These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gideon Enderas
Mafia Redux
#21 - 2015-07-08 15:41:39 UTC
Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-07-08 15:42:20 UTC
GimmeDatISK wrote:
Aryth wrote:
GimmeDatISK wrote:
Quote:
Some members of the CSM (I’ll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them.


Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that group. (small? big? who knows - you won't tell us)

It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change?

The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind.


In this particular case, it was probably the correct decision.

There is a way to invalidate the change in practical effect but it is unlikely the groups using it the most will. This was a pretty big asymmetric warfare multiplier that could be abused to hell and back. We abused it, others abused it more. Not saying I like the nerf but it probably was for the better.


Yea, I should have clarified a bit - I'm indifferent to the change and must defer to those who use WHs. What really concerns me is how quickly this went through and we don't know who requested it. It reads like someone on CSM cried about this not benefiting them and CCP made this change for them.


Sure, but that is also sorta how the CSM is supposed to work. They bring concerns to CCP's attention, CCP investigates, decides if it has merit and implements a change, or not.

You could argue the process needs more transparency thought and I tend to agree.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2015-07-08 15:46:12 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.
It makes perfect sense: it equals to less time when nullsec krabs need to stay docked. I'm sure it was supported by all CSMs.
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc
#24 - 2015-07-08 15:47:24 UTC

  1. Make the defensive index values bleed into neighboring systems. That way really ****** systems can generate some defensive values without needing targeted explicitly for a defensive index. So 100% in primary system, 50% in neighboring systems, 25% a jump out form those, etc.

  2. More anoms in a single system will lead to more difficulty finding open ones. Using agents to provide missions that acted like current anoms would be preferrable. That would be an easy way to open up group ratting. Just give them really be tasks to complete. Agents could be set to limit available missions as well.

  3. Consider changing the Quantum Flux Generators to create static, unlimited mass wormholes that last for a specified duration. That way both sides can find it and go back and forth fighting without crashing the wormhole. They would then act like player incursions.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#25 - 2015-07-08 15:47:46 UTC
I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody.

Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat.

The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there.

You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes.

Yaay!!!!

Gideon Enderas
Mafia Redux
#26 - 2015-07-08 15:48:10 UTC
Axloth Okiah 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.
It makes perfect sense: it equals to less time when nullsec krabs need to stay docked. I'm sure it was supported by all CSMs.


Ah yes, I forgot that people need to be able to rat in supers in peace.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#27 - 2015-07-08 15:48:29 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.

Seems like a decent change to me -- it should allow PVPers based in wormhole space to hit a larger breadth of targets without having to resort to as much laborious hole-rolling.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#28 - 2015-07-08 15:49:59 UTC
Gideon Enderas wrote:
Axloth Okiah 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.
It makes perfect sense: it equals to less time when nullsec krabs need to stay docked. I'm sure it was supported by all CSMs.


Ah yes, I forgot that people need to be able to rat in supers in peace.

Wormholes are not the only vector by which you can catch and execute ratters.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2015-07-08 15:52:47 UTC
Querns 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.

Seems like a decent change to me -- it should allow PVPers based in wormhole space to hit a larger breadth of targets without having to resort to as much laborious hole-rolling.
I'm sorry, but it will result in exactly the opposite - smaller amount of viable nullsec holes (out of which we hunt) in any given chain. Hence more rolling to get some non-****, non-EOL hole. The breadth of targets will diminish, time time window will diminish -> less targets, more rolling, safer nullsec.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#30 - 2015-07-08 15:56:18 UTC
I'm only here to add a few comments:

1) The spawn rate for anoms sounds great. as a former sov holder that was one of my biggest issues, was having enough rats for my members to run. This would help some, but more is needed

2) I'll add to the echo chamber: why the null wh changes? they worked fine as they were...

And my last comment will be on its own post, it needs to start alone.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#31 - 2015-07-08 15:57:14 UTC
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.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#32 - 2015-07-08 15:57:28 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody.

Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat.

The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there.

You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes.


That'll be great just as soon as we can cyno into w-space with a supercap fleet. The space types are separate for a reason. Blend them at your peril.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#33 - 2015-07-08 15:57:46 UTC
When changing the amount of sites by security level and the increase of isk was there ever any talk of taking part of the isk and converting it into LP. It would help limit inflation as well as still provide a little extra income for null members.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#34 - 2015-07-08 15:58:02 UTC
Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned.

Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them...

Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Azrael Sheriph
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-07-08 16:00:42 UTC
We are investigating an update pass on the ESS in which we would simplify its operation by converting it to use the Entosis Link for sharing and stealing, restrict its deployment locations somewhat, and increase the potential value to match the higher risk. The ESS has great potential for allowing Sov holders to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with and receive rewards that match. A revamped ESS also has potential to provide excellent content for roaming PVP forces as well. - See more at: http://evenews24.com/2015/07/08/dev-blog-summer-of-sov-nullsec-pve-and-upgrades/#sthash.x9uFBcfB.dpuf


why not use the hacking moduals instead rather than the modual that cost 100mill each.

that way you can 1 use the mini game.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#36 - 2015-07-08 16:00:49 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Not bad at all! However I have a question about the quantum flux: What are the tweaks made to increase its PVE daytripping value? Its never mentionned.

Furthermore, using entosis on ESS is a massive increase in how tideous it is to use them...

Finally, it seems that quantum flux are overall quite nerfed. Would it be unreasonable to buff their null to high chances ?


More null to highs would be a backdoor buff to freighters and logistics. It would kill the attempted progress towards null industry.

Yaay!!!!

Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#37 - 2015-07-08 16:02:04 UTC
Quote:
Pirate Detection Array Changes
The goals of these changes are to:
  • Obey Goons
  • Homogenize nullsec by making sec. status irrelevant
  • FTFY
    Edwin Wyatt
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #38 - 2015-07-08 16:02:37 UTC
    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.

    Querns
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #39 - 2015-07-08 16:03:21 UTC
    Axloth Okiah wrote:
    Querns 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.

    Seems like a decent change to me -- it should allow PVPers based in wormhole space to hit a larger breadth of targets without having to resort to as much laborious hole-rolling.
    I'm sorry, but it will result in exactly the opposite - smaller amount of viable nullsec holes (out of which we hunt) in any given chain. Hence more rolling to get some non-****, non-EOL hole. The breadth of targets will diminish, time time window will diminish -> less targets, more rolling, safer nullsec.

    Sounds like they are trying to nerf the chain itself. I doubt you'll get much traction on getting this reversed, no matter how much you crow about a "safer nullsec."

    This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

    Urziel99
    Multiplex Gaming
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #40 - 2015-07-08 16:03:31 UTC
    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.