|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 37 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
912
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Given the cost involved in the ESS, the rewards should be more than the penalty. 30-35% bonus vs 20-25% bonus (From the 80% start mark) is a much more enticing reason for people to use this. It should also have a reinforce timer to avoid people casually exploding 30 million every time they pass through the system. But if they come back and catch it out of reinforce, then it's fair enough. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:
A couple of points and questions:
The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?
A stick may prove necessary to drive players to use the ESS if the LP payouts available to them are not desirable. What could be done in lieu of reducing bounty payouts?
Since the LP would not be related to the space the player was ratting in, but the space to which the ESS was bought from, your first point is removed. Providing the Empires LP is considered equally valuable. Though this could also be balanced by making it Concord LP which is then fairly universal.
The 5% initial bounty nerf could also remain. Call it pirate siphons in between 'here' and Yulai or whatever you want to do. And the ESS blocks those siphons however they do some LP payout instead of isk in return.
The main thing is the potential reward needs to be at least 1.5 times the potential penalty. Since the structure itself has a built in cost any time you loose the LP, chances are the roaming gang will also blow the structure up to hurt you as well. So even if we assume 50% of the time you get the LP, you will only break even at that point.
This also means that the structure needs a sensible access method. Free access to owners alliance, Hacking required by anyone else sounds fair, especially given Black Ops have a hacking bonus so easy enough to bring a hacker. And a better EHP method. Maybe a 10 min reinforcement timer. That gives time for a fleet to actually form to defend it. More EHP simply makes for a bigger grind but doesn't put a real timer on it.
The concept itself isn't terrible, the numbers attached to it right now are. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alesha Kalishi wrote:Sounds interesting.. needs to be 150% not 105%! 150% or 200% would be worth defending.
Otherwise I don't really see anyone bothering with it... Be sensible. It's not going to double your profits. However is you use Mynnna's idea of LP, you can take it up to 120-130%. Personally my feel is that the potential profit should be about 1.5 the risk. Risk here being 20% currently, so profit can be 30% since LP won't introduce an isk faucet.
But demanding 150% or 200% is just silly and will get CCP ignoring the sensible comments. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote: so you mean that we need to actually do another protest in jita and stuf, with mass unsub, leading to some of you guys being fired for you to finally listen to us?
seems we have a deal then.....
If you are going to unsub over a couple of percent (Unless you are drone lands it's not a full 5% income loss), assuming you accept the loss and don't take any gambles to make profit, you truly are a precious carebear, HTFU. Or get lost to WoW. Really, you are being more precious than the true highsec carebears were over the nerfs to armour incursions with marauder changes.
Stop being a drama queen, give more serious feedback, get the rest of the CSM also giving feedback as well as those who already have posted. Bring pressure to make it what it could be, rather than 'Waaaah, I hate it, just delete it all now' |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote: What if all it could be is, at best, completely useless and best not implemented to begin with?
There seem to be little to no redeeming qualities in this idea and the reasons presented for its inclusion are nonsensical. There is a point where Gǣjust delete itGǥ is actually the right outcomeGǪ
Except as Mynnna has posted, while keeping the risk mechanic, you can create a situation where players have a reason to use it, because it's not 95% likely to cost them isk, but they stand to make profit reasonably, yet also reduces the isk faucet, and has enough time to act as a conflict driver.
The basic concept of 'Structure which reduces instant payout but allows potentially greater rewards overall creating a point of conflict' is not a bad one. It's just not being implemented well in it's current form. So it doesn't need deleting, it needs modifying to make it actually work like it's concept says. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote: The basic concept fails at the word GÇ£structureGÇ¥.
If they want to implement alliance LP, implement alliance LP. It will do the same thing, only infinitely more cleanly. Perhaps not for the devs GÇö I'm sure they want to toy around with this new personal deployable code before it goes out of style GÇö but definitely for everyone that matters.
Other than the fact.... It doesn't fail at the word structure. Alliance LP is an entirely different matter than this structure, since the alliances themselves get to decide the value of it and have to provide all the stock for the LP store also. Just because you don't like structures, doesn't mean they are bad. Alliance LP would serve none of the above roles, except perhaps working as an excuse to reduce bounties, but wouldn't actually remove any Isk from the game, since it would be paid to a player, not an NPC. And the players would need to buy everything for it. Alliance LP would also not create any risk element, nor anything to fight over and bother defending.
Does this also need to go along side an increase in how many people can make an income on ratting & anoms in a single system, so there are enough people present to actually form a defence fleet? I absolutely believe so. But again, none of this makes the concept bad, only the implementation. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ah, so you want a magical NPC goods faucet instead that alliances can pick & choose what magical goods they don't have to bother producing? Yes.... That's a great idea instead of having a structure that can cause fights because it's worth defending but not so big that it needs a 250 man fleet to fight over. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
914
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area. That's actually staggeringly huge Not particularly, since it's the only significant ISK faucet in null. Last we got any numbers on it, the system coughed up about 900bn ISK daily in the form of bounties GÇö that would mean ~650bn came from null. Compare this to the total injection of roughly 2 trillion ISK daily. A third of that is null bounties; nearly two thirds come from highsec ventures (the only other large separate post was ~250bn from w-space). The most recent figures I am aware of are the figures from March 2012 to March 2013. If you have more recent figures please reference them.
These figures show an average of about 50 Trillion a month isk Faucet. Of which Bounties (I.E. NPC kills) are averaging 30-31 trillion.
So Bounties are about a Trillion a day, out of 1.66. Trillion a day.
Meaning Null Bounties are 72% of 1 Trillion a day. Or 720 Billion a day. 43% of the total isk Faucet in the game. Low & High Bounties (Remember Low sec exists, we have no separation of that figure from high at this point) Account for a further 280 Billion. 17% WH Space averages about 330 Billion a day. (10 Trillion a month) 20% Incursions average about 167 Billion a day. (5 Trillion a month average, though there was a slight growth trend near the end, but that may be at it's limit, lack of figures to extrapolate further) Or a mere 10%. 1/4 of what Null Bounties generate. Guess we just debunked that myth. Though it is fair to say High Sec will account for most incursion income. Then rewards, ship insurance, & NPC sales of items like overseer effects account for the last 10%. Again we have no separation from Null, Low & High in these figures. (Hello insured dreads)
So, lets stop the rubbish that high sec is an Isk Faucet and null is all innocent shall we. Null is the single largest isk faucet region in the game. Even if we attribute all the rewards, insurance & say Low Sec earned no bounties (Which would be patently false) it still doesn't add up to as much as Null generates.
Does this justify a nerf to bounties. Who knows. Maybe, Maybe not. But if it does, I agree, they should say so with a fresh batch of economic figures to show it. And not tie it in with the ESS. The only income 'nerf' that should come attached to the ESS itself is the 'at risk' part of the income. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
916
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included? CCP considers low sec a separate area of space. Though if it is linked to anything it is linked to high Sec, as both are 'Empire Space' rather than 'Lawless'.
PvP Bounties aren't included in any of this as they aren't created isk. but simply paid from one player to another. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
920
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: In theory it already is. In practice, however, it won't be.
If what we stood to gain was significantly greater than the potential loss, and if we actually had a decent chance of that gain, then yeah it would.
I think you need to maths check James.
Even if we ignore the 5% and attribute that to an overall Isk Faucet Nerf and nothing to do with the ESS. We start at 95% as a result. Drop your ESS, that's 80% so you have 15% at risk. + 30 million investment. At maximum you get 105%. So that's a potential 10% gain.
Now, normally I'd consider 15% greater than 10%. And due to the density issues of Null systems meaning more than 2 people ratting is normally over capacity in most systems that 30 million is also worth a few percent. (If you could put 20 ratters into every single system and more into the good systems, that 30 million becomes much less significant overall).
So you are risking between 15-20% for a potential 5-10% gain.
I.E. Potential gains could triple. At least double for sure. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
921
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It's not my math that's wrong, it's your disagreement over the word "significantly" and the fact that you ignored the rest of my post.
Edit: Wait, what are you talking about? You're essentially agreeing with me but you're saying I need a maths check? I'm agreeing it's not worth it currently yes, However you said (possibly not what you meant to say?) that the rewards exceed what is at risk. Where as the reverse is true.
If someone steals from you, you loose 15% of your income below not using it. If you get perfect payout, you gain an extra 10% income above not using it at all. So currently assuming 50/50 return, you loose money. Not even counting the cost of the ESS.
So to make it worth it assuming a mechanic that gives a reasonable chance of 50/50 getting your payout/having it stolen, you need to about triple the potential rewards. Which given Null Bounties already are the largest isk faucet, means you have to go in the direction of Mynnna's proposal and have that extra payout as LP or some non isk faucet method. Or risk causing isk inflation.
----Edit---- To Alphea. Null Bounties are 42% (Or higher) of the total Isk Faucets in EVE. So, it may be that a 5% nerf on Null & only Null Bounties is actually needed to ease pressure on the system. That, I don't know, they haven't released enough figures for that recently to really have a clue. But, I'm ignoring that 5% because it's irrelevant in terms of risk/reward of the ESS. It happens before you apply the ESS. So the ESS actually becomes a 15% penalty, 5-10% bonus item. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
923
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:My heart bleeds for you tippia Seriously though, i think you guys are wasting your time here. CCP are going to do this so the best things you can do is start demanding that they add more PVE content to make it worth living in null. Rek, lets put it this way. This idea with it's current numbers has me agreeing with James. This is almost certainly a forum first, given how often I've butted heads with him & Tippia lately on other threads, normally on a null/high side. I've been to Null for a bit, never could make the fleets as they were either 3am my time with work the next day, or mid work for me, terrible time zone I live in for null basically, then failscade coalition and I moved back out. Live in high now, so I'm not without null experience but basically a high seccer.
And even I think this is a terrible implementation. I think the concept has merit enough to make it worth fixing rather than scrapping, but right now? Terrible. When you have functionally High Sec players agreeing with Goons on things? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
955
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 11:07:00 -
[13] - Quote
Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
955
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pods? Shuttles? Anything that can beat the faction navies? Just like -10 people always have? -10 does not mean 'Concorded in a pod as soon as in high sec' |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
958
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 02:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
RDevz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Has any idea from CCP (that wasn't Incarna) gotten 100 pages of such overwhelmingly negative feedback before? If so, did it turn out to be a success by the metrics of "customer satisfaction" or "making the game better" when implemented? If not, why is no-one paying heed to the definition of insanity which is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting different results? Marauders. Which was something like about 200 pages of rage. Followed by some more critical thinking on their final implementation that managed to fix a lot of the issues. Still not 100% satisfied myself but the end result is workable and did give buffs in some area's which has resulted in significant increase in marauder use.
If you note, CCP made a significant update to the ESS on about page 96, meaning the first 96 pages of rage no longer apply really since nearly all of them are based on now out of date statistics. And the last few pages have a lot of people being positive about the ESS.
So..... CCP's second attempt at the ESS is in a fairly decent place. You take effectively zero risk, only the 30 Million initially for the ESS and the time to convert LP as well as having to deal with the LP market moving, but if the LP value increases you gain immediately. And you stand to gain 30% over no ESS if you manage to do everything right. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 11:32:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I have asked 2 simple questions in the comments thread, of the new blog on these. They have been ignored.
They have no intention on discussing these devices and it makes no difference what we say.
Or possibly they answered the first of your questions in the Dev Blog already. And the second has been answered here repeatedly.
So.... Stupid/Useless questions don't receive answers, well done CCP.
Only risk to using ESS now. LP Market fluctuations & initial 30 mil cost. Potential gain. 25% profit overall.
If you are going to whine, at least do it on real facts. Not raging over out of date information. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
969
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 03:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sorry, but you guys are delusional now screaming no-one likes it. Other than market fluctuations you loose no income using the ESS now no matter what happens, and you stand to gain 25% income. |
|
|
|