EVE Information Portal

I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs

Hmm... I tend to think that these proposed PVE changes will end up making null even more stagnant, and encourage less PVP, in the long run.

Most players only have a limited amount of RL time to spend in gaming, and more time spent running PVE missions means less time spent in PVP. If CCP really wants to encourage more PVP, then it should be looking to improve the ISK payout to individual players on PVP activities rather than trying to turn null PVP players into mission-running and mining nullbears. Essentially, I believe that the proposed changes will just be pushing undesired high sec gameplay, ie. less PVP, into null sec.

Also, I think that these changes are also going to further escalate the supercap proliferation problem, since the significant increase in alliance income and materials directly fuels additional supercap production.

Note, too, that FozzieSov is already going to have serious impacts on null sec gameplay, particularly due to the contraction of held space by the alliances. This is likely to result in less PVP, too, due to increased buffer space between the alliances and less contested space, and due to the exponentially increased defensive strength that comes with fewer held systems, under the new FozzieSov system. Less alliance PVP means fewer supercap losses, which, ofc, exacerbates the supercap proliferation problem.

Adding these proposed PVE incentives immediately on top of FozzieSov, without first waiting to see the result of the FozzieSov changes, is a very problematical decision.

In short, I'd suggest waiting for 3-6 months to see how FozzieSov actually affects null sec gameplay, before even considering to throw these PVE changes into the mix.

Then you should look at what you quoted.

+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point.

Will likely turn into 1 ring sanctum, 1 gate haven, 2 gas havens, 2 forsaken hubs, 4 forsaken rally points all of which are commonly run, for an extra 10 anoms per -1 system. Even a -.1 system gets an extra 7 "good" anoms. You should know very well that gas havens and forsaken rally points are being run, if not only because the "good" gate havens / fhubs / ring sanctums are taken. They're going to just add 15 more of those.

So CCP adds more PvE...

...in nullsec. Right where it is needed.

It was being abused. CCP balanced it. Deal.

Will Ship Spinning feed into the Activity Defense Multipliers ? I believe ship spinning and sitting AFK in station are important indicators of nullsec activity and that systems with a high number of AFK bittervets should receive significant bonuses to their Defence Multiplier.

i can't do that since i don't know the pve value of a nullsec system. CCP does, otherwise they couldn't even ask their "economy" experts to look over the new changes.

I would not worry too much about swamping the markets with deadspace gear from the increase in site spawns. The spawns will only happen in systems with these upgrades installed, and compared to the absolute avalanche generated by anomaly escalations it will be a drop in the bucket. Pith X-type hardeners are so cheap they are showing on common ratting fits for cripes sakes. As for hacking and archeology sites, I guess you will have to wait and see. There is a lot more demand for their outputs. If the pace of ship destruction picks up and the amount of ultra-safe space decreases it could help quite nicely.

This is not to say I am complaining that exploration is broken. I made good money off of it and have since 2011. But the changes you are making here will have local (probably positive) impact without even getting close to the scope needed to change the overall market.

I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around.


Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC.
No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today.
Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game.

FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion.

Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer.

Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it.

:shobon: