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) |
Lady Tatanka
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:47:00 -
[511] - Quote
This is dumb.
Also if you actually implement this horrible idea please actually just decrease bounties by 5% instead of doing whatever the hell with "concord taxes", it just looks sloppy. "Team Super Friends" spent 8 months working on this, it should at least be implemented in a proper fashion regardless of whether or not it is a good idea. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4795
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:50:00 -
[512] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Rekkr Nordgard wrote: The point is that adding a deployable that doesn't harm them won't effect their behavior. Duh.
I think a neut deploying a deployable that reduces a group of carrier ratters' income by 20% will have a very distinct effect on their behavior. I think if said ratters are renters and limited to a small number of systems, covering their handful of allowed ratting systems will have a very profound effect on their behavior.
One hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour is likely to be negligible: at present if neutrals enter a system (or are heading down an intel-monitored pipe to a system) the ratters will dock up or head to a POS. If neutrals enter a system and deploy an ESS, the existing behaviour will not change. (this is a hypothesis, it can be tested but is not yet proven).
Another hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour will be noticeable: the thinking is that by deploying a structure that needs to be shot (or at least guarded), someone will come to shoot it at which point you can spring a logon trap or otherwise cause a fight to happen. This hypothesis correlates roughly with the existing behaviour of "deploy mobile warp disruptor, log off, wait for bot to warp back to belt". The difference is that in this case if the bot continues to rat in other belts, the invader still gets rewarded and the bot still gets punished.
A third hypothesis is that deploying an ESS will simply prompt an "overwhelming power" style response from whatever standing fleet happens to be in operation in that space. Thus bringing a fight (if not necessarily the fight that the deployer was expecting).
In answer to the first hypothesis (i.e.: that ESS changes nothing): you have nothing to complain about except that developer time was spent on this frippery instead of refactoring POS code and untangling the spaghetti.
So which of the three will turn out to be correct? Will offensively deploying ESS bring any kind of reaction from the locals? Will entrepreneurs deploying ESS to increase their ratting income bring any kind of reaction from roaming gangs?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Xanos Xellos
Absolute Massive Destruction Cult of War
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:52:00 -
[513] - Quote
This has got to be the most ******** crap i've ever seen.
If you arn't going to get rid of it, at least limit access to the corporation that anchored and associate it with a role. |
TD746
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:55:00 -
[514] - Quote
I dont know what you guys are thinking, but you need to realize, you are essentially telling us:
Oh you're NRDS? you live in Providence? we're going to nerf 5% of your bounties (in a space that is already one of the poorest in null)
Noone will allow one of these to exist in our systems due to our engagement rules.
If you just want to punish US *US* of all effing people....people who live and die by smallgang warfare and trying to pull more people into null. Then go ahead with the ESS as designed. We are the good guys for christssake!!!
I respect the thinking that you could deploy an ESS in some backwater system at the edge of the galaxy, and maybe it would create more risk/reward and some smallgang skirmishes. Its just going to gimp us in Providence...
Maybe thats your intention...who knows.
Yeah this is whining, and its valid whining. I dont say otherwise and Im not the least bit ashamed. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
674
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:57:00 -
[515] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: One hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour is likely to be negligible: at present if neutrals enter a system (or are heading down an intel-monitored pipe to a system) the ratters will dock up or head to a POS. If neutrals enter a system and deploy an ESS, the existing behaviour will not change. (this is a hypothesis, it can be tested but is not yet proven).
Another hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour will be noticeable: the thinking is that by deploying a structure that needs to be shot (or at least guarded), someone will come to shoot it at which point you can spring a logon trap or otherwise cause a fight to happen. This hypothesis correlates roughly with the existing behaviour of "deploy mobile warp disruptor, log off, wait for bot to warp back to belt". The difference is that in this case if the bot continues to rat in other belts, the invader still gets rewarded and the bot still gets punished.
A third hypothesis is that deploying an ESS will simply prompt an "overwhelming power" style response from whatever standing fleet happens to be in operation in that space. Thus bringing a fight (if not necessarily the fight that the deployer was expecting).
In answer to the first hypothesis (i.e.: that ESS changes nothing): you have nothing to complain about except that developer time was spent on this frippery instead of refactoring POS code and untangling the spaghetti.
So which of the three will turn out to be correct? Will offensively deploying ESS bring any kind of reaction from the locals? Will entrepreneurs deploying ESS to increase their ratting income bring any kind of reaction from roaming gangs?
Good post. I think the likely answer is that players will follow the 'path of least resistance', as they always have; Inevitably escalating to ratters keeping an interceptor or battlecruiser sniper in the hangar to dispose of the extra space trash most efficiently before heading back to their (further nerfed) nullsec space jobs.
I forgot the people that would use these in their own systems. These are the same types of people who officer-fit ships for level 4s, or sell produced goods under cost "because minerals are free". In other words, idiots. They will always exist, yep. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Vela
The PAIN Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:07:00 -
[516] - Quote
Can we put up an ESS in the CCP office, would like to see how many employess offer 20% of there income up for gambling
i know Eve != RL but behind these ideas are real person(serious Spaceship games !!)
|
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:10:00 -
[517] - Quote
MasterAsher wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Oh and the ESS should be deployable in all space. Go suspect if you get within 20 km of one. I AGREE WITH THIS! please F*** everyone equally please.
not empty quoting |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:14:00 -
[518] - Quote
ahahahahaha, this is an excellent gag deployable to post to your dev blog. Too bad you got the timestamp on the blog post wrong. 1/4/2014 is far more appropriate. |
TD746
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:18:00 -
[519] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:[quote=Mara Rinn] Good post. I think the likely answer is that players will follow the 'path of least resistance', as they always have; Inevitably escalating to ratters keeping an interceptor or battlecruiser sniper in the hangar to dispose of the extra space trash most efficiently before heading back to their (further nerfed) nullsec space jobs.
I forgot the people that would use these in their own systems. These are the same types of people who officer-fit ships for level 4s, or sell produced goods under cost "because minerals are free". In other words, idiots. They will always exist, yep.
Thats great when youre 30 jumps from highsec and you're NBSI...
when youre 2 jumps from highsec and encouraging new players to taste null for the first time because youre NRDS...all it is is a nerf for us. |
Fix Lag
609
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:19:00 -
[520] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:ahahahahaha, this is an excellent gag deployable to post to your dev blog. Too bad you got the timestamp on the blog post wrong. 1/4/2014 is far more appropriate.
I don't see what'd be so different about posting it ten days ago |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
774
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:21:00 -
[521] - 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 |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:21:00 -
[522] - Quote
So this ESS thing is serious and not some troll?
1. If you need 9 paragraphs and 16 bullet points to explain a deployable and at the end of all that I still say "WTF?" then you did something wrong. If this thing ends up on TQ it's a crime against your customers.
2. You seriously think nullsec rewards need an overall 5% nerf, and the only way to get that back is to jump through a bunch of hoops with a horribly designed deployable? If this thing ends up on TQ it should be able to be used anywhere, including hisec incursion systems.
3. With all of the things that need to be fixed in this game (sov, POS, drone interface, etc) it is completely unbelievable that 1 second of dev time was spent on a new feature as absurd and horribly designed as this. Yes, the car doesn't run right, but we put a fake chrome hubcap on the front wheel. Seriously, how did this even make it past an initial concept discussion?
4. Would someone please explain to me how you think this will create PvP content? When a neut comes into system, everyone who docks up now will still dock up. Then they will stay docked up till the neut leaves, and then will have to go blow this useless heap of crap up. Yes CCP, we need one more pointless tedious mechanic in this game to deal with.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2948
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:22:00 -
[523] - Quote
I can only assume the intention behind this deployable is another step in forcing every 0.0 resident to pay up for a second account or buy PLEX to multitrain a highsec money making alt.
ESS? More like ESS Aitch Eye Tee. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong. |
Fix Lag
611
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:24:00 -
[524] - Quote
Apparently, the people at CCP in charge of redesigning and improving nullsec have never actually lived in nullsec. |
Yosef Brinalle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:24:00 -
[525] - Quote
Why do empires pay bounties in nullsec anyway? Why would an empire pay to protect space that is controled by no one or worse - controled by a capsuleer corp that is hostile to empire interests anyway? If anyone was paying it should be any capsuleer corp who has sov. What a sorry excuse for a social engineering game mechanic. But then again, EVE is full of those. |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:25:00 -
[526] - Quote
Royaldo wrote:Really.. this is what you come up with?
Have you guys completely lost it? This is terrible.
Don't worry Roy, i'm making a push to revive the provi-bloc incursion community. After all provi is utter **** and there's no reason for us to live here anymore.
Thanks for the 5% nerf CCP.
No seriously, this is a terrible terrible idea. We need more people in 0.0, not in hi-sec running incursions.
The idea of 'promoting more pvp' behind this is ****, 4/5 gangs are inties, 15km unwarpable? Does it even affect inties? In any case that's peanuts for a ship that does 4km a second. And that's the problem, 'oh hey guys, we have some inties on the ECC or whatever it's called', 'give me a minute to reship into my x ship'. Boom, gang is gone, say goodbye to your isk (because most gangs only fight when they can win, ya know?). There is NO response time unless you are sitting an alt on it. Oh yeah and small gangs usually run kitey so being forced to warp in at 15 km is lols for them, they will punish you for warping to it, taking out your tackle.
The more i see of this expansion the more i think it's the 'nerf null sec' expansion and the more i think 'Hey why am i not doing incursions in hi-sec making isk at a better rate in 99.9% security and just coming to null to roam? I don't have any towers, i have no attachment that stops me living in high sec and i can make better isk there'. Seriously CCP, get with the game, idiotic ideas will kill this game and you seem to have no shortage of them. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:26:00 -
[527] - Quote
what ever happened to Features and Ideas Discussion?
it seems like the only devs who actually use this forum are fozzie and rise.
when they come up with an idea they post thier thoughts and let a discussion about the feature...
but all the other teams pretty much just read the forum come up with an idea they think is neat run it by the csm and then just make a dev blog and put it in the game...
i am not saying its a bad way to devlop it sure does save time... but what it does do is not include the player base in the discussion wich leads to half assed idea of the new deployable.
if you had made a thread and put the ideas out for vetting we would have pointed out all the problems and helped iterate on the idea.
what i would have done is made the new deloyable give not isk for tags but tags that can be traded for items that can be sold...
perhaps something for contruction of something for new items that can be made...
that way there is no extra isk faucet but an extra way to make people in 0.0 make isk from existing isk already in game.
i do like the idea of having extra stuff to fight over i just wished that more then two devs used Features and ideas and had open disuccions with the player base to come up with stuff that will make all parties happy. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:30:00 -
[528] - Quote
Also, if this nerf to nullsec income happens I'm moving to hisec to gank day old noobs till they quit the game. Nerf my income I'll nerf yours. |
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:32:00 -
[529] - Quote
DBL POST BECAUSE IDEA IS SO TERRIBLE. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4743
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:35:00 -
[530] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Also, if this nerf to nullsec income happens I'm moving to hisec to gank day old noobs till they quit the game. Nerf my income I'll nerf yours.
. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4307
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:40:00 -
[531] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Rekkr Nordgard wrote: The point is that adding a deployable that doesn't harm them won't effect their behavior. Duh.
I think a neut deploying a deployable that reduces a group of carrier ratters' income by 20% will have a very distinct effect on their behavior. I think if said ratters are renters and limited to a small number of systems, covering their handful of allowed ratting systems will have a very profound effect on their behavior. One hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour is likely to be negligible: at present if neutrals enter a system (or are heading down an intel-monitored pipe to a system) the ratters will dock up or head to a POS. If neutrals enter a system and deploy an ESS, the existing behaviour will not change. (this is a hypothesis, it can be tested but is not yet proven). Another hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour will be noticeable: the thinking is that by deploying a structure that needs to be shot (or at least guarded), someone will come to shoot it at which point you can spring a logon trap or otherwise cause a fight to happen. This hypothesis correlates roughly with the existing behaviour of "deploy mobile warp disruptor, log off, wait for bot to warp back to belt". The difference is that in this case if the bot continues to rat in other belts, the invader still gets rewarded and the bot still gets punished. A third hypothesis is that deploying an ESS will simply prompt an "overwhelming power" style response from whatever standing fleet happens to be in operation in that space. Thus bringing a fight (if not necessarily the fight that the deployer was expecting). In answer to the first hypothesis (i.e.: that ESS changes nothing): you have nothing to complain about except that developer time was spent on this frippery instead of refactoring POS code and untangling the spaghetti. So which of the three will turn out to be correct? Will offensively deploying ESS bring any kind of reaction from the locals? Will entrepreneurs deploying ESS to increase their ratting income bring any kind of reaction from roaming gangs?
4. move to high sec and do incursions/soe missions, FW farming, cosmos farming without having to worry abuot this crap.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:42:00 -
[532] - Quote
I'd ask that all posters in this thread please refrain from terrible kneejerk posting. Things added to rubicon directly threatened the way I make money in this game, and did I complain? No, I adapted. I recommend you all do the same.
Here is a hint: if your post attempts to call CCP out for "wasting development resources" when they could have instead gone to whatever game feature you feel entitled to having, you are in grave danger of making a terrible kneejerk post. You can do better. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
272
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:48:00 -
[533] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Also, if this nerf to nullsec income happens I'm moving to hisec to gank day old noobs till they quit the game. Nerf my income I'll nerf yours.
But don't worry CCP, I'm sure the income you'll lose will be less than 5% of what you make. Which apparently is the percentage you're perfectly fine with simply arbitrarily eliminating for us. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:48:00 -
[534] - Quote
Id like to see the isk income from ratting compared to FW and incursions across eve. apparently ccp thinks there is far too much nullsec income despite all the added danger. personally i dont see it, I could make much more isk running incursions than ratting. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
624
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:52:00 -
[535] - Quote
Its a 30m isk structure. 105% ratting @ 60m/hr (Ishtar - hub) = 10 hours of -full- bonus ratting to pay back the cost of the stupid structure if it gets blown up, and in order to leave it running at full bonus, I'd have to let 150m isk build up in the thing.
If I don't let 150m isk build up in the thing, then I keep doing overhead tasks (warp to pos, reship to captor, warp to structure, wait doing nothing for a timer), that bring the net effect of the structure back down to nil benefit over the base 95%
ie if I don't leave giant piles of isk in it, then it will probably have to survive 100 hours (of ratting, not elapsed 100 hours) to make -any- isk.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4744
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 01:59:00 -
[536] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Its a 30m isk structure. 105% ratting @ 60m/hr (Ishtar - hub) = 10 hours of -full- bonus ratting to pay back the cost of the stupid structure if it gets blown up, and in order to leave it running at full bonus, I'd have to let 150m isk build up in the thing.
If I don't let 150m isk build up in the thing, then I keep doing overhead tasks (warp to pos, reship to interceptor, warp to structure, wait doing nothing for a timer), that bring the net effect of the structure back down to nil benefit over the base 95%
ie if I don't leave giant piles of isk in it, then it will probably have to survive 100 hours (of ratting, not elapsed 100 hours) to make -any- isk. Get friends instead of trying to solo the system? . |
Vahl Ahashion
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:00:00 -
[537] - Quote
The idea of the ESS is not bad but the current execution is awful.
Firstly the risk reward is completely messed up. As others have pointed out any roaming interceptor can empty out the ESS in under half a minute at no risk to themselves. Even roamers not in an interceptor can probably do this as the ratters scramble to get their ships to safety. With the reward being only a maximum of 5% it is simply not worth risking 20% of your ratting income.
A less significant issue as its basically a social problem is that they will probably lead to many diplomatic incidents as people "accidentally" steal other blues income. For this reason there is a good chance many organizations will simply ban them
Due to the aforementioned mess up of the risk reward mechanic this represents a nerf to nullsec income. With nullsec income already below faction warfare income and insufficiently rewarding compared to high sec for the additional risk this represents further damage to an already insufficiently rewarding area of the game.
The cost of the deployable is too high for it too function as a harassment tool, if you bring a small group or one person you will be killed by the residents, who will destroy your ESS. If you bring a large group then the residents will safe up, not rat (thereby earning you no isk), wait for you to go, and then kill your ESS. There is no way you will ever come close to making back your investment using this as a harassment tool.
Ratters will not use this because the risk reward is terrible and its a unworthwhile hassle. Roamers will not use this because they will never recoup their investment.
Furthermore the whole get tags that you cash in back in highsec is a very questionable choice. CCP has talked many times about trying to make nullsec less reliant on high sec, this forces you to return to high sec. As someone else also pointed out, the tags don't make it necessary for you to be careful getting out safely because on the off chance anyone actually uses these they will be exclusively robbed by interceptors, who cannot be caught barring a major fuckup.
There are ways to make this work, increasing the reward factor is the most simple one. But really all of the numbers need to be rethought. One attractive option would be to radically increase the reward provided by the ESS but make it so it takes all bounties and can only be emptied every half hour or so. In addition it could broadcast its location across the surrounding region. This would necessitate it be defended and encourage small gangs to try to engage and rob them. Holy Hell! look how easy it is to add co-operative game play and small gang opportunities to null sec.
The current implementation is terrible, look at it again and redo the figures. |
Fortorn Lonshanks
Adeptus Incursio
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:04:00 -
[538] - Quote
Anariasis wrote: There's s.th. seriously wrong with risk vs reward in ratting though. The ISK/h should be 0.0 Ratting >>> FW > HS Incursions.
While I think ratting should be different in 0.0 in the sense that anoms and such should offer income at a better rate than now I disagree with the model above.
I don't see folks ratting in 5bisk ships in null sec that arent capital ships.
Flying those shiny pirate BS around has gank danger too. |
RaiaStarSkimmer7
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:06:00 -
[539] - Quote
Let me get this right. You want a deployable that anyone can warp to and see my name with how much isk i've made? Would you like to deploy a mail box that everyone can read my personal sex chats too?
I wont even waste my time on all the fail that this thing has but it has more worthless mechanics than my local pep-boys. |
stoicfaux
3834
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:08:00 -
[540] - Quote
ISK sinks are the future of Eve? Reducing an ink faucet, in my Eve?
/grumble
WASABI: -áWarp Speed Module
|
|
|
|
|
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 |