These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anita Name
Perkone
Caldari State
#121 - 2015-07-08 19:09:50 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Quote:

So in the example [quote]+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point.


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
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#122 - 2015-07-08 19:16:45 UTC
Anita Name wrote:

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


I'm not complaining that they are increasing the number of anomalies, I'm wondering if they are looking into patterns of what anomalies are actually run and the underlying reasoning.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#123 - 2015-07-08 19:18:20 UTC
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.
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#124 - 2015-07-08 19:18:59 UTC
While you're looking at anoms I have one more thing to suggest: remove escalation chance from anoms completely

Especially it you're increasing spawn rate.

Make exploration viable again!
Anita Name
Perkone
Caldari State
#125 - 2015-07-08 19:22:46 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Anita Name wrote:

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


I'm not complaining that they are increasing the number of anomalies, I'm wondering if they are looking into patterns of what anomalies are actually run and the underlying reasoning.


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.
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#126 - 2015-07-08 20:14:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mostlyharmlesss
I don't get it. Where's the incentive?

From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk.

Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#127 - 2015-07-08 20:25:43 UTC
So CCP adds more PvE...

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

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#128 - 2015-07-08 20:35:46 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.

the fw issue is fixed since payout caps, safety buffer and reasonable market averages are used.

you think CCP doesn't exactly know how much a site is worth in ISK average? or how much a system is worth total with min/max upgrades per day? Furthermore the pvp modifier would not be the only modifier. If you kill 10 isharts per day you should not spawn 10 new sites if 10 sites are more worth than 10 ishtars (and they are). If you lose more isk with your exploit than gain from it there is no exploit. Its how bounties and lp payouts have been fixed.

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

SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2015-07-08 20:37:00 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.

It was being abused. CCP balanced it. Deal.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2015-07-08 20:38:12 UTC
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:
I don't get it. Where's the incentive?

From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk.


Nah, while we do benefit, really crap regions benefit wayyyy more. Provi? Pure Blind? The entire SE quad? A whole lot of space we wouldn't wipe our boots on is now worth living in. That is good overall. You could argue this is a net nerf for us if you consider the ratio of how good Dek is compared to say Scalding Pass.

I am not arguing that it is but you could make that point.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

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

Inquisitor Tyr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2015-07-08 20:38:28 UTC
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.
Zifrian
Aideron Robotics
#132 - 2015-07-08 20:39:34 UTC
Like the idea of coop pve in null. I too dislike anoms for this purpose and think this is something really needed.

I think the idea of the ESS has come and gone. Using an entosis is a bad idea as well. I appreciate the innovative approach but I just don't think it works. It's too much hassle and just easier not to deploy.

All the other changes I like. Good job!

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#133 - 2015-07-08 20:39:52 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
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


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.

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

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2015-07-08 20:49:41 UTC
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:
I don't get it. Where's the incentive?

From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk.


Those areas aren't being utilized because the cost of living in and defending them (beyond passive Dominion-era HP grind defense) is greater than the income they produce. These changes are intended to increase the income from such areas such that with some effort put into it, they can support pilots living and dying there, making it much more likely that pilots actually will move there.
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#135 - 2015-07-08 20:51:01 UTC
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.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#136 - 2015-07-08 20:59:47 UTC
Impressive devblog. Thanks for going over the results of the Mosaic changes - very interesting.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

SCom Thor
Let Me Beeeee
Muh Zkill...
#137 - 2015-07-08 21:38:58 UTC
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.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#138 - 2015-07-08 21:42:01 UTC
SCom Thor wrote:
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.



Why do you want to make alliances have to spread out more? An alliance should have no issues making everything it needs in a single constellation, or region. Many alliances peppered all over, a better null sec makes. I think it might be you thats has no idea what you are talking about.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#139 - 2015-07-08 22:14:15 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Querns wrote:
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.

the fw issue is fixed

:shobon:

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

Sven Viko VIkolander
Tang Ping
#140 - 2015-07-08 22:16:01 UTC
Great changes to the livability of null sec space so far, though I have mixed feelings about the N->N wormhole nerf.

I am also worried that there is going to be an increase in the incoming isk to the economy with these major null sec PVE buffs. IMO...nerf high sec incursions to compensate, as mad as this would make some groups...

In addition, the data/relic site loot economy is already tanked, and will likely fall even further with this change. I suggest lowering the base spawn rate in all of null sec to compensate for the added rate in upgraded systems...

Finally, add in a delayed local chat to all of null sec please. Been asking for the change for years ayyyy just do it.