EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 37 post(s)
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Nulli Secunda 541	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:23:00 - [391] - Quote Angry Mustache wrote: There's a lot of potential in a thing like this, what about an alteration. Price : 500 million, decent EHP (500k to 1M) Can be anchored anywhere, takes LP as well as Isk Projects a 300km sphere where concord jurisdiction is disabled. inner 50km warp disruption field. Access is limited to the anchoring party, and can by standing, by corp, etc. Bam, instant conflict driver. Who gets to control the one in Osmon? who gets to control the ones in an incursion system? This idea is kinda dumb, yet it's still a better love story than Twilight... ... and Twilight is still a better experience than reading that dev. blog was!
Rekkr Nordgard The Ardency of Faith 268	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:24:00 - [392] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: Instead of allocating developer resources to things that matter and need to be fixed or improved (POS mechanics.... Playing devils advocate for CCP....maybe they are doing just that. Consider 2 things, if you will. 1) The main hurdle to improving POS is the legacy code which CCP apparently can't touch, particularly as it applies to the Pos bubble. 2) We get a new bubble (the MSI) which projects a new effect (dscan jamming) over a bubble. This is linked to some new capabilities they've been developing. Seems to me that these "new capabilities" could be used for removing OGB and a new POS system. Just saying... If this were the case, then CCP would do well to straight out tell us what they're doing. This would help reduce criticism and focus feedback. Simply handing us crap like this deployable and expecting us to accept it because it MIGHT someday somewhere down the line result in fixing POSes is ridiculous. Also, they should stick with deployables that actually replace functions POSes currently perform instead of trying to introduce garbage nobody asked for or wants, at least until POSes have been completely replaced.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5977	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:25:00 - [393] - Quote 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. There were a few other things they said were presented to the CSM but NDAed the sections. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
Andy Koraka PonyWaffe Insidious Empire 23	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:25:00 - [394] - Quote Conceptually I like the ESS but with it's current tuning noone will use it since it's a risk with essentially no reward. I currently picture most people eating the 5% income nerf rather than risking an extra 15% of their income. If they did plop one down I picture someone's salvage alt sitting on the ESS spamming the share buttan so that the payout is the normal 100%. As it is most of my corp finds their income outside of Nullsec because you can get the same or better income from other places, most of which end up actually being much better since running an incursion you'll never have your fleet interrupted by a hot-drop. It would be MUCH more interesting if for example the ESS collected a large portion of system bounties (50%?), but in return gave a significant scaling bonus to incentivize their usage, something along the lines 5% per 100m so that when the ESS pool hits 1b all the ratters are making 50% more isk. The "risk" of a random interceptor running off with your tags would be balanced by the "reward" of higher income when you successfully defend your space. That setup would give roamers a juicy target to seek out, while also giving ratters a compelling reason to e rather than safe up when neutrals pass by. Plus it would actually balance the risk/reward aspect of null income to sit between Highsec L4s (100m/hour) and Solo WH stuff (200m/hour).
Cori Fera 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:25:00 - [395] - Quote Quote: 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." What do you think the Pirate Detection Array and Entrapment Array do currently? This is a "Farms and Fields" counter to those types of arrays.
Dave Stark 4181	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:26:00 - [396] - Quote 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.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5977	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:27:00 - [397] - Quote On another note: for the new named siphons, are there bpos for these or do they drop some other way. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
Fix Lag 603	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:29:00 - [398] - Quote Would everyone be opposed to this if it meant both an increase in ratter income and additional fights? Probably not. But that's not what's happening here. It's a bullshit nerf that AT BEST reduces someone's income by 5%, because if you do the math you have to rat for like 20+ hours without getting fucked over by an enemy gang AND THEN have to hope that whoever presses the button on the stupid structure doesn't take everything for himself. Neither of those things are realistic in the slightest, which if CCP had even the least grasp of their own game they'd understand. Oh, and the payout for not getting your shit stolen is something like 1m/tick. What a great idea, CCP. What a great idea.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5977	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:30:00 - [399] - 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. dominion sov and dominion supercaps were reworked "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
Batolemaeus Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 16	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:34:00 - [400] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Seriously CCP, when CFC, N3, Provi and NPC 0.0 people tell you it's bad, rethink it. When Dinsdale agrees with Goons, the freaking end is nigh. A good point. I-N did feel a little chilly today. Perhaps 0.0 is freezing over? Come to think of it, this consensus seems to be a first in many years. If you put coalitions into the same jabber channel you'll usually end up with at least n^3 opinions and the same number of wars within a very short timespan. Hell, I can rarely reach a consensus with myself of many game issues. Weaselior wrote: dominion sov and dominion supercaps were reworked [Expletives]

Pinky Hops Spartan's DNA 222	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:35:00 - [401] - 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?
Dave Stark 4181	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:39:00 - [402] - Quote Weaselior wrote: 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. dominion sov and dominion supercaps were reworked yes, but those things are mildly interesting. the ESS doesn't even have that going for it. it's dull, uninteresting, and a really bad excuse to nerf nullsec rat bounties by 5%. edit: **** this forum for eating half of my post.
Kismeteer GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 566	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:43:00 - [403] - Quote Why couldn't someone do these in an empire level 4 mission hub? That would actually be somewhat exciting because someone would always drop one. And you immediately get a suspect tag when firing or entering the bubble? I think it's dumb from a 0.0 space perspective though. People just won't deploy them to collect the extra 5%. It will just be another griefing tool that will get dropped, some interceptor warps at range to get a warp in bookmark, comes back in a sniping BC, and boom boom bye bye. The ratter is only paid off when 600 mil in bounties are passed (30 mil / 0.05 lost income). The griefer is only paid fof when 150mil in bounties are passed (30 mil / 0.20 stolen income), and that assumes he has someone ratting there after he's dropped one of these. The targets most likely won't keep ratting if he stays, or it's still up. They'd kill it or dock up. I am disappointed that time and effort is spent on this rather than fixing any one of the MANY issues we have with the game. It's not quite walking-in-stations-level bad, but stop doing new things, fix broken **** already. Things like Interceptor changes == good, more broken game play modes == bad.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 4303	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:44:00 - [404] - Quote This smacks of old ccp thinking. The original system's upgrades (anomalies) nerf had the stated goal of "driving conflict" ie people would fight for better space. But for some reason CCP didn't understand that no one fights for ratting space, and rather than deal with systems with no good anoms, individual pilots just shipped isk making alts to high sec to run incursions and such. That means that rather then being a juicy battleship or carrier killmail waiting to happen, those guys were now isking up under the protection of CONCORD. A plan to boost conflict ended up dampening it lol. Same thing here. Alliances will develop a "no ESS policy" for members because those ESS will be beacons encouraging raiders to come to ratting grounds. the 5% nerf to bounties isn't that bad till you consider the fact that high sec pve is already too competative with null sec anom farming. The only way this change ends up driving new conflict is when ratters realize that npc 0.0 missions are better isk than anoms now and they move in there, driving down even further the prices of some popular pirate ships. On the plus side, 400 mil macharieal and nightmares y'all! I aslo predicted even longer lines/wait lists for high sec incursion fleets, plus even more contesting and multiple fleet fight ove I really hope you guys at CCP rethink this. While it won't put a dent in my sisters missioning/incursioning, I think it's a bad idea.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5980	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:45:00 - [405] - Quote 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.pdf Page 42 of the minutes. I'm pretty sure this was the EPP that was being discussed, given the description of the feature. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
Pinky Hops Spartan's DNA 223	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:52:00 - [406] - 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.pdf Page 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.
Alcorak Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden 11	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:53:00 - [407] - Quote I changed my mind. Stilletto now has best isk/hr at almost no risk and i get to screw over bot-ratting carriers. And I'll never need to run another anom! Bring on the ESS!
PotatoOverdose Handsome Millionaire Playboys 881	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:55:00 - [408] - Quote On the other hand.... dropping a few of these in all of the particular systems given to a particular renter would force them to either come and destroy it (creating a fight) or ceding 20% of all income made by everyone in that system.
Kismeteer GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 566	Posted - 2014.01.14 21:55:00 - [409] - Quote Weaselior wrote: 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.pdf Page 42 of the minutes. I'm pretty sure this was the EPP that was being discussed, given the description of the feature. CCP always consults the CSM on their changes, especially on ones on a scale like this, correct?
JR Morgan Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:02:00 - [410] - Quote I would have to say that this along with the anom nerf are the two worst ideas since I have played the game. C'MON CCP

Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5982	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:02:00 - [411] - Quote Pinky Hops wrote: 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. That's because there wasn't one. They deliberately did not include information on what was reworked (which is how they treated every other discussion of a potential feature that hadn't been announced as of the minutes being released). I am inferring what this was. Kismeteer wrote: CCP always consults the CSM on their changes, especially on ones on a scale like this, correct? One hopes! "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 478	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:05:00 - [412] - Quote There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse. Free Ripley Weaver!
Josef Djugashvilis Acme Mining Corporation 1955	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:10:00 - [413] - Quote Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote: You're supposed to make people want to live in nullsec more, not less. As much as I consider some null-sec posters to be irritating professional whingers, ^^^ this really. This is not a signature.
MailDeadDrop Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities 237	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:13:00 - [414] - Quote Kaeda Maxwell wrote: Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS. mynnna wrote: The two options either return the bounties to their owners or result in tags that get sold to NPCs. No reduction unless absolutely no one uses them, sorry. I disagree. ESS introduction in Rubicon 1.1 has a 5% reduction in nullsec bounty payouts. So unless enough ESS units are allowed to get into the bonus range ( >100% to 105%) to make up that "5% across all nullsec bounties" reduction, then Kaeda is correct: introduction of ESS constitutes a global ISK faucet reduction. MDD
PotatoOverdose Handsome Millionaire Playboys 883	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:26:00 - [415] - Quote MailDeadDrop wrote: So unless enough ESS units are allowed to get into the bonus range ( >100% to 105%) to make up that "5% across all nullsec bounties" reduction Honestly, why not just do this? Will keep people from whining and moaning about their 5%. Keep all bounties as they currently are with no ESS deployed. With ESS deployed gain 5% bounty but potentially loose 20% of income generated if someone else loots the ESS. If locals don't want to risk it, they don't anchor one, and everything stays as is. If neutrals come in and put one up, you either form up to fight the neuts/kill the ESS or pay the 20% tithe for being risk averse. Seems like a win/win to me.
IrJosy Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation 94	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:28:00 - [416] - Quote Soldarius wrote: There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse. Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced. The ESS couples with that bad idea by making ratters bubble themselves as they desperately try to remove an ess while a nullified inty webs them in their own ess bubble to kil them.
PotatoOverdose Handsome Millionaire Playboys 883	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:29:00 - [417] - Quote IrJosy wrote: Soldarius wrote: There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse. Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced. Did that actually happen? Got a link where rise said that?
IrJosy Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation 94	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:30:00 - [418] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: IrJosy wrote: Soldarius wrote: There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse. Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced. Did that actually happen? Got a link where rise said that? It was in person at eve vegas.
Snowflake Tem The Order of Symbolic Measures 101	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:37:00 - [419] - Quote Re-read all the posts and get the negative vibe. Disruptive, noisy and in your face blatant sponging. No benefit to destroying the irritant. No way to curtail it's deployment. No way to restrict is production unless it is seeded very cleverly. Needs a tap or two with nerf bat.
DeadDuck Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 68	Posted - 2014.01.14 22:38:00 - [420] - Quote TBH this ESS deployable unit it's a crappy idea. Confusing concept, adding almost no content at all. You are losing the north again CCP... . Take a god damn good look at the sov system in 0.0. Thats what you need to do. Passing 7 days to conquer a single system shooting Defender SBU's, IHUB's, TCU's, Stations (at least) to be able to claim a single system is ********. In Rubicon 1.0 you added 3 more structures and now you are preparing 3 more...



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.