1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

[Developer Blog] Anomalies revisited

Discussion in 'EVE News' started by EVE News, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. EVE News

    EVE News RSS Feed
    RSS Feed

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back in March we made some changes to the way anomalies were distributed in sovereign space. These changes were a bigger nerf, to more people, than we had assumed they would be. We're not happy with the way they've turned out, so we're making some changes to address some of the problems.

    We still want to achieve the basic goals stated in March, namely ensuring that there's proper differentiation between different areas of space in terms of the value of the PvE content, for all the reasons previously outlined. However, we want to get to a place where we're achieving those goals without driving substantial depopulation of large areas of space.

    The first step we're taking is to undertake a thorough review and rebalance of the existing anomaly content. This is something we would have liked to do as part of the initial changes, but we didn't have the time available. We've now made time, and the tools to give us a more accurate estimate of the value of each site, and CCP Bettik has just finished the mammoth task of rebalancing all 107 relevant anomaly sites. Specifically, we determined a target average ISK value for every site and then tuned each one upwards (every site bar one ended up needing a buff of some kind) to meet the target goal, using mainly battlecruisers and high-value battleships to minimize the additional Effective Hit Points added to the site as a whole.

    We were planning to then rework the way the distributions are set up to "flatten the value gradient" and ensure that more space is more good, but after reviewing the numbers from the balance pass we're holding off on that for now on the grounds that it might be overkill.

    It's reasonably non-trivial to estimate true ISK/hour numbers for sites, given the wide range of setups that players use to tackle them. We can however look at some straightforward stats like the average ISK:EHP ratio. The best site currently on TQ, the better of the two Sanctum sites, has (in the Angel variant, for precision) an ISK:EHP ratio of 97. The top six Angel sites now all have an ISK:EHP ratio of 90 or better, and the next four are all above 70. This makes a lot more sites competitive with the very best Sanctums currently available, which is why we're holding off on making further adjustments for now.

    We are however actively planning on revisiting the situation in a few months to make sure we've hit the mark properly this time. If you have any feedback on these changes once they've gone live, and in particular any data on the comparative ISK/hour amounts you're pulling from different sites "in the wild", please forward them to your nearest CSM rep so they can collate them and pass them along to us.

    Thanks for your patience and understanding,
    -Greyscale

    [​IMG] [​IMG]



    New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today.
    Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.

    [​IMG]



    More...