|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 37 post(s) |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
756
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'll start with the simple. The tag names are lame, can we just have Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum or anything that's not "Amarr 1M Bounty Reimbursement Tag" it just sounds far to "this is a game mechanic item and not "this is an actual thing in the EVE universe.
Something like "Amarr Silver Bounty Compensation Tag" would at least feel like I am using something tied into the world more (and yes I know I am terrible with making names).
Secondly the ESS itself seems somewhat useless past taxing alliance line members (who are the ones suffering to make ISK), renters or neutrals (NRDS) using the system to make money. When you right ANYONE CAN ACCESS THE ESS does this mean a red can fly into system, activate it, take the tags and move on? if this is the case with it being a marked location on the overview and not deployable near any kind of defence it makes it worthless to ever use. It's basically taking your wallet and leaving it on the bar while you sit at your table and hoping it's still there with all your money when you come back to get your next drink, people just don't do that because there it's stupid.
With anyone having access this becomes less of a tool for an alliance to upgrade their space more and bring us closer to building our own Empires and more a griefing tool for roamers, or is that the intent.
As it is right now the ESS implementation give you the choices of Take 95% of the current income (another nerf to NullSec and reason to run L4 missions or HighSec Incursions) Take 80% of the current income and let every Alliance Spy, Roaming Red, Nuetral take 25% of your work with no effort.
Please tell me I have just misunderstood all of this and it's actually a good thing. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
756
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
As posted to Twitter:
What I would see as a useful version of the ESS people will use.
-xx% in overall bounties but receive LP. LP store is a form of ISK sink in that it takes ISK+LP for items which the eventually go boom. It gives RP/Lore links from NullSec Alliances to their Empires, could even make it ONLY available to enlisted Sov Holders giving a reason for NullSec powers to work for the Empires. Gives roaming gangs a smaller more killable target and goes towards the idea of players being able to mess with other Alliances income flow. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
757
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Also can we please get some believable lore behind this.
This goes back to the article Svetlana Scarlet wrote on TMC a while back about CCP adding unbelievable lore into everything to try and rationalise or explain game mechanics changes. Ignoring the fact that the ESS isn't a useful item the lore and story behind it is unbelievable and weak.
If CONCORD don't want to keep on paying Capsuleers as much ISK they would just lower the bounties, not go "Well we said we would pay you 1,000,000 ISK but we decided to keep 5% for ourselves because you earn so much". If it's an attempt to build heat from Capsuleers towards CONCORD it could be done in a much more realistic and enjoyable way than as a blanket of lore to try and explain a modification in game mechanics.
More believable would be "CONCORD has announced it's lowering values of bounties paid in lawless systems due to the lack of thread pirates there pose on Empire space."
If you want to build on the idea that Capsuleers are becoming a threat and we're overstepping our bounds why not remove the -5% nerf and make the lore that by using the modules we our hacking CONCORDS bounty systems and manipulating them to bring ourselves more ISK. Now you have a system where the players choose undermine CONCORDs authority and screw them over. You could make five modules CONCORD, Caldari, Gallente, Amarr & Minmatar having the Empire ones add LP to kills and we're messing with the LP payment systems of the Empires to overstep our place with them, the CONCORD one being % buff to ISK instead of LP.
Above you have lore and story along the "Capsuleers are revolting" theme you seem to be working on as well as a boost to income for NullSec. There are still many issues with the ESS itself like letting just anyone steal from it. A more interesting system would be we gain the rewards if it's active but hostile forces can incapacitate it which then reduces the systems income by 10% here is the "fields and fires" theory spoken about so many years ago.
Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
757
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown Well I am not Goonswarm and as it is now it's most likely not going to deployed by Providence Sov holders. However if I am correct in reading anyone can drop one of these so even if the Sov Holder doesn't want to ruin the system for their line members any roaming red can do so instead, it's a interesting "fight creation" tool but the blog is selling it more as a "look at this great new upgrade for your space!" which it really isn't. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
769
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
More RP/Lore stuff and improvement ideas.
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. I thought this feud was meant to be between the Capsuleers and the Empires not the Empire and CONCORD? The only tension I have noticed was the Caldari fleet vs CONCORD during the Caldari Prime event (unless I missed much more).
Quote:Concord has decided that monitoring these bounty-generating activities (i.e. killing pirates) outside of their jurisdiction is becoming too expensive, especially with the lost income from high-sec Custom Offices. As a result, they will no longer pay the full bounty amount. Why are they not just lowering the bounties they have placed on the NPCs rather than saying they will pay x amount then hold back 5%? This seems like a very backwards and unbelievable way for an organisation to handle things.
Quote:The ESS represents empire monitoring efforts that allow them to compensate players to offset the reduced value that Concord is paying out. We keep being told that the Empires are getting worried and losing control of us Capsuleers so why would they care what we are doing out in NullSec and want to pay us for removing pirates outside of their space? Is this an attempt to rein us in and play the good cop or do they just feel sorry that CONCORD is screwing us? There seems no logic behind "The people that we worry are becoming too powerful are losing money, we should pay them more money!" unless this is the Empires giving CONCORD the finger in which case why are we constantly being told that the Empires are losing control of us, when it should be the Empires are getting tired of CONCORD.
Additionally why do we have four racial variants if there is no difference at all in what they do, it seems there are more options for development here which are not being used. * Have the tags give LP instead of ISK. * Have the value of tags tied to FW making who is winning wars more important to NullSec (would need to fix issues around switching ESS depending on who's winning. * Having an ESS in your systems gives you station/outpost options linked to that Empire.
I remember CCP Soundwave saying how he (CCP) wanted to see more ways in which players effected one another without having to directly be in contact, the ESS having ties to Factional Warfare would seem a strong way of doing this. However there also has to be a reason to want one of these within your system and making up for a 5% loss in bounties isn't enough, the 5% overall seems more like a reason invent just to try and make people use these rather than making them appealing enough to be used willingly.
I am truly disappointed with how little thought has gone into this both lore and mechanics wise because I know you can do better CCP. Please stop working on single little gimmick modules and start thinking of more broad game-wide links which will make this feel like the living evolving universe you supposedly want to create.
As it stands now the ESS is just a griefing tool with no benefit to the Sov holders and because of its implementation we lose out of 5% of the income, which as others have pointed out is only going to effect the little guys grinding ISK for ships to PVP in not the people running the show.
So how I would ideally see this working with lore to support it. Remember while reading this that LP is (as said by CCP) a large ISK sink for EVE Online, turning ISK into items which are then eventually destroyed.
The Empires/CONCORD are worried that they're losing their grip on Capsuleers so they develop the ESS to help monitor Capsuleers activities in their Sovereign NullSec systems. The way they sell this as good thing to have to the Capsuleers is they offer LP for the pirates destroyed in the form of redeemable tokens, as we all know Capsuleers (players) are inherently greedy so the chance for more money will rarely be turned down.
The redeemable tokens can be taken to any NPC corporation within the Empire they are printed for and converted into LP for that corp (with the exception of Factional Warfare corps).
Sov entities place down an ESS and gain a value in LP off the bounties received. This LP is gathered inside the ESS much like how the ISK is right now, and the mechanics work the ESS is now (although I would highly recommend longer timers as posted elsewhere in this thread) Additionally to this the structure can be sent into a reinforced or Incapped mode where the bounties in the system are then reduced by xx% because of the scrambled system monitoring that CONCORD now has.
The structure then would need to be repaired right away (incapped) or later (reinforced) forcing players to either defend their space as roams come through or suffer consequences which might be losing income for a period of time and needing to save a smaller structure from destruction (fight generation/set-up)
This gives an interesting feature that both buffs income for NullSec line members whilst giving new chances to raid and obstruct the income of your enemies. Which follows close to the "fields and fires" idea which has always been talked about.
My idea above has plenty which can be expanded on (FW ties) and the mechanics would need more thought but it would already (at least in my mind) be a far more favourable and interesting addition the NullSec and EVE as a whole. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
769
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Seriously CCP, when CFC, N3, Provi and NPC 0.0 people tell you it's bad, rethink it. This.
Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
774
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
Something else that really bothers me about the 5% loss in bounties.
It's not so much the ISK being lost (5% really isn't a great hit) but more the feeling that the only reason this has been added into the feature is to try and push us to use an ESS. Shouldn't the ESS be built to be worth using on its merits alone? creating a 5% reduction on income across NullSec then making only a single item to fix it which comes with more risks than rewards seems backwards to idea idea of content.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE CREATING NEGATIVE CONDITIONS IN SYSTEMS JUST TO GIVE A MODULE POSITIVE ABILITIES! That's not fair on the players or the Sandbox! Please make the ESS worth using for its own merits and not change the current NullSec system just because of it.
Also do we really need MORE complex things to explain to newbies? When they start ratting and are getting 5% less on their bounties than in HighSec/LowSec we have to explain how in NullSec you only get 95% of the value of you kills by default. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
782
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Another issue I just realised.
Why are your introducing a feature that means we have to go back to Empire to claim our money? Haven't we been asking for more features to make our NullSec Empires less dependant on HighSec not asking for more features that make us do a weekly run to HighSec for supplies or sell off things. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
782
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The tears in this thread a delicious I love how everyone is like 'this is so bad for our ISK income that we're just not going to use it in our space and ban it'. Well guess what, you don't get to decide if the enemy uses it in your space, which is the entire point of these things. Fleet roles in to a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, cuts everyone's income by 20%, forces the owners of the system to do something about it, PVP happens. This thing will be used more to force your enemy's hand and less to steal actual ISK, although that would be a nice bonus.
If using them as an ISK blocking tool was the entire point of the module then why all the "benefits" of more income? If it was designed purely and a ISK disruption tool that would be fine, the issue is they have tried to make a beneficial items to a ratter which is so far from beneficial that its only worthwhile use is being a greifing item.
The other thing you forget is no one is going to come an PVP you if you come and drop one, because no one makes ISK with reds around any way so they will just sit in station/POS wait for you to be far away then go and start grinding it down just to resume making money.
There is also the gripe that CCP is planning to add a penalty of income to all systems in NullSec with the only reason being they're making a new module they want people to use. Everyone used all the other deployable even with risks because they offered benefits worth the risks, rebalance the ESS to have enough benefits to gamble on the risks and people might use them. Don't go and say "hey we took 5% of your bounty rewards away because we have this new module we want you to use to solve that, but the new module is flawed and will probably only reduce your personal income even more."
100% standard, ESS lowers to 80% individual income and takes 20% (as is now) can be built upto 30%. It's a gamble if you want more but it's not a nerf to anyone who doesn't want that gamble.
EVE ONLINE IS ABOUT CHOICES, PUSHING US TO USE SOMETHING BY ADDING PENALTIES FOR NOT SANDBOX GAMEPLAY!
Make the thing worth the gamble and don't penalise anyone who doesn't want to gamble on it. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
789
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
None of those three address the issues of.
* Creating a 5% reduction in bounties received just to make this module something people should use. - The module should be chosen on it's own merits, not because CCP just added a problem for it to solve. - Not receiving 5% of the bounties makes one more confusing thing to explain to newbies who move from Empire to NullSec. - The lore behind the 5% is unrealistic, if CONCORD don't want to pay us as much they would just lower bounties offered, not refuse to pay 5%.
* The risk isn't worth the reward. - Why would a ratter/sov holder want to reduce individual income by 20% for a potential 5% gain over the current (Rubicon 1.0) income, at the risk of losing all that 20% at any time. - In the current state this is more of a griefing tool than a Sov Upgrade.
* Makes earning ISK in NullSec worse. - Normal grunts earn their ISK from anomalies and don't want to gamble with that income. - Currently Empire Incursions/SOE Missions are better risk vs reward than NullSec already, this will just push more people to those. - It doesn't help what the community and CCP have agreed should be worked on which is a money up way of running alliances.
The key point you should pick up on and work to fix however is this: Everyone living in NullSec would rather eat the 5% loss than ever use one of these modules. That's a pretty big flaw in the module which fixing timers, bubbles and interceptors wont address. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
790
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
Is there any chance that this entire feature can be pushed back to a later expansion so it can have a lot more feedback and development time? It seems pretty obvious that as it is right now the feature isn't wanted or going to be used a great deal. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
791
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere? I don't think there are blueprints, I believe I read it's buy direct from the Empires themselves with no player production involved. Which is another thing we (players and CCP) have been working to get rid of for a long time so shouldn't be happening again. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
791
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Turelus wrote:Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere? I don't think there are blueprints, I believe I read it's buy direct from the Empires themselves with no player production involved. Which is another thing we (players and CCP) have been working to get rid of for a long time so shouldn't be happening again. Those are ESS, not the hybrid and rote siphons. Oh... misread you on that one. Sorry, yeah guess I am caught up in ESS fever, I hear it's going around right now. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
799
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. CCP SoniClover I understand that you're getting a lot of posts which are close to attacks on you and that must be frustrating but ignoring Tippia's inflammatory phrasing in the post s/he had a valid point.
Right now we're struggling to see what the goal or point of these modules is from your (CCP's) point of view. Even with some of the more poorly written and ridiculous posts there have been a lot of constructive ones outlining issues which neither you or any member of your team have come and answered for us.
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own? * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item? * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain? Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
799
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Can't we leave the bounties at the normal 100% and ignore the confusing and needless 95% aspect of the mechanics and instead have a module which lowers by 20% and builds up to 110-120% so it's purely an optional gamble and not something we feel forced to use because CCP suddenly decided we all deserve a 5% income nerf. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
799
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:15:00 -
[16] - 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. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
With respect many have stated that if inflation was the reason we would rather just have CCP rework the bounties and be open and honest about it. Also it seems a little backwards to be fixing an inflation issue by adding a module which can potentially bring more money into the game. This goes back to my earlier posts that if CCP is looking for a way to sink some ISK out of the game have these modules pay out LP instead of ISK that way we will be dumping the money into LP stores which are one of the games larger ISK sinks.
LP would also work nicely with the lore you're trying to establish here and gives the racial variants of the modules more meaning as you will be choosing which LP you would like to be earning via the choice.
In the current state of the item it's really not worth it to most NullSec entities because it offers far too little gain for far to high a risk. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
800
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Are you serious? You have Faction Warfare, Incursions and L4s that are disgusting amounts of income, and you pick on null rats? All of those are also sinks due to the ISK lost when you cash out the LP, FW being a complete removal of ISK because it's all LP earns instead of ISK. I'm not saying they don't make crazy amounts of ISK but there is a loss of pure ISK whenever LP is used, NullSec income is pure ISK with none of it being traded in.
The player may make good ISK from other players when selling LP Store items but this is just ISK moving around not the creation of it. Creation comes from Bounties, Sleeper Tags and Mission Rewards only AFAIK. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
802
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
I'm not posting this to be an ass but your posts have been somewhat contradicting in regards to the ISK sink.
CCP SoniClover wrote:If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
If the goal of the 5% decrease in bounties received is to reduce ISK coming into the game why are you developing a module which you're telling everyone will increase their income from what it is now. The only way this would work as an ISK sink is as someone else posted earlier you make the ESS so repulsive that no one wants to use it and just takes the 5% income hit.
You can't tell us you're worried about inflation and income of ISK while producing modules which are going to increase that if used correctly. Imagine if against all the laws of EVE everyone made a pact to not mess with each others ESS, you then just increased the ISK coming into the game.
I think CCP needs to put its hand up and admit that right now the ESS is not something which should be released in Rubicon 1.1 and take it to F&I to work over with the community. If there is an inflation issue speak openly about it with the community and tell us you need to take steps to fix it which will actually fix it. We don't want to see the economy go to hell any more than you.
I will once again say that if you want this as an ISK sink make it turn ISK into LP like myself and others have said. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
804
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
I just realised as well (give me a break I'm slow) if you install an ESS in a system it does NOTHING to lower ISK inflow into the game, it keeps it the same or improves it, all it's doing is changing whos hand that ISK goes into.
The tags printed are just going to Empire and being converted into ISK meaning with an ESS installed in a system you're just switching to another faucet which can be switched onto overdrive. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
807
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: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. if you are concerned about isk inflation then just cut npc isk by half and replace the other half with tags that can be traded for LP. much much better idea. that way the amount of isk comming into the game is greatly reduced but the drops can then be traded for isk already in game. heck i would just blanket this idea and put it all across eve.
A 5% reduction on all NPC bounties across EVE and then let allow current NPC tags to be traded for LP with various factions. This would reduce the inflow of pure bounties ISK from across the entirety of EVE and make the currently worthless NPC tags have greater value to sell for ISK or convert to LP. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
818
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much. Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.
Pretty much this, it would be a good start in making us happy with this feature overall. Please don't penalise people not wanting to use this module in an attempt to balance the game for those that do. Although if more ISK being made in NullSec is a worry why are you (CCP) developing features which increase the raw ISK coming in? If everyone in NullSec deploys an ESS even if the ratters are not the ones getting the money all it will do is increase ISK coming in.
Without ESS: 95% ISK from a system. With ESS: 100-105% ISK from a system
The only thing that changes by deploying an ESS is who gets the ISK, the tags are just ISK which you have to travel to cash in, unless it's CCP's hope that this ISK will be destroyed on the way by suicide gankig. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
820
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:18:00 -
[22] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much. Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose. It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure. The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space. The problem is it's not beneficial to use this structure so no one will and it wont cause fights or reward people who defend their space. Also it's really poor development from CCP to introduce a PITA penalty just to make something new they have developed worth using. Also before ever trying to force a situation where ratters defend their income from roaming gangs maybe CCP should address the fact that players doing PVE in NullSec are at the disadvantage when an organised red gang comes in.
* PVE ships can't PVP. * You need to dock to refit, warping to station can be death if the hostile fleet have bubbles. * You need time to get a fleet of people together and make sure everyone has needed/workable ships ready in that location. * You need to have a confident/competent FC online.
You can argue that the Sov holder has the home-field advantage but the issue is if you're doing PVE and an organised gang comes through you're caught with your pants down and need time to pull them up and get ready. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
820
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Tippia wrote:Rek Seven wrote:It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure. If such an incentive is needed, and on such a ridiculously imprecise level, the structure needs to be re-thought from the ground up. Manufacturing a huge artificial problem to give your pet solution any reason to exist means it has no reason to exist to begin with. Quote:The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space. It's not tied to any particular space or ownership of that space. In fact, the whole point of these deployables is that anyone can plunk them down anywhere. Thus, it has nothing to do with defending your space and everything to do with pointless busywork if you decide to rat anywhere in null. If they want to create fights, I'm sure they can do that without making everyone having to grind more to be able to take part in those fightsGǪ By create fights, i'm not talking about sov, I'm talking about the nullbears that stay in one system and never take part in pvp. Sure, if i anchor one of these most nullbears will just stay docked or log off but some will come and attempt to destroy the structure, which will result in a fight. They're only going to destroy it when you gang has grown bored and long since left, like everyone has been saying. It's not an immediate threat to their Sov and if you're in system they're not going to be ratting any way so why would they undock and fight a group who obviously has the advantage of already being in a structures and organised fleet if the ESS has no effect on them.
Reds in system = PVE players stay docked. Reds drop ESS and go "whahaha now they will undock because we have a fight starting module!" = PVE players stay docked and PVP players don't care because you're not doing anything. Your gang gets bored waiting 20mins for something to happen and leaves, PVE and PVP players check intel, wait for you to be x number of jumps away, undock and blow up the ESS before switching back to PVE ships and going about their business.
We have a fight starting deployable module, it's called an SBU. Because you CAN'T let those sit there online without massive risks to your space, the ESS has nothing worth forming a fleet for. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
820
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Rek Seven wrote:If there is a ESS already in system earning people 120% of the current bounty, a roaming fleet can warp to it and if you are unwilling to fight them off, they get to take any unclaimed tags. You deny them fights and they deny you isk... seems like a fair trade to me.
It's the equivalent of old time highway robbery. That is exactly why nobody will use ESS as money boosting thing in the first place If you are unwilling to use it because of the risk involved, the 5% nerf is justified. People cry about how high sec is risk free game play but nullbears are are the worst for it. No the 5% isn't justified. NullSec has enough bloody risks in regards to ratting for ISK. I explained in my last post how even if a PVP player is ratting he's at a huge disadvantage when a red gang enters because he's not able to fight right away.
The ESS should be used for those who want to gamble with what they have to gain more, not because they lost money to start with. If CCP wants to reduce the level of pure ISK coming into the game just lower all bounties across the game by 5% instead of this NullSec only nerf which seems is only to push a feature no one wants to be using. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
825
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote: Facepalm. There is no incentive for nullbears to fight. Look, the deployment of these will be banned by all major alliances and even if they aren't, ratters wont deploy them. Putting this in your system is an open invite for hostiles to disrupt your ratting activities.People don't want hostiles in their ratting system, they want to rat. People don't want to do emergency PvP in their ratting system, they want to PvP in a properly organized fleet and on a roam. There is no chance that these will be deployed by any locals in a ratting system.
If a hostile comes to deploy this, ratters will remain docked as always until the gang moves on and gets bored. They either scoop their ESS and take it with them or it will get blown up in 30 seconds after they are gone and before any ratting starts.
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
In this single post I have highlighted every reason why the ESS is a flawed module and wont be used, thank you to Andrea for giving me a simple way to yet again post the same points which CCP seem to be missing in this whole debate. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
827
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:38:00 -
[26] - Quote
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. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
840
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:52:00 -
[27] - Quote
I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the group and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO.
Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's? Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
844
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:39:00 -
[28] - Quote
I'm again going to post saying that if the entire point of the ESS is to tackle issues with NullSec producing too much ISK (which seems to be the common point of discussion now). Why are we looking at a module where if deployed has no effect on ISK generated in NullSec?
If everyone uses them like CCP seems to want it's not going to tackle the ISK issues at all, it's just changing who gets the ISK, it also opens up the chance for MORE ISK. So CCP any argument made that this module is being introduced to tackle ISK issues is absurd because it doesn't tackle them at all, it only has the potential to create more ISK generation if used.
Which again goes back to the fact you seem to want the module to fail in its appeal of being used so no one uses it and everyone brings in 5% less ISK. As everyone has already posted you could do by just lowering all bounties in EVE by 5% and release a statement that you're lowering raw ISK income due to future threats on the economy, where no one would really care.
We're not pissed off you're lowering the bounties by 5% we're pissed off you're lowering them in way which makes no sense then trying to remedy that with a module which then goes against the whole point of lowering bounties for protection against inflation.
Can we please have a developer come in here and start answering the core questions asked and if you insist on going forward with the ESS start working with us so it becomes something both beneficial and wanted within EVE. Right now in this thread we're all seeing the CCP who made Incarna and not the CCP who made Crucible, if CCP Fozzie can delay changes to heating modules based on feedback why can't Super Friends do the same here?
Right now the issues you face are.
* ESS does not solve ISK generation or inflation issues if used, making the whole 5% bounties nerf pointless. * ESS doesn't do anything to create fights as is intended. * ESS Risk vs Reward isn't balanced. * None of the Sov holders want to use them. * Defenders are always at a disadvantaged when an organised roam comes into system (PVE vs PVP issue not an ESS one). * The four variants have no flavour at all. * The story/lore behind the ESS is unbelievable and unrealistic.
I would ask that others posting start making lists of issues like above in the hopes that CCP will rejoin the thread and start discussing and debating them.
*edit because I make awful typos. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:06:00 -
[29] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote: From dumb to dumber. Thanks for devaluing all 4 empire navy's LP. It's not like the people that grinded standings and missions for LP should be rewarded, naa screw that, make it so EVERY RAT IN NULL gives out navy LP!!
Edit: running numbers, that's about 15k LP per hour @ BASE, more when it upgrades. (based on 30mil ticks) Tell me about how you want to avoid inflation again?
If you're grinding Navy LP for money I think you're doing it wrong. Money from LP = SOE and Industry Corps, Navy LP has been the weakest for years because everyone think "working for the Navy will be cool!" then add the fact all the ships from the Navy stores are cheaper via FW where it's faster to grind LP.
In regards to the ESS thanks for the update. The move towards LP is nice however I still have some questions and concerns with the module.
* Will there still be a 95%/80% drop in bounties or are all the bounties changes stripped now this is an LP module.
* The 180 seconds might still be a too short time to dock, switch ships, form gang, undock, pew. Players doing PVE tend to be caught off guard when reds come in.
* Some more understanding how the pointed system works would be nice.
* Is there any chance of making it so someone who isn't from the Alliance which dropped it would have to play the hacking game in order to access this? It would add something extra for the hacking game, add more realism that players are breaking into the module as well as giving the new SoE ships another nice area of gameplay.
Otherwise I'm glad to see work is being done towards this module, thank you for partially restoring my confidence. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
My thoughts in regards to the LP concerns.
L1-4 Missions: This isn't exactly a bad thing as the community has been asking for nerfs to HighSec ISK for a very long time, having a slight hit in the LP value makes Empire a little less of the ultimate place to make ISK. Although as I stated in my previous post the real money from LP is currently not with any of the four Empire Navies, Factions like SoE, Thukker etc.
L5 Missions: It does harm these and it would be an idea for CCP to address L5 missions in finding a way to make them valuable again, although saying that FW LP income has already made most L5 missions not greatly viable.
More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Also being Navy LP we miss out on any chance at using the LP to gain Industry Implants, if the above was enabled it would be nice to have an LP store where we had access too all the non-FW LP items. The only way I see this working would be for CCP to add a new corporation for each Empire (xxxx Navy Requestions Corp.?) where it would have an LP store separate from those in Empire, this would also give CCP room to set the prices of items separate from those in Empire, maybe because we're not directly in the Empire helping they would cost a little more but we would at least have access to them any time. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
856
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Turelus wrote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Given what CCP has said in the past about the horrors involved in coding mission agents into outposts I assume this is technically infeasible especially for a point release. Well it would be more along the lines of a station service rather than an agent but I guess if the code is similar or tied you could be right. If they want to make the ESS work this would go a long way to making it more desirable though, I can't speak for every NullSec Capsuleer but the ability to buy new implants from an LP store in my home system would be amazing. Currently I need to go to Empire and either buy or cash in LP then haul/JF implants back home every time I get low on them, less dependants on Empire for a NullSec Alliance is always a good thing.
Still I threw the idea out there would be nice if it can be done! Please CCP... please! *puppy dog eyes* Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
857
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
Kenneth Skybound wrote:Here's an idea to "compensate the high sec mission runners".
ESS, rather than being seeded on the market directly, comes from LP stores and requires a minimum standing of 5.0 with the corp to buy it.
Could be made available from all high sec NPC corps (so not pirates/soe) such you could choose whose LP you are getting.
By requiring standing as well as LP it gives a small boon to mission runners as not everyone has 5.0 with every faction.
The LP sink (along with ISK sink) would offset some of the LP generated in this new deployable.
Becomes semi-renewable for the null-bear by means of LP able to buy a new one if the old one gets bust, so long as they had the standing in the first place (used to run missions).
Just a thought. In regards to them coming from LP stores I actually like that as it's another tie in where everyone in EVE effects everyone without having to directly be involved with each other.
I would still put forward my argument that the ESS should run off it's own LP and LP Store so that CCP can better balance the ISK/LP ratios of the NullSec LP and not cause any dramatic effects on the LP of a NPC corp already in the game. This would also let CCP hand pick which items the NullSec LP can be spent on if they want to keep some items at higher values. As others have stated L5 missions are already suffering enough from FW and L4 LP there isn't a need to further decrease their LP values by having people farming LP in NullSec able to buy all Navy LP items it will cause the value of everything but industrial implants to go down.
My idea works better with an implementation of an LP store in NullSec however (something others have already stated may not be possible) so the items on that specific LP list can be tailored to the things NullSec groups want easier access to in their space, Implants etc.
The current Navy LP stores are the same as all Combat LP stores (to my knowledge) meaning we would see all combat modules, combat implants, and skill books drop in value making the Industrial NPC corps much more viable to mission for.
FW is pretty much safe from this change due to their FW LP only items (implants, drones, cheaper ships). Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
857
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
Primus Fortune wrote:Better cash in your Lp now faction ship price are gonna drop like a stone. In before faction domi's are a fleet doc lol I don't think this will be the case. Currently most L4 mission runners don't use their LP on ships because they don't have a great ISK/LP ratio due to FW having the discount on all faction ships. Normally from the combat stores you will see people selling tanking and damage modules as these still have an okay LP/ISK ratio. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
857
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:32:00 -
[34] - Quote
Darth Kilth wrote:Wait wait wait, hold on.
So what you're saying is, LP goes directly to those Ratting and thus can not be stolen by those using the ESS? or LP is stored in the system wide pool just like the ISK and is Directly added to the wallet of the ratters or the thief as soon as either option on the ESS is used?
I still think the ESS is kind of useless and the time being put in it could have been put in better things, but at least it sounds a bit better now. It goes to the ESS but when you claim at the ESS it goes to your journal instead of printing tags, at least that's how I interpreted it. You'll still be able to steal the LP but you wont need to make a break for it in your ship with the LP in you cargo.
Which does bring the problem CCP of people using disposable newbie alts to try and steal the LP. Please add the hacking game so people need to bring a specific kind of ship to actually achieve this goal rather than newbie ships and pods (which admittedly we can just kill) Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
864
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: 1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS.
That's a shame to hear because it was (and still is) one of the biggest issues with anyone wanting to use one of these structures. With this gambling on the ISK it still seems that the module will most likely end up not being used.
CCP SoniClover wrote:4) Interacting with the ESS immediately gives you the option to either Share or Take all. Once either is selected a timer starts (length determined by choice), when timer finishes the system pool is emptied. Under this system I can see players sitting a rookie corp alt on the ESS seeing intel blink with a red one jump out, hitting claim and then docking their main up with no care if the alt doesn't make it out before the red kills them. They would receive the ISK due then their alt would reclone in station (presumably in system) with no care to being killed/podded.
CCP SoniClover would you also be able to answer the following?
* How feasible it would be to have the LP for a corporation not already in the game with a set choice of rewards (meaning current LP stores can keep some valued items).
* LP store services in NullSec stations/outposts meaning we can cash in our LP without a return trip to Empire (this would be very useful in getting new attribute implants out in NullSec)
* Is it possible or even feasible that attacking players would need to use the hacking mini-game to steal the LP giving Cov-Ops, T3 and SoE ships a more anti-player PVP role.
* Having the ESS be sold via LP stores in Empire so current mission runners have something new to sell and adding a new Empire/NullSec link where each benefits from the others needs. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
866
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:58:00 -
[36] - Quote
TL;DR: Delay the ESS from 1.1 and make it something worthy of EVE Online, not another failed feature.
I would also say that CCP might want to think about not placing the ESS in 1.1
There are some really great ideas coming from the community and a better back and forth with CCP about this module now, with some more time, testing and feedback it could actually be a fantastic module. I worry that if rushed out in 1.1 before people are happy with it we will just see it abandoned (like many features) while Super Friends are moved onto their next project for the summer expansion.
I understand things will never be perfect before they're deployed but a few more revisions and work on changes besides the base ESS module to help support it would make for a far better released feature (NullSec LP stores, Specific LP/Store Lists, Hacking games).
Make a thread in Features and Ideas and work with the community to create something worthy of EVE Online, not another feature which we're told will be finished/tweaked/fixed later and sits in a worthless state for over a year.
Once this thread turns from "still not worth using" to "OMG GOT TO HAVE" you know you're looking at something ready for release, you only have to look at the Hype for the Nestor vs the dread of this module and the changes it brings to see how one feature (which has had a thread up for a couple of months) is what players want vs the one which us only a couple of weeks old and people still don't want any where near TQ. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
876
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 11:06:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Well... trying not to be an ass but if you wanted to see 100 pages you could go poke some CCP people to post more answers to questions and keep the back and forth going...
Also I added another post for you. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
879
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: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. How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
879
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:50:00 -
[39] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea. Well if you go back and read my previous posts I was actually asking CCP if we can have the LP stores enabled in our own outposts so we can claim our goodies there. I think it's stupid needing to go back to Empire to redeem something we made in NullSec, but you were posting as it the -10 was crippling not that it was just annoying needing to head back to Empire to do something.
Initially when CCP SoniClover made the LP post I thought CCP had dropped all the stupid ISK games from this module and made it a gamble on LP, but the lP is just something to try and make it worth using, which it still isn't.
We have a 5% bounties nerf because NullSec is making too much ISK then a module which fixes that nerf entirely and even lets you bring in more ISK. The only way this module will have any effect on slowing the flow of ISK from NullSec is if it's so bad no one wants to use it, which... it exactly what its current state is.
This just means CCP might as well have nerfed all bounties in EVE by 5% announced they took steps to negate future inflation and spent all the Development time from this module working on some more positive.
I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this).
Predicting right here and now, the ESS will be a failed feature and not receive any updates or support post release (when Super Friends are moved to their next project) and I will go back and point to this very post on my phone when I speak to CCP Devs at fanfest about how the ESS was a failure.
I want to believe in CCP being a great company which understands what their game needs, and maybe I will eat my words after this five year plan is done but right now... five years is a long time to play in a sandbox full of dog poo.
/endrant.
Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
882
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:28:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Part of the issue in adding LP stores to Outposts, is which LP store goes in the outpost? NPC stations are affiliated with a single corp, and so are LP.
As for your "no one will use it"... several members of the CFC have already said the iterations to the module have increase the rewards to the point they are absolutely considering using it. You don't have to use it, but I'm fairly certain the latest iteration will be used.
I personally think the ESS access times need to be increased some: 1 Minute to get the share all option, 5 minutes to get the take all option. After that, the module is a great addition to the game!
I made a post asking CCP how viable a new Corporation for each Empire would be, something like a "Caldari Navy Requisitions Corp." (I know it's a terrible name) that was CCP could hand pick the LP items and values which wouldn't mess too much with with NPC corps being used in Empire. It would also mean they could mix items from both the combat and industry LP stores.
We could then rent LP stores in outposts for those corporations.
I'm sure there will be some people which will use the ESS, but I don't think it's going to be a resounding success like the Deport or MTU, which just means most of NullSec is going to end up with their line members making less ISK. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
883
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
I can't unsub in protest, I paid for a years sub a week before this was announced... somehow CCP knew.
I wouldn't say this is worth cancelling subs over but I think it's getting near the old ways of CCP not really understanding what its player base wants. Hopefully the ESS will continue to be work on after release but I honestly do see this as another Rapid Missile case where people say "It wont work" and CCP say "Nah it's fine" then after a month and the initial rage/indifference no one uses it and it sits in the game doing nothing.
I love the LP options it brings, I think more work to add the LP stores and new upgrades to NullSec are great, but the whole gambling of ISK and 5% reduction under this supposed need to reduce ISK from NullSec is just meh.
Also I think it's like three more posts until 100 pages now? Make 100 something shiny, colours and lights! Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
891
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
So the final iteration added some more rewards and made the module more complex but doesn't really solve some issues. I'm almost there with openly accepting the ESS and I think I could even learn to like it, however it has a lot of really odd/bad mechanics tacked on just to make it work.
Issue: 95% reduction in bounties is to slow inflation, however if the is module used it automatically makes bounties 100% possibly 105% and doesn't solve the inflation issues. This whole 5% still feels like an attempt to push people into using the module rather than any serious work to lower ISK income from NullSec.
Issue: Lore behind CONCORD and their cutting bounties is unbelievable, CONCORD can instantly travel anywhere in Empire, obliterate even capital ships but can't just adjust the true value of bounties across EVE, instead opting to just not pay 5% of what they said they would.
Solution Idea: Personally it would feel more beneficial/believable to lower the true values of Deadspace NPC bounties by 5% across EVE. This would have the desired reduction in ISK income, remove a confusing mechanic for people moving to NullSec for the first time, makes belt rats a little more valuable (considering their worthless vs anomalies as it is). This makes the lore more believable and the mechanics easier for everyone to understand.
Issue: Navy Faction stores don't offer industry implants/modules and if the ESS is highly used it may devalue a lot of LP items.
Solution idea: Create a new NPC Corporation for each Empire which is established specifically to build relations with the NullSec Capsuleer Alliances in order to try and keep them loyal, or work to mitigate their loss of control. From these corporations CCP can set specific items and prices, this means if CCP want modules like Navy Hardeners to still be a HighSec only earned item they don't add them to the store. The stores could instread focus on the items to make NullSec players every day lives easier, faction ammo, learning and hardwiring implants for example. Then have the option to install an LP Store/Office in your outposts for a cost per month (ISK SINK!) meaning players no longer need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in, they earn the LP in their space and get their rewards in their space.
Other ideas:
* Accessing the ESS without standings requires the hacking minigame, however the ESS would have no bubble/super-point. This gives roaming gangs two options, bring a skilled hacker/ship to steal from their targets or just shoot the thing and break it to "burn the fields" for a while. This also takes away some of the risk of instantly losing your money to roaming gangs but adds the annoyance that a roaming gang can come break your ISK printer. Reinforcement timers could be added to stop players repairing the module too soon meaning a burn does damage their income potential for a period of time. There could also be a chance/set % of ISK lost if your ESS is reinfoced this way. Gangs are more likely to fight if they see their ESS is being hit and they will lose that money if they don't stop the assault in time.
Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
891
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 23:57:00 -
[43] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:It seems to me that most of the problems stem from there being 2 kinds of fitting: PvE and PvP. If they were one and the same, wouldn't people feel less need to run away when a neut enters a system? If your PvE fit was also your PvP fit, how would that change the equation in Null? Pretty much, I'm still dreaming of the days CCP do a PVE overhaul where we would see it closer to PVP. Very hard to manage though. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
|
|
|