|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |

Zappity
Kurved Space
551
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 20:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
devblog wrote:Other variations could steal additional types of materials, such as complex reactions or polymer reactions. Yes, please do this to enable some wormhole gameplay! Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
552
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Gypsio III wrote: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. You are assuming I haven't see how well it helps us. We have known for quite some time our endgame in T2. This only accelerates it and probably lines our pockets more than anyone's in EVE by far. We control most of the r64s and by extension the T2 market. I am telling CCP in good faith this is not balanced. This design is bad, if you go down this path it is bad for EVE. It doesn't mean it is bad for our wallet. The very nature of this change as presented pretty much assures we make more ISK because the people that do manage to control their goo will profit greatly. That will be us. This will become a mass manip tool not some individual guerrilla mechanic. You made things so cheap you don't even need to GET the goo, just spam and laugh as huge portions of supply dies.
You talk too much, Aryth. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
552
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
A comment on the goon renter plans.
The plan to distribute the valuable moons to the renters and make it their problem seems like a knee-jerk reaction which is surprising. The value of moons in the presence of these new units will be devalued relative to current and I doubt that renters will pay 'whatever you tell them', at least after a couple of months have passed.
Second, this would leave you entirely open to economic attack. If you rely solely on rental income, what prevents PBLRD as a bloc from ceasing rental payments and pocketing the moon goo income? Their own revenue stream would be unaffected and I doubt you have the firepower, in the absence of both moon revenue and rental income, to subdue them all in time. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
552
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
1. CCP, make the units percentage based and apply a stacking penalty. In their current iteration these will just be dropped to prevent harvesting rather than for theft.
2. CCP, you really need to fix AFK cloaking along with this. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
552
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Aryth wrote:Zappity wrote:A comment on the goon renter plans.
The plan to distribute the valuable moons to the renters and make it their problem seems like a knee-jerk reaction which is surprising. The value of moons in the presence of these new units will be devalued relative to current and I doubt that renters will pay 'whatever you tell them', at least after a couple of months have passed.
Second, this would leave you entirely open to economic attack. If you rely solely on rental income, what prevents PBLRD as a bloc from ceasing rental payments and pocketing the moon goo income? Their own revenue stream would be unaffected and I doubt you have the firepower, in the absence of both moon revenue and rental income, to subdue them all in time. Say what. You really have no idea how renters work do you? He seems to think that renters would, overnight, turn themselves into a unified cohesive bloc with all the normal organization, drive and tools that a real alliance does, and declare themselves independent from us. So no, he really doesn't have any idea how renters work.
I think you are being wilfully blind to how the bloc could be gamed against you because you are desperate to find an easy solution which will maintain the status quo. I do not think they could turn themselves into a "unified cohesive bloc" anymore than highsec entities could. Not by themselves.
Much as I have enjoyed the coalition level tears in this thread I am in no hurry to see goons in particular fall. I make most of my isk by predicting mid term market responses to your long term manipulations. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
552
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 22:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Aryth wrote:Zappity wrote:A comment on the goon renter plans.
The plan to distribute the valuable moons to the renters and make it their problem seems like a knee-jerk reaction which is surprising. The value of moons in the presence of these new units will be devalued relative to current and I doubt that renters will pay 'whatever you tell them', at least after a couple of months have passed.
Second, this would leave you entirely open to economic attack. If you rely solely on rental income, what prevents PBLRD as a bloc from ceasing rental payments and pocketing the moon goo income? Their own revenue stream would be unaffected and I doubt you have the firepower, in the absence of both moon revenue and rental income, to subdue them all in time. Say what. You really have no idea how renters work do you? He seems to think that renters would, overnight, turn themselves into a unified cohesive bloc with all the normal organization, drive and tools that a real alliance does, and declare themselves independent from us. So no, he really doesn't have any idea how renters work. I think you are being wilfully blind to how the bloc could be gamed against you. I am surprised. I do not think they could turn themselves into a "unified cohesive bloc" anymore than highsec entities could. Not by themselves.
Much as I have enjoyed the coalition level tears in this thread I am in no hurry to see goons in particular fall. I make most of my isk by predicting mid term market responses to your long term manipulations. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
552
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 22:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Courthouse wrote:Zappity wrote:1. CCP, make the units percentage based and apply a stacking penalty. In their current iteration these will just be dropped to prevent harvesting rather than for theft.
2. CCP, you really need to fix AFK cloaking along with this. You realize, of course, that at 100 units per hour production, arguing for a percentage adjustment is basically no different from saying "I think it should be X value instead of Y." Because percent. per centum - look it up. Sorry, I forgot to mention based off the storage rather than production.  Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
554
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 00:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mr Beardsley wrote:This is the definitive proof that CCP has decided that EVE in its current form, with a completely stagnant user base, is just a cash cow to support their console efforts. From now on it's going to be nothing but adding more zero-risk griefing in order to move us further into MOBA spreadsheet territory. I think at this point a lot of people must be realizing that pushing PLEX has become not only CCP's main job, but its only job.
I don't understand this comment. I think the implementation is flawed but CCP appears to be trying to change to way nullsec operates away from precisely what you describe. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
554
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 00:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Klyith wrote:The dumbest thing about this is that siphons were originally proposed (by Jade Constantine, no less!) as a way for small gang PVPers to force fights from larger alliances that usually just ignore irritants that doesn't threaten sov. You'd use a siphon and the big guys would get a "someone's stealing your moongoo" alert, and they'd be forced to assemble a gang to go deal with it.
That original idea had problems from timezone issues. But this implementation will see zero fights over siphons. Zero. They can be dropped by a cloaky covops, they'll be killed by solo semi-AFK drone boats (hover your domi 10 meters outside the pos shield and let heavies do the work) .
So an idea that was about generating more PVP has become a boringly safe annoyance. Even if (that's a big IF) it's successful at harming the sprawling goon empire, it will do so is the most tedious way possible. GSF will tire of upkeep on the moons of Delve and sell the region to Russians or something. Pubbies will cheer at Goons being forced to retreat. 6 months from now, after the excitement has worn off, siphons will only be used by those more interested in grief than profit. Another dull feature in an increasing dull game that continually de-emphasizes it's sole exciting feature, PVP.
Remember that they have spoken about new versions of the siphon (eg a larger, fueled variety). Perhaps they will achieve what you describe. I think this one was meant to be a nuisance version. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
554
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 01:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kropotkin wrote:IrJosy wrote:... If goons siphon all of your moon income. ... I do not understand? How they can siphon all? You can pick up as easily as they, no? So you get something?
Of course you can get something but you are guaranteed to lose 20% each cycle. I sense a new skill approaching. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|

Zappity
Kurved Space
554
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 03:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tippia wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Change is good. Not really, no. Good change is good. Bad changes, such as making the data export not export data, on the other hand is not good.
Yeah, I understand and agree with the intent but buggering with API data is the wrong way to achieve it. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
554
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 06:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:As much as I am for the siphon, I am not sold on it destroying minerals or reactions just because it is anchored at the POS.
Fully agree. This is where the major possibilities for 'abuse' come from. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
554
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 10:04:00 -
[13] - Quote
The real question is, where's Harry? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
557
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 11:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
Johnny Marzetti wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear goons
Please never, ever, ever change.
New update on the siphon stats: Harvest 30 pages of goon tears per day . I never get tired of reading "lol goon tears!!!1" posts. You know, I don't pay a lot of attention to this dumb game, but I've seen this play out numerous times over the years exactly this way: CCP:  Presenting new feature X! Goons:  X is horribly unbalanced. Pubbies:  Hahaha goonie tears goonie tears!!!!1 Goons: v  v Well okay then, we're going to exploit the hell out of X. Pubbies:  Goons are exploiting X! CCP:  We're nerfing X. Pubbies:  Hahaha goonie tears goonie tears!!!!1 I mean, y'all literally have the long term memory of that guy from Momento. Is it really any wonder that we have so little regard for the vast majority of you?
That is quite a naive comment when you actively cultivate your collective persona as griefers and scammers.
Tell me, what would the public goon response be to a change that was good for smaller groups but bad for CFC be? Because whatever the truth, I guarantee that the vast majority of pubbies would say 'exactly the same'. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
557
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 11:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
Helicity Boson wrote:The reality is few people will bother with siphons outside of null conflicts, once they realize you are unlikely to profit from them.
Why? Because smart players will just fly around and loot Siphons placed by someone else and save themselves the 10m investment.
Wormhole reaction ones would be good. Plenty of afk POSes out there. I hope they come in 1.1. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
560
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 18:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for all the good feedback. Couple of things we're contemplating:
a) reduce waste 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. Why don't you tell us what you are trying to achieve with the waste aspect? Because at the moment it is what is most broken. Why isn't loss to the afk corp from theft adequate? Increase the siphon amount but remove waste.
And the limitation on numbers will make no difference to alliances while limiting play for smaller groups. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |

Zappity
Kurved Space
561
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 23:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Southern Kros wrote:Sure looks like goons issued a CTA to this dev blog.
Maybe they don't like the idea that their precious AFK moon mining will actually require them to stop ratting and get off their arse to manage them.
You haven't thought it through. The goons have made no secret of their disdain for these forums. If they did get their members to fully engage on any issue of importance the claims of tears would be irrefutable and actually justifiable (unlike now). And it would be hilarious.
So after the goons with authority have posted the ones left behind clearly have nothing better to do. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
|
|