|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Cool cool.
Now we're getting more targets to shoot, can we get starbase guns reviewed please?
xttz wrote:I know it's too late for this release, but I'm gonna try and sneak in some ideas for a later Odyssey patch...
Can we get a review of Starbase weapons please? Specifically:
a) Starbase Defense Management is very much a relic of 2007. The UI forces you to control/drop one module at a time (which often takes longer than the enemy needs to run away), and there's no grouping of similar modules. Plus you need at least 15 modules to be effective in a fight which means 3-4 characters with the right roles + skills in the right place at the right time. Being able to group up weapons then control 1 group per level of the skill would be a step in the right direction.
b) Starbase weapons have never been reviewed in line with ship balancing changes. Most still do levels of damage on par with ship hitpoints in 2005. Ewar mods take the best part of a minute to lock many subcaps, during which time the target has easily moved out of range or off-grid. And the less said about Hybrid or Missile weapons the better...
c) We could really use something that acts as a threat to supercaps. Starbases used to tear up unprepared dreads and carriers, now they just get swept by fighter-bombers in under a minute. Bring back scary neuts or give us a counter to supercarrier tides.
Pretty please :)
We want our armed and operational deathstars back...
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Zeimanov Kalzumaan wrote:
in a typical reaction chain there will often be both available, for example, Silo+Silo+reactor+*silo withthe first 2 having raw materials and the last having processed. In this instance what is stolen?
If there is a reaction and a miner to silo what would be stolen - the reaction output or the minng output or both?
Does this also mean materials from complex reactors cannot be stolen?
In this case the output from the reactor is the end of the chain, the raw materials can't be stolen. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: Or... you could actually occupy the space you decide to deploy assets in with other players from your corp, alliance, coalition?
I can't tell if you're trolling or not.
Someone who's better at math than me please work out how many individual players you need to cover a 50km sphere in space in order to prevent a cloaky ship launching a structure and getting out alive. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
If you want this to be used for it's intended purpose (rather than just aimless griefing by rich players), do this:
1) Price small siphons around 30mil, with 50k EHP 2) Limit them so that a maximum of 2 can be anchored on a single grid, but full ones don't count toward that limit 3) Add an alert mail to the pos owner once the siphon is 50% full 4) DON'T **** WITH THE API |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
It should be a bit of a red flag when CCP come up with the cheapest griefing tool in EVE for years, and GoonSwarm are the ones saying "hang on that's a bit much".
What exactly do you lot think this is going to do to the Tech 2 market when virtually no one is getting moon materials without interruption? We are actually in by far the best position, in that we have a bunch of newbies who will run around finding and killing these things for a bounty. Can smaller alliances and corps say that?
The Tech 2 materials market has just been handed back to big alliances. We're going to grief the **** out of everyone if this remains unchanged, and make bank while doing so. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 16:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:With a max 50km deploy range, you'll always be in the range of POS guns when you deploy the syphon. You can't cloak while locked and interceptors have almost no tank. Not sure how AFK cloaking is a problem here.
POS guns haven't been rebalanced in years and take ages to lock anything. Covops and interceptors can easily drop these with zero risk. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 20:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tiye Q wrote:xttz wrote:It should be a bit of a red flag when CCP come up with the cheapest griefing tool in EVE for years, and GoonSwarm are the ones saying "hang on that's a bit much".
What exactly do you lot think this is going to do to the Tech 2 market when virtually no one is getting moon materials without interruption? We are actually in by far the best position, in that we have a bunch of newbies who will run around finding and killing these things for a bounty. Can smaller alliances and corps say that?
The Tech 2 materials market has just been handed back to big alliances. We're going to grief the **** out of everyone if this remains unchanged, and make bank while doing so. CFC space is not behind some impregnable wall. Anyone can get into CFC systems at anytime, and with the new interceptor changes, people will be able to get in much easier. CFC/GSF will not be able to grief EVE with this feature. In fact the opposite will occur. Random entities will start to grief every CFC/GSF system, and I'm not talking about renter systems.
You're absolutely right. There's no way our thousands of players and trillions of ISK will allow us to grief entire swathes of space alongside manipulating the T2 materials market for further gain. I mean it's not like we've ever made a fortune from broken game mechanics like this before, is it? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tzar Sinak wrote:I do not think I am understanding this correctly.
I go to the POS to deploy some siphons. I am within 50km of the POS shields. Will the POS guns not automatically target me and fire? Would I not have to figure out a way to tank the guns, not get webbed and neuted and still be able to get away?
Starbase weapons are a relic from the old days of EVE, when Dreadnoughts had 80k EHP and Tech 2 ships were flown by a small elite number of pilots.
They've never been reviewed since, so here are some interesting facts:
- The targeting delay on POS weapons allows anything battleship-sized (or smaller) time to land on grid, drop an item, and align out again before being targeted. Smaller guns may get off a volley, but they do about less DPS than a modern frigate so who cares. Webs and points cannot lock in time.
- With the warp speed changes in Rubicon, it will be possible for cruiser-sized ships and below to align out from a POS, warp to a gate and jump out of system before a starbase disruption battery could have time to lock them. Yep, the scan res is so bad on these things you can literally leave system before they lock you.
- Without using (very rare) faction weapons, a purely combat fit starbase will do less than 10,000dps, slightly above a single Dreadnought. This fit is exclusive to Amarr and Minmatar towers, as POS hybrid and missile weapons do less than half this damage.
In order to do this much damage, all the modules need to be operated in advance by several people in place ahead of time and focusing on a single target. They will then sit there and wait 30-40secs for the guns to lock, while hoping the target doesn't just warp out.
gascanu wrote:
you faill to understand that atm the "small groups" have around 0(ZERO) R64 moons; given that, can you tell me how the "large groups" can use this tool to grief them?
Because there are plenty of small groups who simply buy those r64's in Jita and react them into more advanced materials required for T2.
Dropping a mining tower on an r64 moon doesn't automatically spit out T2 ships you know. There are several steps in the process and this new feature happily disrupts the most basic levels, affecting everyone up the chain.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jones Bones wrote:Why so serious Goonies? You used to be such fun loving bees. Now you're the guy in the suit and tie who drinks dark coffee every morning and complains about "kids these days". So sad
We're more like the mischievous youth telling our parents "hey you know that box of fireworks you have there... it's probably not a good idea to let me have it" |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote: So 3) makes me laugh. Goonswarm has a lot of players, but they certainly don''t have the ISK to sustainably do what they are proposing.
These things are so cheap I have enough personal ISK to run around and drop 5 siphons on every single r64 in the game. And I'm not even rich.
What do you think our small group of guys who suicide billions of isk a day ganking hi-sec freighters will do with this feature? |
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
197
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 11:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Theres an infinite number of other scenarios. This will be interesting!
Scenario A
Null-sec alliances run around dropping cheap siphons on any r64 and r32 moons they don't control. They're rich enough to spam scores of cheap siphons per moon and not even care too much about collecting the contents.
R64 and R32 mineral supply drop off heavily, especially if some specific materials are focused on. R64 supply can potentially be cut by 75% There is huge market fluctuation as T2 materials adjust to the reduced supply, resulting in doubled Tech 2 prices within a few days.
Eventually people run low on r64 material reserves and T2 prices continue to rise sharply after several months.
GoonSwarm engages in a series of market manipulation moves alongside Burn Jita-style events to ensure further disruption of the market. We'll probably even spam these on low-sec reaction farms solely to grief the owners.
The net result is very expensive T2 ships and mods, GoonSwarm gets richer, and a bunch of pubbies quit running reactions and whine to the forums about grrrrgoooons ruining the game. Thus creating the next generation of posters who won't believe our warnings over CCP's next broken feature.
Scenario B
Just kidding, there are no other scenarios. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 12:05:00 -
[12] - 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.
Helicity Boson wrote: See where I said "outside of null" ?
kthxbye
We've been explicity telling you over the last few pages that we're going to be spamming these things all over the map, including low-sec, solely to grief the owners. They're so cheap it's actually a more cost-effective method of griefing than suicide-ganking, which we currently sink billions of ISK a week into.
So yes, they are going to be used. Because they're the best griefing tool since remote doomsdays, only this time they affect the entire map. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 16:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
If this is intended to drive conflict and have more players interacting, then people need to be fighting over siphons. As they stand they're nothing but a griefing tool that people can profit from if they can be bothered to. Players can be encouraged to interact like so:
- 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.
The net effect of which is:
1) Siphon owners who are very proactive about their theft can steal the entire output of a tower, but are more likely to be discovered.
2) Siphon owners get diminishing returns by waiting, encouraging them to empty more often. This brings more opportunities to interdict them, and therefore more chances for PVP. If they wait too long, the starbase owner gets everything back without penalty.
3) Siphons cannot be spammed merciessly, resulting in situations where small reaction corps have to clear 50+ structures from their towers at a time.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
223
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 17:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
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. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
238
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 11:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Omega Flames wrote:Kropotkin wrote:
I don't like this. Unlimited unattended destruction is no better than unlimited unattended production.
except "unlimited unattended production" does NOT exist in eve at all. A pos must be kept fuel'd, silo's emptied/refilled, and out of reinforced to make moon goo production. Some of the really tight moon reaction setups have to be attended to at least every 36 hours already to maintain the pos's...
Unfortunately this is the cognitive dissonance we're seeing among the loudest supporters of this change.
There's a disturbing number who seem to believe that starbases are some magical ISK-generating tool that run without needing any time, risk and effort, teleporting cash straight into the owner's wallet each day. Somehow that justifies being countered a new mechanic that requires far less time, risk, and effort.
To realistically balance things out, siphons should cost several hundred million ISK and take a few hours to setup. They should require fuel topped up every few weeks, and their stolen materials should be emptied regularly to prevent overflow.
Of course this would be still be a terrible game mechanic, but at least both sides would be putting in the same effort. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 21:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:S8nt wrote:With CCP hinting that they are looking at doing moon mining through moon belts how is this new feature actually going to apply to the game then?
Kinda redundant? Linky please?
It was an idea thrown around at the last couple of fanfests. It was more of a "we might do this" rather than "we will do this".
And I'm pretty sure the developers involved with the idea are no longer working on Eve, so heh. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 09:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Ah yes, the mythological small-entity moon miner. Much like the fabled unicorn of olde. It's simply heartwarming to see all of the larger moon mining entities rise up to the defense of the little man.
Sgt Ocker wrote: As a griefing tool it is pretty clear how the current syphon mechanics will play out. Griefers are by nature pretty lazy and go for soft targets (valuable but easy to kill and or disrupt financially). The softest targets for this group will be lowsec operations which in most cases are not aligned with the CFC or any other major entity involved in moon mining, therefore often don't have the manpower to guard towers 24/7.
'Lowsec operations' aren't necessarily moon mining. A good chunk of T2 materials are produced from low-sec reaction farms, with very little mining taking place. That's the kind of operation that will suffer most from griefing. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 14:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: If you have a low sec POS you'll be fine. Check it regularly, get your stuff back then shoot the siphon. This will mainly affect big alliances with many moons. The little guy will be fine.
Yep I can see how 1 guy checking 5 towers 23/7 will definitely be more efficient than 10,000 guys checking 500 towers 23/7.
The big alliances are definitely getting the worst of this! |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
296
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 15:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Angus McRothimay wrote:
5/1 = 5 500/10,000 = .05
No, actually it is 100 times more efficient to check 500 towers with 10,000 guys.
Really?!!? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
314
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 16:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
The reality is that the small corps will behave like the small shopkeeper. He works hard, keeps things spic and span because he relies solely on his one shop. Goons will behave like Wallmart employees.
ITT I learn that small shopkeepers work 23/7, ever vigilant and alert. |
|
|
|
|