| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Vandango Audene
Biohazard.
WINMATAR.
2
   |
Posted - 2013.10.24 00:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
As i've been eagerly awaiting for these lovely little guys to appear on SiSi, i tested these as soon as they were seeded
The Goods.
- Quick Anchoring Time
- Cheap and No Skills to Anchor.
- Good Effective Health
1. 20 Seconds to Anchor, which is awesome for a small deploy-able and does not have an online time.
2. This allows access to newer plays to try a different life style of warfare. Christ id love to be a 20 day old character again and start robbing PL's moons.
Example : One Siphon unit of a Neodymium moon equates to 1,916,406 ISK (Current Tranq Jita Price)
Per Cycle this would take 5 hours for the siphon unit to pay for it self and start making a profit. this is awesome.
So say the owner of the tower did not check it for a week
At 1,916,406 per hour (54 Units , 6 Were wasted)
45,663,744 Per Day
321,956,208 Per Week. (Thats amazing...)
Providing no issues such as someone else stealing the Goo. or the siphon unit being destroyed.
3. If the POS is armed this stops 3rd party's killing your siphon units with medium sized ships due to its large structure buffer.
The Bads. (In my opinion)
- There too small.
- The m3 of the contents are displayed when mouse hovered
- Siphon does not make it clear which moon harvester its targeting (if there's 2 Harvesters)
1. Personally i think there too small. all frigates will be able to carry one. i wouldn't mind them being pumped to to 100m3+ (200m3 is my ideal size) so you would either have to sacrifice fitting or use an exploration ship such as a heron or a probe
2. There contents are visible even outside of looking range, you take no risk and its quite easy to tell whats inside. if you were within a certain range of the unit that would seem more appropriate. at its current state you can see how much goo is inside even if your 400km away from it.
3. If there POS has 2 harvesting units, you don't know which goo your targeting nor does the siphon unit tell you. i tested this with a Neo and Mercury Setup, now because i anchored and started the Neo harvester first it stole from that one and not the mercury one. i do agree you don't have alot of time to configure one to target a specific harvester but you should have the choice.
Also i think it would be for the greater good if the wastage factor was a variable instead of a flat 10% so it would randomly waste between 10 and 20% of its content it stole
also.
Since its a deploy-able it has a corp ticker and the character who deployed it attached to it. so no robbing my own allies
was so looking forward to it :P |
Jane Schereau
57
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 01:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
mmm, I couldn't find any for sale. Where did you get yours? |
Tilly Delnero
Licorne Ventures Ltd.
81
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 07:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jane Schereau wrote:mmm, I couldn't find any for sale. Where did you get yours?
They're for sale in any seeded system under 'Ship Equipment > Deployable Equipment > Mobile Siphon Units'. |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
1119
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 08:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vandango Audene wrote:1. Personally i think there too small. all frigates will be able to carry one.
New interceptors cannot carry them. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
870
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 08:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vandango Audene wrote:Since its a deploy-able it has a corp ticker and the character who deployed it attached to it. so no robbing my own allies was so looking forward to it :P
Use an out-of-corp alt. |
|
CCP Paradox
1046
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 11:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vandango Audene wrote:As i've been eagerly awaiting for these lovely little guys to appear on SiSi, i tested these as soon as they were seeded The Bads. (In my opinion)
- There too small.
- The m3 of the contents are displayed when mouse hovered
- Siphon does not make it clear which moon harvester its targeting (if there's 2 Harvesters)
1. Personally i think there too small. all frigates will be able to carry one. i wouldn't mind them being pumped to to 100m3+ (200m3 is my ideal size) so you would either have to sacrifice fitting or use an exploration ship such as a heron or a probe 2. There contents are visible even outside of looking range, you take no risk and its quite easy to tell whats inside. if you were within a certain range of the unit that would seem more appropriate. at its current state you can see how much goo is inside even if your 400km away from it. 3. If there POS has 2 harvesting units, you don't know which goo your targeting nor does the siphon unit tell you. i tested this with a Neo and Mercury Setup, now because i anchored and started the Neo harvester first it stole from that one and not the mercury one. i do agree you don't have alot of time to configure one to target a specific harvester but you should have the choice. BUGS If you open the cargo through the selected items window on the overview it does not display the loot inside
Also i think it would be for the greater good if the wastage factor was a variable instead of a flat 10% so it would randomly waste between 10 and 20% of its content it stole also. Since its a deploy-able it has a corp ticker and the character who deployed it attached to it. so no robbing my own allies was so looking forward to it :P
Quickly will give you feedback since you gave such good feedback to us.
The bad points:
1. This is the "small" siphon unit. There may be other varations in the works which fit the Medium or Large name 
2. This is a bug, you will not be able to see what is inside the unit outside of its range. You will be able to see how full it is though through the UI. This is so that when you drop on grid with a POS that has full defenses, you can quickly spot something to try and grab and run.
3. You don't have any control over what is being stolen. So you have no guarantee that it will steal anything. We have thought about different units that would give you the option to choose what was being stolen, but Rubicon will just ship with the Small unit.
And the corp ticker issue will no longer be there shortly :) You can still find out in show info the pilot who deployed it, but it wont be visible at a glance in space.
And as somebody said, "alts". These units require no skills to deploy, so anyone can deploy them.
The activation timer will be shortened to 5 seconds also.
CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends
@CCP_Paradox |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
190
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 12:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Paradox, having day 1 biomass alts deploy these things are bad.
require anchoring level 1 or level 4 at a minimum to deploy it (yes I know they don't need anchoring, but should require the skill to at least deploy it).
This would also remove any possible trial account abuse in deploying these.
Stabbers are totally broken
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
|
Flamespar
Woof Club
893
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 12:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm not a fan of a design that encourages day old anonymous alts.
EVE is meant to be about consequences. Being able to use easily bio-massed alts seems a simple way to avoid them.
I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone. |
Commissar Kate
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
21213
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 13:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
I have to say I really enjoy the model of the Siphon unit. One of the best looking structures to date.
I think that stats are quite spot on for the small unit at least. |
Orakkus
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
224
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 14:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:And as somebody said, "alts". These units require no skills to deploy, so anyone can deploy them.
Yeah, I think this needs to be changed. This would, in effect, invalidate the change to the limits of Syphons a player can launch, which I think is a good cap.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
|
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
190
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 14:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Are there even any POS's on the Test server for us to try this out on? I though sisi didn't have any? Or de we have to build one ourselves and then have a friend test the unit out? |
Vandango Audene
Biohazard.
WINMATAR.
3
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 16:36:00 -
[12] - Quote
Updated my Post, Formatting and some general odd facts about them
|
Nykala
L.L.A.M.A.
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.24 17:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Suggestion. If for whatever reason the siphon units get a rare faction version, and that faction happens to be rogue drones, can you name it "(size) siphon unit X-W1F3" ..?? |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
1519
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 14:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
I am looking at the attributes of a siphon:
http://i.imgur.com/5gsTBKo.jpg
I see three errors here:
First, the attribute named "Minimum Anchoring Distance From Starbase Shield" (50 km) should probably be "Maximum Anchoring Distance From Starbase".
Second, "Restricted To Security Level Less Than" should probably be 0.5 instead of 0.4 (unless you intend them to be unusable in 0.4, I haven't tested that).
Third, "Shield recharge time" is using an inconsistent capitalization. It should be "Shield Recharge Time" to go with the other attributes.
Also as an interesting observation, siphons by default don't appear on your overview. This has the potential to severely confuse inattentive POS managers. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
610
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 16:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Paradox, having day 1 biomass alts deploy these things are bad.
Why? Eve is a game where there shouldn't be consequences to what you do. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
196
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 22:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Paradox, having day 1 biomass alts deploy these things are bad. Why? Eve is a game where there shouldn't be consequences to what you do.
This is Eve, not wow.
As long as there is somekind of actual ownership to it (aka you can find out who did it), I'm fine with the module.
People rolling a bunch of trial alts and spamming territories with these things leads to an issue of actual ownership and griefing (now I have no issue with griefing, but there is a limit to it, a total 1 day unknown dropping 100 of these in 30 systems...
eh.. no.
Now I'm sure people already will use characters on there other accounts, but at least those come from paid accounts, and not the 14 day freebies.
Stabbers are totally broken
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
1528
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 23:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
I think I have stumbled upon a bug with the siphons. I have dropped 9 at once on a mining tower. The tower has nothing but a single miner linked to a single silo. But the moongoo just seems to vanish - it doesn't go in the silo, and it doesn't go in any of the siphons. This has been happening for 3 POS ticks (3 hours) so far.
Yes, I fly to each siphon manually, right-click them in space and select open cargo. I got one siphon working as intended before, so this is not an UI error.
If GMs/devs want to check, the tower is in HLW-HP at P6 M8. I'll leave it set up as it is for a while.
I was playing around with various reactors, silos and miners setups before encountering this problem, so it's possible something got messed up along the way. Tomorrow I will set up a new POS from scratch and try to duplicate the issue. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
1530
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 00:45:00 -
[18] - Quote
Siphons also don't appear to have any collision detection whatsoever. I tried bouncing off a siphon really hard and I always just passed right through it. I don't know if this is intended (for easier deployment) or a glitch/not yet implemented. |
Servanda
Liga Freier Terraner
Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 01:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:I am looking at the attributes of a siphon: http://i.imgur.com/5gsTBKo.jpg... Second, "Restricted To Security Level Less Than" should probably be 0.5 instead of 0.4 (unless you intend them to be unusable in 0.4, I haven't tested that). .
Well you can't anchor reactors or moon harvesters in 0.4 so as there are no modules you can use them on why should you be able to deploy them? |
|
CCP Paradox
1050
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 16:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
After some discussion, we have added the requirement of Anchoring at level 2, to be able to deploy them.
CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends
@CCP_Paradox |
|
|
|
Orakkus
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 16:58:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:After some discussion, we have added the requirement of Anchoring at level 2, to be able to deploy them.
Awesome, this is a good change.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2113
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 18:29:00 -
[22] - Quote
I think the siphon units should be fully anonymized. The reasoning is simple, the fact that the name of the player is in the show info of the unit, encourages people to use throw away alts for the deployment. It basically serves no purpose, it only encourages you to evade any consequences by using throw away alts once again. If it wouldn't be in there, the chance would be better that people would use normal chars for the task
i know why it is there but it will have the exact opposite effect IMO. Less consequences for the involved parties.
eve style bounties (done)
dust boarding parties
imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Orakkus
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 18:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:I think the siphon units should be fully anonymized. The reasoning is simple, the fact that the name of the player is in the show info of the unit, encourages people to use throw away alts for the deployment. It basically serves no purpose, it only encourages you to evade any consequences by using throw away alts once again. If it wouldn't be in there, the chance would be better that people would use normal chars for the task
i know why it is there but it will have the exact opposite effect IMO. Less consequences for the involved parties.
While I agree that perhaps it should be Anchoring IV ideally, at least Anchoring is not trainable by trial accounts. And I don't think forming a same account alt, training them to get Anchoring 2, dropping the max number of siphons, then biomassing the character to retrain a new one is going to be a very effective long term tactic. Still.. I imagine someone might try it.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
55
|
Posted - 2013.10.28 21:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Well, we could have all the siphon units from a character who has been biomassed being not invisible to the API anymore... |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
201
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 12:50:00 -
[25] - Quote
Katabrok First wrote:Well, we could have all the siphon units from a character who has been biomassed being not invisible to the API anymore...
I would have suggested changing the anchoring skill... But this one is as acceptable.
It does not address the issue of determining ownership of the mobile siphon unit.
These should be a point of conflict, not a grief tactic from an invisible for.
I would require the use of these to require a corporation that is not a NPC corp.
What this does is require people to make corps to drop them. Shell corporations would come up. Mercenary corps would do siphon setups for contract, and even small groups can get acknowledgement for these.
1) corporate requirement to anchor
2) person must be in the corp to anchor
3) if the corporation disolves, the unit becomes visible on api
4) if the person who dropped it biomasses, it becomes visible on api.
5) if the person leaves the corp, the unit becomes visible on api.
I'm afraid doing this would cause too many shell corporations, but sometype of ownership should be put on these devices.
Stabbers are totally broken
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
111
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 14:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:After some discussion, we have added the requirement of Anchoring at level 2, to be able to deploy them.
Smart decision. Anchoring cannot be trained on trial accounts. I don't know that there would be much specific gain from anchoring siphons using a trial account, but it seems like a reasonable hole to plug nonetheless.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
6201
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 17:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
These are going to be disastrous for the game.
We'll make sure of that.
EVE Online - A Rigged Game |
Orakkus
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 19:03:00 -
[28] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:These are going to be disastrous for the game.
We'll make sure of that.
Yep, however, I think that a.) Limiting the number of Siphons a person could drop and b.) Ensuring that trial alts cannot train for them, are a significant step towards ensuring their restricted use. Even for Goons rather legendary recordkeeping and discipline, this would become a logistical nightmare in short order.
For example, let's say Goons want to put the hurt on a smaller alliance, and just blitz the heck out of all their moon goo and reaction POSes. Instead of fighting back, let's say the smaller alliance just folds and everyone just packs up their POSes and leaves. Now you have x number of Siphons just sitting out there that now NEED TO BE DESTROYED in order for you individually to try that again. It would even become a risk to you, if say Goons don't take over that territory and actively use it.
Would you really wanna be sitting, alone, in low-sec or unfriendly null-sec.. shooting your own Siphon.. for hours?
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
6201
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 19:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
We're kind of known for being awesome at structure bashing.
EVE Online - A Rigged Game |
Orakkus
Wraithguard.
Dirt Nap Squad.
225
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 19:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:We're kind of known for being awesome at structure bashing.
As a group, yes. However, with how Siphons are designed, the question no longer is based around "we", it is based around the individual himself and what he is willing to endure. I could be wrong, but I think if they limit Siphons to around 6 or 7 per person that Goons will not try to do this on a giant scale as it could potentially be a weapon should another alliance try to assault Goonswarm space.
The question remains though if having only 6 to 8 Siphons available for use individually would be profitable to anyone at all.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |