EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 Pages123Next page

Dev blog: Where we stand

First post
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2015-03-03 15:07:45 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
With the Phoebe release in November 2014 we started "Phase One" of the sovereignty changes. Those changes included significant changes to the speed of long distance travel and power projection, as well as smaller changes to the hitpoints and resistances of Sovereignty structures.

Now it is time to look back a bit and evaluate the effects of those changes.

Read more about the effects and results of those changes and check the interesting stats presented in CCP Fozzie's blog Where we stand.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

#2 - 2015-03-03 15:23:25 UTC
Why do you release these graphs all the time without the vertical axis label? I mean, there is a blue line but it tells me next to nothing in terms of numbers, which makes this graph about as objectively informative as reading tea leaves. That graph can be 1k, 10k or just 100 people. Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2015-03-03 15:30:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Aebe Amraen
I noticed a distinct lack of statistics about black ops battleship usage, which was a large area of concern for both the CSM (according to the summer summit minutes) and the player base as a whole when the changes were announced.

Certainly in the 38.1% of nullsec PvP that HERO accounts for, black ops usage both for bridging and combat has dropped dramatically due to jump fatigue. What about the rest of the game? Are you happy with the changes in black ops activity?
Shadow Cartel
#4 - 2015-03-03 15:59:21 UTC
I read the whole thing
Atlas. Alliance
#5 - 2015-03-03 16:23:34 UTC
Still doesn't stop be from wanting to be reimbursed sp across 12 alts that will now never use their caps again
#6 - 2015-03-03 16:32:28 UTC
One issue with a graph showing the number of subs in null increasing is I do not know if that is from a general move to null, or a general increase in subs across the entire game.

Is the percentage of players operating in Null increasing?

The same issue exists for the graphs of PvP activity. Is it null improving, or just more activity in general?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

#7 - 2015-03-03 17:12:47 UTC
Nice read, thx.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

#8 - 2015-03-03 17:47:27 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why do you release these graphs all the time without the vertical axis label? I mean, there is a blue line but it tells me next to nothing in terms of numbers, which makes this graph about as objectively informative as reading tea leaves. That graph can be 1k, 10k or just 100 people. Roll

1) They explained in the blog why they didn't use numbers.
2) They said the Y-axis was linear, so you can extrapolate percentages based on distance from 0.
3) If you couldn't figure out #2 or read to find #1, does it mean you're trolling or just not that into graph-****?

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

#9 - 2015-03-03 18:01:36 UTC
lol ofc the numbers went high people logged in to suicide their caps ,loot at numbers now they heading DOWN

well that being said im greased up ready for another penetration from CCP fossil


job change is good but you're still a muppet

#10 - 2015-03-03 18:40:24 UTC
More nullbear tears please.

The Tears Must Flow

#11 - 2015-03-03 19:39:49 UTC
Reading that dev blog is proof that some people are incredibly optimistic no matter what lol. No, the jockeying for position that resulted from phoebe isn't proof of success, like wise I'll be their are increases in low sec and wormhole activity, but that's because null coalitions are taking low sec moons they might not have bothered with otherwise and because null coalitions have to rely on wormholes for travel and content now.

Those coalitions have concentrated in 'near null' while still possessing deep null. With the exception of the Immensea/south area, it's business as usual in null, it's a renters paradise. Phase to has to address the VALUE of null, not just how it's won or lost.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#12 - 2015-03-03 20:07:19 UTC
Sov changes are still anemically low, and most of those are not from pvp, but arranged sov transfers. Is it better than right before Phoebe? Yes. But not by much.

Sov is off life support. But it is still in the Serious Condition Ward pending further improvement.


#13 - 2015-03-03 20:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Saidin Thor
I'd be very interested to see a little bit more information on the "characters in null sec" statistic. Not the numbers themselves, mind you, but the same statistic in relation to other numbers.

Specifically, I think it would be worth looking at four additional graphs:

1. Active Null Characters Normalized by Total Active Characters

2. Active Null Characters Normalized by Active Lowsec Characters

3. Active Null Characters Normalized by Active Highsec Characters

4. Active Null Characters Normalized by Active Wormhole Characters

It's really, really easy to find SOME sort of statistic to support literally any viewpoint. What we have right now is a single snapshot taken out of context and being used to give positive support to changes. A much more credible way to look at the information you've presented is in the reference of the other major groups of space. Knowing that the number of players went up is one thing, but knowing that both the number of players went up AND knowing that this change is actively moving players towards null sec and away from other types of space (which should be the goal here) is quite another thing entirely.

Of course, the axes can be obfuscated the exact same way as the original graph. The dates and trends are really the only important things.
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-03-03 20:27:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
It's cute that you tried to put a brave face on it but the real story here is that Phoebe's much vaunted changes completely failed to have any lasting effect beyond a wave of fully consensual sov transfers between the usual Great Powers. Most of those graphs show the brief spike of activity one would expect in the wake of any patch before retreating to the status quo, the 'Nullsec population' graph being particularly telling in that the decline in activity seems to have been only halted by the trailer release.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

#15 - 2015-03-03 20:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Given the decline of the average player count I can't help but wonder where the slight uptick of Null population came from? Could you show us a graph of Highsec, Wormholes and Lowsec populations for the same time periods? That uptick had to come from some where and it wasn't from more players being online it seems.
#16 - 2015-03-03 22:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: flapie 2
Hmm no data on what % of the player base actually has / used (or not used for that matter) or had a Capital before and after the changes, i wonder how that looks next to the rest of the graphs. Id say that type of data would be at least as important as how often they are used in actual PvP across the Universe.

Also i would have like to see more split data on Capitals, not just across the Universe but also low and null separate to see witch of the 2 has been most affect by said changes, and thus if the intention behind the changes has really worked out or just boosted a single area.

Nice read though, interesting results, maybe ill tackle the SOV changes part 2 tomorrow it was quite the wall text when i quickly scrolled over it.
#17 - 2015-03-03 22:31:04 UTC
Can someone smarter than me explain how they would meta the **** out of the graphs if they had a Y-axis?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Rate My Ticks
#18 - 2015-03-03 23:38:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cr Turist
#19 - 2015-03-04 00:12:22 UTC
Will there be any restrictions on the use of the entosis module in conjunction with bastion/siege modules?

[08:10:59] pretty hair > battle badgers, less jump fatigue

#20 - 2015-03-04 00:43:45 UTC
It's funny how large coalitions remain large after those jump fatigue changes and then go "see, there's nothing to shoot". No **** Sherlock, how about actually resetting some neighbours.
3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump