Nulsec anoms revamp


(Dark Engraver) #1

I am referring to the current military index specific anoms such as sanctums,heavens,hubs,hordes,patrols and so on.
Our current nulsec anomalies have fallen way behind in challenge and despite CCP efforts over the years to keep them mildly in check such as increasing rat hp reducing bounty adding cap and supercap rats to kill afks or unprepared players or increasing rat aggression on drones we can easily overpower it all especially with cap and supecap proliferation.
I propose a series of changes that I hope some of you find interesting.
1.Make anoms gated sites with implemented ship restriction based on difficulty.
2.Add rat specific ewar to all sites in amounts reasonable for the ship restriction size
3.Add mwds and warp scramblers or disruptors to all elite frigates
4.Add logistic rats to certain spawns
5.Add new capital specific sites where the rats can field their own caps ,supercaps,faxes,dreads,in sufficient amount to pose a challenge.
6.increase chance of commander spawn and add small chance of officer spawn at the end of a site.
7.Add rat specific ewar to all commander rats increased damage tank and increased faction module drop rate.


(QuakeGod) #2

Sounds good, but players will just drop more supers on the anom to clear it.


(Dark Engraver) #3

The point of gating is to restrict the larger ships to sites suited for them just like now days number of sanctums and heavens is limited by system truesec so can cap specific sites,some systems with not enough truesec may not even get such sites while better systems could get a very finite amount


(Wallyx) #4

I see a problem. Gating will increase the safety of the sites and sorry but EvE do not need more safe mechanics.

I’m not against a revisit of Null-Sec sites and income because they need to be revisited, but gating is not a solution.

About point 3, all elite frigates have scram/web. The problem is that sites do not have them, or only a couple of sites have elite frigates.

About point 6 and 7, sites do not need a buff in income. What we need is a redesign of sites so solo sites do not have that stupid income they have now. And Officers should stay at Belts.

And the rest… is basically a re-design of Sites, which is needed so yeah, Ewar and Capitals should do the trick so Sites will need to be done in groups. But they should do something to them like with Incursions so depending how many people you receive and income.


(Dark Engraver) #5

Not all enemies come from 20j away and appear in Intel so I don’t see a big Issue with gating honestly.
As for the sites depends what a dev finds challenging for something like a redesigned sanctum for example-you could end up with 2 tackle frigs in 1 wave on you and with 7-8 in a further wave.
However I also believe with added difficulty there needs to be some incentive else everyone will turn to mining in null and DED sites/exploration only.


(Dark Engraver) #6

I’m not against forcing them to cooperate to run the sites however.


(Wallyx) #7

That’s the point, local is the intel. I live in WH Space with a Null-Sec Static. We open it and try to locate the enemy in the Sites. If they are gated, they have much more time to notice us and scape.

I’ll give you an example.

Right now they warp to the anomalies at x range and start the site. We appear in the system and start to search, if he noticed us he will start to warp off. One of us landed at his site and in range of tackle, pointed and kill it. This is a little bit of luck and a little bit of Scan Search.

Now, if you add Gates, you are giving him extra safety cause instead of landing and warping to the next site to try to catch him, we need to use the gate, check inside and warp off.

Is the same as with 8/10 or 10/10, you won’t catch someone inside, when you arrive is already gone. If you catch him, is because he is lazy and didn’t bother.

Instead, if Local is remove and replace for another mechanic so is delayed… Maybe be could be a possibility, even tho is still a mechanic which will be giving safety to the people doing it.


(Dark Engraver) #8

The reason for adding extra tackle to the sites was to try and balance the delay added by gating.
Maybe the guy/guys can kill some of the tackle but if they not on top of their game it buys some time for people to go in after them.


(Wallyx) #9

Well, if they add Elite Frigates to all waves, I won’t be fully against it.

Adding to that, they could add Elite Cruisers to the more challenging, so is not so easy to kill the Tacklers.


(Shallanna Yassavi) #10

Anoms already are soft-gated. If I warp a battleship to a site, I’m going to spend a long time locking on to frigates. That’s part of why Ishtars and T3C are favorites for solo explorers, the other part being how easy it is to catch a battleship (or carrier) and how long they take to go anywhere.
Networked sensor arrays make carriers a lot better at running anoms than they need to be. Splitting the damage types of fighters along racial lines (i.e. Amarr fighters do EM/therm instead of pure EM) would also nerf the efficiency of fighters in anoms without hurting how they perform against players. Gating anoms would make them somewhat safer, but if that means keeping carriers out, that doesn’t make them more efficient.

2 would result in either running them multiboxed (if they focus ewar, which they tend to do), or more restrictive fits. Previous player behavior suggests the second choice if at all possible.

3: Elite frigates already have webs and MWDs. Not sure if they have scrams, but they do have points. And other ewar.

4: Multimultimultibox. DPS check, meet more DPS ships. And if you don’t want that to be the solution, you’re looking at restricting the number of ships in a site, and the uniquely EVE design issues which go with that. Like… do we nerf the chance of an escalation? Bounty payout? Throw more rats at the fleet, particularly ewar rats? Throw an insane number of elite frigates in so they eat all the drones?

5 would result in sites which demand a very specific fit because that’s just what we do. Or multibox, that works too.

7 would make for more restrictive fits. If Sansha commanders got tracking disruption, you would counter with: marauder, missile boat, drone boat. Which we kind of already to because tracking disruption from the smaller rats.


(Matthias Ancaladron) #11

They need to buff ano.s and SIG’s

Sig upgrades shouldn’t be in the mining slot for the ihub. It should have its own scanning. Natural anoms are too rare and especially in NPC null where there’s no iub you should have more SIG’s and anomalies or drastically increase bountis/ faction spawns for belt ratting. Carriers are too big to belt rat so it’s not an issue for cap pve isk Inflation


(system) #12

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.