These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Anom changes +6 months

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
JR Morgan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-10-20 14:59:49 UTC  |  Edited by: JR Morgan
CCP, I was thinking about some of the recent changes. How do you feel about the Anom changes after 6 months. In this time the NC did fall but I am not sure that had much to do with havens and sanctums. I am reading on the old forums and there are 118 pages of white hot hate about not making the change but it was still implemented. These were the goals of the change do we think it was successful (and did it effect subscriptions of the user base)? Not trying to troll CCP but would be nice if we could we could revisit this in the future.

* 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)
Knot'Kul Sun
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-10-20 15:03:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Knot'Kul Sun
Don't touch anoms.

EDIT: I misunderstood, I fully endorse the idea of bringing anoms to a higher potency.
Dalek Commander
The Shinsengumi
#3 - 2011-10-20 15:18:37 UTC
Nullsec shrank back to being hot pockets of activity around decent systems, and the rest is empty. The small corps and alliances that used to live there were either absorbed into the larger "parent" alliances, went back to highsec, got into wormholes or simply withered and died.


End result after 6 months is:

  • SOV war is nearly impossible for small up and coming alliances to get into (CCP Super Cap nerf will not fix this)
  • NAPs are turning into NIPs and minus a serious political or budget blunder the nullsec map will not change
  • Vast chunks of nullsec are now empty since any system under -0.45 is near useless unless it has a strategic (moon, station, or jump bridge) value.
  • Goons are so bored their only fun is found messing with ice markets
  • PL hasn't had a contract in so long their members are found on BF3 more then on EVE battle fields.









Gasm
Colossus Enterprises
#4 - 2011-10-20 17:00:08 UTC
Dalek Commander wrote:
Nullsec shrank back to being hot pockets of activity around decent systems, and the rest is empty. The small corps and alliances that used to live there were either absorbed into the larger "parent" alliances, went back to highsec, got into wormholes or simply withered and died.


End result after 6 months is:

  • SOV war is nearly impossible for small up and coming alliances to get into (CCP Super Cap nerf will not fix this)
  • NAPs are turning into NIPs and minus a serious political or budget blunder the nullsec map will not change
  • Vast chunks of nullsec are now empty since any system under -0.45 is near useless unless it has a strategic (moon, station, or jump bridge) value.
  • Goons are so bored their only fun is found messing with ice markets
  • PL hasn't had a contract in so long their members are found on BF3 more then on EVE battle fields.




every word of this is... TRUE.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#5 - 2011-10-20 17:39:18 UTC
Gasm wrote:
Dalek Commander wrote:
Nullsec shrank back to being hot pockets of activity around decent systems, and the rest is empty. The small corps and alliances that used to live there were either absorbed into the larger "parent" alliances, went back to highsec, got into wormholes or simply withered and died.


End result after 6 months is:

  • SOV war is nearly impossible for small up and coming alliances to get into (CCP Super Cap nerf will not fix this)
  • NAPs are turning into NIPs and minus a serious political or budget blunder the nullsec map will not change
  • Vast chunks of nullsec are now empty since any system under -0.45 is near useless unless it has a strategic (moon, station, or jump bridge) value.
  • Goons are so bored their only fun is found messing with ice markets
  • PL hasn't had a contract in so long their members are found on BF3 more then on EVE battle fields.




every word of this is... TRUE.


+1
Leave it to ccp to fix one problem (to much liquid isk from anomalies/space to "even") and create anohter, culminatiing in a need to "repopulate" null sec lol
Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#6 - 2011-10-20 17:48:05 UTC
Wow. You realize that before Dominion, most of the people didn't even know about anomalies?

0.0 was fine back then. Implementing the upgradable anoms without any sort of malus to bad security systems, 0.0 got bloated so hard (remember the maps saying 70000 or so players in NC space?). It was literally impossible to solo roam through NC space in anything but a frigate. The moment the anoms got nerfed again, you were at least good to travel between the bad intersections.

If anything, anomalies lead to carebears coming from empire to 0.0, who unfortunately coming in the thousands can have quite a punch at anyone who is "visiting" their systems.

The first rollout of upgradable anomalies did a lot more harm to 0.0 than good.
CCP Navigator
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7 - 2011-10-20 18:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
It is late in the day and there are not any developers around but I believe there will be some balance changes to anomalies with the winter release. You should see more details about this in a coming blog from Team BFF Smile

Edit - Just in case I picked up incorrect information, I will aim to give you an update tomorrow.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#8 - 2011-10-20 18:26:34 UTC
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Wow. You realize that before Dominion, most of the people didn't even know about anomalies?

0.0 was fine back then. Implementing the upgradable anoms without any sort of malus to bad security systems, 0.0 got bloated so hard (remember the maps saying 70000 or so players in NC space?). It was literally impossible to solo roam through NC space in anything but a frigate. The moment the anoms got nerfed again, you were at least good to travel between the bad intersections.

If anything, anomalies lead to carebears coming from empire to 0.0, who unfortunately coming in the thousands can have quite a punch at anyone who is "visiting" their systems.

The first rollout of upgradable anomalies did a lot more harm to 0.0 than good.


before dom. 0.0 residenst funded there pvp from mission alts in empire. so were at best 50% 0.0 residents. the anoms changed this. it moved those alts to 0.0. i brought new players to 0.0. new corps and alliances.

so while there were people in 0.0 before dom. there were alot more targets there after. now its back to the same if not lower than before dom.

unless you have these magicly increasing sub numbers hilmar has, teh anom nerf was not only bad for 0.0 grunts, it was bad for eve and ccp.


OMG when can i get a pic here
JR Morgan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#9 - 2011-10-20 18:26:39 UTC
K thx sounds good.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#10 - 2011-10-20 18:38:31 UTC
Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Wow. You realize that before Dominion, most of the people didn't even know about anomalies?

0.0 was fine back then. Implementing the upgradable anoms without any sort of malus to bad security systems, 0.0 got bloated so hard (remember the maps saying 70000 or so players in NC space?). It was literally impossible to solo roam through NC space in anything but a frigate. The moment the anoms got nerfed again, you were at least good to travel between the bad intersections.

If anything, anomalies lead to carebears coming from empire to 0.0, who unfortunately coming in the thousands can have quite a punch at anyone who is "visiting" their systems.

The first rollout of upgradable anomalies did a lot more harm to 0.0 than good.


Back then everyone had a mission alt or similar moneymaking alt in high-sec. Not to mention chaining worked much better.

Isk faucets were much much smaller so the value of the ISK was much higher. 220m would buy you a 30 day GTC (before they were called PLEX). So before dominion prices weren't as high as they are today.

After sanctum nerf we got the worst of both worlds. High prices introduced with the easy money given by anomalies, and crap space in 80% of nullsec. Like i said in the original "white-hot" thread, it would have been much better if they had removed anomalies alltogether, at least we would see a decrease in prices.

Today its even worse.. less money is beeing made by the average grunt, and things cost even more than they did 6 months ago.


And don't get me wrong, i have access to both sanctums and profitable LVL 4 agents so my money is guaranteed regardless. But i have no use for my money, if other people can't afford ships to fight me like it currently is in null-sec.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
White Tree
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-10-20 18:57:10 UTC
I have continuously moaned about the Anom changes since their release. I felt, and continue to feel that they had no impact on sovereignty warfare, and all they did was make the lives of the average foot-soldier in the average nullsec alliance a nightmare.

Former member of CSM6.
Raid'En
#12 - 2011-10-20 19:10:54 UTC
Dalek Commander wrote:


  • Vast chunks of nullsec are now empty since any system under -0.45 is near useless unless it has a strategic (moon, station, or jump bridge) value.

got on sov null not long ago and was wondering if that was normal or not... so it was not like that before the nerf ?
White Tree
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2011-10-20 19:14:31 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
Dalek Commander wrote:


  • Vast chunks of nullsec are now empty since any system under -0.45 is near useless unless it has a strategic (moon, station, or jump bridge) value.

got on sov null not long ago and was wondering if that was normal or not... so it was not like that before the nerf ?


In the week between CSM5 leaving office and CSM6 entering office, CCP Greyscale pushed a change to anoms making it so that sanctums were only available in the high end security systems, and havens were available in the low ends, anything 0.4 and lower basically has nothing. CSM6 hates this system and continues to object to it.

Former member of CSM6.
White Tree
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-10-20 19:14:45 UTC
Double post.

Former member of CSM6.
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-10-20 19:15:53 UTC
White Tree wrote:
I have continuously moaned about the Anom changes since their release. I felt, and continue to feel that they had no impact on sovereignty warfare, and all they did was make the lives of the average foot-soldier in the average nullsec alliance a nightmare.

It took away a overpowered isk making machine.

It was a redicoulus ISK generator totally out of scale, just like (highsec) incursions are now.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-10-20 19:16:19 UTC
CCP Navigator wrote:
It is late in the day and there are not any developers around but I believe there will be some balance changes to anomalies with the winter release. You should see more details about this in a coming blog from Team BFF Smile

Edit - Just in case I picked up incorrect information, I will aim to give you an update tomorrow.


By this he means...

"Anomalies are now moved entirely to High Sec. Lowsec and Nullsec as well as WH space will no longer have anomalies."

At least thats the kind of descision I have come to expect from CCP in these kinds of matters...I guess we will see though. Maybe they will listen to the community and implement the system to be based on Sov as was suggested numerous times on the old forums?

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Hrald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#17 - 2011-10-20 19:32:07 UTC
Jack bubu wrote:
White Tree wrote:
I have continuously moaned about the Anom changes since their release. I felt, and continue to feel that they had no impact on sovereignty warfare, and all they did was make the lives of the average foot-soldier in the average nullsec alliance a nightmare.

It took away a overpowered isk making machine.

It was a redicoulus ISK generator totally out of scale, just like (highsec) incursions are now.

Well, let us examine their goals then, shall we?


Quote:
1.) Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
2.) In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
3.) Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
4.) Coalitions will be marginally less stable
5.) 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)



1: This would be admirable if nullsec alliances didn't control pretty large chunks of space. Many have a number of -1.0 systems within their space.


2: Conflict, just like the real world, is driven by money. If a pilot can afford ships more readily, they are more willing to put them on the line for the alliance. Basically more ships means more people x'ing up to kill things. This generates more conflict. Making people poorer doesn't. I couldn't sit in havens for several hours a day just to afford a decent PvP ship, so I pretty much didn't PvP for a couple months while I afk trained into a zealot to do incursions. Suddenly I had money again and oh look, my killboard became active again.


3.) Welp, this certainly hasn't happened.


4.) What destabilized the North was that they committed the cardinal sin of invading Russians. It never ends well. Aside from that, what has decided conflicts is money, who can afford the most supers, the most caps, etc. So taking away isk making actually makes it more difficult to unseat larger powers.


5.) I suppose this is somewhat true in that players will base themselves closer to the crowded truesec systems, but I personally didn't even bother because of how crowded they were.


You're from PL, do you really want to make people poorer so they can't afford ships to pad your killboard stats even more? C'maaaaan.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#18 - 2011-10-20 19:32:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
White Tree wrote:
I felt, and continue to feel that they had no impact on sovereignty warfare, and all they did was make the lives of the average foot-soldier in the average nullsec alliance a nightmare.



So true.

Quote:
2: Conflict, just like the real world, is driven by money. If a pilot can afford ships more readily, they are more willing to put them on the line for the alliance. Basically more ships means more people x'ing up to kill things. This generates more conflict. Making people poorer doesn't. I couldn't sit in havens for several hours a day just to afford a decent PvP ship, so I pretty much didn't PvP for a couple months while I afk trained into a zealot to do incursions. Suddenly I had money again and oh look, my killboard became active again.


This is exactly what's happening in my corp, we're over 150 but atm with all game changes and deceptions we're not more than 10 connected at the same time in game and Eve section (Vent/Ts/Mumble) while over 80 every day in BF/other games section.

Roll
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2011-10-20 19:49:48 UTC
IMO, make it so every nullsec system can have santum spawns, make it so the lowend nullsec systems have to actually scan for it though, this means a probe launcher and probes btw.

this will help prevent botting and whatnot, while still keeping those high end systems still high end.

santums should be about as hard to scan down as a highsec wormhole ( which is easy btw)
White Tree
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-10-20 19:51:59 UTC
- 1.) Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

Nope.


- 2.) In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

Nope.


- 3.) Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec

Hahahahahaha no.


- 4.) Coalitions will be marginally less stable

Nope.


- 5.) 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)

Nope.

Former member of CSM6.
123Next pageLast page