Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower.

I have no decent idea.

Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower.

RFed moons produce no Tech for the duration of their RF timer.

Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower.

So what can the defender do to counter this probe?

Which requires RFing the tower.
This is ninja stuff.

Keep neutrals out of system.

You can easily ninja RF a tower before defenders form up.

Ninjas can be countered. What's the counter to your silly plan.

Keep the neuts out of local..

Oh wait, that's too hard for a 9k alliance + their coalition.

Keep the neuts out of local..

Oh wait, that's too hard for a 9k alliance + their coalition.

Keep the neuts out of local..

Oh wait, that's too hard for a 9k alliance + their coalition.

Reduced to 1/10 since if you're stupid enough to think this then you don't deserve points.

You can tell when the Goons are afraid of an idea.

You can tell when the Goons are afraid of an idea.

ccpswarm will never let this happen because ccp was bought by the goons a veery long time ago.

the goons know the tech isk fauset is the only thing keeping therm in eve ever sicne they burned jita and alienated all of eve.

cool story bros.

Got any evidence to back up that rumor attacking CCP employees?

ccpswarm will never let this happen because ccp was bought by the goons a veery long time ago.

the goons know the tech isk fauset is the only thing keeping therm in eve ever sicne they burned jita and alienated all of eve.

cool story bros.

Yes because owning most of nulsec is indicative of clinging on to our place in eve by our tech-coated fingertips.

Mention TEC and Goons come outta the woodwork. TEC nerf you say? Not happening. Only thing CCP understands it seems is massive Unsub threats and thats not far off the way things are going it seems.

ccpswarm will never let this happen because ccp was bought by the goons a veery long time ago.

the goons know the tech isk fauset is the only thing keeping therm in eve ever sicne they burned jita and alienated all of eve.

cool story bros.

The ironic thing is Mittani was pushing for a Tech nerf while he was chairman... Then the raging playerbase wanted him removed. Now he's gone & no one is pushing for a Tech nerf.

Why are the posters with the worst conspiracy theories always the most illiterate?

Which requires RFing the tower.
This is ninja stuff.

Which requires RFing the tower.
This is ninja stuff.

im a pubby and im proud

Nooo! You're getting reason all over this crap thread!

Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower.

All i can say : OP ? why don't you just form an alliance to take back by Force the tech moon ??

Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower.

The null bears will do whatever they can to stop CCP from nerfing tech...

RFed moons produce no Tech for the duration of their RF timer.

I've never participated in a POS bash, so how long does it take to reinforce a tower?

CCP will never balance tech because it'd harm their favouritest big alliances

CCP will never balance tech because it'd harm their favouritest big alliances

Stop lying.

Really? And here I thought that the tinfoil theory was that CCP loved goons, but you're apparently wearing a hat of some different material.

Which alliances do you mean?

Oh please, everyone and their dog can see the balance/bottleneck issues with tech/moons in general. It's an area CCP are extremely slow to move on. Hell, even mittani spoke about the tech issue. CCP are far too worried about disrupting anything for the big recognizable 0.0 alliances in EVE, though. They're fine with rushing out poorly thought out mechanics in many other areas (walking in stations, incursions, war dec mechanics in inferno 1.0 and then again in 1.1... etc) and just watching the **** hit the fan and cleaning it up later, but they fret and fuss and ultimately do nothing over 0.0 things for far too long.

If you want to fix it, remove it. The imbalance it has created has become far too great.

Oh please, everyone and their dog can see the balance/bottleneck issues with tech/moons in general. It's an area CCP are extremely slow to move on.

I recently watched last years alliance tournament, and one of the devs being interviewed talks about the technetium bottleneck problem, and how the design of reactions makes it hard to change. It sounded like they were looking at a change the involved changing the reaction tree, which sounds like one way to change the value of technetium while keeping the price on T2 items stable.

There are essentially two things they can do to "quickly fix" the tech bottleneck.

1) Rebalance the moongoo consumption in T2 components
2) Add alchemy to every tier of moongoo.

I think that if they'd redone the 1) option back to what it was before tech became the major bottleneck, it'd still be an improvement, because while the neo/dyspro moons were valuable, they weren't limited to the northern areas.

And it's not like the south is fully worthless either, despite what they'll have you think.

The goons come here to cry knowing that tech is what helps keep their CFC togeather, and with out it... TBH what would hold it all togeather?

Sounds good. So what is CCPs deal??? Why years to make a much needed change?! (it has been like two or three right? I forget)

Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs.

In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s).

I don't why people can't do their research

Add a special probe that can reduce moon mining efficiency by, say, 50% for X period of time. This bomb could be fired by probe launchers and used to disrupt moon mining by making the moon's output lower.

You do realise you are posting in GD, right?

I don't why people can't do their research. CCP Soundwave has stated that they are doing moon alchemy for ALL moon tiers (including R32). This should help with the bottleneck problem and allow the tech2 markets to become oversupplied. If not then others things will have to be done on top of that so it can become oversupplied. I'm not saying the tech2 market NEEDS to be oversupplied, just that the capability needs to be there as it currently isn't.

The quote I am referencing:



CCP Soundwave quote

I don't why people can't do their research. CCP Soundwave has stated that they are doing moon alchemy for ALL moon tiers (including R32). This should help with the bottleneck problem and allow the tech2 markets to become oversupplied. If not then others things will have to be done on top of that so it can become oversupplied. I'm not saying the tech2 market NEEDS to be oversupplied, just that the capability needs to be there as it currently isn't.

The quote I am referencing:



CCP Soundwave quote

Nothing wrong with adding Alchemy in the meantime. Such a mechanic is also easy to do for all moon goo considering it is already written.

The burning question is: Why are they making the decision not to? As in years deciding not to. What is the motivation?

Nothing wrong with adding Alchemy in the meantime. Such a mechanic is also easy to do for all moon goo considering it is already written.

The burning question is: Why are they making the decision not to? As in years deciding not to. What is the motivation?

That's saying he'd like to do these things, not that they will be done.

Never, ever, assume CCP are going to do something until you see it on Sisi/TQ.

Again, he has said he'd like to do alchemy for all moon tiers, he hasn't said it will be done. There's a huge difference there.

Stop shooting the hen before it's laid its eggs, it doesn't work.

CCP has been caught many times helping one alliance (t2 BPO's ftw).

Once. One time does not equal many times, unless you have some sort of proof.

Also, unless there's some evidence otherwise, they fixed that by banning some people and deleting the BPOs.

All it takes is a 3-digit search in Google to find the information on it. It's actually quite a good read & very informative.

Never, ever, assume CCP are going to do something until you see it on Sisi/TQ.

u mad?

You know what will slow down moon mining? Blow up the pos

Hot drop O'clock!!!
its POS bashing time!!!!!

Which requires RFing the tower.
This is ninja stuff.

OP, "He he, I'm going to screw up their moongoo income." launches moongoo bomb.

When he gets back to his station, "WTF! Covops hulls just doubled in price? CCP fix naow!!"

Now I am no fan of the Goons, but in their defense their brains and leadership do call for a tech nerf. It's just the faceless, nameless, and brainless Goon grunts that don't matter that are saying tech is fine.

Hot drop O'clock!!!
its POS bashing time!!!!!

Why is the counter in eve always blobing. If the removed local, or at least made it so black ops cynos saved you from poping onto local chat, as you bypassed the gate. Then 1000 s of moons would get raided, and allainces would finally have a real reason not to expand into countless areas just to leave most of thier space empty all the time.

Because 2 > 1, and EvE doesn't have fixed team-size battlefields ('cept the AT, ofc).

Ok answer honestly.

If you could take 5 guys and break the tank of the npc run mining drill that mines moon Goo. Maybe every 2 hours there is a 10 minute window in which you can catch it on its way up *to steal* or on its way down *to kill*.

What would be more effective?

5 ships, or 10?

With 10 ships you don't deal anymore damage than 5 as that single mining cycle has been interupted. you could of hit two sites instead.

Or what's better 10 ships or 400. When the 400 man fleet can't stop the 40 tiny fleets bringing an overexpanded allaince to its knees without having to kill the pos.

Blobing is big on eve Becuase everything in eve is based on blowing up stuff as fast as possible. Meaning 2 is better than 1. Like yousaid.

So that question I wanted to ask you , is 2 always better than 1. Or is it just designed that way.

Why is the counter in eve always blobing. If the removed local, or at least made it so black ops cynos saved you from poping onto local chat, as you bypassed the gate. Then 1000 s of moons would get raided, and allainces would finally have a real reason not to expand into countless areas just to leave most of thier space empty all the time.

It's so simple, it would make eve fun

Hey guys, let's remove local again.

Because when you remove the tech or nerf the tech, alliances have no other income and you do, right?

That's not what I said. I said you should pop on local if you use a black ops cynical which only a few ships can even use.

Wait why am replying to such a poor troll?

I would never support removing or nerfing moon goo. That's what you got from my post? Really?

Because you couldn't resist adding the line " If the removed local". It betrays your love for the idea about just removing local. Your lingering anti-local sentiment.

If you had only put the next part about blops, that would be different.

Yeah sure. That's fine. Just stopping the tech.

"Remove the tech income by stopping the npc run mining drill that mines moon Goo". If you want :words: go talk to the people in the link in my sig.

I worry ccp is just going to add an increasing cost per system, which will kill tech hard. My solution relies on emergent game play, more options, not less.

Same with local, removing local removes options not adds them.

What are you? A guy who works in politics? Gotta spin everything as negitive so its not a threat to your passive income? Oh no someone suggested instead of nerfing tech moons, we have to defend them. *rolls eyes* ill move down to defend your moons, jezz grow a spine.

So why do you hate small fleet combat so much ? If you take out pos guns why not let them raid it?

When a pos mines a moon it just magically transports the stuff from the moon to space?

That's not how PI works.

Yeah, you have to press the launch button and then it's magically transported into the Customs office.

Maybe moon mining needs someone to push butan to get the stuff into the POS, that makes good sense, actually. To F&I

see our conversation was constructive in the end. Can we at least be allowed to camp a pos so they can't push the button? is that ok ? :P

Ok answer honestly.

If you could take 5 guys and break the tank of the npc run mining drill that mines moon Goo. Maybe every 2 hours there is a 10 minute window in which you can catch it on its way up *to steal* or on its way down *to kill*.

What would be more effective?

5 ships, or 10?

With 10 ships you don't deal anymore damage than 5 as that single mining cycle has been interupted. you could of hit two sites instead.

Or what's better 10 ships or 400. When the 400 man fleet can't stop the 40 tiny fleets bringing an overexpanded allaince to its knees without having to kill the pos.

Blobing is big on eve Becuase everything in eve is based on blowing up stuff as fast as possible. Meaning 2 is better than 1. Like yousaid.

So that question I wanted to ask you , is 2 always better than 1. Or is it just designed that way.

I'll be honest here.

To launch your PI goods into the CO, you can do it from anywhere in space, and also while cloaked. You only have to be at the CO to pick it up.

Currently, you have to go to POS to get the tech. So let's pretend there's a logistics person in a covert ops ship pressing butan to get the goods off the moon into the pos.

Hey, with a local that doesn't show covert ops ships, maybe there is !

Unless your goal is to allow interruption without any recourse, then there's going to be some amount of EHP to grind down, so killing it quickly becomes very important, so 10 people will kill it in 5m instead of 10m, shortening the time available to respond from 10m to 5m.

With 10 ships you deal roughly twice the amount of damage as 5 ships. And you do it safer. Since it takes Z ships X time to destroy Y, 2z Ships will destroy Y in X/2 Time, or can destroy 2Y in roughly X time, all while keeping numbers concentrated to allow them to potentially fight a defending force.

Unless there are artificial limitations on the number of players allowed to do an activity, 2 will always be better than 1. (And every proposed set of artificial limitations I've seen has been laughably easy to abuse).

agreed, that it would be safer and faster. but if you want to target multiple targets and they are open to attack for a short period of time I think smart alliances would split up. But your right there would have to be EHP to grind down.... Maybe if each hit took away some? and the more you hit the less the returns become?

So instead of EHP, it's more like, each hit causes some to spill out? But with diminishing returns? So is diminishing returns just as bad as artificial limitations? I'm really just interested in starting up debate to generate new ideas. artificial limitations are terrible, but i feel there must be a way to promote small fleet roams :/

I'm just not sure what, because there is always strength in numbers

hmmm , why in real life, sometimes sending in a small squad of 10 is more effective than 200 men, we need to figure out why that is, and try to apply that to eve.

all in for the sake of making numm sec better. I really don't think the issue is tech moons, it's just the general state of 0.0 since dominion in general. Or maybe the state of 0.0 since eve started.


We are at 375,000 players now, and it's only going to grow, there must be some reason to spilt up to be more effective. I know dominion tried that with the Sov marker things on gates. The idea being you'd cover all of them, thus smaller gangs, more fights. But it just broke down into blob each one one at a time. So that idea didn't work.

But what do you think of a target you can shoot but only once a day? and only for 10-20 minutes? Each shoot drops some moon goo?

or... some other kind of target that the more you shoot, the less of an effect it has?

I guess though you'd still get the point where players would figure out, ok it takes 10 minutes of shooting it with 50 battleships until the returns are so low it's not worth it so send 200 ships and shoot it for 2 minutes.

I understand waht your saying but don't you also agree that sometimes small squads are used i real life becuase having too many men would make it too easy to get caught? You know subterfuge, covert ops. Eve needs that, imo badly.

there needs to be more to shoot than ships and large objects with tons of hp. Look at GW2 world pvp, it's awesome. you can just sit ina road and cut off enemy supply lines. People are all over the map and don't blob. Well they do "blob" but if you blob alltogether then you'll lose becuase you can't defend the whole map with one army.

Think risk, putting all of your troops into one spot is a great way to lose. and that's a game, how do we make eve more like risk?

Roams are hard to catch because they're fast while fleets are easy to catch because they're slower, yeah. Roams also have their role limited to harassment (I gave you some suggestions on how to use that role effectively).

RL small groups are limited to Harassment and the equivalent of HotDrops. Same as in EvE.

then we agree. I'm just asking for more game mechanics designed around harassment. I mean yeah I've been playing eve with my main for 5 years and this account for 7. I've been in small gangs a lot, and it sucks being so limited in a sandbox game. All the time it's "man I wish we could _______"

again, risk is a game. a board game yes, but sov warfare map and map of risk are similar.

so thank you for your suggestions and how to use current game mechanics to harass with small gangs. but I'll still keep fighting to have CCP focus on intro some osrt of new content designed around harrasment. Stuff that using large fleets for would be a waste.

what would those be? I have no idea I've been in the thick of it and on coms it's hard to think of anything. Maybe with dust there will be a role for small gangs to fly out, get to planet, fight for space dominance, and then fire down to the planet all within the 30 minute match going on below.

but we're not talking about 1 being better than 2.

if you have 1000 ships, and you split them up into 10 groups, you still have 1000 ships. Thus 10 groups of 100. a single group of 100 should not be able to have the impact that a fleet of a 1000 have. smaller targets, smaller rewards.

but if the rewards are smaller, and you do MORE of them, not just less of them, but faster, those 10 groups could have a bigger impact than all together. That's whats at stake here. No one is saying small roams should have large effect. They should have a small effect. But lots of small effects add up.

2 might be better than 1, but 1+1 equals 2.

I mean large battles are still the main thing to effect the game. but like yo said small units could harass shipping lanes. Have something to do while you wait 3 hours for 1000 people to group up.


but yes, +1 to your post regardless.

If CCP dropped the whole "the ihub, tcu and station are sov structures" and changed everything over to "the POCOs (or added something similar) are sov structures", then maybe there would be more incentives to even try to have more than 1 large fight, followed by a sov structure grind/rep by the victor, and smallish gangs could possibly do some damage even at the sov level.

Combine this with a repurposing of titans and supercarriers, and you should probably see a lot more interesting wars than today's mechanics currently allow.

You mean kind of like what they had Pre-Dominion with POSes?

If CCP dropped the whole "the ihub, tcu and station are sov structures" and changed everything over to "the POCOs (or added something similar) are sov structures", then maybe there would be more incentives to even try to have more than 1 large fight, followed by a sov structure grind/rep by the victor, and smallish gangs could possibly do some damage even at the sov level.

Combine this with a repurposing of titans and supercarriers, and you should probably see a lot more interesting wars than today's mechanics currently allow.

Only with less HP, less possible numbers of structures to shoot and less cockfaggery by f.ex shooting your own POS with its own guns to get a timer you like. But yes.

Only with less HP, less possible numbers of structures to shoot and less cockfaggery by f.ex shooting your own POS with its own guns to get a timer you like. But yes.

Don't POCOs get their timer set by dropdown menu?

Sadly, yes. It's why I said "or added something similar", because personally I'd prefer it if there were some mechanic which means that losing SOV is a bit of a tug of war between the attacker and the defender, where the defender can make fuckups beyond just "didn't bring enough people".

But yeah, nothing like this is going to happen.

Tying sov to planets make more sense than tying it to moons, though, and I'd much prefer they make some sort of minipos with just a stront bay, a shield and ... that's it.

Tying sov to planets make more sense than tying it to moons, though, and I'd much prefer they make some sort of minipos with just a stront bay, a shield and ... that's it.

Wait ... I was gone for 3 years and your telling me sov os still tied to moons?

That's.... So stupid

Try reading the thread and you might notice that we're suggesting improvements now.

What does that have to do with my post?

I'm just posting my surprize becuase I've been give a long time. I thought that changed Allready, there was a dev blog on tying sov to planets in 2005. Was my post unclear?

So anyone change their opinion on anything in this thread or just become more entrenched in their opinion on the matter?

Marlona Sky? Post anything other than silly one-liners?

Perish the thought.

Sigh.

Notorious badposter from SHC. I've no idea why he changed his name, don't really care.

You want a flame war ? Becuase the last thing you want is a flame war with a forum vet.

Bring it

You want a flame war ? Becuase the last thing you want is a flame war with a forum vet.

Bring it

You want a flame war ? Becuase the last thing you want is a flame war with a forum vet.

Bring it

Sov is not tied to moons. It's tied to big honking structures. We were trying to brainstorm ideas for how to move away from those structures, something you could have picked up on by reading the the posts since your last post.

Yeah instead of POS, it's now SBU, TCU, IHUB and Station.

Are there other structures involved in sov? There's like 5 timers you have to go through to take sov, or is it 6, or more than that?

You have to SBU, then shoot station and IHub (multiple timers) and then the TCU (more timers). Any other steps?

And if they start to, or prepare to shoot the SBUs, just unanchor and reanchor them. Voila another time extension.

Mention TEC and Goons come outta the woodwork. TEC nerf you say? Not happening. Only thing CCP understands it seems is massive Unsub threats and thats not far off the way things are going it seems.

The SBU trick is also filled with cockfaggotry, but at least that's just a 1 hour extension (I believe), unlike the POS trick.

It's still a dumb mechanic which should never have been in there. I mean, seriously, who thought "tell everyone 8 hours in advance when and where the next attack shall be" was a good idea?

The SBU trick is also filled with cockfaggotry, but at least that's just a 1 hour extension (I believe), unlike the POS trick.

It's still a dumb mechanic which should never have been in there. I mean, seriously, who thought "tell everyone 8 hours in advance when and where the next attack shall be" was a good idea?

I think that generally just works the very first time, the subsequent times are harder to do this with, but true enough.

As I said, it's a dumb mechanic which should never have been in there.

The old system worked on the basis that the guys with the most of the biggest POSes (in the system, not in the game, so you could take a system with a single sov-claiming small POS). Meaning it was up to you to choose how expensive you wanted your space to be.

There's also the whole "only 5 POSes anchorable pr corp or alliance pr day" thing which puts a kind of limit on how quickly you can harden a system, and something about sufficient amounts of constellations in a region being SOV3 meant you had a capital constellation or system (I forget which) which turned into SOV4 where everything not a ship was invulnerable.

Instead, we now have a system where the only difference between systems is whether or not they're cynojammed, and whether or not htey have an ihub, tcu or station online, and if the attacker loses even a single fight, they lose all progress in that system. Progress. :colbert:

CCP please introduce these probes. They'd definitely help fix the price of tech.

I like the idea. On top of our stockpile, OTEC can drive up the prices even further! The OP is a genius for not thinking of the unintended consequence.

OTEC approves of this message.

Gonna post anything constructive, or just spout silly one liners about how you're too lazy to read the thread?

I have posted a vast amount of constructive ideas and posts in regards to this subject and related subjects over the last couple years. I am not going to post them all every time a new thread pops up about it.

My question was for those who do not have a hard stance on it. If you don't like that then, well too bad. I hardly care about your opinion or Zim's on if you like what I post or not. I want to hear more from people who do not make a point to saturate every thread on this subject with their opinion on the matter.

So for future reference Pipa Porto and yes, you too Lord Zim - unless you see me quote you or specifically address you with one of my posts, just know I am not talking to you. Have a very nice day now!

Unintended consequences is literally the one thing I keep pointing out to 99% of the ideas I comment on here, and they always get pissy about it. It's awesome. :sun:

Straw man Pipa. lol

I like the idea. On top of our stockpile, OTEC can drive up the prices even further! The OP is a genius for not thinking of the unintended consequence.

OTEC approves of this message.