Encounter Surveillance System Update

While I hate agreeing with Pedro, because he’s usually posting along the stupidity line, the MER does indeed disagree that ratting is dead.
However, to appeal that, we need another tool at our disposal, namely - Dotlan. Using it we can see that only TWO regions of nullsec have significant ratting numbers over hisec: Oasa and Cobalt Edge.
image
The data is for September 2020. I got enough fingers on one hand to count the number of nullsec regions with significant ratting activity. I also have enough fingers on my other hand to count systems that have more ratting activity than hisec L4 mission hubs - there’s exactly 4 of those, all in Oasa, maybe one more in Cobalt Edge, and that’s it. Other regions are not even present on the ratting heatmap. From 1.7T you’re talking about, Oasa plus Branch plus Cobalt Edge = 30% of all bounties, and this includes hisec and lowsec. On the other hand of our equation, we have regions like Wicked Creek, Scalding Pass, and Impass - none of them are frontlines, yet none of them are even 1% of global bounties, literally less than hisec (Lonetrek 522B bounties, Impass 339B, other mentioned regions more or less same as Impass, 09/2020). It’s safe to say that ratting values below hisec can’t really be considered a problem, or even existence…
Hitting those regions equally would probably still be unfair, but odds are more accessible regions will be hit harder, thus making it double unfair.

So was blackout. PCU graph clearly showed a change of login behavior.

We call it collateral damage when the strike was aimed at intended target, and the brunt of the force was delivered to it. When aimless shots land anywhere but on the intended target, this is usually called a war crime.

OH PLEASE.
Everyone who does ratting knows EXACTLY how it’s gonna affect his game. The rest can be extrapolated from there, following the thread of ISK.

You mean the resource removal.
The point is, how you define a failure. If success is to make anyone who do not wish to buy plex with $$$ quit, it is a major success. If success is having a better game, then those are utter failure.

That is far from worst case assessment. In fact, losing 50% is along the line of average to better case. Worst case would be responding and losing a ship that takes 10 hours to replace, repeat every hour, and you cannot afford a frigate by the end of the week.

So that’s why they make changes that benefit bots doing those?

Can I quote you on that? You just pronounced that paying for another account and doing things in space is bad. Apparently, buying PLEX and selling it for ISK, which is more or less the same as second account in terms of ISK income, but without any ship activity associated with it, is better? Back to good old Pedro the stupid, aren’t we?

You forgot to add “SENSIBLE” after “something”.

Inform me when this happens. Haven’t happened since removal of clone grades.

So, according to you, removing me from nullsec is gonna be better and more interesting.
Care to explain HOW it’ll happen?

NO.
The high-attention, the super-attention, and tunnelvision-attention income is getting removed, not just nerfed.
This is not a nerf. This is removal, because it makes ratting about as good as sucking on Omber in those new belts. There is simply no point in doing it, in any shape less than super ratting, unless you bot it, and don’t care that your income is that low, because it’s not your playtime that’s making it.

So we can agree on one thing: MESS aka ratting removal, and mining removal, has made nullsec not worth time and effort.

The blackout did not get reverted. The damage it did is still there, check manufacturing graph on MER - blackout maimed it for 50% and it NEVER recovered. Many alliances, including pvp ones, have never recovered either. The massive wound to eve which blackout was is still bleeding, a year after. Saying it was “reverted” or “can be reverted” is a fallacy, the damage it dealt was permanent, and the removal of mining and ratting would be permanent damage as well - because why build in nullsec, if one move by madmen in CCP can completely sweep the rug from under everything you’ve ever done in the game?

How do you even see “right”? Because from what I can tell, the new vision is “a nullsec player that tries to make an income is a free entertainment content generator for a real customer, the ganktard, and the only way he can avoid being treated as the clown dog is to pay for PLEX on top of subscription”.
Do you want them to get that vision “right”, so it works perfectly, everyone who does not buy PLEX is a free target who’s job is to lose ships as soon as they pay for themselves, grind for the entertainment of the paying customer only to lose it all once the grind is done?
Personally, I only want them to wipe their ass with that vision and then stuff it into the mouth of the one who had it in the first place.

9 Likes

Reminded me one saying: “If you’re not paying for the service - you’re the service” (c)

2 Likes

This times a thousand. And bots in backwater regions will be least-affected by these changes.

:laughing:

Anecdotally, this feels correct based on my experience: Delve felt like a wasteland in the time between the end of Blackout and the beginning of this war. I used to mine ice for money, and still track ice-product values out of curiosity: heavy water prices have never recovered post-Blackout. None of those Rorqual miners came back-- even with local being re-introduced, the mining nerfs have been so heavy-handed that most people rightly consider it not worth the risk to field ~5b ISK mining ships anymore for such meagre rewards.

Thank god for this war: it’s literally the only thing saving EVE from CCP right now. Pre-war, it was rare for me to see more than 1-2 other people hanging around in the system I base out of in Delve. Now it’s not uncommon to see 30+ and constant activity round the clock. Thank goodness the playerbase has come to the rescue and revitalized the game in spite of CCP’s best efforts. Notably, there is no economic argument to be made for this conflict: despite CCP’s talk about distributing resources in ways that encourage conflict, etc, it remains the case that basically any piece of nullsec space is fundamentally just as useful as any other piece of space once “upgraded” under Dominion sov… which these days is to say that all regions are equally worthless. There’s no financial incentive to spend literally trillions of ISK per day fighting grand strategic campaigns-- it’s literally a grudge match for bragging rights. We are so lucky this is happening right now.

4 Likes

Thank you, Scoots :slight_smile:

do we know yet if someone outside the 75km bubble can target someone inside the bubble?

It’s possible, but impractical.
The initiative, as usual, lies completely with the ganktard. He can check using d-scan or probes what’s behind gate, and free to just leave if there’s something that can hurt it.
But unless you’re willing to stuff a toon there 23/7 (can’t take position outside bubble on demand), that is pointless, having a toon doing nothing would probably cost more than a steal, unless it’s alpha on a second PC, which is borderline eula breach.

1 Like

This right here is all that needs to be said. It’s actually the very 1st thing I thought when I heard about the dynamic bounty system and “mandatory ESS”.

I was like “wait, so CCPs brilliant plan for null sec is to take a thing that most ratters don’t screw with and make it mandatory, take away the ONLY good thing about it (the loyalty points), put it behind a gate and into a ‘pocket’ that so vastly limits what you can do almost no one is going to want to screw with it”. WTF mate.

Out of what must be thousands of ideas that could make anoms spew less liquid isk, be undoable by bots, capitals or super capitals, and that could make null sec pve more engaging too boot, THEY PICK THE ESS (and the convoluted DBS).

I can say honestly that I am a fan of CCP, but all of this has shaken my loyalty some. It means that they learned nothing from the 2011 amon debacle, the misfires of the 2015 sov changes, or the much more recent black out stuff.

The only thing I’m wondering now is how long it’s going to take them to realize the mistake (again) and walk it back (again). It took 9 or 10 months for them to roll back the 2011 changes and several weeks of blackout to turn local back on.

7 Likes

How many times does one have to do something like Blackout before they learn that their basic thinking on the issue is wrong. That’s what gets me, they keep doing the same kind of thing.

The following is a copy-paste of the recent ess dev blog and the 2011 anom change dev blog:

From the NEW DEV Blog:

There are two main benefits that come from shifting to a more dynamic system:

  1. Dynamic systems and a constantly shifting ecosystem provide opportunities for dedicated Capsuleers to separate themselves from others. Learning to predict future high-pay areas, hunting in current low-pay areas (where you know there’s excessively safe ratting happening), and choosing your daily ratting grounds based on a new set of factors every day will make every part of Nullsec life more interesting.
  2. Spreading income generation across New Eden and moving away from massive ratting hubs supported by very concentrated infrastructure will create movement and more conflict. Empires will be stretched thinner and guaranteed protection will come at a more tangible cost.

From the OLD 2011 DEV blog :

Expected consequences

  1. Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
  2. In the longer run, there’ll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
  3. Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in Nullsec
  4. Coalitions will be marginally less stable
  5. Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (Low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)

It’s the same rehashed thinking that did take into account what people actually do. Like the guy on reddit said, NONE of those 2011 goals occured. In fact, the OPPOSITE happened.

You say CCP can just revert the changes, but how much damage will the game sustain before that? The result of various changes in 2010 and 2011 (aka Dominion Sov) screwed up the game and created the null sec bloc monsters we have today. It’s funny because one of the stated goals of Dominion sov was to “make things easier for small groups”.

I don’t think most of us are saying CCP should do nothing, but many of us recognize that CCP is re-trying something that has been tried many times before and never worked and that did lasting damage and we’d prefer they wouldn’t.

Nothing we say on these forums will change this, but at least some of you (who think this is great) could learn something I guess.

8 Likes

And what’s the alternative? What changes do you think will generate conflict and/or incentivize smaller alliances? I am willing to consider that there are better options, but so far the only alternative that anyone seems to be mentioning is “keep everything the same and don’t disrupt my RMT botting”.

That’s what I mean by bad thinking.

Why do people think they can ‘create’ conflict? When I started playing EVE there were no respawning anomalies, no system upgrades. You logged in and belt ratted or killed the few natural anoms/plexes you could find scan down and that was that. It was so bad people would argue if you warped into an asteroid belt and shot a rat that screwed jup someone’s chaining.

And we fought tooth and nail over nullsec. BoB, Goons, Atlas, all the old alliance. Sure, moons were lucrative and such but people were fighting…just to be fighting mostly.

ALL of the changes to null and the rest of the game since 2007 have somehow been aimed at “creating conflict” and it does.not.work.

Back then, CCPs philosophy was “we give you tools, YOU find a way to go screw with people with them”. And we did. Then, as the original CCP dissolved away and the company got more professional and mainstream, you started seeing what we have now, attempts to direct behavior. Attempts that ALWAYS FAIL because the type of person that plays EVE can 't really be directed like that.

It’s why CCP buff exhumers and this led to MORE ganking, why they tried to fix war decs that for most of the past of the game led to MORE WAR DECs. It’s why they build wormholes that no one was supposed to live in and…people live there. It’s why they build cap and super caps thinking “there will never be many of these” now every 5th grader has a Nyx (you get the Titan in 6th grade, gotta have something to work for).

It’s why CCP tried to “create conflict” with moon mineral distribution changes and instead of creating conflict, it created CARTELS (like OTEC) where people cooperated instead of fought.

It’s why CCP created Faction Warfare , only to see it turned into a wealth faucet as players used alts to manipulate the rewards on a grand level.

You cannot create conflict in a sandbox game. You can create ever more ingenious tools and watch the epic tool users called “humans” find ways to screw over and with each other, but they won’t do it because you want them to, they will do it because THEY want to.

CCP is trying to make people do stuff again, and it won’t work.

14 Likes

you haven´t read anything then. Right here, right in this thread people were making proposals of changing krabbing in a way that would nerf it or at least not be a utter cancer.

3 Likes

Because conflict is always created by something. Back in those early days you describe there was conflict created by scarcity. There was a finite amount of belt ratting you could do, moons to mine, etc, and if you wanted more you had to claim more systems and fight off the people trying to kill you. But CCP screwed up by opening the ISK faucets too much, and now they’re trying to get back to a scarcity state but do so in a dynamic way instead of just cutting all income by 75%.

He totally didn’t read any of that, because it doesn’t fit with what he wants to think.

Anyone can go back and read ideas like “stop anomalies from giving liquid isk and instead lootable tags or someting”. Random spawning of powerful npcs (like the Dreads that can spawn in havens and sanctum or the NPC “diamond rat” escalations in normal belts). Gating anoms to keep caps and supers out. etc etc.

But no, CCPs great idea is to rehash a thing people hate, get rid of the LP it gives you and try to get people to PVP in a space with no MWDs…

It’s so dumb it’s not even funny… I’ve participated in the past in CCPs “PVE townhalls” Many of us have made these suggestions to CCP IN PERSON at player events, and for myself I’ve been talking about this on the forms 9before these forums were here) for years.

And nothing ever comes of it.

8 Likes

That’s not how it worked. you’d know if you were there.

We were fighting because we could and GOD did we hate those guys and they hated us. Like CCP, you think people fight over stuff. We don’t.

Right now I am in TEST Alliance. We are fighting a war with Goons alongside others. We don’t need Delve, our regions are plenty rich enough. We are fighting because were are playing a video game and also Guck Foons.

CCP lost the plot more than a decade ago. The got “too cute” and thought they could make players dance to their toon. We don’t. What we do actually do is screw with each other when there is a fun way to do it and when those other guys piss us off by simply existing and looking like the Mittani.

The ‘create conflict’ belief is just ideology that ignores the reality of why we fight and the history of how we play the game. If the belief worked, this would have been the start of an age of war in 2011..

What it was the real start of was “lets take more space we don’t need so we can make money off of rent”. In game, as in real life, history repeats over and over because people (like you in this instance) don’t learn from the past.

12 Likes

Agreed.

If you ever read the History of the goons, They started off as a group of friends from something awful forums who got heaps of other people from the forums and started flying ships around arida, BoB (the Papi of the time) Decided to do a “cleansing of Arida” to make delve a bit safer. This included screwing over the newbees. they went to the other side of the map, built up, took SOV with a few other alliances, came back and when BOB had a weak moment, uprooted their entire alliance and moved to Delve, i remember taking 2 weeks of work and spending 50% of it in siege mode. This invasion of delve was a revenge invasion, payback for the cleansing of arida 2-3 years prior.

The Casino wars was driven by hatred towards Goons, the current war is driven by hatred towards goons, Players drive conflict in this game. Not CCP. always have, always will. CCP thinking they can drive the conflict means they are nieve. If you want to drive conflict, Give players the means to fight better, harder and longer (make the servers better) don’t change arbitrary systems that don’t affect conflict at all. If you have an issue with Supers raking in ISK hand over fist, put an acceleration gate in front of each Anom that restricts to below Supercaps. The onlky way to truely deal with bots, is to find them and ban them. Any system you create to “harm bots” ultimately harms the average player more then the bots. because the bots don’t care if they make 100Mil isk or 1Bil isk. it’s still free money to them. and if you nerf the faucets, the value of isk simply rises anyway.

It’s also worth noting, that currently there is little to no true ISK Sinks in this game. ship destruction cannot be counted as an ISK sink, because the ISK was paid to the person who created the ship. Isk simply moves and flows through the game causing constant inflation. nerfing incomes now will just hurt new people who are unable to get into ships in the first place. I mentioned I used to play back in 2006-2010, back then, I remember the average Apoc fully T2 sniper fit for 120Mil. now it’s like 300Mil, the construction costs haven’t changed, the mineral inputs haven’t changed, but everything else has gone up.

These changes will not achieve the stated goals, they will not drive conflict, they will not reduce botting, they will adversely affect newer players.

Good Job CCP /s

The current batch of Devs are terrible, please fire them and re-hire the Devs from 2006 who actually understood thier playerbase and the concept of “Sandbox”

6 Likes

Once those who have the drive to get to the top get there, they tend to kick the ladders away so no one can come close.

If CCP wanted people to migrate to Null they would provide ladders. Or at least a ledge to grip on to.

Things like this (from either perspective) just make it unlikely that anything will happen to Null.

They like it as it is, I think, and as long as there are two identical juggernauts just grinding away, they are happy.

2 Likes

To everyone talking about how major 40.000 vs 40.000 wars will not erupt over ESS or DBS; you’re right but this change is actually about small gang roaming. Not everything has to be about alliance sov warfare.

1 Like

Nightwatch 1-79 on each MESS soon™? :+1:

4 Likes

Wrong. Cost index now raises costs.

Wrong. Doubled high end mineral consumption for every blueprint in the game.

Wrong. World War Bee.

Right.

It’s a mineral sink and ISK faucet, due to insurance.

I’m not a newer player, I’ve been here for over a decade, and it’s affecting me dearly.
Newer players in hisec, however, are completely unaffected.

this change will do nothing to small gang roaming.
if you think there would be anything left for you to steal, you’re gravely mistaken.
this change is about less people ratting, and bots blue-stealing everything every 20 minutes, so you’ll get nobody to shoot and nothing to steal. How would you like that?

2 Likes

It is about small gangs and this change is garbage, talking about total ESS+DBS change.