These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Anomalies revisited

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaaletram Lothyrawir
Trust Brothers LLC.
The Veyr Collective
#21 - 2011-11-16 14:53:37 UTC
I must say that I have really been impressed with the amount of effort that has been put in by all members of the dev team in listening to and addressing so many of the issues that have been causing long term players grief. From the sounds of this particular blog it seems to be a good start. I am still of the opinion that the number and distribution of the sites needs to be tweaked a bit but I remain optimistic about it for the road ahead Cool
Largo Coronet
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2011-11-16 14:54:48 UTC
So how does the improved sites compare to running Level IV missions in highsec?

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

Someday, this signature may save my life.
BigCountry
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#23 - 2011-11-16 14:56:19 UTC
Again you have made changes to the anamolies in the drone regions without mentioning it ...
So I wanna be first to thank you for making even more work for us out here to make money considering i dont see any increase to isk gained from them... All I see is taht drone hordes now take longer , and more work, for the same ISK..
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#24 - 2011-11-16 14:57:29 UTC
Nice.

The way I read the blog, this also affects low-sec anomalies - is that correct?

Can you give rough ISK:EHP values for the smaller sites, e.g. hubs, ports, rally points and yards? :-]
Lars Erlkonig
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
#25 - 2011-11-16 14:58:10 UTC
Have you also looked at the anomalies in low sec, or are they going to stay as they are?
Joe Skellington
Sarz'na Khumatari
#26 - 2011-11-16 14:59:49 UTC
Good to see this.

Please note that ASCII art is not permitted in the forum signatures. Spitfire
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#27 - 2011-11-16 15:02:08 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vicar2008 wrote:
You have buffed the Anoms, great sure, but in that Blog maybe i am reading it wrong, but are the way they are being distrubuted being relaxed also? Or are they still being reserved in the True sec status regions, aka 0.00 systems still seeing non, -0.40 mabe seeing one and the -0.80 to -1.00 getting the best?



We're not changing the distribution at this time, BUT we're not changing it because a lot of the "not-good" sites are being upgraded to "really very good". 0.00-ish systems will have the same sites in, for example, but those sites should be considerably better than they currently are.


Have you considered, if I may, the possibility that distribution is one of the main problems in null? By grouping the best into pockets of null you encourage mega-alliances to control those specific pockets leaving surrounding areas much more devoid. It may be worth considering changing the sec stat of many systems to lower in order to smear the best systems across much larger areas of space... areas too large for the megas to claim all of without stretching themselves too thin. This would open even more space for smaller alliances to try and get a foothold in... space that would really be worth going for and not the sloppy seconds of the megas.

Just a thought.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#28 - 2011-11-16 15:04:36 UTC
I personly learned that forlorn hubs and such were okay after the nerf... but that was mainly because I was using a pimped out vindicator...

The main problem with those compared to the sanctums was that you could finish them very very fast... so the actual lost "isk/hour" was in the warping between anomalies!

So... that said, I could earn about 25-30mil/20 mins, in both sanctums and forlorn hubs.

It's the amount of battleships and spawns that makes the difference :P, it's fine that they are worth less than in a sanctum, I just want more of them so I don't have to warp between new anomalies compared to a sanctum

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-11-16 15:05:28 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Have you considered, if I may, the possibility that distribution is one of the main problems in null? By grouping the best into pockets of null you encourage mega-alliances to control those specific pockets leaving surrounding areas much more devoid. It may be worth considering changing the sec stat of many systems to lower in order to smear the best systems across much larger areas of space... areas too large for the megas to claim all of without stretching themselves too thin. This would open even more space for smaller alliances to try and get a foothold in... space that would really be worth going for and not the sloppy seconds of the megas.

Just a thought.


The only fix for that is to adjust power projection by nerfing jump drives and other forms of travel, not in changing anomaly distribution itself. The original implementation had what you're proposing and all it led to was even more grossly inflated game income while guys searching for a foothold were given the old super capital boot.
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2011-11-16 15:09:59 UTC
StukaBee wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Second, yes, there was a huge angry forum thread for the first blog and I ignored it. That was also a mistake (obviously, in retrospect). This happened partly because I was too focused on looking for reasoned critiques to appreciate the significance of the huge outburst that it generated, but mainly because I've been increasingly withdrawn from the forums for the last year or two. It's a pretty draining experience reading page after page after page of angry posts, about all kinds of topics but all ultimately driven by the same core concerns of abandonment and neglect, and agreeing with those concerns, and not being able to do much of anything about it. As a result, I've been avoiding listening to the forums and focusing on doing the best work I can, but the former occasionally precludes the latter. On the bright side, it feels like the mood on the forums has been improving hugely in the last month or two, and I'm making an effort to read and post more as a result. Whether or not this is a good thing is of course a matter of personal opinion ;)


The moral of this story is to never stop posting.


this ^

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#31 - 2011-11-16 15:14:48 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Have you considered, if I may, the possibility that distribution is one of the main problems in null? By grouping the best into pockets of null you encourage mega-alliances to control those specific pockets leaving surrounding areas much more devoid. It may be worth considering changing the sec stat of many systems to lower in order to smear the best systems across much larger areas of space... areas too large for the megas to claim all of without stretching themselves too thin. This would open even more space for smaller alliances to try and get a foothold in... space that would really be worth going for and not the sloppy seconds of the megas.

Just a thought.


The only fix for that is to adjust power projection by nerfing jump drives and other forms of travel, not in changing anomaly distribution itself. The original implementation had what you're proposing and all it led to was even more grossly inflated game income while guys searching for a foothold were given the old super capital boot.


Or both perhaps? Make more space away from the current megas worth claiming as quality space while limiting the power projection as you mention?

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
TheButcherPete
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2011-11-16 15:17:19 UTC
Man.... I was brought much joy as a fellow corpmate warped to a new Haven anomalie. His screams and whimpers as the NPCs chipped at the structure of his Machariel in which he got stuck on a structure and nearly popped Twisted



ME LIKEY THE NEW ANOMS :D


+1 CCP ♥

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#33 - 2011-11-16 15:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dierdra Vaal
My question for greyscale and the other CCP devs that worked on this is the following:

Quote:
Specifically, we determined a target average ISK value for every site and then tuned each one upwards (every site bar one ended up needing a buff of some kind) to meet the target goal


Given that the eve economy is already suffering from a lot of inflation, to the point where both your CEO and your lead economist have said that the economy is 'broken', how do you justify increasing ISK faucets even more when you should be doing the opposite?

Has any research been done in how this increased income will affect the game and the economy as a whole?

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-11-16 15:19:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Or both perhaps? Make more space away from the current megas worth claiming as quality space while limiting the power projection as you mention?


If someone else doesn't have anything better than you do, there's little incentive to go out and fight for that other person's something. Without conflict, 0.0 enters stagnation. With stagnation, ships don't blow up, the gears of the game economy don't turn, and nobody is actually happy because the only purpose of PVP becomes PVP itself.

Actually, at this point, that's pretty much how it already is.

There are some grotesque faucets in high security space that need to be dealt with. As of planetary interaction, there are far fewer ISK sinks to pull money away from the economy. There are some seriously major problems that need to be addressed before more inflation is introduced to the game.
Apollo Gabriel
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#35 - 2011-11-16 15:20:23 UTC
Thank you Greyscale for addressing the players' concerns directly.

I can only imagine the frustration reading these forums could cause, as I get very frustrated and I'm only a player.



One thing that could help your cause (as in all Devs) is to NOT ignore the players ( I don't just mean you). The more transparency the better. The daily dev blogs are great, but a list of "upcoming blogs and dates" would be better.

While the winter expansion looks great, discontent grows again as CCP is NOT telling us about FW, or AF or Hybrids (beyond 8th of November). Just be upfront about what you're doing. Remember someone waiting for any news feels like a day is a week, and that doesn't help engender good will in spite of all the GOOD you guys are doing.

Thanks
AG
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#36 - 2011-11-16 15:20:41 UTC
I'm holding judgment.....

I would like a more detailed breakdown of the precise changes per anomily, numbers and values.

Will this be enough to reverse the disaster from March and allow alot of us smaller guys to rebuild our corporations? Time will tell I guess.

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.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-11-16 15:21:25 UTC
The changes are welcome, but the most important line in the blog is "We are however actively planning on revisiting the situation in a few months to make sure we've hit the mark properly this time."

I'm sure everyone is happy that the renewed focus on EVE and FiS provides more resources for such rapid iteration.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Admiral Thorn
Twisted Thorn v3.0
#38 - 2011-11-16 15:22:16 UTC
BigCountry wrote:
Again you have made changes to the anamolies in the drone regions without mentioning it ...
So I wanna be first to thank you for making even more work for us out here to make money considering i dont see any increase to isk gained from them... All I see is taht drone hordes now take longer , and more work, for the same ISK..


This...
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2011-11-16 15:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Admiral Thorn wrote:
BigCountry wrote:
Again you have made changes to the anamolies in the drone regions without mentioning it ...
So I wanna be first to thank you for making even more work for us out here to make money considering i dont see any increase to isk gained from them... All I see is taht drone hordes now take longer , and more work, for the same ISK..


This...


No offense meant, but everything about the drone regions and the products that come out of them are utterly terrible, to the point of deserving to be thrown out and redone. I can't think of any single thing that's done more damage to Eve Online than the parallel presence of jump drives, jump freighters, and drone alloys.

Considering the volume of super capitals that were built on the back of drone alloys, I have no sympathies for your plight.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#40 - 2011-11-16 15:31:58 UTC
I find it hard to get an idea about the impact of this, but I am glad something has been done.

What I would really like to see is dynamic distribution of anomalies according to space usage. Too much killing in one system, less sites, abandoned systems, more sites. This would do wonders for 0.0, force players to move around (thinking of botting here too !), more kills on gates, it would solve so many problems...

Peace