, for solos and groups. Anoms are the most boring part of PvE ever. I tried to do them in null with rattle. After 3 days I've started to wonder what I'm doing with my life. I can't imagine someone could be doing them on daily basis, only mining was more boring, I even felt asleep once. I do them on a daily basis, and i love it. For me, the keys to the fun is not getting caught by neutrals, getting faction spawns and escalations (traveling for the escalations can be harrowing), finding new ways to do them (I'm having fun with Dual FoF missile Ravens right now, Machariel plus fof FoF/Sentry Fleet phoon is what I do when i really want to rake in isk and escalations) and the fact that they are a million times less tedius than missions (which make you dock and undock all the damn time) helps too. Like mining it isn't for everyone, but as always, "fun" is subjective.
Sexy Cakes Have A Seat 945	Posted - 2015.07.13 14:56:24 - [262] - Quote Anom changes: off the cuff it looks like each good system will support twice the ratters and lesser systems a ratter here and there. Call it double the ratters for the sake of argument. Data/relic and plexes changes: twice as much exploration in nullsec. WH changes: you say they are: Quote: 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. in a post phoebe world power projection is a joke and far more tedious. Now a nerf to WH power projection. You guys are chaining an anchor to everyone these days... what gives? So basically you are doubling the amount of ISK that comes out of nullsec and nerfing movement into and out of it via wormholes. All I can say is I hope this new entosis link capture the flag/whack a mole sov system works out like you are hoping because if its the reason for all these changes and it doesn't play out like you want... the effects of these changes will only solidify the positions of the stagnant nullsec for many years to come. Not today spaghetti.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 719	Posted - 2015.07.13 18:56:45 - [263] - Quote Sexy Cakes wrote: Quote: 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. in a post phoebe world power projection is a joke and far more tedious. Now a nerf to WH power projection. You guys are chaining an anchor to everyone these days... what gives? "power projection that i can't do is bad, but power projection i can do should not be nerfed"
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2580	Posted - 2015.07.13 21:49:27 - [264] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: Another dev blog, and still no mention of the promised and greatly overdue Rorqual overhaul. May 1st, 2014. Never forget, nor let CCP Fozzie forget. This is the only true crime of the devs
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 720	Posted - 2015.07.13 22:51:37 - [265] - Quote guys we must preserve the battle functionality of the rorqual at the cost of making it unsuitable for every possible task it actually excelled at by castrating its jump range
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.14 06:25:46 - [266] - Quote So CCP what are the stats on Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays? Nothing here, nothing on patch notes. Is it top secret information? "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Sodamn In-sane Phorever People 5	Posted - 2015.07.14 08:09:35 - [267] - Quote Rowells wrote: Tau Cabalander wrote: Another dev blog, and still no mention of the promised and greatly overdue Rorqual overhaul. May 1st, 2014. Never forget, nor let CCP Fozzie forget. This is the only true crime of the devs i think they sacked the guys doing the rorqual upgrade and employed someone else that then thought banning isboxer for the miners would solve any future requests on the promised "special" rorqual changes.. back to playing capture the space flag Fozzie job change is good but you're still a muppet
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6723	Posted - 2015.07.16 22:04:14 - [268] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: guys we must preserve the battle functionality of the rorqual at the cost of making it unsuitable for every possible task it actually excelled at by castrating its jump range Mmm, castration... Helps stimulate the JF indsustry at least ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6723	Posted - 2015.07.16 22:05:54 - [269] - Quote Sodamn In-sane wrote: Rowells wrote: Tau Cabalander wrote: Another dev blog, and still no mention of the promised and greatly overdue Rorqual overhaul. May 1st, 2014. Never forget, nor let CCP Fozzie forget. This is the only true crime of the devs i think they sacked the guys doing the rorqual upgrade and employed someone else that then thought banning isboxer for the miners would solve any future requests on the promised "special" rorqual changes.. back to playing capture the space flag High stakes sov warfare. Now with sov lasers instead of Large Energy turrets. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5509	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:23:55 - [270] - Quote I can usually gauge how good a decision CCP makes is by measuring the level of complaint about it from large nullsec alliances. This one ranks about a 9. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page]

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