These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Remove Anoms From Null sec, Change them into Remote Concord Missions.

Author
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2015-03-04 18:52:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Anoms need to be removed as the primary income source in null and replaced with something more like missions to allow for much larger populations in a system.



This is The best i have read so far : )

You take and finish The mission Remotley.

You warp to the mission and Beacon appears in space (overwiew/system scanner etc.)



It would be much better than current system, and let much more people into one system.

Simply Remap current anomalies, add 30%+ to the NPC Bounty

and every one will be happy \o/ Boom.
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2015-03-04 22:44:06 UTC
+1 from me.
I would still have the Anoms spawn, but make them something similar to L5's, where they would be a group activity. Make them harder, pay out a bit more and have them spawn like current exploration sites, random across the region.
Madd Adda
#3 - 2015-03-04 23:57:24 UTC
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.

Carebear extraordinaire

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2015-03-05 00:44:45 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.


Combat anoms don't work.

You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10

Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.

We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-03-05 01:12:41 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Madd Adda wrote:
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.


^This

+1 for adding missions.
-1 for removing anoms.

Any proposal should add missions without removing anoms. No to cutting content.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#6 - 2015-03-05 01:17:06 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.


^This

+1 for adding missions.
-1 for removing anoms.

Any proposal should add missions without removing anoms. No to cutting content.


When I say remove anoms as the primary form of making isk I mean just that. Anoms would remain, they just wouldn't be the primary way of making isk.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2015-03-05 01:18:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.


^This

+1 for adding missions.
-1 for removing anoms.

Any proposal should add missions without removing anoms. No to cutting content.


When I say remove anoms as the primary form of making isk I mean just that. Anoms would remain, they just wouldn't be the primary way of making isk.


+1
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#8 - 2015-03-05 01:32:42 UTC
Baltec, while I agree Null needs higher density, your entire analysis is badly flawed. Mission LP values have not risen at all, and in a lot of cases have dropped.
Combat Anoms also do not need removing in the slightest, they work just great for what they are meant to do.

However you are right that you need vastly higher densities possible in Null.
I just disagree that 'missions' are the way forward, and would love to see 'new' multi objective type Anoms & Sigs, where there are lots of things that give payouts, not just 'kill the big ships', but 'hack this structure' 'Rep that structure' etc, with a time limit after the first objective is completed, so that a small fleet can work together in a site but hit different sub objectives and all get good payouts.
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2015-03-05 03:10:33 UTC
Null use to be "ok" but with new sov, it's very appealing.


A lot of stuff was not updated for many many years (only the drop rates)

Just the damn numbers, come on CCP, Chnge the way escalations work like Fleet staging point (no one does it any more)


Give us better reward for siting in this dead end of space.




Change Anoms into fast and easy to use concord mission system, that will reward more isk, and support more players.

Give us Very hard caps/super caps escalations with officer spawn at the end or some thin. .. Show Null some low it needs.


It's just crazy you make more isk/hour doing incursions in hi sec with no risk, than beein in dead end of space -_-''
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#10 - 2015-03-05 11:40:32 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Baltec, while I agree Null needs higher density, your entire analysis is badly flawed. Mission LP values have not risen at all, and in a lot of cases have dropped.


Wrong.

While CCP have not added more LP to missions what each LP is worth has risen due to inflation. This is the issue, LP value will rise with inflation while bounty based rewards will remain stagnant, this means that the reward for missions rises while reward for anoms has effectively fallen. Bounty based reward systems don't work if you have inflation.
Helios Panala
#11 - 2015-03-05 12:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
Some sort of pseudo-agent solution maybe? Outposts could be able to hire NPCs who will reward clearing anoms/mining rocks with the location of new hidden anoms/ore sites.

Run anom, tell npc you've just run anom, he points out (spawns) hidden anom. Double anoms! Half of them you could run even with a cloaky in system as he'd have to scan you out first.


Edit: Oh, and nerf missions and high-sec incursions.
Rejuice K
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-03-05 14:13:23 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
Some sort of pseudo-agent solution maybe? Outposts could be able to hire NPCs who will reward clearing anoms/mining rocks with the location of new hidden anoms/ore sites.

Run anom, tell npc you've just run anom, he points out (spawns) hidden anom. Double anoms! Half of them you could run even with a cloaky in system as he'd have to scan you out first.


Edit: Oh, and nerf missions and high-sec incursions.



This - Not sure about nerfing missions/incursions, I don't know much about them. But other than that, This!
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2015-03-05 14:21:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Terence Bogard
How about high bounties on drifter caps that will appear at random around your sov. Killing one could provide a massive boost to your occupancy and require commiting significant forces to take it down. Or someone else could come in and kill it in your system, dropping your occupancy rating downward and then proceeding to attack your now weakened structures.

Edit: All of the sudden ratting in supers doesn't sound so crazy
Terence Bogard
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2015-03-05 14:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Terence Bogard
i accidentaly a post
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#15 - 2015-03-05 14:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Agondray
baltec1 wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
so what about ore anoms? you want those gone too? either way -1, you're cutting content.


Combat anoms don't work.

You cannot support a small corp in a system let alone an alliance of our size on the current anoms. If CCP want us to shrink our empires then they have to get rid of the need to hold vast areas of space. Moving to a mission style setup would allow us to fit several hundred to a system as opposed to todays max of 10

Another issue is to do with the way we earn isk in null. The bulk of the income from anoms comes in the form of bounties which is a rather big problem. There is roughly twice as much isk entering the economy than leaving it which has lead to isk buying you less than it used to (Carriers for example have doubled in cost over the last decade). This means that mission income has risen over the years due to the fact that most of their reward comes in the form of LP. Anom income has been fixed in place due to bounties while mission rewards have effectively risen which has resulted in missions overtaking anoms in reward.

We need a new way of earning isk in null, anoms simply don't work in the long run.

'
yeah no, even if the need to hold lots of space were implemented. people would still hold as much space as possible, look at how much of null is empty.
Im not there because I hate the politics, running 25 jumps to guard someone elses space, GS opening fire on FA to put in a puppet etc.
Not my kind of politics thanks

EDIT: there lots of risk in incursions if you mess up. I watch people not turn on tanks, shoot a logi or cap buddy with safety red, not broadcast on time, or sansha just hates the fleet and blam. its just the communities have nullified the player losses like null sec (insurance, unless you do something stupid and the still may give payout). Just high sec have allowed fleets to optimize ship builds for the 1 purpose. You all want to do something to incursions than theres 2 options you can take.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

AlexKent
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#16 - 2015-03-05 15:38:42 UTC
It's a great idea. fully supported. Nullsec has terrible value and with the current sov changes there is little meaning to defending space.

High-sec incursions need their payment cut drastically, same for mission running, these are the safest forms of pve and sometimes pay better than ratting in null.

While a single mission agent can support an unlimited number of players, a medium truesec, fully upgraded null system can support a maximum of 10 players. It needs a major overhaul.

Look at the NPC nullsec, the residents can make a very decent living from farming just 1-2 agents in that area. Yes it is dangerous but rewards are great.
Helios Panala
#17 - 2015-03-05 17:06:20 UTC
I feel the fact that null systems can only support limited numbers is intentional in order to create scarcity and conflict. Agents and missions copy/pasted over from HS & NPC null would ruin that.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#18 - 2015-03-05 19:18:54 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
I feel the fact that null systems can only support limited numbers is intentional in order to create scarcity and conflict. Agents and missions copy/pasted over from HS & NPC null would ruin that.



Yea, so I guess you want to give us back our tech moon isk printers then?

Forcing scarcity on people doesn't work, it just turns us into haves and have nots. In the case of anoms it means most of our members are earning isk in highsec.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#19 - 2015-03-05 19:23:31 UTC
Helios Panala wrote:
I feel the fact that null systems can only support limited numbers is intentional in order to create scarcity and conflict. Agents and missions copy/pasted over from HS & NPC null would ruin that.



Anoms don't create scarcity or much conflict. In fact, what you just posted was the thinking behind the move by CCP that created the current situation:

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)




That was 4 years ago. Suffice it to say, that not onlt didn't work, it backfired completely.

The problem as I see it is that with Dominon, CCP took an existing thing ("cosmic anomalies") that were random, secondary sites (secondary to sing nature sites that require probes to find that is) and made them the CORE of the sov null sec income system. Anomalies were never designed for that, they were basically quick 'bite sized' content that players could find easily all across New Eden.

The results of using anomalies in this way have been mostly bad. Lots of raw isk stuffed into the economy, lots of imbalances (back before ccp nerfed it, tracking titans with scimitar remote link support could blap the then frig-less forsaken hubs so fast it as crazy, 500 million isk per hour) and as baltec mentions, the way anoms pay means that their relative value (and with them, the value of sov null) has declined over time.

While i've been skeptical of using missions as the core of the system upgrade scheme, Baltec is right, anomalies are horrible for the purpose. And I say this as someone who likes anomalies and runs them with Rattlesnakes to relax (well, relax as much as you can while watching local).

Helios Panala
#20 - 2015-03-05 22:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
Well they might not have created much conflict before, but the sov system itself is changing now. Maybe this time it will have the desired effect.

Anyway, I'm all for null paying better, or at least paying better relative to HS & LS, but I'm just being realistic. It's very doubtful anoms will be replaced with missions. It would allow far to many people to turtle up in a few systems.
123Next page