| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 37 post(s) |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
218
   |
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
I really dislike this new ESS thing.
Reasons:
1) It's too complicated for what it does. Moving around a structure, anchoring it, interacting with it, etc, all for a bit more income from rats. I view ratting as a fluent activity.
2) It feels forced, not emergent. The big obvious "take all" button vs the "share all" button. I mean, come on. I like conflict drivers just like the next player, but this is laying it on a little bit thick.
3) It barely even makes sense. Look at the story in the blog and how convoluted it seems. It's so ridiculously arbitrary. Just reading it makes me cringe:
Quote:An ESS allows an empire to monitor bounty-generating activities in the solar system it is deployed in. Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord.
It's like, what? Sure, it makes sense...I guess..., but I really wouldn't call this EVE quality.
Siphons are a lot more direct, usable, understandable, and I think actually great for the game. This ESS thing though, it's bad...
Scrap it, back to the drawing board please.  |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
221
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Snowflake Tem wrote:1) It's complex because it's has got handles for jigsaw pieces we've not seen yet.
It doesn't matter the reason that it is overly complex, I'm just pointing out that it is bad for these types of things to become complex.
Contrast it to an MTU or a Mobile Depot or even a siphon. This ESS thing is just *facepalm*.
Snowflake Tem wrote:It does NOT need scrapping, it needs placing in context.
It does need scrapping.
This concept of a "booster" anchorable is horrific slippery slope, as you could invent endless different varieties of them, giving players the incentive to run around and anchor random crap if they want their "full reward."
Hauling around a black box, placing it where you rat, anchoring it, interacting with it, all so that it can give you a bit extra income...but store it in the middle of the system for some bizarre reason. Just awful.
Anchorables should be generic sandbox tools (theft/storage/utility), not passive boosters with some artificial risk mechanic built-in. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
221
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Has anybody pointed out that if ratting bounties were too high (from CCP's perception -- and they have all the numbers) that it would have been simpler to just straight nerf ratting bounties?
Instead it's like they packaged it with an anchorable design straight out of the Worst Ideas Ever thread.
I think most EVE players would just prefer the truth straight up.
"We are nerfing ratting bounties and here is why." (explanation follows) |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
222
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Weaselior wrote:Alphea Abbra wrote:Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention? The minutes stated that one CCP proposal was shelved for reworking because the CSM said it sucked, but did not identify it. can't be this one, something that has been reworked can't come out this bad.
Maybe it was NDA'd?
I have a hard time believing even our current CSMs would let something this horrible go through - but you never know.
Maybe they argued against it but got shot down by CCP? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
223
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:
Maybe it was NDA'd?
I have a hard time believing even our current CSMs would let something this horrible go through - but you never know.
Maybe they argued against it but got shot down by CCP?
Quote:Soniclover moved on to discuss an additional disruption feature. This feature was shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns expressed during the summit, until a more satisfactory solution could be found. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdfPage 42 of the minutes. I'm pretty sure this was the EPP that was being discussed, given the description of the feature.
I can't find any description of the idea that was shelved.
The one in the paragraph after that seems to be discussing an earlier iteration of siphons. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
224
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
So, what is your solution to either fix the ESS or offer a new alternative?
Burn it with fire, and seriously consider the future employment of members of "team superfriends". I thought I made that pretty clear in my first post. But you're not one for reading, I know...
No, this is bad.
It's really stupid to turn a focus on a specific group just because they proposed one specific bad idea.
There's also all the other people responsible for passing it, giving it the thumbs up, and letting it get to this stage.
At some point it isn't productive to point fingers or blame (especially since mobile tractor units and mobile depots are awesome).
But yes, ESS does indeed need to be burned with fire. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
There is a lot of unjustified hate in this thread!
Wardecs don't cause conflict? Really? That statement is simply moronic!
The ESS is a pretty good idea, it just needs some major tweaks:
-- For these to be used, the reward needs to be worth it and they need to be defensible. Increase the payout (at least 1:1), and increase both the access time (make it 3-5 minutes) as well as the time for the can to drop (another 3-5 minutes). Now anyone that feels they can defend it will use it for the rewards. Those that can't will leave it be. But for this to be a conflict driver, the locals MUST get value in using it, and they MUST have time to form up to defend it.
the creation of a loot pinata in space doubling as a ratting booster will never be a good idea.
it's not "fun" to haul around anchorables and use them like this. that's not exciting. it's not interesting, it's not a deep mechanic.
it's contrived and silly.
it doesn't enable anything "new" like siphons or mobile depots etc. it's just an artificial, forced conflict driver. the exact opposite of the kind of emergent sandbox behavior that EVE is known for.
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
230
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Kismeteer wrote:Oh, exploit found. If I scoop the item, which is instant, it doesn't destroy the bounties in it while it's in my cargohold. Then, when hostiles are gone, I wait the minute to launch, and bounties are still there. The good news is that it's bound to the system, not the ESS, so you can even just drop a new one. This is designed behavior: "Destroying or scooping the ESS will not affect the system-wide pool. That is only affected by successfully accessing the ESS and choosing to Share or Take all. The system wide-pool stays intact and becomes available again when another ESS is deployed."
So ridiculous.
Now every system will have it's own mysterious bank account attached to it for no real reason, and can be accessed by installing an ATM machine that communicates with the money-ether of local space....
What?
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
231
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Then just straight nerf the bounties.
This is a poorly designed mechanic, period.
It's contrived and exceedingly confusing. It's not the kind of change that is going to add new players to the game in the long term or make existing players enjoy the game more.
Interacting with a nonsensical system wide ratting bank account via a deployable is so ridiculously weird that I just can't even fathom how this made it so far.
It's probably the single worst example of game design I have seen come from CCP in a long time. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... CCP has the numbers. That doesn't mean SoniClover looked at them, or understood what they mean. That's why I'm pointing to a CCP employee who did look at the numbers, did understand what they mean, and said the opposite of what SoniClover is saying here. I don't have the numbers, but EyjoG does.
Doesn't the quote say "as of 2012?"
Maybe there's been a severe botting outbreak since then - who knows. Similar things have happened in other games I have played in the past.
Giant mechanic changes would come with a huge priority given to edging bots out of the market.
My favorite anti-bot addition was in Path of Exile -- they added supermobs that randomly and rarely spawn that are much tougher, stronger, and equipped with better than AI than normal mobs.
Bot killers, basically. Active players never minded them much because they had increased rewards.
But that's a solution that adds content to the game -- instead of a weird contrived anchorable widget thing and system-wide bank accounts. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... Regardless of whether or not more ->bounties<- come from null, more ->value<- to the individual comes from using the Osmon level 4 agent. That is reflected by the entire active population of Vale of the Silent (both GENTS and PBLRD sov space) being below Osmon and its surrounding couple of systems (where the runners also get sent).
I think the difference is, adding value is generally a good thing for the economy as it means more items for players to purchase and cheaper prices.
For example IIRC from the dev blog, something like 80% of all value in the market comes from players manufacturing items. If that activity was nerfed -- the prices of items would go up, which is bad for everybody (except maybe a few people who would be in a position to take advantage) . Likewise if it was harder to get LP -- then all the things that cost LP would increase in price....
Conversely adding straight ISK to the economy (too much anyways) has bad effects - especially on the price of PLEX - which CCP has always tried to keep at a reasonable price. They even seed PLEX's themselves if the price gets too high.
Why is nullsec ratting bounties being targeted in particular as an ISK faucet?
No idea -- my primary guess is just like I recently posted -- that it has been botted, and this is just their incredibly poor idea of dealing with it. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Drab Cane wrote:Am I wrong, or is the ESS essentially a siphon on null-sec ratting bounties?
it's far weirder and more convoluted than that.
basically every system in the game will now have a personal ratting bank account attached to it.
anchoring an ESS allows income to accrue in that account and be accessed. if it gets taken down or destroyed the income will still stay in the ethereal system bank account.
it's kind of like the lighthouse problem in that as long as the lighthouse is there (ESS) there is "mutual gain" -- but then it is forcibly contorted so anybody can smash the lighthouse and take money, randomly.
so strange |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
235
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
Drab Cane wrote:So a squad of pilots doing ratting might deploy an ESS
Doubtful.
Drab Cane wrote:but they'll want some of their number to hang around and protect it from other squads (or solo pirates).
If they stay behind to "protect" the ESS, they aren't ratting, and are thus losing income. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
235
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
To roughly quote somebody else in the thread...
"Any deployable that takes more than seventeen bullet points and seven paragraphs to justify is probably a bad idea."
I don't think your changes improve anything. If anything it might make it worse just because it's making it even more complicated.
Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?
Is that the kind of direction that is good for the game?
Most of the deployables I really like are ones that are easy to understand, easy to use, and with a clear, defined purpose. Something new that is enabled.
This thing is like "We're taking something away, and then making you anchor a stupid black box to give it back to you."
That's not new. It's not even a feature. It's just spacetrash. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
238
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:
Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?
if as he claims inflation is unchecked and rampant then this is a better alternative. but yes this deployable is convoluted bulky and overly complicated considering the problem at hand.
Here's a solution -- straight nerf ratting bounties. Period. Just do it, say you're doing it, and say why.
To compensate, add new content with new rewards for nullsec -- something that it isn't ISK (directly) but would be worth ISK.
The key is content, something that is actually fun and interesting to interact with. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
244
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
mynnna wrote:[list]
Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
There are flaws inherent to this logic btw.
By tying the payout to the market value LP, and the bonus being so crappy (20% is still crappy btw given the stakes) - you risk the value of the item dropping as well.
For instance, the value of the loyalty points could drop to a level where you actually get less net income by having an ESS in system. - because that "bonus income in LP" doesn't recoup the losses in ISK.
What do you do then? Have CCP setup buy orders to artificially keep the value of the items high? That would just reverse the process of inflation to begin with - or basically just making the whole thing more complicated.
And it's already way too complicated.
Khanh'rhh wrote:It must suck to work at CCP. They've designed something that, if used, results in 100-105% of the current ISK faucet being in place. However, one stated design goal of the unit is to reduce ISK entering the system, meaning it needs to be designed such that more people rat without it, than with it.
That's like trying to solve global warming, by going to a BMW engineer and saying "I want you to design a car that makes people drive fewer miles per year .... no I don't know how to do that, try to make it stall all the time or something and generally be annoying to use".
There's 2 options:
1) Soniclover is lying
2) Soniclover is telling the truth. In this scenario, the intended design of this deployable has to make people not want to use it, and are being told to go and sell it as an exciting new feature.
It must suck to work at CCP.
Thanks a lot, this post made me spit beer out of my nose.
It's true in a really twisted, sick way. It's literally designed to be bad. I would hate to get paid to do bad work on purpose.
"You have to make this item be as crappy as possible. Make sure nobody uses it or the whole thing fails by design." |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
253
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses). DonGÇÿt worry, people actually DO get this. For example IGÇÿve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs. ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
It doesn't sound like you understand this game very well, despite your "years" of experience.
Ratters don't dock up to be risk averse pansies -- they dock up because they don't want to fight a PvP fit in their ratting PvE fit - because that would be stupidity.
Also if you are coming in with an entire gang, as you say, it would be even more stupidity for them not to dock up.
There's nothing "manly" or "tough guy" about fighting a PvP fit in a PvE fit - and ratting isn't inherently a "carebear" activity, it's just a way to make ISK....And if you stop making ISK, you stop being able to PvP -- so pretty much everybody has to make ISK in some way or another. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
255
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems.
And by this time, all the loot in the ESS is gone because the people coming in just warped to it and clicked the TAKE ALL button while you screw around changing your fit, dock, undock, "call for reinforcements" etc.
Now do you understand why nobody will use them?
While they go to change their ship, you can just go straight to the ESS. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
257
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Tahnil wrote:ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. And by this time, all the loot in the ESS is gone because the people coming in just warped to it and clicked the TAKE ALL button while you screw around changing your fit, dock, undock, "call for reinforcements" etc. Now do you understand why nobody will use them? While they go to change their ship, you can just go straight to the ESS. As I stated repeatedly in this thread, I also think that the timer is a big problem. ThatGÇÿs why I would ask for a payout over time instead of a payment after a timer as my top priority change request. It means after an attacker accessed the ESS he gets one tag every x seconds, and not all tags at once after a fixed amount of time. Therefore the attacker has to stay at the ESS as long as possible in order to get the maximum amount of ISK or tags. And the defenderGÇÿs time to react would be in direct proportion to the greed and annoyance of the attacker.
I simply don't agree with the design philosophy behind it.
Even if there was no passive ratting nerf involved, I still think it's a poor idea. No matter how you monkey the numbers, it's a poor idea.
It's a strange, unnatural creation that no logical person or entity would create within the game itself.
Contrast this to any other income generating activity, in nullsec or even wormhole space.
In either case, your loot is near where you are. If somebody comes into the system, you know it takes them time to find you/scan you down/warp to you. You can then assess the situation and decide what you want to do about it....
In wormholes for instance, you would first see them on dscan, but then you would be watching out for probes, and you would have a rough idea of how long it will take them to probe you down. You can then leave, put your loot in your POS, etc.
With the ESS, it weirdly and inexplicably deposits loot into an ATM Machine somewhere in the system that you then have to warp to retrieve. Do you not see the fundamental difference and weirdness behind this?
What the hell? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
257
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Funless Saisima wrote:Tahnil wrote:
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
If someone actually makes a ping to defend an ESS, they will get laughed at and have their ping privileges removed. IGÇÿm not talking about forming a fleet of 200 CFC Dominixes. WeGÇÿre talking about small gang warfare here. Maybe alliances would have to adapt a little to the fact that there is a very local problem. Maybe you would need local pings then. I am sure CFC IT will be able to come up with some solution ;-)
The solution is to not use them because putting your loot in a Space ATM Machine is unnatural and stupid.
(spAceTM Machine?) |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
259
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Turelus wrote:As a serious question to CCP, why are almost all other changes being posted on F&I and Test Server Feedback but the ESS skipped all of that? or have we just not got there yet because this became the thread that would have been on F&I?
It seems that Fozzy, Rise and Karkur have threads up for player feedback and ideas for iteration before things get too serious but this didn't.
My suspicion is that they already knew it would have negative feedback and be poorly received. They probably erroneously view it as "tough love" - something that will "improve" the game despite everybody affirming them that it won't.
Thus, if they put a bunch of dev time into it, and have the "pot odds" on the feature be very high, they won't back down on overwhelming negative player feedback because....They already put too much time into it.
I guess this feature is "too big to fail." It happens no matter what because they kept it hidden and put a bunch of time/money into it. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
264
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Everybodies point of view in this thread is highly subjective, and determined by our selfish interest.
I disagree.
I can identify bad game design without taking my self interest into account.
It's a bulky, overly complicated and bizarre concept.
I can't think of any other feature that adds so little, while being so complicated.
If you really are that set on the conflict driver aspect -- believe me when I tell you that this isn't the fix for that. Conflict drivers are usually a good thing, but it is best when they are emergent.
Maybe we should start another thread for conflict driver ideas just to prove the point that many of us here welcome them.
That doesn't however mean that any mechanic that COULD cause a conflict is automatically a good idea. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
272
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Vereesa wrote:But, if it is destroyed (not taken down), it disrupts the bounties in the system down to 75-80% (or less, idk) for a period of six-twelve hours.
Go into enemy ratting system. Drop ESS. Destroy ESS.
Now you nerfed all their income for 6 - 12 hours.
I can't say this sounds like a solid idea. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
288
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.
That's actually staggeringly huge 
And I think with that figure alone most players would be OK with nerfing the amount of /ISK/ coming in from nullsec....but not income.
Also, this in no way justifies the ESS. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:31:00 -
[26] - 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).
Sure, I can grok this.
But we're talking about a specific activity generating 72%...Not a specific area of space.
That's a lot of ISK for one activity to generate. You also deleted the part of my post where I said the main point is income -- not ISK, which I still think is valid. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:I am quite certain that there is no NDA preventing any CSM member to announce in this thread, that they hate (disapprove) of the proposed ESS. Nor that they approve of it, for that matter.
Actually, I would prefer if they made noise one way or the other, so it at least appeared like they care.
The NDA should be nullified on official release of the feature. If it isn't, it's a poorly written or downright awful contract that the CSM's were basically forced to sign on picking up the role.
It's entirely possible that you're right, I would just be disappointed that CCP devised a contract in that fashion. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
290
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kadl wrote:1) I am not seeing any opposition from you to the Small Mobile Siphon, Cynosural Inhibitor, or the Mobile Jump Unit. Are those all on the right track? Or perhaps at least one is a sidetrack. This unit fulfills one of the goals of 'Farm and Fields' as stated two and a half years ago in the summit meeting notes..
Oh please.
It's essentially a Rube Goldberg machine. Yeah, it "fulfills it's purpose" but I think that's a pretty low standard to put on game design. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
292
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:
considering the time investment needed to make such a small % to pay off, that sounds like a hell of alot more hassle then it's worth. Quite honestly, the only place I see this thing being regularly used is by those uber large bloc null alliances which have total lockdowns for secure isk generation systems... ie, this makes life harder for the 'nubs' and easier for the ones the nubs already have issues with.
In short, CCP is showing favoritism?
The time investment to make a small % of pay off? It takes you 60s to anchor this at the start of your farming session. Anytime a hostile enters system, or when you are done ratting for the day, it takes you another 60 seconds to swap to an inty, warp on grid, and hit share all, AND scoop it to your cargo. That's 120 seconds of your life. I'll double it in case your slow. So, in 4 minutes you make 5-10% more isk per tick. What's a good return on 4 minutes of your time? 75m isk / hour would mean this must net you 5 million isk to be worth your time. Gee, after 100 m isk in bounties, its paying that 75m isk / hr. At 200m isk in bounties, thats 150m isk per hour.
Sounds like bad game design.
Like adding a new, thoughtless click-fast to S&I to get a slightly improved yield, but a lesser yield if you don't do it at all.
Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
297
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:50:00 -
[30] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button)
Are you SURE you want to take ALL the ISK?
[CONFIRM?] |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
298
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:09:00 -
[31] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Fix Sov wrote:The problem is that the part where some of the bounty can be stolen by blue, neut or red (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button) is a bullshit mechanic which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal, because overall it'll be a lot better to just not erect the ESS in soniclover's current form. The drama issue is important, and a good one that you raised. Much earlier someone suggested adding hacking to steal. Thus to make a mistake you would have to activate a module and actively hack the system instead of push button for everyone to receive their money. Given this issue it might make sense to at least require a confirmation dialog to steal.
I agree that increasing the complexity of this deployable is the correct approach.
Can we as a group think of any more random mechanics to attach to this thing? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
312
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that.
My niece noticed my dog was thirsty, and responded by preparing a bowl of chocolate milk.
I caught it pretty quickly, and put an end to that....But she had good intentions -- she was just trying to give the dog a treat and satiate it's thirst.
I had to explain to her that chocolate is poison to dogs. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
313
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:49:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. 
I don't know how people get this idea.
It's like they have no idea what constitutes good game design and bad game design.
You realize the only reason this is getting implemented is because it's leftover code from Incarna, right?
It's vending machine code.
An excellent addition to any spaceship game... |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 03:35:00 -
[34] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:To put it in perspective:
Imagine you run a snow removal service.
Today you get paid 100 bucks per hour to remove snow of a lot.
Tomorrow, because of changes to the business environment, you only get paid 95 bucks for removing snow off that same lot.
Tomorrow, a new snowplow comes on the market. To rent this snowplow costs 15 bucks per hour to rent, but your new hourly income will net 100 bucks an hour (including rental cost). Is it profitable to use?
Wait, what?
First of all, there are no snowplows in Somalia. Wrong climate. Second of all, your plowtruck is going to get swarmed by people with AK47's, and stolen. You yourself will probably get away because you have a clone back in northern Canada or wherever you live that is making you compare snowplow trucks to EVE. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
341
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
343
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:24:00 -
[36] - Quote
So, assuming 10% of the nullsec ratters have one of these up....How much new Navy LP will be added to the game?
There were some numbers posted earlier in the thread.
It seems like this could add a metric crapload of LP to the game even assuming only a small percentage of ratters use it. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
344
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
Sell orders are a bit deceptive, as are the low volume outliers.
I'd put the honest average at about 1200 isk / lp |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
344
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:35:00 -
[38] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The tool doesn't eliminate a requirement to think, just allows for a little more focusing.
I wasn't dissing your tool, was just making a heads up in case anybody clicked into it and DIDN'T think...I sorted by ISK and saw some that were listed at like 12,000 isk/ LP (low volume obviously)
I use your website all the time btw <3...the blueprint calculator is a killer |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
345
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
My take on the thing:
It costs 25m. Assume 1 LP = 1300 ISK. I think this is a favorable assumption for the ESS. Assume LP gain = .19 so isk from LP = .25. assume the flat isk gain from ess is .24.
The four outcomes I can see of using an ESS are:
1) Successful retrieve of ESS module with all bonus ISK.
Income without ESS = .95 in wallet
Income with ESS = .8 in wallet + .25 isk in lp in wallet + .24 isk in ESS = 1.29
1.29 / .95 = 1.36 income modifier vs no ESS.
2) Successful retrieve of ESS module but not the bonus ISK.
This is just the ratio of isk in your wallet. So 1.05 / .95 = 1.11x
3) ESS was destroyed but you received "almost all" bonus ISK (you managed to share recently before a gang came in to destroy the ESS)
This is more complicated since it is dependent on how much you have farmed. We can simply consider the difference in profit and look at the break even point to get a quick idea.
This would happen about when you would have farmed 70m ISK without an ESS, or 95m value with an ESS. When this would happen would depend on how quickly rats spawned in the system and what they were worth...
4) ESS was destroyed and all bonus ISK is stolen
So it is like 3) except there is no bonus ISK.
The break even point becomes astronomical, around 275m isk/lp farmed before it happens. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
349
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:26:00 -
[40] - Quote
Allus Nova wrote:CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.
What?
"The value of the dollar is dropping...****! Print more dollars to compensate!!!" |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
350
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:48:00 -
[41] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Go rat 500m isk in rat bounties.
How long would that take? |
| |
|