|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
907
   |
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Aryth wrote:I don't think people in this thread realize we might be the least impacted of any null-sec entity. We have already planned for this possibility. The people that will be hurt by this are the guys without rental empires. Size doesn't matter. Organization does.
Indeed, and because of this I'm surprised that you've failed to see the potential for your alliance.
As you say, your alliance will be much better placed to deal with the consequences than your competitors, while you also have a playerbase with the numbers and penchant for griefing that will be able to make full use of this module in hostile space. The siphon meshes perfectly with Goons' public philosophy.
But remember, you don't need to check every POS, just use dscan. Hell, probes are probably even easier. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
908
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 09:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Good times,
I see no reason why I need to spend a single ISK on a Siphon, when I could just fly around stealing from everyone else's siphons.
Easy life.
I doubt there'll be anything worth stealing. Siphons around worthwhile moons will get killed, siphons at bad moons will just give you 1000 m3 of atmospheric gases or something even less useful. Wooo.
The more I think about this, the more it seems to be that the real problem is the automatic moon mining itself. While a mining POS does has a role as something worth fighting over and as a location for large battles, the AFK nature is bad, along with the API tools that promote it. So, maybe something like moving moon minerals to mining anomalies and creating a proper nullsec POS-based industry to replace mining POS as strategic targets would be better? Of course, you'd also have to remove all jump mechanics to stop an entity simply jumping supplies from Jita to bypass an industrial interdiction campaign... so yeah, back to the siphon then! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
908
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 12:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:I don't find it realistic for any single entity, not even the CFC, to seed these all over the universe and keep emptying the goo and replacing any destroyed ones for any sort of extended period. This would be a remarkable feat and I guess in this case it could be argued that the feature succeeded in providing a lot of content for a large group of players :)
Well, it might seem that that content consists largely of an alliance leadership griefing its own members, by making them flying round hostile R64/32s every day spamming siphons that get blown up a few minutes later. But someone could probably just write a bot capable of automating the process, particularly if they'd already mapped the location of all valuable moons in the Eve. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
908
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 13:58:00 -
[4] - 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.
Both are bad ideas. The first make it even less worthwhile to siphon a low-value moon. You're not siphoning anything of real value and it takes a long time to recoup your 10 mill, but at least you're disrupting the owner's AFK mining operations. Halving the loss to 10% greatly diminishes the motivation for siphoning these typically less-watched moons.
The second simply favours larger entities and alt creation. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
913
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 17:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Arrendis wrote:Zappity wrote:
Tell me, what would the public goon response be to a change that was good for smaller groups but bad for CFC?
Good question. Got an example of a change that a group of 50, 100, 500, or 1,000 can make use of that a group of 30,000 can't make use of more effectively? There's really nothing that accomplishes this except giving ships in a fleet stacking penalties to EHP and damage, which would be completely insane and dumb.
Line-of-sight shooting only. 
Not just because only a few people at the edge of a large blob could shoot, but because whenever the blob formed up, the server would just melt. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
916
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 16:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
10 mill is too expensive for these siphons. The ones planted at valuable moons will just get blown up, while the ones planted at worthless moons won't run a profit, because it'll never be worth a pilot's time taking what they siphon.
They need to be cheaper to see significant use. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
917
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 20:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote:Gypsio III wrote:10 mill is too expensive for these siphons. The ones planted at valuable moons will just get blown up, while the ones planted at worthless moons won't run a profit, because it'll never be worth a pilot's time taking what they siphon.
They need to be cheaper to see significant use. I'm fairly spacepoor for a goon and even I am planning on dropping at least half a billion on these if they are released as currently proposed just to screw with random pubbie shitlords, and I absolutely do not care if I ever get a drop of moon goo from them. In fact, I'm hoping some opportunistic scrubs will empty them for me. Maybe I'll give the locations to some randomly selected new players in starter systems just to get them going into low/null early on. So yes, make these cheaper.
If you drop two per POS, and visit a POS every minute, this will take you about 173,000 years. not including DT, of course. I applaud your commitment!
Giving the locations to newbies is a good idea though. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
917
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 20:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Johnny Marzetti wrote:Gypsio III wrote:10 mill is too expensive for these siphons. The ones planted at valuable moons will just get blown up, while the ones planted at worthless moons won't run a profit, because it'll never be worth a pilot's time taking what they siphon.
They need to be cheaper to see significant use. I'm fairly spacepoor for a goon and even I am planning on dropping at least half a billion on these if they are released as currently proposed just to screw with random pubbie shitlords, and I absolutely do not care if I ever get a drop of moon goo from them. In fact, I'm hoping some opportunistic scrubs will empty them for me. Maybe I'll give the locations to some randomly selected new players in starter systems just to get them going into low/null early on. So yes, make these cheaper. If you drop two per POS, and visit a POS every minute, this will take you about 173,000 years. not including DT, of course. I applaud your commitment! Giving the locations to newbies is a good idea though. Half a billion isk buys 50 of these things so you need to check either your math or your reading comprehension.
Reading comp. pls.
I don't think 50 of them really matters, tbh. They'll just get blown up, particularly those dropped soon after release. You'll have to keep dropping them day after day. I'm a big fan of griefing, but I prefer not to do it to myself. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
917
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 21:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Oh, a ninja edit. My point was, someone with actual resources will be able to do a lot with them at the proposed price.
Oh, absolutely, and I fully appreciate that it's in the interest of the dominant moonholder to interfere with other entities' moons. But to do so will take a lot of effort, dropping siphons day after day, and I don't think it's a sensible use of a player's time. There'll be a big spike of interest just after introduction, but to keep it up week after week? I'm not convinced... |
|
|
| |
|