These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#221 - 2015-07-10 13:40:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Jeremiah Saken wrote:


Jenn aSide wrote:

NONE of that happened, because NO ONE fights for anomaly and mining space.

and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all.


Players don't fight over anomaly space. CCPs un-nerfing of the anomaly upgrades system (it is an un-nerfing rather than a 'buff') means pve players will be able to spread out a bit more from the "ratting hub" systems that were easily cloaky camped. This means more targets for roaming gangs as someone will slip up and not watch intel channels. More content like this is good for the game, and CCP didn't understand this when they nerfed system military upgrades in 2011.
Quote:

Jenn aSide wrote:
When CCP nerf anomalies and the upgrade system, we didn't fight for more space, we fought to see who was the fastest at making high sec incursion and Faction Warfare Stealth Bomber alts lol.

It's the problem of incursions and FW that pay such amount of ISK.


Which CCP isn't going to fix. So since they aren't, they have to do something to make null livable for grunt pve pilots (which in turn makes null more attractive for roaming raiders, it's an eco system). More anoms is a step (but only a step) in the right direction.

Quote:

What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so.


Goons have nothing to do with anything.
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#222 - 2015-07-10 13:57:27 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

and they will now? It's like more anoms, sigs etc. what will this change? The urge to log for 4 hour window and see where is entosis link in use? This will become tedious very fast. I liked E-links at start (good replacement for hp grind) but knowing the community it may become not entertaining at all.

People fight because fighting is fun. And the ones who don't fight just for fun will fight because some other guy is hanging around in their space and they want to kick them out. Most of the people who are in null are there because they want pvp -- if they really wanted nothing but pve why not stay in empire. Many supposed "nullbears" are actually weekend warriors.

Jeremiah Saken wrote:
What is the actual number of residents of all nullsec alliances? 12k goons only? Don't think so.

Totaling up all the members of the alliances listed on dotlan holding at least 1 system equals 143,811 characters. Obviously that's a lot more than players or even active players. But the top 50 sov-holding alliances outnumber the members of the top 50 everyone-else alliances by almost exactly 2 to 1. The evidence says lots of people live in null.

But what's your point? The reason for increased density in nullsec isn't just to allow more people to live there in total. Even if not a single new person moves to null after this change, it's still a good thing. Increased density makes nullsec more interesting even if it means people clump up and more systems are completely empty. Clumps means you have targets on the map, and clumps mean ratters can switch to defenders easily.
Duffyman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2015-07-10 14:20:13 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one.

Why not replace anoms with missions?

A few advantages:

- Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system
- Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent)
- Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions)
- Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell)


I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space?
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2015-07-10 14:42:10 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one.

Why not replace anoms with missions?

A few advantages:

- Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system
- Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent)
- Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions)
- Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell)


I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space?


While they have teased agents in null (not NPC) stations it does present some issues. The main thing would be it requires a complete refactoring of LP rewards and ISK payouts for the missions themselves. Not a horrible task but not trivial either.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

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

Duffyman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2015-07-10 14:44:12 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
Anomalies are not really very scalable. Ok you have more anomalies but you still have to travel to each one to find a vacant one.

Why not replace anoms with missions?

A few advantages:

- Totally scalable, you can have 200 guys living in a system
- Forces mission runners to travel around to run the missions (make them never be in the same system as the agent)
- Make life harder for botters (I'm no expert but it should be easier to program a bot to run anoms than to run missions)
- Kill afk ratting, which is pretty much cancer to this game (although I abuse it as hell)


I'd like to see some discussion about this. Why not remove anomalies entirely and replace them with missions, like we have in NPC null space?


While they have teased agents in null (not NPC) stations it does present some issues. The main thing would be it requires a complete refactoring of LP rewards and ISK payouts for the missions themselves. Not a horrible task but not trivial either.


True, it would require tuning, but the advantages I mentioned I think outweigh that.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#226 - 2015-07-10 14:45:35 UTC
there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost
Duffyman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2015-07-10 14:47:05 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost


That is a technical issue. It's up to CCP to solve it. I'm more concerned about the impact on the gameplay.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2015-07-10 14:53:02 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost


That is a technical issue. It's up to CCP to solve it. I'm more concerned about the impact on the gameplay.


I would rather see a mix. What we have today and adding agents. Perhaps a limit per region or const.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

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

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#229 - 2015-07-10 16:11:50 UTC
yeah i can see like conquerable stations (read: stations in systems like NOL and VFK that are not player dropped outposts) in regions getting mission agents maybe? that would be a one time expenditure of effort and give some life back to stations that are currently 100% worthless
Kant Boards
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#230 - 2015-07-10 16:41:13 UTC
Gimme Guristas agents in VFK thanks.
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2015-07-10 16:42:51 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
there is also a bunch of technical debt that prevents them from easily adding new mission agents, iirc it is a 100% manual process and with outposts being droppable by anyone at any time i don't think they wanna pay an intern to sit and F5 dotlan to put in agents in every new outpost

The agent doesn't have to be installed in an outpost, they can be placed in space like the SOE epic arc Empire agents. Have the agent hang out around the I-Hub. Still have to go to actual Empire/NPC null space to cash in on the LP, like with the ESS (does anybody use those things?) There you go, no intern having to F5 for a new outpost, and the players decide if they want one or not by installing an upgrade in an I-hub.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#232 - 2015-07-10 18:10:13 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally.

Why do I get the feeling you have no idea how exploration looks like? How those new upgrades will work? How high will be the spawning bonus? They double it, but what is the base stat? What will happen if corp spawn all of them at max level all around one constellation? For example in Omist? Do they suck up all sites from region? What is the max spawn bonus?

If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there).
You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them.

Black Pedro wrote:
Yes, this ability to increase the spawn rates of sites is a reward for spending the time to defend and upgrade a system. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Whether they are new spawns, or taken from a pre-existing pool doesn't really matter - both will result in more sites being run as the sites will be found easier and thus cause a decrease in the value of exploration loot. More of that loot will go to Sov holders however as a reward for holding and upgrading a system.

You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that?

Black Pedro wrote:
Perhaps you should wait and see how these changes play out before painting yourself as a victim of these changes.

Roll I will survive, there are plenty of space to explore for me, lot's of ways to earn money. I hope you are not some dev or csm alt, no hope then.

Klyith wrote:
But what's your point?

Point is how many players we can expect to be there.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Which CCP isn't going to fix. So since they aren't, they have to do something to make null livable for grunt pve pilots (which in turn makes null more attractive for roaming raiders, it's an eco system). More anoms is a step (but only a step) in the right direction.

Easiest thing: security agents in null. Unlimited players in system.

I'm kinda dissapointed with CCP proposals. I was hoping for agents in null. It would be mirroring hisec for pve content. Either there are some obstacles in the game code or devs lack imagination. Now they will waste resources on ESS...

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#233 - 2015-07-10 19:17:28 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I said - those sites belong to the Sov holder if they can defend them. The reason they are in the game in the first place is to be something players can fight over. So go out there a generate some in-game content by stealing them instead of moaning on the forums about how unfair these changes are to you personally.

Why do I get the feeling you have no idea how exploration looks like? How those new upgrades will work? How high will be the spawning bonus? They double it, but what is the base stat? What will happen if corp spawn all of them at max level all around one constellation? For example in Omist? Do they suck up all sites from region? What is the max spawn bonus?

If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there).
You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them.

"sov is not something i have, therefore it should not have things"
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#234 - 2015-07-11 03:32:36 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there).

Such defeatism.

They're not that prepared, they want to rat.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#235 - 2015-07-11 06:05:28 UTC
So basicly more income and safety for null sec and less content , less targets and more tedium for wh-space.

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Black Pedro
Mine.
#236 - 2015-07-11 11:49:20 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
If corp will suck up to a bubbled constellation it will be binary situation. Null corp will win here. I don't want to be in-game content to some sov null corp, I won't stand a chance with prepared players (they have ships in place i have to jump +30 systems to go there).
You are focused at: "they hold sov, they should get the rewards". Exploration are not growing potatos or planting apples. It about finding the sites actively not growing them.

Yes, as I said several times before the nullsec alliance wins here. That is why CCP Fozzie released these devblog as part of sweeping changes to nullsec to make it more vibrant, active and fun. Part of that is making players want to live there and this is a reward to make players want to live in null.

Let me show you the man behind the curtain: all PvE, and I mean all, is in the game so you make yourself "in-game content" in your words. PvE rewards are the carrot that induces you to expose yourself to other players as a target. Exploration is no different. It is not there to allow you to earn ISK at no risk to yourself. It is there so you decide to make yourself "content" for other players in exchange for a reward. That is the social compact of Eve: you get a reward if you make yourself a target.

As an aside, this is why the current state of highsec incursions is so insidious - it is all reward with no player-driven risk (or any risk at all really), and thus provides only marginal content to the game. They should be nerfed/changed/eliminated immediately just like ISboxing was for the greater good.

But back to exploration, you stand a chance against them - embrace your inner ninja. If you don't want that risk, there are plenty of exploration sites in NPC null, low and wormholes which will provide you with an income. Don't let your selfishness make the game as a whole worse - we have enough of that already in these forums.

Black Pedro wrote:
You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that?

I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value.

This also is why ratting and incursions should reward primarily LP not mainly ISK so that there is a feedback regulating the impact of these activities on the greater economy.
Marech Bhayanaka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2015-07-11 22:24:36 UTC
Edwin Wyatt wrote:
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.


You need to understand Eve economics better. Anything that adds to the amount of isk in the game is an isk faucet. It has nothing to do with how hard someone worked to earn it, or how profitable it is.

Marech.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#238 - 2015-07-12 02:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Black Pedro wrote:

Black Pedro wrote:
You are ignorat when it comes to the value of the loot. More sites spawned above the regional pool means the more loot is injected into the market. Which means they will be worth less. It will be like right after odyssey. You want that?

I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value.

This also is why ratting and incursions should reward primarily LP not mainly ISK so that there is a feedback regulating the impact of these activities on the greater economy.

If there's tons of isk then prices of everything else goes up, which makes the ratting less worthwhile in terms of things you can buy...

Well if only it went far enough that people in nullsec would mine rather than rat but it seems you'd need a lot of inflation to push that, so start 'flatin'

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#239 - 2015-07-12 08:40:27 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I don't care. This is exactly how rewards should work, determined by the player-driven market. If exploration is too easy/common loot prices will drop and less people will do them. People will then do something else for an income. If it gets people living and fighting in null, that is good for the game. If CCP thinks it is a problem they can always nerf drop rates for certain items to increase their value.

Last time CCP messed with data sites loot value drop to the level of prechange lowsec sites. Why? Because they were buffing invention. Why there's no point of salvaging wrecks? Because of the flood of salvage materials coming from exploration sites. It's all connected. You can't just rise one value and call it done, it don't work that way. When you buff nullsec beyond some point, exploration sites everywhere in new eden and part of WHs space will get hit. For those doing exploration only it's no go. Market after odyssey never recover to the point before release (part of it is good thing, rigs are cheaper) but every antoher nerf to explo income won't do any good. Items from it are not reserved for exploration only, they can be obtained from other sources. When CCP telling me we will take look on them I know they are already fail, such as with data sites. Exploration is driven by ISK, low ISK and nobody will do it, just like data sites all around new eden.

To the part that giving big carrot for the null is good for the game. Really? Reducing the null WHs, increasing ISK earning possibilities, reducing jump drives range will made a perfect condition to grow safe regions. New sov with elink will be similiar to FW. Regions like Tenal or Omist will be very safe. Should they, Black Pedro? Why null is so great that it must deregulate whole new eden market?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#240 - 2015-07-12 09:08:32 UTC
Mmmm, Interesting change list.
Lot of good stuff like the Incursion changes. More Anoms also increases population density nicely.

For the people talking rubbish about 100 people living in a single system, seriously, go to null, try and have 100 people farm a single system at once currently. Hell, try and have 10 people farm a single system at once now. If this turns active density from 10 to 15 in a system, that's progress, but it is certainly not the be all & end all.

As for Data/Relic sites & loot becoming cheaper. So it becomes cheaper..... Just move more volume, you will get the same income overall right? It's what you always tell miners. It will also actually become used loot if it is cheaper, and used loot is good. It increases destruction of said loot which provides a counterbalance to said production. High turnover is good for EVE, it means things are happening, low turn over is bad even if it's high value as it means things are quiet.