|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
24
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't quite agree with the "anyone can access" part.
It could be a corp wide access at most but if you want to access it and you aren't the owner you should at least be forced to blow it up. Then, you loot the container and you are done. Unless that it's too easy. Force people to bring their guns if they want to steal the thief. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
24
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vatek wrote:Making these 20m3 in size and having no limit on how many can be placed on one tower is a horrible design decision. One pilot in a blockade runner could seed a nullsec region with hundreds of these and shut down all moon mining income until the owners of the towers show up to pos gun them all to death.
Then they can just go get more and do it again and again and again.
Alliance - even small group of players - can actually do the same with SBUs. Size doesn't really matter as much as the time it take to all put in place, for the little benefit it will give. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
24
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Orion Moonstar wrote:Benjamin Hamburg wrote:Vatek wrote:Making these 20m3 in size and having no limit on how many can be placed on one tower is a horrible design decision. One pilot in a blockade runner could seed a nullsec region with hundreds of these and shut down all moon mining income until the owners of the towers show up to pos gun them all to death.
Then they can just go get more and do it again and again and again. Alliance - even small group of players - can actually do the same with SBUs. Size doesn't really matter as much as the time it take to all put in place, for the little benefit it will give. What a ridiculous comparison. SBUs don't generate income.
Syphon don't "generate" income too. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
24
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vatek wrote:Benjamin Hamburg wrote:Vatek wrote:Making these 20m3 in size and having no limit on how many can be placed on one tower is a horrible design decision. One pilot in a blockade runner could seed a nullsec region with hundreds of these and shut down all moon mining income until the owners of the towers show up to pos gun them all to death.
Then they can just go get more and do it again and again and again. Alliance - even small group of players - can actually do the same with SBUs. Size doesn't really matter as much as the time it take to all put in place, for the little benefit it will give. SBUs cost >10 times as much, can't be crammed by the hundreds into a blockade runner and are very, very visible.
Cost isn't really a turn off when what you want to do is to grief or harass a group of players. My time in your alliance thaught me that at least.
In my opinion, syphon unit's role isn't to "create" an income for the players, but rather a way to harass and be a general nuisance. If you have the time to pack "hundreds" of Syphon unit and able to spread them around a whole nullsec region without being killed, then you are doing exactly what this item is designed for. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
27
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 18:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:This actually hurts small operations way worse.
1. Find 1 man reaction/moon mining corp. 2. Find out his schedule, go to sleep, when he wakes up. 3. Wait for him to sleep. 4. You now have a timer to drop, and rescoop when it's done.
Reality, this hurts the small guy way more on an individual level. Because it's without risk if you know the guy's schedule. And while he's sitting in pos, waiting for someone to drop a siphon, he's not really playing eve, is he?
Since when GSF care for one man corp operation? Is that has anything to do with the fact half of nullsec is currently owned by CFC? Coincidence. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
29
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 18:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
When you just have a couple of POS to manage, it won't be complicated to get rid off these syphons. The worse that will happen is that you loose a couple of hour of production. And for a killmail, rest assured that you will have an horde of people in lowsec that will be ready to shoot them even if it's not their towers.
What it will impact, is if you have a loadfull of POS. That one that is in a corner of you space nobody never visit, will maybe have half a dozen siphons when you will go there to fuel it/haul back your goo. And that's the whole point of it. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 13:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:pmchem wrote:For a moment, let us imagine the future equilibrium for this gameplay element:
Guy with cargo-expanded covert cloaking ship and a bunch of siphons is AFK cloaking in a system with a R32 or R64 moon. He un-AFKs at a random time once or twice a day, drops or scoops siphons. Meanwhile, random griefer with a bubble-immune fast-warp interceptor flies by a dozen moons dropping siphons, including this one.
POS owner has nothing to defeat AFK cloaking or interceptors. They detect unexpected silo levels as their real life schedule allows and log in an alt, gun the POS, and shoot the siphons. In the meantime he's lost all his goo production for a big chunk of the day because there were 8 siphons attached to the POS -- they're so cheap, they're just a fire-and-forget griefer tool. There's no 'timer' at which both forces must meet to determine the fate of the gameplay element, so it's entirely async and the two sides never interact in realtime.
Result: higher moon goo prices, more AFK cloaky alts (which honestly seems to be the sort of terrible gameplay CCP is encouraging these days), nobody particularly having fun unless you enjoy griefing (which, hey, it's EVE -- many do). But nobody is rewarded for spending time developing or living in a system ... only for random, short logins to push butan. It's poor gameplay.
Rubicon: burnt farms and salted fields. Or... you could actually occupy the space you decide to deploy assets in with other players from your corp, alliance, coalition? Okay, you be the one to camp all of your POSes with Instacanes. You'll need enough to fast-lock a cloaky hauler--who will need to dumb enough to decloak--or to alpha an inty who might land well outside of optimal. The problem with this mechanic isn't that "living in your space can prevent it"; the problem is that the opportunity cost for the aggressor is so low compared to the massive PIA it will create for POS owners. Ironically, GSF has by far the best operational capability to blanket entire Regions with these things.
So what? I'm already in the expectation of the bi-weekly "Janitor CTA" broadcast on jabber. During that time, small alliances that occupy their territory will have no trouble cleaning their space as soon as they spot a siphon unit.
|
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 14:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for all the good feedback. Couple of things we're contemplating:
a) reduce waste factor from 20% to 10%
b) have a character limit on how many siphons you can deploy (i.e. have in space at the same time). This would probably be in the 5 to 10 range.
Let me know what you think.
Waste factor of 20% is fine.
But yeah, you should limit the number of siphons that can be anchored on a POS. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 14:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Let me know what you think. I think I still want to know what the design goal behind making the API lie is.
It's about making it harder to detect it while you aren't logged in the game. Want to secure your POS? Go, and actually play EVE Online. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 14:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
IamBeastx wrote:
Limit numbers allowable on the same grid (ie: 300 of these on a POS with bubbles deployed would become a great catch and de-cloak exploit)
An exploit that cost 3 billions ISK. |
|
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 14:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Benjamin Hamburg wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Let me know what you think. I think I still want to know what the design goal behind making the API lie is. It's about making it harder to detect it while you aren't logged in the game. Want to secure your POS? Go, and actually play EVE Online. Well I do play eve, when I am not working, sleeping, being with my family or wanking. Albeit CCP seems to think I should be online monitoring my towers 23.5/7 now.
You don't have to monitor it h24, but EVE being a MMO, you should had realized by now the advantage to play with friends, friends that can check their d-scan a couple of time per day.
And seriously, EVE being a persistent world, do you really think that all your stuffz should be secure just because you are having a good time with your familly? It's part of the game and CCP just introduced a feature that had openly the goal to fight against AFK income and provoke like they said "asynchronous" interaction between players. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 14:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Benjamin Hamburg wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Let me know what you think. I think I still want to know what the design goal behind making the API lie is. It's about making it harder to detect it while you aren't logged in the game. Want to secure your POS? Go, and actually play EVE Online. indeed from a RP perspective the unit takes goo from the pos without the pos knowing it... so how would said pos relay that data that then gets sent out to the api system? if the pos does not know its being robbed how is it supposed to let you know...
It doesn't. But an interresting idea was that the POS let you know the loss of production when the goo is emptied from the syphon. The syphon could be considered like a POS module by the API but if someone empty it, then the API notify you of the loss of material. It's up to you to infer after that if it's because of a syphon.
|
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 16:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
xttz wrote:I
- Remove waste as it currently works, a single siphon pulls 50% of material from a silo each tick. Up to 2 siphons can be anchored per 'end of chain' module on grid. They will automatically leech from the one that is physically nearest to them.
- When a siphon is destroyed, the full contents within are dropped back into the silo it originally came from.
- A siphon is emptied by a ship by clicking an 'empty' option while within 5km. This ejects any materials inside into a jetcan, but deducts a certain amount of waste first (much like POCOs). A nearly-empty siphon will have zero waste, a full siphon has 90% waste.
- The API reports the total contents of a silo plus any siphons leeching from it, meaning that it's only possible to detect loss if material is removed from the siphon.
I don't agree. Waste should (and logically do) occur during the syphon action and not after. With your idea, if you just destroy the syphon without empty it before, there is no waste at all since all the content is returned in the silo with no others drawback.
+1 for the API idea though, it's seem to be the most logical way to do it.
|
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
34
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 17:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
mynnna wrote:
The drawback ought to come because you're out to steal my stuff, not because of some automated system that punishes me for not monitoring the POS 24/7. If the contents of the silo are still there by the time I come to get it, either you left and may never have had intent to steal my stuff in the first place, or I beat you in ~~~honourable space combat~~~ when you were defending it to get my stuff back.
The waste factor isn't a punishing system, but an incentive to react faster, cause you know that even if you have the number superiority and will win that ~~~honourable space combat~~~ there will be a loss that depend on your reaction time. Taking that into acocunt, the tool become a great thing to provoke fight. So you aren't punished for not monitoring your POS, but you are actually punished for not taking action against the thieves. Which goes in total adequation with what EVE is all about. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
34
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 18:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Benjamin Hamburg wrote:mynnna wrote:
The drawback ought to come because you're out to steal my stuff, not because of some automated system that punishes me for not monitoring the POS 24/7. If the contents of the silo are still there by the time I come to get it, either you left and may never have had intent to steal my stuff in the first place, or I beat you in ~~~honourable space combat~~~ when you were defending it to get my stuff back.
The waste factor isn't a punishing system, but an incentive to react faster, cause you know that even if you have the number superiority and will win that ~~~honourable space combat~~~ there will be a loss that depend on your reaction time. Taking that into acocunt, the tool become a great thing to provoke fight. So you aren't punished for not monitoring your POS, but you are actually punished for not taking action against the thieves. Which goes in total adequation with what EVE is all about. Nothing I can possibly do can allow me to "react faster" if I'm a USTZ corp and someone in AUTZ drops a siphon on my pos just after downtime, or whatever suitable combo of times reverses the situation. This is still the case if 100% of the loss comes through player action, but it requires that you are out to actually steal from me to happen, not to just come by and spam a bunch with no intent to return. It's a tremendous difference.
If the thief set a syphon with 0% waste, maybe you won't be as quick to remove it as if there is a 20% waste, cause you know your problem isn't solved only by killing the thieve, but by removing something that cause you more trouble than just the "possibility" of someone thieving.
To take your own example, the player that placed the syphon isn't maybe in your TZ and maybe can't retrieve what is stored in the syphon before the next day, so the loss he take is compasated by the loss you took.. You would have saved 80% of what's inside, but a 20% would have been wasted and the next day both you and him will plan accordingly.
Also, why is it bad if someone use this module without the intention to steal? Is stealing considered like griefing? How does a waste of 20% would be considered griefing and not a loss of 100%? If I want really to grief, I will take the goo in my cargohold, jetisson it and shoot the can so the loss is 100% instead of 20, so you face the same problem you try to denounce, with or without waste. |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
34
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 18:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
xttz wrote:Benjamin Hamburg wrote:xttz wrote:I
- Remove waste as it currently works, a single siphon pulls 50% of material from a silo each tick. Up to 2 siphons can be anchored per 'end of chain' module on grid. They will automatically leech from the one that is physically nearest to them.
- When a siphon is destroyed, the full contents within are dropped back into the silo it originally came from.
- A siphon is emptied by a ship by clicking an 'empty' option while within 5km. This ejects any materials inside into a jetcan, but deducts a certain amount of waste first (much like POCOs). A nearly-empty siphon will have zero waste, a full siphon has 90% waste.
- The API reports the total contents of a silo plus any siphons leeching from it, meaning that it's only possible to detect loss if material is removed from the siphon.
I don't agree. Waste should (and logically do) occur during the syphon action and not after. With your idea, if you just destroy the syphon without empty it before, there is no waste at all since all the content is returned in the silo with no others drawback. +1 for the API idea though, it's seem to be the most logical way to do it. The aim is to counteract the 'fire and forget' griefing aspect of this feature. Otherwise siphons would just be thrown around purely to cause waste, with no intention for the owner to ever come back. A fair system must involve both sides making a continuous effort to inflict damage on the other, otherwise it is unbalanced. If people are so keen for starbase owners to make a constant effort to defend their holdings, why shouldn't attackers have to put in the same effort to hurt them? This implementation means agressors can inflict loss, but they have to stick around for more than 20 seconds to do it.
The question is, what is the advantage for an organisation to spends billions ISK just to reduce the production of another entity?
If someone WANT to do that, I don't see why it's bad. EVE being a sandbox, it's cool to have this kind of feature. It add a whole strategic dimension to war, one that i'm sure CFC will be able to use.
|
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
34
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 23:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: If they were the features wouldn' be released in an abuseably broken manner.
But they aren't, and thus we can have fun.
GOON TEARRSSSSSSSSS
Curious, how do the goons plan on abusing this feature when the CFC holds most of the valuable moons? What are you gonna do, mass siphon N3? See if anyone cares, their moons don't hold a candle to yours. No one else has sufficiently large siphon-able assets. This is gonna be FUN. You have all the peices, you just have to put them together. GOONNNN TEARRRSSSSSSSS!!!!
spin it moar |
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
35
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 01:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sure shooting a 50k hp struct is tedious.
Tell me now about farming red crosses a whole day. |
|
|
|