These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#41 - 2015-07-08 16:03:55 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
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


Heh nice try.

Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever.

If large groups such as yours were forced to hold more space, said space would be more easily contested. You catching my drift?

Resources need to be limited, why would anyone fight over them if they weren't? That's some straight-forward logic that even you can understand. You're welcome.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#42 - 2015-07-08 16:04:25 UTC
Quote:
sets of changes that we are implementing in Aegis


This is basically all the Aegis update is, hardly worthy calling it an expansion.

What ever happened with bold ideas for like implementing Treaties or a Mercenary Marketplace ?

Source:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/sovereignty-breaking-the-chains
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/with-friends-like-these...-new-ally-system

I would like to see at least one proper Expansion per year, and then these 6-7 weekly updates.
Why am I paying a minimum of € 131.40 for 12 months when all we get is database number tweaks ?

Regards, a Freelancer

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Azrael Sheriph
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-07-08 16:05:48 UTC
Also why not give us a modual that can create a wh to a constellation and or collapse an existing WH without shoving mass though it.

mabey take like 1 hour to make one. use something juicy like a super or something.
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-07-08 16:06:27 UTC
These wormhole changes are dumb and reduce the opportunities for people to shoot each other, which would be bad enough even if this game weren't totally stagnant after Phoebe. There are better ways of preventing large fleets from using nullsec to nullsec connections than simply getting rid of them.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#45 - 2015-07-08 16:06:31 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.

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.


An ISK faucet is the opposite of what you think it is. "ISK faucet" refers to the generation of ISK by the server. Think of the entire game's ISK supply as existing in a huge barrel. An ISK faucet adds material to the bucket.

Moon miners don't generate ISK; they don't add to the content of the barrel. Moon miners simply shift around the material already in the barrel (actually, they make a small amount of ISK leak out of the barrel due to market transaction taxes.)

If you don't like that moon materials are expensive on the market, there are multiple vectors to combat this, only some of which require military might.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Edwin Wyatt
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-07-08 16:07:01 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
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.



I would love to have seen the Entosis module used in FW!
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#47 - 2015-07-08 16:07:24 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
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.



The concept of destructible stations killed that long before any wormhole change ever could. That CCP or anyone for that matter thinks any sane industrialist is going to risk their bpo's and assets in something that can be dfestroyed and run the risk of loosing it all in a matter of days is downright laughable. To say nothing of the cost of any upgrades for the new structures.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#48 - 2015-07-08 16:08:21 UTC
CCP wrote:
Team Five 0 is hoping to be able to take what we have learned from developing Burner Missions and combine it with the new NPCs and AI under development by Team Space Glitter to create some compelling new content that would only be available to groups of pilots working together within Sov Null. Our leading concepts at this point make use of an Incursion-like scaling payout based on character numbers.


Drifter incursions confirmed?

CCP wrote:
We are also making some slight tweaks to the Quantum Flux Generator system upgrade in our July 14th release. These are intended as a slight buff to anyone who uses Quantum Flux Generators for PVE daytripping, while also addressing concerns expressed by some CSM members. With these changes we still don’t expect that most alliances will find the Quantum Flux Generators to be extremely valuable, but hopefully their PVE value should increase somewhat.


Ok. Details? You went and said you're tweaking it. Then didn't say how.

tia

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-07-08 16:09:03 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 ?


Likely a pool bonus tweak.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#50 - 2015-07-08 16:09:23 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:

Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever.

I love that everyone considers Imperium space unassailable by default. It is another instance of the most ingratiating position of surrender possible, and it makes me feel great every time I see it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#51 - 2015-07-08 16:09:37 UTC
DaReaper wrote:


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


I call bullshit on that. Back in the day Tribal Band (in the end it had ~4k members) lived almost completely off Period Basis, which is a comparatively small region. Only few of those systems were actually upgraded and it was still a non-issue to chain-run high-end anomalies in systems with good truesec.

People should be forced to travel around to find PvE content and make isk rather than sit in a single system and make money with virtually zero risk involved.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2015-07-08 16:10:24 UTC
Drew Li wrote:
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.


inb4 titans in your wormhole.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2015-07-08 16:11:12 UTC
Querns wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
stuff
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."
I agree 100%, especially since safer nullsec (in general, not just from us) seems to be at least one of the goals and theres noone on CSM to push against a nerf like this.

SSC Brokering Service
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#54 - 2015-07-08 16:11:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
EvilweaselSA wrote:
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.


Amen

The problem with the 'greyscale nerf' (love that phrase btw) was that it lessened the incentive to spread out. So ratting tended to be concentrated and thus easily denied via cloakers.

Concentrating ratters seemed like a good idea but in reality it meant LESS killing, this change might get PVErs to spread out, providing more targets as there will be fewer people hiding in a station because of a cloaker.
Edwin Wyatt
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2015-07-08 16:13:06 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.

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.


An ISK faucet is the opposite of what you think it is. "ISK faucet" refers to the generation of ISK by the server. Think of the entire game's ISK supply as existing in a huge barrel. An ISK faucet adds material to the bucket.

Moon miners don't generate ISK; they don't add to the content of the barrel. Moon miners simply shift around the material already in the barrel (actually, they make a small amount of ISK leak out of the barrel due to market transaction taxes.)

If you don't like that moon materials are expensive on the market, there are multiple vectors to combat this, only some of which require military might.


You looking at this a prespective of isk in game, Im looking at this as a perspective of isk in players pocket. PVE is about generating income, and has nothing to do with the overall amount of isk in the game. Moon mining regardless if it generates actual isk, puts income into players pockets without much effort.

If CCP wants to balance isk in the game, they need to learn a little something about economic inflation and not punish players putting in the effort and time.

Maybe economics 101 might help.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#56 - 2015-07-08 16:13:19 UTC
Querns wrote:
Ab'del Abu wrote:

Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever.

I love that everyone considers Imperium space unassailable by default. It is another instance of the most ingratiating position of surrender possible, and it makes me feel great every time I see it.


I was using the words of a fellow goon of yours. Still, the reality is that there currently is no force/coalition that could actually invade the CFC and take their highly condensed space ...
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-07-08 16:13:55 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Querns wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
stuff
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."
I agree 100%, especially since safer nullsec (in general, not just from us) seems to be at least one of the goals and theres noone on CSM to push against a nerf like this.

It's not a goal. A sentiment does not automatically become rooted in deliberate intent if you feel strongly enough about it.

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
#58 - 2015-07-08 16:15:01 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:
Querns wrote:
Ab'del Abu wrote:

Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever.

I love that everyone considers Imperium space unassailable by default. It is another instance of the most ingratiating position of surrender possible, and it makes me feel great every time I see it.


I was using the words of a fellow goon of yours. Still, the reality is that there currently is no force/coalition that could actually invade the CFC and take their highly condensed space ...

Of course a "fellow goon of [mine]" would say that -- we have a vested interest in perpetuating that vignette. This does not exclude me from enjoying it being projected back towards me from without.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#59 - 2015-07-08 16:16:12 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.

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.




moon mining is not an isk faucet. You gather the resource of moon goo and you sell it to anothe rplayer. No new isk is added to the economy. So no, moon mining is not a faucet..

A Faucet is a device that adds isk to the economy out of thin air. Pirate bounties form killing NPC's is a faucet.

A Sink is something that removes isk from the economy... NPC sell orders is a sink, taxes are a sink, fees are a sink.

Moon mining is merly a passive income source. it only adds moon goo, not isk.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#60 - 2015-07-08 16:18:53 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. 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).


That would make people spread out and travel, the Faction Warfare and high sec incursions.

Null anomalies don't pay what wormhole anoms do and other forms of k space pve are competitive with null anoms. The ONLY way to make a living off null anoms is chaining them unlike wormhole anoms that can pay enough to be worthwhile before they run out

Without a significant rise in the value of each null anom, The end result of what you propose would be a replay of what happened when this change went into effect.: ie less null activity rather than more.