These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#141 - 2011-11-17 10:15:54 UTC
There are too any sob stories in this thread for my taste. I though zero sec dwellers were supposed to be more "Chuck Norris"-like.Straight

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

WisdomLikeSilence
BurgerkingTM
#142 - 2011-11-17 10:17:40 UTC
The problem with the anom nerf was not the changes themselves (the figures) but the philosophy behind it, to whit:

"we will make some space useless".

THis went back on the deal that CCP made with players when they introduced all the system upgrading mechanics and the very expensive equipment that went along with it. CCP encouraged players to carve out a slice of 0.0 for themselves, then reneged on it - making all our time, isk and hard work POINTLESS. This was done virtually overnight, with no preamble, no warning and an attitude of "suck it up"

Result: whole alliances are being gutted by players leaving in disgust. Believe me, more people unsubbed over this than over complaints about incarna.

So While I appreciate the mea culpa, I still think Greyscale should be let go.
Chicken Pizza
One-man Armada
#143 - 2011-11-17 10:42:33 UTC
Preki wrote:
In addition, consider limiting afk cloaking by for example implementing a time limited activity of cloaking modules.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's a terrible idea!

A better one I've seen floating around is to disable the local window and remove yourself from local while cloaked. It could probably use a few tweaks, but it's much better than putting timers on cloaks. Bahahahahahaha, just thinking about timed cloaks makes me giddy with laughter. Sounds like something a nullbear would say.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#144 - 2011-11-17 10:48:00 UTC
Where have you gone, Greyscale? Your input and analysis on the points brought up in this thread would be appreciated.
Preki
#145 - 2011-11-17 11:01:30 UTC
Chicken Pizza wrote:
Preki wrote:
In addition, consider limiting afk cloaking by for example implementing a time limited activity of cloaking modules.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's a terrible idea!

A better one I've seen floating around is to disable the local window and remove yourself from local while cloaked. It could probably use a few tweaks, but it's much better than putting timers on cloaks. Bahahahahahaha, just thinking about timed cloaks makes me giddy with laughter. Sounds like something a nullbear would say.


Whatever the solution may be.

I have pointed out a problem which certainly annoys a lot of players, does not have any countermeasure and is giving the ability to the cloaker to play the game while he is actually afk. This is the same as botting - playing the game and having an effect on you/your surroundings while you are afk.
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#146 - 2011-11-17 11:08:39 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.


My issue with the current distrubution is, that the systems have usually 1 or 2 anoms worth running, and the rest are highsec trash. After upgrading to lvl4-5, you can have forlorn hubs, which are starting to be decent, and the havens/sanctums are waaaay better than any other sites. Is that possible that every 00 system gets less of the highsec trash anoms, we we actually get a somewhat better sites? If a system is above -0.2 it needs like lvl5 upgrade to get a single forlorn hub, which will be the only sites worths running. The rest are wasted time. The sites distributed seems like a "lots of unworthy trash + 1 worthy" site, though it can be up to 3-4 sites worth running in systems below -0.8. So we have like 20 anoms, people are running 1 to 3 out of them.
Duke Hamilton1
Henson Inc. Minerals and Manufacturing
#147 - 2011-11-17 11:25:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#148 - 2011-11-17 11:27:05 UTC
Didona Carpenito wrote:
So how does this effect low sec?

Can you give rough ISK:EHP values for the smaller sites, e.g. hubs, ports, rally points and yards?


I'm reluctant to give out numbers on stuff like this right now, because I've not thought through the ramifications of what a smart player could do with the data :)

StukaBee wrote:
I'd very much like to see a greater variation in the types of anomalies available (maybe even randomised spawns), any chance of this in the future?

Either way, good to see that things are changing.



We've been talking about mixing up each wave more, so there's a little more unpredictability in each site without making it so unpredictable that it's not profitable to run any more. That'd be a future change though, if it happens.

Freelancer'Spb wrote:
Also two suggestions:
Make npc's in anomalies more smart, like in incursions.
Make scanned anomalies appear into the space and overview like belts. This thing in the solarsystem map is too awkward .


We actually looked into anomalies on the overview, but it opens a can of worms, particularly WRT space-clutter, so we pushed it back for now.

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..


Drone region anomalies weren't touched as part of this specific project - we're just balancing on bounty payout this time around and as drones don't have a bounty, we still don't have the tools to properly assess their worth.

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.


This is pretty much by design. There need to be incentives for powerful alliances to claim manageable chunks of space and settle down there, both because it acts as one motivation to fight, and because getting big powerful alliances to settle down somewhere rich is one of the main tools we have for giving them an expiry date (see: Deklein). On top of that, space that's really worth going for doesn't get generally get settled by new alliances, it gets settled by old alliances. It's only by creating areas of space that older richer alliances consider "worthless" that we can create places where new alliances can learn the ropes without getting stomped on.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#149 - 2011-11-17 11:27:35 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
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?


The data I have in front of me suggest that - excluding PLEX - inflation has been relatively stable since mid 2008. We generally see increased volatility around expansions, but our CPI today is about the same as it was circa Q2 2008. We do need to do more work to balance out our ISK flows, but we also need people to be playing our game, and specifically we need people to be running anomalies if we want nullsec to be a healthy area of the game.

Louis deGuerre wrote:
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


The problem with this sort of approach is that it pushes people away from settling down and towards a more hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which isn't currently the direction we want nullsec to be generally moving in.

Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Thanks for being so honest. But you do realize that all this poison spitting was because we care for eve? If we wouldn`t, we would just unsub, shave our neckbeards, move out of mom's basement and get a job. It is not possible to care for eve without caring for ccp as well, that means every one of you. So, welcome back to the forums, Greyscale, and have a free hug from me.


Yup, that's taken as read, don't worry :)

Jojo Yohan wrote:
What about the nerf to the Drone Horde anomaly that is currently on Sisi. It appears that you're cutting down the ISK/hour by at least a factor of 2 on that one.


Drone Horde was a separate issue - those sites were breaking completely if you one-shotted the bunkers. It was also never intended that you could speed up the completion rate by spawning all the NPCs at once, so that was corrected as part of the bugfix. This site should now be more in line with other comparable anomalies and with the original design intent.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#150 - 2011-11-17 11:27:57 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:
With the feeling that this one might go unoticed by Grayscale:

What about the Forsaken Hubs? They are buggy, have been buggy since implementation, and at this moment they make 0.3 to 0.4 null systems quite frustrating.


What bug, you ask? Simple.. they spawn with no rats, and in some cases no amount of GM mojo can make them work again. We have to wait sometimes for 3 consecutive downtimes for them to spawn properly, only to bug out again the next day.


Bettik did some general clean-up work while he was tweaking everything, and adjustments were made to Forsaken Hubs to try and make them a little more robust. If they're still breaking post-patch, please file more bug reports!

RaZor Flash wrote:
All CCP did was add more ships to the anomalies, effectively making them harder, so you can't solo them as easily as you could.

1. With the perma neuting battleships, you have to shoot them from range causing less damage.
2. You need a better tank, less damage.

Less damage = killing a lot slower = worse isk/hour. This is *very* bad.


Generally, what was done was to swap low-bounty rats out for high-bounty rats of the same class, mostly replacing low-end battleships with high-end battleships and tougher cruisers with battlecruisers. In a few cases numbers were increased where all the useful swapping had already been done without meeting targets. If you've got concerns with or examples of specific sites you're finding problematic, please post them here :)

Arkady Sadik wrote:
Temmu Guerra wrote:
EHP->ISK therefore drones are not affected
I think you misunderstood him.

Assumptions:
- Anomaly value in these spreadsheets is not calculated as "bounty only", but "bounty + drop + salvage"
- Just because drone anomalies are called hordes and not sanctums doesn't mean they aren't covered

Deduction:
- Drone anomalies are affected as well, and have adjusted (better) payout (as measured by drop + salvage) as well

You can of course argue that the assumptions are surely wrong, but I wouldn't rely on it without a confirmation from CCP either way :-)



This time round we're just looking at pure bounties, on the assumption that drop/salvage is relatively consistent between NPCs of the same class. Also, as above, drone anomalies weren't looked at as part of this change, unfortunately.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#151 - 2011-11-17 11:31:09 UTC
Jieirn Devau wrote:

Three months ago you posted two blogs about Null and what it should be. Its time for an update and an actual outline. The players are giving you more feedback than ever before and its quality feedback, not just complaints. We are doing this because we care about this game and where it goes. So give us an outline, let us look in the little black book and get a glimpse of the secret. Then put out some framework for it, make it cohesive, include lowsec, and show us that you have seen the same vision that CCP showed us. Once that is done and only then, release this change. As much as we like making money, this does us no good till the other pieces are in place. This is NOT a PRIORITY, its a little token of yours in apology for the massive mistake that the last anom change was. Reading over the forums you can see that we are past that, that anoms will not bring back the players to nullsec. It gives us nothing, and we can plan for nothing with it. Let us in on the plan, or work with us to make it. Right it looks like you don't have one.



We've not done significant work on our overall vision for nullsec since the blogs published over the summer, because we've been working on other things. When we refocus on nullsec again you'll be hearing more about this sort of thing, but right now we're not saying a lot because we don't have a lot of additional stuff to say.

Magic Crisp wrote:
My issue with the current distrubution is, that the systems have usually 1 or 2 anoms worth running, and the rest are highsec trash. After upgrading to lvl4-5, you can have forlorn hubs, which are starting to be decent, and the havens/sanctums are waaaay better than any other sites. Is that possible that every 00 system gets less of the highsec trash anoms, we we actually get a somewhat better sites? If a system is above -0.2 it needs like lvl5 upgrade to get a single forlorn hub, which will be the only sites worths running. The rest are wasted time. The sites distributed seems like a "lots of unworthy trash + 1 worthy" site, though it can be up to 3-4 sites worth running in systems below -0.8. So we have like 20 anoms, people are running 1 to 3 out of them.


Forsaken Rally Point comes in about 5% worse than Forlorn Hub in the new system, and Hidden Rally Point and one of the Hub sites are probably down 10%. (Forlorn Hub is now on par with the two Haven sites, for reference.)

Evelgrivion wrote:
Where have you gone, Greyscale? Your input and analysis on the points brought up in this thread would be appreciated.


Went home, played Skyrim :)
Chicken Pizza
One-man Armada
#152 - 2011-11-17 11:41:33 UTC
Preki wrote:
Chicken Pizza wrote:
Preki wrote:
In addition, consider limiting afk cloaking by for example implementing a time limited activity of cloaking modules.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's a terrible idea!

A better one I've seen floating around is to disable the local window and remove yourself from local while cloaked. It could probably use a few tweaks, but it's much better than putting timers on cloaks. Bahahahahahaha, just thinking about timed cloaks makes me giddy with laughter. Sounds like something a nullbear would say.


Whatever the solution may be.

I have pointed out a problem which certainly annoys a lot of players, does not have any countermeasure and is giving the ability to the cloaker to play the game while he is actually afk. This is the same as botting - playing the game and having an effect on you/your surroundings while you are afk.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#153 - 2011-11-17 11:44:47 UTC
Please don't turn this into an afk-cloaker thread kthx Smile
Neo Agricola
P A R A B E L L U M
#154 - 2011-11-17 11:58:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Stuff he said


Thx for your replies!

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#155 - 2011-11-17 12:02:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Where have you gone, Greyscale? Your input and analysis on the points brought up in this thread would be appreciated.


Went home, played Skyrim :)


You mean you went home and... enjoyed yourself!?

P

Thanks for taking the time to reply again, Greyscale. There remains one major sticking point in regards to income in highsec vs lowsec and nullsec. This may be beyond the scope of what you want to discuss with this blog, but will it be addressed in the near future? This change isn't worth quite as much, in and of itself, without serious re-evaluation of other, safer means of income.
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#156 - 2011-11-17 12:03:10 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Drone region anomalies weren't touched as part of this specific project - we're just balancing on bounty payout this time around and as drones don't have a bounty, we still don't have the tools to properly assess their worth.
I can see how that might be difficult, as their worth depends on market price. But I think it would be really useful to do that, as some NPCs have subjectively quite different value due to salvage (Serpentis vs. Angels, say). You should be able to get "average market price" for minerals, drops and salvage quite easily, so that measure would not be too difficult to implement (I think :-)).

It might also be interesting to start measuring "average completion time" for anomalies. This will give you a better measure than EHP, and even more importantly, it will point out which NPCs are disproportionally "more difficult" than others - either increasing their payout slightly, or being a point of reference for game balancing.

(NB: It's not entirely bad to have "differently-difficult" NPCs in general, as that is another factor for making space "worth more" or "worth less", but it'd be good to have that in sight for game balance)
Floydd Heywood
Doomheim
#157 - 2011-11-17 12:10:35 UTC
I wonder whether Greyscale and other relevant people agree in principle with the following statement:

"Players should earn their ISK at the same place they do pvp; they should really live in that place and not finance their real char with an alt that makes the money for him, because only if players spend most of their time outside of hisec they are vulnerable, which generates conflict. If players only enter 0.0 for pvp then pvp only happens for the sake of having pvp."

If CCP agrees with this in principle, then the only way to achieve this is making all acitivities available in hisec – and I mean every single one with no exceptions – significantly worse paying than what you can do in low/null. Only then will people actually live in low/null and not just go there for roams.

If I can make 100m ISK/hour in 0.0 and 150 in hisec, I will do my PvE in hisec. If I make 160 in null and 150 in hisec, most will still do it in hisec. But if I can make 150 in null and only 50 in hisec, then many people will move to null. Hisec will become the domain of industry, noobs and hardcore-carebears who fear risk so much they'll never leave hisec no matter what.

Now the big problem: Nerfing hisec will cause a major uproar because most people live in hisec. Half of them will ragequit and CCP and EVE would die.

Possible solution: Do the nerf stealthily. Don't reduce hisec income, but increase inflation massively. At the same time, buff null income significantly. That way hisec grinders will initially not feel a nerf; they still get the same ISK in, numbers-wise. Only their ISK will have less value over time. If you do this over a period of one year or so, hisec will be nerfed compared to null, but there will be no single event that hurts people. The pain is spread over time. Instead of feeling completely shafted from one day to the other, hisec dwellers realize over time that moving to nullsec would really be worth it for them.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#158 - 2011-11-17 12:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Floydd Heywood wrote:
tl;dr, nerf highsec income by inflating the hell out of ISK


While I approve of the motivation, I can't say I approve of the chosen means. A slow nerf would definitely be needed, but I'd take a less damaging, soft approach.

  • Increase the average distance traveled for each high security mission
  • Alter Incursions to offer substantially less income in High Security Space
  • Alternatively, remove Incursions from High Security Space entirely
  • Penalize bounty payouts when running multiple missions at the same time
  • Reduce the bonus payout window to its former, smaller size
  • Add a number of common, commodity goods to the LP store as a functional ISK sink

These are just soft nerf ideas off the top of my head. More comprehensive revisions could always come later; however, It would not be wise to make that "later" a particularly long period of time.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#159 - 2011-11-17 12:31:54 UTC
one of the ideas from the old nerf topic was:

keep the anom spawns the same and change the value of the rats depending on the sec lvl of that system.

so each system at upgrade 5 would get
2 sanctums
2 havens
2 ports
etc etc

but the values of the rats would be linked to the sec so that in a 0.0 /-0.2 band would be say 1mil bs's -0.2/-0.45 band would be 1.2mil bs's etc etc up to the -1.0's having 1.8mil bs's

that way you keep the worth of each system while making the true sec matter.

having worthless systems is well worthless.
0.0 is ment to be populated but people making isk to fund pvp(basicly how it was before the changes), the changes listed in this blog arnt enough to revert yourfuck up from the last nerf imo.

OMG when can i get a pic here

Floydd Heywood
Doomheim
#160 - 2011-11-17 12:41:29 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
These are just soft nerf ideas off the top of my head. More comprehensive revisions could always come later; however, It would not be wise to make that "later" a particularly long period of time.


That would achieve the goal, but what is "soft" about it? Your proposal would crash the ISK/hour for hisec PvE immediately, and the rage storm would be terrible Blink

No incursions in hisec: Players simply cannot do anymore in hisec what they like to do now. It's hard to think of any change harder than that.

All other proposals will directly lead to more time needed to get same ISK, which effectively means less ISK/hour.