What's to stop you parking an alt on it and cashing out when danger comes along? Have a timeout on the payout.

"You will use my new deployable or lose 5% of your income!"
Super indeed

Sandbox -5% sand

A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.

1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe! Null income is already lower than hisec.

2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty! In your world, cloak delay doesn't exist, nor does opportunity cost?

3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something. Because an inty would never be able to provide a warpin, risk-free

I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local.

Indeed I do, and I lived in nullsec for a year. What issues are there with the ESS that makes it so bad?

Congrats on ruining 50 guys' evening of ratting. Pass go, collect tears.

If its a big alliance's (is there any other kind of alliance?) home system then odds are you'll get a fight.

All I hear is a neutral alt that can't formulate an arguement.

set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.

Alternatively, you could park a cloaked cyno ship in system and permanently prevent them ratting...

Don't people do that already? *cough* Cloaky campers.

And your alternative conflict driver is...

I can tell from YOUR post that you don't actually process what you spew out.

As for my not reading 24 pages, I got the gist of this thread from the first 4 pages.

Yes, you were condescending and ******** in the same post. Congratu-*******-lations.

Well, I hope you continue to bring great posting such as

- ad hominem those words, don't mean what you think they mean...but I'm not even sure what you think they mean, since your meaning is clearly meaning something else entirely
- posting off topic I am proud to say, this is the first post I have made in this thread that had nothing to do with the issue at hand
- being a condecending forum alt although I am often (rightfully) accused of being condescending, there is a certain...greatness inherent in that word, but enough silliness. Forum alts are made/used for a specific reason, to divorce one's opinions from one's ingame affiliations, and given your attitude, I can hardly see why anyone would post on their main. People such as yourself would instantly dismiss their every word based on whatever affiliation they might have.

Cya around
Now can we let this thread be productive?

I think a neut deploying a deployable that reduces a group of carrier ratters' income by 20% will have a very distinct effect on their behavior.

I think if said ratters are renters and limited to a small number of systems, covering their handful of allowed ratting systems will have a very profound effect on their behavior.

As you so eloquently put: "Duh."

...or we could talk about how to make it NOT suck? As in increase the potential reward to a max bounty collection of 125%?

One hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour is likely to be negligible: at present if neutrals enter a system (or are heading down an intel-monitored pipe to a system) the ratters will dock up or head to a POS. If neutrals enter a system and deploy an ESS, the existing behaviour will not change. (this is a hypothesis, it can be tested but is not yet proven).

Another hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour will be noticeable: the thinking is that by deploying a structure that needs to be shot (or at least guarded), someone will come to shoot it at which point you can spring a logon trap or otherwise cause a fight to happen. This hypothesis correlates roughly with the existing behaviour of "deploy mobile warp disruptor, log off, wait for bot to warp back to belt". The difference is that in this case if the bot continues to rat in other belts, the invader still gets rewarded and the bot still gets punished.

A third hypothesis is that deploying an ESS will simply prompt an "overwhelming power" style response from whatever standing fleet happens to be in operation in that space. Thus bringing a fight (if not necessarily the fight that the deployer was expecting).

In answer to the first hypothesis (i.e.: that ESS changes nothing): you have nothing to complain about except that developer time was spent on this frippery instead of refactoring POS code and untangling the spaghetti.

So which of the three will turn out to be correct? Will offensively deploying ESS bring any kind of reaction from the locals? Will entrepreneurs deploying ESS to increase their ratting income bring any kind of reaction from roaming gangs?

BUT ratting systems (as I know them) are used by several pilots at once. Therefore it takes only a fraction of 6 hours to push payment from 100 % to 105 %. For example 30 minutes.

I still think that this mechanic is a boost to overall nullbear income, not a nerf. And the more ratters share one ESS, the more they gain by it.

I would say: letGÇÿs give this deployable module a fair chance. Maybe it's fun after all :-)

If I break down your posting, I think your main concern are the numbers, not the idea behind this deployable itself.

The numbers are the last concern, and were the subject of that one post by me, yes. I get the feeling you didn't actually read the thread though, because I specifically stated in an earlier post that "no amount of numbers tweaking can fix a fundamentally flawed idea".


Two more thoughts:

1) If itGÇÿs really true that interceptors disturb nullbear ratting every hour, then I should immediately join some null alliance. Cause it would be very funny to wait with an insta-locking Thrasher or other Destroyer near an ESS and pop any landing interceptors.

Yep it sure would be hilarious to see you spend time and an account 'guarding' your 5% income boost against a ship that does not get pulled into bubbles (hint: they can warp at range).


2) I still prefer a modified design of the ESS, which will not come to pass. Instead of a single payment I would prefer a payment over time. For example 1% of the stored ISK pool every 10 seconds, either in ISK or in tags. That would force attackers to stay on grid, give defenders a chance to find a suitable response, and allow attackers to bait more efficiently by looking for the "pain point" of the defenders (when will losses start to hurt?).

[b]A decent proposal, which still doesn't address the question: why the hell would anyone in their right mind put one of these up in their own space?

Not dropping them to make money from bounties. Dropping them to impact enemy alliance income and MAYBE get someone to nut up and come pew at them. And it pleases me to think when they hide we can rat and collect. So many people just hide up. Go pew.

Hm. Generally I like the idea of this Bounty monitor, because it is (or should be) designed to overcome the "hiding in the darkest spot and grinding rats, but warp safe instantly if anything happens" pattern.
All this negative feedback here is certainly exaggerated (remember the carebears in the Marauder thread? WH00T?!?!?? Removing the web bonus KILLS them totally - glad it did still happen).

However... certain things about this monitor seem wrong. Why the bubble around it?
OK, anyone taking money should be vulnerable for a moment, but a bubble is maybe not the right thing.
Would be exploited as insta-down-bubble or 1min-up-bubble as some have pointed out.

I'd say: remove the bubble, put a hacking game in - but only to "take all". That will keep the moneytaker busy and vulnerable. Maybe with the funny explosion from GHOST sites... that should keep the Inties at bay unless they really concentrate and pay less attention.

Oh, and I don't know whether someone already posted, because I did not read all 60 pages...
There was talk about nullsec empires BANNING these devices.
What if the notorious afk-or-not-cloaker comes to the busy ratting systems and drops this thing on his safespot?
He might not care about bonus 5%, but just scoop the thing up when disturbed and drop it again when it's more quiet.
Either someone has to deal with him within 1 minute or he'll be able to leech 20% of the ratting efforts...

Or is that what the bubble is for? Wouldn't an unanchoring/scooping up delay be more appropriate?

, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£.

I have made myself a new account for fw site running.

They would never put it up in the first place, it requires far too much reward to ever offset the cost of having it around while you pve.

Everybody should have to deal with these problems.

CCP Soniclover......

http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/
I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window.

S hit
You know who I feel sorry for the most. The little guy that sneaks into nullsec for a little R and R. This is just going to make him so easy to find.
I agree with the rest it will be a 30m isk kill blot on eve kill every time I see one.

Curious how these will be used in WH space when the time comes

Why do you still think nullsec residents should be unable to be self-sufficient, suckling off empire's teat?
--- They purposely intertwine game resources so one area of game play may affect another. You can hardly call mineral compression, hideous mineral proportions in nullsec grav sites, jump-freightering of everything relevant PURPOSEFUL INTERTWINING, sorry =D. No more so for this, it's bad. I didn't even touch on the LP market impacts.

What was the original iteration of the idea?
--- It didn't pay out LP, and had quicker access to the "take all" button. It also had a warp bubble around it instead of focused warp disruption. I meant the 'original' iteration, not the one posted in this devblog, which was obviously a patchwork. Since you're not CSM or CCP I can't take your word that was the original iteration.

If the original iteration was shelved, the devblog iteration reviled, how does a 'fresh coat of paint' or 'tweaking the numbers' fix the fundamental flaws?
--- It changed the risk reward ratio, which made it more desirable to utilize. That's your opinion, and since you're not a CCP dev, I'm not particularly interested. My assertion is that (too high) opportunity cost is much more important in this calculation that risk/reward.

...In short, my zeal for pushing EVE to her true potential made me lose sight of doing the simple things right...

...Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated...

Captain's Quarters ...We underestimated our development time, set impractical or misleading expectations, and added insult to injury by removing something in which players were emotionally invested...

Virtual Goods ...It was another feature that we rushed out the door before it was ready...

...If we donGÇÖt evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just canGÇÖt allow that to happen to EVE or to our community...

...From all this self-reflection, a genesis of renewal has taken root, a personal and professional commitment to restore the partnership of trust upon which our success depends, and a plan that sets the foundation for us to sensibly guide EVE to her fullest potential...

...WeGÇÖve been trying to expand the EVE universe in several directions at once, and I need to do a better job of pursuing that vision without diluting or marginalizing the things that are greatGÇöor could be greatGÇöabout the game right now. Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be...

...The greatest lesson for me is the realization that EVE belongs to you, and we at CCP are just the hosts of your experience...