These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Dev blog: Summer of Sov - Nullsec PVE and Upgrades

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2015-07-08 14:59:56 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
The big changes to nullsec sovereignty coming on July 14 have been outlined in several previous blogs, but there was one large part missing: PVE and space upgrades.

Improvements are coming to PVE and space upgrades, for example:
  • More anomalies in upgraded systems
  • "Bad" space becoming more valuable and interesting to own and upgrade
  • Increased potential of group activities through an higher cap for bigger player incursion fleets
  • More data and relic sites
  • Changes to wormhole spawn rates

Read all about those lucrative improvements in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Summer of Sov - Nullsec PVE and Upgrades!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#2 - 2015-07-08 15:07:31 UTC
Woosh!

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-07-08 15:10:18 UTC
Quote:
Both of these upgrades are a bit below the curve nowadays, and so we’re making some fairly large changes to both. The spawn rates generated by all levels of Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays will be doubled in the July 14th Sov update. We will be keeping a close eye on the results of these changes to ensure that we don’t flood the market with the drops from these sites, and we’ll step in and make more changes if needed. However we currently believe that these new spawn rates will be much closer to the ideal balance for these two system upgrades.


How do these upgrades even work? That's part of the reason they're not common, we don't even really know if they work and the best current theory (there are a group of upgrade-only sites) means that the more popular they are, the more useless they are.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-07-08 15:15:59 UTC
Why do you keep making nullbears safer? You already made it so they can leave wormholes unspawned, now you decrease the number alltogether. Are wormholers killing too many ratting carriers? Is the CSM nullbloc too strong?

SSC Brokering Service
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-07-08 15:18:57 UTC
Well, we sorta do know how they work. They just suck. Really bad. Change that pooling system.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Jay Amazingness
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2015-07-08 15:19:46 UTC
thank you.

CEO of serious space alliance I too am gay, a member of the Memeperium
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-07-08 15:21:34 UTC
There is entire gameplay involved around roaming our exits to null sec, you are basically nerfing it. I want names of those CSMs who suggsted it :)!

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
GimmeDatISK
Sock Workers
#8 - 2015-07-08 15:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: GimmeDatISK
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.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#9 - 2015-07-08 15:25:23 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Why do you keep making nullbears safer? You already made it so they can leave wormholes unspawned, now you decrease the number alltogether. Are wormholers killing too many ratting carriers? Is the CSM nullbloc too strong?


Doubtful, more likely they noticed nullsec powers are using them to get around the cancer-inducing aspects of Phoebe.

It will mean less opportunities for wormholers to hunt day-trippers and come out to mess with ratters.
Bairfhionn Isu
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#10 - 2015-07-08 15:26:28 UTC
Give us a goddamn reason what the problem about the WH is.
You take away content from us or make it harder to get but you won't give a clear reason why.

If it is a balancing problem with fozziesov, maybe the whole concept is flawed.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2015-07-08 15:27:44 UTC
The anom change is a great change, by the way, especially undoing the over-nerfing of garbage truesec in the original greyscale anom nerf. It might be tolerable to live in now.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-07-08 15:27:51 UTC
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.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#13 - 2015-07-08 15:28:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ab'del Abu
Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right?

I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do. A Pirate Detection Array should only increase the chances that sites spawn in a system, however, it shouldn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes).

You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-07-08 15:30:54 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right?

I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes).

You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period.

uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is

your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post
GimmeDatISK
Sock Workers
#15 - 2015-07-08 15:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: GimmeDatISK
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.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#16 - 2015-07-08 15:37:17 UTC
Quote:
Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples)


why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work.

if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-07-08 15:39:21 UTC
Regarding the proposed ESS change -- it is likely that the proposed changes will make these structures used less, not more. Contemporary ESS usage involves anchoring it in an anomaly, triggering all the spawns, and performing the sharing of bounties in a pod. Requiring the entosis link will exclude the capsule from doing the sharing, and I can't imagine the desire to restrict the locations where an ESS can be deployed to have any other logic behind it but denying the use of a "hell-spawned anom" to cover the ESS.

That all being said, there's no way I can really argue that the contemporary use case should be maintained -- it is emergent gameplay, after all. The point here is that without some other compelling reason to use it, you'll likely not achieve the goal of "[the ESS doing] much better."

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2015-07-08 15:39:24 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples)


why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work.

if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine.

please provide how you calculate the isk value of the gain from the multiplier

don't worry, i'll wait
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-07-08 15:40:24 UTC
Also, as noted above, it's good to see garbage truesec getting some love. As the individual who broke open the horrors of Greyscale's anom nerf back in 2011, it's good to see it being partially reversed in this manner.

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
#20 - 2015-07-08 15:41:22 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples)


why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work.

if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine.

CCP's kills to LP/money calculation has been found to be pretty flawed in the past.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
123Next pageLast page