These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Summer of Sov - Nullsec PVE and Upgrades

First post
Author
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#101 - 2015-07-08 17:35:09 UTC
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
#102 - 2015-07-08 17:38:56 UTC
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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2015-07-08 17:46:37 UTC
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
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
#104 - 2015-07-08 17:49:14 UTC
Wormhole groups crying about how safe null is. Good laughs
Alexis Nightwish
#105 - 2015-07-08 17:54:09 UTC
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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-07-08 17:56:26 UTC
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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2015-07-08 17:56:57 UTC
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.
Sadew42
Seekers of Agartha
#108 - 2015-07-08 18:17:24 UTC
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
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#109 - 2015-07-08 18:21:52 UTC
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!

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Cpt Buckshot
i420 Inc
#110 - 2015-07-08 18:25:48 UTC
Reserved *** speechless atm !Shocked
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#111 - 2015-07-08 18:30:50 UTC
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.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#112 - 2015-07-08 18:41:05 UTC
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...

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#113 - 2015-07-08 18:42:56 UTC
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
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#114 - 2015-07-08 18:44:42 UTC
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
#115 - 2015-07-08 18:48:52 UTC
Saisin wrote:
CCP has increased the ratio of WHNull Sec exit on July 4th, from what the patch notes are saying
source?
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2015-07-08 18:51:16 UTC
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
#117 - 2015-07-08 18:52:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Di Mulle
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 redistribution 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
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2015-07-08 18:56:01 UTC
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
Perkone
Caldari State
#119 - 2015-07-08 18:58:04 UTC
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
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#120 - 2015-07-08 19:07:19 UTC
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.