These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SiKong Ma
Perkone
Caldari State
#161 - 2015-07-09 09:35:18 UTC
From my personal point of view, making changes to spawn rates of -0.1 systems is a good move. New sov mechanics require grinding up military index of all systems we hold. Making more spawns in -0.1 systems makes ratting in them up tolerable. Can't speak of impact to economy but at least small groups have an increased incentive to live in -0.1 space. Looking forward to see small groups of newer nullsec players.

Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#162 - 2015-07-09 10:49:37 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
The CSM is an elected representative body, and as such any change implementation sought, recommended, and most certainly approved/implemented absolutely MUST be made public, and most certainly IS NOT voluntary disclosure by the CSM members.

I assume this is just the ignorance of the dev that put together the blog, but seriously, name the CSM members making the proposal along with the justification in the actual blog now please. Don't make us read random forums or have to go digging to find out. The CSM members are there because they have been elected and should be given the due credit or criticism for their recommendations. It's not like they were part of an anonymous testing group, or a few concerned pod pilots that came forward from the shadows.

Make it so, now please.


Seriously, this is not optional...as a subscriber that ran for the last election cycle I want to know what those that won are doing and focusing on, along with their reasons/rational/observational experience so that I might compare to what they ran on and will run on in the next cycle.
X4me1eoH
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#163 - 2015-07-09 11:31:56 UTC
Nerf 0.0-0.0 WH not good. I think it will be better opposite boost quantity 0-0 WH like as lowsec-lowsec.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2015-07-09 11:45:11 UTC
How surprising, another gewn buff.

20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing.

I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters.

Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#165 - 2015-07-09 11:58:52 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
How surprising, another gewn buff.

20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing.

I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters.

Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.


How pray tell does all nullsec getting potential improvements with sov upgrades only favor one alliance? If you are indeed a nullbear in -.1 space you wold also benefit when you raise your military index and install the upgrade.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#166 - 2015-07-09 12:04:26 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody.

Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat.

The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there.

You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes.

You realize of course you would then have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to pos's until the location of those entering it was known?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#167 - 2015-07-09 12:07:06 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody.

Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat.

The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there.

You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes.

You realize of course you would then have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to pos's until the location of those entering it was known?


You wouldn't have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to POSes, you'd have them running to Faction Warfare, High Sec SOE missions or High Sec Incursions....again....
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#168 - 2015-07-09 12:09:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody.

Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat.

The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there.

You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes.

You realize of course you would then have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to pos's until the location of those entering it was known?


You wouldn't have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to POSes, you'd have them running to Faction Warfare, High Sec SOE missions or High Sec Incursions....again....


It's been a recurring theme for jones to attempt to foist the w-space condition upon k-space. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of separate parts of the game.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#169 - 2015-07-09 12:09:31 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I fully support the idea of group only content in null sec, but I'm not the biggest fan of artificial limits.

Couldnt we simply make a type of anom that is unable to be soloed?

I'm thinking a gated anom so no carriers, and 1000 DPS omni damage output with a really high active tank to EHP ratio... So something like a 1300 DPS active tank. Top all that off with a respawning neut tower or two and you got yourself an anom that cant be soloed... Thoughts?


People will just stick Level 5 Mission fit passive Tengus/Lokis into it...and solo it.
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#170 - 2015-07-09 12:10:35 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
S199's are not that prevalent, and are no harder to collapse than a N432 or K162 to C5.

Really, who is giving you this information, or are you guys literally blind and dumb?

I rarely find an S199 when I go to nullsec. Most wormholes are C5's, followed by C1-2-3's, and very, very rarely a B499 or N944. So, great, you are cutting down on S199's which are already quite rare.

Good work on making pirate detection arrays more efficient. You know whatthe hardest part about ganking caps in nulsec is? When there is 60 anoms in system, it's hard to filter through for the Hubs and Sanctums past all the abandoned low-grade chaff. Ratters best protection is having more sigs in the list, more green dots on the overview, because it's harder for a hunter to find them amngst the debris.

So, good work, CCP. Nullsec is now confirmed a giant farm, and wih sov timers coming to the API, the number of landholders will shrink.


It's not over yet. Somehow, CCP hasn't managed to completely nerf combat probing into the ground, yet (although the fleet warp changes probably go some way towards making it generally harder to quickly land tackle). But they will eventually come up with some bs reason to do so ...
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#171 - 2015-07-09 12:13:46 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
SCom Thor wrote:
(...)

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.

(...)


Here lies a common misconception, so let me adresss it: choosing a security level it's not about the "reward" part of the risk/reward ration. Pumping up the reward of a certain securiy level just fills up the pockets of those who adopted that certain risk.

So no. More rewards don't will make people move out of highsec. But they certainly will allow nullbears to rake up ISK even faster than before, as if iSK was an issue in nullsec.

I just find ironical how, suddenly, nullsec PvE has become the most important issue to adress right now. Oh yes. Forget about the 73% of guys who log into highsec: it's not as if they were quitting in hordes as PCU digs itself below 2008 levels, no. It's all about poor nullerites and incursion runners who don't rack up enough billions per month!

Frankly, each time I ask myself "What has CCP done for me in the last years?" I feel stupider and stupider about giving them any money... Sad


And yet you will continue to, so don't act like you won't.

Some of those 73% are US, captive "nullbears" who in some cases will be free to go home to null where we belong, unchained from the shackless of high sec where people like you get rich from selling us ammo to use in your incursions. Null Sec Libre!
davet517
Raata Invicti
#172 - 2015-07-09 12:32:36 UTC
When will we get the patch with deploy-able 18 hole golf courses and BMW dealerships?

Stop making null-sec richer and safer, ffs. It's already too rich, and it's already too safe.

Look, it would be one thing if all of this wealth generation was creating 100s of warlords all over the galaxy who are constantly at each other's throats, creating excitement and content. It's not. Can't you see that? It's all being funneled up massive wealth pyramids that are controlled by a number of people that you could fit in a mini-van. They're all fat and happy. None of them have any interest in trying to topple each other.

It's killing your game, and you're making it easier. More wealth, more safety, more wealth, more safety. Why? You need to be making it hard to impossible to build a sprawling bureaucratic empire. Sprawling bureaucratic empires are BORING, except to the handful of self-styled moguls who sit on top of them, and their sycophants. Instead, you're making it easier.

Who are these concerned CSMers who pull so much weight with you? The CSM is supposed to be about transparency, not back-room influence.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#173 - 2015-07-09 12:33:08 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Ab'del Abu wrote:

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.


our unassailable space shrunk because owning half of the entire map was not worth the effort and was not vital

when things become vital for us, anything in the way gets crushed

but let us discuss how insane your claim that if we were to own more space, it would be easier for smaller groups to carve out their own portion of that space than if we did not own that space, elaborate on that, let us talk about how your tiny worthless corp would have an easier time not getting brutally murdered as an example to everyone else if you attacked space we want vs. space we dont want

So all those soon to be ok systems in Branch (that might see 1 person active in them a day) are still off the table without a blue tick next to your name..
Shame - that space could be put to good use by smaller groups.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Duffyman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2015-07-09 12:36:38 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
How surprising, another gewn buff.

20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing.

I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters.

Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.


You are wrong. This actually favors all the alliances that live in crap system like the southern regions. Goons are actually the least favored by this, since we already live in the best region there is in terms of anomalies. Have you ever been to Deklein? Try going there in a ceptor and count the high value anomalies.

(not saying it's bad for us, just saying it's better for everyone else)
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#175 - 2015-07-09 13:00:35 UTC
davet517 wrote:

Stop making null-sec richer and safer, ffs. It's already too rich, and it's already too safe.

highsec incursions
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#176 - 2015-07-09 13:01:29 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So all those soon to be ok systems in Branch (that might see 1 person active in them a day) are still off the table without a blue tick next to your name..
Shame - that space could be put to good use by smaller groups.

i mean you're certainly welcome to try to put it to use yourself

it is not like the space becomes unusable by hostiles the second it gets conquered

you could also try to, y'know, conquer the space yourself
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#177 - 2015-07-09 13:02:59 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
How surprising, another gewn buff.

20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing.

I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters.

Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.

where the hell do you get a pocket in deklein, the entire region is on the pipe

also confirming that goons own all anomalies in the game in all regions and that any increase in anoms is strictly to the benefit of GOonswarm Federation
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#178 - 2015-07-09 13:04:53 UTC
"if goons benefit even a little from a change then the change is fundamentally flawed and i must spite my face by cutting off my nose"
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#179 - 2015-07-09 13:12:09 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Orca Platypus wrote:
How surprising, another gewn buff.

20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing.

I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters.

Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.

where the hell do you get a pocket in deklein, the entire region is on the pipe

also confirming that goons own all anomalies in the game in all regions and that any increase in anoms is strictly to the benefit of GOonswarm Federation

that is basically true, anyone who possesses anything does so at our sufferance
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#180 - 2015-07-09 13:18:54 UTC
also the idea of a cynojammer meaning anything in deklein is hilarious because approximately 2% of deklein is reachable from adjacent NPC space at a 5LY range, which means the only things that can even attack into deklein are blops (drops), which ignore cynojammers, or WHs, which also ignore cynojammers