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) |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
819
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:53:00 -
[2071] - Quote
So, just to be clear, the ESS still gives isk via tags? So, null seccers will have to ferry their tags out of the system to get that isk? I get that LP is going directly into my wallet, but how will the isk function? I hope still via tags. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 20:00:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:So, just to be clear, the ESS still gives isk via tags? So, null seccers will have to ferry their tags out of the system to get that isk? I get that LP is going directly into my wallet, but how will the isk function? I hope still via tags. Nope, my bad. If you "take all" from an ESS, then you get tags. If you share, then the isk is put back in your wallet with maybe a small bonus.
Not as bad as tags, but now we have the privilege of getting our money back plus maybe a bit of interest, assuming someone hasn't robbed the ESS.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Genoa Al Salam
I Sneezed Nerfed Alliance Go Away
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 20:05:00 -
[2073] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote: See, was that so hard?
Because smugging is so much better than whining...
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 20:10:00 -
[2074] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:A few points I want to bring up that weren't addressed in the blog:
1.) The ESS needs a means to inhibit it's distribution timer. I tested this last night, and this is what I found: I can land next to the ESS and immediately hit access and choose take all, starting the 3.5 minute timer to grab the loot or I share all, starting the 30 s timer to share the loot. There are only two ways to stop me: a.) destroy my ship. b.) get me to leave the proximity of the ESS (15 km radius). It would be very nice if a mechanic existed where a player could stop this count-down. I can think of several ways to do it:
In before small gang tears when ratters use cheap bumping Stabbers to force their ships outside the 15km radius |
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 20:33:00 -
[2075] - Quote
With a build cost of 25 million isk, at 105% bounties, ratters will need to earn 500 million in bounties to break even on the ESS purely in isk. (Not counting the bounties needed to building the ESS up to 105%, and not counting the LP.)
If we include LP, at 0.2 lp earned per 1000 isk in bounties, and a 700 isk/lp conversion (which will probably drop,) then (700isk / LP) * (0.2 LP / 1,000 isk) * b + b = b + 25,000,000 isk 0.14b = 25,000,000 b = 178.5M
So ~179M in bounties to break even on the ESS via isk and LP. If the isk/lp conversion rate drops to 500, then you're looking at 250M isk to break even on the ESS.
Several questions, a) how long does it take to earn 179M to 250M isk in null-sec ratting? b) what's the expected life span of an ESS in null-sec? c) given the previous questions, who (or what) will using ESS deployables?
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
The Cult Reborn
159
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 20:33:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Any reason why the ESS doesn't have a reinforcement timer? It would in my opinion be really neat if we could force ratters to use it, leave local and return later to either get a fight or ISK. |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 21:03:00 -
[2077] - Quote
Genoa Al Salam wrote:Darek Castigatus wrote: See, was that so hard?
Because smugging is so much better than whining...
Since this is having precisely zero effect on my game either way, yes. Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
238
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 21:05:00 -
[2078] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:With a build cost of 25 million isk, at 105% bounties, ratters will need to earn 500 million in bounties to break even on the ESS purely in isk. (Not counting the bounties needed to building the ESS up to 105%, and not counting the LP.)
If we include LP, at 0.2 lp earned per 1000 isk in bounties, and a 700 isk/lp conversion (which will probably drop,) then (700isk / LP) * (0.2 LP / 1,000 isk) * b + b = b + 25,000,000 isk 0.14b = 25,000,000 b = 178.5M
So ~179M in bounties to break even on the ESS via isk and LP. If the isk/lp conversion rate drops to 500, then you're looking at 250M isk to break even on the ESS.
Several questions, a) how long does it take to earn 179M to 250M isk in null-sec ratting? b) what's the expected life span of an ESS in null-sec? c) given the previous questions, who (or what) will using ESS deployables?
a) A single pilot can pull in around 60m/hour. So, 3 hours for a single pilot. b) I can't see people actively blowing these up as they come across them, so they will likely last until someone comes after their space, or to diminish their income. So, how long it would last depends on where it is put and who puts it up. Right now, an ESS in the north might last months, while an ESS in HED-GP might only last a couple minutes. c) Anyone who feels relatively safe in their control of the space they are ratting in. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 21:11:00 -
[2079] - Quote
CCP Soniclovers update post
You keep referencing when one is deployed. What happens when its multiple units? |
Silivar Karkun
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 21:21:00 -
[2080] - Quote
im gonna feel flamed for this but, how about getting rid of the isk increase thing and just make the thing earn LP to capsuleers?. people would still get their bounties nerfed, but they would earn LP for grinding rats. maybe increase the thing from 0,15 at the start to 0,4 or 0,5 per 1000 isk, i would even say to increase it to 1 LP per 1000 isk.
for example:
-ESS active in system reduces the bounty payments to 90%, at full deployment players earn 1 LP per 1000 isk.
killing a pirate BS rated at 1 million would earn you 1000 LPs.
these LPs are taken as concord LPs and can be redeemable to any corporation in the game, except of course, pirate corporations
the other would be:
-ESS active reduces bounty payments to 90%, that remaining 10% is paid to players in CONCORD LPs......the ratio of conversion i dont know...... |
|
Silivar Karkun
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 21:27:00 -
[2081] - Quote
there should be a limit of how many can be deployed, if the module is personal then it only should afect that specific player, if its a corporate/alliance stuff, it should be a limit of 1 per system. |
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 22:18:00 -
[2082] - Quote
"Only one ESS can be active in a system at any given time." From the original dev blog.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 22:20:00 -
[2083] - Quote
Gotta love the outright refusal of anyone at CCP to discuss the 5% bounty nerf or provide any justification that it is necessary. Great customer service guys. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
798
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 22:23:00 -
[2084] - Quote
I am a bit concerned that you are willing to potentially influence the market so heavily so close to feature release.
Not saying that anything will happen, as I have not done the analysis in deep. But, with such a short time frame, neither have you.
I am not certain the concept of the ESS is worth the damage it can do to the market. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 22:26:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote: Ratters don't man up to defend a system when a system is roamed in, they're there to rat, not risk pvp assets
Please tell me more about this "risking PvP assets" engaging a roaming gang.
What I risk when doing so: - Later having to Alt tab to a browser window while in warp / ship spinning / ratting to fill out a reimbursement form - Jumping on a Jita alt for a couple of minutes the next time I log in, to buy replacement parts and create a courier contract - Not having that particular fit available for a day or two while waiting for the corp's JF service to deliver. Unless I stocked a spare in station ahead of time, or it's a doctrine ship seeded on alliance contract. - Killboard efficiency (lol)
What I risk not undocking the pvp asset: - Platinum insurance expiring and having to be re-purchased, actually costing me isk out of my personal wallet
These "pvp assets" are covered by top down alliance income and fear of losing money is not the determining factor in not forming/taking a fight. Things that are determining factors: Intruders flying 2s align interceptors / a covert cyno with a pile of bombers / 20+ man gang when we have 3 guys online and active in the pipe.
This deployable will not change any of that. The pvp it can hope to add is likely to be solo interceptor on interceptor shoots from someone trying to steal/cash out off timezone in a dead end pocket. I don't expect that to be much different from stabbed cloaky plexers in faction warfare.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done? What, so someone who is botting in a system with 2 accounts can now bot with 4? We can start with me not having to pick which of my two characters gets to chain hubs and which one goes next door / takes a pay cut, when the crap truesec system I live in happens to be empty.
Then we can start talking about high sec income alts moving to actually live in null and banning those that bot. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4460
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 22:34:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Soldarius wrote: Now, the question is if these changes are enough to make ratters actually want to use it? It seems much less abusable.
In Period Basis I had no problem getting 10-14m isk ticks in a ratting Raven. Other people did better or worse. So .2LP/1k isk would be 2000-2800LP per tick. 6k-8400LP per hour. Could buy yourself a CN Raven in 100 hours.
Or you could just make more by running level 3s in high-sec. edit: 14m * 3 ticks + 8400lp * 700 lp/isk = 48 million. And that's assuming the 700 lp/isk doesn't go down. The Navy LP store isn't great. And the 10-14 M per tick could be reduced to 8 to 11 M if someone steals from your ESS. OMG... you'll have some risk to get the full reward... How will you ever cope????
By staying in high sec, as most people will do with their alts. Or did you miss the consequences of the 1st anom nerf? |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 23:42:00 -
[2087] - Quote
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? |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
891
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 23:57:00 -
[2088] - 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! |
Silivar Karkun
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 00:42:00 -
[2089] - Quote
Turelus wrote: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.
suddenly, all the rats in null sec are like incursion/sleepers.......same omnitank, same EWAR, same combat tactics......but no change in bounty income or loot drops....
out of the joke it would be cool, as long as it gives good rewards, no point in grinding harder than before for the same income. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 01:25:00 -
[2090] - 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? That's a very good question.
You would still basically never sit in the anom and take the fight against a player, while tanking him and the rats. Anoms are solo oriented content, not a fleet thing. This makes it extremely hard to attempt to re-balance in any way.
Speed of completion will always determine the amount of reward per time spent. Which will always mean the thinnest tank possible, to maximize applied damage. This means 4 damage mods, which you will not generally see on a pvp ship - especially one meant to engage multiple hostiles at a time. This also means shield tank / application mods, not tackle and ewar in mids. Logistics mean a large group activity with 2+ players dealing no damage at all.
Basically, the payout would need to be completion based and completion time somehow become dps independent, without being doable by a cloaky warp stabbed frigate like FW plexes. |
|
Anomaly One
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
189
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 01:54:00 -
[2091] - Quote
You pretty much killed navy LP, like it needed it.. Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
974
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 03:25:00 -
[2092] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:[Speed of completion will always determine the amount of reward per time spent. Which will always mean the thinnest tank possible, to maximize applied damage. This means 4 damage mods, which you will not generally see on a pvp ship - especially one meant to engage multiple hostiles at a time. This also means shield tank / application mods, not tackle and ewar in mids. Logistics mean a large group activity with 2+ players dealing no damage at all.
Basically, the payout would need to be completion based and completion time somehow become dps independent, without being doable by a cloaky warp stabbed frigate like FW plexes.
This seems to me to be the easier part: A few high-DPS ships accompanied by sensible support and tackle, with non-ridiculous lock ranges and real ship attributes. That would make EWAR both effective and useful, and it would advantage non-trivial buffer and burst tanks. Make especially valuable or prominent rats warp out when things turn against them, unless tackled. Bring back the change that made rats regard all intruders as hostile. Then they're a wild card instead of a guaranteed disadvantage for the person running the anom (or vice versa). Adjust rewards so that the vastly lower quantity of rat ships doesn't result in a vastly reduced payout. You could have small anoms with just a few rats that can be run solo or in tandem and larger sites that more or less require fleets of varying sizes, and which have a roughly Incursion-style payout system to encourage fleets--but if someone wants to try storming them solo in a shiny battleship, sure.
The tricky part is getting anyone in an anom to fight, because you can generally assume that anyone coming after you is looking for a gank, not Honorable Space Combat, and if they've warped to your anom it's because they're reasonably sure they can take you handily. This is where I think the rat-as-wildcard mechanic would make things more interesting, but it's also where large numbers of anoms of various sizes per system would be useful: if there were enough ratters in system to respond to one ratter's distress call in the ships they're currently flying, without generating a long stream of comedy killmails for the marauders, then they could credibly protect each other. Ratters could agree on shield or armor doctrines, and the fleets in the larger anoms would likely have logis. In that case, however, I'm not sure how many roaming gangs would bother, unless they had clearly superior numbers. That's not a problem that any mechanic is going to be able to solve.
For extra credit, teach the rats how to use the new deployables. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 04:00:00 -
[2093] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Interacting with the ESS now puts a warp disruption effect on the ship interacting with it. Ships immune to bubbles are not immune to this effect.
I don't live in nullsec, so I can't speak on the impact the ESS will have on the people who do. I will ask, though, that instead of characterizing the warp disruption as an exception to a rule that is itself already an exception to a rule (warp bubbles stop all ships, except those who are immune, except for this one specific kind of warp bubble which stops even the ones immune to all the others). Just call it an infinite-point scramble effect. That's something already in the game, and already stops all warp drive operation. No need to compound things with more exceptions. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 04:23:00 -
[2094] - Quote
I'm still wondering why this thing needs to siphon 20% of the bounties in the first place. I get that you want thieves to convert them into "ISK tags". They are then expected to die with them in the cargo for the loot fairy to create another ISK sink. But overall, this is going to be an insignificant amount.
If ISK faucets are really too much for the health of the game, go ahead and nerf bounties by 5%. All bounties across the game, as an initiative that is separate from this deployable. It will still hit null the hardest of the regions, but will not feel as arbitrary and targeted.
Then forget the bounty siphon idea and pay out the full, globally reduced bounty to each ratter, whether the ESS is deployed or not. Store 100% of this new LP incentive inside the active ESS instead of granting it directly to the characters on bounty ticks. Let the "fight" happen over the LP stored in the ESS. This actually makes some sense and it feels like an interesting new feature. One that can later be potentially expanded to higher security space without as many abuse cases.
If the player is to risk more personal funds in the process, increase the cost of the module and/or design them to die more frequently. That will also increase the sink of it coming from npc buy orders, without needing "ISK tags". Other locals will still have incentive to come defend it, as they have personal LP at stake inside. This reduces the impact of it as a blue griefing tool and will prevent large alliances from considering banning it.
There is still another issue with it being racial. One per system means someone else can deploy one for a faction who's LP others in system don't care for. This will likewise create friction among friendly ratters over already scarce territory. This leads to some people potentially not joining the formup, in an attempt to let an unwanted ESS get killed. It is counter-productive to the small gang design goal of this module. You want it to bring people together. This can be alleviated by making it uniform LP of one particular store. That could be concord, SoE, or whatever other corporation is chosen or created. If a new one is created, it could further allow exchange to a limited subset of LP stores similar to concord LP. The amount granted can be scaled to balance, based on the quality of the LP being awarded.
As a future expansion of the module, higher meta versions could be created for higher LP payout (sink) at significantly higher ISK cost (sink). |
Danalee
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
395
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 07:50:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Loving the deployables overall and the newest addition in particular
The ESS will rock some nullbear socks for sure (look at them squirming... oh noes, we might not be 100% safe ratting in null anymore). For me it looks like the first small step towards enforcing to hold only the space you are willing/capable to defend. We need more things like this, really.
D.
|
Treborr MintingtonJr
Quantum Reality R n D Spaceship Samurai
148
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 08:59:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Danalee wrote:Loving the deployables overall and the newest addition in particular The ESS will rock some nullbear socks for sure (look at them squirming... oh noes, we might not be 100% safe ratting in null anymore). For me it looks like the first small step towards enforcing to hold only the space you are willing/capable to defend. We need more things like this, really. D.
To take a quote from a well known eve leader and adapt it.
"Nullsec is worth fighting for." |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
231
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 12:53:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Does the ESS fix sov?
Because that's the only thing CCP should be doing right now. Don't Panic.
|
Gizan
Hounds Of War WHY so Seri0Us
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 12:55:00 -
[2098] - Quote
how about you take this ESS garbage and shove it up your butts...
CCP: I have an idea, lets force the null sec PEOPLE (no the sheeple) back to highsec becasue we dont want them ratting in 0.0 |
Gizan
Hounds Of War WHY so Seri0Us
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 12:56:00 -
[2099] - Quote
if you are going to try to get new people, making it harder for them to play the game is not the way to go, neighter is forcing more people into the lagfest that is fights, by advertising them to the public. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
955
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 16:46:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:I'm still wondering why this thing needs to siphon 20% of the bounties in the first place. I get that you want thieves to convert them into "ISK tags". They are then expected to die with them in the cargo for the loot fairy to create another ISK sink. But overall, this is going to be an insignificant amount.
If ISK faucets are really too much for the health of the game, go ahead and nerf bounties by 5%. All bounties across the game, as an initiative that is separate from this deployable. It will still hit null the hardest of the regions, but will not feel as arbitrary and targeted.
Then forget the bounty siphon idea and pay out the full, globally reduced bounty to each ratter, whether the ESS is deployed or not. Store 100% of this new LP incentive inside the active ESS instead of granting it directly to the characters on bounty ticks. Let the "fight" happen over the LP stored in the ESS. This actually makes some sense and it feels like an interesting new feature. One that can later be potentially expanded to higher security space without as many abuse cases.
If the player is to risk more personal funds in the process, increase the cost of the module and/or design them to die more frequently. That will also increase the sink of it coming from npc buy orders, without needing "ISK tags". Other locals will still have incentive to come defend it, as they have personal LP at stake inside. This reduces the impact of it as a blue griefing tool and will prevent large alliances from considering banning it.
There is still another issue with it being racial. One per system means someone else can deploy one for a faction who's LP others in system don't care for. This will likewise create friction among friendly ratters over already scarce territory. This leads to some people potentially not joining the formup, in an attempt to let an unwanted ESS get killed. It is counter-productive to the small gang design goal of this module. You want it to bring people together. This can be alleviated by making it uniform LP of one particular store. That could be concord, SoE, or whatever other corporation is chosen or created. If a new one is created, it could further allow exchange to a limited subset of LP stores similar to concord LP. The amount granted can be scaled to balance, based on the quality of the LP being awarded.
As a future expansion of the module, higher meta versions could be created for higher LP payout (sink) at significantly higher ISK cost (sink).
Yeah, I agree with this entirely. Perhaps there should be no bounty rewards at all for all rats whether in high sec, low sec or null sec. Let people get by on salvage, that would make people want to fight over it and drive conflict. Despite the improvements to the ESS I still don't understand why it can't be deployed in HighSec. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
|
|
|
|
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 |