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) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18899
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:57:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Other than the fact.... It doesn't fail at the word structure. Alliance LP is an entirely different matter than this structure, since the alliances themselves get to decide the value of it and have to provide all the stock for the LP store also. You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, all of which pretty much disqualify it from being an actual LP store.
Quote:Just because you don't like structures, doesn't mean they are bad. They are if they just produce meaningless busywork for no good reason. If there is something this game is desperately not in need of right now, it's more structure HP to bash because it's in your way.
Alliance LP would allow them to reduce bounties and replace part of the bounties with LP, reclaimable at your local alliance outpost for the same terms as LP stores everywhere else. Less ISK enters the system; more ISK leaves the system; nullseccers gain access to the same (NPC) goods and services as highseccers, only with some of the pointlesss crud filtered out. Thus, part of the income would be subject to the same risk as all market activity and investments (just slap a hideous fee and/or timer on being able to replace the list of items the store carries).
Granted, if the economy-adjusting purpose was just a case of poor communication, then the income reduction is rendered needless as well, which only leaves the gambling risk GÇö the market amply provides that already, again more neatly and more clearly. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:59:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Ah, so you want a magical NPC goods faucet instead that alliances can pick & choose what magical goods they don't have to bother producing? Yes.... That's a great idea instead of having a structure that can cause fights because it's worth defending but not so big that it needs a 250 man fleet to fight over. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16470
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:01:00 -
[1053] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior 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.
Your own economist says otherwise. Quote:The next graph showed the money supply. Overall, the money supply is evening out--changes to systems have reduced the ISK supply, so average ISK in active wallets is stable as of November 2012 and the maximum amount may even be peaking. While Mike points out that the leveling-out at the top of the graph is very short, Dr. EyjoG responded that it was the first plateau visible at all. Sinks and faucets are fairly balanced right now, with a bit more faucet than sink to allow for economic growth. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdfThis explanation doesn't hold water and you've published something to that effect. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Eyjo is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. I'm talking about the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties. 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. How is that apples and oranges? He talks about ISK faucets and inflation, which includes bounties. Doesn't it?
But the question still remains, why is this needed to begin with? What was the rational behind this idea? Why does null sec ratting income need a nerf?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18899
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:02:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Ah, so you want a magical NPC goods faucet instead that alliances can pick & choose what magical goods they don't have to bother producing? No more magic than what's already in the game. Unless you're suggesting that LP stores be removed from agent corps as wellGǪ?
The fact that it's a goods faucet means there will be conflict created by default. A simple structure won't, especially not at the return rates that they feel comfortable with. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
818
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:05:00 -
[1055] - 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 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1298
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:05:00 -
[1056] - 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.
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. +1 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18899
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:12:00 -
[1057] - Quote
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 GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
820
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:18:00 -
[1058] - 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 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1298
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:22:00 -
[1059] - Quote
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 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. +1 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18903
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:30:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: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. GǪwhich still won't fight, so nothing will be created there.
Quote: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. That's all good and well, but by doing so, you've already reduced their income. That's not even a remotely sane reason to collectively punish all null inhabitants. If you want to annoy the locals in a system with some honeypot structure, there's already the scan inhibitor GÇö something that is a potential immediate threat that needs swift action, not something that might inconvenience a few who won't bother until you've left anyway GÇö why do you need one that is only meant to counteract a nerf that affects all off null?
Again, they're only creating a problem to give this solution a reason to exist. That means it has no reason to exist. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
820
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:30:00 -
[1061] - 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 |
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1284
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:31:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Why would they undock with you in system? They will wait for you to leave and THEN they will attempt to destroy ESS. No more, no less fights than now. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
376
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:32:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:seth Hendar wrote: so you mean that we need to actually do another protest in jita and stuf, with mass unsub, leading to some of you guys being fired for you to finally listen to us?
seems we have a deal then.....
If you are going to unsub over a couple of percent (Unless you are drone lands it's not a full 5% income loss), assuming you accept the loss and don't take any gambles to make profit, you truly are a precious carebear, HTFU. Or get lost to WoW. Really, you are being more precious than the true highsec carebears were over the nerfs to armour incursions with marauder changes. Stop being a drama queen, give more serious feedback, get the rest of the CSM also giving feedback as well as those who already have posted. Bring pressure to make it what it could be, rather than 'Waaaah, I hate it, just delete it all now' i don't even live neither in null or high, so you better wtch your mouth, i'm not especially upset about this ESS, it's more about the attitude of CCP constantly ignoring players feedback, if you had an iq> 2 you would have understood
i gave serious feedback, many time since YEARS, including many bug reports and been in many mass test, only to see CCP just ignore the whole thing.
so keep your HTFU, some ppl really care about how bad he current path is, seriously get lost, you just are dumb if you don't understand this |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1298
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:36:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote: Why would they undock with you in system? They will wait for you to leave and THEN they will attempt to destroy ESS. No more, no less fights than now.
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. +1 |
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1284
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:37:00 -
[1065] - Quote
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 I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1059
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:38:00 -
[1066] - Quote
ESS should have a long (~20-30 minute) anchoring time.
After anchored, it should have a 1-2 day reinforcement timer, where it continues to function. Reinforcement notifies the person who placed it as to when it comes out of rf.
NOW it can start fights. You get 30 minutes to respond, or your system has an ESS reducing bounties for the next 1-2 days. When the ESS comes out of RF, you get another fight over claiming anything in it. |
Infiltrator2112
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
31
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:39:00 -
[1067] - 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.
As a fulltime 0.0 player, the only thing I do not do in nullsec is making ISK. Give me a reason to move my incursion- and manufacturing-alts from empire to 0.0, not the other way around, please. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1298
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:40:00 -
[1068] - Quote
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. +1 |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:44:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Good to hear that a blanket nerf is not needed.. Why tie this structure up to isk at all, why not make it generate lp? |
Zappity
Kurved Space
764
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:47:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Good to hear that a blanket nerf is not needed.. Why tie this structure up to isk at all, why not make it generate lp? Tags... I bet there will be a function attached to them eventually.
btw this badly needs to be in empire as well as null. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1285
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:48:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: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.
So basically you better enjoy this carrot or god help me I will beat living sh!t out of you with this stick.
I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
820
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:49:00 -
[1072] - 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 |
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels The Obsidian Front
403
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:56:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Infiltrator2112 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. As a fulltime 0.0 player, the only thing I do not do in nullsec is making ISK. Give me a reason to move my incursion- and manufacturing-alts from empire to 0.0, not the other way around, please.
Exactly
Nisroc Angels - The Obsidian Front Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1298
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 10:58:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Whatever. I'm looking forward to the possibility of having more fights in null and if a measly 5% reduction causes some people to move to high sec, who cares? It's not like these people are adding anything to the game anyway.
Alliances will probably have to group together a bit more instead of being spread too thin and then maybe they will be more willing to use these things and fight for them.
Hopefully after all these deployables are done, CCP will improve sov and add more risky but beneficial forms of PVE like we have in wormhole space. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1298
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:00:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Infiltrator2112 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. As a fulltime 0.0 player, the only thing I do not do in nullsec is making ISK. Give me a reason to move my incursion- and manufacturing-alts from empire to 0.0, not the other way around, please.
IMO they should move all the top tier Incursion sites to null/low sec and just have the low tier ones in HS. +1 |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
180
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:01:00 -
[1076] - Quote
if it's an extra isk sink you want, why not let the ESS print LP tags which you can exchange for LP in a specific factions corp of your Choosing? (must have an LP store offcourse)
so having an ESS in system gives you 80% bounty payout, but provides LP tags which you can ship to empire and use as your hearts desire. Creating an Extra isk sink and some additional flexibility for people in nullsec on where to get the best conversion ratio, since they can just exchange their tags for LP in the store of their choosing. Baddest poster ever |
ORLICZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:07:00 -
[1077] - Quote
i very like ESS but...
-give 110% gain from ess,
-make imposible to Take out tags with stabed ceptors ( Tag volume 3 m3,
-nerf incrusions and FW nüè
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:09:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Make it so that the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option doesnGÇÿt have a fixed timer, after which all tags are ejected at once. Rather than that, payment should be over time. That means you get one tag or transaction for every 10 seconds.
This would solve the problem of finding the right timer for the defenders to form a response fleet. If payment is over time, not at once, attackers can choose how long they are willing to wait and bait, and defenders are able to choose a good timing for their response as well. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1960
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:10:00 -
[1079] - Quote
How many pages does a thread have to reach before it becomes a 'threadnought'? This is not a signature. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
53
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:10:00 -
[1080] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:if it's an extra isk sink you want, why not let the ESS print LP tags which you can exchange for LP in a specific factions corp of your Choosing? (must have an LP store offcourse)
so having an ESS in system gives you 80% bounty payout, but provides LP tags which you can ship to empire and use as your hearts desire. Creating an Extra isk sink and some additional flexibility for people in nullsec on where to get the best conversion ratio, since they can just exchange their tags for LP in the store of their choosing.
Concord LPs ? |
|
|
|
|
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 |