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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
3936
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
An active ESS will collect 5% of the bounties generated by killing NPCs in the according system. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor.
Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures! CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
Anabella Rella
Gradient Electus Matari
1447
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
My first first! When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Oh.
Oh my.
The ESS looks absolutely delicious. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
4722
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
exciting stuff!!! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
965
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Hmm, let's have a look. Mashie Saldana Dominique Vasilkovsky
|
Efraya
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
254
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
ESS is the biggest shakeup to small gang warfare in null in a long while.
Great great deployable.
WSpace; Best space. |
tekmin
hahaha JC
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
maybe I missed it but...!
need sov to online etc..?? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5924
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:Each race has their own ESS, so there are four in total, Amarr/Caldari/Gallente/Minmatar Encounter Surveillance System. An ESS allows an empire to monitor bounty-generating activities in the solar system it is deployed in. Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord. Concord has decided that monitoring these bounty-generating activities (i.e. killing pirates) outside of their jurisdiction is becoming too expensive, especially with the lost income from high-sec Custom Offices. As a result, they will no longer pay the full bounty amount. There is no statistical
After Rubicon 1.1 the payout for killing pirates in Null Sec is 95% of the actual bounty. So a pirate with a bounty of 100.000 ISK will give whomever killed it 95.000 ISK after the point release.
What's the missing part of the sentence here? "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
845
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
tekmin wrote:maybe I missed it but...!
need sov to online etc..??
No its a personal deployable, like of the PD line, no sov required. Mangala Undocked |
Qoi
Exert Force
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK?
Edit: It looks like this was (partially) answered in the first post, i only read the dev blog before i asked the question. |
|
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad
599
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Not really liking the ESS http://i.imgur.com/6j6cIZE.gif-á |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
446
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Quote:Each race has their own ESS, so there are four in total, Amarr/Caldari/Gallente/Minmatar Encounter Surveillance System. An ESS allows an empire to monitor bounty-generating activities in the solar system it is deployed in. Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord. Concord has decided that monitoring these bounty-generating activities (i.e. killing pirates) outside of their jurisdiction is becoming too expensive, especially with the lost income from high-sec Custom Offices. As a result, they will no longer pay the full bounty amount. There is no statistical
After Rubicon 1.1 the payout for killing pirates in Null Sec is 95% of the actual bounty. So a pirate with a bounty of 100.000 ISK will give whomever killed it 95.000 ISK after the point release. What's the missing part of the sentence here?
Should be something along the lines of there being no statistical differences between the racial variants. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Backseat Promises
987
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
So why shouldn't the ESS be available in lowsec? Some issues with faction warfare?
If that's the case make it usable in non-faction warfare lowsec.
While you are at it make faction warfare sites not enterable with a stab on your ship. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
446
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
Qoi wrote:Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK?
The empire fleets stations (Federation Navy stations, etc.). |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
446
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:So why shouldn't the ESS be available in lowsec? Some issues with faction warfare?
If that's the case make it usable in non-faction warfare lowsec.
While you are at it make faction warfare sites not enterable with a stab on your ship.
It is possible we do ESS variations with different placement restrictions sometimes in the future. But the null sec version is the only one for 1.1 |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
830
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
The EES sounds like a good idea but it should grant a higher bonus than a maximum of 105% what is currently effective at Rubicon 1.0. Maybe something like 110% Of course the base payout could then become 90% without the structure to compensate. G££ <= Me |
Ali Aras
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
471
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Asking questions here so I don't have to assume the answers are NDA'd...
What happens if a small fleet warps in? Say three people-- does it announce three of them, or just one? Also, what's the radius of the announcement? http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5924
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
I'm not really convinced the rewards for the ESS are worth the risk, here. You're asking people to put 15% of their bounties at risk for an additional 5-10%. Given the recent interceptor changes there's virtually no way to defend you space against an interceptor gang. The interceptor gang cannot be tackled or delayed, and can buzz every ESS with enough inties that they can easily kill any ratting ship that shows up (and most ratting ships are virtually powerless against an interceptor) and if somehow your defense gang gets there, bug out.
There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
I assume the tags will be converted into ISK via NPC buy orders. Will the orders for a given racial tag variant be restricted to that race's space? For example, if I happen upon some Caldari bounty tags, do I have to go to Caldari space in empire to turn them in, or can I sell them anywhere? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Javajunky
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
Don't want to do the real work and fix pos code so we'll just tinker with a bunch of stuff. Should I pass the weak sauce? Oh wait I see you already have plenty. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Asking questions here so I don't have to assume the answers are NDA'd...
What happens if a small fleet warps in? Say three people-- does it announce three of them, or just one? Also, what's the radius of the announcement?
There is a few second "cooldown" on the notification so it doesn-¦t get spammed when a bunch of people warp in. So in the case of three warping in, only one notification is sent out. People just have to use the intelligence tools at their disposal to discern the level of threat. |
|
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
487
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
At first glance, the ESS looks like a bit of a kick in the teeth to the three or four people left ratting in nullsec. The likelihood of anyone hitting 'share' is going to be about 0, so they're probably just going to get shot on principal. So it's pretty much a perpetual nerf to nullsec income, again.
Edit: The ESS should really, really be available in all areas of space (especially hisec) then it'll be interesting. And should have MUCH higher rewards for deployment to make it worthwhile. |
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
77
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
ESS is bull ****. Owners of system will get money for nothing. So nullsec will become more empty. Isn't it enought? Most regions are empty cuz ppl only mining moons. So now you wonna nerf life of normal carebears.
I dissargee with such feature. Do not like. Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:36:00 -
[24] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important.
It-¦s 60 seconds.
|
|
Elfi Wolfe
University of Caille Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
So the Rental Empires can put these up as a Tax on the renters. "Please point to the place on the doll where the carebear touched you." |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Querns wrote:I assume the tags will be converted into ISK via NPC buy orders. Will the orders for a given racial tag variant be restricted to that race's space? For example, if I happen upon some Caldari bounty tags, do I have to go to Caldari space in empire to turn them in, or can I sell them anywhere?
The empire fleets buy them. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote: There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important.
It-¦s 60 seconds. I think he means "how long does it take for the ESS to go from 20% to 25% bounties" bit. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:38:00 -
[28] - Quote
Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS.
|
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Let's nerf null sec ratting even more and make it even harder to find stuff to kill. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS.
Unfortunately, this is not strictly a reduction. In fact, at full strength, the ESS allows more isk to enter the economy than previously. Of course, if no one uses the ESSes, then yeah, it'd be an ISK sink due to the lower total bounties. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
Querns wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote: There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important.
It-¦s 60 seconds. I think he means "how long does it take for the ESS to go from 20% to 25% bounties" bit.
It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5925
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
Querns wrote: I think he means "how long does it take for the ESS to go from 20% to 25% bounties" bit.
This is correct. I realize it's based on the level of ratting, but I assume it can be expressed in isk or the like (100m isk in bounties to power up each 1% or the like). "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Backseat Promises
989
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
Reiterating on lowsec, non-faction warfare lowsec is usually quite empty (except for specific systems) similar to nullsec's emptiness in specific places. Having bubbled ESSes droppable in this area of lowsec would add some PvP value to the systems.
Georgiy Giggle wrote:ESS is bull ****. Owners of system will get money for nothing. So nullsec will become more empty. Isn't it enought? Most regions are empty cuz ppl only mining moons. So now you wonna nerf life of normal carebears.
I dissargee with such feature. Do not like.
They don't automatically get the ISK, you can go grab it before they do.
Maybe you have to shoot something occasionally then? |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2810
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS.
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. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
186
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
Just what null-sec needs: another nerf to ratting.
Solo interceptors are just going to flit around null-sec picking up money tags from people foolish enough to deploy these. The bubble won't even slow them down: they'll be able to warp to zero at the ESS. Fix POSes.-á Every player should want one (even if all players can't have one). |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5925
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:42:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more.
Does each bounty, independent of the value have the same chance of triggering an increase? Are the increases 1%, .1%, or what? "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Kaeda Maxwell
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:43:00 -
[37] - Quote
Querns wrote:Kaeda Maxwell wrote:Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS.
Unfortunately, this is not strictly a reduction. In fact, at full strength, the ESS allows more isk to enter the economy than previously. Of course, if no one uses the ESSes, then yeah, it'd be an ISK sink due to the lower total bounties.
Don't overlook that it pays out in tags, a number of those will get destroyed, never cashed in at all for other reasons etc.
Overall I suspect it'll lead to reduction in ISK flowing in to the economy from rat bounties.
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2627
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:44:00 -
[38] - Quote
Will we ever get something similar to the ESS for Incursions? Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
842
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:46:00 -
[39] - Quote
Dear CCP SoniClover (or Sonic Lover?)
Is there are cooldown for the "Take ISK/Tags" button? Or can 0.0 people just place an alt at the ESS and spam the button every 5 minutes to prevent roamers to get steal anything valuable?
Do you like the band Dire Straits? German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Isengrimus
LOST IDEA C0VEN
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:46:00 -
[40] - Quote
I don't believe these will be actually used by the systems' owners - on the contrary, they will be spammed like the system-wide Siphon units, only to be looted in a more convenient time. Unless the owners loot them first.
Which leads me to a question - will there be some sort of a log showing for example who claimed all the ISK stored in the ESS?
I understand they will be also deployable in NPC nullsec?
In the end, however, I agree that it will just chase more people to hisec, because currently the only few ratters left in the null who still believe in "high risk - high reward" will be easily deprived of the high reward part. So all in all it is a really bad invention. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:47:00 -
[41] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:Querns wrote:Kaeda Maxwell wrote:Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS.
Unfortunately, this is not strictly a reduction. In fact, at full strength, the ESS allows more isk to enter the economy than previously. Of course, if no one uses the ESSes, then yeah, it'd be an ISK sink due to the lower total bounties. Don't overlook that it pays out in tags, a number of those will get destroyed, never cashed in at all for other reasons etc. Overall I suspect it'll lead to reduction in ISK flowing in to the economy from rat bounties. It only pays out in tags if you use the BOGART option. The Share option pays directly to wallets. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more.
Does each bounty, independent of the value have the same chance of triggering an increase? Are the increases 1%, .1%, or what?
Yes and yes. |
|
Krimishkev
Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet
102
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
And entire company of developers to come up with this? It seems to me that CCPs main goal lately has been to make it more difficult to earn isk casually in and already difficult and time consuming game. I guess everyone knows that when ISK becomes harder to accumulate the value of ISK vs. the cost of a PLEX is increased. So more shift toward pay to win, plus a subscription model me thinks this game company is struggling to balance it's books. |
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1260
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:49:00 -
[44] - Quote
Isn't there any legacy code that could stop you from introducing pointless stuff like ESS and/or MMJD? I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:50:00 -
[45] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Dear CCP SoniClover (or Sonic Lover?)
Is there are cooldown for the "Take ISK/Tags" button? Or can 0.0 people just place an alt at the ESS and spam the button every 5 minutes to prevent roamers to get steal anything valuable?
Do you like the band Dire Straits?
The increased payout is reset each time the ESS is emptied, so you can do that, but then you-¦re never getting the full payout.
And yes, I do like Dire Straits very much (the band, not being in one). |
|
Jack bubu
GK inc. Pandemic Legion
517
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I'm not really convinced the rewards for the ESS are worth the risk, here. You're asking people to put 15% of their bounties at risk for an additional 5-10%. Given the recent interceptor changes there's virtually no way to defend you space against an interceptor gang. The interceptor gang cannot be tackled or delayed, and can buzz every ESS with enough inties that they can easily kill any ratting ship that shows up (and most ratting ships are virtually powerless against an interceptor) and if somehow your defense gang gets there, bug out.
There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important. i dont think its gonna be the ratters that will put those up ;)
dibs on venal |
Chitsa Jason
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1073
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:51:00 -
[47] - Quote
This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback. CSM8 Member Twitter:-á@ChitsaJason Skype: Casparas
|
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
329
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:53:00 -
[48] - Quote
Is it intended that you should not be able to guard the ESS with a POS? You said 100's of kilometres; how many 100's exactly? Nul sec rental empires will try to use these, but I think only roaming hostile murder gangs will profit. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:53:00 -
[49] - Quote
I have more questions I hope you like questions
So say I happen upon an ESS and choose the "screw everyone, give me all the money" option. Printing the tags takes 40 seconds. Do I have to stay on grid with the ESS in order to get the tags, or can I warp off and come back after the tags are minted? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Isn't there any legacy code that could stop you from introducing pointless stuff like ESS and/or MMJD?
No, but our long term goal is to have the ESS code become a legacy code that kills good ideas 7 years down the road. |
|
|
Mizhir
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
50160
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:53:00 -
[51] - Quote
I like the ESS. Gonna be great to force people out to fight rather than hiding in their pos.
Just one question. How 'easy' will it be to kill one? One Man Crew - The official Bringing Solo Back contest
SCL5 Winner |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
377
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:53:00 -
[52] - Quote
I guess siphons didn't hurt nullsec enough, so we're going to get more arbitrary penalties? The ESS is a defacto 5% nerf to bounties. Putting one up is actively dangerous. It is a kaleidoscope of bad game design. If the purpose of this is to hurt nullsec ratters, it would have been easier to just nerf bounties. As currently designed, there is no reason to actually set these up and lots of reasons NOT to set them up, making them nothing more than a 5% nerf to bounties.
Quote: The ESS has a global beacon, meaning it will be visible by all players, allowing them to warp directly to it. Note that the new scan-block deployable does not interfer with this. The ESS has around 150.000 Hit Points (ca. 90000 structure, and 30000 each in armor and shield). - The ESS can be scooped up by the owner of the ESS (the player that deployed it).
So it's an easy target. That depends on the reliability of random corp members with no regard for roles.
Quote: The payout level of an ESS is reset if it is destroyed, scooped or when it is accessed and the system-wide pool is distributed. - The current payout level of the ESS is visible in the name of it, and can thus be seen anywhere in the system. - It takes time for the ESS to print the tags and hand them out, this time is 40 seconds.
The benefits of which are lost every time hostiles enter the system and feel like shooting it. And they can tell if it's worth it without even having to approach the ESS. If it's worth it, they can steal the isk in less time than it takes for people in system to switch ships.
Quote: The ESS has a warp bubble with a radius of 15km. Warping to the ESS brings you to the edge of the bubble. This warp bubble has exactly the same functionality as a normal one.
This sure is meaningful in a game full of bubble-immune interceptors and strat cruisers.
Quote: Anyone can access an ESS, not just the owner.
I too like giving isk to hostiles that pass through my space, there is nothing wrong with this plan.
edit:
Quote: The increased payout is reset each time the ESS is emptied, so you can do that, but then you-¦re never getting the full payout.
Just when I thought it couldn't be made worse.
If the purpose of siphons is as an offensive siphon like module while including a nerf to nullsec ratting, this is just a massively over-complicated bounty-siphon. If they're intended to be something that ratters set up to enhance their income, this is laughable and betrays a deep and frightening lack of knowledge of nullsec mechanics. |
Telon Londan
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:54:00 -
[53] - Quote
How long will it take to scoop the ESS? Will it be possible to sit at the ESS with an alt and scoop it immediately as soon as a hostile enters local? |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:55:00 -
[54] - Quote
Querns wrote:I have more questions I hope you like questions
So say I happen upon an ESS and choose the "screw everyone, give me all the money" option. Printing the tags takes 40 seconds. Do I have to stay on grid with the ESS in order to get the tags, or can I warp off and come back after the tags are minted?
A can will drop with the tags in 40 seconds. So you can leave and come back. And hope you get to the can first |
|
Lazei
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:55:00 -
[55] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback.
What goals? Based on the information available no null sec ratter is going to bother with this. Maybe if they are in a dead end system and have scouts a jump or two out to see anyone coming so that they can click the button (such amazing gameplay experience btw) before hostiles make it to your system. Its just a pointless nerf to null sec ratting that will probably drive some people back to highsec and diminish your targets even more. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5925
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:56:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more.
Does each bounty, independent of the value have the same chance of triggering an increase? Are the increases 1%, .1%, or what? Yes and yes. Uh the second question wasn't yes/no "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:56:00 -
[57] - Quote
Telon Londan wrote:How long will it take to scoop the ESS? Will it be possible to sit at the ESS with an alt and scoop it immediately as soon as a hostile enters local?
It-¦s quick, so this is possible. Note that this resets the payout value and allows anyone to place an ESS of their own somewhere in the system to access the pool. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:58:00 -
[58] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more.
Does each bounty, independent of the value have the same chance of triggering an increase? Are the increases 1%, .1%, or what? Yes and yes. Uh the second question wasn't yes/no
Yeb, see that now, sorry . It-¦s 1% per increase, so five triggers takes it to full. And before you ask, I-¦m not going to tell you what the chance is |
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
339
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:00:00 -
[59] - Quote
You're supposed to make people want to live in nullsec more, not less. No sig. |
aoeu Itonula
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:00:00 -
[60] - Quote
as-is I can't possibly imagine anyone placing one of these to actually use, given how easy it is for interceptor gangs to swoop in and take the loot. The only people I see deploying it are people running around ratting space trying to find fights. really this is just another factor driving people away from nullsec pve, which is already awful enough as-is. Is this an effort to try to get more people into highsec incursion farming? |
|
Doris Dents
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
354
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:00:00 -
[61] - Quote
Just what null needs, more nerfs to people trying to earn a living there. Anom nerfs, inty buff & now every passing gank gang a cut of my efforts. Where does it end? |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1167
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:00:00 -
[62] - Quote
Great idea!
However, it should not be a beacon (or maybe the t2 version should not) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
162
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:01:00 -
[63] - Quote
Are these restricted by wormholes at all like they are restricted by gates stations? Blue-Fire Best Fire |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8321
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:01:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP is officially ******* stupid. Seriously, how do you come up with such bullshit? Why are you trying to nerf nullsec when it needs to be buffed? Christ... My EVE Videos |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:01:00 -
[65] - Quote
Also, those of you saying "no one will use these things!" are fooling yourselves. Anyone destitute enough to actually shoot red crosses for money in this game will leap willingly into a 5% bounty increase carrot, no matter the risk. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2413
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:04:00 -
[66] - Quote
ESS - best social experiment ever
Love you CCP eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Xaarous
Woopatang Primary.
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:04:00 -
[67] - Quote
My initial thoughts:
1. It's a little weird that the pool stays if the ESS is destroyed or scooped and a different race's ESS replaces it. I would think the pool should be per race, but they all agree that only one can be online at a time in a given system. 2. Can we have info on how long it takes to escalate from 20% to 25%? Is it based on time (how many hours?) or bounties (how much?)? 3. Given the anchoring restrictions, can you confirm that bubbles can still be anchored around the ESS and it's bubble once it's online? 4. What happens if the 40-second Take All timer is interrupted? 5. I'm assuming there will be NPC buy orders for the tags - but where? The same Navy stations, or only some, etc. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
378
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:04:00 -
[68] - Quote
Querns wrote:Also, those of you saying "no one will use these things!" are fooling yourselves. Anyone destitute enough to actually shoot red crosses for money in this game will leap willingly into a 5% bounty increase carrot, no matter the risk.
In their current form, any half-intelligent nullsec alliance will ban their use. |
Aurora Fatalis
Blacklight Recon
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:05:00 -
[69] - Quote
The ESS sounds really odd, and will probably be amazing, as paranoid ratters decide to drop it to warn them of the infamous "AFK cloaker" who is already on grid with them... :D
Few questions:
Did you consider putting the notification on the "take all" request instead of the approach to circumvent the spamming issue?
Will they be bought with LP rather than ISK, and not found in the FW stores? Meaning, only accessible by highsec mission-runners for the navies?
Why did you decide on selling them via vendors rather than have them player-produced?
Why not let the ESS affect bounties from destroyed player ships?
When will the ESS global warp signal be generated? Upon anchoring or successfully onlining?
Will each Empire's ISK tags be monitored? This information could be used in Live Events, for example. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:06:00 -
[70] - Quote
Yet more questions
What's the target price for an ESS?^H^H^H^H^^^HH^H^H^H^H^H^
Edit: it says how much in the devblog, read/comprehend/post is hard This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
77
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:06:00 -
[71] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Reiterating on lowsec, non-faction warfare lowsec is usually quite empty (except for specific systems) similar to nullsec's emptiness in specific places. Having bubbled ESSes droppable in this area of lowsec would add some PvP value to the systems. I know bubbles aren't usually in lowsec, but this is a static bubble that (if you are well-informed) you should know about beforehand. Georgiy Giggle wrote:ESS is bull ****. Owners of system will get money for nothing. So nullsec will become more empty. Isn't it enought? Most regions are empty cuz ppl only mining moons. So now you wonna nerf life of normal carebears.
I dissargee with such feature. Do not like. They don't automatically get the ISK, you can go grab it before they do. Maybe you have to shoot something occasionally then?
It is still a bull ****. Example: I live in null sec. I'm not a sov holder. I have normal relations with holders. We do not steal, betray o cheat. So why the hell should I pay 5% to EVE Central back for nothing? And owner do not want to have a troubles with SHARING each time money or waiting while some *** will grab it. Or, for example, one fagot come and steal it all? Seems like devs want to make ppl to earn less. Instead of nerfing moon mining you decided you nerf normal players who REALY PLAY and not siting offline for most of time.
So what will be next? Removing of combat sites? So let's all go to empire and leave null sec empty like a field in Africa.
P.S. please give me name of author of ESS and name of his dealer of drugs. Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:07:00 -
[72] - Quote
Finally 0.0 might get fun with ESS. I am really curious how this will work out. |
Enteron Anabente
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:07:00 -
[73] - Quote
The ESS seems unnecessarily complicated with 4 identical racial versions. If they're identical in every way except naming, why not just have one? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5929
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:08:00 -
[74] - Quote
There's a lot of things here that assume they're a benefit to the locals, and are not, because this structure is geared entirely towards hostiles in interceptors. It's safe to assume the attacker is always in an interceptor: they can get through bubble camps and outrun any hostile gang and can't be caught without a massive fuckup given current game mechanics.
This means two key features that are intended to protect locals simply don't work. The bubble around the ESS is a hindrance because only ratters will get caught in it, not attackers. The interceptor will land at zero, anyone who tries to catch him will land at 15km and the only thing ratters pack that might hit an inty (warriors) are 15km away.
Additionally, the tags are supposed to be a "this is only worth it if you get out alive". You cannot kill an interceptor who declines to engage under current game mechanics. Once he has the tags, he's got the isk. Because they're so tiny, there's no effort needed to get them out.
"I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard Renegade Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:08:00 -
[75] - Quote
Hey DEVS,
While this ESS thing sounds like an interesting idea, please make sure you ADD MORE anomalies to nullsec because right now there are so few of them that this ESS thing will just be totally worthless. The spawn rate of anomalies has gotten so bad since Odyssey. Its a good time to fix it now along with your ESS thingy. Thank you. |
Lazei
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:09:00 -
[76] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote:The ESS seems unnecessarily complicated with 4 identical racial versions. If they're identical in every way except naming, why not just have one?
Probably because they made models for something else that turned out to be complete **** and now they are reusing the models with their unnecessary racial versions for something that they think is less **** (but is still ****). |
Talar Draylan
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:10:00 -
[77] - Quote
How about I start paying 95% of the sub fees? |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
1724
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:11:00 -
[78] - Quote
Less money for players, more PvP around deployed ESS = more GTC/PLEX sales \o/ |
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1261
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Isn't there any legacy code that could stop you from introducing pointless stuff like ESS and/or MMJD? No, but our long term goal is to have the ESS code become a legacy code that kills good ideas 7 years down the road.
I admire your optimism about being on the market 7 years down the road.
Seriously, what is the point of ESS? Should I deploy it to get 80% bounties + 20% in tags (because, yes, screw everyone else, gimme all your taggies) or should I just do 1 more anom and get 100% of current bounties without thinking about additional trash bin in space? I already rat with dual sentry domis so no ammo consumption just 10 minutes more of my time (which is nothing considering how much time I spend on Eve related activities already).
As for it being offensive module well, good luck putting it in a system where regular ratting is in process and people actually use their space. The moment it will show up on d-scan there will be probes in space, warp at 100km in alphanado and boom. And with neutrals/hostiles in system nobody will rat anyway so good luck with taking rake from bounties. Rats don't kill themselves so ESS is not bounty siphon, you cannot count that nobody will notice it long enough for you to come back and collect. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:12:00 -
[80] - Quote
A thing a lot of you naysayers are missing is that anyone can deploy these ESSes in a system. Say I've got an inkling for messing with folks. I duckwalk into a system owned by hostiles and deploy my own ESS. Suddenly, I am sapping 20% of the bounties of the system. If you are a sovhaver, you have to deploy these items defensively to prevent this from happening to your systems, unless you want your space to be worth four-fifths of its current value. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
SpaceSaft
Schroedingers Fluffy Kitty Asylum
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:13:00 -
[81] - Quote
Oh wow that sounds really cool. I'm very happy with the way this whole Rubicon thing is taking. If the next expansions give us more of this and go in the same direction... I'd like that. That's going to be very interesting.
To everyone who doesn't like these changes I'm going to reach deep into the usual circlejerk bag and say:
Dem tears. Can I haz your stuff? Besides that I also hold the opinion that CCP should make a PC version for Dust 514. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:14:00 -
[82] - Quote
Lipbite wrote:Less cash for players, more PvP around deployed ESS = more GTC/PLEX sales \o/
That's not really the point of most of the posts here. A nerf to bounties or a bounty-siphon isn't a nonsensical idea. The issue is that the ESS in its current form is a 5% nerf to bounties combined with a poorly designed yet overly complicated bounty-siphon, both of which could be implemented in a simpler, more straightforward way.
The dev blog seems to indicate the expectation that people will voluntarily set up the ESS, which is both laughable and foreboding. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8323
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:14:00 -
[83] - Quote
Querns wrote:A thing a lot of you naysayers are missing is that anyone can deploy these ESSes in a system. Say I've got an inkling for messing with folks. I duckwalk into a system owned by hostiles and deploy my own ESS. Suddenly, I am sapping 20% of the bounties of the system. If you are a sovhaver, you have to deploy these items defensively to prevent this from happening to your systems, unless you want your space to be worth four-fifths of its current value. So what? Anyone can still take them, and it doesn't take a genius to see that aggressors in interceptors are going to be the ones going around and taking all of the bounties. My EVE Videos |
Xaarous
Woopatang Primary.
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
New Question: Where does Corp Tax rate factor into this system? Is it applied to the 95%/80%, or is it still applied to the original 100%? Does it apply to the 20-20% when someone does the 'share' option? I assume it's ignored for the purposes of tags. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:14:00 -
[85] - Quote
The dev blog seems to imply that ESS are bought from the empires as objects, not as blueprints or blueprint copies. If that is correct, is there a good reason for removing the manufacturing opportunity? |
Aurora Fatalis
Blacklight Recon
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:15:00 -
[86] - Quote
I don't mind the nerf, but the 95% listed bounty payout seems like bad UI design. Why is the UI lying? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5931
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
I gotta say, this was already going to be an iffy proposition without a flat nerf to 0.0 that wasn't really required for it to function. It is not a good idea to go "we made 0.0 riskier, but look, we gave you a nerf too!" "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8323
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:16:00 -
[88] - Quote
Where's the highsec version of this? Oh right I forgot, daddy CCP is caving to the carebears once again and declaring the MTU drones thing to be a bug. Poor highsec doesn't need anybody interrupting their isk faucets. My EVE Videos |
aoeu Itonula
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:16:00 -
[89] - Quote
Querns wrote:A thing a lot of you naysayers are missing is that anyone can deploy these ESSes in a system. Say I've got an inkling for messing with folks. I duckwalk into a system owned by hostiles and deploy my own ESS. Suddenly, I am sapping 20% of the bounties of the system. If you are a sovhaver, you have to deploy these items defensively to prevent this from happening to your systems, unless you want your space to be worth four-fifths of its current value. good troll in the time it takes for a neutral interceptor gang to enter the system and scoop the tags, you can't form a fleet to stop them. it's better value to not have one deployed, stop ratting when the bad guys get there, and form up a fleet to take down their ESS. |
Vereesa
Gallivanting Travel Company Rebel Alliance of New Eden
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
The ESS is effectively free candy for interceptors. If anyone deploys them they're braindead.
The variations on the Siphon units look good though. |
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
3938
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:19:00 -
[91] - Quote
Please be constructive in your replies and follow the forum rules. If you think you do not like an idea, then please point out why you don't like it and why it is from your point of view not a good idea. Thank you! CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
The Djentleman Paulson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
152
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:20:00 -
[92] - Quote
I FLY INTERCEPTOR
I STEAL ISK
HOORAY GAME |
Nassus Ryn
Dystopian Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:21:00 -
[93] - Quote
Increase ratting reduction from 95% to 80% by default.
Decrease ratting reduction from deployed ESS to 5% (75% with ESS active.)
Increase ESS payout to 30% - 45% (105%-120%)
Result: Nullsec entities actually bother setting up and routinely operating ESS's in ratting systems. And ESS won't just be shot on sight due to being useless.
I imagine most would rather eat the 5% income nerf than bother operating an ESS at all. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
843
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:22:00 -
[94] - Quote
Vereesa wrote:The ESS is effectively free candy for interceptors. If anyone deploys them they're braindead.
The variations on the Siphon units look good though.
Yay, interceptor honeypot!
Deploy it out of d-scan range and wait with interceptor of your own and a heretic at it. Pew pew. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Cheekything
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
129
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
The ESS is a joke.
If you want people to willing set one up you will need to give much more incentive 5% extra bonus is laughable 50% maybe , 25% is the border.
What makes it even more of a joke is your giving people "tags" people do not go to 0.0 to rat tags, give it in bounties, LP something useful but tags... dear me who thought that was a good idea.
"but but you can pop the person who has the tags and it'll cause internet drama", frankly bomber + ESS = free candy.
This is all risk no reward for ratters and all reward no risk for people in Bombers with covert bombers.
Don't me wrong I'll use it for the latter, but this is a dreadful idea in it's current implementation. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:24:00 -
[96] - Quote
Nassus Ryn wrote:Increase ratting reduction from 95% to 80% by default.
Decrease ratting reduction from deployed ESS to 5% (75% with ESS active.)
Increase ESS payout to 30% - 45% (105%-120%)
Result: Nullsec entities actually bother setting up and routinely operating ESS's in ratting systems. And ESS won't just be shot on sight due to being useless.
I imagine most would rather eat the 5% income nerf than bother operating an ESS at all.
Because what nullsec need is a nerf to pilot income. And in case you didn't notice. Thats sarcasm.
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
339
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:24:00 -
[97] - Quote
Make them so that the Take All option has chance of causing the ESS to instantly explode with enough area of effect damage to kill anything small er than a Nestor Fear God and Thread Nought |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
756
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
I'll start with the simple. The tag names are lame, can we just have Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum or anything that's not "Amarr 1M Bounty Reimbursement Tag" it just sounds far to "this is a game mechanic item and not "this is an actual thing in the EVE universe.
Something like "Amarr Silver Bounty Compensation Tag" would at least feel like I am using something tied into the world more (and yes I know I am terrible with making names).
Secondly the ESS itself seems somewhat useless past taxing alliance line members (who are the ones suffering to make ISK), renters or neutrals (NRDS) using the system to make money. When you right ANYONE CAN ACCESS THE ESS does this mean a red can fly into system, activate it, take the tags and move on? if this is the case with it being a marked location on the overview and not deployable near any kind of defence it makes it worthless to ever use. It's basically taking your wallet and leaving it on the bar while you sit at your table and hoping it's still there with all your money when you come back to get your next drink, people just don't do that because there it's stupid.
With anyone having access this becomes less of a tool for an alliance to upgrade their space more and bring us closer to building our own Empires and more a griefing tool for roamers, or is that the intent.
As it is right now the ESS implementation give you the choices of Take 95% of the current income (another nerf to NullSec and reason to run L4 missions or HighSec Incursions) Take 80% of the current income and let every Alliance Spy, Roaming Red, Nuetral take 25% of your work with no effort.
Please tell me I have just misunderstood all of this and it's actually a good thing. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Enteron Anabente
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:26:00 -
[99] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:heretic
You forgot again that interceptors are nullified, didn't you? |
Icosa Hedron
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:26:00 -
[100] - Quote
The Djentleman Paulson wrote:I FLY INTERCEPTOR
I STEAL ISK
HOORAY GAME
Same.
Also I really like that you can do tax evasion with this. Think of all those GSF taxes set at 15% which you can now partially avoid.
In all seriousness it is really funny that CCP decided to give nullsec another blanket nerf. I guess I'm just glad I don't rat at all anymore. |
|
Anys Thes'Realin
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:26:00 -
[101] - Quote
My first reaction of the ESS is not very positive - I saw it as modifying an existing system simply to make room for a new deployable.
My opinion of ESS's improved slightly once I considered that there is a chance to steal ISKies from other people ratting, but then it went down as I see this being a very rare occurrence - I doubt ESS's will be used a lot (risk 15% to gain 5%-10% for a device that shows up on local overview).
My overall thoughts - an interesting idea, but I would have put the time invested in this idea into other deployables first.
My (WIP) Roleplaying Profile: http://tinyurl.com/nfazlch |
blackpatch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:26:00 -
[102] - Quote
- More of the Most Tedious Game Mechanic Ever Invented and - A 5% nerf to ratting income!
Great job! Bonuses all around.
Really, though, have you noticed that node crashes are assumed consequences of bloc fleet fights? Or that sentries and the outsourcing of targeting have sent PVP hurtling into an insane wonderland?
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
362
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:26:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Isn't there any legacy code that could stop you from introducing pointless stuff like ESS and/or MMJD? No, but our long term goal is to have the ESS code become a legacy code that kills good ideas 7 years down the road. to kill good ideas, you need some in the first place, and judjing by the past 3 expansion, you don't(you = CCP, not you personnaly) |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
538
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:27:00 -
[104] - Quote
Nassus Ryn wrote:Increase ratting reduction from 95% to 80% by default.
Decrease ratting reduction from deployed ESS to 5% (75% with ESS active.)
Increase ESS payout to 30% - 45% (105%-120%)
Result: Nullsec entities actually bother setting up and routinely operating ESS's in ratting systems. And ESS won't just be shot on sight due to being useless.
I imagine most would rather eat the 5% income nerf than bother operating an ESS at all.
Double this. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Mirthander Kane
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:27:00 -
[105] - Quote
Not really someone that posts on forums alot, but for this I had to speak up.
The ESS is an incredibly over-complicated deployable that nerfs the crap out of ratters. Like most of the other people are saying here, it is a mindless nerf to nullsec ratting (the only reason you would be doing nullsec ratting is to pay for your PVP ships/losses) Thus, from the answers to the questions asked here, we can see that this is an atrocious mod.
I can understand why CCP thought this would shake things up, but it is absolutely just a nerf to ratting income, with a LOT of aspects to make it super annoying to try and rat going forward. Should anyone actually use it in system (friendly or enemy) it will be a loss for anyone not getting to the ESS first.
The chances that anyone will 'share the loot' is effectively 0%. If you think otherwise, catch a wake up - this is EVE...
Thus, friendly toon drops this - all bounties are decreased to 80%. Lets assume it will take about an hour with a few people ratting to boost to 105%, as a dev posted. Woah, epic bonus... NOT!
Riiight... then we get to roaming bubble-immune enemies in inties or cloaky strategic cruisers. There are enough of those around to instantly see the %increase and steal all the loot tags as they warp through systems, before any ratter can even switch to a PVP ship, thus back to 80% bounties. And they can do this every few minutes. Rinse, repeat.
If an enemy drops it in your space, it is at least something you can go try and kill before continuing to rat, but it is possible the enemy can just constantly plop these down anywhere in a system as soon as the previous one was destroyed - thus locking down a ratting system to 80% income indefinitely! And if they are in a cloaky ship - you cannot find and kill them.
Flying to the ESS in your ratting ship is basically a death sentence due to bubble.
So all in all - using this is in essence a 20% nerf to nullsec ratting... not only a 5% nerf. And why will this only be in nullsec??
As someone that struggles to make enough ISK to pvp vs. the time it takes by doing nullsec ratting, this is one of the worst deployables in the history of EVE... Seriously, please re-think this deployable. |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:27:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Querns wrote:I have more questions I hope you like questions
So say I happen upon an ESS and choose the "screw everyone, give me all the money" option. Printing the tags takes 40 seconds. Do I have to stay on grid with the ESS in order to get the tags, or can I warp off and come back after the tags are minted? A can will drop with the tags in 40 seconds. So you can leave and come back. And hope you get to the can first
I think you should consider changing this. Make the can automatically lock up if there are more than 1 uncloaked ships within the bubble. This would add more possibilitis for drama, since you could block the can by just sitting there and thus forcing a fight. |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
100
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:28:00 -
[107] - Quote
Broadly speaking I approve. I particularly like the high pitched whine the goonflies are emitting.
Consider allowing the hacking skill to frig with triggering payment levels at a more convenient time to the hacker. Sitting in that hotspot long enough to complete a hack would be risk enough for the potential reward. |
Yur Ko
The Sith Syndicate REFORD
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:28:00 -
[108] - Quote
As I see it, the intention (of ESS introduction) is to induce more pvp in nullsec. Yet as is it won't cut it because no one in his own mind will ever launch it. The reasons are all listed already. So it'll net to pure nerf of nullsec pve.
If ever CCP want to make it usefull, the structure: - should be only accessible to people with positive rating, so that random guy cannot reset it. - should have more hp (a lot lot lot more), possibly invulnerability timer (think like SBU) - so that it's not a reasonable target for inties. - should give higher bonus for all the trouble of defending a gun-less structure.
... or just nerf those inties ;)
|
Qoi
Exert Force
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:29:00 -
[109] - Quote
Will the different racial variants have different colors? |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
843
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:29:00 -
[110] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote:l0rd carlos wrote:heretic You forgot again that interceptors are nullified, didn't you? No I did not. But the heretic is good against interceptors.
German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
|
Mizhir
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
50190
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:30:00 -
[111] - Quote
There should be a pirate edition of the EES that allows players to leech FW LP.
It would finally give the farmers a reason to fight for their profit. One Man Crew - The official Bringing Solo Back contest
SCL5 Winner |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
756
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:34:00 -
[112] - Quote
As posted to Twitter:
What I would see as a useful version of the ESS people will use.
-xx% in overall bounties but receive LP. LP store is a form of ISK sink in that it takes ISK+LP for items which the eventually go boom. It gives RP/Lore links from NullSec Alliances to their Empires, could even make it ONLY available to enlisted Sov Holders giving a reason for NullSec powers to work for the Empires. Gives roaming gangs a smaller more killable target and goes towards the idea of players being able to mess with other Alliances income flow. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5931
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:34:00 -
[113] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Enteron Anabente wrote:l0rd carlos wrote:heretic You forgot again that interceptors are nullified, didn't you? No I did not. But the heretic is good against interceptors. Lots of things are good against interceptors, when they decide not to use their invulnerable "can warp away before being locked" mode. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
aoeu Itonula
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:35:00 -
[114] - Quote
Enteron Anabente wrote:l0rd carlos wrote:heretic You forgot again that interceptors are nullified, didn't you? the idea in his post is that you use your own interceptor to tackle the enemy interceptor, and then your heretic to kill the enemy interceptor
whether you find this reasonable or not is up to you |
ZergRushJohnny
Terra Incognita Insidious Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:35:00 -
[115] - Quote
I'm not sure I like the "Beacon on Overview" method of displaying it. I just think its a little TOO obvious, for both attackers and defenders. It should still be visible, but I think something more like cosmic anoms. Still blatantly obvious if you bother to pull up your scanner, but requires a minimum of attention. |
502 Bad Gateway
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
Yet another form of Taxation our Nullsec alliances will impose on us. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2602
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:37:00 -
[117] - Quote
Can I drop a ESS at a POS anchoring spot, then drop a POS there and online it?
I assume a ratter could drop a ESS right by an alt's ship. If a hostile is incoming, hit the share button, burn out of the bubble and warp. No need to wait around if you hit the share button. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Chalur Dallocort
Fairweather Ice Cream Co Insidious Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:38:00 -
[118] - Quote
502 Bad Gateway wrote:Yet another form of Taxation our Nullsec alliances will impose on us. Says the guy in a noob corp. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5933
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:41:00 -
[119] - Quote
The problems with this implementation basically boil down to two major issues:
1) Interceptors exist
Interceptors are currently bubble immune and cannot be locked before they warp off. They invalidate nearly any defense you'd put up to guard your ESS. A lot of the balance here assumes you can guard it, which isn't really the case. There's no real viable way to kill an interceptor before it gets there, and with the ability of the interceptor to steal, warp out, and warp back in in 40s to get its tags the inty is virtually unkillable. This may be more of an issue that giving bubble immunity to interceptors was simply a mistake, but it makes the intended balance here not work.
2) A massive inbalance in the risk/reward that makes it a bad bet
You're asking people to risk 15% of their income for a 5% boost. That's a bad bet, especially considering point 1: you can't really do anything to affect the odds. You're going to wind up in the red most of the time, and 5% is not enough for people to want to play this game. Plus, the fact you are dumb enough to deploy an ESS means you're suddenly going to get a lot more interceptors in your space and you will lose a lot more often: word will spread about the people dumb enough to drop ESS that you can steal from and interceptors will decend on your space, losing you the money you risked for the ess, and losing you the money you'd have made while you safe up because hostiles are in your ratting system.
"I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:42:00 -
[120] - Quote
Dear CCP " i dont give a rats behind about the nulsec playerbase " unless they are the pirates
( this is just asilly idea beyond belief )
and now to contractive questions
please put a cool down on the payout 5+ minutes otherwise the completely OP interceptors will suck dry the ESS's all over eve
please incluede all of eve in this silly idea and see how your high sec carebears will scream your forums full.
and please state the intended price level and seize of this module - due to the level of problems this silly thing is going to cause it schould NOT be usable by a frigate
|
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5933
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:42:00 -
[121] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Can I drop a ESS at a POS anchoring spot, then drop a POS there and online it?
I assume a ratter could drop a ESS right by an alt's ship. If a hostile is incoming, hit the share button, burn out of the bubble and warp. No need to wait around if you hit the share button. You'd be better off training another ratter on that account and doing some 95% ESS-free ratting. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
843
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:43:00 -
[122] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:l0rd carlos wrote:Enteron Anabente wrote:l0rd carlos wrote:heretic You forgot again that interceptors are nullified, didn't you? No I did not. But the heretic is good against interceptors. Lots of things are good against interceptors, when they decide not to use their invulnerable "can warp away before being locked" mode. And I provided an example :)
Anyhow, if they just warp away again they can't steel your money. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5315
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:45:00 -
[123] - Quote
Talar Draylan wrote:How about I start paying 95% of the sub fees? How about you pay 300% of the subscription fee, because that is roughly what you make now compared to when I first started the game. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2544
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:45:00 -
[124] - Quote
502 Bad Gateway wrote:Yet another form of Taxation our Nullsec alliances will impose on us.
So they'll keep someone in system to stop you triggering it to pay out? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Isengrimus
LOST IDEA C0VEN
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:46:00 -
[125] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:There should be a pirate edition of the EES that allows players to leech FW LP.
It would finally give the farmers a reason to fight for their profit.
This x 10. Also, with the ninja-looting in hisec almost gone due to the new suspect system, similar (although grid-wide) ISK siphons could be introduced in hi-sec, so at least there is some balance. They can print out Pirate Tags sellable in Pirate NPC stations if you want.
Otherwise, as many people said before, the ESS is just another nerf to nullsec ratting - resulting in further decrease in nullsec being useful for anything or anyone but huge blob coalitions. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
387
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:47:00 -
[126] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:The problems with this implementation basically boil down to two major issues:
1) Interceptors exist
Interceptors are currently bubble immune and cannot be locked before they warp off. They invalidate nearly any defense you'd put up to guard your ESS. A lot of the balance here assumes you can guard it, which isn't really the case. There's no real viable way to kill an interceptor before it gets there, and with the ability of the interceptor to steal, warp out, and warp back in in 40s to get its tags the inty is virtually unkillable. This may be more of an issue that giving bubble immunity to interceptors was simply a mistake, but it makes the intended balance here not work.
2) A massive inbalance in the risk/reward that makes it a bad bet
You're asking people to risk 15% of their income for a 5% boost. That's a bad bet, especially considering point 1: you can't really do anything to affect the odds. You're going to wind up in the red most of the time, and 5% is not enough for people to want to play this game. Plus, the fact you are dumb enough to deploy an ESS means you're suddenly going to get a lot more interceptors in your space and you will lose a lot more often: word will spread about the people dumb enough to drop ESS that you can steal from and interceptors will decend on your space, losing you the money you risked for the ess, and losing you the money you'd have made while you safe up because hostiles are in your ratting system.
There is a third and larger problem.
3) Much effort goes into being able to rat in nullsec with a measure of safety. When bad ratters are losing ships to hostiles, they are acting as a beacon to draw more hostiles into the region which negatively impacts everyone's income. When smart ratters don't feed kills, fewer people show up to cause trouble. The ESS is essentially giving every roaming fleet free, guaranteed isk, paying them to trample through your space. There is no level of risk vs reward, or level of exposure for the attackers where the ESS becomes desirable for the ratters.
As a bounty-siphon, an undesirable hostile module, the ESS could be made to work. Trying to pretend that it will ever be in any way beneficial to the ratters makes me think that whoever designed this has never actually spent any time ratting in nullsec. |
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:47:00 -
[127] - Quote
Dear players,
We love the massive battles you wage that we use for publicity, to make these amazing 4000 man brawls even more rare we are making it (yet again) even harder for the basic alliance line member to make the isk to pay for it all.
GG :CCP: |
Crash Course
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:50:00 -
[128] - Quote
So I will be able to warp to one of these in an interceptor, wait 40 seconds for it to print, and be gone before most people will even enter warp to go defend their ESS?
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8325
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:51:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Please be constructive in your replies and follow the forum rules. If you think you do not like an idea, then please point out why you don't like it and why it is from your point of view not a good idea. Thank you! I think whoever came up with this idea deserves some verbal abuse.
And it's not "from my point of view" a bad idea. It's a bad idea. My EVE Videos |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2544
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:51:00 -
[130] - Quote
Just to update people's math:
Asking people to risk 15.7% of their income, for a 10.5% bonus.
After all, the bounties are being rebased to 95% without the ESS. So you have to pay attention to that number, rather than the 100% value, which you can no longer get, without the ESS.
Question:
Does the pool accumulate at 20%, then 25%, or does the pool accumulate, then pay out at 25% (once it hits that level)
Example to clarify: I kill 10 ships with a bounty of 100. after I kill ship 5, the bonus ticks to 25%.
Do I get: (100 x 0.2)x5 + (100 x 0.25)x5 or: (100x0.25)x10 ? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2414
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:51:00 -
[131] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:There should be a pirate edition of the EES that allows players to leech FW LP.
It would finally give the farmers a reason to fight for their profit.
so would timer resets but this would be far to easy to fix the problem at its roots eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Qui Binder
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:52:00 -
[132] - Quote
Sometimes I wonder if CCP is trying to kill nullsec. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1167
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:53:00 -
[133] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:The problems with this implementation basically boil down to two major issues:
1) Interceptors exist
Interceptors are currently bubble immune and cannot be locked before they warp off. They invalidate nearly any defense you'd put up to guard your ESS. A lot of the balance here assumes you can guard it, which isn't really the case. There's no real viable way to kill an interceptor before it gets there, and with the ability of the interceptor to steal, warp out, and warp back in in 40s to get its tags the inty is virtually unkillable. This may be more of an issue that giving bubble immunity to interceptors was simply a mistake, but it makes the intended balance here not work.
the 40 seconds print are a not that bad mechanic against interceptors. as long as the tags can't be accessed while cloaked and the process takes more than a second (open, take, warp away) there is plenty of time to kill the ceptor
also ceptors usually don't come out of nowhere if you pay attention to intel channels. enemy ceptors in the region ? make sure there are no 200m worth of tags in the ESS We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Darth Sith
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:54:00 -
[134] - Quote
I have to say that in it's current form, the ESS doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is a lot of time/effort/risk for little perceived reward.
With a couple of changes I could see this as usable...
-Make the access roles based limiting the 'cashing out ' function - add a RF timer like the depots - make them a bit more robust but susceptible to small gangs (like a poco)
The result would be a module that could be deployed by alliance holding corps to capture revenue from ratting space (to replace alliance tax that has been asked for but never materialized. The module could also be used to deploy in ratting space from alliances to capture income from smaller entities.
Think about it: Today we have to rent out a chunk of space to an alliance and it necessitates a 1 - 1 relationship between a system and a renter. Pop a couple of these into a constellation and open it up for smaller entities to rat in and just collect income based on there activities with minimal effort. This may open chunks of 0.0 up to smaller groups as the larger power blocks would not need to micro - manage it.
Additionally, in this form, it would make it a content generation device just like the siphons in that they can be attacked forcing the controlling party to defend them and at the same time be a mechanism for hostiles to inhibit activities of larger groups .
Just my 2 cents but thought I would put in my suggestions vs just dismissing it ..
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8325
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:54:00 -
[135] - Quote
I'm just waiting for someone to come along and be like "nullbear tears means it's a good idea". My EVE Videos |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:54:00 -
[136] - Quote
This is simply the reason why no true jew will use the damned things. 5-10% is not worth a chance of losing 20-25% of your profits. The fact that in the past, it may have been a thing because Ceptors weren't nulled but now with the Ceptor being what it is. It's just not worth the risk even with the nanny alarms screaming that someone is in system messing with your crap. I really think this is a worthless thing and shouldn't even be included in the game from point that jews won't want to use it and because of that it will likely only be used by PvPers for bait. I'm all for the bait idea, but in all this seems like a waste of time they could have put into improving other game related things. You know, balancing shields vs armor and textures. It's an over complicated Null Sec ISK sink that's built on an over complicated 30m ISK sink. I guess if you want to bring about a fight you could use them but that almost seems like overkill to make it 30m ISK. Honestly, just put up a cyno and wrap it in a bubble, problem solved. Almost seems like CCP thought, well there is too much ISK in Null Sec, lets solve that by throwing a new module into the game and call it good. Just my thoughts. |
Enteron Anabente
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:55:00 -
[137] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Just to update people's math:
Asking people to risk 15.7% of their income, for a 10.5% bonus.
After all, the bounties are being rebased to 95% without the ESS. So you have to pay attention to that number, rather than the 100% value, which you can no longer get, without the ESS.
Question:
Does the pool accumulate at 20%, then 25%, or does the pool accumulate, then pay out at 25% (once it hits that level)
Example to clarify: I kill 10 ships with a bounty of 100. after I kill ship 5, the bonus ticks to 25%.
Do I get: (100 x 0.2)x5 + (100 x 0.25)x5 or: (100x0.25)x10 ?
The pool accumulates at the current rate when the bounty is earned, not at the current rate when you cash out. |
Anys Thes'Realin
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:56:00 -
[138] - Quote
Something I missed:
Quote:The ESS has a global beacon, meaning it will be visible by all players, allowing them to warp directly to it. Note that the new scan-block deployable does not interfer with this.
Scan Block deployable? Did I miss something? When was this announced? My (WIP) Roleplaying Profile: http://tinyurl.com/nfazlch |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2602
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:56:00 -
[139] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:502 Bad Gateway wrote:Yet another form of Taxation our Nullsec alliances will impose on us. So they'll keep someone in system to stop you triggering it to pay out? No. If it get triggered by anyone but the approved alliance collection agent they kick you out of their space.
But would an alliance bother? Hitting the "share" button gives ISK without the tags, it just goes to the wallets. The "take all" button requires you fly around with tags, in Null, and get those tags to an NPC station to cash out. Seems to be the alliance would just use the present rental method and let the renters deal with ESS units. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Chron X
Ixion Defence Systems Insidious Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:58:00 -
[140] - Quote
There is clearly something wrong with the mechanics of a harassment tool when even the CFC is complaining about it being broken.
This deployable and others like it will just further drive null sec alts into high sec to make an income. The only thing CCP is doing is decreasing the amount of potential targets for BLOPs teams and roaming gangs in null sec. Good job. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5315
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:58:00 -
[141] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:The problems with this implementation basically boil down to two major issues:
1) Interceptors exist
Interceptors are currently bubble immune and cannot be locked before they warp off. They invalidate nearly any defense you'd put up to guard your ESS. A lot of the balance here assumes you can guard it, which isn't really the case. There's no real viable way to kill an interceptor before it gets there, and with the ability of the interceptor to steal, warp out, and warp back in in 40s to get its tags the inty is virtually unkillable. This may be more of an issue that giving bubble immunity to interceptors was simply a mistake, but it makes the intended balance here not work.
2) A massive inbalance in the risk/reward that makes it a bad bet
You're asking people to risk 15% of their income for a 5% boost. That's a bad bet, especially considering point 1: you can't really do anything to affect the odds. You're going to wind up in the red most of the time, and 5% is not enough for people to want to play this game. Plus, the fact you are dumb enough to deploy an ESS means you're suddenly going to get a lot more interceptors in your space and you will lose a lot more often: word will spread about the people dumb enough to drop ESS that you can steal from and interceptors will decend on your space, losing you the money you risked for the ess, and losing you the money you'd have made while you safe up because hostiles are in your ratting system.
Agreed for the most part, but there are a few other aspects to consider as well.
1: The delay involved while the tags are being printed opens up some interesting possibilities. Often the ratters, unless they are holed up in a POS somewhere, can simply cruise the 15km while they are printing and scoop them up themselves... although there might be a bit of hostile interaction if the inty pilot sticks around or warps back in.
2: There are some highly amusing scenarios possible with griefing the ratting systems of other players that might come from this. Especially since you know that unless they want to be earning only 80% they MIUST come and try to kill this thing. I'm sure you can see the possibilities.
3: The flip side of that coin is that you could lay some interesting traps from roaming ceptor gangs as well. The most rudimentary being a group of cloaked smart bombing battleships sitting around this little widget waiting for that inty gang reported heading this way. After all, you know they likely will warp directly to it... because they can.
4: On a more mundane note, any type of intel channel worth it's salt should be able to give ratters plenty of warning if a ceptor gang is in the vicinity. Simply scoop and head to the POS, deploy again when they are gone. Of course, you'll have to start building your profit margin back up again after that, but it's better than losing the whole thing (or relying on the base rate you'll have without one).
5: For those complaining that their less scrupulous corp members will take the ISK all for themselves, this is very true. And when they do, you will be notified as to EXACTLY who took it. If you can't handle the issue from there... unsubscribe now.
6: The notification when someone enters it's vicinity is also highly interesting. I can think of several reasonably clever uses for that. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
234
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:58:00 -
[142] - Quote
Reading these comments gives me the impression that the CFC has hoovered up a lot of risk adverse carebears over the years and become the thing they used to despise. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2544
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:59:00 -
[143] - Quote
Hmm.
How about: Cash out/share only by the corp/alliance of the person who dropped it. With the addition of being able to hack it, to get a spew of tags?
That should slow down the interceptors a little. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Scarlet Thellere
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:59:00 -
[144] - Quote
Not really sure what to think about that ESS module. Maybe it should have built-in grid cynojammer so it will really encourage small ganks and not cynobaits? |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1167
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:59:00 -
[145] - Quote
The numbers are meh-ish
whats wrong with an initial reduction to 80% and an ESS'd increase to 60% + 50% = 110% (percentages based on the income pre 1.1)
would make the ESSes much more interesting for players and ebil piwates alike.
We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1167
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:01:00 -
[146] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Hmm.
How about: Cash out/share only by the corp/alliance of the person who dropped it. With the addition of being able to hack it, to get a spew of tags?
That should slow down the interceptors a little.
if you are referring to the spewing mechanic from the hacking minigame: worst idea ever. that should be abolished We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8328
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:01:00 -
[147] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Reading these comments gives me the impression that the CFC has hoovered up a lot of risk adverse carebears over the years and become the thing they used to despise. It has nothing to do with being risk averse and everything to do with a completely pointless nerf to nullsec income. And it is a nerf, because ratters will never be able to benefit from this structure in its current form. My EVE Videos |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5315
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:04:00 -
[148] - Quote
Major Templar wrote:This is simply the reason why no true jew will use the damned things. 5-10% is not worth a chance of losing 20-25% of your profits. The fact that in the past, it may have been a thing because Ceptors weren't nulled but now with the Ceptor being what it is. It's just not worth the risk even with the nanny alarms screaming that someone is in system messing with your crap. I really think this is a worthless thing and shouldn't even be included in the game from point that jews won't want to use it and because of that it will likely only be used by PvPers for bait. I'm all for the bait idea, but in all this seems like a waste of time they could have put into improving other game related things. You know, balancing shields vs armor and textures. It's an over complicated Null Sec ISK sink that's built on an over complicated 30m ISK sink. I guess if you want to bring about a fight you could use them but that almost seems like overkill to make it 30m ISK. Honestly, just put up a cyno and wrap it in a bubble, problem solved. Almost seems like CCP thought, well there is too much ISK in Null Sec, lets solve that by throwing a new module into the game and call it good. Just my thoughts. You probably don't see anything offensive about your post. Kinda sad. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
364
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:05:00 -
[149] - Quote
Qui Binder wrote:Sometimes I wonder if CCP is trying to kill nullsec. replace nullsec by non-hisec, they seems to equally hate nul, low and WH. they do love their hisec bear tho, giving them more and more isk and safety against us, evil players who dare brave the odds and venture outside of the them park
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
182
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:07:00 -
[150] - Quote
So Odyssey killed hacking and archaeology sites, and rubicon nerfs basic anomaly ratting. Presumably the next expansion will include a deployable allowing you to warp directly on top of someone in a deadspace pocket. |
|
Johann Rascali
Crunchy Crunchy The Obsidian Front
85
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:08:00 -
[151] - Quote
Can we have an option to show them on the starmap (like active cynos) so we know where to intercept our free isk? Welcome to our universe where cooldown timers are a mystery, the PLEX menu is just an advertisement, shrapnel bombs deal explosive force, concussion bombs are somehow kinetically penetrative, and who left all these prototype Inferno modules all over the place? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5316
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:09:00 -
[152] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:So Odyssey killed hacking and archaeology sites, and rubicon nerfs basic anomaly ratting. Presumably the next expansion will include a deployable allowing you to warp directly on top of someone in a deadspace pocket. If by killed you mean "Done by far more people, more often, than before", then sure. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Pufferfish Lemoncurry
Shadow Runners. The Fire Nation Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:09:00 -
[153] - Quote
As a high-sec carebear I laugh at your antics at for me absolutely meaningless deployable addition to game. Have fun fighting your pointless fights in under 0.4. More peace for me. |
Cori Fera
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:10:00 -
[154] - Quote
Questions no one has asked yet:
Does the owner of the ESS get a time/date and bounty collected by pilot log? If they do, do they have to go to the ESS to get it, or does it show up as some sort of notification? Will it show the type of ship the used to collect the bounty? |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
182
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:11:00 -
[155] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:If by killed you mean "Done by far more people, more often, than before", then sure. That's exactly what I mean actually, since they're so widely done by week old characters that the loot is now effectively worthless compared to basically any other pve activity. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
364
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:14:00 -
[156] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:If by killed you mean "Done by far more people, more often, than before", then sure. That's exactly what I mean actually, since they're so widely done by week old characters that the loot is now effectively worthless compared to basically any other pve activity. actually a 4 day toon can now do the same sigs, within the same amount of time, my specialized toons were doing pre-odyssey
still wondering wy i even botered spending weeks (months?) skilling it, since it's now wasted |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
10862
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:15:00 -
[157] - Quote
Nom nom nom!
|
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:16:00 -
[158] - Quote
I am still interested in potentially manufacturing the ESS.
The complaints seem to be geared around interceptors scooping the contents too fast. Wouldn't just requiring the thief to be uncloaked and within a reasonable range for 3-5 seconds be enough to make the situation dangerous for interceptors. That might suggest different requirements for deploying the can, or making the can slower to open and loot (different type of can). It seems that those balance options should be available to CCP. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
757
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:16:00 -
[159] - Quote
Also can we please get some believable lore behind this.
This goes back to the article Svetlana Scarlet wrote on TMC a while back about CCP adding unbelievable lore into everything to try and rationalise or explain game mechanics changes. Ignoring the fact that the ESS isn't a useful item the lore and story behind it is unbelievable and weak.
If CONCORD don't want to keep on paying Capsuleers as much ISK they would just lower the bounties, not go "Well we said we would pay you 1,000,000 ISK but we decided to keep 5% for ourselves because you earn so much". If it's an attempt to build heat from Capsuleers towards CONCORD it could be done in a much more realistic and enjoyable way than as a blanket of lore to try and explain a modification in game mechanics.
More believable would be "CONCORD has announced it's lowering values of bounties paid in lawless systems due to the lack of thread pirates there pose on Empire space."
If you want to build on the idea that Capsuleers are becoming a threat and we're overstepping our bounds why not remove the -5% nerf and make the lore that by using the modules we our hacking CONCORDS bounty systems and manipulating them to bring ourselves more ISK. Now you have a system where the players choose undermine CONCORDs authority and screw them over. You could make five modules CONCORD, Caldari, Gallente, Amarr & Minmatar having the Empire ones add LP to kills and we're messing with the LP payment systems of the Empires to overstep our place with them, the CONCORD one being % buff to ISK instead of LP.
Above you have lore and story along the "Capsuleers are revolting" theme you seem to be working on as well as a boost to income for NullSec. There are still many issues with the ESS itself like letting just anyone steal from it. A more interesting system would be we gain the rewards if it's active but hostile forces can incapacitate it which then reduces the systems income by 10% here is the "fields and fires" theory spoken about so many years ago.
Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:17:00 -
[160] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Just what null-sec needs: another nerf to ratting.
Solo interceptors are just going to flit around null-sec picking up money tags from people foolish enough to deploy these. The bubble won't even slow them down: they'll be able to warp to zero at the ESS.
exactly this, This new deployable looks like somebody came up with a way for alliances/coalitions to better tax their renters, but then someone butted in and said "no we should make even more ways for null sec players lose their isk to people who need to take little to no risk taking it"
seriously, interceptors make these stupid to even try to put out. if one guy patrols the space every 20 mins you have no chance of making 100% isk. and with this kind of incentive i would venture they will be very very common. hell i'll do it for free isk that's easier than ratting. |
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:18:00 -
[161] - Quote
My tear cup before ESS.
My tear cup after ESS.
Time for an upgrade. Free Ripley Weaver! |
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:18:00 -
[162] - Quote
I am not really sure what the point of rubicon is? I thought the point was to force people to pay attention to otherwise afk activities like moon mining and reactions. Ratting is an activity you have to be logged in for, so not quite the same. I would be fine with a 5% nerf to bounties, but the ESS idea seems so arbitrary and absurdly complex. It doesn't seem like it was thought through well enough. Does this mean we will see a mining deployable in the future, something that siphons your ore?
ESS needs a big advantage for people to deploy it. Make it decloak everyone in system and then we'll talk |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4729
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:20:00 -
[163] - Quote
Everyone is so afraid of interceptors. lol
These new modules are great. Keep them coming.
As far as those whining about them and new POS stuff. Look, CCP gets it. We want a POS revamp. Do you honestly believe that the time it took to make all the deployables that have come out so far, come close to 1% of the time it will take to do a POS revamp? All of these small deployables are most likely a test bed and such for such a POS rewrite. Sure give feedback and opinions on the deployables and what you envision a POS should be, but keep it constructive.
Anyways, I like what you have been doing so far CCP. Just make sure no structure mails are sent out with anything new. Those things just promote lazyness and blobbing. . |
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
78
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:20:00 -
[164] - Quote
Do not decrease bounty from 100% to 95%, and maybe ESS idea will live. Other way nobody will use it. And DEVs will lose respect from many carebears.
Or... should we block Jita again, lol? Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Garnoo
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:20:00 -
[165] - Quote
just make ESS lowsec only, and with ability to generate 10-20% bounties, mayby this will make lowsec more pupulated by carebears and thanks to them by...pvpers hunting them People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back - this is EvE |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5316
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:21:00 -
[166] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Sal Landry wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:If by killed you mean "Done by far more people, more often, than before", then sure. That's exactly what I mean actually, since they're so widely done by week old characters that the loot is now effectively worthless compared to basically any other pve activity. actually a 4 day toon can now do the same sigs, within the same amount of time, my specialized toons were doing pre-odyssey still wondering wy i even botered spending weeks (months?) skilling it, since it's now wasted None of which upholds the assertion that those professions are dead. Wildly popular and widely done, yes... but not dead. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
804
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:23:00 -
[167] - Quote
I really want to be constructive here, CCP, but what in the unholy **** were you smoking when you devised this rube goldberg crap?
There are tons of issues in nullsec right now. Capital issues you're putting off for possibly years, a tedious sovereignty system, a POS system that needs a serious overhaul, utterly broken interceptors (that turn your stupid ESS into a loot pinata for any inty gang that knows where to find it), taking away income from ratters, who from my few years of playing this game are SORT OF KINDA AT THE BOTTOM of the economic food chain in nullsec. Nodbody, no renter, nobody from deklein to delve to Kevla to cobalt edge should want your glorified undefended tip jar.
Don't push this thing into tranquility. Please, don't. I've generally been on board with CCP changes over the last year or two, but this takes the cake as the dumbest damned thing I've ever seen you do, and I've read about tracking titans and remote AOE doomsdays.
What happened to farms and fields and handling top-down income? Why don't you deal with the fact that alliances need to finance themselves with renter empires? I guess you're too busy thinking, damn, the average nullsec line member needs to have his income reduced and/or put at further risk, as if uncatchable interceptor gangs weren't enough.
If I had a plane ticket and passport I think I'd travel to iceland just to take a dump on your front porch if this goes live, CCP. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
916
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:23:00 -
[168] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:At first glance, the ESS looks like a bit of a kick in the teeth to the three or four people left ratting in nullsec. The likelihood of anyone hitting 'share' is going to be about 0, so they're probably just going to get shot on principal. So it's pretty much a perpetual nerf to nullsec income, again.
Edit: The ESS should really, really be available in all areas of space (especially hisec) then it'll be interesting. And should have MUCH higher rewards for deployment to make it worthwhile.
I fully agree with this post, the module should be sec status independent and deployable everywhere. It might spawn a new micro profession in which pilots fly around known mission hubs looking for these modules to destroy or even deploying them themselves.
Also I've never supported those who argue that highsec is better than null sec (and as such high sec needs a nerf) but this does seem like a kick in the teeth to null sec to me if thay is the only region that they can be deployed in. Can we have a dev response as to why these units can only be deployed in null sec. Other than that I like the unit and the thinking behind it, I just wish we could deploy them everywhere. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:23:00 -
[169] - Quote
Really looking forward to the ESS. Everytime we get a new WH into a system with ratters there's either the option to go stealing or setup an own one - and maybe get a fight.
I don't get the problems people seem to have with interceptors setting up the ESS or stealing from them. Let me address a few of the possible situations.
- If CCP wants to avoid interceptors deploying the units, just make them too big for their cargo. They all got <100m-¦ of space, which of course can be boosted quite a bit (373m-¦ max I guess) but yeah, then the interceptor has lost quite some fighting capabilities.
- If an single enemy enters the system and drops an ESS, you can do what you do now anyway: stop ratting until he's gone. Or get intel what he's flying (shouldn't be too hard, you have intel channels, scanners, a POS/station to exchange ships), get in a proper pvp ship and blast his ESS. Minus 30 million for him. Done.
- If an enemy fleet drops an ESS in your system, do what you do now anyway. Stop ratting. Destroy the thing when they are gone. Or get some friends and defend your space!
- Single enemy in an interceptor tries to steal the tags. Well, from the moment he enters system you got approx. a minute to get to the ESS. If you didn't place the ESS stupidly close to the gate where he enters but close to your POS (as close as CCP allows), you will most likely make it. And then it's you in a sensor boosted anti-frig ship vs. an interceptor. Both waiting for a can to spawn to which the inty most likely needs to burn first... Did I mention you shouldn't rat alone in system. It might be even you and a few corpmates vs the inty trying to steal
- Enemy fleet enters your ratting system and empties your ESS. Your intel has messed up, you deserve the loss.
- WH spawns into your system with active people behind. You really want to have an ESS deployed then already, or one just might pop up at the WH and you won't have fun finding out what else lurks behind it ;)
There's s.th. seriously wrong with risk vs reward in ratting though. The ISK/h should be 0.0 Ratting >>> FW > HS Incursions. |
Longdrinks
Love Squad Black Legion.
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:24:00 -
[170] - Quote
Looking forward to these as a way to maybe force a fight from bears who usually dock up untill i leave system. |
|
Esteban Dragonovic
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:25:00 -
[171] - Quote
If you're trying to nerf null income then just do it. Don't beat around the bush with this kind of crap. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5316
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:26:00 -
[172] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Just what null-sec needs: another nerf to ratting.
Solo interceptors are just going to flit around null-sec picking up money tags from people foolish enough to deploy these. The bubble won't even slow them down: they'll be able to warp to zero at the ESS. exactly this, This new deployable looks like somebody came up with a way for alliances/coalitions to better tax their renters, but then someone butted in and said "no we should make even more ways for null sec players lose their isk to people who need to take little to no risk taking it" seriously, interceptors make these stupid to even try to put out. if one guy patrols the space every 20 mins you have no chance of making 100% isk. and with this kind of incentive i would venture they will be very very common. hell i'll do it for free isk that's easier than ratting. Since you'll know EXACTLY where that ceptor will be, and will even get a notification when he starts his rounds, you would have to be completely inept to not be able to lay a trap and kill him.
Or flip that coin and plant your own module in someone elses ratting space. You KNOW they'll show up to kill it.
Seriously... think about the possibilities. The value of these module lies beneath the surface. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
392
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:26:00 -
[173] - Quote
Longdrinks wrote:Looking forward to these as a way to maybe force a fight from bears who usually dock up untill i leave system.
What makes you think that will happen?
They won't anchor them because the ESS helps you more than it helps them. If you anchor one they'll still stay docked up until you leave, then blow up the ESS and go back to ratting. |
Antisun
Pervicax Socium
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:26:00 -
[174] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Hmm.
How about: Cash out/share only by the corp/alliance of the person who dropped it. With the addition of being able to hack it, to get a spew of tags?
That should slow down the interceptors a little.
Came here to say this; remove the notification to give the hacker a fighting chance though. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4730
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:27:00 -
[175] - Quote
Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown . |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
392
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:28:00 -
[176] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
And you're utterly missing the point which is that nobody would want to.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4730
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:29:00 -
[177] - Quote
Antisun wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Hmm.
How about: Cash out/share only by the corp/alliance of the person who dropped it. With the addition of being able to hack it, to get a spew of tags?
That should slow down the interceptors a little. Came here to say this; remove the notification to give the hacker a fighting chance though. That does sound interesting actually. Didn't they talk/actually remove the 'spew' thing though?
Regardless, having a guy setup to murder interceptors chill at the ESS while his buddies rat seems like a good idea. . |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:29:00 -
[178] - Quote
Kadl wrote:I am still interested in potentially manufacturing the ESS.
The complaints seem to be geared around interceptors scooping the contents too fast. Wouldn't just requiring the thief to be uncloaked and within a reasonable range for 3-5 seconds be enough to make the situation dangerous for interceptors. That might suggest different requirements for deploying the can, or making the can slower to open and loot (different type of can). It seems that those balance options should be available to CCP.
interceptors dont cloak, they just cant be bubbled and have the highest speed of any ship in eve. they can get in system, align, and warp before you start getting your ship aligned. dscan allows them to bounce around and see if anything is on the ess that could hurt them fast enough. if they fit a cyno they can bring in people to drop whoever was dumb enough to sit in the bubble trying to defend the ess. if no one is in the bubble all they have to do is get in right click take all warp out. being a frigate they might not even be locked in time. so pretty much in order for a nullsec group to use it they have to have guys sit in antifrigate ships and have backup on hand incase of a drop. the benefit of using one will never be enough for a group to go through all that effort, so let's call it what it is a nerf to null sec income and a shiny new deployable warp bubble. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8331
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:30:00 -
[179] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:I really want to be constructive here, CCP, but what in the unholy **** were you smoking when you devised this rube goldberg crap?
There are tons of issues in nullsec right now. Capital issues you're putting off for possibly years, a tedious sovereignty system, a POS system that needs a serious overhaul, utterly broken interceptors (that turn your stupid ESS into a loot pinata for any inty gang that knows where to find it), taking away income from ratters, who from my few years of playing this game are SORT OF KINDA AT THE BOTTOM of the economic food chain in nullsec. Nodbody, no renter, nobody from deklein to delve to Kevla to cobalt edge should want your glorified undefended tip jar.
Don't push this thing into tranquility. Please, don't. I've generally been on board with CCP changes over the last year or two, but this takes the cake as the dumbest damned thing I've ever seen you do, and I've read about tracking titans and remote AOE doomsdays.
What happened to farms and fields and handling top-down income? Why don't you deal with the fact that alliances need to finance themselves with renter empires? I guess you're too busy thinking, damn, the average nullsec line member needs to have his income reduced and/or put at further risk, as if uncatchable interceptor gangs weren't enough.
If I had a plane ticket and passport I think I'd travel to iceland just to take a dump on your front porch if this goes live, CCP. This, absolutely this. My EVE Videos |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:30:00 -
[180] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
And you're utterly missing the point which is that nobody would want to. Simple minds..... To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
757
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:31:00 -
[181] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown Well I am not Goonswarm and as it is now it's most likely not going to deployed by Providence Sov holders. However if I am correct in reading anyone can drop one of these so even if the Sov Holder doesn't want to ruin the system for their line members any roaming red can do so instead, it's a interesting "fight creation" tool but the blog is selling it more as a "look at this great new upgrade for your space!" which it really isn't. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8331
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:31:00 -
[182] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. I guess that means we're smarter than you. My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3350
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:31:00 -
[183] - Quote
Others have brought up several valid concerns:
1.) Response Times: I love giving roaming gangs the opportunity to mess with ratters that don't defend their space. On one level, that is exactly what this does. Unfortunately, it doesn't give the locals enough time to actually form up a response to the incoming fleet. 20 seconds access time is frankly, way, way, way to short. Hell, 75% of ships in the game couldn't warp on grid before the ESS is accessed. Furthermore, once it is accessed and the take all feature is implemented, the ESS is reset to no longer give its full reward. Next, the locals get an extra 40s to respond before the ESS dumps the isk-tags. To be quite frank, that's 60-90s to respond to a hostile interceptor entering the system, warping straight to the ESS beacon, and snagging the bounty payouts. If you have someone in combat fit dessie/frig ready to go, you can respond timely, but in most circumstances a pilot has to warp to a POS/station, swap ships, and then get to the ESS to defend it, and 90 seconds is no where near enough time to respond. To be quite frank, the "access time" needs to be increased to the point that the locals can form up and defend it. If they don't have time to defend it, the risks for using it will completely negate the rewards for using it. This MUST be addressed. I would recommend 3-5 minutes to access the item, and another 3-5 minutes before the isk-tag drops. This way the locals have time to form up and defend it, and perhaps battle for the loot.
2.) Risk vs Reward: The new baseline is 95% of the bounties on the rats. Your risk (immediate loss) if you deploy one of these: 15.7% of your new income level. Your reward if you keep it online: 10.5%. To put this in terms, you give me $15 dollars now, and I will attempt to give you back $25 dollars later if everything works out. The primary issue is, these are very risky in their current form, meaning the reward may not be high enough to bother with the hassle. Fruthermore, when scamming other players, isn't the norm to double the money. Meaning it should pay out 110% at the minimum.
|
Antisun
Pervicax Socium
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:32:00 -
[184] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:[quote=Antisun][quote=Steve Ronuken] ....
Regardless, having a guy setup to murder interceptors chill at the ESS while his buddies rat seems like a good idea.
A quick Lachesis with a friendly ESS anchored under the guns of a POS will kill many an interceptor. |
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
806
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:33:00 -
[185] - Quote
Marlona Sky with her ever so 'uselful' insight and weird hate-boner for goons typing a bunch of words while saying absolutely nothing, yet maintaining an air of bitterness that's almost admirable. |
BoomBoss
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:33:00 -
[186] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Qoi wrote:Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK? The empire fleets stations (Federation Navy stations, etc.).
So let me get this straight. You want us to move all the way to empire to get our ISK? We, the 0.0 players that try to avoid that place at all cost. Going to empire with only like a few mil is just not worth it. Going there with a bil calls for a gank.
So, not only is there a huge risk in getting the tags stolen, but also being blown up while going to highsec. Seriously? At least make the tages rightclickale so they can be funded to the wallet from any station. Not just empire stations. That is just stupid.
risk vs reward... but this goes way too far. |
Zeppo Miromme
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:33:00 -
[187] - Quote
While everybody talk about bounties and pirates, please note that cash (money that can be physically moved around and exchanged) has been introduced, in four new currencies. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
342
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:33:00 -
[188] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown
I thought you had more sense than this, but I guess I've been overestimating you. No sig. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:34:00 -
[189] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Longdrinks wrote:Looking forward to these as a way to maybe force a fight from bears who usually dock up untill i leave system. What makes you think that will happen? They won't anchor them because the ESS helps you more than it helps them. If you anchor one they'll still stay docked up until you leave, then blow up the ESS and go back to ratting. If they are truly pathetic, they won't defend their ESS, this is true. Sad, considering how easy it would be, but true.
However if you drop one and leave, you'll be notified the moment they get in it's area. Since they are unlikely to blow it up with a few interceptors they'll have to bring something bigger... in a bubble.... to a spot you can warp to directly.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
260
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:35:00 -
[190] - Quote
Fix POSes? Nope. Fix Sov? Nope. Fix TiDi? Nope. Fix Corp roles? Nope. Iterate on FW? Nope. Rework PvE? Nope.
Nerfing nullsec income to make it even more empty and less desirable? YES, now THAT'S the important thing CCP needs to be spending its time and resources on. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:35:00 -
[191] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown I thought you had more sense than this, but I guess I've been overestimating you. You might note that the more intelligent goons have suddenly stopped complaining about them.
There's a reason for that. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:36:00 -
[192] - Quote
Anariasis wrote:Really looking forward to the ESS. Everytime we get a new WH into a system with ratters there's either the option to go stealing or setup an own one - and maybe get a fight. I don't get the problems people seem to have with interceptors setting up the ESS or stealing from them. Let me address a few of the possible situations.
- If CCP wants to avoid interceptors deploying the units, just make them too big for their cargo. They all got <100m-¦ of space, which of course can be boosted quite a bit (373m-¦ max I guess) but yeah, then the interceptor has lost quite some fighting capabilities.
- If an single enemy enters the system and drops an ESS, you can do what you do now anyway: stop ratting until he's gone. Or get intel what he's flying (shouldn't be too hard, you have intel channels, scanners, a POS/station to exchange ships), get in a proper pvp ship and blast his ESS. Minus 30 million for him. Done.
- If an enemy fleet drops an ESS in your system, do what you do now anyway. Stop ratting. Destroy the thing when they are gone. Or get some friends and defend your space!
- Single enemy in an interceptor tries to steal the tags. Well, from the moment he enters system you got approx. a minute to get to the ESS. If you didn't place the ESS stupidly close to the gate where he enters but close to your POS (as close as CCP allows), you will most likely make it. And then it's you in a sensor boosted anti-frig ship vs. an interceptor. Both waiting for a can to spawn to which the inty most likely needs to burn first... Did I mention you shouldn't rat alone in system. It might be even you and a few corpmates vs the inty trying to steal
- Enemy fleet enters your ratting system and empties your ESS. Your intel has messed up, you deserve the loss.
- WH spawns into your system with active people behind. You really want to have an ESS deployed then already, or one just might pop up at the WH and you won't have fun finding out what else lurks behind it ;)
There's s.th. seriously wrong with risk vs reward in ratting though. The ISK/h should be 0.0 Ratting >>> FW > HS Incursions. Edit: Forgot something. If you rat all day together with your corp/allymates and then one of them warps to it and presses the button to keep all the money for himself... then maybe you should change corp. Or maybe get him kicked before he can move all his belongings out of your 0.0 staging...
no people arn't complaining about ninja dropping them, we are saying no group will use it for themselves as it is susceptible to inties. as for ninja droping them ratters would react like they do when a hostile force drops in... just dock up. once you leave they will blow it up together and go on ratting.
|
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
809
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:37:00 -
[193] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown I thought you had more sense than this, but I guess I've been overestimating you. You might note that the more intelligent goons have suddenly stopped complaining about them. There's a reason for that.
A smarter man might still notice that ratter income is taking a hit for exactly zero reason because CCP wants to introduce a conflict-creating module that won't get used, so the net effect being that people who shoot red crosses to finance their pvp, get to pvp less.
This is moronic. No, they won't be deployed. Yes, this is still comletely asinine. Stop pretending otherwise. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
844
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:38:00 -
[194] - Quote
BoomBoss wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Qoi wrote:Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK? The empire fleets stations (Federation Navy stations, etc.). So let me get this straight. You want us to move all the way to empire to get our ISK? We, the 0.0 players that try to avoid that place at all cost. Going to empire with only like a few mil is just not worth it. Going there with a bil calls for a gank. So, not only is there a huge risk in getting the tags stolen, but also being blown up while going to highsec. Seriously? At least make the tages rightclickale so they can be funded to the wallet from any station. Not just empire stations. That is just stupid. risk vs reward... but this goes way too far. Press the share button and recive ISK, press the I WANT EVERYTHING button (Like a thief would do it) and get the tags. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
269
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: However if you drop one and leave, you'll be notified the moment they get in it's area. Since they are unlikely to blow it up with a few interceptors they'll have to bring something bigger... in a bubble.... to a spot you can warp to directly.
Three dudes in torpbombers knocks one down in a minute and a half |
ckinoutdahoe
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:39:00 -
[196] - Quote
This is the biggest waste of code I have seen in a while.
Why not do sometthing productive !!!!!
Such as How corp admin works or pos roles.
This is so long over due it is not even funny.
So ya already figured out how to waste code...... make it for for the empire and null sec too.
I will be more than happy to fly an interceptor into the bubble and steal isk.
That is what it is all about right.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak.
Let all sectors feel the pain you are willing to inflict in null space.
For so long you have tried to get people into null space and now you want to do the reverse.
All I can see in the future is more pain for empire space since it is more fun to kill everyone no matter where hostiles/nuets hide.
For that matter; it dont matter what so ever.
If you have a big wallet and many of us old members have; we can now buy our way back to positive sec statis.
So waste you time on Important stuff.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8333
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:39:00 -
[197] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Fix POSes? Nope. Fix Sov? Nope. Fix TiDi? Nope. Fix Corp roles? Nope. Iterate on FW? Nope. Rework PvE? Nope.
Nerfing nullsec income to make it even more empty and less desirable? YES, now THAT'S the important thing CCP needs to be spending its time and resources on. It's no wonder CCP says they don't have time to work on those other things when they keep putting out ******** token **** like this.
If they spent their time working on things that need to be fixed rather than adding stupid new mechanics that make no sense and which ultimately hurt the game we'd all be much better off. My EVE Videos |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:40:00 -
[198] - Quote
I see some interesting possibilities for using these as checkpoints for sensitive transactions. Looking forward to having a play to see how far they can be perverted. |
Saab Kado
0.0-TAX
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:45:00 -
[199] - Quote
TL, DR
Nullsec ratting income is nerfed by 5%
Period. |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:45:00 -
[200] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Anariasis wrote:Really looking forward to the ESS. Everytime we get a new WH into a system with ratters there's either the option to go stealing or setup an own one - and maybe get a fight. I don't get the problems people seem to have with interceptors setting up the ESS or stealing from them. Let me address a few of the possible situations.
- If CCP wants to avoid interceptors deploying the units, just make them too big for their cargo. They all got <100m-¦ of space, which of course can be boosted quite a bit (373m-¦ max I guess) but yeah, then the interceptor has lost quite some fighting capabilities.
- If an single enemy enters the system and drops an ESS, you can do what you do now anyway: stop ratting until he's gone. Or get intel what he's flying (shouldn't be too hard, you have intel channels, scanners, a POS/station to exchange ships), get in a proper pvp ship and blast his ESS. Minus 30 million for him. Done.
- If an enemy fleet drops an ESS in your system, do what you do now anyway. Stop ratting. Destroy the thing when they are gone. Or get some friends and defend your space!
- Single enemy in an interceptor tries to steal the tags. Well, from the moment he enters system you got approx. a minute to get to the ESS. If you didn't place the ESS stupidly close to the gate where he enters but close to your POS (as close as CCP allows), you will most likely make it. And then it's you in a sensor boosted anti-frig ship vs. an interceptor. Both waiting for a can to spawn to which the inty most likely needs to burn first... Did I mention you shouldn't rat alone in system. It might be even you and a few corpmates vs the inty trying to steal
- Enemy fleet enters your ratting system and empties your ESS. Your intel has messed up, you deserve the loss.
- WH spawns into your system with active people behind. You really want to have an ESS deployed then already, or one just might pop up at the WH and you won't have fun finding out what else lurks behind it ;)
There's s.th. seriously wrong with risk vs reward in ratting though. The ISK/h should be 0.0 Ratting >>> FW > HS Incursions. Edit: Forgot something. If you rat all day together with your corp/allymates and then one of them warps to it and presses the button to keep all the money for himself... then maybe you should change corp. Or maybe get him kicked before he can move all his belongings out of your 0.0 staging... no people arn't complaining about ninja dropping them, we are saying no group will use it for themselves as it is susceptible to inties. as for ninja droping them ratters would react like they do when a hostile force drops in... just dock up. once you leave they will blow it up together and go on ratting.
If you would have read my post, you would see that's exactly one of the points I covered. I marked it for your convenience.
|
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
396
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:45:00 -
[201] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: However if you drop one and leave, you'll be notified the moment they get in it's area. Since they are unlikely to blow it up with a few interceptors they'll have to bring something bigger... in a bubble.... to a spot you can warp to directly.
The broadcast is made in local. If you leave, you do not get any notification. They also only have battleship level hitpoints, a few interceptors are perfectly capable of blowing it up. Ten long range crows can blow one up in under five minutes. Five close range interceptors can do it in under three minutes. |
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
98
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:46:00 -
[202] - Quote
ESS + MSI + disco-ship = electric fly-trap
Although I find the Idea great in principle, I personally would not bother with all the hassle for 5-10% benefit.
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:47:00 -
[203] - Quote
My suggestion for making the ess make more sense. only set access to hanger access in corp. so that person can at anytime come and share, take, or donate to corp wallet. as for risk make it so if an enemy fleet comes in and pops it drops all the tags it has in store. give it a 15-30 min structure timer, and alerts like the poss. so a fleet goes in and shoots a bunch of them, turns around fights and victor keeps the spoils. promote more fights, without the emphasis on grinding sov.
this works with the fields and farm nullsec we have been pushed into, promotes rapid response fights, allows for spies and thieves, and puts ratting income at risk. seriously give it a thought. |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:48:00 -
[204] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: However if you drop one and leave, you'll be notified the moment they get in it's area. Since they are unlikely to blow it up with a few interceptors they'll have to bring something bigger... in a bubble.... to a spot you can warp to directly.
The broadcast is made in local. If you leave, you do not get any notification. They also only have battleship level hitpoints, a few interceptors are perfectly capable of blowing it up. Ten long range crows can blow one up in under five minutes. Five close range interceptors can do it in under three minutes.
You can also warp there with an interceptor or s.th. cloaky, burn some clicks in any direction (not the one you just came from...), bookmark it... Congrats, you have just created a warp-in for yourself to go to and safely shoot it from outside of the bubble, aligned to warp if the baddies show up. |
Vacant Glare
Ghost Recon Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:49:00 -
[205] - Quote
Georgiy Giggle wrote:And DEVs will lose respect from many carebears. Too late.
But don't forget to add the CSM into that statement also. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:49:00 -
[206] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Literally 95% of the naysayers in this thread so far are Goonswarm Federation. So here is a message for you guys, maybe you missed it.
You do not have to use the ESS if you do not want to.
mind = blown I thought you had more sense than this, but I guess I've been overestimating you. You might note that the more intelligent goons have suddenly stopped complaining about them. There's a reason for that. A smarter man might still notice that ratter income is taking a hit for exactly zero reason because CCP wants to introduce a conflict-creating module that won't get used, so the net effect being that people who shoot red crosses to finance their pvp, get to pvp less. This is moronic. No, they won't be deployed. Yes, this is still comletely asinine. Stop pretending otherwise. 1: It's taking a hit if you are incredibly bad, yes. 2: Another objective for small gang combat, which is exactly what this is, is hardly "no reason". In fact, that's exactly what we have been asking for. 3: It's quite obviously a double edged sword. You can either be a victim of the mechanic, or you can be smart enough to use it against others. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:50:00 -
[207] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:My suggestion for making the ess make more sense. only set access to hanger access in corp. so that person can at anytime come and share, take, or donate to corp wallet. as for risk make it so if an enemy fleet comes in and pops it drops all the tags it has in store. give it a 15-30 min structure timer, and alerts like the poss. so a fleet goes in and shoots a bunch of them, turns around fights and victor keeps the spoils. promote more fights, without the emphasis on grinding sov.
this works with the fields and farm nullsec we have been pushed into, promotes rapid response fights, allows for spies and thieves, and puts ratting income at risk. seriously give it a thought.
HA! No! Another fail idea from the CFC. You want no risk for all the rewards. Nope. |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:51:00 -
[208] - Quote
just a normal "jet" can you say? So tractors are going to have some pull here. Why not sit at the edge of the bubble with a loot machine or a cheat noctis. That's what they wee made for, right? |
darius mclever
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:52:00 -
[209] - Quote
BoomBoss wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Qoi wrote:Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK? The empire fleets stations (Federation Navy stations, etc.). So let me get this straight. You want us to move all the way to empire to get our ISK? We, the 0.0 players that try to avoid that place at all cost. Going to empire with only like a few mil is just not worth it. Going there with a bil calls for a gank. So, not only is there a huge risk in getting the tags stolen, but also being blown up while going to highsec. Seriously? At least make the tages rightclickale so they can be funded to the wallet from any station. Not just empire stations. That is just stupid. risk vs reward... but this goes way too far.
there are surely some lowsec stations from each navy ... at least each of their lvl5 agents are in lowsec. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:52:00 -
[210] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: However if you drop one and leave, you'll be notified the moment they get in it's area. Since they are unlikely to blow it up with a few interceptors they'll have to bring something bigger... in a bubble.... to a spot you can warp to directly.
The broadcast is made in local. If you leave, you do not get any notification. They also only have battleship level hitpoints, a few interceptors are perfectly capable of blowing it up. Ten long range crows can blow one up in under five minutes. Five close range interceptors can do it in under three minutes. So you know exactly where these interceptor flying carebears will be for several minutes. Yep, you're right, nothing you can do with that. I'd just give up too.
Of course, your average ratter will just take a ship that can do more damage, but lets ignore that shall we? To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
220
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:53:00 -
[211] - Quote
[quote=CCP Phantom]With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures: [list One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS){/quote] Not at all complicated. Oh no!
Don't Panic.
|
Chinicata Shihari
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:54:00 -
[212] - Quote
And CCP wonder why they are losing subscribers. They add this BS content trying to pull in new people which 90% of the current players don't want. When some of the major issues HINT: Drone Assist, POSes, don't get fixed so current subscribers quit because they are fed up with CCP not addressing the real issue. |
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
462
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:54:00 -
[213] - Quote
Are bounties from mission npcs affected by this ESS thing ? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8333
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:54:00 -
[214] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:1: It's taking a hit if you are incredibly bad, yes. No, it's taking a hit period.
Ranger 1 wrote:2: Another objective for small gang combat, which is exactly what this is, is hardly "no reason". In fact, that's exactly what we have been asking for. This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea. My EVE Videos |
darius mclever
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:55:00 -
[215] - Quote
Snowflake Tem wrote:I see some interesting possibilities for using these as checkpoints for sensitive transactions. Looking forward to having a play to see how far they can be perverted.
I am sure CCP will track transactions on those tags just as they track isk transactions to track RMT. ;) |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:56:00 -
[216] - Quote
Chinicata Shihari wrote:And CCP wonder why they are losing subscribers. They add this BS content trying to pull in new people which 90% of the current players don't want. When some of the major issues HINT: Drone Assist, POSes, don't get fixed so current subscribers quit because they are fed up with CCP not addressing the real issue.
Drone assist is a CFC generated talking point, not an actual issue. POSs are broke as is shield vs armor right now. Also something eventually needs to be done about Sov mechanics. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:57:00 -
[217] - Quote
Major Templar wrote:greiton starfire wrote:My suggestion for making the ess make more sense. only set access to hanger access in corp. so that person can at anytime come and share, take, or donate to corp wallet. as for risk make it so if an enemy fleet comes in and pops it drops all the tags it has in store. give it a 15-30 min structure timer, and alerts like the poss. so a fleet goes in and shoots a bunch of them, turns around fights and victor keeps the spoils. promote more fights, without the emphasis on grinding sov.
this works with the fields and farm nullsec we have been pushed into, promotes rapid response fights, allows for spies and thieves, and puts ratting income at risk. seriously give it a thought. HA! No! Another fail idea from the CFC. You want no risk for all the rewards. Nope.
im suggesting leave plenty of risk. the timer would be kept short enough to form a quick fleet, but if you are going into enemy space you should be bringing more than 1 or 2 interceptors. the attackers have the advantage of already being organized and having guys on. the defenders would have to respond rapidly to get their fleet into the fight. getting a fleet to a system 10 jumps out takes time. so they wont wait for huge numbers they will throw out a quick fleet. also, hitting groups in off timezones will have major advantages.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:57:00 -
[218] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:1: It's taking a hit if you are incredibly bad, yes. No, it's taking a hit period. Ranger 1 wrote:2: Another objective for small gang combat, which is exactly what this is, is hardly "no reason". In fact, that's exactly what we have been asking for. This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea. Actually, if you don't completely suck, it's a bonus to your income.
... and a great lure.... and an even better trap... and an early warning system... and a griefing tool... but I digress. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:57:00 -
[219] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea.
What is it that goons think Inties are the new evil untouchable overlords that can warp to the thing (notifying everyone) and then stay there for 60 secs until they can actually loot the stuff? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:59:00 -
[220] - Quote
By the way
Screaming about how one group of programmers (or, hell, possibly only one!) working on a thing is somehow sapping all potential productivity from (INSERT GAME FEATURE ENTITLEMENT HERE) is a really poor argument and betrays a significant lack of knowledge about how software development works This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8336
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:59:00 -
[221] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Actually, if you don't completely suck, it's a bonus to your income. It's not about suckng. It's not going to work out that way in practice. My EVE Videos |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:00:00 -
[222] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:im suggesting leave plenty of risk. the timer would be kept short enough to form a quick fleet, but if you are going into enemy space you should be bringing more than 1 or 2 interceptors. the attackers have the advantage of already being organized and having guys on. the defenders would have to respond rapidly to get their fleet into the fight. getting a fleet to a system 10 jumps out takes time. so they wont wait for huge numbers they will throw out a quick fleet. also, hitting groups in off timezones will have major advantages.
Defenders have the advantage as the ones having the jumpbridges and since when is it CCPs responsibility to make your vast empire of nothing but ratters more secure? Honestly, look at it like this. Your coalition are the ones who chose to keep expanding and have their main force far away from your ratting/mining systems. How is it then you say that you want more time to form up and come from 10+ jumps away to defend it? No. If you are going to give timers, then take away jump bridges. Simple. |
Talar Draylan
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:01:00 -
[223] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Talar Draylan wrote:How about I start paying 95% of the sub fees? How about you pay 300% of the subscription fee, because that is roughly what you make now compared to when I first started the game.
How about I put a box on my desk that has ESS written on it and only pay 80% of the sub free. Then put the other 25% in the box and CCP can come get it when ever they want. As long as my wife doesn't intercept it first. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:02:00 -
[224] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Actually, if you don't completely suck, it's a bonus to your income. It's not about suckng. It's not going to work out that way in practice. If you're going to defend that assertion James you need to start looking more than one layer deep into the onion. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
220
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:02:00 -
[225] - Quote
I get it now.
It's another buff for inteceptors online. Don't Panic.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8336
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:02:00 -
[226] - Quote
Anariasis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea.
What is it that goons think Inties are the new evil untouchable overlords that can warp to the thing (notifying everyone) and then stay there for 60 secs until they can actually loot the stuff? How long would it take us to warp our ratting ships there from anomalies in order to kill whoever is there? Ratting ships which probably wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about interceptors anyway. Not to mention, the interceptor could just warp off if there are ships incoming to kill it. Want to drop this in system to steal ratter's income? The ratters will just destroy it. They're certainly not going to use it for themselves. The only outcome this really comes down to is a 5% nerf to null ratting income. My EVE Videos |
Bryperium
RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:03:00 -
[227] - Quote
I'd love more small gang fights in nullsec as much as anybody else, and with some light overhaul this ESS could even be a cool idea, but as written it is just absolutely anemic game design, and won't come anywhere close to what I believe your intended goals are.
Tl;Dr you have been given 12 pages of feedback, please listen to it. - |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8336
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:03:00 -
[228] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Actually, if you don't completely suck, it's a bonus to your income. It's not about suckng. It's not going to work out that way in practice. If you're going to defend that assertion James you need to start looking more than one layer deep into the onion. You're the one looking only one layer deep, as is CCP. My EVE Videos |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:03:00 -
[229] - Quote
Chinicata Shihari wrote:And CCP wonder why they are losing subscribers. They add this BS content trying to pull in new people which 90% of the current players don't want. When some of the major issues HINT: Drone Assist, POSes, don't get fixed so current subscribers quit because they are fed up with CCP not addressing the real issue.
The real issue is that goonies think they own EVE because the own the best part of New Eden. I have absolutely no doubt that your masters already have plans to dominate this system while you yap at the leash. Get to heel, there's a good boy.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5956
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:06:00 -
[230] - Quote
Anariasis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea.
What is it that goons think Inties are the new evil untouchable overlords that can warp to the thing (notifying everyone) and then stay there for 60 secs until they can actually loot the stuff? You don't need to stay there for 60 seconds. You didn't read the dev comments. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:08:00 -
[231] - Quote
Talar Draylan wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Talar Draylan wrote:How about I start paying 95% of the sub fees? How about you pay 300% of the subscription fee, because that is roughly what you make now compared to when I first started the game. How about I put a box on my desk that has ESS written on it and only pay 80% of the sub free. Then put the other 25% in the box and CCP can come get it when ever they want. As long as my wife doesn't intercept it first. Sure, as long as CCP can click a button and receive that extra bonus money from you. Surely you won't mind.
My point was, it will still be far, far easier to make money in EVE than it was in the past. In fact pretty much everyone can agree that there is far too much ISK in the game, they just don't want to be one of the ones that "might" end up with their income reduced.
Null sec ratters (if they can't be bothered to deal with the mechanic) can easily afford the minute loss to their income. However if they wish to use the mechanic they will actually get a boost to their income.
It's totally up to them whether they want to profit, or be a victim. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5956
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:09:00 -
[232] - Quote
Major Templar wrote: Defenders have the advantage as the ones having the jumpbridges and since when is it CCPs responsibility to make your vast empire of nothing but ratters more secure? .
It's always been CCP's responsibility to balance EVE, including nullsec, correctly.
Ranger 1 wrote: My point was, it will still be far, far easier to make money in EVE than it was in the past. In fact pretty much everyone can agree that there is far too much ISK in the game, they just don't want to be one of the ones that "might" end up with their income reduced.
I disagree, and most people saying that can't defend it and generally wave vaguely at the specter of isk inflation (which has not occurred). "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:10:00 -
[233] - Quote
Major Templar wrote:greiton starfire wrote:im suggesting leave plenty of risk. the timer would be kept short enough to form a quick fleet, but if you are going into enemy space you should be bringing more than 1 or 2 interceptors. the attackers have the advantage of already being organized and having guys on. the defenders would have to respond rapidly to get their fleet into the fight. getting a fleet to a system 10 jumps out takes time. so they wont wait for huge numbers they will throw out a quick fleet. also, hitting groups in off timezones will have major advantages. Defenders have the advantage as the ones having the jumpbridges and since when is it CCPs responsibility to make your vast empire of nothing but ratters more secure? Honestly, look at it like this. Your coalition are the ones who chose to keep expanding and have their main force far away from your ratting/mining systems. How is it then you say that you want more time to form up and come from 10+ jumps away to defend it? No. If you are going to give timers, then take away jump bridges. Simple.
so the owners of the space should have no advantages?? then why have sov in the first place. just make everything npc null. personally i would be more than happy to have things set up so that borders had limiting factors and over extension was a real risk, that was my intention of having the short timer to form a fleet. it would be up to ccp to figure out how long a timer should be set to give defense a chance to arrive and fight but not enough to allow a large fleet to move through 3 regions to get there. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:10:00 -
[234] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Anariasis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea.
What is it that goons think Inties are the new evil untouchable overlords that can warp to the thing (notifying everyone) and then stay there for 60 secs until they can actually loot the stuff? You don't need to stay there for 60 seconds. You didn't read the dev comments. That's very true, however if you want the ISK you'll have to come back to collect it before the locals do... and it takes (oh what was it) 40 seconds or so to drop your loot. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8339
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:11:00 -
[235] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Sure, as long as CCP can click a button and receive that extra bonus money from you. Surely you won't mind. My point was, it will still be far, far easier to make money in EVE than it was in the past. In fact pretty much everyone can agree that there is far too much ISK in the game, they just don't want to be one of the ones that "might" end up with their income reduced. Null sec ratters (if they can't be bothered to deal with the mechanic) can easily afford the minute loss to their income. However if they wish to use the mechanic they will actually get a boost to their income. It's totally up to them whether they want to profit, or be a victim. So where is this module's equivalent for missions? For incursions? For FW? Or are null ratters, the ones whose incomes are already anemic compared to the risk involved, the only ones who need a nerf? Stop commenting, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. My EVE Videos |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
265
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:12:00 -
[236] - Quote
Anys Thes'Realin wrote:Something I missed: Quote:The ESS has a global beacon, meaning it will be visible by all players, allowing them to warp directly to it. Note that the new scan-block deployable does not interfer with this. Scan Block deployable? Did I miss something? When was this announced?
It was a terrible, terrible, terrible new deployable that CCP announced last week. Thankfully after 30 pages of people telling them what an awful idea it was, CCP nerfed it to the point that it is useless and will never be used.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=310620&find=unread |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:12:00 -
[237] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Anariasis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea.
What is it that goons think Inties are the new evil untouchable overlords that can warp to the thing (notifying everyone) and then stay there for 60 secs until they can actually loot the stuff? You don't need to stay there for 60 seconds. You didn't read the dev comments.
Well, you can warp off after you activated the tag-printing. But you will need to return to loot. So sure, you can go from system to system and activate the payout and warp off... and gain nothing. Or warp back and fight for the container? If you are 1 sec late it will be already looted, if you are 1 sec early you might have a fight at your hand against s.th. fitted exactly for the job to kill you. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:13:00 -
[238] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Actually, if you don't completely suck, it's a bonus to your income. It's not about suckng. It's not going to work out that way in practice. If you're going to defend that assertion James you need to start looking more than one layer deep into the onion. You're the one looking only one layer deep, as is CCP. James, I've listed a half a dozen ways you can use this thing to your advantage.
You've listed one draw back and ignored various ways that can be dealt with.
I like you, but seriously.... To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5956
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:15:00 -
[239] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: That's very true, however if you want the ISK you'll have to come back to collect it before the locals do... and it takes (oh what was it) 40 seconds or so to drop your loot.
You know the exact second you need to warp back, and can do it in an inty that is nigh-uncatchable (even when looting the can) to any ship not set up specifically to catch and kill an interceptor. It's not a meaningful burden for the interceptor. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1305
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:15:00 -
[240] - Quote
Hostile ceptors are the least of the worries... diplos will want to kill themselves because of all the "this blue stole my iskies!" ratting drama.
Any alliance wishing to retain a shred of sanity will ban these structures from being deployed by blues. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5318
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:15:00 -
[241] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Sure, as long as CCP can click a button and receive that extra bonus money from you. Surely you won't mind. My point was, it will still be far, far easier to make money in EVE than it was in the past. In fact pretty much everyone can agree that there is far too much ISK in the game, they just don't want to be one of the ones that "might" end up with their income reduced. Null sec ratters (if they can't be bothered to deal with the mechanic) can easily afford the minute loss to their income. However if they wish to use the mechanic they will actually get a boost to their income. It's totally up to them whether they want to profit, or be a victim. So where is this module's equivalent for missions? For incursions? For FW? Or are null ratters, the ones whose incomes are already anemic compared to the risk involved, the only ones who need a nerf? Stop commenting, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't aware that mission rats and incursion rats don't have bounties.... To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
50
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:17:00 -
[242] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I disagree, and most people saying that can't defend it and generally wave vaguely at the specter of isk inflation (which has not occurred).
Yes it's true but they have already done that by making POSs, Sov Structures, and a great deal of other things balanced to support defenders. His idea was to give a even greater advantage to a blobber defending alliance then the attacker.
greiton starfire wrote:so the owners of the space should have no advantages?? then why have sov in the first place. just make everything npc null. personally i would be more than happy to have things set up so that borders had limiting factors and over extension was a real risk, that was my intention of having the short timer to form a fleet. it would be up to ccp to figure out how long a timer should be set to give defense a chance to arrive and fight but not enough to allow a large fleet to move through 3 regions to get there.
Did you read my post? You have stations, POSs, jumpbridges, Sov upgrades, and a great deal of other things to make wanting that space look good. If you don't like the risk of losing the deployable then don't deploy it or don't use it so far away from the front lines where your main forces are formed. Thus it comes back to, risk vs reward. Reward is more ISK risk is that you might lose it because it's not next door to your 2k staging system. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5958
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:18:00 -
[243] - Quote
Major Templar wrote:Did you read my post? You have stations, POSs, jumpbridges, Sov upgrades, and a great deal of other things to make wanting that space look good. If you don't like the risk of losing the deployable then don't deploy it or don't use it so far away from the front lines where your main forces are formed. Thus it comes back to, risk vs reward. Reward is more ISK risk is that you might lose it because it's not next door to your 2k staging system. I'm sorry who exactly is worried about losing the EPP itself? "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
iskflakes
869
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:19:00 -
[244] - Quote
These sound like an interesting mechanic. Here are a few use cases I can think of:
Setup a scan inhibitor and an ESS, get two people in cynabals and wait for interceptors to arrive. A great honey pot!
Stop people ratting in your space in cloaky T3s by setting up an ESS and taking some of their hard earned escalation money.
Will ratters ever use the structure to improve their income? Yes, as long as they're organized with good intel networks. They will see an interceptor coming from two jumps away and scoop the structure. You could even leave a hauler permanently sitting in range of the structure ready to scoop it at a moment's notice. If you have 10 people ratting and one hauler it's easily worth it. The structure will be less effective in busy systems though, but they're not exactly safe to rat in anyway now are they?
The only people who seem to be complaining about this structure are from bloated 10,000 player alliances that apparently don't have the organization to setup a simple intel channel or defense fleet. How hard is it to find 5 people out of that 10,000 to fly around in their own interceptors to catch invaders and have some fun? - |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:19:00 -
[245] - Quote
Do you really want the content for pirates to be chasing ratters around and maybe make a 5m tax tic here and there? Or perhaps provoke a battle between a navy raven and a blob of ceptors? yes, that should be satisfying.
It seems undignified. |
Talar Draylan
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:21:00 -
[246] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Sure, as long as CCP can click a button and receive that extra bonus money from you. Surely you won't mind. My point was, it will still be far, far easier to make money in EVE than it was in the past. In fact pretty much everyone can agree that there is far too much ISK in the game, they just don't want to be one of the ones that "might" end up with their income reduced. Null sec ratters (if they can't be bothered to deal with the mechanic) can easily afford the minute loss to their income. However if they wish to use the mechanic they will actually get a boost to their income. It's totally up to them whether they want to profit, or be a victim.
I really could care less about the 5% loss. What I am upset with is that they wasted CCP employees time with thinking this thing up. I would rather they officially nerf bounties than try to make this crap.
What I do see it as, is bait. |
iskflakes
869
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:21:00 -
[247] - Quote
grrr small gang objectives - |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:22:00 -
[248] - Quote
Love how this thread turned into "helpless" Goons with their massive numbers, space and organisation crying that the actually a lot less powerful solo roamer or small gang roamer (that usually gets blobbed and camped in by said goons) will destroy everything :D |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8342
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:23:00 -
[249] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:James, I've listed a half a dozen ways you can use this thing to your advantage.
You've listed one draw back and ignored various ways that can be dealt with.
I like you, but seriously.... No, you haven't. You listed a handful of ways aggressors can use it, and pretty much none of the ways ratters can defend against it.
There's no reason for ratters to put this up, risking ~15% of their income (making 20% less than before 1.1), just for the possibility of making ~10% more (5% more than pre-1.1). If anyone else puts this up, it will be destroyed. The end result is a 5% hit to ratter income, plus the amount of time ratters have to waste in order to go destroy it.
If by change they decide to keep one of these up, any moron in an interceptor can warp in, trigger the full payout, wait the 40 seconds (because nobody is going to just sit at an ESS waiting for this to happen, that's absolutely ridiculous) and take all of the payout (again, at zero risk to himself). My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3352
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:23:00 -
[250] - Quote
Anariasis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: This isn't a small gang objective. This is a "solo interceptors taking everything at no risk to themselves" idea.
What is it that goons think Inties are the new evil untouchable overlords that can warp to the thing (notifying everyone) and then stay there for 60 secs until they can actually loot the stuff?
I'm not a goon, and more than likely the guy attacking ratters with that inty. I can enter system, warp to the beacon within 15-20 seconds, activate it within 20 additional seconds, then power off to 150+ km's during the 40 seconds it takes to online, and warp down and snag the tags and get away. A ratter in a BC will have no chance of stopping me, and attempting to do so will be very dangerous for him (as my pals could easily be waiting to enter system). Warping to a POS or station (as they will when I enter system because they assume I'm hunting them) will take 20-30 seconds, add another 20 seconds to swap ships to engage my inty, and antoher 20 seconds to get on grid, and there is very little time to defend he ESS before I take the loot, decline the engagement, or bring in reinforcements.
Frankly, I like the idea of the ESS, but find the response window too low. Locals need time to form up and defend it, and 60 seconds is not enough time.
Increase activate to 3-5 minutes, and then increase the drop time to 3-5 minutes, and now an organized group of players can scout the system next door, form up a response, and attack the people at the ESS. At 6-10 minutes, they have enough time to respond, but not enough time to truly blob.
|
|
Taint Stain
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:24:00 -
[251] - Quote
ESS is terrible and useless, this is a direct nerf to nullsec through the 95% shinanigans, which we only get 80% when using this then theres the other 20% which has to be manually cashed in with the possible bonus of 5%.
Lots of bull for no real reward, let the unsubbing continue!
When you're all out of crazy please fix interceptors and drone assist. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8342
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:25:00 -
[252] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Sure, as long as CCP can click a button and receive that extra bonus money from you. Surely you won't mind. My point was, it will still be far, far easier to make money in EVE than it was in the past. In fact pretty much everyone can agree that there is far too much ISK in the game, they just don't want to be one of the ones that "might" end up with their income reduced. Null sec ratters (if they can't be bothered to deal with the mechanic) can easily afford the minute loss to their income. However if they wish to use the mechanic they will actually get a boost to their income. It's totally up to them whether they want to profit, or be a victim. So where is this module's equivalent for missions? For incursions? For FW? Or are null ratters, the ones whose incomes are already anemic compared to the risk involved, the only ones who need a nerf? Stop commenting, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't aware that mission rats and incursion rats don't have bounties.... Don't be stupid. The module could easily be made to take from mission and incursion payouts. It doesn't have to be bounties. My EVE Videos |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1235
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:27:00 -
[253] - Quote
the fact that the ESS requires so much text to explain is the surest sign that its bad or poorly conceptualized. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
292
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:29:00 -
[254] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:A bit more on the batch sizes. WeGÇÖre increasing the batch size for the smallest ones, so they all have a batch size of at least 100. WeGÇÖre adjusting volume and blueprint material requirements accordingly so that the end result remains the same (i.e. each batch takes the same size as before and building requirements require the same amount of polymers proportionally). Furthermore, we will run update scripts to update all current stockpiles of polymers when the changes go live. This includes all inventories, as well as buy and sell orders and contracts. This means that players will retain the correct ratio of polymers.
So multiplying up the amounts, and dividing down the bid/sell price for market orders in the same proportion? -- |
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:30:00 -
[255] - Quote
Dear CCP - please do not ban me for the post I am about to make
disclaimer - I HATE REAL MONEY TRADE OF ISK - there i make this pos RMT#
Have you guys even considered the misuse of this feature.
RMT'ers could simply leave a container full of tags somewhere and the buyer "happens" to find them and now you have a "clean" transfer of aburd amounts of isk that people could sell off for real money and you would have a REALLY hard time proving that was what was going
Did you even consider that - becuase this is eve and when you make something you need to start thinking like the most sick and depraved of us, if you dont then you end up making the tools to break your own game. |
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
817
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:31:00 -
[256] - Quote
Anariasis wrote:Love how this thread turned into "helpless" Goons with their massive numbers, space and organisation crying that the actually a lot less powerful solo roamer or small gang roamer (that usually gets blobbed and camped in by said goons) will destroy everything :D
This affects literally everyone in nullsec. You're seeing a lot of angry goons because surprise surprise, we tend to keep our fingers on the pulse of game development, and plenty of us understand the implications of what's happening here. We're also actually allowed to post on our mains which, with the exception of the chosen few in N3 mouthpieces, is not how our enemies operate. If you think Vince Draken or someone who matters on the other side of the Goon Curtain is going, "damn this is sweet, I want these all over my space." or if you think any renter, in any renter alliance is happy at all about this, you're full of it.
It hurts goons, but it also hurts Northern Assosciates. It hurts anyone in Northern Coalition. or Nulli Secunda that spends any time ratting. It hurts every blue and non blue in nullsec for no real reason. Do you think anybody will be deploying these modules to maybe recoup some lost isk when the fact is you probably won't be able to recoup it, whether you deploy this dumb thing or not.
It's an across the board nerf to everyone who makes money in nullsec that isn't importing, doing reaction chains, or is pulling out moongoo.
In the south, this is known as horse-****.
Not to mention that we pay taxes to our respective groups as well.
If CCP wants to take isk out of the game, there are better ways to do it. If CCP wants to generate more conflicts, there are way, way better ways to do it, starting with overhauling the sov system without using gimmick deployables. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8345
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:32:00 -
[257] - Quote
Beidorion eldwardan wrote:Dear CCP - please do not ban me for the post I am about to make
disclaimer - I HATE REAL MONEY TRADE OF ISK - there i make this pos RMT#
Have you guys even considered the misuse of this feature.
RMT'ers could simply leave a container full of tags somewhere and the buyer "happens" to find them and now you have a "clean" transfer of aburd amounts of isk that people could sell off for real money and you would have a REALLY hard time proving that was what was going
Did you even consider that - becuase this is eve and when you make something you need to start thinking like the most sick and depraved of us, if you dont then you end up making the tools to break your own game. Yeah, I'm sure CCP has absolutely no way to track that. My EVE Videos |
crazy0146
Eternal Darkness. Get Off My Lawn
52
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:34:00 -
[258] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:At first glance, the ESS looks like a bit of a kick in the teeth to the three or four people left ratting in nullsec. The likelihood of anyone hitting 'share' is going to be about 0, so they're probably just going to get shot on principal. So it's pretty much a perpetual nerf to nullsec income, again.
Edit: The ESS should really, really be available in all areas of space (especially hisec) then it'll be interesting. And should have MUCH higher rewards for deployment to make it worthwhile.
^^ If you're going to nerf ratting income do it for all sectors of space that have npc's with bounties.
Because lets be honest who is ever going to click share? |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:35:00 -
[259] - Quote
Batelle wrote:the fact that the ESS requires so much text to explain is the surest sign that its bad or poorly conceptualized.
Sorry, that's is in fact a sign that the CSM has batted it back to the devs more than once with exclamation marks in the margins. They are trying to break this thing before we do. If these cogs have your mind in a whirl, perhaps you should sit in a gate cap for a while. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:35:00 -
[260] - Quote
If CSM 8 let an idea as terrible as this and the Dscan inhibitor get to the point of Devblogs, then they obviously aren't doing their jobs.
Alternatively, they either objected, and CCP didn't listen, or CCP went right over them. In either case, why keep them around? An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department. Were you wronged by a member of our fine space guild? We can get you the compensation you deserve. |
|
Callic Veratar
577
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:35:00 -
[261] - Quote
Maybe I'm confused here. This is how I see the structure being used:
- Ratters deploy it somewhere - Enemy warp to it - They land 15km off the structure, notification goes up - Alt sitting at the ESS clicks share bounties
This is then followed by forum complaints from inty pilots that they should be able to warp to zero so the can steal the money. |
MrBawkbagawk
The Flying Tigers Black Core Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:35:00 -
[262] - Quote
oh look, a left handed nerf for drone space.
can we expect to see a set of faction items for rogue drones? no, of course not, that would be adding content. everything about drone space sucks compared to any other region including high sec and you make it even harder to earn a living?
who's friends are you, exactly? |
Kotori
Sacred Templars Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:38:00 -
[263] - Quote
Please note: My Calculations here are no where near 100% accurate, so dont hold me to them.
If we were to assume that a null sec anomaly were to pay 30 Million isk (its been a while since ive done an anomaly.) To pay back the initial 30 million isk (of a very destructible structure), you would need to run 20 anomalies, without anyone stealing your isk tags, (or blowing it up), before it becomes even remotely useful. Depending on what percentage it has built up to, you effectively need to make between 300-600million in bounties, which isnt actually that quick to do in 0.0 (as much as some people will tell you otherwise).
These would have to be permanently guarded, as 40 seconds is such a tiny amount of time, anyone ratting in anything bigger than a cruiser (if even that big), is not going to get there in anywhere close to enough time (due to the warp speed changes) to prevent it being stolen by a roaming Interceptor.
As a side note, i feel it would be far more useful in its current form, with a larger potential bonus to the bounties, for 5%, it would never be worth it for alliance users. But if it was say 10-20%, then it would be a risk worth considering.
On the other hand, this would be a great module, as a system upgrade, that allows a system to become much more valuable, to the holder, providing an alliance/corp with additional income on a system. Take the effective HP closer to the a million, and it becomes a valid small gang target, whilst still providing a worthwhile income to the corp/alliance. Without being destroyed in 30 seconds by a cruiser gang, giving time to react to it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8354
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:39:00 -
[264] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:If CSM 8 let an idea as terrible as this and the Dscan inhibitor get to the point of Devblogs, then they obviously aren't doing their jobs.
Alternatively, they either objected, and CCP didn't listen, or CCP went right over them. In either case, why keep them around?
Chitsa Jason wrote:This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback.
In true w-space "**** everyone else" fashion. My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3356
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:39:00 -
[265] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Maybe I'm confused here. This is how I see the structure being used:
- Ratters deploy it somewhere - Enemy warp to it - They land 15km off the structure, notification goes up - Alt sitting at the ESS clicks share bounties
This is then followed by forum complaints from inty pilots that they should be able to warp to zero so the can steal the money.
This is a good point.... Put an alt in a noobship sitting at zero on the ESS: --- They will already have it "activated" (which means no one else can activate it), --- They can simply hit "share bounties" before anyone can blap them.
This seems rather.... broken. |
Arindel Heideran
Ad Perpetuam Memoriam Heideran VII Silent Infinity
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:39:00 -
[266] - Quote
In the current iteration, the risk vs. reward is not there for it to be deployed by the system residents. Between the low tag mass and the fact that the looting ship doesn't have to stay on grid while it's printing tags, its much more friendly to roamers than the ratters. As such, it basically just becomes another attacking tool, but a less effective one because smart ratters don't rat with hostiles in system (so roaming, dropping these in system, and trying to collect loot won't work since the residents won't rat with you there and will pop it as soon as you leave), and roaming gangs already killed dumb ratters and got their loot anyway.
Making it so that the printer deactivates if the person who started it leaves the bubble could be interesting. Making an interceptor stay in a bubble for a minute or lose his prize will give defenders a chance to do something about it. If the goal of this is to promote fights, I would also make the required windows longer. This would both make it so that people are less able to empty the ESS based on intel before the gang arrives, and have more time to field a defense. Changing the timer from 20+40 seconds to 2+3 minutes would be better. If the system ratters don't have anyone willing to fight though, the attacking force gets to keep the prize. Increasing the potential reward might make it more likely not to get popped as soon as is convenient. (Instead of 95% becoming 80% + 20-25%, make it 80% becomes 75% + 25-50%). |
Marsan
Caldari Provisions
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:39:00 -
[267] - Quote
Really I think you need to make one or 2 changes to the things.
1) Make it so only the owner can access it unless the it is hacked (use the new hacking minigame) or destroyed.
2) Make it only deployable 100 from a beacon in a dead space pocket in the system.
This makes it something a small gang can do if they can hold off the defenders a few minutes, but not easy isk for anyone in an inty. Also the single owner means that a corp can deploy one to tax renters and thus encourage them to have renters...
PS- At min please insure that some one looting the structure is logged some where, and that the owner get a kill mail when someone kills one. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a hopeful small portion of the community. |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:40:00 -
[268] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:This affects literally everyone in nullsec. You're seeing a lot of angry goons because surprise surprise, we tend to keep our fingers on the pulse of game development, and plenty of us understand the implications of what's happening here. We're also actually allowed to post on our mains which, with the exception of the chosen few in N3 mouthpieces, is not how our enemies operate. If you think Vince Draken or someone who matters on the other side of the Goon Curtain is going, "damn this is sweet, I want these all over my space." or if you think any renter, in any renter alliance is happy at all about this, you're full of it.
It hurts goons, but it also hurts Northern Assosciates. It hurts anyone in Northern Coalition. or Nulli Secunda that spends any time ratting. It hurts every blue and non blue in nullsec for no real reason. Do you think anybody will be deploying these modules to maybe recoup some lost isk when the fact is you probably won't be able to recoup it, whether you deploy this dumb thing or not.
It's an across the board nerf to everyone who makes money in nullsec that isn't importing, doing reaction chains, or is pulling out moongoo.
In the south, this is known as horse-****.
Not to mention that we pay taxes to our respective groups as well.
If CCP wants to take isk out of the game, there are better ways to do it. If CCP wants to generate more conflicts, there are way, way better ways to do it, starting with overhauling the sov system without using gimmick deployables.
One, not all your enemies are not allowed to post on their mains. For example, hi! OK, now with the silliness out of the way. I would say that it's mostly the Goons complaining about this right now mostly because lets be honest, the CFC are the more likely to sit there with one of these in system if anyone were to use them. The CFC will sit back in their cyno jammed systems and complain when someone messes with their income and then say that they want CCP to stop the sink or make it easier to protect their faucet by adding a way to blob their targets. You and I both know that the CFC will blob timers when they can and usually won't fight without a 3 to 1 in their favor. Now, I do however agree that if CCP wants to take out ISK they should just do it and overhaul a lot of the stuff in game that will assist with that instead of adding a new sink. We want that sink we currently have to be repaired instead of the owner throwing in a new one next to it and calling it good. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
352
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:42:00 -
[269] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:The only people who seem to be complaining about this structure are from bloated 10,000 player alliances that apparently don't have the organization to setup a simple intel channel or defense fleet. How hard is it to find 5 people out of that 10,000 to fly around in their own interceptors to catch invaders and have some fun?
I wish I was in a 10,000 player alliance.
What's wrong with the ESS concept is more than juat about "waa waa no safe ratting muh iskies 4 muh t00nies".
It's an added layer of hassle for alliances that live in and use their space that works in a "high risk low reward" way, contrary to the spirit of the game that historically supported (or has claimed to support) high risk high reward situations. In a world where would-be aggressors (read, the small gangs and roamers who are squealing at the thoughts of stealing from the bad ratters) decry the fact that nullsec is too empty, this is just going to further support an exodus towards more rewarding and/or less risky/complicated isk making activities that mostly are outside of nullsec. I mean, to even eke out a profit from these, from a ratter's perspective, the stars pretty much have to align.
Moving a portion of the bounty isk to a form of tags might be a cool thing for you if you're one of those people afraid of inflation, but considering these are going to be sold to NPC orders there is still ISK generated in equal amounts. However, moving up to 25% of bounties to tags that have to be told and aren't subject to corp taxes goes against the ideal model of corporation and alliance funding of "from the ground up".
Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down. No sig. |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
169
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:42:00 -
[270] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Maybe I'm confused here. This is how I see the structure being used:
- Ratters deploy it somewhere - Enemy warp to it - They land 15km off the structure, notification goes up - Alt sitting at the ESS clicks share bounties
This is then followed by forum complaints from inty pilots that they should be able to warp to zero so the can steal the money. The warp bubble from the structure does not stop an interceptor pilot. Thanks for playing. Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5962
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:44:00 -
[271] - Quote
I mean the basic thing I think about this is it's a neat idea, but I think the risk/reward balance is skewed, I think that you're sort of asking for trouble just slapping a flat nerf onto null instead of balancing this so people would want to risk it instead of what you've got here (trying to force them), and didn't really balance it with interceptors in mind.
I don't think you've given people a compelling case for deploying these themselves. I think hostiles will love deploying them (and their EHP will make that a hilarious griefing tactic) but I don't think that's what you intended and I think that's a sign you didn't hit the balance right. It's a neat idea though and well-balanced could be fun. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5962
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:45:00 -
[272] - Quote
Major Templar wrote: One, not all your enemies are not allowed to post on their mains. For example, hi! OK, now with the silliness out of the way. I would say that it's mostly the Goons complaining about this right now mostly because lets be honest, the CFC are the more likely to sit there with one of these in system if anyone were to use them.
It's because we have jabber and people are passing around the link, instead of meandering over to the devblog page and noticing it like in less jabber-based alliances. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
411
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:45:00 -
[273] - Quote
Start with an ESS-like module, you get 90% of bounties without it, 110% with. This module has 500k EHP, a one hour reinforcement timer, and a global corporation notification. It requires starbase config to use.
It collects 25% of all ratting bounties which, if it's not reinforced, are automatically paid out to the ratter an hour(possibly longer) later. If destroyed it drops the ESS isk-tags of the value of bounties it's holding.
You could even add a taxation option where a configurable percentage of that 25% goes to the corp that owns the module, in effect creating an opportunity to shift taxation from corp to system based and providing strong incentives to care about the modules. |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:46:00 -
[274] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:.... to keep posting shorter...
I agree on the fact that the 60 secs timer between accessing and getting the stuff is maybe a bit too short, which makes it hard to defend if you aren't really quick (+ placed the thing with some brains) or have s.o. waiting there defending it.
From my time in 0.0 allys I know about the state of intel-channels. You know if that guy is alone or if his friends are waiting next door.
Like I said, ISK/h should be 0.0 Ratting >>> FW > HS Incursions. That would also get more players back to ratting in 0.0 and help defending. Also, that EES needs a bit more balancing towards risk/reward. 95% without, 90% with and 120-130% with tags maybe. But as we know from the other deployables, ship rebalancing etc. CCP reads this and will consider moving the numbers around a bit.
Don't condemn the deployable now just because some of the numbers are not 100% right yet. That'll change. HS Incurison and FW isk/h isnt ESS's fault.
Still think that thing can add a lot good action to 0.0. :)
|
Nicen Jehr
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:47:00 -
[275] - Quote
I would prefer if the ESS payout level did NOT reset to 20% when the ISK is disbursed - only when it's destroyed or scooped.
The only way for a ratter to make more money than pre-1.1 will be to drop the ESS and leave it up for a long time to make 105%, with 25% stored in the ESS. If they lose the tags they make 80%, if they frequently pull tags out they get 100% (minus transportation and risk costs.) So the only way to see a benefit as a ratters is high risk, especially compared to pre-1.1.
Meanwhile this is a clear win for pirates who have a new near-guranteed conflict zone and the new possibility of taking others' bounty loot.
If ratters can disburse the ESS bounties frequently and maintain the 105% payout they have a slightly better risk profile while doing their chosen activity. I think a 5% increase in ratting output is justified given the new hassles and risks ratters must go through to attain it, even if the ESS doesn't reset when disbursed. Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á| My Little Things posts |
Major Templar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:49:00 -
[276] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:[quote=iskflakes]I wish I was in a 10,000 player alliance.
What's wrong with the ESS concept is more than juat about "waa waa no safe ratting muh iskies 4 muh t00nies".
It's an added layer of hassle for alliances that live in and use their space that works in a "high risk low reward" way, contrary to the spirit of the game that historically supported (or has claimed to support) high risk high reward situations. In a world where would-be aggressors (read, the small gangs and roamers who are squealing at the thoughts of stealing from the bad ratters) decry the fact that nullsec is too empty, this is just going to further support an exodus towards more rewarding and/or less risky/complicated isk making activities that mostly are outside of nullsec. I mean, to even eke out a profit from these, from a ratter's perspective, the stars pretty much have to align.
Moving a portion of the bounty isk to a form of tags might be a cool thing for you if you're one of those people afraid of inflation, but considering these are going to be sold to NPC orders there is still ISK generated in equal amounts. However, moving up to 25% of bounties to tags that have to be told and aren't subject to corp taxes goes against the ideal model of corporation and alliance funding of "from the ground up".
Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down.
This ^
Lets get it all out there. I keep saying that I don't want to hear complaints and don't want timers and what not that has been proposed. I also keep saying though that this should not be introduced in it's current idea AT ALL! This is a horrible idea in every way that will ruin it for both PvP and PvE players. Both the attackers and the defenders. Now, there are people who keep going on about introducing it but making it less risk and to them I say go away, it shouldn't be in the game at all. |
Callic Veratar
578
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:50:00 -
[277] - Quote
Starting to think that, in all cases, there needs to be an activation timer for an pilot to perform the transfer, and the pilot must remain near the ESS.
And a suggestion for the bounties:
- Increase all bounties by ~5.25% in nullsec - Implement 5% tax on new bounties - Income is the same as it was, but you can risk 18.75% to gain up to 10% more than present
That is, unless there's a legitimate isk supply reason to decrease only nullsec bounties by 5%, which is possible, but would never be disclosed. That being said 5% for everybody or 5% for nobody. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1237
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:51:00 -
[278] - Quote
MrBawkbagawk wrote:oh look, a left handed nerf for drone space. can we expect to see a set of faction items for rogue drones? no, of course not, that would be adding content. everything about drone space sucks compared to any other region including high sec and you make it even harder to earn a living?
who's friends are you, exactly?
Is there ANYONE from your alliance that isn't completely ********? You can use these in drone space.
This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?"
Also, just to confirm, it seems like tags are ONLY generated if the person clicks 'take all.'
Lastly, and just my own impression, this seems like a juicy target for a low-level spy who can monitor when the ESS gets emptied, and when its not guarded, and then call in a hostile gang (of ceptors) at the right moment. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:52:00 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
The bounties are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures!
Many good suggestions on improving the unit but one I haven't seen yet that I think could make it a true game changer:
Have it the one per constellation, not one per system, and it collects from the entire constellation
Many complaints are "Why would I deploy this?" If it is one per constellation and it collects from that constellation, then it not only becomes a useful tool for ratters (they, in many cases, could be collecting from other ratters in addition to their own bounties, possibly from hostile neighbors), it also makes the defense more targeted as well as the effort to steal from it.
|
Sulior
Rondac's Reasearch and Testing Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:55:00 -
[280] - Quote
OK, if you want to reduce ISK output, GET RID OF INCURSIONS. I am a highsec carebear and would be glad to see that ISK waterfall go away or be reduced to a reasonable level. (Or just make them difficult. Maybe have a sliding scale that ups the difficulty in response to the time it takes to run the sites)
|
|
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
236
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:56:00 -
[281] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Start with an ESS-like module, you get 90% of bounties without it, 110% with. This module has 500k EHP, a one hour reinforcement timer, and a global corporation notification. It requires starbase config to use.
It collects 25% of all ratting bounties which, if it's not reinforced, are automatically paid out to the ratter an hour(possibly longer) later. If destroyed it drops the ESS isk-tags of the value of bounties it's holding.
You could even add a taxation option where a configurable percentage of that 25% goes to the corp that owns the module, in effect creating an opportunity to shift taxation from corp to system based and providing strong incentives to care about the modules. Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be. |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:57:00 -
[282] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Anariasis wrote:Love how this thread turned into "helpless" Goons with their massive numbers, space and organisation crying that the actually a lot less powerful solo roamer or small gang roamer (that usually gets blobbed and camped in by said goons) will destroy everything :D This affects literally everyone in nullsec. You're seeing a lot of angry goons because surprise surprise, we tend to keep our fingers on the pulse of game development, and plenty of us understand the implications of what's happening here. We're also actually allowed to post on our mains which, with the exception of the chosen few in N3 mouthpieces, is not how our enemies operate. If you think Vince Draken or someone who matters on the other side of the Goon Curtain is going, "damn this is sweet, I want these all over my space." or if you think any renter, in any renter alliance is happy at all about this, you're full of it. It hurts goons, but it also hurts Northern Assosciates. It hurts anyone in Northern Coalition. or Nulli Secunda that spends any time ratting. It hurts every blue and non blue in nullsec for no real reason. Do you think anybody will be deploying these modules to maybe recoup some lost isk when the fact is you probably won't be able to recoup it, whether you deploy this dumb thing or not. It's an across the board nerf to everyone who makes money in nullsec that isn't importing, doing reaction chains, or is pulling out moongoo. In the south, this is known as horse-****. Not to mention that we pay taxes to our respective groups as well. If CCP wants to take isk out of the game, there are better ways to do it. If CCP wants to generate more conflicts, there are way, way better ways to do it, starting with overhauling the sov system without using gimmick deployables.
With respect, you are pinning a lot of negativity on one node that is part of a larger web we have not yet seen. I do understand your concerns, I get that the margins hurt and that you have a strong feel for how your own alliance feels about the subject. But please let the rest off null speak for itself. Maybe you can influence the math a little initially for a less profound impact, but really, why not just continue steamrollering all the POCOs as per current plan. |
Nicen Jehr
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:58:00 -
[283] - Quote
After the 40 second print time (what is this an inkjet?) do the ISK tags appear in cargoholds, or at the deployable, or what? Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á| My Little Things posts |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2415
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:58:00 -
[284] - Quote
+1 for adding conflict for activities without conflict. Now do the same in FW and implement timer resets eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
880
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:58:00 -
[285] - Quote
Yawn.........boring. No one living in their space is going to bother with this structure because of a measly 5%.
Either increase the bonus reward for having one in system, or increase the penalty for not having one in system.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:58:00 -
[286] - Quote
Now, don't get me wrong, I like the current design, but someone had an idea that I thought was kinda cool and I'd like to echo it.
To wit: the TAKE ALL option is only available if you hack the ESS and complete the hacking minigame on the device. This way, interceptors are discouraged from attempting to mess with the device (as they lack hacking role bonuses) and vulnerable PvE ships (and, incidentally, less vulnerable but underutilized ships like the SoE faction ships!) have a revitalized purpose in messing with folks. It also brings a previously PvE mechanic into a PvP role.
I would like to stress that the "SHARE" option would not require the minigame, only TAKE ALL.
Perhaps this would allow a gateway into "meta" variants of the ESS (like mobile depots have "wetu" and "yurt" varietals) whose blueprints drop from ghost sites or other hacking sites. The meta variants could have higher difficulty/EHP, or perhaps only the meta varietals have the hacking minigame requirement at all. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 18:59:00 -
[287] - Quote
Nicen Jehr wrote:After the 40 second print time (what is this an inkjet?) do the ISK tags appear in cargoholds, or at the deployable, or what? They appear in a can next to the ESS for anyone to grub up. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kotori
Sacred Templars Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:01:00 -
[288] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be.
500k EHP really isnt a lot, and i would say is a valid Target.
If you assume that as a baseline, your roaming gang has an average dps of 250 per ship
500,000 / 250 = 2000 Seconds of shooting for 1 ship.
2000 / 20 ships = 100 seconds of shooting for the gang (1min 40 seconds)
2000 / 10 ships = 200 seconds of shooting (3 mins 20 seconds).
To me, that is still not enough HP! If it can be killed in less than 5 minutes, it cannot be defended! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3356
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:02:00 -
[289] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:iskflakes wrote:The only people who seem to be complaining about this structure are from bloated 10,000 player alliances that apparently don't have the organization to setup a simple intel channel or defense fleet. How hard is it to find 5 people out of that 10,000 to fly around in their own interceptors to catch invaders and have some fun? I wish I was in a 10,000 player alliance. What's wrong with the ESS concept is more than juat about "waa waa no safe ratting muh iskies 4 muh t00nies". It's an added layer of hassle for alliances that live in and use their space that works in a "high risk low reward" way, contrary to the spirit of the game that historically supported (or has claimed to support) high risk high reward situations. In a world where would-be aggressors (read, the small gangs and roamers who are squealing at the thoughts of stealing from the bad ratters) decry the fact that nullsec is too empty, this is just going to further support an exodus towards more rewarding and/or less risky/complicated isk making activities that mostly are outside of nullsec. I mean, to even eke out a profit from these, from a ratter's perspective, the stars pretty much have to align. Moving a portion of the bounty isk to a form of tags might be a cool thing for you if you're one of those people afraid of inflation, but considering these are going to be sold to NPC orders there is still ISK generated in equal amounts. However, moving up to 25% of bounties to tags that have to be told and aren't subject to corp taxes goes against the ideal model of corporation and alliance funding of "from the ground up". Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down.
First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS.
To be frank: The ESS is a GOOD IDEA.
Why? --- It is a potential conflict driver: These things can accrue a lot of isk, thereby making them worth fighting over.
--- It follows the Risk vs Reward Paradigm: You risk 15% of your current bounties to turn it into a extra 10% payout.
However, the ESS has some problems: 1.) The access time is too short. We want conflict to happen, and that means the locals need time to form up. 60 seconds is NOT enough time to form a response gang to the hostiles that just entered your area. I would say a 5-10 minute window is ideal for the locals to scout the neighboring systems, form up a response gang, and get their ass to the ESS to defend it.
2.) The Reward isn't high enough. I would have you risk 15% of your current bounties with the goal of it paying out at least 30%. That would be a 125% net payout on bounties if setup this way, which is then worth the entertainment that will revolve around these devices.
3.) It needs to be less game-able. I should not be able to leave a noobship alt next to the ESS ready to hit "share all" the moment a hostile comes into system. The "activation" window needs to have a 30s time-out, where anyone that doesn't chose a response within 30 seconds must leave grid and return to grid in order to activate it again.
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:03:00 -
[290] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Frankly, I like the idea of the ESS, but find the response window too low. Locals need time to form up and defend it, and 60 seconds is not enough time.
Weaselior wrote:I mean the basic thing I think about this is it's a neat idea, but I think the risk/reward balance is skewed,
So this is basically a good idea. There needs to be some changes to the time intervals and perhaps one small mechanic change and this idea is set to go. The problem is that CCP needs the feedback to adjust those timers so that defenders could reasonably catch the thief. It seems like some time testing things out on the test servers could provide CCP with some valuable feedback. I would fault CCP if they did not consider messing with the timers based on actual tested feedback. Right now the idea sounds reasonable to me and something that needs the right balancing. |
|
Nicen Jehr
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:05:00 -
[291] - Quote
Querns wrote:They appear in a can next to the ESS for anyone to grub up. and what if you split it?
Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á| My Little Things posts |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:06:00 -
[292] - Quote
Nicen Jehr wrote:Querns wrote:They appear in a can next to the ESS for anyone to grub up. and what if you split it? No tags are generated if you use the "SHARE" option. It goes directly into the wallets of the people who are owed the bounties. The tags only get printed if you hit the BOGART button. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
352
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:07:00 -
[293] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS.
You have more faith in human nature than I do No sig. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1444
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:09:00 -
[294] - Quote
Weird so many nulsec people complaning about this... how many CSM come from null powerblocks, they didin't saw it a problem in this form as devblog states... or they didn't saw it before us. |
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
84
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:10:00 -
[295] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Hmm.
How about: Cash out/share only by the corp/alliance of the person who dropped it. With the addition of being able to hack it, to get a spew of tags?
That should slow down the interceptors a little.
My gods, that's brilliant. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
267
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:11:00 -
[296] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS. You have more faith in human nature than I do
It depends on whether or not there is a record generated when someone hits the take all button. If there isn't one, then that's even more incentive not to use these deployables. If there is one, then I'm pretty sure blatantly stealing from your alliance mates will get you kicked. |
MasterAsher
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:11:00 -
[297] - Quote
Why not share this awesome feature with other areas of space? Why must only 0.0 get such awesome mechanics? Seems a little unfair to me that 0.0 is getting singled out. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
352
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:12:00 -
[298] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS. You have more faith in human nature than I do It depends on whether or not there is a record generated when someone hits the take all button. If there isn't one, then that's even more incentive not to use these deployables. If there is one, then I'm pretty sure blatantly stealing from your alliance mates will get you kicked.
There is one, but nothing prevents you from using an alt. No sig. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
236
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:14:00 -
[299] - Quote
Kotori wrote:Bagehi wrote:Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be. 500k EHP really isnt a lot, and i would say is a valid Target. If you assume that as a baseline, your roaming gang has an average dps of 250 per ship 500,000 / 250 = 2000 Seconds of shooting for 1 ship. 2000 / 20 ships = 100 seconds of shooting for the gang (1min 40 seconds) 2000 / 10 ships = 200 seconds of shooting (3 mins 20 seconds). To me, that is still not enough HP! If it can be killed in less than 5 minutes, it cannot be defended! Three and a half minutes... in a bubble... in hostile space... not shooting a spaceship. For, what? A couple million isk, spread over 10 people? I repeat, no roaming gang would do that. Ratters wouldn't grind a structure with a quarter of that EHP for that kind of income, you can best bet a roaming gang (looking for a person to kill) wouldn't take the time to do it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3356
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:15:00 -
[300] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS. You have more faith in human nature than I do It depends on whether or not there is a record generated when someone hits the take all button. If there isn't one, then that's even more incentive not to use these deployables. If there is one, then I'm pretty sure blatantly stealing from your alliance mates will get you kicked.
Very good point:
This could be handled by local spam (which this module already does).
Upon hitting the "take all" button, the following message should appear in local:
"Johnny-the-Theif has selected take all from the ESS. An isk-tag in the amount of $$$ will be jettisoned at HH:MM:SS."
Increasing the drop-isk-tag window from 40 seconds to 3-5 minutes will give the locals plenty of time to react and blap theives.
|
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
267
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:16:00 -
[301] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS. You have more faith in human nature than I do It depends on whether or not there is a record generated when someone hits the take all button. If there isn't one, then that's even more incentive not to use these deployables. If there is one, then I'm pretty sure blatantly stealing from your alliance mates will get you kicked. There is one, but nothing prevents you from using an alt.
An alt who would be treated by everyone else exactly like any other neutral or red entering the system and we run into all the negatives brought up previously in this thread. |
Reinforced Metal Scrap
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:17:00 -
[302] - Quote
The ESS "take all" option seems like a wasted opportunity to make the hacking game more relevant. It sure feels like hacking an ATM. While I can't say I'm a fan of the mechanic it's more engaging than twiddling your thumbs for 40 seconds. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3356
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:18:00 -
[303] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:First off, the locals generally won't hit the "take all" button, but will hit the "share bounties" button. They will then pay corp taxes while still benefiting from the enhanced income of the ESS. You have more faith in human nature than I do It depends on whether or not there is a record generated when someone hits the take all button. If there isn't one, then that's even more incentive not to use these deployables. If there is one, then I'm pretty sure blatantly stealing from your alliance mates will get you kicked. There is one, but nothing prevents you from using an alt. An alt who would be treated by everyone else exactly like any other neutral or red entering the system and we run into all the negatives brought up previously in this thread.
Gun diplomacy best diplomacy! |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:20:00 -
[304] - Quote
ESS is literally the worst thing since Walking in stations |
Kotori
Sacred Templars Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:20:00 -
[305] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Three and a half minutes... in a bubble... in hostile space... not shooting a spaceship. For, what? A couple million isk, spread over 10 people? I repeat, no roaming gang would do that. Ratters wouldn't grind a structure with a quarter of that EHP for that kind of income, you can best bet a roaming gang (looking for a person to kill) wouldn't take the time to do it.
A roaming gang, looking to cause problems, roaming through space looking for ratters that dock up.... comes across a module, that gets them a little payout for their sins, a killmail, and causes a small amount of pain to the ratter sat at a pos or in a station, laughing at them cos they didn't get to kill his shiny ship?
Also, potentially generating a small response fleet from said ratter/their corp, to try and defend their (minimum) 30 million, probably a fair bit more investment (if the bounty bonus was to increase over time, and has been there a while).
In them 3 minutes or so, an allaince fleet isnt going to form, but the corp, who are already chatting on teamspeak, and nearby to each other, may form to defend it. Resutling in a fight for both side, and more isk lost!
I don't see the problem, it should probably be longer!
Anything less though, and there is no chance at ALL for the defender to actually do anything about it! |
Drakast
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:23:00 -
[306] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Reading these comments gives me the impression that the CFC has hoovered up a lot of risk adverse carebears over the years and become the thing they used to despise. and they call hisec dwellers carebears.
+1 for anything that makes the goons cry. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:23:00 -
[307] - Quote
Dumb idea. As if anom chain farmers in null need better isk income |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
411
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:24:00 -
[308] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be.
It's less than half the ehp of a ratting carrier, without the active tank yet carriers are far from immune to roaming gangs. If the value of blowing them up is too low(and yea, actually looking at it I do think that's the case), make it 25% of six hours of ratting income.
|
Leigh Akiga
Laissez-faire Economics
491
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:26:00 -
[309] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Just what null-sec needs: another nerf to ratting.
Solo interceptors are just going to flit around null-sec picking up money tags from people foolish enough to deploy these. The bubble won't even slow them down: they'll be able to warp to zero at the ESS.
Just when I thought they couldnt possibly beat down and nerf 0.0 PVE anymore they go ahead and surprise me
by beating down and nerfing it even more
Do they actually ever play this game? Do they not see the gangs of immortal interceptors in every region? |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
172
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:29:00 -
[310] - Quote
Can you put them inside other mobile warp disruptors? |
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:29:00 -
[311] - Quote
Cool I can buy a thing, pay someone to ship it to me, drop it, rat for 7 hours to make the isk I spent on buying it and shipping it back.
Sure hope in those 7 hours of ratting no one blows it up or hits the steal button....
This is basically just a 5% nerf to null sec ratting.
PVP players are already complaining about people not ratting in null why not make ratting in null worse so fewer people rat in null! :ccp: |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:30:00 -
[312] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:Can you put them inside other mobile warp disruptors?
No, the mobile warp disruptor is built into the ESS so naturally the ratter trying to scoop up his 30 mil deployable has to bubble himself if he wants to save it from a gang that is about to blow it up! |
Mirthander Kane
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:31:00 -
[313] - Quote
iskflakes wrote: Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down.
I thought about this, and i think it might have to do with the fact that people buy plex with ratting isk, thus taking away from CCP's monthly income - now they introduce this to lower the isk gains, meaning less plex and (hopefully) more subs.
So by making this deployable's mechanics as complex as it currently seems, they try to make it look 'justified'. Thus the concept of 'shaking things up' with this device, is just a ruse to hide/justify an isk nerf, thus forcing more subs than plex use. Could be, could be not... still a dumb-ass idea to release this. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4734
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:31:00 -
[314] - Quote
Oh and the ESS should be deployable in all space. Go suspect if you get within 20 km of one. . |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:31:00 -
[315] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Increasing the drop-isk-tag window from 40 seconds to 3-5 minutes will give the locals plenty of time to react and blap theives.
You seem to have an estimate of 3-5 minutes for a defensive response. I am guessing that is based on current defensive tactics and positions. Some things which might reduce the required response time are: ESS placed on station eject path, ESS placed near ratter's staging pos, assigned bookmarks for response fleet, additional reasons to watch intel channels, and additional reasons to rat while aligned. Having the times set for a specific number of seconds may favor certain system sizes. Perhaps 3-5 minutes is the time needed, but given these possible advantages it might be shorter. |
Jason Redfort
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:31:00 -
[316] - Quote
I heard CCP want that Null sec becomes like Providence, full of players.
Why you invent then the ESS?
That thing will make null sec more empty then its still is. The most systems will be ESS free maybe not the botting systems because everybody can access and anchor the ESS. This ESS wont generate more pvp only more killmails (ESS km).
Instead invest time to improve/overhaul things likes POS system, Corp right managment, fixing Caps/Supers, low sec or a better/more Incursion (faction) you (CCP) invest it to crap ideas likes the ESS. But what i expect when i see the crap you launch with the last 2 Expesions and then you wonder why more and more players gets inactive or left Eve.
I dont know what the Devs are currently do or thinking but they should change it fast. If not the next Incarna comes soon. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2811
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:33:00 -
[317] - Quote
Mirthander Kane wrote:iskflakes wrote: Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down.
I thought about this, and i think it might have to do with the fact that people buy plex with ratting isk, thus taking away from CCP's monthly income - now they introduce this to lower the isk gains, meaning less plex and (hopefully) more subs. So by making this deployable's mechanics as complex as it currently seems, they try to make it look 'justified'. Thus the concept of 'shaking things up' with this device, is just a ruse to hide/justify an isk nerf, thus forcing more subs than plex use. Could be, could be not... still a dumb-a$$ idea to release this.
You...
uh...
you....
You DO realize that all PLEX are ultimately purchased with real money from CCP, right?
I mean I don't know why I'm asking if you do, because you clearly don't. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:34:00 -
[318] - Quote
I sometimes really wonder where ccp wants to go with eve. You are developing stuff that nobody asked for and wants and ignoring constantly what has to be done to give this universe any kind of future. ->HIGHSEC<-
Let us put those things there and let the players fight in highsec again. |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:34:00 -
[319] - Quote
MasterAsher wrote:Why not share this awesome feature with other areas of space? Why must only 0.0 get such awesome mechanics? Seems a little unfair to me that 0.0 is getting singled out.
I wondered about that too. I think I detected a touch of Azeriah in the blog's lore explanation. Expanding the influence of the deployable will take some real fast-talk. Not everybody cares about these things but I do. If I was sitting CCP side I'd be thinking maybe it's would make more sense to issue these suckers in lowsec. |
MasterAsher
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:34:00 -
[320] - Quote
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. |
|
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1239
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:37:00 -
[321] - Quote
Re-posting.
This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?" "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:39:00 -
[322] - Quote
The ESS should probably have a moderately larger effect. This looks like a ratting upgrade, but how many people are going to put their isk at risk of being stolen for an extra 5-10%? Let it start at 10% and wind up to 20%. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
237
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:43:00 -
[323] - Quote
Kotori wrote:Bagehi wrote:Three and a half minutes... in a bubble... in hostile space... not shooting a spaceship. For, what? A couple million isk, spread over 10 people? I repeat, no roaming gang would do that. Ratters wouldn't grind a structure with a quarter of that EHP for that kind of income, you can best bet a roaming gang (looking for a person to kill) wouldn't take the time to do it. A roaming gang, looking to cause problems, roaming through space looking for ratters that dock up.... comes across a module, that gets them a little payout for their sins, a killmail, and causes a small amount of pain to the ratter sat at a pos or in a station, laughing at them cos they didn't get to kill his shiny ship? Also, potentially generating a small response fleet from said ratter/their corp, to try and defend their (minimum) 30 million, probably a fair bit more investment (if the bounty bonus was to increase over time, and has been there a while). In them 3 minutes or so, an allaince fleet isnt going to form, but the corp, who are already chatting on teamspeak, and nearby to each other, may form to defend it. Resutling in a fight for both side, and more isk lost! I don't see the problem, it should probably be longer! Anything less though, and there is no chance at ALL for the defender to actually do anything about it! It holds 25% of bounties. Ticks are, what, around 30m if you're cranking. Ticks come every 20 minutes. A human can rat for a couple hours before taking a break. It would be rational to empty it at that point. So, call it 3 hours. Max take would be just shy of 70m in the deployable. Divided between 10 people is 7m a person. The take would statistically be in the 3-4m per person range though. Some gangs who are out for the tears might do it, especially if the deployable was annoyingly big (1000+ m3). Most wouldn't though. |
Genoa Al Salam
I Sneezed Nerfed Alliance Go Away
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:45:00 -
[324] - Quote
100% of my nullsec ratting income goes to my pvp ships. This ESS thing has potential, but don't try and sneak in another BS income nerf. Either go F2P and make us buy PLEX all the time, or be content with subs. Stop trying to have our cake and eat it too. Greedy bastards. |
Dave Stark
4176
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:47:00 -
[325] - Quote
never mind me, i'm lazy, answer found. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
244
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:47:00 -
[326] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Re-posting. This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?" Because the ESS is just the interface & token printer, the actual data is stored on Empire servers. That is, stored in CCPs database linked to the solar system not the ESS. Like: SystemID (PK); PlayerID (PK); ISK or something like that |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:47:00 -
[327] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Increasing the drop-isk-tag window from 40 seconds to 3-5 minutes will give the locals plenty of time to react and blap theives. You seem to have an estimate of 3-5 minutes for a defensive response. I am guessing that is based on current defensive tactics and positions. Some things which might reduce the required response time are: ESS placed on station eject path, ESS placed near ratter's staging pos, assigned bookmarks for response fleet, additional reasons to watch intel channels, and additional reasons to rat while aligned. Having the times set for a specific number of seconds may favor certain system sizes. Perhaps 3-5 minutes is the time needed, but given these possible advantages it might be shorter.
I've formed up many a response gangs, and a 3-5 minute response is extraordinarily fast (unless your just warping in ships kitchen sink like, or already have a response fleet formed). Really, you want a 6-10 minute window for a proper response fleet to form up. (this is why I requested a 3-5 minutes to activate the ESS, and 3-5 minutes for the ESS to process your drop-isk-tag request). Then these will be conflict drivers.
Putting them on a station, or on a deathstar POS will destroy the conflict driver potential of these, because the homefield advantage of engaging on these grids essentially means it is suicide for a small gang to engage. Pull it away from POSes and Stations and Gates, and more ships die, which is a good thing!
|
stelios102
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:49:00 -
[328] - Quote
This is by far one of the most insane things i've ever heard. This has nothing to do with Small Gang Warfare and if CCP actually cared about Small Gang they would fix the mess they made with the Interceptors. It has to do with CCP trying to drive us to buy PLEX imo. Ratting has been nerfed several times as it is so at the end of the day further nerfs do nothing but force players to buy PLEX. I pay 3 Subs for EVE as it is and CCP need to decide if they want to go F2P with Microtransaction or keep the Subscription model because they simply can't do both.
I would also like to point out how the only real positive remarks on the subject are by CCP Devs.
|
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
237
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:49:00 -
[329] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Bagehi wrote:Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be. It's less than half the ehp of a ratting carrier, without the active tank yet carriers are far from immune to roaming gangs. That's also the total EHP, the amount required to reinforce vs kill can be shifted as desired between easier reinforcement and easier killing. If the value of blowing them up is too low(and yea, actually looking at it I do think that's the case), make it 25% of six hours of ratting income. Except a carrier would get tackled, then have a reinforcement fleet rushed in to kill it. A carrier would drop hundreds of millions in loot and leave a big happy killmail and a fondly recounted story for all involved in the kill. This structure wouldn't come close to providing any of these benefits to make it worth the time and effort. Again, a ratter wouldn't put the effort in, why would anyone expect a roaming gang to? |
Tankn00blicus
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Brothers of Tangra
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:52:00 -
[330] - Quote
ESS: Biggest buff to awoxers ever. Additional awoxing toons require additional accounts. Additional accounts make additional money for CCP.
That is surely the entire reason for it. Remember, when I doubt, I'm right. |
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:53:00 -
[331] - Quote
I don't typically post on these forums, but the amount of not-actually-playing-the-game evident in the devblog is just too high not to...
I'm honestly just amazed. Let's go back in time a bit.
When Dominion was released to make sov warfare worse than before, there was a vague promise of more ihub modules being released. As people who actually play this ****** game may know, many of the ihub upgrades have been completely broken since release, but at least there was the pretense of ~~iterations~~ happening at some point in the future. One upgrade that was suspiciously absent was a way to tax income generated in the system and transfer it to a holding corp.
When CCP was queried as to why this obvious feature was missing, the stated reason was that Eve didn't support something like this.
So now CCP reveals that this capability exists, but wastes it on a 0.0 ratting nerf instead. Have there been no lessons learned from siphons? To remind you: siphons did one thing, and one thing only: They made POS worse and more of a pain to run than they already were without generating fights at all. I, for one, thought such a thing wouldn't be possible, but apparently someone at CCP took that as a challenge.
So now the same people decided to devalue 0.0 a little more. It does, after all, offer sub-par money making possibilities if you are doing PvE. So, to make a bad feature worse, ratting siphons are implemented.
The amount of derp that lead to these deployables is hard to grasp. The tractor unit, depot and jump inhibitor were pretty good. The mjd and scanning deployables raised eyebrows and are a little weird. But these? No way this is not a troll. Nobody can be so clueless about the realities of 0.0. I pity whoever is still doing PvE in 0.0. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:54:00 -
[332] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Innominate wrote:Bagehi wrote:Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be. It's less than half the ehp of a ratting carrier, without the active tank yet carriers are far from immune to roaming gangs. That's also the total EHP, the amount required to reinforce vs kill can be shifted as desired between easier reinforcement and easier killing. If the value of blowing them up is too low(and yea, actually looking at it I do think that's the case), make it 25% of six hours of ratting income. Except a carrier would get tackled, then have a reinforcement fleet rushed in to kill it. A carrier would drop hundreds of millions in loot and leave a big happy killmail and a fondly recounted story for all involved in the kill. This structure wouldn't come close to providing any of these benefits to make it worth the time and effort. Again, a ratter wouldn't put the effort in, why would anyone expect a roaming gang to?
I would gladly setup a 5-10 man roaming fleet on one of these for 5-10 minutes to steal the bounties out of them. The goal wouldn't be the bounty though, the goal would be to have the locals ship up and come out and fight. Baiting with "part" of the fleet would be common place, and I could easily see this being an excellent conflict driver. I also wouldn't blow it up, as it benefits me as much as the local ratters.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:57:00 -
[333] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:I don't typically post on these forums, but the amount of not-actually-playing-the-game evident in the devblog is just too high not to...
I'm honestly just amazed. Let's go back in time a bit.
When Dominion was released to make sov warfare worse than before, there was a vague promise of more ihub modules being released. As people who actually play this ****** game may know, many of the ihub upgrades have been completely broken since release, but at least there was the pretense of ~~iterations~~ happening at some point in the future. One upgrade that was suspiciously absent was a way to tax income generated in the system and transfer it to a holding corp.
When CCP was queried as to why this obvious feature was missing, the stated reason was that Eve didn't support something like this.
So now CCP reveals that this capability exists, but wastes it on a 0.0 ratting nerf instead. Have there been no lessons learned from siphons? To remind you: siphons did one thing, and one thing only: They made POS worse and more of a pain to run than they already were without generating fights at all. I, for one, thought such a thing wouldn't be possible, but apparently someone at CCP took that as a challenge.
So now the same people decided to devalue 0.0 a little more. It does, after all, offer sub-par money making possibilities if you are doing PvE. So, to make a bad feature worse, ratting siphons are implemented.
The amount of derp that lead to these deployables is hard to grasp. The tractor unit, depot and jump inhibitor were pretty good. The mjd and scanning deployables raised eyebrows and are a little weird. But these? No way this is not a troll. Nobody can be so clueless about the realities of 0.0. I pity whoever is still doing PvE in 0.0. Goon tears be-wait, what? My EVE Videos |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
769
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:58:00 -
[334] - Quote
More RP/Lore stuff and improvement ideas.
Quote:An ESS allows an empire to monitor bounty-generating activities in the solar system it is deployed in. Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord. I thought this feud was meant to be between the Capsuleers and the Empires not the Empire and CONCORD? The only tension I have noticed was the Caldari fleet vs CONCORD during the Caldari Prime event (unless I missed much more).
Quote:Concord has decided that monitoring these bounty-generating activities (i.e. killing pirates) outside of their jurisdiction is becoming too expensive, especially with the lost income from high-sec Custom Offices. As a result, they will no longer pay the full bounty amount. Why are they not just lowering the bounties they have placed on the NPCs rather than saying they will pay x amount then hold back 5%? This seems like a very backwards and unbelievable way for an organisation to handle things.
Quote:The ESS represents empire monitoring efforts that allow them to compensate players to offset the reduced value that Concord is paying out. We keep being told that the Empires are getting worried and losing control of us Capsuleers so why would they care what we are doing out in NullSec and want to pay us for removing pirates outside of their space? Is this an attempt to rein us in and play the good cop or do they just feel sorry that CONCORD is screwing us? There seems no logic behind "The people that we worry are becoming too powerful are losing money, we should pay them more money!" unless this is the Empires giving CONCORD the finger in which case why are we constantly being told that the Empires are losing control of us, when it should be the Empires are getting tired of CONCORD.
Additionally why do we have four racial variants if there is no difference at all in what they do, it seems there are more options for development here which are not being used. * Have the tags give LP instead of ISK. * Have the value of tags tied to FW making who is winning wars more important to NullSec (would need to fix issues around switching ESS depending on who's winning. * Having an ESS in your systems gives you station/outpost options linked to that Empire.
I remember CCP Soundwave saying how he (CCP) wanted to see more ways in which players effected one another without having to directly be in contact, the ESS having ties to Factional Warfare would seem a strong way of doing this. However there also has to be a reason to want one of these within your system and making up for a 5% loss in bounties isn't enough, the 5% overall seems more like a reason invent just to try and make people use these rather than making them appealing enough to be used willingly.
I am truly disappointed with how little thought has gone into this both lore and mechanics wise because I know you can do better CCP. Please stop working on single little gimmick modules and start thinking of more broad game-wide links which will make this feel like the living evolving universe you supposedly want to create.
As it stands now the ESS is just a griefing tool with no benefit to the Sov holders and because of its implementation we lose out of 5% of the income, which as others have pointed out is only going to effect the little guys grinding ISK for ships to PVP in not the people running the show.
So how I would ideally see this working with lore to support it. Remember while reading this that LP is (as said by CCP) a large ISK sink for EVE Online, turning ISK into items which are then eventually destroyed.
The Empires/CONCORD are worried that they're losing their grip on Capsuleers so they develop the ESS to help monitor Capsuleers activities in their Sovereign NullSec systems. The way they sell this as good thing to have to the Capsuleers is they offer LP for the pirates destroyed in the form of redeemable tokens, as we all know Capsuleers (players) are inherently greedy so the chance for more money will rarely be turned down.
The redeemable tokens can be taken to any NPC corporation within the Empire they are printed for and converted into LP for that corp (with the exception of Factional Warfare corps).
Sov entities place down an ESS and gain a value in LP off the bounties received. This LP is gathered inside the ESS much like how the ISK is right now, and the mechanics work the ESS is now (although I would highly recommend longer timers as posted elsewhere in this thread) Additionally to this the structure can be sent into a reinforced or Incapped mode where the bounties in the system are then reduced by xx% because of the scrambled system monitoring that CONCORD now has.
The structure then would need to be repaired right away (incapped) or later (reinforced) forcing players to either defend their space as roams come through or suffer consequences which might be losing income for a period of time and needing to save a smaller structure from destruction (fight generation/set-up)
This gives an interesting feature that both buffs income for NullSec line members whilst giving new chances to raid and obstruct the income of your enemies. Which follows close to the "fields and fires" idea which has always been talked about.
My idea above has plenty which can be expanded on (FW ties) and the mechanics would need more thought but it would already (at least in my mind) be a far more favourable and interesting addition the NullSec and EVE as a whole. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
The Frodo
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:58:00 -
[335] - Quote
ESS - One of the most stupid ides.
Reminds me - "Hey walking in stations is so cool. Everybody will love. Let's implement this"
I hope the would cancel this one or it's time to go back to missions. Pays better and no risk. |
Tankn00blicus
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Brothers of Tangra
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 19:59:00 -
[336] - Quote
Mirthander Kane wrote:I thought about this, and i think it might have to do with the fact that people buy plex with ratting isk, thus taking away from CCP's monthly income - now they introduce this to lower the isk gains, meaning less plex and (hopefully) more subs. Yes, because PLEX are free. If you go to the account management page where you can get PLEX, they cost $0. You should get 50 of them, because 50 x $0 = $0, put them in the cargo hold of a shuttle, and sit on the Jita 4-4 undock, preferably while I'm sitting within 2500m of your ship. It's not like you'd lose any money if you got ganked, since PLEX do cost $0 after all, right? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
218
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:02:00 -
[337] - Quote
I really dislike this new ESS thing.
Reasons:
1) It's too complicated for what it does. Moving around a structure, anchoring it, interacting with it, etc, all for a bit more income from rats. I view ratting as a fluent activity.
2) It feels forced, not emergent. The big obvious "take all" button vs the "share all" button. I mean, come on. I like conflict drivers just like the next player, but this is laying it on a little bit thick.
3) It barely even makes sense. Look at the story in the blog and how convoluted it seems. It's so ridiculously arbitrary. Just reading it makes me cringe:
Quote:An ESS allows an empire to monitor bounty-generating activities in the solar system it is deployed in. Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord.
It's like, what? Sure, it makes sense...I guess..., but I really wouldn't call this EVE quality.
Siphons are a lot more direct, usable, understandable, and I think actually great for the game. This ESS thing though, it's bad...
Scrap it, back to the drawing board please. |
Dave Stark
4176
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:14:00 -
[338] - Quote
Why didn't ccp just save themselves all the effort coding half of this stuff, and the really awkward justification, and just create a bounty inhibitor which reduces all bounties by 20% and be done with it.
less to explain, less to code, and the same outcome. |
Martineth
Sihars Little Industries
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:15:00 -
[339] - Quote
CCP Phantom They should call you CCP Santa cause you allways bring this bag full of goodies. |
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Northern Associates.
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:15:00 -
[340] - Quote
ESS: Worst Idea Ever
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:15:00 -
[341] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Kadl wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Increasing the drop-isk-tag window from 40 seconds to 3-5 minutes will give the locals plenty of time to react and blap theives. You seem to have an estimate of 3-5 minutes for a defensive response. I am guessing that is based on current defensive tactics and positions. Some things which might reduce the required response time are: ESS placed on station eject path, ESS placed near ratter's staging pos, assigned bookmarks for response fleet, additional reasons to watch intel channels, and additional reasons to rat while aligned. Having the times set for a specific number of seconds may favor certain system sizes. Perhaps 3-5 minutes is the time needed, but given these possible advantages it might be shorter. I've formed up many a response gangs, and a 3-5 minute response is extraordinarily fast (unless your just warping in ships kitchen sink like, or already have a response fleet formed). Really, you want a 6-10 minute window for a proper response fleet to form up. (this is why I requested a 3-5 minutes to activate the ESS, and 3-5 minutes for the ESS to process your drop-isk-tag request). Then these will be conflict drivers. Putting them on a station, or on a deathstar POS will destroy the conflict driver potential of these, because the homefield advantage of engaging on these grids essentially means it is suicide for a small gang to engage. Pull it away from POSes and Stations and Gates, and more ships die, which is a good thing!
I was not clear enough. The dev blog is clear that the ESS must be placed "several 100 kilometers" from a station. It does not mention POSes but we can assume a similar distance. The point is that the ESS could be placed in the eject path (facilitating an instant warp to it from the station). Also the warp distances can be designed to be a short distance from the defender's staging POS.
I am also expecting the ratters to already have a PvP ship setup and ready when they warp to their staging safe spot. I think it is fair to expect a bit of extra preparation since sitting afk is no longer the best option. |
Foo Chan
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:17:00 -
[342] - Quote
nobody is going to use this stuff more than the first epic fail its destined to be
just another cut down to income not selling enough plex i suppose Yes, I can build that. |
DarkestHeart
The Pack Fidelas Constans
174
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:19:00 -
[343] - Quote
ESS looks absolutely fecking stupid. Syphon yeah cool get that but why the ESS? Vein attempt at reducing income of null sec dwellers?
|
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:21:00 -
[344] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:I really dislike this new ESS thing. Reasons: 1) It's too complicated for what it does. Moving around a structure, anchoring it, interacting with it, etc, all for a bit more income from rats. I view ratting as a fluent activity. 2) It feels forced, not emergent. The big obvious "take all" button vs the "share all" button. I mean, come on. I like conflict drivers just like the next player, but this is laying it on a little bit thick. 3) It barely even makes sense. Look at the story in the blog and how convoluted it seems. It's so ridiculously arbitrary. Just reading it makes me cringe: Quote:An ESS allows an empire to monitor bounty-generating activities in the solar system it is deployed in. Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord. It's like, what? Sure, it makes sense...I guess..., but I really wouldn't call this EVE quality. Siphons are a lot more direct, usable, understandable, and I think actually great for the game. This ESS thing though, it's bad... Scrap it, back to the drawing board please.
1) It's complex because it's has got handles for jigsaw pieces we've not seen yet. 2) It does feel forced, I agree. It could be integrated with hacking skills as mentioned elsewhere. Pressing buttons for rewards has the taste of a rat trap (heh, see what I did there?) 3) I assume the lore puzzles me slightly because I've been out to the game for a while. But if I'm not alone in looking at that snippet slantwise then there is a problem.
It does NOT need scrapping, it needs placing in context. |
Dave Stark
4180
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:21:00 -
[345] - Quote
DarkestHeart wrote:Vein attempt at reducing income of null sec dwellers?
apparently pushing people from null sec, to high sec, in order to make isk is a great conflict driver. or, something.
edit: having said that, an influx of null players in incursions would increase the number of contests in high sec incursions so i guess it's creating conflict.... |
Lady Carington
Live Bait and Tackle
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:22:00 -
[346] - Quote
Having played this game for 4 and half years the ESS is the worst idea since Incarna. Most people who live in 0.0 will burn these things down just as soon they are found. The risk for having a ESS up far exceeds the rewards due to ease that they can be robbed. The idea that you can put a ess up and not have someone come rob it every 6 hours is laughable. Alliance mates would send there neutral alts around doing this long before any outside player could do so. An Ess requires honor to function and there is no honer left in EVE.
I am not sure who's idea this was but the fact that development time was spent on this is sad. Instead of investing time to improve/overhaul things likes POS system, Corp right management, low sec, Incursions or developing the game code to run on multicore servers, CCP invest it on crap ideas likes the ESS. When stuff like this is created it is no wonder last 2 Expansions have done so poorly and then ccp wonders why more and more players leave the game.
|
Drakast
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:26:00 -
[347] - Quote
+1 for hacking game woven into the take all button
+1 for larger % payouts
+10 for p*ssing a lot of nullbears off.
your doing something right +1 |
Powers Sa
856
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:32:00 -
[348] - Quote
If interceptors are immune to bubble, then this whole thing is completely broken. lol |
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:33:00 -
[349] - Quote
Best Renter Nerf Ever.
People who own their space, and can defend it, probably will sort out the use of this tool. They gain a boon for having it and defending it (extra 5.5% income over their current income). If an alliance mate of mine steals all the ratting isk, there's a paper trail and they get purged. If I'm ratting in a system alone, I just check the thing before leaving and go about my business. Also, as a ratter with lots of space, I can just move to another system to rat if I feel that things are being camped in.
If I'm a pirate, I have a great place of value to jump to instantly and try and gank some isk, ratters need to respond quickly and in force to prevent my actions.
It's bubbled, ffs, that's awesome. with a delay in how quickly I can get isk. So interceptor and nullified T3 advantage is reduced. Means ratters would be covering each other when a pilot was hitting the big share button (or killing him for stealing all their isks).
This does not work for Renters. Renters get to suck it. Renting without an ESS is vulnerable to a cloaky scab who drops an ESS to steal your ratting income. They camp with a cov-cyno and the renter is literally powerless no matter who dropped the ESS. Renters cannot move to another system without renting a whole new system, which I can just spend another 30m to ruin his new investment.
Now the 'space lord' must go through and clean up all these camped ESS' which are pretty cheap and easy to put back in place.
Thank you CCP.
Transparency: The coalition of which I am a member, CFC, rents out space. But i'm still glad to see something like this in game |
Alcorak
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:34:00 -
[350] - Quote
These are going to work pretty much exactly as stated in post #52, which is too damn big to repost. I wouldn't want one of these in my ratting system - srsly a pot of gold for any neut that pops up as im not warping anything shiney to said pot of gold for I-nulled cynotoon stealing from the ESS. In fact, if I see one in any of my systems - I am blowing it up and eating the 5% reduction. If people actually use these things, I'm going ratting in a Crow from now on.
As they stand right now the 'time to rob' is about 75 seconds from when an interceptor appears in local. 30 sec to land on the unit, 40 to rob it, and 5 (on the outside) for human error. I'd estimate a defender's time to get to POS/station in ratting ship, swich to pvp ship, warp to bubbled ESS, lock interceptor and point at around 90 seconds *minimum*.
Now, if these things didnt appear on overview like a cyno that screams 'come blow me up' or 'come rob me', we might have a better syphon. A neut/hostile would actually have to scan it down to rob you (or could be a sneaky bastard and drop one of their own in system without anybody knowing it and grab it later).
If this is to promote 'small gang' warfare, the loot timer needs to be extended to around 90 seconds, looting ships should need to stay within the bubble, and lose ability to cloak (ESS targets looter until timer runs out?). These changes would maintain a moderate chance of theft with risk involved on both sides. Defender is scared of cyno, looter is scared of getting popped. A small roaming gang gets a higher chance of finding a fight, and a bunch of isk if it doesn't find one. |
|
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Northern Associates.
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:35:00 -
[351] - Quote
Mirthander Kane wrote:i think it might have to do with the fact that people buy plex with ratting isk, thus taking away from CCP's monthly income - now they introduce this to lower the isk gains, meaning less plex and (hopefully) more subs.
So by making this deployable's mechanics as complex as it currently seems, they try to make it look 'justified'. Thus the concept of 'shaking things up' with this device, is just a ruse to hide/justify an isk nerf, thus forcing more subs than plex use. Could be, could be not... still a dumb-a$$ idea to release this.
You do realize they make FAR more money off plex than subs, right? Subs are between $9.95/mo and $14.95 a month. Plex are 19.95 for a month or $34.95 for a 2 month GTC. Either way it's far more money for CCP than subs are..
Your logic fails.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." |
InFleetChat
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:36:00 -
[352] - Quote
Drone Regions buff?
If it's racial ESS'ssss then what race ESS gets dropped in the Drones'?
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
719
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:38:00 -
[353] - Quote
are you really this low in the idea barrel ccp?
can you do pos's now rather than all this half arsed **** you seam to think is a good idea OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
221
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:38:00 -
[354] - Quote
Snowflake Tem wrote:1) It's complex because it's has got handles for jigsaw pieces we've not seen yet.
It doesn't matter the reason that it is overly complex, I'm just pointing out that it is bad for these types of things to become complex.
Contrast it to an MTU or a Mobile Depot or even a siphon. This ESS thing is just *facepalm*.
Snowflake Tem wrote:It does NOT need scrapping, it needs placing in context.
It does need scrapping.
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."
Hauling around a black box, placing it where you rat, anchoring it, interacting with it, all so that it can give you a bit extra income...but store it in the middle of the system for some bizarre reason. Just awful.
Anchorables should be generic sandbox tools (theft/storage/utility), not passive boosters with some artificial risk mechanic built-in. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
539
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:40:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Please be constructive in your replies and follow the forum rules. If you think you do not like an idea, then please point out why you don't like it and why it is from your point of view not a good idea. Thank you! Can we start by an explanation of how the ESS is a good idea?
Ok, so, NullSec is too overcrowded, let's nerf line members* living there with 5% base. Let's give them the perceived opportunity to get that 5% back, but at the risk of 20%.
Let's then give Interceptors the option of stealing those 20%. Let's then give everyone, not just sov holders or people with roles, the option of deploying them.
I'm honestly not sure how you made up this idea, but I guess it involved LSD or Winter Depressions. So please, explain first how it's a good idea. What is it meant to achieve, and how is it doing that?
After that, when you have justified it, we'll give you some criticism according to your desired goals. Until then I'm going to say "thanks but no thanks" to this idea.
*Excluding industri.... yeah, all line members. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4737
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:42:00 -
[356] - Quote
I'm going to expand a bit on why the ESS should be deployable in ALL space.
For one, it most certainly will drive conflict. Sure it will vary depending on where and who is involved, but there will be shots fired. Let's face it, while players in null can choose to kill all MSS if they don't want to deal with the hassle of protecting one and monitoring it so all the ratters get a fair share; this will not be the case in high sec. All high sec mission hubs (hi SoE systems o/) will always have one of these out in space. It will be fought over constantly. Tons of content will spew forth around them. The other thing to consider is it would be incentive to move to other systems to run missions. Thus making use of otherwise empty systems .
And for those still thinking it is a nerf to null, if you are making 95% making sure the ESS is destroyed, high sec mission runners are making 80% due to PvP players battling over the other 25%. Thus, it becomes an actual buff to line member null income. . |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1930
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:42:00 -
[357] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Where's the highsec version of this? Oh right I forgot, daddy CCP is caving to the carebears once again and declaring the MTU drones thing to be a bug. Poor highsec doesn't need anybody interrupting their isk faucets.
You know my opinions on null sec. But this ESS is a terrible, terrible concept, and it is a direct nerf to line member null sec income. While I am no fan of the cartels, and the industrialization of null sec income, this method of applying a nerf is beyond stupid.
The cartels will either make it mandatory in every system, and mandate that anyone destroying, and equally importantly, accessing a unit will be tossed from null sec, which makes this effectively a 20% tax that goes to cartel leadership. Or as predicted, inty gangs will steal everything. Either way the line member loses big.
Further, a blind man can see the next step. CCP introduces the same module into high sec, but like the PI gift to the cartels, to destroy the module in high sec you will have to war dec the owner. I imagine that next step into high sec is the only way to mollify the null sec cartel leadership.
In any case, the entire premise of this module is beyond stupid. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
477
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:42:00 -
[358] - Quote
Querns wrote:A thing a lot of you naysayers are missing is that anyone can deploy these ESSes in a system. Say I've got an inkling for messing with folks. I duckwalk into a system owned by hostiles and deploy my own ESS. Suddenly, I am sapping 20% of the bounties of the system. If you are a sovhaver, you have to deploy these items defensively to prevent this from happening to your systems, unless you want your space to be worth four-fifths of its current value.
I find your lack of perception disturbing. Anyone can take from these. So there is no such thing as a defense ESS. You've only saved me the trouble of bringing one in.
Whats the volume on these? Free Ripley Weaver! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2606
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:45:00 -
[359] - Quote
Alot of the discussion of the ESS seems to assume they will be deployed and left up for days, virtually unattended. I do not see them being used that way.
I think they will get deployed as soon as the ratter wants to start and scooped when they stop. Possibly even in the anomaly being cleared. Hostiles reported as incoming, you hit "share", hit align, wait 20 seconds for the ISK to be delivered, hit scoop, hit warp.
These are not intended to be long term structures. Think of using it tactically, like you would MTUs or mobile depots. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
282
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:47:00 -
[360] - Quote
I have to agree with the general sentiment expressed in here; this deployable suggests either a deep lack of understanding of null security space, a poorly disguised nerf to ratting, or the deliberate conception of a new hot-dropping magnet.
If one were to use them, this change would enforce the old rule of one ratter per solar system. If they were used, players would be exposed to effectively invincible traveling interceptor roams and tech 3s on a constant basis. All the while, the income available in nullsec is trying to compete with the near-zero-risk income in highsec. Why should players choose to expose themselves to compensate for a 5% income nerf when they can make comparable, or more, ISK per hour by running level 4 missions in high security space?
Consider that:
- Level 4 mission runners do not have to compete for their resources.
- Level 4 mission runners do not have to expose their ship to enemy fire unless wardecced or suicide ganked.
- Level 4 mission runners are not distanced from the market hubs.
There's a fine line where theoretical income potential becomes irrelevant to the convenience of hassle-free resupply, and that line probably lies half way between the income of level 3 and level 4 missions as it is. |
|
Otto Kring
Imperial Guardians Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:48:00 -
[361] - Quote
Well ok great, but when I am stuck in station all day and paying to play EVE can I get a game to play with all of my newbros so we can have some fun. Recreate some stations to have an EVEVegas fun! |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
221
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:49:00 -
[362] - Quote
Has anybody pointed out that if ratting bounties were too high (from CCP's perception -- and they have all the numbers) that it would have been simpler to just straight nerf ratting bounties?
Instead it's like they packaged it with an anchorable design straight out of the Worst Ideas Ever thread.
I think most EVE players would just prefer the truth straight up.
"We are nerfing ratting bounties and here is why." (explanation follows) |
Shun Makoto
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:51:00 -
[363] - Quote
Make it so permissions can be set on the ESS or this is one of the crappiest things introduced in the game. Putting these down will become a KOS-able offense, just watch.
Edit: Putting the Hacking minigame into the Take All button is a good idea
Do it Caldari Independant Navy Reserve Fourth District Patriot Faction Former 22nd BRDU - Retired Milita Wing Commander
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:51:00 -
[364] - Quote
Alcorak wrote:As they stand right now the 'time to rob' is about 75 seconds from when an interceptor appears in local. 30 sec to land on the unit, 40 to rob it, and 5 (on the outside) for human error. I'd estimate a defender's time to get to POS/station in ratting ship, swich to pvp ship, warp to bubbled ESS, lock interceptor and point at around 90 seconds *minimum*.
I think you are missing the 20 seconds needed to access the ESS. So your estimate is 75 seconds, and adding 20 seconds gives 95 seconds, which is apparently CCP's guess at response times. I am not as confident about the 90 second response time being enough for defenders. I think the response time is a huge variable that CCP needs feedback on. |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
172
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:51:00 -
[365] - Quote
So nobody has talked about how the isk tags are racial.
So say I drop minmatar tags in Amarr space then the closest navy location to redeem them is a bit of a ways away. I feel like this will be an underestimated effect... |
Shun Makoto
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:53:00 -
[366] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:Are the isk tags racial? Or are they universal? IOW, does the ESS's race determine what kind of tags are printed?
Tags are racial, read the Dev Blog Caldari Independant Navy Reserve Fourth District Patriot Faction Former 22nd BRDU - Retired Milita Wing Commander
|
Alcorak
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:55:00 -
[367] - Quote
A nice thought Vincent but that won't work in practice. They light up on overview like cynos - meaning a 0 warp for an I-nulled cynoalt that enters the system - hope you're not too attached to whatever ratter you fly if you're going to try to warp back and loot it before you warp off. You can't 'just scoop it' it has a bubble and takes 40sec to loot. You also wont be right next to it as you'll be trying to clear multiple sites. Anyone being able to deploy and loot these will get *hilarious* in a bad way. Its a mobile troll module. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
174
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:55:00 -
[368] - Quote
so CCP made up their mind what they want with Nullsec.
Instead of encouraging people living there doing industry and killing stuff, building empires etcc, they want it even more empty, with the occasional roaming gang wondering why no people are living in nullsec.
Guess CCP really like high sec Incursion alts. Baddest poster ever |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:55:00 -
[369] - Quote
the ESS is the dumbest idea you've had yet CCP well ******* done.
it will put a bubble up? wow thats smart intys are immune even t3's can be immune well done! so smart!
your not ******* thinking at all nobody will USE THEM AT ALL the only thing your doing is nerfing bounties 5% because a 5% increase is NOT WORTH THE RISK OF IT BEING STOLEN.
OMFG this will NOT generate PVP or ANYTHING because I WILL REPEAT NOBODY WILL USE THEM.
siphons are annoying and kinda fun because of it but this is just PLAIN STUPID.
find something that ACTUALLY will generate PVP because siphons dont they are too cheap / too **** atm and this ESS thing is even dumber!
allso this from Evelgrivions post since he's being a little more polite:
I have to agree with the general sentiment expressed in here; this deployable suggests either a deep lack of understanding of null security space, a poorly disguised nerf to ratting, or the deliberate conception of a new hot-dropping magnet. |
Foo Chan
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:57:00 -
[370] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Has anybody pointed out that if ratting bounties were too high (from CCP's perception -- and they have all the numbers) that it would have been simpler to just straight nerf ratting bounties?
Instead it's like they packaged it with an anchorable design straight out of the Worst Ideas Ever thread.
I think most EVE players would just prefer the truth straight up.
"We are nerfing ratting bounties and here is why." (explanation follows)
Would save everyone time too.
How about remaking older stuff like corp hangars and pos gui?
I mean.. much needed stuff to motivate more people to keep p(L)aying
Yes, I can build that. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5977
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:57:00 -
[371] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: The cartels will either make it mandatory in every system, and mandate that anyone destroying, and equally importantly, accessing a unit will be tossed from null sec, which makes this effectively a 20% tax that goes to cartel leadership. Or as predicted, inty gangs will steal everything. Either way the line member loses big.
we can just set corp ratting taxes, less effort and no chance those inty gangs steal our rightful cartel loot "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:57:00 -
[372] - Quote
Shun Makoto wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:Are the isk tags racial? Or are they universal? IOW, does the ESS's race determine what kind of tags are printed? Tags are racial, read the Dev Blog
Yeah i just reread it and corrected my post. Thanks for the help. Anyway, that's an underestimated thing. I imagine that collecting and then redeeming these tags itself will be a contentious thing.
Camping the caldari navy station that is the closest to Goon space for example could be rather lucrative. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2606
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:57:00 -
[373] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:I have to agree with the general sentiment expressed in here; this deployable suggests either a deep lack of understanding of null security space, a poorly disguised nerf to ratting, or the deliberate conception of a new hot-dropping magnet. If one were to use them, this change would enforce the old rule of one ratter per solar system. If they were used, players would be exposed to effectively invincible traveling interceptor roams and tech 3s on a constant basis. All the while, the income available in nullsec is trying to compete with the near-zero-risk income in highsec. Why should players choose to expose themselves to compensate for a 5% income nerf when they can make comparable, or more, ISK per hour by running level 4 missions in high security space? Consider that: - Level 4 mission runners do not have to compete for their resources.
- Level 4 mission runners do not have to expose their ship to enemy fire unless wardecced or suicide ganked.
- Level 4 mission runners are not distanced from the market hubs.
There's a fine line where theoretical income potential becomes irrelevant to the convenience of hassle-free resupply, and that line probably lies half way between the income of level 3 and level 4 missions as it is. This was talked about to the CSM. are not a majority of them from Null? Do they have a poor understanding of Null?
As for why not do L4 missions: Because that means being in high sec with all the self entitled whiners. The reason to be in Null is because you like Null. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4301
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 20:59:00 -
[374] - Quote
scimichar wrote:Let's nerf null sec ratting even more and make it even harder to find stuff to kill.
Yea, it's not as if CCP hasn't chased enough pve player into high sec to do incursions and sister's missions (or to low sec to farm tags in the belts and FW lp with stabed frigs). All of which I'm already doing lol.
ESS is a very dumb idea. CCP should not develop in a vacuum like that, but rather should consider all pve isk sources and iterate accordingly. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5977
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:02:00 -
[375] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: This was talked about to the CSM. are not a majority of them from Null? Do they have a poor understanding of Null?
As for why not do L4 missions: Because that means being in high sec with all the self entitled whiners. The reason to be in Null is because you like Null.
I assume that this means the initial draft was that much worse. There was, after all, that thing that the minutes showed the CSM shouted down. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Mirthander Kane
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:02:00 -
[376] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:Mirthander Kane wrote:i think it might have to do with the fact that people buy plex with ratting isk, thus taking away from CCP's monthly income - now they introduce this to lower the isk gains, meaning less plex and (hopefully) more subs.
So by making this deployable's mechanics as complex as it currently seems, they try to make it look 'justified'. Thus the concept of 'shaking things up' with this device, is just a ruse to hide/justify an isk nerf, thus forcing more subs than plex use. Could be, could be not... still a dumb-a$$ idea to release this. You do realize they make FAR more money off plex than subs, right? Subs are between $9.95/mo and $14.95 a month. Plex are 19.95 for a month or $34.95 for a 2 month GTC. Either way it's far more money for CCP than subs are.. Your logic fails.
I understand plex needs to be bought with RL currency and that is why it is ingame. I forgot that plex actually costs more than subs, so yes, in that regard my logic was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8365
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:03:00 -
[377] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:I have to agree with the general sentiment expressed in here; this deployable suggests either a deep lack of understanding of null security space, a poorly disguised nerf to ratting, or the deliberate conception of a new hot-dropping magnet. I don't even rat anymore and I'm absolutely disgusted with CCP over this change. Instead of allocating developer resources to things that matter and need to be fixed or improved (POS mechanics, corp mechanics, nullsec income, nullsec industry, sovereignty warfare, devaluation of exploration) instead we have the most idiotic ideas being put forth by the brains at CCP.
Nerfing nullsec bounties by 5% and introducing an absolutely imbalanced and pointless module to further discourage people from trying to make an income. Income which fuels PVP. Why the hell are you trying so hard to distract and obfuscate those things that are actually important? My EVE Videos |
justatrial Minayin
Light of the moon Fraternity.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:07:00 -
[378] - Quote
15km? That's nothing for frigate. Why don't we add a constrain, if you decide to take it, whatever the amount you take, you will be hold around the depot unit for 30 seconds. So the other people in the system can come and tackle you. You can use interceptors, bombers just because they are cheap, you can also use battleship or even carrier, mothership because they can tank more damage. |
Myriad Blaze
nul-li-fy Nulli Secunda
139
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:08:00 -
[379] - Quote
I think the ESS is a great idea ... totally in line with other great ideas like New Coke, the Sony rootkit or putting your unsinkable ship to the test against an iceberg.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2606
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:08:00 -
[380] - Quote
Alcorak wrote:A nice thought Vincent but that won't work in practice. They light up on overview like cynos - meaning a 0 warp for an I-nulled cynoalt that enters the system - hope you're not too attached to whatever ratter you fly if you're going to try to warp back and loot it before you warp off. You can't 'just scoop it' it has a bubble and takes 40sec to loot. You also wont be right next to it as you'll be trying to clear multiple sites. Anyone being able to deploy and loot these will get *hilarious* in a bad way. Its a mobile troll module.
Its 20 seconds if you hit the share button, and that way there are no tags, there is no looting. You just get the ISK. Many ratting ships take 20 seconds to align, so you hit share, hit align, wait 20 seconds, scoop (bubble drops) warp.
Remember the 40 seconds and tags option only applies to the "give me all button"; that is to a thief. The share button is faster and there are no tags. If you are willing to abandon the structure, just hit share and get out as fast as possible. For example have an alt in a frig sitting by it. Alt hits share, burns out and warps. Or have the alt in a shuttle and let him take the pod express home. All you need to do get your isk, and keep the invader from getting it, is hit the Share button. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:09:00 -
[381] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: This was talked about to the CSM. are not a majority of them from Null? Do they have a poor understanding of Null?
As for why not do L4 missions: Because that means being in high sec with all the self entitled whiners. The reason to be in Null is because you like Null.
I assume that this means the initial draft was that much worse. There was, after all, that thing that the minutes showed the CSM shouted down.
That is a terrifying thought. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
880
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:09:00 -
[382] - Quote
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... |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
541
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:11:00 -
[383] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:I have to agree with the general sentiment expressed in here; this deployable suggests either a deep lack of understanding of null security space, a poorly disguised nerf to ratting, or the deliberate conception of a new hot-dropping magnet. I don't even rat anymore and I'm absolutely disgusted with CCP over this change. Instead of allocating developer resources to things that matter and need to be fixed or improved (POS mechanics, corp mechanics, nullsec income, nullsec industry, sovereignty warfare, devaluation of exploration) instead we have the most idiotic ideas being put forth by the brains at CCP. Nerfing nullsec bounties by 5% and introducing an absolutely imbalanced and pointless module to further discourage people from trying to make an income. Income which fuels PVP. Why the hell are you trying so hard to distract and obfuscate those things that are actually important? +1. "I don't always agree with Goons, but when I do... !!!"
Weaselior wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: This was talked about to the CSM. are not a majority of them from Null? Do they have a poor understanding of Null?
As for why not do L4 missions: Because that means being in high sec with all the self entitled whiners. The reason to be in Null is because you like Null.
I assume that this means the initial draft was that much worse. There was, after all, that thing that the minutes showed the CSM shouted down. Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?
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.
Seriously CCP, don't do drugs. |
Fix Lag
603
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:15:00 -
[384] - Quote
THIS IDEA SUCKS ASS
(That's constructive criticism. I am encouraging you, CCP, to completely get rid of this fucking stupid idea.) |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
225
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:16:00 -
[385] - Quote
Oh, come on, I don't understand what the fuss is about. The roots of the ESS are fairly obvious:
What if being aligned and warping out the first sign of danger was inhibited in some way? Maybe some of the worth you're generating is stored separately.
Well, what's the incentive in doing that optionally? Make it worth a little less without, worth more with- classic risk/reward mechanic.
What's to stop you parking an alt on it and cashing out when danger comes along? Have a timeout on the payout.
Honestly, the only people who'll be hit hard by this are solo ratters- those who work in groups can fight off a solo roaming player, while groups vs. groups is where it's interesting.
How could you make it better? Maybe go full-hog with the CONCORD features. Disable cynos on grid (regular and covert, just like hisec), make it impossible to hotdrop- might get more interesting ships (faction fitted faction BS, perhaps) risking the ESS vicinity and a fight for the loot if a solo hunter can't tackle & cyno in help all by themselves.
Also, maybe trickle the payouts- should be an incentive not only to get on the ESS as early as possible but to also stick around. Some kind of trickle mechanic would encourage that.
Making the payout take up m3 is also important, otherwise interceptors will be mercilessly abused.
Apart from that, a little balancing can ensure that most nullsec dwellers are inclined to use it (and expose themselves to the risk that incurs), while there's also room for hostile ESS deployment to try and force the issue. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:18:00 -
[386] - Quote
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? An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department. Were you wronged by a member of our fine space guild? We can get you the compensation you deserve. |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:20:00 -
[387] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Snowflake Tem wrote:1) It's complex because it's has got handles for jigsaw pieces we've not seen yet. It doesn't matter the reason that it is overly complex, I'm just pointing out that it is bad for these types of things to become complex. Contrast it to an MTU or a Mobile Depot or even a siphon. This ESS thing is just *facepalm*. Snowflake Tem wrote:It does NOT need scrapping, it needs placing in context. It does need scrapping. 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." Hauling around a black box, placing it where you rat, anchoring it, interacting with it, all so that it can give you a bit extra income...but store it in the middle of the system for some bizarre reason. Just awful. Anchorables should be generic sandbox tools (theft/storage/utility), not passive boosters with some artificial risk mechanic built-in.
Do we agree that infrastructure hubs do not deliver all that was hoped for? Could this not be an alternate structure on a similar theme that interfaces with real players, and not weekend administrators? Isn't understanding the complexity of any system in EVE part of it's allure?
I think you are mistaking the slippery slope for more star systems slipping through the fingers of a certain alliances' grip.
Having said that, from a entirely abstract perspective. I don't understand the gathered data being kept on record for everybody benefit if the blighter is destroyed. If the thing is a telecommunications tower to Empire data centres I want to see new structures going up in empire to receive the data if they don't already exist. The ownership of the data is obscure. Were the isk is coming is not entirely clear. The margins seem arbitrary. The triggers for ramping up of rewards is downright baffling, I assume deliberately so. I like that CCP will be able to track what happens to the isk chits, but don't feel that the dev teams hard work has been successfully set in the game world context.
Don't abort this baby yet, I want to see what it grows into. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
769
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:21:00 -
[388] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Seriously CCP, when CFC, N3, Provi and NPC 0.0 people tell you it's bad, rethink it. This.
Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Dolph Carebear
Adohivatal
57
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:22:00 -
[389] - Quote
Why, oh why are you spending time designing and implementing useless junk like this Rubicon 1.1 deployable line?
I don't care about the 5% bounty nerf, I don't care about moon income implications... What I do care about is the fact that the team behind the game has apparently lost it.
These things are gimmicks that nobody will use. |
Nassus Ryn
Dystopian Industries
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 21:22:00 -
[390] - Quote
How dare you nerf Nullsec ratting income by 5% while implementing a mechanism in which they can actively regain the lost ISK and then some in exchange for a higher percentage risked and the necessity to defend their own space, CCP! And to compound the insult, to even DARE add new mechanics that can be used by both carebears and pvpers for their respective playstyles, whether it be making as much ISK as possible, or baiting Sov holders into a confrontation to protect their profit margins.
And last but not least, how DARE you add broadcasted, high profile locations desirable to both defenders and attackers to be used as flashpoints for spontaneous pvp in nullsec!?
I don't know you anymore, CCP. This is the last straw.
|
|
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.pdfPage 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.pdfPage 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... |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5984
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:41:00 -
[421] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:In Rubicon 1.0 you added 3 more structures and now you are preparing 3 more... The CSM minutes said there were a total of 12 planned. Dunno if that includes siphon variants. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:47:00 -
[422] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote: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...
In fairness, I think the mobile siphon unit, the mobile depot, and the mobile cyno inhibitor are excellent additions to the game.
I also thing the Mobile Micro Jump Drive is reasonable (although they actually asked and are working on feedback there). I think the ESS could be an excellent addition to the game, but it needs some serious tweaking! (i.e. increase the access time + drop time to 6-10 minutes, so the locals can actually form up and defend it! Additionally, increase its payout so its truly beneficial to utilize!).
|
Hans Zwaardhandler
Borealis Mining Concern
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:52:00 -
[423] - Quote
The idea, while good in theory, offers not many rewards or incentives to utilize it. CCP should be trying to increase the income being generated by nullsec to get more targets out there to be poached by nullsec roamers. |
DeadDuck
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:54:00 -
[424] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: In fairness, I think the mobile siphon unit, the mobile depot, and the mobile cyno inhibitor are excellent additions to the game.
Yeah tbh I'm not complaining about those but this ESS... arrgghh people pass their time saying 0.0 is empty (AND IT IS!) and then what CCP proposes... the ESS... aka nerf income from the 0.0 base grunts... you actually want people to go from Empire to 0.0 not the contrary...
|
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
286
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:58:00 -
[425] - Quote
Is ESS some kind of attempt to introduce prisoner's dilemma to 0.0?
As I see it this thing will be only used by ratters in some ass end of nowhere space. It certainly will not be used in any space that has high pvp activity, as it makes easy target for roamers and hotdroppers, with added bonus for them of stealing part of ratter's income just before blowing up his 30m structure. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Similarly it is unlikely to be used in NRDS space as random mixture of neutral or loosely affiliated corps and alliances living together is generally unsuitable for creation of tightly enforced social contract necessary for this structure to generate any income benefit.
BTW those two things essentially mean anybody living in Providence just got his ratting bounty income cut by 5% or more. Thank you CCP.
But as wheel of fortune turns and people living in dangerous space get their GÇ£just rewordGÇ¥ for their fortune, so do all those downtrodden carrier rating deep nulsec people that newer get enjoy wonders of random hotdropps get their well deserved 5% income boost, because if anyone needs it it is them. Excellent game design CCP, truly ingenious. Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
659
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 22:59:00 -
[426] - Quote
Rubicon 1.0 - Interceptors online Rubicon 1.1 - WTF???
What ever happened to iteration? You know, the process of rolling out small changes, observing their impact on the game, then iterating on those changes for the better of the game. It may sound like I'm jumping on the band-wagon here, but I genuinely have to ask this after reading that dev blog: Do you even play this game!? The answer is self-evident.
This is literally pants-on-head ********. No metaphor involved here, people. The only way I can justify this 'idea' making it as far as a dev blog is to imagine team superfriends derping around the frozen tundra in their long-johns, pant-tails flapping wildly in the breeze.
What in the holy hell were you thinking? Is this the idea the CSM shot down at the summit? If yes, why the **** would you bring back such a fundamentally flawed disaster? If no, what could you possibly have come up with that deserved to be shot down more than this?
This is as constructive as my criticism is going to get on this one: Don't ******* do it!
Jessica Danikov wrote: What's to stop you parking an alt on it and cashing out when danger comes along? Have a timeout on the payout.
You mean an alt that could be sitting in a VNI making 60-70m isk/hour afk? Sure.... Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Imigo Montoya
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
117
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:04:00 -
[427] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor.
A couple of questions around exactly how this will work:
- If the ISK is distributed in the form of tokens that can be traded for cash, how does a contributing player actually receive the token? Obviously, not all players can be present to pick up said tokens, so is it placed in their hangar in a nearby station (determined how?) or what?
- Exactly how is the token bought by the Empires? Is it buy orders in certain stations (which will therefore attract sales tax), or are they redeemed in loyalty point stores.
- Can ESS tokens be traded on the market like any other commodity?
It seems like an interesting content generator |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
84
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:06:00 -
[428] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Querns wrote:Also, those of you saying "no one will use these things!" are fooling yourselves. Anyone destitute enough to actually shoot red crosses for money in this game will leap willingly into a 5% bounty increase carrot, no matter the risk. In their current form, any half-intelligent nullsec alliance will ban their use.
then i guess we will see these everywhere in dek. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:06:00 -
[429] - Quote
"You will use my new deployable or lose 5% of your income!" Super indeed |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
659
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:07:00 -
[430] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote:"You will use my new deployable or lose 5% of your income!" Super indeed
Sandbox. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
|
Guns'N'Ammo
The Dark Resistance
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:10:00 -
[431] - Quote
I say, this has to be one of the worst ideas i have ever seen someone come up with.
1st - It said that this will generate a notification for anyone (even cloaked) that gets in range of the ESS. I thought it's been said multiple times that there will not be something developed that will locate cloaked ships. Also what is the reason to even put a bubble on this structure if the base idea for it is to boost/nerf income?
So now we have a deployable that can detect cloaked ships as well as bubble them?
And for that matter what if you do decide to try and set a trap at one of these? You can't do it with a hostile in system because they will be notified who has shown up at the ESS. Could we please include a deployable that notifies the rest of the system who is afk too by sending a message on anyone who has not pressed a key in the past 5 min?
2nd - It is said that if the ESS is removed and the bounties are not collected then a new ESS can be dropped where the process can continue and old bounties can then be paid out. Ummmm..... Doesn't the server have enough issues with lag and tidi these days? So what will happen when it now has to be calculated who currently has share in the pool and if an ESS is killed that data is still being processed?
3rd - So there is going to be a 5% reduction in bounties paid out in all of null as the new standard and when placing an ESS it reduces it by 20% from what it currently is..... Then the factions are going to pick up the 20-25% of payments after X amount of npcs are killed. The background (or so called lore) to this makes no sense what so ever. Why would a faction have any reason to want to make up for concord's short fall?
4th - Interceptors. Nuff said. I |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:10:00 -
[432] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Thatt Guy wrote:"You will use my new deployable or lose 5% of your income!" Super indeed Sandbox.
Sandbox -5% sand |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:12:00 -
[433] - Quote
Make the cut on base rat bounty 80% not 95% Eve is filled with way to many math geniuses (why is that I dont read about you guys solving navier stokes millennium challenge, or being like me and deducing relativity from Pythagorean theorem? Shameless plug for live events channel) to realize 10% punctuated != 15% continuous lost Therefore you need to make this a better choice either by dropping rat bounties to 80% or letting the max cap be 110%
Or for real EVE style, all bounties are processed through this deployable and every bounty is in ISK tags with the cargo reusing the POCO code to allow someone's tags to be held separate... OK I am laughing typing about the benevolence bit.
Also for the polymers is it stuff purchased now gets increased or only the post patch stuff? IE I have 1 polymer it gets made into 100 and all orders on market adjusted so that I cant immediately sell my 99 for pure profit? |
Khan Farshatok
Dedicated Individuals Conditioned to Kill B O R G
84
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:13:00 -
[434] - Quote
(5:12:35 PM) samatra: rubicon interceptors are the best thing to happen to eve since they introduced the undock button
now the rss makes it exponentially better. thank you ccp for giving us the ability to troll GSF even harder. |
Vivi Udan
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:13:00 -
[435] - Quote
RATTING WITH AN E.S.S.
-Risk- 1] PVP gangs 2] Hot-droppers 3] Cloaky campers 4] Rats (once in a blue moon) 5] 20%-25% of generated ratting isk 5] ANYONE can access the ESS... At any time... (like when I'm sleeping, or at work, or making dinner. You know the other 16-22 hours of the day) 6] You have to let the isk build up to get more than 20%, which gives others more time to steal from you. 7] If you remove isk, the 0-5% of ratting isk is not generated anymore. (For the time being)
-Reward- 1] The possibility of 5-10% more of generated ratting isk (compared to not using an E.S.S.)
RATTING WITHOUT AN E.S.S.
-Risk- 1] PVP gangs 2] Hot-droppers 3] Cloaky campers 4] Rats (once in a blue moon)
-Reward- 1] 95% of generated ratting isk
...so yeah, who thought this would work? I'm confused... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:14:00 -
[436] - Quote
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
659
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:14:00 -
[437] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:Thatt Guy wrote:"You will use my new deployable or lose 5% of your income!" Super indeed Sandbox. Sandbox -5% sand
YOU can't play in MY sandbox unless you use MY SHOVEL!! Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Warmistress Severine
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:17:00 -
[438] - Quote
ESS? Mega Crap.
What's next? A deployable, that posts "f.u.c.k you!" in local, every time, someone jumps in? |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
662
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:17:00 -
[439] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe! Null income is already lower than hisec.
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty! In your world, cloak delay doesn't exist, nor does opportunity cost?
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something. Because an inty would never be able to provide a warpin, risk-free
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local.
I'm going to have to ask you the same question I asked CCP, do you even PLAY this game? Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:20:00 -
[440] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local. OOh I didnt even consider point 3 as being literally 15km no matter grid or warp. This is now so much more fun. So glad i have a bomber alt |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:21:00 -
[441] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe! Null income is already lower than hisec.
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty! In your world, cloak delay doesn't exist, nor does opportunity cost?
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something. Because an inty would never be able to provide a warpin, risk-free
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local. I'm going to have to ask you the same question I asked CCP, do you even PLAY this game?
Indeed I do, and I lived in nullsec for a year. What issues are there with the ESS that makes it so bad? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:22:00 -
[442] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local.
Ok. As part of the new expansion, you must now send me 5% of everything you earn, on every account, and everyone in your corp, and your alliance, and your renters, and your pvpers looking to buy new ships.
(Ohnoes!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60mil/hour!) |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:22:00 -
[443] - Quote
-Double post, please delete- How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:24:00 -
[444] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local. Ok. As part of the new expansion, you must now send me 5% of everything you earn, on every account, and everyone in your corp, and your alliance, and your renters, and your pvpers looking to buy new ships. (Ohnoes!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60mil/hour!)
If it means I can force a fight in any given nullsec system you got a deal. People are forgetting this allows roaming gangs to force fights!
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Fix Lag
605
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:25:00 -
[445] - Quote
I'd like a CCP statement on what they think of the whole situation. Clearly, the ESS is crap and they surely know that by now. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:25:00 -
[446] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Thatt Guy wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local. Ok. As part of the new expansion, you must now send me 5% of everything you earn, on every account, and everyone in your corp, and your alliance, and your renters, and your pvpers looking to buy new ships. (Ohnoes!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60mil/hour!) If it means I can force a fight in any given nullsec system you got a deal. People are forgetting this allows roaming gangs to force fights!
Or the ratters just , I donno, log? |
Guns'N'Ammo
The Dark Resistance
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:26:00 -
[447] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local.
1) Exactly and that is why no one will use this other than roaming gangs.
2) You must have missed the part where it will notify everyone in system that someone is camping the ESS.
3) Because so many people rat while there is a hostile in system..... Oh yeah right. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:27:00 -
[448] - Quote
MrBawkbagawk wrote:oh look, a left handed nerf for drone space.
can we expect to see a set of faction items for rogue drones? no, of course not, that would be adding content. everything about drone space sucks compared to any other region including high sec and you make it even harder to earn a living?
who's friends are you, exactly?
There is nothing left handed about this nerf to Drones. I wrote about how the MTU was a left handed nerf to Drones, since without loot drops, the unit is mostly useless for ratting in Drones. Relative to anywhere else in Eve, adding the MTU has devalued an already resource poor area. This is a straight up nerf to Drone Regions, disproportional to how it will effect ratting in all other regions.
99.9% of ratting income in Drones comes off of bounties, with some few bothering to collect the fairly bad salvage. In any other region, 10-20% additional income can be pulled out of basic rat loot outside of bounties, with exceptional officer mods adding considerably greater proportionally to that value. This ESS will not negatively effect this 'bonus, harvestable' income, and there will be plenty living outside of Drones who will promptly say "No thanks, will just work just fine without one."
For all Drone Region inhabitants, this will just be a nerf. It will be straight up 5% off the top in an already difficult place to live, or it will be a massive headache to just break even, much less benefit from.
Will someone from CCP explain how to justify the DISPROPORTIONAL effect this will have on one particular sector of space? At the very least, explain why it is acceptable to continue introducing 'content' that is bad for the LAST 'new' K-space added to Eve? The Drone Regions at the absolute least must have loot tables reintroduced to balance the years of neglect and negative content development seen for pretty much all of the East of New Eden.
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
662
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:29:00 -
[449] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: Indeed I do, and I lived in nullsec for a year. What issues are there with the ESS that makes it so bad?
If you can't be bothered to read the thread, perhaps you shouldn't be bothered with commenting in it. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:30:00 -
[450] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Thatt Guy wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local. Ok. As part of the new expansion, you must now send me 5% of everything you earn, on every account, and everyone in your corp, and your alliance, and your renters, and your pvpers looking to buy new ships. (Ohnoes!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60mil/hour!) If it means I can force a fight in any given nullsec system you got a deal. People are forgetting this allows roaming gangs to force fights! Or the ratters just , I donno, log?
Congrats on ruining 50 guys' evening of ratting. Pass go, collect tears.
If its a big alliance's (is there any other kind of alliance?) home system then odds are you'll get a fight. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Space Danger
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:31:00 -
[451] - Quote
Any nullsec alliance leaders with their heads screwed on will ban these things from being used in their space, "if you see one, kill it.".
Again CCP try to add more pointless glitter onto the (increasingly large) pile of legitimate problems with eve instead of fixing them.
Here's an idea, stop wasting man-hours on this deployable garbage and fix Pos mechanics. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
884
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:31:00 -
[452] - Quote
Thatt Guy wrote:
Or the ratters just , I donno, log?
That's not an argument though. Ratting free of external intervention isn't some god given right. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:31:00 -
[453] - Quote
No COncord means a disunited response to drones. This means that they will expand readily. So given CCP makes lore connections, perhaps they will say the extensive usage of MTUs has them feel threatened by the lost "food" and the loss of a unified front on them by the Empires results in them becoming a bigger threat. Suddenly they have a lore based and good reason to aid the drone regions by making them get cool stuff Like say wildcard faction drops due to them now raid and pillaging instead of scavenging
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:31:00 -
[454] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Indeed I do, and I lived in nullsec for a year. What issues are there with the ESS that makes it so bad?
If you can't be bothered to read the thread, perhaps you shouldn't be bothered with commenting in it.
All I hear is a neutral alt that can't formulate an arguement. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
213
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:33:00 -
[455] - Quote
ESS as a new cloaking ship detector around gate camps?
Helios detected! |
Nasro Drags
Quinto Imperio
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:33:00 -
[456] - Quote
On ESS,
Increase max bonus to something around 120 to 150% and it might be used.
Why would anyone in null sec risk losing a big chunk of their isk making for 5%? With a decent advantage, people will put them, and gangs will have targets. Also, it needs to give locals time to organize... you can't get an organized fight in little over a minute, that's barely enough time to dock, undock and warp to site...
Or do you expect gangs to offensively place them? Cause that would be insane... Other than afkers and such, gangs won't place them cause ratters just dock when reds show up. The ESS won't steal |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:34:00 -
[457] - Quote
Space Danger wrote:Any nullsec alliance leaders with their heads screwed on will ban these things from being used in their space, "if you see one, kill it.".
Again CCP try to add more pointless glitter onto the (increasingly large) pile of legitimate problems with eve instead of fixing them.
Here's an idea, stop wasting man-hours on this deployable garbage and fix Pos mechanics. Meaning that now to kill it you have to fight, on the terms the dropping gang set. Ooh fun times.
Also depolyables are the fix to POS code. Note that we now just need the industry and defensive mods and you have a POS again. Well obviously if they tweak siphons to also pull from moons (please do this, I want the hilarity to ensue) |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:35:00 -
[458] - Quote
Ok. Take 5% of a ratters isk so that pvpers can get "tears"? Shouldn't it be called a mobile griefing unit? |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
667
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:35:00 -
[459] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: Congrats on ruining 50 guys' evening of ratting. Pass go, collect tears.
If its a big alliance's (is there any other kind of alliance?) home system then odds are you'll get a fight.
OK, now I KNOW you don't play this game.
50 people utilizing one system???
Home system used for ratting????
Just stop now... Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
667
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:36:00 -
[460] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:All I hear is a neutral alt that can't formulate an arguement.
All relevant arguments have been made time and again (please see pages one through twenty).
Also, people post on their mains? Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
|
Space Danger
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:38:00 -
[461] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Space Danger wrote:Any nullsec alliance leaders with their heads screwed on will ban these things from being used in their space, "if you see one, kill it.".
Again CCP try to add more pointless glitter onto the (increasingly large) pile of legitimate problems with eve instead of fixing them.
Here's an idea, stop wasting man-hours on this deployable garbage and fix Pos mechanics. Meaning that now to kill it you have to fight, on the terms the dropping gang set. Ooh fun times. Also depolyables are the fix to POS code. Note that we now just need the industry and defensive mods and you have a POS again. Well obviously if they tweak siphons to also pull from moons (please do this, I want the hilarity to ensue)
The concept of these creating fights won't work. As said before, with neuts/reds in local ratters won't generate isk and people who want rid of it will wait untill local is clear to do so. Increasing the amount of small gang PVP it will not.
This type of thinking MIGHT work in lowsec, but alliance held sov? nope. |
Garnoo
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:38:00 -
[462] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:I'd like a CCP statement on what they think of the whole situation. Clearly, the ESS is crap and they surely know that by now. logs show nothing People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back - this is EvE |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:38:00 -
[463] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Congrats on ruining 50 guys' evening of ratting. Pass go, collect tears.
If its a big alliance's (is there any other kind of alliance?) home system then odds are you'll get a fight.
OK, now I KNOW you don't play this game. 50 people utilizing one system??? Home system used for ratting???? Just stop now...
Not every alliance in null rules a dozen regions, so set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.
If you suggest they will just move to another system I'll know that YOU don't play this game.
Now, post with your main and formulate an arguement other than "hurrr you don't play this game!" or stfu. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:41:00 -
[464] - Quote
Space Danger wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:Space Danger wrote:Any nullsec alliance leaders with their heads screwed on will ban these things from being used in their space, "if you see one, kill it.".
Again CCP try to add more pointless glitter onto the (increasingly large) pile of legitimate problems with eve instead of fixing them.
Here's an idea, stop wasting man-hours on this deployable garbage and fix Pos mechanics. Meaning that now to kill it you have to fight, on the terms the dropping gang set. Ooh fun times. Also depolyables are the fix to POS code. Note that we now just need the industry and defensive mods and you have a POS again. Well obviously if they tweak siphons to also pull from moons (please do this, I want the hilarity to ensue) The concept of these creating fights won't work. As said before, with neuts/reds in local ratters won't generate isk and people who want rid of it will wait untill local is clear to do so. Increasing the amount of small gang PVP it will not. This type of thinking MIGHT work in lowsec, but alliance held sov? nope.
Lul, nobody lives in lowsec! If someone is, probably because they need their head scanned, ratting in lowsec, they're doing scannable combat sites, and most of their isk comes from faction and deadspace loot drops. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
667
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:42:00 -
[465] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.
Good gameplay mechanic you got there
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:43:00 -
[466] - Quote
The ESS could be a great conflict driver:
1.) Increase its payout: If I'm risking 15%, I should have a least a 15% return! Ideally, I'd like this to drop bounties to 80%, but let it pay out 110-125%, making it very worthwhile to use.
2.) Increase the activation & drop times: Activation should take 3-5 minutes, and it should be 3-5 minutes before it drops the isk-tag! This allows the locals to form up and attempt to defend it. This is the MOST important step that needs to happen!
3.) Eliminate the pre-activation setup. Upon activation, you get 30 seconds to decide take bounties or share. If you don't make a selection within that time window, you must leave grid and come back to "activate it" again. This will eliminate the ability of noobship alts to sit on the ESS and click "share bounty" the moment a hostile enters system.
|
Guns'N'Ammo
The Dark Resistance
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:44:00 -
[467] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Congrats on ruining 50 guys' evening of ratting. Pass go, collect tears.
If its a big alliance's (is there any other kind of alliance?) home system then odds are you'll get a fight.
OK, now I KNOW you don't play this game. 50 people utilizing one system??? Home system used for ratting???? Just stop now... Not every alliance in null rules a dozen regions, so set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it. If you suggest they will just move to another system I'll know that YOU don't play this game. Now, post with your main and formulate an arguement other than "hurrr you don't play this game!" or stfu.
I use npc null. Yes I will move to another system. And arguments have been posted in previous pages as pointed out for you. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
916
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:45:00 -
[468] - Quote
Garnoo wrote:Fix Lag wrote:I'd like a CCP statement on what they think of the whole situation. Clearly, the ESS is crap and they surely know that by now. logs show nothing
I too would like a statement as this doesn't seem well thought out at all, for all of the reasons in this thread. It's more theme park than sandbox and highly contrived. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3357
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:45:00 -
[469] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.
Good gameplay mechanic you got there Isn't this what POS siphons were "supposed to do"?
Alternatively, you could park a cloaked cyno ship in system and permanently prevent them ratting...
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
668
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:48:00 -
[470] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.
Good gameplay mechanic you got there Isn't this what POS siphons were "supposed to do"? Alternatively, you could park a cloaked cyno ship in system and permanently prevent them ratting...
Help, there's a hostile fleet in my ratting system, and I would never try to fight such a fight except:
They put down this bounty siphon, so quick, everyone form up! Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:53:00 -
[471] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:MrBawkbagawk wrote:oh look, a left handed nerf for drone space.
can we expect to see a set of faction items for rogue drones? no, of course not, that would be adding content. everything about drone space sucks compared to any other region including high sec and you make it even harder to earn a living?
who's friends are you, exactly? There is nothing left handed about this nerf to Drones. I wrote about how the MTU was a left handed nerf to Drones, since without loot drops, the unit is mostly useless for ratting in Drones. Relative to anywhere else in Eve, adding the MTU has devalued an already resource poor area. This is a straight up nerf to Drone Regions, disproportional to how it will effect ratting in all other regions. 99.9% of ratting income in Drones comes off of bounties, with some few bothering to collect the fairly bad salvage. In any other region, 10-20% additional income can be pulled out of basic rat loot outside of bounties, with exceptional officer mods adding considerably greater proportionally to that value. This ESS will not negatively effect this 'bonus, harvestable' income, and there will be plenty living outside of Drones who will promptly say "No thanks, will just work just fine without one." For all Drone Region inhabitants, this will just be a nerf. It will be straight up 5% off the top in an already difficult place to live, or it will be a massive headache to just break even, much less benefit from. Will someone from CCP explain how to justify the DISPROPORTIONAL effect this will have on one particular sector of space? At the very least, explain why it is acceptable to continue introducing 'content' that is bad for the LAST 'new' K-space added to Eve? The Drone Regions at the absolute least must have loot tables reintroduced to balance the years of neglect and negative content development seen for pretty much all of the East of New Eden. I think the fact that pirate detection arrays in the Drone Regions generate 10 or more top tier combat sites (drone horde) vs. pirate regions' 3 ([PIRATE TYPE] sanctum) at once will help ease you through this transition. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3360
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:54:00 -
[472] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.
Good gameplay mechanic you got there Isn't this what POS siphons were "supposed to do"? Alternatively, you could park a cloaked cyno ship in system and permanently prevent them ratting... Help, there's a hostile fleet in my ratting system, and I would never try to fight such a fight except: They put down this bounty siphon, so quick, everyone form up!
In order for the siphon to be viable:
-- Ratters must think it is worthwhile to deploy it themselves. -- The access & theft timers must be long enough for the locals to from up and defend it.
The current implementation satisfies neither of these, but with some tweaks and modifications it certainly could! |
Mr R4nd0m
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
155
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:56:00 -
[473] - Quote
\ESS? what a pointless stupid idea. Why? Why was this even implemented, whats the reasoning behind this. I just dont understand why you have done this |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:57:00 -
[474] - Quote
You realize that was the point right? Release this THING and then have us the player weigh in on how to fix it. In fact I bet they already have the "fixes" ready and are just waiting for enough people to speak before they implement after taking your feedback. Like this post for it is true Also because I want to hit 1000 likes by the end of the month |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 23:58:00 -
[475] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The ESS could be a great conflict driver:
1.) Increase its payout: If I'm risking 15%, I should have a least a 15% return! Ideally, I'd like this to drop bounties to 80%, but let it pay out 110-125%, making it very worthwhile to use.
2.) Increase the activation & drop times: Activation should take 3-5 minutes, and it should be 3-5 minutes before it drops the isk-tag! This allows the locals to form up and attempt to defend it. This is the MOST important step that needs to happen!
3.) Eliminate the pre-activation setup. Upon activation, you get 30 seconds to decide take bounties or share. If you don't make a selection within that time window, you must leave grid and come back to "activate it" again. This will eliminate the ability of noobship alts to sit on the ESS and click "share bounty" the moment a hostile enters system.
This guy's offering solutions instead of whining, good for you.
I like the idea of increasing the reward, I like the idea of taking longer to redeem isk, force the theif to defend their intent to steal, Not sure about idea 3 though. It would interfere with fighting (activate or be shot out) and prevent camping, which a roaming gang would theoretically do to get a fight.
Guns'N'Ammo wrote: I use npc null. Yes I will move to another system. And arguments have been posted in previous pages as pointed out for you.
If you moved systems there's a high chance of getting tackled on gate. Conflict created.
Nobody pointed out anything about my post existing anywhere previously in this thread.
Eram Fidard wrote:Good gameplay mechanic you got there Isn't this what POS siphons were "supposed to do"? In case you don't understand yet, even if this were a clever way to generate content (hint: it's not, I'll let you figure out why since your year of 0.0 living left you so informed on these matters) it's still only a single aggressive use of the module, and that's not good enough.
POS siphons don't give notifications, they are subterfuge devices to mess with AFK moon mining. I realize there's no way to "force" conflict other than shutting off all POSs, offlining all cloaks, and shooting everyone out of the station.
So, what is your solution to either fix the ESS or offer a new alternative?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Alternatively, you could park a cloaked cyno ship in system and permanently prevent them ratting...
Don't people do that already? *cough* Cloaky campers. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
270
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:04:00 -
[476] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people seem to be missing the point of these.
1) There is NOTHING mandating you put these up! You can simply sacrifice 5% of your income. Ohnoes!!! Now you're making 57m/hour not 60m/hour! The end is nigh, unsubscribe!
2) Have a cloaky alt camp the ESS if you put one up. When an inty comes to try to steal your hard earned cash, kill it! It takes 40 seconds to redeem the tags from the ESS, so you have PLENTY of time to chase off or kill a stationary (or at least super low transversal) inty!
3) ITS A CONFLICT DRIVER! QUIT WHINING!!! Now when you're out roaming drop one of these things and the local carebears can't rat away in anoms until they kill it! If they run anoms you can just steal 20% of their income. If they try to kill it, CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST GOT A FIGHT. Additionally, the automatic defensive bubble prevents kiting gangs from coming in at 100km, they start out at 15km away, just like on a gate, giving you a chance to catch something.
I wish we had these in nullsec when I lived there, a three hour roam would end with only killing a cyno-noobship and a whole lot **** talk in local.
So argument is that deployables, which will never be used except by roaming gangs, will provoke fights from PvEers even when said deployables will have zero negative effect on those PvEers since they won't be ratting while reds/neuts are in the system and the deployable can be easily destroyed as soon as the reds/neuts leave? Yeah, you have an extremely appropriate alliance name. |
DeDes
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:05:00 -
[477] - Quote
These are a stupid idea. I'd rather take the 5% loss to bounties and know I'm getting all the isk versus installing an ESS for the extra 10% I might get. I expect these to be KOS in most sov regions in 0.0 and same for the person who drops them. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:06:00 -
[478] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:[quote=Eram Fidard][quote=M1k3y Koontz]
Not every alliance in null rules a dozen regions, so set up an ESS in whatever system is used for ratting and either get a fight or force all the ratters to stop ratting until they get together to kill it.
If you suggest they will just move to another system I'll know that YOU don't play this game.
Now, post with your main and formulate an arguement other than "hurrr you don't play this game!" or stfu.
The perception that this will be a new conflict driver is horribly flawed. As others have pointed out, unless you are currently killing the 'bad' that didn't pay attention to local or intel, no one will be ratting in any system your w-hole corp holes into. The nullbears will in fact pos or station up until you are gone, and no 30mil isk deployable that nerfs their income will matter in the least, because they will just stop earning said income until you have left.
Certainly there can be home defense fleets, and some may even shoot the deployable, but this won't be much different than the current mechanics to living in null, just 5% isk lighter for the mainline grunts and newbros that needed a little pve to afford the inconveniences of nullsec life. You are just as likely getting fights shooting/dropping sov structures, since anyone with common sense will wait for 'system clear' to blap any hostile EES.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4742
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:06:00 -
[479] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:So why shouldn't the ESS be available in lowsec? Some issues with faction warfare?
If that's the case make it usable in non-faction warfare lowsec.
While you are at it make faction warfare sites not enterable with a stab on your ship. It is possible we do ESS variations with different placement restrictions sometimes in the future. But the null sec version is the only one for 1.1 I can't help but ask; why wait? Why not introduce the other variations at the same time? Is this a baby step thing or figuring out how to balance the low and high sec versions? . |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:10:00 -
[480] - Quote
Querns wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote:MrBawkbagawk wrote:oh look, a left handed nerf for drone space.
can we expect to see a set of faction items for rogue drones? no, of course not, that would be adding content. everything about drone space sucks compared to any other region including high sec and you make it even harder to earn a living?
who's friends are you, exactly? There is nothing left handed about this nerf to Drones. I wrote about how the MTU was a left handed nerf to Drones, since without loot drops, the unit is mostly useless for ratting in Drones. Relative to anywhere else in Eve, adding the MTU has devalued an already resource poor area. This is a straight up nerf to Drone Regions, disproportional to how it will effect ratting in all other regions. 99.9% of ratting income in Drones comes off of bounties, with some few bothering to collect the fairly bad salvage. In any other region, 10-20% additional income can be pulled out of basic rat loot outside of bounties, with exceptional officer mods adding considerably greater proportionally to that value. This ESS will not negatively effect this 'bonus, harvestable' income, and there will be plenty living outside of Drones who will promptly say "No thanks, will just work just fine without one." For all Drone Region inhabitants, this will just be a nerf. It will be straight up 5% off the top in an already difficult place to live, or it will be a massive headache to just break even, much less benefit from. Will someone from CCP explain how to justify the DISPROPORTIONAL effect this will have on one particular sector of space? At the very least, explain why it is acceptable to continue introducing 'content' that is bad for the LAST 'new' K-space added to Eve? The Drone Regions at the absolute least must have loot tables reintroduced to balance the years of neglect and negative content development seen for pretty much all of the East of New Eden. I think the fact that pirate detection arrays in the Drone Regions generate 10 or more top tier combat sites (drone horde) vs. pirate regions' 3 ([PIRATE TYPE] sanctum) at once will help ease you through this transition.
All of which are crap in relative value to the potential of your top tier combat sites. Its not like you don't have plenty of space to improve. What is your point really? Drone inhabitants can cram more bears into one system than you can before we have to improve/upgrade sov???
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:10:00 -
[481] - Quote
When I think 0.0 ratting I think "Man this stuff needs to be more **** than it presently is". Thanks CCP for coming through and putting the final nail in that coffin. I look forward to people finding new and more inventive ways of making isk. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:13:00 -
[482] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: So, what is your solution to either fix the ESS or offer a new alternative?
Burn it with fire, and seriously consider the future employment of members of "team superfriends". I thought I made that pretty clear in my first post. But you're not one for reading, I know... Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:14:00 -
[483] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:I'd like a CCP statement on what they think of the whole situation. Clearly, the ESS is crap and they surely know that by now.
Maybe we need to shoot the jita monument first? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4794
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:15:00 -
[484] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. A couple of questions around exactly how this will work:
- If the ISK is distributed in the form of tokens that can be traded for cash, how does a contributing player actually receive the token? Obviously, not all players can be present to pick up said tokens, so is it placed in their hangar in a nearby station (determined how?) or what?
- Exactly how is the token bought by the Empires? Is it buy orders in certain stations (which will therefore attract sales tax), or are they redeemed in loyalty point stores.
- Can ESS tokens be traded on the market like any other commodity?
It seems like an interesting content generator
Your questions are mostly answered in the devblog: there are two options for payment, first is to "SHARE" which means all the people who collected bounties while the ESS was active will receive the portions of their bounties stolen by the ESS. The other option is "TAKE" which means the ESS will poop out a can full of tags in 40 seconds.
The ESS is EVE's equivalent to a capture point in World of Warcraft: you plonk it down because you want the spineless locals to come and fight you, or you want to lure roaming visitors into a trap. You don't plonk one of these down when your primary objective is to make more ISK. Even better, it rewards you for daring people to fight you by paying you for daring to ask for a fight.
As a bonus, the ESS gives you a 15km warp bubble & cloaky detector.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Guns'N'Ammo
The Dark Resistance
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:15:00 -
[485] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The ESS could be a great conflict driver:
1.) Increase its payout: If I'm risking 15%, I should have a least a 15% return! Ideally, I'd like this to drop bounties to 80%, but let it pay out 110-125%, making it very worthwhile to use.
2.) Increase the activation & drop times: Activation should take 3-5 minutes, and it should be 3-5 minutes before it drops the isk-tag! This allows the locals to form up and attempt to defend it. This is the MOST important step that needs to happen!
3.) Eliminate the pre-activation setup. Upon activation, you get 30 seconds to decide take bounties or share. If you don't make a selection within that time window, you must leave grid and come back to "activate it" again. This will eliminate the ability of noobship alts to sit on the ESS and click "share bounty" the moment a hostile enters system.
This guy's offering solutions instead of whining, good for you. I like the idea of increasing the reward, I like the idea of taking longer to redeem isk, force the theif to defend their intent to steal, Not sure about idea 3 though. It would interfere with fighting (activate or be shot out) and prevent camping, which a roaming gang would theoretically do to get a fight. Guns'N'Ammo wrote: I use npc null. Yes I will move to another system. And arguments have been posted in previous pages as pointed out for you.
If you moved systems there's a high chance of getting tackled on gate. Conflict created. Nobody pointed out anything about my post existing anywhere previously in this thread. Eram Fidard wrote:Good gameplay mechanic you got there Isn't this what POS siphons were "supposed to do"? In case you don't understand yet, even if this were a clever way to generate content (hint: it's not, I'll let you figure out why since your year of 0.0 living left you so informed on these matters) it's still only a single aggressive use of the module, and that's not good enough. POS siphons don't give notifications, they are subterfuge devices to mess with AFK moon mining. I realize there's no way to "force" conflict other than shutting off all POSs, offlining all cloaks, and shooting everyone out of the station. So, what is your solution to either fix the ESS or offer a new alternative?Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Alternatively, you could park a cloaked cyno ship in system and permanently prevent them ratting...
Don't people do that already? *cough* Cloaky campers.
So we can forget that with the mobile depot a ratting tengu can refit for cloaky nullification and has no problem jumping out. Got ya.
But what about tne smaller groups trying to get started in null with newer players that dont have the options a large alliance has? GSF seem to be a reason some people as want these but that bias neglects the fact that they are the best equiped to handle these with numbers, jump bridges etc etc. So damn the little guy I guess. |
DeadDuck
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:15:00 -
[486] - Quote
EdFromHumanResources wrote:When I think 0.0 ratting I think "Man this stuff needs to be more **** than it presently is". Thanks CCP for coming through and putting the final nail in that coffin. I look forward to people finding new and more inventive ways of making isk.
Yeah go to empire, join FW...or even worst... mine |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
519
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:16:00 -
[487] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: So, what is your solution to either fix the ESS or offer a new alternative?
Burn it with fire, and seriously consider the future employment of members of "team superfriends". I thought I made that pretty clear in my first post. But you're not one for reading, I know...
And your alternative conflict driver is...
I can tell from YOUR post that you don't actually process what you spew out.
As for my not reading 24 pages, I got the gist of this thread from the first 4 pages. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:16:00 -
[488] - Quote
EdFromHumanResources wrote:When I think 0.0 ratting I think "Man this stuff needs to be more **** than it presently is". Thanks CCP for coming through and putting the final nail in that coffin. I look forward to people finding new and more inventive ways of making isk.
Rl lol Ed, thank you. To be honest, I haven't ratted for isk personally in maybe 6 months, and have no intention of doing so, but not everyone is ready for new and inventive, tbh. I don't mind adapting, and I think its good for eve to adapt, but this is such a nutpunch that I had to take the time to comment. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:16:00 -
[489] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Don't people do that already? *cough* Cloaky campers.
Yes, you managed to discern the point of his post. Congratu-*******-lations. Now I'm out before I give myself a hernia trying to explain the nature of reality to you. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2606
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:19:00 -
[490] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. A couple of questions around exactly how this will work:
- If the ISK is distributed in the form of tokens that can be traded for cash, how does a contributing player actually receive the token? Obviously, not all players can be present to pick up said tokens, so is it placed in their hangar in a nearby station (determined how?) or what?
- Exactly how is the token bought by the Empires? Is it buy orders in certain stations (which will therefore attract sales tax), or are they redeemed in loyalty point stores.
- Can ESS tokens be traded on the market like any other commodity?
It seems like an interesting content generator If you choose Share everyone get the ISK, there are no tags. If you choose I take all then there is a tag drop. Im not sure what you do at an empire fleet station to turn them into ISK, or if they are tradeable on the market.
Indications the CSM knew about this, commented on it and effected the outcome:
Chitsa Jason wrote:This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
519
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:20:00 -
[491] - Quote
Guns'N'Ammo wrote: So we can forget that with the mobile depot a ratting tengu can refit for cloaky nullification and has no problem jumping out. Got ya.
But what about tne smaller groups trying to get started in null with newer players that dont have the options a large alliance has? GSF seem to be a reason some people as want these but that bias neglects the fact that they are the best equiped to handle these with numbers, jump bridges etc etc. So damn the little guy I guess.
True, I forgot depots.
The little guy will be screwed in nullsec as long as winning a fight is an N+1 equation. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:20:00 -
[492] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: And your alternative conflict driver is...
I can tell from YOUR post that you don't actually process what you spew out.
As for my not reading 24 pages, I got the gist of this thread from the first 4 pages.
Your idea: Bring a roaming fleet, which people will be forced to fight because they dropped a deployable.
Reality: Bring a roaming fleet, which people will be forced to fight because they don't leave.
If the fleet drops the deployable and leaves, the deployable gets destroyed and nothing changes. If the fleet stays, the locals have to decide whether to fight or wait them out, and nothing changes.
What has the ESS brought to the game? How has it improved or generated conflict? Nothing, and in no way. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
270
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:20:00 -
[493] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:And your alternative conflict driver is.... There is none. People who rat don't want to fight, they want to rat. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
519
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:21:00 -
[494] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Don't people do that already? *cough* Cloaky campers. Yes, you managed to discern the point of his post. Congratu-*******-lations. Now I'm out before I give myself a hernia trying to explain the nature of reality to you.
Yes, you were condescending and ******** in the same post. Congratu-*******-lations.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
224
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:23:00 -
[495] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: So, what is your solution to either fix the ESS or offer a new alternative?
Burn it with fire, and seriously consider the future employment of members of "team superfriends". I thought I made that pretty clear in my first post. But you're not one for reading, I know...
No, this is bad.
It's really stupid to turn a focus on a specific group just because they proposed one specific bad idea.
There's also all the other people responsible for passing it, giving it the thumbs up, and letting it get to this stage.
At some point it isn't productive to point fingers or blame (especially since mobile tractor units and mobile depots are awesome).
But yes, ESS does indeed need to be burned with fire. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
886
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:23:00 -
[496] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:And your alternative conflict driver is.... There is none. People who rat don't want to fight, they want to rat. And people who haul plexes in noobships don't want to fight either, they want to haul plexes in noobships. What's your point? |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:24:00 -
[497] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Yes, you were condescending and ******** in the same post. Congratu-*******-lations.
Please continue bringing this quality content to the forums.
I particularly enjoy such classics as:
-GrrGoons -Post with your main! -Nullsec systems are capable of supporting 50 ratters
and my new personal favourite:
-dropping a deployable in a ratting system generates conflict Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Jake Centauri
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:24:00 -
[498] - Quote
Enough with the deployables, CCP. Move onto something else. |
darius mclever
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:26:00 -
[499] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:-- The access & theft timers must be long enough for the locals to from up and defend it.
Given most ratters will have access to intel channels i dont feel that the prep time should be much longer. not the 6-10minutes you propose.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
519
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:26:00 -
[500] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Yes, you were condescending and ******** in the same post. Congratu-*******-lations. Please continue bringing this quality content to the forums. I particularly enjoy such classics as: -GrrGoons -Post with your main! -Nullsec systems are capable of supporting 50 ratters and my new personal favourite: -dropping a deployable in a ratting system generates conflict
Well, I hope you continue to bring great posting such as
- ad hominem - posting off topic - being a condecending forum alt
Cya around How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
271
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:26:00 -
[501] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Ravcharas wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:And your alternative conflict driver is.... There is none. People who rat don't want to fight, they want to rat. And people who haul plexes in noobships don't want to fight either, they want to haul plexes in noobships. What's your point?
The point is that adding a deployable that doesn't harm them won't effect their behavior. Duh. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
886
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:31:00 -
[502] - Quote
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.
As you so eloquently put: "Duh." |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:33:00 -
[503] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Guns'N'Ammo wrote: So we can forget that with the mobile depot a ratting tengu can refit for cloaky nullification and has no problem jumping out. Got ya.
But what about tne smaller groups trying to get started in null with newer players that dont have the options a large alliance has? GSF seem to be a reason some people as want these but that bias neglects the fact that they are the best equiped to handle these with numbers, jump bridges etc etc. So damn the little guy I guess.
True, I forgot depots. The little guy will be screwed in nullsec as long as winning a fight is an N+1 equation. So we need Jamyl Sarum's weapon reverse engineered? |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:36:00 -
[504] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Well, I hope you continue to bring great posting such as - ad hominem those words, don't mean what you think they mean...but I'm not even sure what you think they mean, since your meaning is clearly meaning something else entirely- posting off topic I am proud to say, this is the first post I have made in this thread that had nothing to do with the issue at hand- being a condecending forum alt although I am often (rightfully) accused of being condescending, there is a certain...greatness inherent in that word, but enough silliness. Forum alts are made/used for a specific reason, to divorce one's opinions from one's ingame affiliations, and given your attitude, I can hardly see why anyone would post on their main. People such as yourself would instantly dismiss their every word based on whatever affiliation they might have.Cya around Now can we let this thread be productive?
As long as it doesn't produce a functioning ESS module on tranquility, YES!
oh damn, I guess that makes this post on-topic too!
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:39:00 -
[505] - 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. As you so eloquently put: "Duh."
The very distinct effect of them doing exactly the same thing they do when a roaming gang shows up now, except with an added 3-minute structure shoot at the end. How do people still think this is a good idea?
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Guns'N'Ammo
The Dark Resistance
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:41:00 -
[506] - Quote
Im having a hard time understanding why the ESS wasnt just made the way it seems to be intended. Just make it a bounty reduction deployable where it blocks a portion of the bounty. Forget the tags, bubble, notification and just make it more like an sbu or cyno visible on the overview. That will create more fights than this complex system with a really bad reasoning behind it.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
519
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:41:00 -
[507] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Well, I hope you continue to bring great posting such as - ad hominem those words, don't mean what you think they mean...but I'm not even sure what you think they mean, since your meaning is clearly meaning something else entirely- posting off topic I am proud to say, this is the first post I have made in this thread that had nothing to do with the issue at hand- being a condecending forum alt although I am often (rightfully) accused of being condescending, there is a certain...greatness inherent in that word, but enough silliness. Forum alts are made/used for a specific reason, to divorce one's opinions from one's ingame affiliations, and given your attitude, I can hardly see why anyone would post on their main. People such as yourself would instantly dismiss their every word based on whatever affiliation they might have.Cya around Now can we let this thread be productive? As long as it doesn't produce a functioning ESS module on tranquility, YES! oh damn, I guess that makes this post on-topic too!
...or we could talk about how to make it NOT suck? As in increase the potential reward to a max bounty collection of 125%? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
80
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:41:00 -
[508] - Quote
Really.. this is what you come up with?
Have you guys completely lost it? This is terrible.
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:44:00 -
[509] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: 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.
As you so eloquently put: "Duh."
How is this different from the way the game works right now?
* Intel reports neuts, bears Pos-up, Home Def fleet maybe forms, maybe not. * You drop deployables. * Home Def fleet still maybe forms, maybe not, or just waits till you are safely gone and blaps hostile EES if you left any behind.
I'm not lost on the potential this has to get fights that may not have happened before, but I am really concerned about the lack of balance the mechanics driving the module will have on 8 odd regions of 0.0 that already are a struggle to get by in.
If the point is 'hey, fights...' is worth nerfing 0.0 income, then at the very least, the nerfing needs to be evenhanded and balanced across all of New Eden.
Sadly, I don't think this will get any more fights than can already be had by dropping an existing deployable; the SBU
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 00:45:00 -
[510] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:...or we could talk about how to make it NOT suck? As in increase the potential reward to a max bounty collection of 125%?
When an idea is fundamentally flawed, no amount of tweaking the numbers will make it not so. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read the thread so that you can have a proper understanding of the subject. Many points have been brought up as to why this is plain bad for eve.
No, I will not pick through 24 pages for you to quote them all.
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
|
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
|
|
Mercer Nen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:08:00 -
[541] - Quote
On their own, I don't mind the mechanics. Certainly respect the effort to introduce more pvp conflict drivers. But using poorly thought out lore to justify arbitrary game design will likely result in a contradictory mess. Every time you guys do this you kill the story of New Eden a little, and weaken the IP. Hope you hire more writers soon and get back to delivering strong backstory with expansions. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
625
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:11:00 -
[542] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: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?
I would but they are all shooting sisters at 100m isk/hr, and in any case, my system has 2 hubs at military 4, which is enough for me, and me only. (Most of null is after all, flyover country).
I also have downtime in the middle of my play session, which isn't exactly conducive to building up a lot of players. |
Marsan
Caldari Provisions
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:13:00 -
[543] - Quote
For those of you who think that the devs will ever fix POSes think again. The devs basically said no we won't fix POSes, the code is so bad it scares us, and the powers that be have said we can't devote an entire release to rewrite the POS code or reimplement POSes....
Thus you have the current state of things where we get the occasion band-aid on POSes to tide us over, and weird deployables that they hope some day will magically combine to replace POSes. The current approach is to drop in a bunch of deployables and see how we use them. Sadly the devs seem to not want to try anything radical with deployables that might start down the road to a POS replacement yet.
Personally I think what they should do is as follows:
- Allow us to anchor cans, and most deployables inside the POS shields. The conflict makers like the ESS should only be able to be anchored outside the POS shields. - Remove the POS refining penalties - Allow us to anchor POSes any where in a system with the exception of gates, stations, and the like. - Create a number dead spaces in NS, and LS systems. Allow us to build password/corp/alliance lockable acceleration gates to them. The gates can be hacked, or destroyed and replaced.
Now you have real conflict makers, and fortresses to invade. Imagine: - A bubbled death star POS placed inline with gate to gate warping. - A manufacturing, and refining POS in a hidden in a system with a dozen fake outs. - Laying siege to the enemy's acceleration gate, and holding them off while you online your own. In a fight happening next to an enemy POS.
Of course you'll need deployables worth defendin' and lootin'. Then move towards removing the POS altogether... Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a hopeful small portion of the community. |
Fortorn Lonshanks
Adeptus Incursio
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:13:00 -
[544] - Quote
This is a griefing tool mostly, isk booster occasionally.
This is far more useful as an offensive weapon than anything else.
Remember folks, more isk does not mean more anything. It is a free market, the medium that is traded is isk. The only way to combat inflation is to limit the money supply, which CCP is trying to do slowly.
Incursions, Anoms, ratting, all add isk to game deluting money supply. It only leaves through sov, office bills.
The only way that "better" isk/hour should be allowed is if the raw material/hour was increased in mining, both moon goo, planet goo and asteroids.
Too much material will cause deflation. Too much isk will cause inflation.
The more money coming in, the more everything will cost. If 1 isk became 4 through a game function, then all material would cost 4x as much. If 1 unit of material was usddenly able to be harvest from 1 to 4, everything will devalue by 4.
Let it happen folks. They are going to stem the incursion and FW isk making soon enough. But they can't lose their whole playerbase by changing game overnight. ultimately they are trying to prolong and evolve the game. +1 to CCP for trying to add fun mechanics to game while they repair it.
|
Lonig
Destruction Unlimited
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:21:00 -
[545] - Quote
ESS being sold by NPC corp == Money sink (~30mil a pop out of the economy). Interesting way to try and reduce the amount of isk flowing through EVE. LP store itself is doing the same basic thing, albeit a bit more deceptively to average players.
Sadly I don't live in 0.0 anymore (applied to a few places to get back!) but the overall idea of the ESS seems busted. Many others have pointed out the flaw of risk vs reward, so it is fairly safe to assume very few friendlies will drop these. And the problem with reds dropping them, is that everyone (last time I lived in 0.0) basically stops all activity while a cloaky/red/neut exists in system. Now it will be the same with a ESS, until they both to form up and kill the 150k ehp can. You've basically added a mini-station bashing mechanic that will generate more boredom than it will actual hostilities. Unless the size of the ESS is bigger than can fit in an inty. I'm not sure we've seen m3 size yet.
As for the 4 variants of ESS, I can see how you were probably forced to do that due to your desire for this to be an isk sink (isk out of the game via npc). You'd need to have enough stations selling them, so you added them to the local npc controlling faction. Clever, but I think you wasted your time naming them all differently and having the different tags. I'm fairly certain no one would have been upset at it just being called the ESS instead of Amarr ESS. Same for tags being 'XXX Bounty compensation tag' instead of faction specific.
As for the siphons, sound cool... But I haven't been in 0.0 to know if they are used and/or worth it. I'll assume they are, since you made 2 more of the them.
Overall I'm glad to see your work on more deployables. I hope it is helping you all mold out the way you create them and provide some |
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
84
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:34:00 -
[546] - Quote
"ThatGÇÖs it for Team Super Friends. Our main goal for Rubicon and its point release has been to introduce different ways for players to affect each otherGÇÖs gameplay, introducing risk where there was none before, give players some interesting choices and general mayhem. We hope weGÇÖve hit at least some of our goals, improving EVE in the process. Until next time."
This made my laugh. HOW BOUT YOU FIX STUFF WHICH NEEDS TO BE FIXED? |
Saangi Xhaxhu
Living Proof.
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 02:37:00 -
[547] - Quote
I do not like the ESS. For what it is trying to accomplish, or seems like it is trying to accomplish, the implementation feels clunky and completely unnecessary.
A bounty siphon as a conflict driver isn't a terrible idea but just reading through the description of this made my eyes glaze over.
What is the point of faction specific versions? And why the tag system and not direct deposit on a timer (even some sort of ISK to LP converter makes more sense). What do you even call the tags? Interstellar Kredit Credits? A currency for a currency is redundant
Why even mess around with the idea with the 5% bounty debuff in null? It only muddies the water and makes people grumble that things are being taken away from them without a legitimate way of getting it back. Even if that view is incorrect, the fallout from this unnecessary portion of the mechanic breaks the most basic design principles. If a siphon is present the ISK is removed from the bounty, it's that easy. This would be more a conflict driver than trying to strong arm null entities into using it as some sort of temporary space upgrade tool... or else face an unavoidable penalty.
Why isn't this deployable manufactured? Seems like it could easily be a bpc from respective navy stores, if faction versions are necessary
Why only null space? The basic idea of this seems like something that could work in low sec as a conflict driver. If you were looking for a testing ground for a bounty or LP siphon, low sec seems like the better choice. And after high sec POCOs, a version balanced for high sec would be very interesting.
Overall, with some significant adjustments, the ESS could be a good thing. As it stands it feels like a mish-mesh of ideas that don't know what they're trying to accomplish. The implementation just seems like a sloppy design that is not attractive to null ratters and only vaguely attractive to griefers or raiders IF they could ever find one anchored. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8393
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:03:00 -
[548] - 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. Get yourself banned. What a solid plan. My EVE Videos |
Selnix
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:09:00 -
[549] - Quote
All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
[Malediction, suicide cyno] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II
Cynosural Field Generator I [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Cargohold Optimization I Small Cargohold Optimization I
So why, you might ask, am I posting such a thing in this feedback thread? To put it simply, CCP are giving us an Easter Egg, a hidden gift that is shiny and good. While the ability to cyno fit an interceptor that can disregard bubbles has been around for a while now, the ability to act as a slow interdictor is just around the corner.
With the above cargo expansion fit you will now be able to warp onto that pesky ratting carrier, point them and drop your ESS deployable bubble while scooting out to a respectable distance that puts you just out of neut range with your cap stable point for the nice short 60 second activation timer. Naturally, dropping cyno is your single most vulnerable moment while bringing in the cavalry so having the fiend stuck well within a bubble as your cyno vessel is rendered to spacedust is quite beneficial. The baiting and drag bubbling options that it opens up are also nice.
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
888
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:10:00 -
[550] - Quote
Saangi Xhaxhu wrote: Why even mess around with the idea with the 5% bounty debuff in null?
I think the debuff is there to encourage people to deploy the module.
Currently in 0.0, if a neut enters local, the ratters dock up. Content for everyone, courtesy of the risk averse.
With an ESS, the idea might be: instead of docking up, someone (preferably many someones) will make a run for the cash box. When many someones meet at the cash box, content occurs.
Let's assume that a nullsec nerf is coming. Especially with carrier ratting, you'd be foolish to think that it wouldn't happen. Just like incursions were broken back in the day, so too is carrier ratting.
Now, CCP could just slap you in the face with a 5% - 10% bounty nerf, and that'll be the end of it. Ok. One option.
Second option: Slap you in the face with a 5% - 10% nerf, but give you the opportunity to make it back with a little extra on top. The catch is that you can't be a risk averse pansy.
Personally, I don't see how option 2 is any worse than option 1. Either way, your income is getting nerfed, but at least in option 2 you have the chance to negate the nerf. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8393
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:12:00 -
[551] - Quote
Selnix wrote:TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles). LOL My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8393
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:15:00 -
[552] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Let's assume that a nullsec nerf is coming. Especially with carrier ratting, you'd be foolish to think that it wouldn't happen. Just like incursions were broken back in the day, so too is carrier ratting. You can't be serious. Carrier ratting is incredibly risky, so much so that most people with any sense regard it as stupid. With that much risk, they're entitled to an increased payout. And they don't really make that much more anyway. My EVE Videos |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
888
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:17:00 -
[553] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Let's assume that a nullsec nerf is coming. Especially with carrier ratting, you'd be foolish to think that it wouldn't happen. Just like incursions were broken back in the day, so too is carrier ratting. You can't be serious. Carrier ratting is incredibly risky, so much so that most people with any sense regard it as stupid. With that much risk, they're entitled to an increased payout. And they don't really make that much more anyway. At one point, I might've agreed with you. But these days, the sheer amount of people ratting in carriers tells a weeee bit of a different story, I think. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8394
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:24:00 -
[554] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:At one point, I might've agreed with you. But these days, the sheer amount of people ratting in carriers tells a weeee bit of a different story, I think. I've been able to fly a carrier for just over 24 hours now. I'm having a very hard time convincing myself it would ever be a good idea, especially considering the warp speed changes, the fact that forsaken hubs now have warp disrupting rats, and the fact that fighters are really not that good for applying damage to subcaps.
If carrier ratting is being abused then it's carriers that need to be changed. My EVE Videos |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
912
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:28:00 -
[555] - Quote
Given the cost involved in the ESS, the rewards should be more than the penalty. 30-35% bonus vs 20-25% bonus (From the 80% start mark) is a much more enticing reason for people to use this. It should also have a reinforce timer to avoid people casually exploding 30 million every time they pass through the system. But if they come back and catch it out of reinforce, then it's fair enough. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4312
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:28:00 -
[556] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: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? I would but they are all shooting sisters at 100m isk/hr (which isn't exactly going to go away now that a BS is being added to the LP pool), and in any case, my system has 2 hubs at military 4, which is enough for me, and me only. (Most of null is after all, flyover country). I also have downtime in the middle of my play session, which isn't exactly conducive to building up a lot of players.
Why this is so hard for some people to understand bewliders me. This is why history keeps repeating itself (the original anom buff drove a lot of us out of null to high sec pve), beause people just don't pay attention and are to bound by their biases and limited perspective .
It's also CCP displaying the bad thinking that led to the "rapid launcher" fiasco. Likewise their were people saying "oh this will be great, you just need to adapt to it and stop being afraid of change". We weren't afraid of change, we could see that it just wouldn't work. End result? Rapid launchers "aren't where CCP wants them to be" (corporate speak for "they suck and we know they suck") and they will be "looked at again".
Maybe look at things the 1st time and listen to feed back and they won't have to "look at it again" all the time. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
888
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:35:00 -
[557] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:At one point, I might've agreed with you. But these days, the sheer amount of people ratting in carriers tells a weeee bit of a different story, I think. I've been able to fly a carrier for just over 24 hours now. I'm having a very hard time convincing myself it would ever be a good idea, especially considering the warp speed changes, the fact that forsaken hubs now have warp disrupting rats, and the fact that fighters are really not that good for applying damage to subcaps. If carrier ratting is being abused then it's carriers that need to be changed. Changing carriers for PvE would affect other parts of the game. And in this case, even nerfing drone assist (which is what your coalition wants) wouldn't fix the issue.
The issue goes a bit beyond carriers. I can't be assed to find it, but I distinctly recall one of the past fanfest presentations showing bounties as one of (if not) the largest isk fountains in the game. Which makes sense.
Wormholes don't have an isk faucet. Facwar and missions are an isk faucet, but they're also an isk sink. To get the most out of your lp you need to put in a fair amount of isk. Incursions are another isk faucet, but that has been nerfed pretty substantially.
If there's too much raw isk coming in from nullsec, that may be a problem. If that's the case, a nerf will come one way or another. At least with the ESS, the non risk averse have a chance to avoid most of the effects of such a nerf. |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1656
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:36:00 -
[558] - Quote
I like the idea of having a "pot" available for roamers.
There is a problem when the pot hurts people who are having trouble, and when literally anyone is able to show up and take whatever.
If I were to make any changes, I would ensure that people who are not doing that great in the first place (people who are recieving the lions share of the bounty) are not effected, perhaps the corp taxes are at stake instead of the total bounty, and that the module must be destroyed to be able to take the ISK tags to incentivize people to bring small gangs instead of interceptors and covops. |
CtrlAltDelete Dethahal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:38:00 -
[559] - Quote
You spent how long on that stupid ESS thing? Fire team Super Friends. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:38:00 -
[560] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: Wormholes don't have an isk faucet.
That's not true at all. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8396
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:44:00 -
[561] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:To get the most out of your lp you need to put in a fair amount of isk. Maybe then nullsec bounties could be reduced slightly (5% perhaps) and to compensate for the reduction they would also pay out CONCORD LP? My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8396
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:45:00 -
[562] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Wormholes don't have an isk faucet.
That's not true at all. What's the w-space isk faucet? My EVE Videos |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:48:00 -
[563] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: What's the w-space isk faucet?
The vast majority of value from high end wormholes is in blue loot, which generates isk from npc buy orders. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
784
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:48:00 -
[564] - Quote
CtrlAltDelete Dethahal wrote:You spent how long on that stupid ESS thing? Fire team Super Friends. Less time than it took you to get those brain cells set to outrage.
Selnix wrote:All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
[Malediction, suicide cyno] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II
Cynosural Field Generator I [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Cargohold Optimization I Small Cargohold Optimization I
So why, you might ask, am I posting such a thing in this feedback thread? To put it simply, CCP are giving us an Easter Egg, a hidden gift that is shiny and good. While the ability to cyno fit an interceptor that can disregard bubbles has been around for a while now, the ability to act as a slow interdictor is just around the corner.
With the above cargo expansion fit you will now be able to warp onto that pesky ratting carrier, point them and drop your ESS deployable bubble while scooting out to a respectable distance that puts you just out of neut range with your cap stable point for the nice short 60 second activation timer. Naturally, dropping cyno is your single most vulnerable moment while bringing in the cavalry so having the fiend stuck well within a bubble as your cyno vessel is rendered to spacedust is quite beneficial. The baiting and drag bubbling options that it opens up are also nice.
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned.
This this Is BEAUTIFUL It must be done and many and a counter made to show how often it happens. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
85
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:55:00 -
[565] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: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. Get yourself banned. What a solid plan.
Correct me if I'm wrong but ganking noobs outside of rookie systems is not bannable. Almost everyone makes it to the jita area at some point in their first two weeks.
Why do I get the feeling that this change is a done deal much like the rapid light missile fiasco was? |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
888
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:57:00 -
[566] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: What's the w-space isk faucet?
The vast majority of value from high end wormholes is in blue loot, which generates isk from npc buy orders. Well I'll be damned, he's right. I guess it has been quite a few years since I've lived in a wormhole, I've forgotten a few things. Anyway, my overall point still stands I think.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Maybe then nullsec bounties could be reduced slightly (5% perhaps) and to compensate for the reduction they would also pay out CONCORD LP?
It could be done in such a way that null ratters would make more than they do now (as they should) but there would be less of a faucet and more of a sink involved.
Sure, go for it. Put it in F&I. My only point was, and is, that a nerf + ESS (giving the non-risk averse a chance to avoid said nerf) is better than a straight up nerf, which is likely coming.
Maybe the ESS makes some null bears a little less risk averse. Maybe your suggestion gets more people into nullsec. Doesn't make a huge difference to me either way. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8397
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 03:57:00 -
[567] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: What's the w-space isk faucet?
The vast majority of value from high end wormholes is in blue loot, which generates isk from npc buy orders. Ah, okay. My EVE Videos |
TD746
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:05:00 -
[568] - Quote
Selnix wrote:All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
[b]P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned.
^this^this^this^ |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1656
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:07:00 -
[569] - Quote
If you're also going to create an item that takes a while to mature, you should think about adding a reinforcement timer.
Not only would it generate fights but it prevents someone flying around in a bomber and laying waste to your entire region while you sleep. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:08:00 -
[570] - Quote
ESS won't get used much.
Ratters won't use it as it allows someone else to "steal" their ratting income.
PVPers won't use it, as soon as a ratter sees this thing go up in local, they'll log, or wait till local is clear to go shoot it. (likely in fighter assists shuttles or ceptors)
Useless is useless. If you wanted to nerf null, just reduce the bounties, no need to waste all this time, effort and money on a useless structure that no one will use. (other than a bubble that announces in local someone is getting caught LOL, why can't we have anti-cloak stuff again?) |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
888
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:09:00 -
[571] - Quote
Selnix wrote: TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
This bit is quite amusing though. I wonder what they were doing the entire time they were developing it. Its stuff like this that makes me think it might not be bad if the development process was a bit more transparent to the community at large. Well, this and the SoE BS. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:12:00 -
[572] - Quote
Relavent |
qu1ckkkk
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:32:00 -
[573] - Quote
So like, I think I get the idea behind this ESS thing. But did you honestly think the 5% global reduction was a good plan and wont get you pleeeenty of angry & negative responses? This is the part almost everyone is looking at and you will not get any constructive criticism because of this. Personally I don't care, 5% is nothing, but this is not the case for the general capsuleer. 5% matters enough that most will call this a crap idea and not try and see what the goals are.
Anyways, my 2c:
Remove the 5% global bounty reduction. Make it that once a ESS is present, only then does a % bounty reduction (how much ever you decide it to be) occurs and is placed in this ESS thing with its potential for more rewards. This semi keeps your original idea intact. Ratters that don't want it, can go shoot it down, and a fight can start. Face it, hardly anyone will willingly use these as ratters cant find ***** to give about these things. However to spark the potential conflicts that I think is intended, these can be deployed in hostile space, reducing their income and achieving the said goal. Those that willingly want to risk the reduction for more gain in the longer term can deploy them to their hearts content. Higher risk higher reward anyone?
High fives all round. |
Onslaughtor
Alexylva Paradox
72
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 04:32:00 -
[574] - Quote
I think that everyone before me has laid out all the flaws with the ESS. It is a bad idea and I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that the teams working on this should have been put to work on something useful. I for one would much rather see CCP spend a year on POSes than this useless stuff. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1933
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 05:29:00 -
[575] - Quote
I wonder if this team talked to Team Security when designing this mess. Going to be a lovely way to skim off a chunk of bot profits, and launder them.
Put one of these puppies deep in the blue blanketed area. (away from neutral inties). Bot away for some period, then have an "unaffiliated" pilot loot the ESS, and cash those in.
If the bot gets busted, the pilot who looted the ESS never will.
Everything about this idea screams "badly thought-out". Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Antihrist Pripravnik
Direwolf-Rayet skylian Verge
172
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 05:30:00 -
[576] - Quote
Quote:Why this is a thing is due to an on-going and ever-growing feud between the empires and Concord. Concord has decided that monitoring these bounty-generating activities (i.e. killing pirates) outside of their jurisdiction is becoming too expensive, especially with the lost income from high-sec Custom Offices. As a result, they will no longer pay the full bounty amount.
Hahaha...
Damage control for a bad game design decision, that had an impact on ISK sinks, implemented as a nerf to another area of the game. But it's not a flat over the board nerf - it's a nerf in a form of a pointlessly complicated new game mechanic that mimics... waaait for it... Tax return forms!!!
This is simply hilarious.
edit: And don't blame Team Super Friends. They are doing pretty good job. Finding a way to implement tax return forms into an internet spaceships game needs a lot of creativity. Those who gave the task of creating RL bureaucracy forms into the game to the team should reconsider what they are doing. CCP Ytterbium: Yarrblblbgrlblbgrlblblblbblbgrlblblbgrblblyarrrrdrooooooolonthekeyboardlikealunatic |
Selnix
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 05:40:00 -
[577] - Quote
TD746 wrote:Selnix wrote:All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
[b]P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned. ^this^this^this^
I just can't decide if I'd rather use this with a blapnado or a discoscorp to camp random gates using it as an innocuous pull bubble. |
Faydhe
SECURITY SQUAD N.O.B.O.D.Y.
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 05:49:00 -
[578] - Quote
Nice idea. Best of all mobile structure. More PvP. Pay 20% or Fight. SSQ - -¥-¦-¦-+-Ç -Ü-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-+-Ç-¦-é-+-¦ |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 05:53:00 -
[579] - Quote
Selnix wrote:All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
[Malediction, suicide cyno] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II
Cynosural Field Generator I [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Cargohold Optimization I Small Cargohold Optimization I
So why, you might ask, am I posting such a thing in this feedback thread? To put it simply, CCP are giving us an Easter Egg, a hidden gift that is shiny and good. While the ability to cyno fit an interceptor that can disregard bubbles has been around for a while now, the ability to act as a slow interdictor is just around the corner.
With the above cargo expansion fit you will now be able to warp onto that pesky ratting carrier, point them and drop your ESS deployable bubble while scooting out to a respectable distance that puts you just out of neut range with your cap stable point for the nice short 60 second activation timer. Naturally, dropping cyno is your single most vulnerable moment while bringing in the cavalry so having the fiend stuck well within a bubble as your cyno vessel is rendered to spacedust is quite beneficial. The baiting and drag bubbling options that it opens up are also nice.
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned.
You won the thread. |
Erien Rand
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 06:12:00 -
[580] - Quote
I only go to null sec to roam for targets, I typically have no sympathy for them and their null-bear issues but these ESS seem like an unecessary Nerf to their income. We don't want to see them being reduced to pvping in rag tag cruiser fleets. Or do we... |
|
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 06:28:00 -
[581] - Quote
Ugg.... I have to chime in on this dev blog.
The mobile siphon...fine.
The ESS - LAME and COMPLEX.
I get that it is a terrain thing and conflict driver....but couldn't you think up something else?
Why not an item that just nerfs bounties in system when it is dropped by hostiles?
CCP you guys are spending DEV time on this #$@@ when you should be fixing coding, POSs, Corp. Permissions/interface or making other deployables and rebalancing Pirate ships and caps so we can finally check that box off. THEN you need to move on to INCARNA and the DUST and VALKYRIE LINKS.
But no...lets devote superfriends to this project.... Sorry guys. This is lame and I am not usually the nay-sayer.
So close to unsubbing it is not even funny.
LoL, and Steam games are far more entertaining and less #@$#^ time consuming.
P.S. If your subscription base is dwindling, I wonder if you have yet to figure out the direct correlation between the EVE learning curve pissing new players off and lower numbers? This sort of stuff fits in that bill too.
I.E All your ideas to make Hi-sec this non-safe place are misguided. Like I said before...you NEED to leave hi-sec for new players to learn the game and cut their teeth. Not buy an account, lose tons of ships to lame griefing mechanics you refuse to fix, and leave. Then they tell their friends how much EVE sucks and we all lose. I have had 4 RL friends try EVE and leave or refuse to try EVE because of this sort of stuff.
Get back in touch CCP - you guys are really starting to agitate me with this lack of vision and understanding of all players (carebears matter). The money they generate makes the game better for all of us. Trebor gets this...listen to him. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
225
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 06:33:00 -
[582] - Quote
I'm seriously perplexed by the strong outcry against this.
Is it the ESS module? You don't have to use it, they're not cheap so it's unlikely they'll be dropped like candy when they can be cleared out if unwanted. If that's really the case, the ESS needs to be balanced so that there's an incentive to using them (what is that, 20% more income, 30%, 50%?).
Is it the 5% nerf to base bounties? If 5% is such a big loss, why aren't people rejoicing in the possibility of 10% more if you use the ESS correctly?
Is it the balance of cashing out from the ESS? That can be worked on, it isn't really cause to say CCP have lost the plot- in its current state, I wouldn't say interceptors are an instant 'I steal' or 'free income' button, but further iteration may occur to further prevent this.
All I see is a bunch of stubborn assholes who believe that they're entitled to the 100% income they currently receive via ratting and anoms, made practically 100% safe by virtue of intel channels and attentiveness to local (is that really a skill?). Somehow vast swathes of EVE players have arrived at the conclusion that PVE in null is a masochistic activity for which they should be rewarded and any attempt to change it is an assault on their ability to martyr themselves as the ISK miners of EVE.
I'm also surprised that the big blocs are reacting so negatively to it- are your ratters not coddled enough? Do you even see much of that 5% (do the math- average tax rate is 10%, so that's only 0.5% reduction to what corps get)? Do you doubt your ability to police your own space and make policy on the usage of ESSs in your space?
The purpose of the ESS is to force a portion of that income to be made available to fight over by anyone who cares to turn up and try and take it and to push nullsec PVE to have some PVP elements to it- a refreshing and laudable aim.
Rubicon is meant to be shaking things up and this threadnaught seems to me like CCP have finally found a pain-point for which people will go up in arms about. I hope that they'll continue to push it and force people to fight for their income in-game rather than caving to the initial entitled outrage reaction. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
155
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 06:58:00 -
[583] - Quote
A minor point, but I feel the need to sperg out a little:
Jessica Danikov wrote: (do the math- average tax rate is 10%, so that's only 0.5% reduction to what corps get)
I just did the maths, and it's a 5% reduction in corporate income. Income before: [rate]% of 100% of [bounty]. Income after: [rate]% of 95% of [bounty].
Reduction in income = 1 - Income after / Income before = [rate] * 95% * [bounty] / ([rate] * 100% * [bounty]) *100 = 1-95/100 = 5% ~ |
Neotin Nahrain
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 07:26:00 -
[584] - Quote
With a hefty corp tax over the ratting income already in effect, removing additional 5% or choosing the big hassle of putting 30 mil in space , coping with risk of losing additional 15% AND having to haul your **** tags to high sec to sell them ... This will make ratting even less desired as it is now. The ordinary ratting is mind numbing, repetitive and boring activity. But many do it to earn a living. Now this is simply placing a tax on already heavy taxed activity.
I stopped ratting when i found that doing space plexes is way more lucrative opportunity. And i dropped hunting for officers, those do not exist in the normal space continuum after the "reboot fix". All in all the ESS will simply be ignored by most of the population , its overly too complicated and requires logistics expenses and risks for almost negligible rewards.
By the way the SHARE option - how does it work , do the guy doing a anomalies in 5b ship gets as much as the passing ceptor that shot a frigate in belts ?
|
Hi O
Galactic Organization of Tariff and Trade.
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 07:46:00 -
[585] - Quote
You implemented into the game yet another thing that is:
1. Shockingly stupid.
2. Worthless in all regards.
3. Nurtures sociopaths.
4. Supremely over complicated for a thing no one gives two $&!*s about.
Is this a joke? CCP, are you trolling us? |
Jasmine Assasin
State War Academy Caldari State
147
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:13:00 -
[586] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:You're supposed to make people want to live in nullsec more, not less.
This. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
441
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:16:00 -
[587] - Quote
The ESS has problems, but I am perplexed by how people who find its operation complicated or confusing manage to play EVE. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
168
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:19:00 -
[588] - Quote
Interceptors really need to be nerfed if deployables like the EES are going to be viable. Interceptors are just going to be able to role through system after system looting these things virtually risk free. |
voetius
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
176
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:19:00 -
[589] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Tauranon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: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? I would but they are all shooting sisters at 100m isk/hr (which isn't exactly going to go away now that a BS is being added to the LP pool), and in any case, my system has 2 hubs at military 4, which is enough for me, and me only. (Most of null is after all, flyover country). I also have downtime in the middle of my play session, which isn't exactly conducive to building up a lot of players. Why this is so hard for some people to understand bewliders me. This is why history keeps repeating itself (the original anom buff drove a lot of us out of null to high sec pve), beause people just don't pay attention and are to bound by their biases and limited perspective . It's also CCP displaying the bad thinking that led to the "rapid launcher" fiasco. Likewise their were people saying "oh this will be great, you just need to adapt to it and stop being afraid of change". We weren't afraid of change, we could see that it just wouldn't work. End result? Rapid launchers "aren't where CCP wants them to be" (corporate speak for "they suck and we know they suck") and they will be "looked at again". Maybe look at things the 1st time and listen to feed back and they won't have to "look at it again" all the time.
A minor point but the underlined is one of those statements that seems obvious at first sight and much harder to implement at second sight.
Unfortunately the feedback comprises conflicting and contradictory statements motivated by stupidity, disingenuousness, failure to read, hidden agendas, schadenfreude and so on.
On a more positive note maybe CCP could use focus groups, the CSM or the F&I forum better. |
RumpenII
85
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:37:00 -
[590] - Quote
Expansion are becoming more boring and useless... |
|
Qual
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:39:00 -
[591] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Interceptors really need to be nerfed if deployables like the EES are going to be viable. Interceptors are just going to be able to role through system after system looting these things virtually risk free.
The inty have to stay there for 60 seconds. On word for you: Smartbombs! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2952
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:54:00 -
[592] - Quote
Qual wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Interceptors really need to be nerfed if deployables like the EES are going to be viable. Interceptors are just going to be able to role through system after system looting these things virtually risk free. The inty have to stay there for 60 seconds. On word for you: Smartbombs!
Sitting in your own ESS bubble 24/7 waiting for an interceptor to show up, whilst hoping that it blunders directly into smartbomb range and doesn't just warp in at 10km and point you, is almost as spectacular a waste of time as the man-hours that CCP spent developing this nonsense in the first place. 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. |
Neuroxer
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 08:55:00 -
[593] - Quote
Hi CCP! Are you crazy? Go sleep and don't touch EVE online! EVE online not need this stupid update and this stupid structures!!! |
Antihrist Pripravnik
Direwolf-Rayet skylian Verge
172
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:07:00 -
[594] - Quote
Hi O wrote:You implemented into the game yet another thing that is:
1. Shockingly stupid.
2. Worthless in all regards.
3. Nurtures sociopaths.
4. Supremely over complicated for a thing no one gives two $&!*s about.
Is this a joke? CCP, are you trolling us?
Dude... your neck CCP Ytterbium: Yarrblblbgrlblbgrlblblblbblbgrlblblbgrblblyarrrrdrooooooolonthekeyboardlikealunatic |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1444
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:12:00 -
[595] - Quote
People like to assume that that ESS will be placed in every system all the time, same as they assumed that Siphons would be placed on all the moon mining POSes all the time. |
DeadDuck
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:38:00 -
[596] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:People like to assume that that ESS will be placed in every system all the time, same as they assumed that Siphons would be placed on all the moon mining POSes all the time.
You right they will not be deployable in all the systems... but what annoys me is to see the CCP focus on useless content instead on focusing in what really needs to be fixed.
0.0 SOV mechanics need a total revamp... full of timmers, and structure shooting and what is CCP does ? Let's put up some more structures to "induce fights" in 0.0.
HEY CCP WHAT ABOUT PUT A REINFORCER TIMMER ALSO ON THIS ESS CRAP you will increase the odds of provoking a fight in 100%... better yet why not put a shield and armor reinforcer timmer ? Odds will increase at 200%...
Hey I have other idea that just came from my ass... what about making it that you can only shoot it with frigates... that way the time to destroying these things will be boosted and will again induce the fights... those fights that you want to induce so much and that after Dominion are became rarer and rarer... |
Greygal
Redemption Road
201
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:43:00 -
[597] - Quote
These will make the most awesome catch and drag bubbles ever.
Deploy at gates, get immediate notification anytime someone is caught in your bubble. Can cover a system without having to keep eyes on every gate to know when your bubble caught someone.
Bubble-camping just got a heck of a buff! What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free public roams! Visit http://www.redemption-road.com or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for more information! |
Vicar2008
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Northern Associates.
72
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:48:00 -
[598] - Quote
Reason's to stay in 0.0 these days are becoming less and less desirable, much like like logging into the game these days. In all seriousness CCP I am already looking at hovering over the unsubcribe button on 3 accounts, this just made that decision easier. |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:52:00 -
[599] - Quote
Whoever @ CCP thought this was a good idea needs to be drug screened. |
Agnes Carlson
Krynka
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:59:00 -
[600] - Quote
Its a simple null sec income nerf, that could've been done without using this piece of crap.
No ESS in space means -5% income, where does the money go then if empire is not watching with ESS?
CCP has no plans for getting more ppl into the game, instead they have a solid plan for getting rid of active players, nicely done. |
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
225
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 09:59:00 -
[601] - Quote
Not withstanding the nerf to nullsec ratting income. The wosrt thing about this whole ESS bollocks is that it adds an extra layer of hassle.
CCP, we all want you to nerf afk top-down income, and and encourage bottom up income from pilots actually undocking spaceships and doing things in space (preferably not hiding behind a POS shield, or an MSI). The player base and hopefully the CSM have been telling you this over and over again for years.
Instead you actually go and nerf bottom-up pilot income! What the hell are you all doing? Is this really the best you can do?
Oh and by the way. Interceptors are BROKEN! Don't Panic.
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1296
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:10:00 -
[602] - Quote
BRING BACK THE JESUS FEATURES!
I just don't get why CCP are using these structures to add new unnecessary gameplay. Why not add something like a Mobile structure that removes people from local? This is something that CCP know they need to to address.
Barring the mobile depot, these structures are poorly implemented and don't really bring anything new and exciting to the game. Just look at the mobile cyno jammers that can't be anchored on gates ... Yeah, totally worth the development time. +1 |
Nijaza
Blood Night Apocalypse
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:13:00 -
[603] - Quote
This thread has been a fun read...some things of note:
-I'm going to need more cheese for all this WHINE...
-People are bitter about interceptors being...fast
I like this idea, because it promotes fights. However, the time it takes to drop the can and loot the can needs to be extended so an defense can be organized. However, the idea of dropping tangible currency is great. If they rob you, chase them and get your money back! Its not gone in the digital nature that ISK resides in as of right now.
Also, make the reduction and boost a bit more...like most people are saying let the boost rise to a 110%. Boost the HP as well. The LP connection is also good, perhaps you can choose for a 110% boost to bountys or a 90% bounty 10% LP's?
Point being things like this promote the kind of fights that makes EVE fun ( at least for me). Small-scale gang warfare...not that blob #@%.
Some ideas to deal with roving bands of interceptors treating ESS's as piggy banks
-Put Guns on it that Shoot Reds...0.0 -Increase the time it takes to TAKE ALL significantly...however allow hacking to be done on it to make this go quicker. This forces the roving frig gang to bring a hacking ship.
All in all this needs work but is a good idea. Why does everyone here have to b@!# at CCP for not fixing pos's, capital ship rebalance, etc? It is surely being looked at, so quit whining about it. |
Dave Stark
4188
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:13:00 -
[604] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Not withstanding the nerf to nullsec ratting income. The wosrt thing about this whole ESS bollocks is that it adds an extra layer of hassle.
i think this, is really the cause of the discontent.
it's more hassle, there's very little reward for the hassle, it's not going to be "fun" in any way what so ever, there's nothing interesting about it. it's somewhat complex (i had to re-read the dev blog 3 times to understand exactly how it works properly because it was just that convoluted and ass backwards).
if it was in some way, fun, or interesting people might be less resistant to the "we're nerfing ratting income, or making it more hassle and you're really going to get nothing back for it" that it is now. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
544
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:22:00 -
[605] - Quote
Can we get another CCP statement? I assume you have read the thread from page 15 onwards (Since ~ last dev. post).
So now CCP must be aware that this is a bad idea. There are no advantages to using it for defenders, and there are likely no change for an incoming fleet. Furthermore, it's obviously shoddy designed, as seen from the number of questions and "do I need to fly to HS to get my 20%" etc, and of course as one can find out just by reading the "explanation" itself in the dev. blog. You should be concerned when members (Some even pretty high-ups) from all the bigger nullsec organisations and coalitions are against it, or when (As a PL member demonstrated before) the intended use will be as a bubble, not anything else. As I said before: When CFC, N3, Provi, PL, NPC 0.0, Stainwagon, and various rental org.s think it's bad... it is.
In fact, when a CCP tag (Can't remember who) asked for "constructive criticism" earlier, it showed your mindset, so I guess I need to cut it out pretty clear for you: There are no magic few numbers you can tweak to make this a good idea. It is irredeemable. There, how does that go for constructive criticism? It's constructive because I don't ask for Team Super Friends figurative heads on silver platters, and because it will be an overall improvement to your idea. It's criticism for obvious reasons.
NullSec has for ages been asking for better POS code and corp/alliance roles etc, and for less hassle with shooting or repping structures as a part of the leadup to battles. This is neither. NullSec has also been asking for incentives to live in NullSec (Maybe because we tend to scare carebears and industrialists off...), as compared to HighSec. For example the limitless HS missions compared to the very limited 0.0 anomalies. This is not that. NullSec has furthermore been asking for and discussing the prospects of "Farms & Fields", where small gang warfare can become viable because you can burn the farms and fields, and as a person living out there you can set up your own farms and fields, increasing the wealth of your space. This is not a "Farms & Fields" idea. NullSec has been asking for ways to make bottom-up income work on alliance level. This is not that. ...
I'm not sure how to get the message clearer across. When a few 0.0 players asks this to be implemented across all space, it's not because it's a good idea, but because at least in 0.0, the organised players can shoot these down and deal with it, whereas it's not likely to happen in HS. A 5% nerf in 0.0 and an average of 20% nerf in HS would incentivise 0.0 simply by comparison - that doesn't redeem this piece of garbage. Please CCP, you have a list of stuff that is wanted. This structure isn't on that list.
Heoes don't do drugs. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1296
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:32:00 -
[606] - Quote
Nijaza wrote: -People are bitter about interceptors being...fast
Actually i think most people think interceptors are too good because they:
* Are immune to bubbles * Enter warp almost before the session change cloak ends * Warp faster than any other ship
Now, all of these abilities are fine individually but when you combine them in one ship, that ship is clearly OP. +1 |
Jenny Morrison
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:39:00 -
[607] - Quote
The ess system doesn't bring in game of new equipment, the weapon. On the contrary ess develops ways of theft and deception. Thus game about space games becomes officially game about deception and theft. Such policy of developers of game conducts to decrease in interest to it. Players the interested deception have to create ways to achieve the objects. I suggest to dismiss the management of group of developers advancing in game policy of deception and theft. To focus ordinary developers on development of the new weapon and effects. |
Alex Pier
Celestial Argonauts Intrepid Crossing
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:39:00 -
[608] - Quote
So now you do not even have to shoot people to take their stuff/money.
Hop in any interceptor go around 0.0, find deployed ESS, steal tags while ratters are hiding in POS.
I approve!!! |
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:45:00 -
[609] - Quote
This is no doubt going to be a redundant comment having read a couple of pages, but since I logged in specfically to say this, I may just as well.
The ESS +¡s by far the most pointless idea I can recall being proposed. If this goes thru - and I hope CCP has the sense to just cancel it - all it will do it cause me more drama from members and allied entities "stealing" each others ISK. I'm already having to spend time on a forum topic about if and how we should go about banning the use of this module in our space.
As for this talk about an offensive use by roaming gangs... Ratters either dock up when hostiles are nearby or they make sure the unit it shot down first. Pointless.
If CCP wants to reduce income from ratting, just do so. 5%, 10%, no problem. Just don't do it in a way that only adds to drama that draws away from the game. Face the enemy as a solid wall For faith is your armor And through it, the enemy will find no breach The Scriptures, Amarr Askura 10:3 |
interesangt
Artic Drilling Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:51:00 -
[610] - Quote
Yep, dont fix commonly known interface/gamplay problems, create new ones.. so what im looking at is jumping into a ceptor and getting paid for flying around at the same time, burning around 0.0 claiming bountys, you know 20 min ticks and all means there will always be something to collect..
Good work! |
|
Tradax
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:51:00 -
[611] - Quote
Out of all the things you can do this is it ? You are burning time and resources for this ? |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:57:00 -
[612] - Quote
gonna try to be contructive here.
so far the only thing i've heard about the ESS is how terrible an idea it is to begin with because its base idea if flawed the fact it actualyl requires a 5% nerf to income to be viable means the idea wont be worth it because the risk vs reward is simply unintelligent. (sorry but it is.)
There is no way to save this idea do not attempt to you've allready made it noble exchange worthy stupidity.
we DO WANT things that will attract people to our space to PvP with us we E'ffing LOVE PvP in 0.0 but you CLEARLY have no idea what 0.0 is like. Your just sitting there in high sec or low sec thinking "wow thoese huge fights sure look like something! But they're not really my thing so..." yeah great we really apritiate that your so far BEHIND US. We're the Pioneers of Eve 0.0 is where all the crazy stuff usually comes from! we're sick of how the whole 'balance' is all about the small gang pvp stuff you got two 'I want to solo pvp from low sec' people working on it all and they have NO CLUE how terrible most of it is when thinking in the sort of scales we usually do.
Blow stuff up. We wish you wouldn't just SAY that thats what its all about... SUPPORT IT! Eve needs destruction to make the gears turn you KNOW IT so finally FIND something that will REALLY get us fired up about risk vs reward and pew pew'ing to our hearts content.
5% nerf to current ratting vs 5% bonus (OH YEESSS ITS 10% BONUS EXCEPT 5% NERF!!! WOOOHOOO!!!) 'if so and so and this risk and that risk with 25% of it possibly gone' is so far behind us in risk vs reward (AND EFFORT!) thinking that if this is the future of Eve it will DIE.
not a day I look forward to I invested so mutch time in this game and yet all I see is wasted effort from ccp time and time again I can't help but wonder if the people who recently left didn't do so because they could finally see a ship thats sinking...?
I dont know if this will even be read or understood in the way I want to try to convey it but F me is this ess stupid but atleast you tried to make it a PvP attraction... well I can tell you with the system you made for it where somebody can just warp to it and take the tags or whatever in an inty you've failed so badly I dont think you will ever be able make anything that actually will work. I hope to be proven wrong but wow are you making it hard to see. |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 10:59:00 -
[613] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Can we get another CCP statement? I assume you have read the thread from page 15 onwards (Since ~ last dev. post).
So now CCP must be aware that this is a bad idea. There are no advantages to using it for defenders, and there are likely no change for an incoming fleet. Furthermore, it's obviously shoddy designed, as seen from the number of questions and "do I need to fly to HS to get my 20%" etc, and of course as one can find out just by reading the "explanation" itself in the dev. blog. You should be concerned when members (Some even pretty high-ups) from all the bigger nullsec organisations and coalitions are against it, or when (As a PL member demonstrated before) the intended use will be as a bubble, not anything else. As I said before: When CFC, N3, Provi, PL, NPC 0.0, Stainwagon, and various rental org.s think it's bad... it is.
In fact, when a CCP tag (Can't remember who) asked for "constructive criticism" earlier, it showed your mindset, so I guess I need to cut it out pretty clear for you: There are no magic few numbers you can tweak to make this a good idea. It is irredeemable. There, how does that go for constructive criticism? It's constructive because I don't ask for Team Super Friends figurative heads on silver platters, and because it will be an overall improvement to your idea. It's criticism for obvious reasons.
NullSec has for ages been asking for better POS code and corp/alliance roles etc, and for less hassle with shooting or repping structures as a part of the leadup to battles. This is neither. NullSec has also been asking for incentives to live in NullSec (Maybe because we tend to scare carebears and industrialists off...), as compared to HighSec. For example the limitless HS missions compared to the very limited 0.0 anomalies. This is not that. NullSec has furthermore been asking for and discussing the prospects of "Farms & Fields", where small gang warfare can become viable because you can burn the farms and fields, and as a person living out there you can set up your own farms and fields, increasing the wealth of your space. This is not a "Farms & Fields" idea. NullSec has been asking for ways to make bottom-up income work on alliance level. This is not that. ...
I'm not sure how to get the message clearer across. When a few 0.0 players asks this to be implemented across all space, it's not because it's a good idea, but because at least in 0.0, the organised players can shoot these down and deal with it, whereas it's not likely to happen in HS. A 5% nerf in 0.0 and an average of 20% nerf in HS would incentivise 0.0 simply by comparison - that doesn't redeem this piece of garbage. Please CCP, you have a list of stuff that is wanted. This structure isn't on that list.
Heoes don't do drugs.
I dont allways agree with Nulli but +1 |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:02:00 -
[614] - Quote
thinking seriously about this guys, the ess is a stupid idea BUT its not a big deal. Dont deploy the ESS simple, so what you lose 5% big whooppee dooo. Seriously on a 1 mill bounty that is only 50,000 isk you lose. so say you rat for a hour and you make 80 mill in bounty normally you would only lose 4 million ISK! that's not a massive issue is it really. The only people this will effect are the botters and the crazy ratters, and in the grand scheme of things even to those its not a massive issue. Its only if you want to be a bit greedy and want that extra 5-10%, is the risk even worth it? I would say not, botters wouldnt care, because well they are afk so they wont use it, and crazy ratters, wont even bother with the risk as they probably ratting in pimp bs or carriers. So wouldnt even worry about it, just dont use them. Its not a massive hit is it? If CCP really want to do some harm they didnt go far enough, they should of lowered it by 50% and then the ESS scales up to 100-110% |
Sao Ricceh
The Virgin Islands inc. Moon Tribe
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:03:00 -
[615] - Quote
Encounter Surveillance System (ESS) - big fail of CCP |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:05:00 -
[616] - Quote
The biggest 'problem' with this is that the ones hit hardest are Single Account null sec players. If you have 2 accounts running stuff, you really don't care about some loss in ratting income, you'll still end up with 100M+ per hour. If you have more accounts you'll probably not running anomalies as your main form of income anyway, so the only ones hurt are players who wish to play the game as it's meant to be played. Baddest poster ever |
Fix Lag
619
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:08:00 -
[617] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:thinking seriously about this guys, the ess is a stupid idea BUT its not a big deal. Dont deploy the ESS simple, so what you lose 5% big whooppee dooo. Seriously on a 1 mill bounty that is only 50,000 isk you lose. so say you rat for a hour and you make 80 mill in bounty normally you would only lose 4 million ISK! that's not a massive issue is it really. The only people this will effect are the botters and the crazy ratters, and in the grand scheme of things even to those its not a massive issue. Its only if you want to be a bit greedy and want that extra 5-10%, is the risk even worth it? I would say not, botters wouldnt care, because well they are afk so they wont use it, and crazy ratters, wont even bother with the risk as they probably ratting in pimp bs or carriers. So wouldnt even worry about it, just dont use them. Its not a massive hit is it? If CCP really want to do some harm they didnt go far enough, they should of lowered it by 50% and then the ESS scales up to 100-110%
Thanks for sharing your really terrible thoughts on this issue. |
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:09:00 -
[618] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:Dont deploy the ESS simple, so what you lose 5% big whooppee dooo.
Agreed. So what this amounts to is CCP introducing a module that forces the entities it was intended for to prohibit its use. Face the enemy as a solid wall For faith is your armor And through it, the enemy will find no breach The Scriptures, Amarr Askura 10:3 |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
502
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:15:00 -
[619] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
The increased payout is reset each time the ESS is emptied, so you can do that, but then you-¦re never getting the full payout.
I don't know if anyone's responded to this yet (because this is a 31 page WTF it seems), but this is an even bigger 'screw you'. Deploying one of these is flat out a detriment. |
Jori McKie
Friends Of Harassment
117
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:22:00 -
[620] - Quote
I had my problems with some of this new deployable thingies but this one, it is absolutly great. You can measure how great it is by all the tears coming from Goons etc. I want this ESS for lowsec in two flavours for ISK and FW LP and of course for highsec. ASAP please and i can't stress how much of a conflict driver this will be, especially in highsec this ESS will be hilarious.
One thing you should consider for the 0.0 ESS make the 15km bubble special so T3 and Inties aren't immune to it and most problems are solved. |
|
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1275
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:36:00 -
[621] - Quote
I wonder what CSM members have to say about this brilliant device since apparently they knew about it since first drafts so let's hear their side now when NDA gag is gone. How did you imagine application or driving conflicts with this structure when you were talking about it with devs? I guess all null representants are above peasant activities like ratting so harassment factor probably was more attractive to them. So tell me how will you harass me with this new deployable and how gloriously it will enhance your gameplay experience. I cannot wait to see another snarky and condescending one-liner Malcanis will produce this time. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Morgana Tsukiyo
Ponto Final
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 11:39:00 -
[622] - Quote
"Of Peasants and Lords"
My friends and tell me about this piece of land they conquered. It was a long fight to remove the previous occupants, so i heard. They work together to improve it, to harvest it, to benefit from it. Yet barbarians try to pillage it, or simply harass its occupants.
I hear some hide behind their walls and wait for them to leave. I hear that some beg their lords for protection, often for a price. I even hear that some take arms to fight and drive them out themselves.
Tales from the east sing of a wonder machine. That shall improve harvest in the coming winter. An investment to be made with risks for sure. But also rewards that we-¦re yet to know and take.
The reactions to these songs are many and distinct. Some dismiss it at fairy tales, and will continue their hardworking harvest. Some, say they-¦ll burn it at sight, so it doesn-¦t draw attention to their land. Yet some plan to benefit from it ar rip every reward that it shall give.
"You must think of the danger" i often hear. "It will be honey to bees for those barbarians" "Don-¦t they already raid from time to time?" i often reply. "Yes, but we can hide and wait for them to leave" "So shall you keep doing if that is your wish"
"With this machine, they-¦ll steal our harvest" "With hiding peasants, they could steal the entire land" "Our lords would never allow it!" "Then call on them for your protection" "They are far and set to their own schemes" "Shouldn-¦t you serve better lords then?"
"Why can-¦t we all get along? I just want to plow and harvest in peace!" "The human nature is as colourful as the rainow. Some seed, some take" "I wish the barbarians would just stay out and mind their own business" "You have a land, a production, and plan on wishing away your troubles?" "It worked so far. Cry to the gods loud enough and they respond!" "Leave your fate to the gods and your lords and no life shall be called your own"
"Cry loud enough" i think to myself laughing. Men have become whinny children , frail babies. I wonder if the gods are pleased with this behaviour. And question if the barbarians are not their tool to tough them up. |
Myriad Blaze
nul-li-fy Nulli Secunda
145
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:01:00 -
[623] - Quote
I wonder whether the ESS is intentionally as bad as it is... I mean from a dev perspective it might make sense:
- You have an idea for your game but you know your players won't like it.
- So you come up with something even worse and wait for the collective outcry.
- Now you pretend to make some tweaks and adjustments and present your original idea.
- The players are relieved that the game change went from "horrid" to just "bad" and calm down.
- You tell everyone how you listen to the playerbase and that you just give them what they want.
- Kudos and promotions for everyone.
|
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:13:00 -
[624] - Quote
I do not often post on CCP stuff but the ESS is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Are they playing the same game as we are? I do not care what alliance you are from, no one in their right mind would think this was a good idea.
I am betting if I warped, cancelled, warped cancelled ad nauseam I could spam that I was flying into the ESS without actually doing it triggering the so called defensive play this was designed to create.
I have not read through the 100's of posts here but I can guess that interceptors do not get affected by the bubble so no delays there either. I also assume you can bubble the bloody bubble as well creating one clusterfck of a ESS camp. I suggest CCP delete the word deployable modules from it's design program until you have employed someone who actually plays regularly. Honestly this idea should never have seen the light of day and should have been strangled at birth.
What will happen if you do deploy it is they will be killed on site by any alliance worth their salt. As they are relatively easy to kill.
As for the alarm bells telling everyone who is warping to it, has EvE done this to any other structure ever. I have demonstrated how easy it would be to fool either by warp cancel and even if CCP could get a work around for that I would just take a ship drain its cap so it cannot reach the ESS and then warp to it. when my ship stops halfway I cancel warp.
You would think that the team suggesting such a shite idea would have figured in how players would try and circumnavigate such an obvious fail.
Lastly as a player who needs to rat on occasion I would either look to highsec or even if I ratted in null I would rather take the 5% knock on bounty than deploy one of these. a 1800 000isk ship = 1710 000isk or in Haven terms a 36m payout in bounties = 34.2m.
So for every 100misk I make in bounties I lose 5m isk. Worst still you are reducing the isk value of all rats by 5% and when an ESS is deployed isk vale drops by 20% and the maximum isk the ESS will deliver is 25% after a period of time which is exactly the amount it was pre Rubicon 1.1
Call me stupid but I am a PvP first and a ship replacement ratter. So even at 80% isk I would still not overly worry about a ESS as long as it belonged to my alliance.
I hate the fact above all that you have made me come to these forums to articulate what is wrong in my view with the whole idea.
Sorry to all if I have covered points already raised and to those that think this is a good idea wait till some bright spark at CCP decides "well they worked in Null" |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
782
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:14:00 -
[625] - Quote
Another issue I just realised.
Why are your introducing a feature that means we have to go back to Empire to claim our money? Haven't we been asking for more features to make our NullSec Empires less dependant on HighSec not asking for more features that make us do a weekly run to HighSec for supplies or sell off things. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
405
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:15:00 -
[626] - Quote
The tears in this thread a delicious
I love how everyone is like 'this is so bad for our ISK income that we're just not going to use it in our space and ban it'. Well guess what, you don't get to decide if the enemy uses it in your space, which is the entire point of these things.
Fleet roles in to a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, cuts everyone's income by 20%, forces the owners of the system to do something about it, PVP happens.
This thing will be used more to force your enemy's hand and less to steal actual ISK, although that would be a nice bonus. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:18:00 -
[627] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:tiberiusric wrote:thinking seriously about this guys, the ess is a stupid idea BUT its not a big deal. Dont deploy the ESS simple, so what you lose 5% big whooppee dooo. Seriously on a 1 mill bounty that is only 50,000 isk you lose. so say you rat for a hour and you make 80 mill in bounty normally you would only lose 4 million ISK! that's not a massive issue is it really. The only people this will effect are the botters and the crazy ratters, and in the grand scheme of things even to those its not a massive issue. Its only if you want to be a bit greedy and want that extra 5-10%, is the risk even worth it? I would say not, botters wouldnt care, because well they are afk so they wont use it, and crazy ratters, wont even bother with the risk as they probably ratting in pimp bs or carriers. So wouldnt even worry about it, just dont use them. Its not a massive hit is it? If CCP really want to do some harm they didnt go far enough, they should of lowered it by 50% and then the ESS scales up to 100-110% Thanks for sharing your really terrible thoughts on this issue.
Please explain how this is terrible or are you just being a douche troll?
|
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:23:00 -
[628] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The tears in this thread a delicious I love how everyone is like 'this is so bad for our ISK income that we're just not going to use it in our space and ban it'. Well guess what, you don't get to decide if the enemy uses it in your space, which is the entire point of these things. Fleet roles in to a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, cuts everyone's income by 20%, forces the owners of the system to do something about it, PVP happens. This thing will be used more to force your enemy's hand and less to steal actual ISK, although that would be a nice bonus. Dude only one can be placed at a time. bubble it and smile. Also what happens when you warp into a system now in ceptors? If you slow everyone docks. Same thing will happen here Fly out in a cloaked cheap bomber fit and destroy it as soon as ceptors have left... Where is the fight? The best fights in null are when two roaming gangs are looking to brawl. And knowing CCP they will deploy anti-ESS modules next lol |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4969
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:30:00 -
[629] - Quote
Shvak wrote:I do not often post on CCP stuff but the ESS is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Are they playing the same game as we are? I do not care what alliance you are from, no one in their right mind would think this was a good idea.
I am betting if I warped, cancelled, warped cancelled ad nauseam I could spam that I was flying into the ESS without actually doing it triggering the so called defensive play this was designed to create.
I'm betting not....
"Whenever a ship warps to the ESS, a broadcast is made in local informing everyone in the system that player X is in the vicinity of the ESS. This triggeres even if the approaching ship is cloaked."
The more likely interpretation of the above statement is that the alarm goes off once you're in range, not every time you hit the warp button.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
SyntheticSins
An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE
31
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:52:00 -
[630] - Quote
I'm not a null-sec ratter, but if I was this is what I would see.
So the concept of this is. . . If I do not anchor structure, I take a 5% income hit if I rat in system. If I do anchor structure, someone else comes in and takes my 5%.
Nullified ceptor gangs are going to **** these, not to mention that 3/4 gangs are compromised completely of ceptor's and other frigates.
This will also be used as epic baiting tool. Warp your scout in to one of these, sound the alarm, local will come clammoring to defend it reguardless of scouts. Your gang of 30+ ceptors jump system, land on all the "small gang pvper"'s and **** their face.
Defending one of these will become a death sentence. Altogether I see this as being an entirely useless mechanic and veiling the fact that they will be phased out (obviously) In 2 - 3 months, people will rather blow them up than have other players steal/scam from them.
And then altogether what that has is a 5% nurf to ratting. Which I find hilarious because militia noobs are making 1bil/hour in lowsec, so nullsec ratting needs to be nurfed. :P
|
|
Markius Proxim
Deadspace Knights
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 12:59:00 -
[631] - Quote
Sorry to only read the first 5 pages....
But ignoring the fact that it's a silly mechanic given the power of interceptor fleets which has been said many times....
Lets say i'm ratting and this mechanic is working as intended. My buddy picks to share. 40 Secs go buy, tags show in my inventory. ut-oh my inventory was full =(.
Lost isk.
Fail? |
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:01:00 -
[632] - Quote
95%? So basically nobody would ever anchor one of these anywhere near their systems? |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:01:00 -
[633] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Shvak wrote:I do not often post on CCP stuff but the ESS is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Are they playing the same game as we are? I do not care what alliance you are from, no one in their right mind would think this was a good idea.
I am betting if I warped, cancelled, warped cancelled ad nauseam I could spam that I was flying into the ESS without actually doing it triggering the so called defensive play this was designed to create.
I'm betting not.... "Whenever a ship warps to the ESS, a broadcast is made in local informing everyone in the system that player X is in the vicinity of the ESS. This triggeres even if the approaching ship is cloaked." The more likely interpretation of the above statement is that the alarm goes off once you're in range, not every time you hit the warp button. You could be right but that is even worse almost zero warning for an interceptor. He will be in and collecting money while everyone is trying to scramble. |
RumpenII
87
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:05:00 -
[634] - Quote
"The bounties in Nullsec are lowered by 5%" Why should I spend 5% more of his time to achieve the same result?
I am totally against the introduction of this innovation in its current state! |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
782
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:05:00 -
[635] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The tears in this thread a delicious I love how everyone is like 'this is so bad for our ISK income that we're just not going to use it in our space and ban it'. Well guess what, you don't get to decide if the enemy uses it in your space, which is the entire point of these things. Fleet roles in to a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, cuts everyone's income by 20%, forces the owners of the system to do something about it, PVP happens. This thing will be used more to force your enemy's hand and less to steal actual ISK, although that would be a nice bonus.
If using them as an ISK blocking tool was the entire point of the module then why all the "benefits" of more income? If it was designed purely and a ISK disruption tool that would be fine, the issue is they have tried to make a beneficial items to a ratter which is so far from beneficial that its only worthwhile use is being a greifing item.
The other thing you forget is no one is going to come an PVP you if you come and drop one, because no one makes ISK with reds around any way so they will just sit in station/POS wait for you to be far away then go and start grinding it down just to resume making money.
There is also the gripe that CCP is planning to add a penalty of income to all systems in NullSec with the only reason being they're making a new module they want people to use. Everyone used all the other deployable even with risks because they offered benefits worth the risks, rebalance the ESS to have enough benefits to gamble on the risks and people might use them. Don't go and say "hey we took 5% of your bounty rewards away because we have this new module we want you to use to solve that, but the new module is flawed and will probably only reduce your personal income even more."
100% standard, ESS lowers to 80% individual income and takes 20% (as is now) can be built upto 30%. It's a gamble if you want more but it's not a nerf to anyone who doesn't want that gamble.
EVE ONLINE IS ABOUT CHOICES, PUSHING US TO USE SOMETHING BY ADDING PENALTIES FOR NOT SANDBOX GAMEPLAY!
Make the thing worth the gamble and don't penalise anyone who doesn't want to gamble on it. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Silmas Feanarius
iFly Holdings Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:14:00 -
[636] - Quote
The thing looks useless. I'll write some ideas to improve it Apologies if this has been said earlier, but after reading the first 10 pages i stopped :D
- 40sec is too little for any defense fleet to form, even for ratters who have pvp ships sitting in their stations. Make it 3-4 minutes and more importantly make it so that the ship who intiates the "Take All" must stay on grid with the ESS, else the action is cancelled (and the payout not reinitialized). This would mean an uncacthable interceptor shouldn't be able to steal tags if the residents put up any resistance at all, but a gang should.
- [addendum:] Even then, i doubt it can create content in the way it is supposed to. What could happen is hostile comes in system, warps to the ESS and starts the "Take All" process, locals refit to pvp ships and drive him away, hostile refuses to fight and flees. Net result, hostile lost his time for no gain at all, local ratters lost their time too and the bounties they could collect. No one fights no one, everyone loses their time and isk. Until a deployable personal sentry gun is introduced (which would be awesome btw), the ESS has little to offer in terms of content.
- 5% is too little of a payout for the risk involved: Make it 10 or 15%, for the same global reduction.
- Make it a sov structure, invulnerable while sov holds. This way it can't be used to harass actively, but would work as intended by increasing ratters' (and null alliances) income at the risk of it being stolen by meaningful, organized hostile effort (as opposed to the current lone interceptor warping there and stealing stuff unchecked even with 10 active locals online).
CCP, the thing isn't out yet. You have the opportunity to fix it before it causes even more damage. Ship scale model maker needs our support: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3656438#post3656438
Cunnu 'e mamma tua bagassa limpia. |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:26:00 -
[637] - Quote
Can someone confirm that even the vote to share is also paid out in isk tags? And secondly that the tags can drop as loot? |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
627
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:26:00 -
[638] - Quote
Harrassment isn't a bad thing, but the reality is I won't deploy one, and I'll wait till enemy doesn't have local superiority to either destroy theirs, start ratting or engage. ie nothing will change about my personal engagements.
Although part of what I'm doing out here is -surviving with one account- I have a perfectly good cyno alt with a velator for 'poosh butan', as does waaaaaaay too many people living in null, and making ratting "optimal with cyno alt" seems to be yet again terrible game design. its really dull to see that turn up again. Lowsec exploration was optimal with 2 accounts. Level 5 missions were optimal with 2 accounts. Space trucking with a JF is basically a 2 account job. Nullsec roaming probing is optimal with 2 accounts, and now ratting is going to be optimal with 2 accounts.
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
627
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:27:00 -
[639] - Quote
Shvak wrote:Can someone confirm that even the vote to share is also paid out in isk tags? And secondly that the tags can drop as loot?
Vote to share is normal isk straight to the wallet as far as I read it.
|
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:28:00 -
[640] - Quote
Shvak wrote:Can someone confirm that even the vote to share is also paid out in isk tags? And secondly that the tags can drop as loot? DevBlog says you get ISK if you share directly transferred to the players. Tags only if you choose to take all. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4318
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:34:00 -
[641] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The tears in this thread a delicious I love how everyone is like 'this is so bad for our ISK income that we're just not going to use it in our space and ban it'. Well guess what, you don't get to decide if the enemy uses it in your space, which is the entire point of these things. Fleet roles in to a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, cuts everyone's income by 20%, forces the owners of the system to do something about it, PVP happens. This thing will be used more to force your enemy's hand and less to steal actual ISK, although that would be a nice bonus.
Force the enemies hand to do what, flee to empire to make isk like the 1st anom nerf. I can see why CCP develops in a vacuum like this (ie developing as if players have no choice but to rat because high sec incursions, sisters/thukker missions and faction warfare farming in frigs somehow don't exist), because their customers are similarly short sighted.
I got out while the getting was good and now make the same or better isk than I could ratting doing things in safer space. I had some hope that CCP would do something to let me return my isk making to null sec, but instead they are making it worse. Oh well, I've dealt with long waitlists to get into incursion fleets before,I'll get used to it again....
But damn this is stupid.
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:38:00 -
[642] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The tears in this thread a delicious I love how everyone is like 'this is so bad for our ISK income that we're just not going to use it in our space and ban it'. Well guess what, you don't get to decide if the enemy uses it in your space, which is the entire point of these things. Fleet roles in to a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, cuts everyone's income by 20%, forces the owners of the system to do something about it, PVP happens. This thing will be used more to force your enemy's hand and less to steal actual ISK, although that would be a nice bonus.
Are you seriously this thick? Have you ever even been to nullsec? Let me explain to you how it will work:
Fleet rolls into a highly populated ratting space, deploys ESS, everyone docks up. Fleet sits here hoping system owners will do something about it but instead they stay docked and go do something else or tab over to an alt in another system. After 15 minutes waiting the fleet gets bored and moves on. Ratters undock and warp dominix fleet to this and blap it. The only tears will be yours over your wasted time and isk.
Let's call this thing out for what it is - a 5% nullsec ratting income nerf disguised as a deployable that is so flawed and useless that it will never be used. Therefore CCP gets what it wants (5% income nerf) but can deflect criticism by saying the nerf is the players fault because we don't want to interact with their obtuse, poorly designed deployable.
This is bad on a WiS level, and the fact that it made it as far as an announced feature for rubicon 1.1 shows some people at CCP are just as out of touch with their player base as they were then. Seriously, if this kind of crap is the type of content we can expect in the future please start using the F&I forum to vet your ideas before any real dev time is spent on them. |
Hasala Xi
Raumpatrouille Orion Avaricious Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:41:00 -
[643] - Quote
Is there a log file in the ESS, to look who took isk/tags?
I don't like things like the ESS ... in the last months, PvP gets stronger and stronger in EVE ... yeah, i know, now you call me carebear, but that's not the fact. There is more than ONE way to play EVE, but after Interceptor-Nullifiing, ESS and the announcement to kill the local intel (and more...), I don't see the PvE-Part in the development ... only pushing PvP.
CCP, if you don't want PvE in 0.0, so kill all rats and all asteroids in the nullsec and we PvE-player will go back to highsec ... or quit.
I'm frustrated. |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:46:00 -
[644] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Ali Aras wrote:Asking questions here so I don't have to assume the answers are NDA'd...
What happens if a small fleet warps in? Say three people-- does it announce three of them, or just one? Also, what's the radius of the announcement? There is a few second "cooldown" on the notification so it doesn-¦t get spammed when a bunch of people warp in. So in the case of three warping in, only one notification is sent out. People just have to use the intelligence tools at their disposal to discern the level of threat. I am going to laugh at this because it deserves it. A single ship can steal all the isk the ESS contains so that makes a single ship just as much of a threat as a fleet.
This is a nullsec roaming nulified ceptor pilots dream |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 13:52:00 -
[645] - Quote
Selnix wrote:All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
[Malediction, suicide cyno] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II
Cynosural Field Generator I [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Cargohold Optimization I Small Cargohold Optimization I
So why, you might ask, am I posting such a thing in this feedback thread? To put it simply, CCP are giving us an Easter Egg, a hidden gift that is shiny and good. While the ability to cyno fit an interceptor that can disregard bubbles has been around for a while now, the ability to act as a slow interdictor is just around the corner.
With the above cargo expansion fit you will now be able to warp onto that pesky ratting carrier, point them and drop your ESS deployable bubble while scooting out to a respectable distance that puts you just out of neut range with your cap stable point for the nice short 60 second activation timer. Naturally, dropping cyno is your single most vulnerable moment while bringing in the cavalry so having the fiend stuck well within a bubble as your cyno vessel is rendered to spacedust is quite beneficial. The baiting and drag bubbling options that it opens up are also nice.
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned.
Simply Beautiful
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1297
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:08:00 -
[646] - Quote
Shvak wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Ali Aras wrote:Asking questions here so I don't have to assume the answers are NDA'd...
What happens if a small fleet warps in? Say three people-- does it announce three of them, or just one? Also, what's the radius of the announcement? There is a few second "cooldown" on the notification so it doesn-¦t get spammed when a bunch of people warp in. So in the case of three warping in, only one notification is sent out. People just have to use the intelligence tools at their disposal to discern the level of threat. I am going to laugh at this because it deserves it. A single ship can steal all the isk the ESS contains so that makes a single ship just as much of a threat as a fleet. This is a nullsec roaming nulified ceptor pilots dream
By "discerning the threat" to probably mean look at local to see if a lone ceptor is going to be waiting for you at the EES or a 20 man fleet. +1 |
Jake Lanks
Stillwater Corporation
31
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:13:00 -
[647] - Quote
ESS is a epic fail... Angels...are never far |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:14:00 -
[648] - Quote
I applaud any feature that make PVE less attractive and increase PVP opportunities. And yes the reduction in ISK income is graat from two aspects (1) quell inflation in market and ships actually flown into PVP and (2) ensuring EVE profitiability.
Unlike some I realize that features that cause a few more people have to occasionally buy PLEX to replace ships - results in CCP being able to introduce better game play features and the less likely EVE is to die. Quit whining and pay up -- or get the hell out of our game cheapskate carebear. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1935
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:19:00 -
[649] - Quote
Udonor wrote:I applaud any feature that make PVE less attractive and increase PVP opportunities. And yes the reduction in ISK income is graat from two aspects (1) quell inflation in market and ships actually flown into PVP and (2) ensuring EVE profitiability.
Unlike some I realize that features that cause a few more people have to occasionally buy PLEX to replace ships - results in CCP being able to introduce better game play features and the less likely EVE is to die. Quit whining and pay up -- or get the hell out of our game cheapskate carebear.
Oh, so you are encouraging the play to win model...brilliant. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:23:00 -
[650] - Quote
This is a 5 percent BUFF to nullsec anomaly income.
I really donGÇÿt understand the anger by nullbears in this thread.
You get a new structure which allows ratters to boost their income by 5 percent. All you need to do is deploy this structure, place a low skilled alt within operation range, and push the button once roaming gangs are reported in intel channels, or once they enter local.
Of course it takes 20 seconds for the transmission to begin. You might lose the ship in the bubble to an interceptor. If you got at least some minimal tank, your extra income is safe.
In the beginning roaming gangs might shoot your ESS, but soon they might realize that itGÇÿs not worth bothering at all. Because if nullbear pushes the button frequently, itGÇÿs no fun at all to shoot a 400mm plated magnate and a battleship tanked ESS for a million bucks.
Also you donGÇÿt have to keep ESS up all day long. You can deploy it when you start ratting, and scoop it to your cargohold an hour later, when you stop ratting.
I really donGÇÿt get it. Nullbears place dozens of large warp disruptors (T1 and even T2) at gates. I have seen gates in 0.0 with so many warp disruptors, you could buy a marauder for this sum of ISK. So why care about a single 30m structure? Ridiculous.
My problem with ESS is of a different nature: I donGÇÿt like the way it is operated. Instead of a single transaction I would prefer a gas station approach: the longer somebody tries to steal ISK from it, the more ISK he gets. For example: ESS has stored 100 million ISK, I warp to it, start "hacking", then I get one transaction (or tag, whatever) for every x seconds. For example 1 million ISK in 10 seconds. It would take a longer time to deplete the ISK pool. This would allow for defenders to form a defense fleet. At the same time it would allow the attackers to better find the "pain point" of the defenders, and force a reaction.
This is only an example. Obviously you would have to find the right formula. Maybe the structure would have to boost income much more, in order to make it attractive. And maybe this should even be a permanent feature of the iHub, not a deployable. I donGÇÿt know.
But what I do know is that the rage in this thread is silly. ItGÇÿs a 5 percent income boost for nullbears, for godGÇÿs sake! |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1076
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:23:00 -
[651] - Quote
I just think the values are tooo small will not be attractive. 90% ad 110% probably would trigger a wide usage. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:28:00 -
[652] - Quote
Selnix wrote:All hail the newest meta in Interceptors online!
[Malediction, suicide cyno] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II Expanded Cargohold II
Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II
Cynosural Field Generator I [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Cargohold Optimization I Small Cargohold Optimization I
So why, you might ask, am I posting such a thing in this feedback thread? To put it simply, CCP are giving us an Easter Egg, a hidden gift that is shiny and good. While the ability to cyno fit an interceptor that can disregard bubbles has been around for a while now, the ability to act as a slow interdictor is just around the corner.
With the above cargo expansion fit you will now be able to warp onto that pesky ratting carrier, point them and drop your ESS deployable bubble while scooting out to a respectable distance that puts you just out of neut range with your cap stable point for the nice short 60 second activation timer. Naturally, dropping cyno is your single most vulnerable moment while bringing in the cavalry so having the fiend stuck well within a bubble as your cyno vessel is rendered to spacedust is quite beneficial. The baiting and drag bubbling options that it opens up are also nice.
TL:DR = Super Friends have created a mobile deployable bubble with comparable range to a medium T2, smaller cargo volume requirements, around triple the raw EHP, half the onlining time without the need to stick around to anchor it, a vast skill requirement reduction to Anchoring II, a beacon that will allow your friends to warp in on the target even if you were to be explodified, and a shiny notification to let you know when there is someone inbound to it (mother of drag bubbles).
Thank you Super Friends!
P.S. CCP Fozzie - Please give us those mobile drug labs you mentioned.
GǪor you could simply kill the carrier with your 10 dudes roaming fleet. Instead of this ridiculously complicated maneuver. What a silly idea. Then again, youGÇÿre a PL dude. Cyno, hotdrop, supercarriers GÇô-áthatGÇÿs your game. |
FaulEnza N00bist
The Squad Yulai Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:30:00 -
[653] - Quote
Sean Decker, former EA Executive, now with CPP, enter CCP headquarter: Emplyee: "Is that you or it is getting dumber in here?" Decker: ""
Conclusion: since Decker/EA works with CCP, the total number of stupid ideas shoots through the clouds.
Prediction: there will be no more rage quits, we will see more reason quits. |
Mila Black
Epidemic. Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:39:00 -
[654] - Quote
I like the creativity in the idea. Instead of a base nerf or buff, a mechanic is introduced. Meaning it can be both depending on the player(s).
In general I dont like this messing with nullsec bounties. I believe it will lead to more of us switching to incursions and less targets for hunting gangs. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8436
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:42:00 -
[655] - Quote
FaulEnza N00bist wrote:Sean Decker, former EA Executive, now with CPP, enter CCP headquarter: Emplyee: "Is that you or it is getting dumber in here?" Decker: " " Conclusion: since Decker/EA works with CCP, the total number of stupid ideas shoots through the clouds. Prediction: there will be no more rage quits, we will see more reason quits. Reason quit is a nuclear option. I'm only prepared to use it if I know a lot of people are going to follow me. This is frustrating but it's nowhere near that bad. My EVE Videos |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
680
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:45:00 -
[656] - Quote
I think I may have a handle on the process that spawned this trash idea.
*tinfoil*
9 Months ago (pre-interceptors online and pre-warp speed changes)
CCP: Hey, we have an idea to make it so you have to fight for a percentage of what you earn in null.
CSM: OK, seems cool, but null residents wouldn't like it...maybe you should add a way of increasing rewards?
CCP: Alrighty then, let's make it like the i-hub upgrades that we promised to iterate on, it will gradually make you more isk
CSM: Wait, so anyone can warp to and take from this thing? How will that work? Won't it be too easy for people to run in and scoop your hard work?
CCP: Fair Point. OK, we'll put a bubble around the thing and make it so there's a system-wide notification when someone lands on it. Oh, and make whoever is trying to steal the things wait 40 seconds. That's plenty of time to dock your battleship and go out and fight for it....right?
CSM: Sounds good, it's not as though battleships take almost a minute just to accelerate and decelerate, or interceptors are immune to bubbles or anything...
*/tinfoil*
I'd really like to know if this feature was indeed discussed at the summer summit. If it was, and got shelved, did team superfriends/CCP really think that tacking all these extra conditions onto a flawed concept was going to make it work?
I'd like to reiterate from a previous post: If this wasn't the idea that got shelved, what could possibly have been worse? Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Snoodaard Thrasy
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:51:00 -
[657] - Quote
Hmm. That is an interesting thought.
How about the following notion: a station upgrade (read: some special bounty office) that buffs bounty payout in system (let's say 10%), but is hackable and can yield the 10% bonus that all ratters in system have received but not gotten paid out yet. The bounty bonus pays out ever hour rather than 20 minutes so there is potentially a lot of ISK in there, worth defending, worth hacking. Face the enemy as a solid wall For faith is your armor And through it, the enemy will find no breach The Scriptures, Amarr Askura 10:3 |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
396
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:54:00 -
[658] - Quote
Well I can see some fun with this.
I am in a smart bombing BS cloaked off of ESS. An interceptor comes in ratting system and warps to ESS hoping to get some free tags.
I uncloak when he lands & smart bomb him back home. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Jaz Antollare
Deadly Loneliness
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 14:58:00 -
[659] - Quote
Like I see the main reason for the ESS, its not worthless, it annoys people and generates tension (it generates it on the forum in such amount, I dunno what will happen IN game). If you dont like it , dont use it, if you dont like that somebody else uses it, just shoot it, dont see a real problem here.
DEVs you have my support on this new structures! |
MasterAsher
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:02:00 -
[660] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:This is a 5 percent BUFF to nullsec anomaly income.
I really donGÇÿt understand the anger by nullbears in this thread.
You get a new structure which allows ratters to boost their income by 5 percent. All you need to do is deploy this structure, place a low skilled alt within operation range, and push the button once roaming gangs are reported in intel channels, or once they enter local.
Of course it takes 20 seconds for the transmission to begin. You might lose the ship in the bubble to an interceptor. If you got at least some minimal tank, your extra income is safe.
In the beginning roaming gangs might shoot your ESS, but soon they might realize that itGÇÿs not worth bothering at all. Because if nullbear pushes the button frequently, itGÇÿs no fun at all to shoot a 400mm plated magnate and a battleship tanked ESS for a million bucks.
Also you donGÇÿt have to keep ESS up all day long. You can deploy it when you start ratting, and scoop it to your cargohold an hour later, when you stop ratting.
I really donGÇÿt get it. Nullbears place dozens of large warp disruptors (T1 and even T2) at gates. I have seen gates in 0.0 with so many warp disruptors, you could buy a marauder for this sum of ISK. So why care about a single 30m structure? Ridiculous.
My problem with ESS is of a different nature: I donGÇÿt like the way it is operated. Instead of a single transaction I would prefer a gas station approach: the longer somebody tries to steal ISK from it, the more ISK he gets. For example: ESS has stored 100 million ISK, I warp to it, start "hacking", then I get one transaction (or tag, whatever) for every x seconds. For example 1 million ISK in 10 seconds. It would take a longer time to deplete the ISK pool. This would allow for defenders to form a defense fleet. At the same time it would allow the attackers to better find the "pain point" of the defenders, and force a reaction.
This is only an example. Obviously you would have to find the right formula. Maybe the structure would have to boost income much more, in order to make it attractive. And maybe this should even be a permanent feature of the iHub, not a deployable. I donGÇÿt know.
But what I do know is that the rage in this thread is silly. ItGÇÿs a 5 percent income boost for nullbears, for godGÇÿs sake!
The ess resets every time you empty it....it takes 1 person 6+ hours to get it back to 5% extra. A few people ccp said it will take about 30mins or so...you dont get the bonus from the rats until the bonus ticks up already. So it will never be a 5% boost. Not to mention having to empty it often because you know reds roam through your space all the time. Plus that alt you are wasting to watch the ess could be use to rat...earning double instead of 5% more.
There is no reason to ever use this. As a roamer why waste 30m on a unit that no one will come to fight you over...only after you have already left will they deal with this.
If ccp is gonna do this make it so every sec gets this upgrade so everyone gets equally annoyed. Otherwise it would just be better to nerf anoms by 5% and forget this idea ever existed, because that's all this module is doing anyway.
|
|
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
359
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:08:00 -
[661] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:My problem with ESS is of a different nature: I donGÇÿt like the way it is operated. Instead of a single transaction I would prefer a gas station approach: the longer somebody tries to steal ISK from it, the more ISK he gets. For example: ESS has stored 100 million ISK, I warp to it, start "hacking", then I get one transaction (or tag, whatever) for every x seconds. For example 1 million ISK in 10 seconds. It would take a longer time to deplete the ISK pool. This would allow for defenders to form a defense fleet. At the same time it would allow the attackers to better find the "pain point" of the defenders, and force a reaction.
This is only an example. Obviously you would have to find the right formula. Maybe the structure would have to boost income much more, in order to make it attractive. And maybe this should even be a permanent feature of the iHub, not a deployable. I donGÇÿt know.
This is an excellent improvement proposal! I second that! |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4318
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:10:00 -
[662] - Quote
Jaz Antollare wrote:Like I see the main reason for the ESS, its not worthless, it annoys people and generates tension (it generates it on the forum in such amount, I dunno what will happen IN game). If you dont like it , dont use it, if you dont like that somebody else uses it, just shoot it, dont see a real problem here.
DEVs you have my support on this new structures!
This is a gross misunderstanding of the issue. The main issue being that EVE doesn't just have null sec rats. As with the 1st anomaly nerf, the most probably outcome is more people choosing safer space to make isk in rather than being in null getting shafted for 5 to 20% of their income. This is bad because having people in null being targets is so much better for the game than having those some people running missions and incursions in safety.
I'm already in high sec to make my isk because null is a lot of hassle for not much more reward. I had hope CCP would give us something to make null attractive to folks like me (people would would rather pve in null but who have high sec alts to avoid the potential interruptions of null pve).
But instead we're getting a double whammy, the Nestor (whose availability in high sec means even higher for sisters LP as people buy it instead of the probes/proble launcers and virtue implants etc etc ) and a whacked out ESS module that amounts to an across the board nerf to null sec and only null sec (at least for now).
Whatever ccp does i'll live with it, but this is seriously stupid.
|
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Northern Associates.
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:11:00 -
[663] - Quote
1Robert McNamara1 wrote:Best Renter Nerf Ever. It's bubbled, ffs, that's awesome. with a delay in how quickly I can get isk. So interceptor and nullified T3 advantage is reduced.
Wrong... you can warp in, trigger the timer, warp out... then warp back 40 seconds later, scoop the can, and warp off again. There is almost ZERO risk to someone ninjaing the isk in a nullified ship (ceptor/t3). We tested it on SISI last night.
Quote:This does not work for Renters. Renters get to suck it. Renting without an ESS is vulnerable to a cloaky scab who drops an ESS to steal your ratting income. They camp with a cov-cyno and the renter is literally powerless no matter who dropped the ESS.
Flaw in your logic: Most renters safe up the second a neut hits local. They don't continue ratting so dropping an ESS while you're in system gains you absolutely nothing. In the rare situations where renters who continue to rat but pull backup would simply warp snipers in (remember you can just use a cloaky nullified T3 to make a fast bookmark for snipers to warp to so the bubble is useless, nuke the ESS from range, and laugh at the cloaky cyno guy wasting his isk on a module that gave him no benefit.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." |
Alexander Stormborn
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:14:00 -
[664] - Quote
Fix old buggy stuffs before putting new ones. |
Cor Six
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:22:00 -
[665] - Quote
I just cant understand what the ESS will be good for. The that you get to be able to protect it is way to low. You wont even be able to get pilots to reshipp in time. The bonus you get from using this module is way to low for it ever beeing worth using and if some random puts one up you just leave for a other system or blow it up with tornados from 110km range wile aligned out so you can insta warp if someone tryes to get you.
Pointless moduel that wont spawn any PVP just nerfing moer income. Seems just as usless as the siphones.
Instead of making **** moduels like this. Make a bottom up income system for alliances. Mby a ihub type installation that works kind of like the ESS? That makes it posible to tax ratting income in the system as you can tax income on a poco. But the structure costs abit, have around the same HP as a POCO and has reff timers?
Or if you feel so happy about the ESS atleast make it posible to get some PVP from it. 40 sec is just idotic. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:26:00 -
[666] - Quote
MasterAsher wrote:Tahnil wrote:This is a 5 percent BUFF to nullsec anomaly income. The ess resets every time you empty it....it takes 1 person 6+ hours to get it back to 5% extra. A few people ccp said it will take about 30mins or so...you dont get the bonus from the rats until the bonus ticks up already. So it will never be a 5% boost. Not to mention having to empty it often because you know reds roam through your space all the time. Plus that alt you are wasting to watch the ess could be use to rat...earning double instead of 5% more. There is no reason to ever use this. As a roamer why waste 30m on a unit that no one will come to fight you over...only after you have already left will they deal with this. If ccp is gonna do this make it so every sec gets this upgrade so everyone gets equally annoyed. Otherwise it would just be better to nerf anoms by 5% and forget this idea ever existed, because that's all this module is doing anyway.
I re-examined the Devblog, and you are right:
Quote:The payout level of an ESS is reset if it is destroyed, scooped or when it is accessed and the system-wide pool is distributed.
BUT ratting systems (as I know them) are used by several pilots at once. Therefore it takes only a fraction of 6 hours to push payment from 100 % to 105 %. For example 30 minutes.
I still think that this mechanic is a boost to overall nullbear income, not a nerf. And the more ratters share one ESS, the more they gain by it.
I would say: letGÇÿs give this deployable module a fair chance. Maybe it's fun after all :-) |
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Insidious Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:30:00 -
[667] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback.
Thanks for being a useless wast of space CSM. Calling this useful wow really? How can anyone justify wasting dev time on such a stupid feature. What about TIDI, POS Code, Corp management .. I could go on long list to go. Instead we get a useless structure and a 5% nerf to income when Drone region income is already 30% below anyone else's combined with that fact that there is no loot no faction loot no plex loot and no hacking & analyzing sites good job CCP. Really glad you use the 150 bucks I spend on subscriptions every month so well. |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:34:00 -
[668] - Quote
Have they answered what happens if an ESS is in the middle of a print job and it is destroyed?
Also, the tags that it prints, do these always get looted? Or can the loot fairy deny them? |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
681
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:42:00 -
[669] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
BUT ratting systems (as I know them) are used by several pilots at once. Therefore it takes only a fraction of 6 hours to push payment from 100 % to 105 %. For example 30 minutes.
I still think that this mechanic is a boost to overall nullbear income, not a nerf. And the more ratters share one ESS, the more they gain by it.
I would say: letGÇÿs give this deployable module a fair chance. Maybe it's fun after all :-)
You didn't even bother to read the thread did you? It's still 10 ishtar-hours no matter how you split it up, to recoup the cost of the module, let alone see a benefit from it.
10 ishtar-hours that are required EVERY TIME THE MODULE IS EMPTIED.
In other words, let's say that an interceptor comes through once every hour (it's more often now, and I guarantee much more often once this is in place). You would need 10 pilots in ishtar-equivalent ships (in terms of bounties) to break through to 'normal' income in that hour, not to mention the alt in an ibis sitting there to push the button every time a hostile comes into system. An alt that could have been another ishtar pilot. This is assuming there are systems in nullsec capable of supporting 10 ishtars (hint: there aren't).
There is no justification that can be made for this idea, it is just plain bad. At the risk of sounding cliche, if you can't see why it's bad, you are in fact, bad.
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4318
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:47:00 -
[670] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Tahnil wrote:
BUT ratting systems (as I know them) are used by several pilots at once. Therefore it takes only a fraction of 6 hours to push payment from 100 % to 105 %. For example 30 minutes.
I still think that this mechanic is a boost to overall nullbear income, not a nerf. And the more ratters share one ESS, the more they gain by it.
I would say: letGÇÿs give this deployable module a fair chance. Maybe it's fun after all :-)
You didn't even bother to read the thread did you? It's still 10 ishtar-hours no matter how you split it up, to recoup the cost of the module, let alone see a benefit from it. 10 ishtar-hours that are required EVERY TIME THE MODULE IS EMPTIED. In other words, let's say that an interceptor comes through once every hour (it's more often now, and I guarantee much more often once this is in place). You would need 10 pilots in ishtar-equivalent ships (in terms of bounties) to break through to 'normal' income in that hour, not to mention the alt in an ibis sitting there to push the button every time a hostile comes into system. An alt that could have been another ishtar pilot. This is assuming there are systems in nullsec capable of supporting 10 ishtars (hint: there aren't). There is no justification that can be made for this idea, it is just plain bad. At the risk of sounding cliche, if you can't see why it's bad, you are in fact, bad.
Let me ask you something Eram, does it sometimes feel like you're the only poster capable of doing math?
Because from here, that's what it seems like, all the people who think these things are a good idea just aren't doing the math or listening. These things will end up pushing people away for doing pve in null and that's just ridiculous.
It's like nothing was learned from the anom nerf. |
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
683
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:49:00 -
[671] - Quote
Well there's still people officer-fitting mission ships, falling for margin scams, and selling products below mineral value, so I'd have to say there are many, many people who play this game who don't even understand what math is, nevermind how to do it.
edit: but they still feel inclined to post on math-related matters Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Pirate Nation.
317
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:50:00 -
[672] - Quote
CCP why don't you just adjust the modules so that it has the same affect as putting in a military upgrade in an IHUB with the grind, make it so that this will also work on top of IHUB's, and that you can have 5 of them in a system, remove the bubble and make it so that they can be hidden by that D-Scan/probe blocker. Then you will get more people in 0.0 and people like me can seed a rubbish system that others own but never use!!! If you do not want LOCAL go to WH space,-áand those people who think that WH space is like 0.0 but without local,-álight a cyno and try jumping to it.-á-á There is a structural issue with Eve, based on accounts with no link, vast reserves of ISK-áand plex, which makes it too easy to metagame the destruction of small alliances. |
Destiven Mare
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:51:00 -
[673] - Quote
After reading this thread and absorbing the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to the ESS, I am beginning to wonder whether CCP will listen to the vast majority of players and shelve this overly complicated, nerf to null//free, zero risk atm machine for interceptors or attempt to assert in loco parentis and force this down our throats, irrespective of logical protest.
Every once in awhile, it is both a good idea and good public relations to eat crow, admit that an idea was a good boardroom discussion but badly produced, scrap a product which the vast majority of your consumers do not want and move on. This is an excellent opportunity for CCP to gain some goodwill with the player base. I truly hope CCP seizes this opportunity instead of squandering it. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:54:00 -
[674] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:Tahnil wrote:
BUT ratting systems (as I know them) are used by several pilots at once. Therefore it takes only a fraction of 6 hours to push payment from 100 % to 105 %. For example 30 minutes.
I still think that this mechanic is a boost to overall nullbear income, not a nerf. And the more ratters share one ESS, the more they gain by it.
I would say: letGÇÿs give this deployable module a fair chance. Maybe it's fun after all :-)
You didn't even bother to read the thread did you? It's still 10 ishtar-hours no matter how you split it up, to recoup the cost of the module, let alone see a benefit from it. 10 ishtar-hours that are required EVERY TIME THE MODULE IS EMPTIED. In other words, let's say that an interceptor comes through once every hour (it's more often now, and I guarantee much more often once this is in place). You would need 10 pilots in ishtar-equivalent ships (in terms of bounties) to break through to 'normal' income in that hour, not to mention the alt in an ibis sitting there to push the button every time a hostile comes into system. An alt that could have been another ishtar pilot. This is assuming there are systems in nullsec capable of supporting 10 ishtars (hint: there aren't). There is no justification that can be made for this idea, it is just plain bad. At the risk of sounding cliche, if you can't see why it's bad, you are in fact, bad.
If I break down your posting, I think your main concern are the numbers, not the idea behind this deployable itself. I can imagine that CCP wants to start with conservative numbers, and thatGÇÿs fine imho. When they overhauled faction war, they broke the whole system by creating an ISK bonanza, where no-skill alts earned 500 million ISK per hour out of the blue.
I would give the module a shot, and then re-balance the numbers some weeks later. After all: nobody is forced to use this module. If you do, you have at least the same income as before, plus X.
Two more thoughts:
1) If itGÇÿs really true that interceptors disturb nullbear ratting every hour, then I should immediately join some null alliance. Cause it would be very funny to wait with an insta-locking Thrasher or other Destroyer near an ESS and pop any landing interceptors.
2) I still prefer a modified design of the ESS, which will not come to pass. Instead of a single payment I would prefer a payment over time. For example 1% of the stored ISK pool every 10 seconds, either in ISK or in tags. That would force attackers to stay on grid, give defenders a chance to find a suitable response, and allow attackers to bait more efficiently by looking for the "pain point" of the defenders (when will losses start to hurt?). |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 15:56:00 -
[675] - Quote
CCP are going to need a few more barrels to collect all these null-sec tears. Looks like people are already thinking outside the box as to how the ESS can be deployed to serve another purpose. I'm undecided as to whether the ESS is a good or bad idea. On balance I would rather see developer man/woman hours used to fix broken parts of EVE Online. Corp roles & permissions anyone ???
Not so long ago we saw a flood of tears from the introduction of POCO in high sec. What goes around comes around. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4318
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:00:00 -
[676] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:CCP are going to need a few more barrels to collect all these null-sec tears. Looks like people are already thinking outside the box as to how the ESS can be deployed to serve another purpose. I'm undecided as to whether the ESS is a good or bad idea. On balance I would rather see developer man/woman hours used to fix broken parts of EVE Online. Corp roles & permissions anyone ??? Not so long ago we saw a flood of tears from the introduction of POCO in high sec. What goes around comes around.
This time what will go around is more null sec people in high sec because null sec income is getting a nerf. So whle you smile now with glee, you won't be smiling as more and more of us realize that ganking folk in high sec is better isk than ratting now lol.
What goes around, comes around to smack yo in the arse parts.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:02:00 -
[677] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:CCP are going to need a few more barrels to collect all these null-sec tears. Looks like people are already thinking outside the box as to how the ESS can be deployed to serve another purpose. I'm undecided as to whether the ESS is a good or bad idea. On balance I would rather see developer man/woman hours used to fix broken parts of EVE Online. Corp roles & permissions anyone ??? Not so long ago we saw a flood of tears from the introduction of POCO in high sec. What goes around comes around. This time what will go around is more null sec people in high sec because null sec income is getting a nerf. So whle you smile now with glee, you won't be smiling as more and more of us realize that ganking folk in high sec is better isk than ratting now lol. What goes around, comes around to smack yo in the arse parts.
Hehe. You're probably right. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
546
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:07:00 -
[678] - Quote
675 posts in the first 25 hours, that's 27 posts/hour. Not all of them are equally outraged, some posters entirely misunderstand the ESS and/or NullSec. and are positive, but most posts are somewhere between *facepalm* and "set CCP HQ on fire". I hope it will take CCP less than 23 hours to figure out how to backpedal on this one! Although I find it funny that CCP stopped posting yesterday, and has not responded AT ALL today. Makes you wonder if they know what kind of landmine they placed, turned on, and immediately jumped upon ... |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:18:00 -
[679] - Quote
Right, I've been holding off commenting on this till now, but things that have to be said, have to be said.
I get where CCP is coming from with this. Null-sec isn't as worthwhile as it should be, resulting in 90% of the time people just staying in their corners and doing their thing.
The ESS is supposed to do three things:
1: Make null more valuable for Sov holders 2: Give small gangs a reward other than loot drops 3: Cause more battles for Sov because null is more valuable.
Here's the problems with each purpose:
1: No one is going to deploy these things in their own space. They're literally not worth the risk. 2: The only way small gangs are going to benefit is by dropping their own, and possibly scooping a few thousand isk. 3: This has made Null worth less, not more.
So, what's the real reason these aren't so great at all? They're trying to do three things. They're a jack of three trades, and a master of none. I really hope that even the guys who are championing the idea realise they're more likely to see an empty Golden magnate floating in space than see one of these willingly put in space by a sane Null inhabitant.
So, how do we fix the ESS? We don't. Abort it. Go back to the drawing board and address each nullsec problem with an individual fix.
Here's some ideas!
1: Make nullsec worthwhile. Work on anomalies, make anoms that require effort (not an orbiting droneboat!) and give greater rewards. NOTE: this doesn't mean nerf the hell out of existing things like has been done before, it means making new things. 2: You want to give small gangs a goal in nullsec other than getting kills? Make some sort of special deadspace mission you start in NPC null and end in a random spot in sov null. Fluff it as supplying the resident rats with stuff to kill the sov holders. 3: You want more battles for sov? Just make null more valuable. See #1.
In short: If you're really going ahead with this? Just don't bother. Just reduce all ratting bounties by 5% and save the item database from being bloated further by 1 more object that will see no use. I totally understand that Superfriends might be disappointed by the feedback their new thing is getting, but that's life. I've worked on projects for clients and poured my heart and soul into it, and the client's thrown it back in my team's face. It happens, the best answer is to learn from it, listen to feedback and just move on. |
Zircon Dasher
320
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:23:00 -
[680] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:The payout level of an ESS is reset if it is destroyed, scooped or when it is accessed and the system-wide pool is distributed.
Can't get on to test for the next few days. Is there a time limit on how long the ESS can be accessed without distributing the pool? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
683
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:23:00 -
[681] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:If I break down your posting, I think your main concern are the numbers, not the idea behind this deployable itself. The numbers are the last concern, and were the subject of that one post by me, yes. I get the feeling you didn't actually read the thread though, because I specifically stated in an earlier post that "no amount of numbers tweaking can fix a fundamentally flawed idea".
Two more thoughts:
1) If itGÇÿs really true that interceptors disturb nullbear ratting every hour, then I should immediately join some null alliance. Cause it would be very funny to wait with an insta-locking Thrasher or other Destroyer near an ESS and pop any landing interceptors.
Yep it sure would be hilarious to see you spend time and an account 'guarding' your 5% income boost against a ship that does not get pulled into bubbles (hint: they can warp at range).
2) I still prefer a modified design of the ESS, which will not come to pass. Instead of a single payment I would prefer a payment over time. For example 1% of the stored ISK pool every 10 seconds, either in ISK or in tags. That would force attackers to stay on grid, give defenders a chance to find a suitable response, and allow attackers to bait more efficiently by looking for the "pain point" of the defenders (when will losses start to hurt?).
[b]A decent proposal, which still doesn't address the question: why the hell would anyone in their right mind put one of these up in their own space?
I guess one answer to that question would be: "To prevent hostile interceptors from deploying an OP drag bubble with "idiot magnet" attached to it"
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
369
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:25:00 -
[682] - Quote
Destiven Mare wrote:After reading this thread and absorbing the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to the ESS, I am beginning to wonder whether CCP will listen to the vast majority of players and shelve this overly complicated, nerf to null//free, zero risk atm machine for interceptors or attempt to assert in loco parentis and force this down our throats, irrespective of logical protest.
how you even dare to ask? of course they'll force it down our throats.
player are happy since CSM said it was good you know, so the bazillions post in forum, even after it being released, will not be relevant in any way.
this is how CCP's working since 2 years (uni inv, rebalances: matars pilots thanks you so much!, exploration, loot bukkake, ceptors....), why should it be different now?
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
478
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:26:00 -
[683] - Quote
The unintended use of the ESS as a better medium bubble is completely lol-worthy. This alone should get it pulled.
The risk vs reward is totally unbalanced for ratters, especially when they can just go to hisec and run missions, incursions, or losec for FW.
And as much fun as I thought it would be to drop these in ratting systems and blops drop anyone that comes to it, the possibility of locals simply warping a covops in and establishing a perch from where they can blap it with snipers pretty much screws this idea. That being said, a lot of nul-bears are pretty dumb and/or lazy and won't think of that.
I am still curious to see how many ratting systems actually use them. Mark my words: some will.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3366
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:27:00 -
[684] - Quote
It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:29:00 -
[685] - Quote
Good god, anyone who thinks this deployable will create any PvP content in nullsec is either stupid or completely ignorant of how nullsec works. Let me break it down for you:
1. PvE content in eve is such a tedious, god awful grind that tbh most days I can barely talk myself into warping to a site and pressing F1 on my drone bunny ship. So with this deployable introduced I can either accept a 5% income nerf or I can spend 30m on a deployable which must sit there for hours for me to get a return, requires additional tedious mechanics for me to print tags, requires me to babysit it, and can be looted/destroyed before I can dock/reship by any of the multitude of risk-averse interceptor gangs that come through nullsec every day. As a result, NOONE who actually resides in nullsec will use one of these. No PvP opportunities here, moving on...
2. Roaming gangs will not use this deployable because when neutrals enter a system, everyone ratting docks up. Since noone is ratting there is no reduction in income for the local residents to worry about and no isk generated by the ESS. Nullbears that do not normally engage in home defense will not start all of the sudden because the ESS exists. With the deployable generating no income and no PvP the gang can either sit there all day and camp (boring for them) or move on. If they leave the ESS behind the locals will just warp to it and destroy it as soon as they leave. No PvP opportunities here either.
The mechanics of how this deployable works do not matter one bit. This can't be played with and "fixed". There is literally no reason to use it (other than the low skill superbubble mentioned earlier) for either locals or roaming gangs. Therefore it amounts to nothing but a 5% income nerf for all nullsec ratters while accomplishing none of the "intended" outcomes of deploying the module.
Anyone on CSM who supported this - do you even play this game? Please do us all a favor and resign. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
371
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:31:00 -
[686] - Quote
FaulEnza N00bist wrote:Sean Decker, former EA Executive, now with CPP, enter CCP headquarter: Emplyee: "Is that you or it is getting dumber in here?" Decker: " " Conclusion: since Decker/EA works with CCP, the total number of stupid ideas shoots through the clouds. Prediction: there will be no more rage quits, we will see more reason quits. if only players warned about that....oh wait.....
sorry CCP, my wallet as a brain, and he says NO, 2 account remaining, 1 expire in 4 days, the last is runing till march - april i think, don't expect me to resub. wondering if i should since last year, the answer become more clear as deadline is coming up |
Zircon Dasher
320
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:35:00 -
[687] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:FaulEnza N00bist wrote:Sean Decker, former EA Executive, now with CPP, enter CCP headquarter: Emplyee: "Is that you or it is getting dumber in here?" Decker: " " Conclusion: since Decker/EA works with CCP, the total number of stupid ideas shoots through the clouds. Prediction: there will be no more rage quits, we will see more reason quits. if only players warned about that....oh wait..... sorry CCP, my wallet as a brain, and he says NO, 2 account remaining, 1 expire in 4 days, the last is runing till march - april i think, don't expect me to resub. wondering if i should since last year, the answer become more clear as deadline is coming up
Can I haz stuff? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
658
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:35:00 -
[688] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Isn't there any legacy code that could stop you from introducing pointless stuff like ESS and/or MMJD? No, but our long term goal is to have the ESS code become a legacy code that kills good ideas 7 years down the road.
7 years lolol.....you have been giving us pointless crap like this for ages instead of fixing some of the broken stuff that has been there for years...
And you are all so smug about it.....jeez
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
371
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:40:00 -
[689] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:675 posts in the first 25 hours, that's 27 posts/hour. Not all of them are equally outraged, some posters entirely misunderstand the ESS and/or NullSec. and are positive, but most posts are somewhere between *facepalm* and "set CCP HQ on fire". I hope it will take CCP less than 23 hours to figure out how to backpedal on this one! Although I find it funny that CCP stopped posting yesterday, and has not responded AT ALL today. Makes you wonder if they know what kind of landmine they placed, turned on, and immediately jumped upon ... they did the same for unified inventory, for the jump animation, for the odyssey explo / loot spew, or.....well, you get the picture
they'll just ignore the player again, and release it more or less as it is, without any single bit of consideration for the players.
unfortunately, unless something big enought happen, without a massive protest, the'll just continue doing so..... |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
362
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:41:00 -
[690] - Quote
I think I have to agree that the incentive to set one up isn't great enough. 105% isn't all that much for the risk considering you can just lose 5% instead.
I know people claim 20 - 25 mill ticks in null sec ratting so you're looking at an extra 4 mill a tick at the very most with the risk of losing about 5 mill from what you get from ratting now.
The increased payout should be closer to 110% or if you're going to release higher meta levels of this structure the more expensive ESS versions should push this to 110%. |
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
371
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:41:00 -
[691] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:seth Hendar wrote:FaulEnza N00bist wrote:Sean Decker, former EA Executive, now with CPP, enter CCP headquarter: Emplyee: "Is that you or it is getting dumber in here?" Decker: " " Conclusion: since Decker/EA works with CCP, the total number of stupid ideas shoots through the clouds. Prediction: there will be no more rage quits, we will see more reason quits. if only players warned about that....oh wait..... sorry CCP, my wallet as a brain, and he says NO, 2 account remaining, 1 expire in 4 days, the last is runing till march - april i think, don't expect me to resub. wondering if i should since last year, the answer become more clear as deadline is coming up Can I haz stuff? no, stuff will be handed to my corp, in the intend to help the new players, sorry |
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1276
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:43:00 -
[692] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:675 posts in the first 25 hours, that's 27 posts/hour. Not all of them are equally outraged, some posters entirely misunderstand the ESS and/or NullSec. and are positive, but most posts are somewhere between *facepalm* and "set CCP HQ on fire". I hope it will take CCP less than 23 hours to figure out how to backpedal on this one! Although I find it funny that CCP stopped posting yesterday, and has not responded AT ALL today. Makes you wonder if they know what kind of landmine they placed, turned on, and immediately jumped upon ...
They are too busy hi5ing around the office and with CSM over skype and they all take photos in front of wall full of 5 year roadmap. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
658
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:48:00 -
[693] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Weaselior wrote:The problems with this implementation basically boil down to two major issues:
1) Interceptors exist
Interceptors are currently bubble immune and cannot be locked before they warp off. They invalidate nearly any defense you'd put up to guard your ESS. A lot of the balance here assumes you can guard it, which isn't really the case. There's no real viable way to kill an interceptor before it gets there, and with the ability of the interceptor to steal, warp out, and warp back in in 40s to get its tags the inty is virtually unkillable. This may be more of an issue that giving bubble immunity to interceptors was simply a mistake, but it makes the intended balance here not work.
2) A massive inbalance in the risk/reward that makes it a bad bet
You're asking people to risk 15% of their income for a 5% boost. That's a bad bet, especially considering point 1: you can't really do anything to affect the odds. You're going to wind up in the red most of the time, and 5% is not enough for people to want to play this game. Plus, the fact you are dumb enough to deploy an ESS means you're suddenly going to get a lot more interceptors in your space and you will lose a lot more often: word will spread about the people dumb enough to drop ESS that you can steal from and interceptors will decend on your space, losing you the money you risked for the ess, and losing you the money you'd have made while you safe up because hostiles are in your ratting system.
There is a third and larger problem. 3) Much effort goes into being able to rat in nullsec with a measure of safety. When bad ratters are losing ships to hostiles, they are acting as a beacon to draw more hostiles into the region which negatively impacts everyone's income. When smart ratters don't feed kills, fewer people show up to cause trouble. The ESS is essentially giving every roaming fleet free, guaranteed isk, paying them to trample through your space. There is no level of risk vs reward, or level of exposure for the attackers where the ESS becomes desirable for the ratters. As a bounty-siphon, an undesirable hostile module, the ESS could be made to work. Trying to pretend that it will ever be in any way beneficial to the ratters makes me think that whoever designed this has never actually spent any time ratting in nullsec.
Or actually playing Eve. I honestly believe that some of these Devs have never actually undocked.
Come on CCP, give us the name of the bright spark who thought this one up, he/she is a real catch.
|
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 16:55:00 -
[694] - Quote
A thing has just popped in my head in regard to the risk = reward side of the ESS.
Right, picture the scene. You're in a smoky bar on the bad side of town. A man with a badly fitting suit and two fingers missing sits at the table across from you and puts a revolver down with a smirk on his face and says "Hey kid, you wanna play a little roulette?" $200 buy in, you get $1000 per trigger pull.
Maybe it's the drink, or maybe you want to impress someone, or maybe you just want to buy that car you saw earlier today, you agree. The man picks up the gun, pops the chamber open and slides a single bullet in. He looks up at you and says "How about we make it more interesting... we put another bullet in, the prize goes up to $1050.
Yep. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
658
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:06:00 -
[695] - Quote
Major Templar wrote:greiton starfire wrote:im suggesting leave plenty of risk. the timer would be kept short enough to form a quick fleet, but if you are going into enemy space you should be bringing more than 1 or 2 interceptors. the attackers have the advantage of already being organized and having guys on. the defenders would have to respond rapidly to get their fleet into the fight. getting a fleet to a system 10 jumps out takes time. so they wont wait for huge numbers they will throw out a quick fleet. also, hitting groups in off timezones will have major advantages. Defenders have the advantage as the ones having the jumpbridges and since when is it CCPs responsibility to make your vast empire of nothing but ratters more secure? Honestly, look at it like this. Your coalition are the ones who chose to keep expanding and have their main force far away from your ratting/mining systems. How is it then you say that you want more time to form up and come from 10+ jumps away to defend it? No. If you are going to give timers, then take away jump bridges. Simple.
Oooohhh... someone from test posting... so ..you still exist..... |
Callic Veratar
579
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:06:00 -
[696] - Quote
Unfortunately, this is the same group of devs behind wardecs, which are also a stupid mechanic that don't generate conflict in they way it's intended. I expect that the ESS will go forward as announced with no modifications whatsoever.
Those who use it will occasionally benefit, but most of the time will have their money stolen by inteceptors. Much in the same way that wars occasionally result in interesting conflicts, but most of the time result in a corp logging of for a week. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3366
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:22:00 -
[697] - Quote
There is a lot of unjustified hate in this thread!
Wardecs don't cause conflict? Really? That statement is simply moronic!
The ESS is a pretty good idea, it just needs some major tweaks: -- For these to be used, the reward needs to be worth it and they need to be defensible. Increase the payout (at least 1:1), and increase both the access time (make it 3-5 minutes) as well as the time for the can to drop (another 3-5 minutes). Now anyone that feels they can defend it will use it for the rewards. Those that can't will leave it be. But for this to be a conflict driver, the locals MUST get value in using it, and they MUST have time to form up to defend it. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
490
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:29:00 -
[698] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft?
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:29:00 -
[699] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: There is a lot of unjustified hate in this thread!
Wardecs don't cause conflict? Really? That statement is simply moronic!
The ESS is a pretty good idea, it just needs some major tweaks: -- For these to be used, the reward needs to be worth it and they need to be defensible. Increase the payout (at least 1:1), and increase both the access time (make it 3-5 minutes) as well as the time for the can to drop (another 3-5 minutes). Now anyone that feels they can defend it will use it for the rewards. Those that can't will leave it be. But for this to be a conflict driver, the locals MUST get value in using it, and they MUST have time to form up to defend it.
the creation of a loot pinata in space doubling as a ratting booster will never be a good idea.
it's not "fun" to haul around anchorables and use them like this. that's not exciting. it's not interesting, it's not a deep mechanic.
it's contrived and silly.
it doesn't enable anything "new" like siphons or mobile depots etc. it's just an artificial, forced conflict driver. the exact opposite of the kind of emergent sandbox behavior that EVE is known for.
|
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:32:00 -
[700] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
So, you've not actually looked at any feedback at all?
The specifics of this abomination are irrelevant. The premise you built it on is completely wrong.
I have no idea what you think 0.0 is, but everything you are doing suggests that you have no clue how it works. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18869
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:34:00 -
[701] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? 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. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
371
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:36:00 -
[702] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. as usual, your idea of integrating feedback is to take whatever goes in your way and discard the rest (rest being 90%+ of the comments telling you, with many details how and why it is NOT a good idea)
meh |
Warmistress Severine
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:39:00 -
[703] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Well, maybe you guys should look a little bit closer. The whole idea is crap.
Doesn't give more fights, makes ratting more complex in a totally stupid way, small roaming gangs won't use it, coz its stupid and if they would do it, they get stupid tags that they could turn in 40 jumps away.... Whats again as stupid as .... the hole thing.
So man up, cancel this crap and focus on stuff that makes sence. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:39:00 -
[704] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Are you actually able to read? Cause if thats the three things you got from 30+ pages of feedback then i don't know.
Here is a couple options:
Remove the bubble, remove the 5% nerf to nullsec income, remove the 20% initial drawback when module is dropped. increase the potential increase. Then maybe you will see a potential use for this module.
This hole idea is so ******* stupid you should feel ashamed. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4318
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:42:00 -
[705] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants?
+1, it's going in the direct opposite direction from where things should be going ('from the ground up' income for alliances).
The worst part of it to me is the whole "developing in a vacuum" thing, as if those other (less tedious) pve isk making avenues don't even exist. Under this new ESS scheme null inhabitants will have to spend time clearing out ESSs (or defending them) instead of making isk, on top of the time already lost defending space in home fleets or docking up when neutrals enter, which makes non Sov-null pve isk making even less attractive than it already is.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
161
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:43:00 -
[706] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. One thing from Sisi that I didn't discover but a friend of mine did -- if you are outside the 30km range of the ESS and send your drones in to attack it, it announces that "NONE" has gotten close to the ESS.
Regarding interceptors, I'd suggest taking a look at my suggestion earlier about adding the hacking minigame to the ESS. (Relinking because it's easy to have actual suggestions buried under a hailstorm of kneejerk reaction posting.) I understand that it's probably too late in the development cycle for this to make it into the 1.1 release, but I'd strongly suggest adding it, as it removes a lot of the power interceptors have interacting with this module on account of their lack of hull bonuses for hacking. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Oxide Ammar
Equilibrium Tech Labs
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:43:00 -
[707] - Quote
How about adding 0.5-1% extra payout for every true sec less of the system..
Example:
0.0 --- 5% extra payout -0.1 --- 5.5 % extra payout -0.2 --- 6 % Extra payout .... .... -1.0 --- 10 % Extra payout
- by this you will make nullsec alliance use it in way or another. - the max pay out will be in deep deep of the nullsec sov, which to be honest this where most of ratters do their isk farming and if someone really want to go that deep to steal the bounty he is gonna have hard time achieving this and if he succeeded good for him XD.
P.S. but tbh you reap what you sow, most of you cheered up for CCP regarding interceptor buff and the game turned to be interceptor online, which was utterly broken. now every new feature (good or bad) you find interceptors are taking advantage (even abusing!) of it more than others. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
440
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:44:00 -
[708] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
*WOOOOOOOOOOSH*
Hear that? That's the fundamental design flaws flying right on past you. I hope you've enjoyed wasting your time creating the next useless item to clog up the database.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
161
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:45:00 -
[709] - Quote
Oh, and regarding the warp bubble portion being too good compared to mobile warp disruptors, there's an easy conceptual fix -- make the bubble require X amount of time before it comes online, or simply increase the anchoring time of the deployable period. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Kalenn Istarion
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:46:00 -
[710] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
I can see what you're trying to go for with this, but as implemented it's literally terrible for ratters, as:
a) nullsec ratting income already sucks versus many other income options, and making it worse is not going to improve the viability of living in nullsec b) The amount of EHP means that this thing would take a DPS-fit T3 cruiser 2.5 minutes to burn down, never mind most normal ratting fits c) The appeal of running one of these in a system is next to zero, as you're putting far too much value at risk for a relatively low benefit. No-one is going to leave 20% of their income sitting in a magic space box at the risk of literally anyone coming along and stealing it. d) what's the time to push the box up to 25% pay? If it's anything longer than a reasonable person might spend ratting, it's pointless, for the reason I noted in c) - no-one is going to leave their income sitting around when they log off. Try Harder. |
|
Hi O
Galactic Organization of Tariff and Trade.
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:46:00 -
[711] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:The tears in this thread a delicious
We get it. You like sucking down bodily fluids and you'll lick it like lollipop. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
214
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:49:00 -
[712] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
Add some of those them thar stasis bubbles ^-^ Pretty please? |
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
148
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:49:00 -
[713] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
You should probably retake some english lessons, reading comprehension seems lacking.
There are fundamental design flaws in the current proposal, go fix them.
Protip: The 3 points above? not the design flaws you want to be spending dev time on. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3366
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:49:00 -
[714] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants?
Their reasoning was probably that, if widely used, these would open the nullsec bounty isk faucet a bit to wide, and were attempting to rebalance the faucet.
Really, the reception of this would have been much better had they not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income.
|
Fix Lag
623
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:50:00 -
[715] - Quote
Holy **** is CCP is completely out of touch.
Color me surprised. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
549
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:50:00 -
[716] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. That's a very wishful thinking. Here's the actual gist of it: Scrap the ESS.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:53:00 -
[717] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Yes, please fix only the stuff you've mentioned so no one in their right mind might get the idea that this would be a useful addition to the game. Baddest poster ever |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18872
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:55:00 -
[718] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Their reasoning was probably that, if widely used, these would open the nullsec bounty isk faucet a bit to wide, and were attempting to rebalance the faucet.
Really, the reception of this would have been much better had they not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income. The reception would have been much worse if they hadn't mentioned it, since it would have been discovered at most 3 minutes after deployment. The reception would have been ever so slightly better if they could present any reason whatsoever why that kind of mass nerf is needed, but apparently they couldn't.
If they were worried about the fauceting, they could have just have set it at 100% GÇô 10% + 12.5% or something equally modest as a first step and promise to monitor it for adjustments up and down (and obviously leaving the base amounts since there's no reason to adjust it). 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3366
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:55:00 -
[719] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
And thank you for the feedback. I look forward to additional iterations.
Also as to "Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal": -- I realize you're probably only looking at how limit the interaction between the interceptor and the ESS, so this may be out of scope. But around the time of dominion, the interdiction nullification subsystem was "accidentallied" in one patch, such that I.N. T3's could warp out of a bubble, but they would still be dragged into bubbles. Perhaps rebalancing the nullification mechanic back to this would go a long way in reducing the safety these ships enjoy.
|
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:55:00 -
[720] - Quote
To me this seems like something that would be a lot more interesting in highsec. Basically let people tax PvE in highsec/lowsec through pvp enforcement. |
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:56:00 -
[721] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
lol which thread are you reading? It's RLML change 2.0 right here.
Step 1: Devs propose horrible change and ask for feedback Step 2: Dozens of players provide evidence as to why the change is horrible and shouldn't happen at all Step 3: Devs ignore this feedback and 'tweak' the horrible change based on comments of a few ignorant posters Step 4: After implementing everyone realizes the players were right and we have another item that needs 'rebalancing' |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:57:00 -
[722] - Quote
Right, so CCP seems to be determined to use this piece of scrap. So here's a new idea, fresh from my mind meats (and totally crossposted from a post I made elsewhere).
CCP has it the wrong way around. This is a perfect highsec thing. Here's what it'll do (if done properly) for highsec:
1) It'll give missioners/ratters/etc a little bonus for working from one system 2) It'll give ebil pirates a goal for highsec 3) It'll give carebears a delicious honeypot to guard all day long. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3366
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 17:58:00 -
[723] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Their reasoning was probably that, if widely used, these would open the nullsec bounty isk faucet a bit to wide, and were attempting to rebalance the faucet.
Really, the reception of this would have been much better had they not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income. The reception would have been much worse if they hadn't mentioned it, since it would have been discovered at most 3 minutes after deployment. The reception would have been ever so slightly better if they could present any reason whatsoever why that kind of mass nerf is needed, but apparently they couldn't. If they were worried about the fauceting, they could have just have set it at 100% GÇô 10% + 12.5% or something equally modest as a first step and promise to monitor it for adjustments up and down (and obviously leaving the base amounts since there's no reason to adjust it).
I think I didn't clarify myself too well. I wasn't suggesting they release a 5% nerf to nullsec income unannounced (oh the drama), but that they separate the ESS from the income nerf as simply the ESS as an "income boosting" device. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:00:00 -
[724] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
How many pages of overwhelmingly negative feedback on the underlying concept do we need to provide before the idea is taken away and fundamentally reworked (or even better, scrapped, with the art assets used elsewhere)? You've got thirty five.
Edit: Thirty six ~ |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:00:00 -
[725] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18874
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:01:00 -
[726] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I think I didn't clarify myself too well. I wasn't suggesting they release a 5% nerf to nullsec income unannounced (oh the drama), but that they separate the ESS from the income nerf as simply the ESS as an "income boosting" device. Ah, yes. That makes a bit more sense, especially since there would be far fewer moving parts to tweak thenGǪ
GǪand all we'd be left with is the discussion of whether or not one is needed to begin 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. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4319
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:03:00 -
[727] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. lol which thread are you reading? It's RLML change 2.0 right here. Step 1: Devs propose horrible change and ask for feedback Step 2: Dozens of players provide evidence as to why the change is horrible and shouldn't happen at all Step 3: Devs ignore this feedback and 'tweak' the horrible change based on comments of a few ignorant posters Step 4: After implementing everyone realizes the players were right and we have another item that needs 'rebalancing'
So much this, it's crazy because this cycle ends up costing CCP in a real way (in terms of man-hours spent on things). Some of us told them this with the Anom nerf, the incursion nerf (ie "don't go too far of you'll just have to come back and do it all over again"), the NPC AI upgrade and other things.
I'm all for balancing and new things, but there should be some "fail safe" type guy at CCP that looks at things and says ""ok, this might look goodish on paper but lets get feedback from the players about if this would work or not".
As much as I admire our CSM friends, I think there has also been some ball dropping from them this time around.
|
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:06:00 -
[728] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Great job listening to player feedback and iterating on the design according to the points brought up in this thread.
Is there a way to open a portal to Bizarro World and get the CCP dev team from there? |
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
99
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:06:00 -
[729] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Missing point: - The low gain is not worth the risk & hassle with that structure in my opinion. And that even without factoring in Interceptors.
to your 2nd point: Link the "Take All" button to a hacking game that is difficult enough to be unfeasible in an interceptor. -áGP¬ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages. -áGP¬ It has been suggested many times in this thread -áGP¬ It just feels logical
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1167
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:06:00 -
[730] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
you totally forgot the point where the incentive for a ratter to use this thing is not big enough for anyone to do so We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:07:00 -
[731] - Quote
Xaerael Endiel wrote:Right, so CCP seems to be determined to use this piece of scrap. So here's a new idea, fresh from my mind meats (and totally crossposted from a post I made elsewhere).
CCP has it the wrong way around. This is a perfect highsec thing. Here's what it'll do (if done properly) for highsec:
1) It'll give missioners/ratters/etc a little bonus for working from one system 2) It'll give ebil pirates a goal for highsec 3) It'll give carebears a delicious honeypot to guard all day long.
Actually, hisec is the one place where the mechanics of this would properly work as a conflict driver. Not surprisingly, CCP also failed to realize this and are instead forcing another income nerf upon rank and file nullsec players.
Zerb Arus wrote:
to your 2nd point: Link the "Take All" button to a hacking game that is difficult enough to be unfeasible in an interceptor. -áGP¬ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages. -áGP¬ It has been suggested many times in this thread -áGP¬ It just feels logical
Yes, the hacking mini-game and lootspew (would be tagspew now I guess) have gotten so much positive feedback lets add these mechanics to more parts of the game |
Hi O
Galactic Organization of Tariff and Trade.
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:09:00 -
[732] - Quote
Hi O wrote:
1. Shockingly stupid.
Seconds before the ship explodes |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:12:00 -
[733] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. I really want to say something... but I am biting my toungue.
Read my lips, there is absolutly no reason anyone ratting in a system would use it. It makes no sense for a 5% isk reward. Even if you use it properly as you say at some stage someone is going to want to cash out and bingo the rest of the fleet is back to 80%, If I was leading a fleet roam I would on principle destroy any I found this would drop income in system by 80% if a new one is put in place. Great scorch earth policy in enemy space. The end result would see it being used as a griefing tool. If this is what you intended then great. But to claim this has benefits for the ratter????? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3366
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:14:00 -
[734] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I think I didn't clarify myself too well. I wasn't suggesting they release a 5% nerf to nullsec income unannounced (oh the drama), but that they separate the ESS from the income nerf as simply the ESS as an "income boosting" device. Ah, yes. That makes a bit more sense, especially since there would be far fewer moving parts to tweak thenGǪ GǪand all we'd be left with is the discussion of whether or not one is needed to begin with.
We could discuss whether mobile warp disrupt bubbles are needed. Whether logistics ships are needed. Whether pirate implants are needed. Such an approach is pretty pisspoor.
Instead, we should discuss whether these would be a valuable addition to the game: Do they reward players willing to take a risk? (Yes, but perhaps not enough.) Do they have the potential for creating conflict? (It could, if the access time were increased enough for locals to defend it.) Is it designed well: Is it useable? Is it exploitable? Why or why not?
Frankly, I can see a fair bit of utility in these once the design is tweaked. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
789
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:14:00 -
[735] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
None of those three address the issues of.
* Creating a 5% reduction in bounties received just to make this module something people should use. - The module should be chosen on it's own merits, not because CCP just added a problem for it to solve. - Not receiving 5% of the bounties makes one more confusing thing to explain to newbies who move from Empire to NullSec. - The lore behind the 5% is unrealistic, if CONCORD don't want to pay us as much they would just lower bounties offered, not refuse to pay 5%.
* The risk isn't worth the reward. - Why would a ratter/sov holder want to reduce individual income by 20% for a potential 5% gain over the current (Rubicon 1.0) income, at the risk of losing all that 20% at any time. - In the current state this is more of a griefing tool than a Sov Upgrade.
* Makes earning ISK in NullSec worse. - Normal grunts earn their ISK from anomalies and don't want to gamble with that income. - Currently Empire Incursions/SOE Missions are better risk vs reward than NullSec already, this will just push more people to those. - It doesn't help what the community and CCP have agreed should be worked on which is a money up way of running alliances.
The key point you should pick up on and work to fix however is this: Everyone living in NullSec would rather eat the 5% loss than ever use one of these modules. That's a pretty big flaw in the module which fixing timers, bubbles and interceptors wont address. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:15:00 -
[736] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
1) Who even cared about that?
2) It's simple, remove their interdiction nullification. It never should have been implemented in the first place.
3) Don't make it a warp bubble. Up the skill requirements. Preferably, scrap the bad idea all together. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:16:00 -
[737] - Quote
Zerb Arus wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Missing point: - The low gain is not worth the risk & hassle with that structure in my opinion. And that even without factoring in Interceptors. to your 2nd point: Link the "Take All" button to a hacking game that is difficult enough to be unfeasible in an interceptor. -áGP¬ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages. -áGP¬ It has been suggested many times in this thread -áGP¬ It just feels logical
I believe that Soniclover deliberately left off any changes to the reward structure. CCP likely views this deployable as a test and thus wants to limit the possible rewards until they see the effects. So like it or not the reward structure is going to be poor to begin with.
I like the idea of adding in a hacking game. CCP might be worried about feature creep at this point in the development, but I think it would be a strong game play addition. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
492
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:17:00 -
[738] - Quote
Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
790
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:19:00 -
[739] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
Is there any chance that this entire feature can be pushed back to a later expansion so it can have a lot more feedback and development time? It seems pretty obvious that as it is right now the feature isn't wanted or going to be used a great deal. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6013
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:20:00 -
[740] - Quote
You need to remove the 5% nerf from 0.0 ratting for this.
As it exists, this is a poorly balanced module that MIGHT get fixed but won't be used in its current state. It's fine to have a module that's not really used and needs work in game to get it to where someone would want to use it. It's not fine to have an across-the-board nerf that requires the ESS to be in a usable state when it's unlikely to be one because then it's just a nerf with a fix coming SOON (tm) and we all know how that story ends. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
Fix Lag
624
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:20:00 -
[741] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
I CAN SEE YOU ARE READING THIS THREAD
WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING WITH SUCH A TERRIBLE IDEA AT ALL?
CCP PLS RESPOND |
Fix Lag
624
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:22:00 -
[742] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:we all know how that story ends.
But there was that one time they fixed...and another time they...wait...no. No. CCP pretty much never fixes broken nullsec shit they leave behind. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:24:00 -
[743] - Quote
Okay, okay, let's all calm down...
The EES isn't really a great new feature but if you don't want to use it, you don't have to. You only lose 5% of bounties.
That said, I wonder if we could have had modular POSs by now if CCP weren't working on deployables? ...hmmm |
Hi O
Galactic Organization of Tariff and Trade.
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:24:00 -
[744] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: just a nerf with a fix coming SOON (tm) and we all know how that story ends.
this |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
450
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:24:00 -
[745] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:Weaselior wrote:we all know how that story ends. But there was that one time they fixed...and another time they...wait...no. No. CCP pretty much never fixes broken nullsec sh it they leave behind.
That's not true, they have fixed numerous broken aspects of nullsec. It's just takes at least two years. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6015
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:24:00 -
[746] - Quote
Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere? "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:25:00 -
[747] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
I want to link a picture of an ostrich with its head buried in the ground but I'm not sure if that is against forum rules |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:26:00 -
[748] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
Will you consider making null sec ratting worth my time instead of me being in low sec making 10x the isk in a bomber running fw missions? |
Fix Lag
625
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:26:00 -
[749] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Fix Lag wrote:Weaselior wrote:we all know how that story ends. But there was that one time they fixed...and another time they...wait...no. No. CCP pretty much never fixes broken nullsec sh it they leave behind. That's not true, they have fixed numerous broken aspects of nullsec. It's just takes at least two years.
They're faster than that. They fix things 18 monthsGäó after they're broken. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
791
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:27:00 -
[750] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere? I don't think there are blueprints, I believe I read it's buy direct from the Empires themselves with no player production involved. Which is another thing we (players and CCP) have been working to get rid of for a long time so shouldn't be happening again. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
493
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:27:00 -
[751] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere?
They're seeded on market same as the first version. |
|
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:28:00 -
[752] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
So you want to introduce a new feature that is clearly broken, and then possibly maybe fix it in the future?
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3367
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:29:00 -
[753] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere?
The ESS devices are bought straight from navies of the four Empires. It is unclear if it through the LP store, or if it will be an NPC sell order at their stations. (probably the latter)
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6015
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:29:00 -
[754] - Quote
Turelus wrote:Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere? I don't think there are blueprints, I believe I read it's buy direct from the Empires themselves with no player production involved. Which is another thing we (players and CCP) have been working to get rid of for a long time so shouldn't be happening again. Those are ESS, not the hybrid and rote siphons. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
99
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:29:00 -
[755] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Xaerael Endiel wrote:Right, so CCP seems to be determined to use this piece of scrap. So here's a new idea, fresh from my mind meats (and totally crossposted from a post I made elsewhere).
CCP has it the wrong way around. This is a perfect highsec thing. Here's what it'll do (if done properly) for highsec:
1) It'll give missioners/ratters/etc a little bonus for working from one system 2) It'll give ebil pirates a goal for highsec 3) It'll give carebears a delicious honeypot to guard all day long. Actually, hisec is the one place where the mechanics of this would properly work as a conflict driver. Not surprisingly, CCP also failed to realize this and are instead forcing another income nerf upon rank and file nullsec players.
It sure would be a conflict driver there. And hilarious. .... And cause lots of rage and probably even unsubs :(
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Xaerael Endiel wrote:Right, so CCP seems to be determined to use this piece of scrap. So here's a [quote=Zerb Arus]
to your 2nd point: Link the "Take All" button to a hacking game that is difficult enough to be unfeasible in an interceptor. -áGP¬ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages. -áGP¬ It has been suggested many times in this thread -áGP¬ It just feels logical
Yes, the hacking mini-game and lootspew (would be tagspew now I guess) have gotten so much positive feedback lets add these mechanics to more parts of the game I explicitly said "Hacking game" not "loot spew". I find neither enjoyable, but the first one has at least the potential to get improved someday. But yes, in its current state I wouldn't even call the hacking thingie a minigame As someone once said: "If you wouldn't play it on your smartphone even as free app, It's probably a bad game"
|
Fix Lag
625
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:30:00 -
[756] - Quote
Billybob Sheepshooter wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values. So you want to introduce a new feature that is clearly broken, and then possibly maybe fix it in the future?
I'm trying to remember which feature it was where they said they'd literally fix it after it went live even though they knew it was broken. It's hard to discern which is which because the only difference is whether CCP acknowledged a screw-up beforehand. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
791
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:31:00 -
[757] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Turelus wrote:Weaselior wrote:Also I'm sure this got lost in the ESS discussion but: where do the blueprints for the new siphons come from? Are they bpos sold in empire, or bpcs dropped from somewhere? I don't think there are blueprints, I believe I read it's buy direct from the Empires themselves with no player production involved. Which is another thing we (players and CCP) have been working to get rid of for a long time so shouldn't be happening again. Those are ESS, not the hybrid and rote siphons. Oh... misread you on that one. Sorry, yeah guess I am caught up in ESS fever, I hear it's going around right now. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:33:00 -
[758] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote: I'm trying to remember which feature it was where they said they'd literally fix it after it went live even though they knew it was broken. It's hard to discern which is which because the only difference is whether CCP acknowledged a screw-up beforehand.
They admitted being unable to switch ammo in rapid launchers was terrible before they were released and that they'd look into a workaround. Maybe. Some day. |
Vicar2008
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Northern Associates.
73
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:36:00 -
[759] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
The bolded and underlined part bit of that sentence is the part most of us wanted to hear without the rest of that.
|
Squilo
LOST IDEA C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:44:00 -
[760] - Quote
You bored? you do not have what to introduce? F****g Syphon first, and now the ESS? you learn how to rob, steal and cheat! It may finally do something with HIC? HIC should be saint! Bubble of HIC should stop everything! Now they are useless because they are too expensive, heavy and require too much skils! But why do something meaningful ... For fun, Destroy stations in Jita ... will be fun .. omfg |
|
Fix Lag
628
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:45:00 -
[761] - Quote
CCP SoniClover what do you have to say about rumors that the ESS is a pile of nonsensical unicorn feces? |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
566
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:50:00 -
[762] - Quote
I am still curious what the CSM had to say about this particular feature, since it's not in the minutes. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
549
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:53:00 -
[763] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values. Ok, going from here on: Would you rather that we, the players, assume your intent is malign, or that you are incompetent? I have no idea how you still think any of this is good, but I will not attribute it to evil intent if you'd rather have it attributed to imcompetence, and the reverse of course.
I'm not sure if I am biting the troll here, but seriously, your posts seem to be typed while your head is a foot up your own arse.
Edit: This is said in the nicest way possible. I had a few choice words that I didn't type. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
367
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 18:55:00 -
[764] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadl wrote:
Will you consider allowing player manufacturing of the ESS (from blueprints or blueprint copies)?
It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
You know what else shouldn't happen in 1.1?
The ESS. No sig. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
566
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:02:00 -
[765] - Quote
I'm ratting on sisi. kill me.
http://i.imgur.com/vmnzaY9.png
Also, here is an image for how it appears when yo uright click on a ESS in system. You automatically warp to the bubble if you do scoop to cargo hold (which you don't have to unanchor to do) or if you do 'access bounty'.
The fact that you can scoop a bubble down immediately is stupid as well.
Did you review this with anyone before doing this? |
Ashlar Vellum
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
90
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:09:00 -
[766] - Quote
This new ESS structure is so weird and gimmicky, but what is more interesting to me what was the CSM feedback on it. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:13:00 -
[767] - Quote
Ashlar Vellum wrote:This new ESS structure is so weird and gimmicky, but what is more interesting to me what was the CSM feedback on it.
If the CSM objected to this idea half as much as those of us in this thread, it really makes you wonder if CCP is taking the CSM seriously. |
Razzor Death
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
238
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:16:00 -
[768] - Quote
Ok watching this Dev ignore all the real issues and just answer the random pubbies good willed questions is getting embarrassing |
Agh Creire-Geng
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:19:00 -
[769] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
I think that based on the feedback, you should be looking at: -Removing the ESS.
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
368
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:30:00 -
[770] - Quote
Razzor Death wrote:Ok watching this Dev ignore all the real issues and just answer the random pubbies good willed questions is getting embarrassing
Just now it's getting embarassing you think? It's been that way since forever.
Seriously SoniClover, the ESS concept needs to go back to the drawing board entirely, not have some stats and numbers tweaked here and there. The basis upon which it is built is flawed, it's been explained to you enough that you simply can't pretend all you got from this thread's feedback can be summed up in the the points you listed unless you want to either prove to us that CCP is once more losing touch with the state of its game or that you are insulting our intelligence.
It's a little disheartening really No sig. |
|
Ashlar Vellum
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:45:00 -
[771] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:This new ESS structure is so weird and gimmicky, but what is more interesting to me what was the CSM feedback on it. If the CSM objected to this idea half as much as those of us in this thread, it really makes you wonder if CCP is taking the CSM seriously. What if CSM didn't object at all, then it makes you wonder even more.
Especially after post #47. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
567
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:55:00 -
[772] - Quote
More feedback based on actually using it. Ran a sanctum with one.
[no label: UI/Inflight/SpaceComponents/BountyEscrow/TimerLabel] shows up when you access bounties when you have any sort of bonus (I had 1% bounty bonus at the time).
An extra "none: 0 isk" shows up when I was the only one ratting in system.
The idea of using this as a drag bubble is amusing and exploitable because if you can scoop the 150m^3 ESS, you have an instant-down bubble, even if it's warpable from a distance. I can't imagine how the null sec alliances will use this to mess with bomber fleets.
Zero error message when you move away from the structure and try to actually 'share' or 'take all' items. It just does nothing. When you reapproach, it still doesn't work, and you have to re-access it, waiting the additional 20 seconds.
Doesn't wait for the bounty 'tics', just computes exactly what was done so far in system.
My colorblind ass can't see this bubble in space from any distance, just too dark. I'm sure it just depends on the space background though.
Love the idea that scoop to hold does not have any confirmation, great way to accidentally destroy bounty bonuses.
Bad description in journal: "Kismeteer got paid bounty". Nothing about who pressed the button or what bounties etc.
That 1% bonus it listed seemed slightly off, something like an additional 100k on 30 mil in bounties while risking 7.6 mil.
Killed a single rat, with 20% of it being 4,500 isk, and didn't have to pay tax on it! :toot: hooray for bad math!
20% reduction is in effect with it up, so at least that math isn't wrong. And I paid taxes on it too.
CCP, bad idea, bad implementation. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
568
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 19:59:00 -
[773] - Quote
Oh I missed maybe the biggest thing.
Bubble works out to 15km. Dragged just outside the bubble. But the bubble as displayed only covers out to 7km. Why the hell is the visible bubble less than half the size in radius? |
Yoari
Svea Rike Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:09:00 -
[774] - Quote
Agh Creire-Geng wrote:I think that based on the feedback, you should be looking at: -Removing the ESS.
+1 |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
568
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:18:00 -
[775] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Love the idea that scoop to hold does not have any confirmation, great way to accidentally destroy bounty bonuses.
Oh, exploit found. If I scoop the item, which is instant, it doesn't destroy the bounties in it while it's in my cargohold. Then, when hostiles are gone, I wait the minute to launch, and bounties are still there. The good news is that it's bound to the system, not the ESS, so you can even just drop a new one.
Another bug, I can't RESCOOP it now, because it says it's being used by another player. Even though I closed the access window, and moved away from it. I had to completely warp off field, not just move out of the invisible bubble.
No aggression from attacking these things either. woot. Not even rat level aggression.
I also managed to claim the 'take all' and got zero notification about losing the bounties as well. |
Hasala Xi
Raumpatrouille Orion Avaricious Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:19:00 -
[776] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. Can you PLEASE bring a log file for the ESS? So you can see what player took how manyto whom? |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:23:00 -
[777] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Oh, exploit found. If I scoop the item, which is instant, it doesn't destroy the bounties in it while it's in my cargohold. Then, when hostiles are gone, I wait the minute to launch, and bounties are still there. The good news is that it's bound to the system, not the ESS, so you can even just drop a new one.
This is designed behavior: "Destroying or scooping the ESS will not affect the system-wide pool. That is only affected by successfully accessing the ESS and choosing to Share or Take all. The system wide-pool stays intact and becomes available again when another ESS is deployed." |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Last Resort.
551
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:24:00 -
[778] - Quote
At First I tought that the ESS was a bad Idea, ... But depending on the price of it it will be an awesome harassment tool and an awesome conflict driver, it will be fun! Although you must remember those Null-sec care-bears to HTFU!!!! Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
568
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:28:00 -
[779] - Quote
[20:19:06] EVE System > None is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System
I launched drones 12k off the thing, shooting it. Took my high dps rattings gardes three minutes to kill it. No notice that it was being shot, in local or anywhere else.
Was able to stay cloaked 2.2km off a new one I dropped without issues, didn't break my cloak when it came online. And able to recloak next to it.
And bounties were still on there when I dropped a new one after killing the old one.
No notification that I chose to 'take all' again.
Yeah, I'm done testing a broken mechanic.
E: I really don't understand the 'choosing a racial tag' either, when 90% of people will choose caldari to ship to jita for sale. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
230
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:30:00 -
[780] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Kismeteer wrote:Oh, exploit found. If I scoop the item, which is instant, it doesn't destroy the bounties in it while it's in my cargohold. Then, when hostiles are gone, I wait the minute to launch, and bounties are still there. The good news is that it's bound to the system, not the ESS, so you can even just drop a new one. This is designed behavior: "Destroying or scooping the ESS will not affect the system-wide pool. That is only affected by successfully accessing the ESS and choosing to Share or Take all. The system wide-pool stays intact and becomes available again when another ESS is deployed."
So ridiculous.
Now every system will have it's own mysterious bank account attached to it for no real reason, and can be accessed by installing an ATM machine that communicates with the money-ether of local space....
What?
|
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:43:00 -
[781] - Quote
So based on reports from testers this feature needs a lot of work. Now would be a good time for some CCP development manager to step in along with the feedback in this thread make the decision to stop throwing good time/money after bad and put an end to the ESS |
interesangt
Artic Drilling Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:52:00 -
[782] - Quote
So many flaws..
-Anything moving over 1500ms will have this pinata raped before any countermesure can be taken.. -Bounty ticks every 20 min`s, means theres always pinata to be stolen -drop the 5% nerf, and make it a 5-15% BUFF to ratting, people might accually consider using it in system.
Please scratch this idea, take a step back, visit the suggestion and ideas forum, and spend some time developing things that is broken or feauteres that is needed for better gameplay. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2957
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:55:00 -
[783] - Quote
Billybob Sheepshooter wrote:So you want to introduce a new feature that is clearly broken, and then possibly maybe fix it in the future? Well of course. This is CCP we're talking about.
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. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2957
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 20:59:00 -
[784] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:CCP SoniClover what do you have to say about rumors that the ESS is a pile of nonsensical unicorn feces? I think his exact quote is "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA". 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. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:01:00 -
[785] - Quote
Ashlar Vellum wrote:IrJosy wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:This new ESS structure is so weird and gimmicky, but what is more interesting to me what was the CSM feedback on it. If the CSM objected to this idea half as much as those of us in this thread, it really makes you wonder if CCP is taking the CSM seriously. What if CSM didn't object at all, then it makes you wonder even more. Especially after post #47.
CSM minutes said they objected to something that sounds like this. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:04:00 -
[786] - Quote
Agh Creire-Geng wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
I think that based on the feedback, you should be looking at: -Removing the ESS.
agreed |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
916
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:05:00 -
[787] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:IrJosy wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:This new ESS structure is so weird and gimmicky, but what is more interesting to me what was the CSM feedback on it. If the CSM objected to this idea half as much as those of us in this thread, it really makes you wonder if CCP is taking the CSM seriously. What if CSM didn't object at all, then it makes you wonder even more. Especially after post #47. CSM minutes said they objected to something that sounds like this.
Although we'll never know for sure as the last CSM minutes were so tenuous and vague as to be practically worthless, this also makes it hard for us to critically evaluate the work the CSM do as practically everything they say or do is under some sort of uber secret NDA agreement. CCP is starting to go over to the dark side in a really bad way. I mean really bad, EA Games bad! Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
245
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:11:00 -
[788] - Quote
For what it's worth, I like the general idea. I kinda agree with Gizznitt's comments. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2957
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:13:00 -
[789] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Amazing.
CCP Dev: "we're looking at introducing a feature where we smear our poop all over the faces of people who live in nullsec" 35 pages of player feedback: "that's a completely terrible idea, we don't want you to smear your poop all over our faces" CCP Dev: "we have listened carefully and, based on your feedback, we're looking at changing our diets to adjust the texture and consistency of the poop when we smear it all over your faces. Also, we're looking at wearing gloves now".
I'm not sure how you get 'people have concerns about these three specific aspects of our new feature' from this thread but I can only assume that powerful hallucinogens are involved somehow. Swallow your pride and scrap this idea entirely. 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. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
440
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:30:00 -
[790] - Quote
This ESS deployable is terrible. why is it terrible? because as has been said in this thread countless times:
The potential benefits are far outshadowed by their potential pitfalls.
By design theyre extremely griefable via interceptors in their ability to warp to and from them at high speed and completely negate the bubble that would trap others. even the timer becomes a moot point when you consider an interceptor can get to warpable distance from any can the structure spits out in the allotted time, be in line for a warp out, warp to the can, grab the tags and warp off.
to make it even more easy for him he will know straight away that theres someone coming for him by the system wide notifications of people warping to the ESS.
killing an ESS would be childsplay by almost any alliance when you consider that 150k ehp is buffer style battleship ehp and can be killed in under 1 minute by bombers, even ones fitted with warp core stabs. making catching them difficult and not exactly ideal for the expenditure of effort.
to all the smug posters gleefully expecting to race into a ratting system plant it down, wait a bit and grab free isk in the form of tags i have a serious bit of bad news for you... any self respecting null sec ratter safes up in system whenever a hostile or neutral comes into it. there will be no isk generation by an ESS if there is no ratting being done. And you can be sure that if the ESS in a system hasnt been placed there by the alliance that owns the space, it'll be killed shortly but always before more ratting is done.
Couple that together with the fact no self respecting null sec alliance will permit its members to deploy them in their space.
the other aspect of it is that like other deployables, its the ratters that will be guaranteed a killmail. Any possible addition of a reinforcement timer will have to imply the units isk syphoning will be negligible if not entirely shut down too.
It just shows how CCP Developers dont play their own game in anywhere near the level of their own players. Its also not like its not possible for CCP Devs to do so. Many core null sec players have families and full time jobs yet can keep up with the riggers of a changing null sec theatre of war.
this is obvious in the fact that a single bubble and notifications will alert people to an impending confrontation that the bubble will force. it took me no time at all to realise 1 ceptor warping to 100 from it can negate the bubble and manoeuver to the point where he can cloak on grid and have a fleet warp to him @ range and not set off any alarms. and if ive thought of that u know a high majority of null sec "carebears" have too.
it seems all of a sudden you guys have lost any sense of level headedness from the development process. Coupled with Ali Aras's post on the 1st page makes me wonder if you even gave the CSM members a glance at this before 'OK'ing' this to go ahead.
As for the other deployables in this devblog :careface: theyre syphons. big whoop. just add them to the pile of terrible deployables that have an initial spike of usage before being largely abandoned never to be bothered with.
You guys seriously need to go and splash some water on your faces, take a good look at the quality of your game mechanics brainstorming and do some f**king research on how your customers use your own product. It is after all what we pay you to do! |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3368
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:35:00 -
[791] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. Amazing. CCP Dev: "we're looking at introducing a feature where we smear our poop all over the faces of people who live in nullsec" 35 pages of player feedback: "that's a completely terrible idea, we don't want you to smear your poop all over our faces" CCP Dev: "we have listened carefully and, based on your feedback, we're looking at changing our diets to adjust the texture and consistency of the poop when we smear it all over your faces. Also, we're looking at wearing gloves now". I'm not sure how you get 'people have concerns about these three specific aspects of our new feature' from this thread but I can only assume that powerful hallucinogens are involved somehow. Swallow your pride and scrap this idea entirely.
You see, some people give constructive criticism as to what works and doesn't work with the concept. Others simply QQ that the sky is falling and emote over the proposed loss of bounties. For example, none of the 5 posts you typed in this thread is constructive in any way. If you actually read the posts that discuss potential issues with the concept, you'd find CCP's response and efforts are generally spot on. In the mean time, keep QQ'ing all of the forum though, it's rather entertaining (in the obnoxious three year old throwing a temper tantrum way). |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
456
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:39:00 -
[792] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You see, some people give constructive criticism as to what works and doesn't work with the concept. Others simply QQ that the sky is falling and emote over the proposed loss of bounties. For example, none of the 5 posts you typed in this thread is constructive in any way. If you actually read the posts that discuss potential issues with the concept, you'd find CCP's response and efforts are generally spot on. In the mean time, keep QQ'ing all of the forum though, it's rather entertaining (in the obnoxious three year old throwing a temper tantrum way).
Plenty of constructive criticism has been offered and responded to with SoniClover making a point of ignoring all but the most superficial issues. For constructive criticism refer to the first 20-30 pages of this thread. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
552
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:42:00 -
[793] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated. Amazing. CCP Dev: "we're looking at introducing a feature where we smear our poop all over the faces of people who live in nullsec" 35 pages of player feedback: "that's a completely terrible idea, we don't want you to smear your poop all over our faces" CCP Dev: "we have listened carefully and, based on your feedback, we're looking at changing our diets to adjust the texture and consistency of the poop when we smear it all over your faces. Also, we're looking at wearing gloves now". I'm not sure how you get 'people have concerns about these three specific aspects of our new feature' from this thread but I can only assume that powerful hallucinogens are involved somehow. Swallow your pride and scrap this idea entirely. You see, some people give constructive criticism as to what works and doesn't work with the concept. Others simply QQ that the sky is falling and emote over the proposed loss of bounties. For example, none of the 5 posts you typed in this thread is constructive in any way. If you actually read the posts that discuss potential issues with the concept, you'd find CCP's response and efforts are generally spot on. In the mean time, keep QQ'ing all of the forum though, it's rather entertaining (in the obnoxious three year old throwing a temper tantrum way). I'm not sure what you're looking at, but Scatim did provide constructive criticism. I think his constructive criticism captures the essence of all constructive criticism that can be on the ESS. And I'm pretty pissed off because a Goon is looking more out for the game than CCP.
I can't see of anything that works on the basis of what has been proposed by CCP, and what is even worse, I have no expectations of CCP delivering anything good on the basis of the idea, on the grounds of their history up until now. So I am sorry, but nothing of this should ever come through, because no matter how many changes CCP has made very sure to make it flawed from the on-set. NOTHING CCP does with the ESS can redeem it. It needs to be scrapped. It's like a rabid dog, if you allow it to take from the dinner table once, you've got a problem with it forever. They need to be put down in the metaphorical sense. ANY sort of "we can discuss this" is problematic - it encourages CCP to **** up even more!
This "idea", this "ESS" needs to be scrapped. Art assets can be reused, nothing else. Got that? |
Celeste DeAgama
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:48:00 -
[794] - Quote
This is NOT a ratter item. If you are deep in sov then it's a ratters item. No strangers in your nullbear system for days....oh forgot afk cloakies. Ok so my friends and I enter a system and see people ratting without an ESS. We can place an ESS and impact them $. If they want to pew they come pew. If they want to hide they hide. If they want to ignore it then we sit there and wait for it to grow. It is a tool of economic warfare. Pretty sure that's why eveyones panties in a bunch.. On EvE? Never I say! |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:51:00 -
[795] - Quote
Celeste DeAgama wrote:This is NOT a ratter item. If you are deep in sov then it's a ratters item. No strangers in your nullbear system for days....oh forgot afk cloakies. Ok so my friends and I enter a system and see people ratting without an ESS. We can place an ESS and impact them $. If they want to pew they come pew. If they want to hide they hide. If they want to ignore it then we sit there and wait for it to grow. It is a tool of economic warfare. Any scenario where roamers make money from dropping their own ESS is a delusional fantasy. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
572
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:52:00 -
[796] - Quote
Neat, found a cool edge case. I found a way to make one of these things completely disappear from overview as it gets moved and the system stays at 80% bounties.
1. Drop ESS. 2. Launch and anchor tower. 3. ESS disappears from overview without a warning, 4. ESS stays invisible on overview until session change.
20% lost during this time, but great way to hide an active ESS for active ratters without much chance of them noticing it. Once again, only shows up on overview on session change. |
Celeste DeAgama
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:55:00 -
[797] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Celeste DeAgama wrote:This is NOT a ratter item. If you are deep in sov then it's a ratters item. No strangers in your nullbear system for days....oh forgot afk cloakies. Ok so my friends and I enter a system and see people ratting without an ESS. We can place an ESS and impact them $. If they want to pew they come pew. If they want to hide they hide. If they want to ignore it then we sit there and wait for it to grow. It is a tool of economic warfare. Any scenario where roamers make money from dropping their own ESS is a delusional fantasy.
Not dropping them to make money from bounties. Dropping them to impact enemy alliance income and MAYBE get someone to nut up and come pew at them. And it pleases me to think when they hide we can rat and collect. So many people just hide up. Go pew.
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
688
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:57:00 -
[798] - Quote
Kill it. Kill it now. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Celeste DeAgama
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:57:00 -
[799] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Neat, found a cool edge case. I found a way to make one of these things completely disappear from overview as it gets moved and the system stays at 80% bounties.
1. Drop ESS. 2. Launch and anchor tower. 3. ESS disappears from overview without a warning, (Note, it's been moved 500km off the tower, but doesn't update the overview.) 4. ESS stays invisible on overview until session change.
20% lost during this time, but great way to hide an active ESS for active ratters without much chance of them noticing it. Once again, only shows up on overview on session change.
Why do I get the feeling this will be considered an exploit?
|
Anhenka
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
90
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:57:00 -
[800] - Quote
As a WH player, thank you CCP for giving us a deployable just for us that we can pop out of our WH, deploy an ESS before the next bounty tick, nick the 5 mil or so and scoop it back up, just to troll with ratters. Our own tiny trollmobile.
Really though, whut?
Remove that 5% base nerf stat, halve the 20% drop to 10%, and increase the base bonus to 110% and you might see this used somewhere that's not firewalled behind 300 blue systems. As it is, having always ratted in fairly unsafe regions, OP, fountain, Wicked Creek, Tribute, Querious, I NEVER would have deployed one of these, with the firm and realistic expectation that a roaming gang would be coming through frequently enough to render it useless.
Of all the nullsec isk geysers, people actually manually ratting is not one that needs nerfs. Hitting the younger, less spacerich players with nerfs is not a good idea. They are not the ones importing ships and mods for sale with JF's, or with incursion or WH alts, or FW alts, or moongoo. Actual nullsec ratting is the subsidence farming of the nulsec world, and those potatoes need no additional taxation.
TLDR: wtf is this ****? |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Pirate Nation.
318
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 21:59:00 -
[801] - Quote
Like many players I have no idea about the amount of ISK generated by 0.0 activties and its impact on inflation, however apart from that I think I see what CCP are trying to do, to create a conflict driverr, something that needs to be defended.
I posted a suggestion that the ESS be something that just increases bounties, thats all and that it can be destroyed, also make it so that a number can be placed in system to add to bounties, however give them a long spool up time so they have to be defended to keep the bounty at that level. That creates a conflict driver in itself, and I would give each one a 5% bonus and have a max limit of 5 in system.
Remove the cloak, remove the warning of someone near it, and remove these tags and the 5% of the bounty bring removed.
My suggestion is simple and it works, it has a benefit that people may well try to defend and you don't turn it into something that is going to annoy the hell out of people.
If someone puts one of these things in the system I am in I will blow it up or move to another system and at 30m a pop I am sure as hell not going to put it into another persons system, but when I saw what a member of PL had worked out how to use them I could not believe that you had not thought that through and for certain targets that would be interesting...
Normally when it comes to game changes I would rather suck it and see, I gave my opinion on the POCO's for example, I thought having them as conflict drivers was a good idea, however I still feel you went half cocked, I would have made all POCO's being attacked give a suspect timer and the only thing a war dec does is give you protection from a suspect timer, wouldn't that have cause more conflict, more small gang stuff?
But back to the ESS, it really does add nothing to the experience, its rather like having to do a cyno, 10 minutes of being a sitting duck, great gameplay that, you are about to add another really frustrating mechanic to the game, I have to say I am struggling to get my head around this, because it seems stupid, the only thing I can thing of is that this links into some new sov mechanic system, that is radically diffeent to what we have now., anyway, I guess I will find out in due course. If you do not want LOCAL go to WH space,-áand those people who think that WH space is like 0.0 but without local,-álight a cyno and try jumping to it.-á-á There is a structural issue with Eve, based on accounts with no link, vast reserves of ISK-áand plex, which makes it too easy to metagame the destruction of small alliances. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
688
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:00:00 -
[802] - Quote
Celeste DeAgama wrote:Sal Landry wrote:Celeste DeAgama wrote:This is NOT a ratter item. If you are deep in sov then it's a ratters item. No strangers in your nullbear system for days....oh forgot afk cloakies. Ok so my friends and I enter a system and see people ratting without an ESS. We can place an ESS and impact them $. If they want to pew they come pew. If they want to hide they hide. If they want to ignore it then we sit there and wait for it to grow. It is a tool of economic warfare. Any scenario where roamers make money from dropping their own ESS is a delusional fantasy. Not dropping them to make money from bounties. Dropping them to impact enemy alliance income and MAYBE get someone to nut up and come pew at them. And it pleases me to think when they hide we can rat and collect. So many people just hide up. Go pew.
You mean you're going to impact enemy alliance income by staying in system, right?
Because that happens now. It's called camping.
If you mean you're going to leave system, then the locals are forced into a structure grind before they go back to ratting.
I don't know why I bother, I've already said this exact same thing multiple times in the thread. People just don't listen *cough* CCP Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
281
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:01:00 -
[803] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Way to be completely tone deaf and totally ignore all our fundamental problems with this piece of garbage. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4333
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:01:00 -
[804] - Quote
Celeste DeAgama wrote:
Dropping them to impact enemy alliance income
Ah, so your going to drop them in the high sec incursions and Sisters or Thukker (or Republic Fleet, RF 100mn ABs are selling well right now) that people will do rather than screw around in null with people like you?
I call hacker if you find a way to do this. |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:01:00 -
[805] - Quote
Turelus wrote:
The key point you should pick up on and work to fix however is this: Everyone living in NullSec would rather eat the 5% loss than ever use one of these modules. That's a pretty big flaw in the module which fixing timers, bubbles and interceptors wont address.
I think that sums up the general concensus...
Also whoever came up with the idea (suggestion to management at CCP) please introduce mandatory drug screening
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
285
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:07:00 -
[806] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:It-¦s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.
CCP SoniClover wrote:They're seeded on market same as the first version.
Oh yes, the market question is THE MOST important point in regards to this deployable, thanks for staying on top of that.
Do know how awful this deployable is? You had to punish an entire portion of the game to try to FORCE them to use this deployable. That's just horrible game design. Scrap this entire thing. |
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
131
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:15:00 -
[807] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
So you all are not looking at not nerfing null sec ratting by another 5%? You (ccp) turned the anom scanner from 30 seconds, to 10, now instantaneous. You (ccp) made interceptors be able to warp to any site in 5 seconds. So much for that bottom up income stream that is talked about but nothing gets done. |
Celeste DeAgama
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:15:00 -
[808] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Celeste DeAgama wrote:
Dropping them to impact enemy alliance income
Ah, so your going to drop them in the high sec incursions and Sisters or Thukker (or Republic Fleet, RF 100mn ABs are selling well right now) that people will do rather than screw around in null with people like you? I call hacker if you find a way to do this. . LOL. Really? Forums are almost as fun as the game. ROFLMAO.
|
Ka Vin
MinRep Orbital Dockyards and Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:21:00 -
[809] - Quote
Yay!! Black Market iski finally! I can't wait to see Jita local when you can trade isk cards for items instead of a tracable market or contract transactions. I gotta go work up a good scam. Wanna buy some drugs? |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
465
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:22:00 -
[810] - Quote
Conflict driver?
How?
I see several posters saying this will create pvp.. it wont.
I been down to 0.0 several times now (I live in lowsec myself.. yes people do live there) and most of the time the ratters pos up as fast as they can and wont come out to fight no matter what.
If we drop this piece of junk, they will still stay docked until we leave and then go out, nuke it and return to ratting/anoming... so.. no new pvp.
Or. they form up a fleet and we have epic pew pew.. but.. they would do that regardless of this module or not. (see above).
no ratter in their right mind will go out to shoot this thing while we are still in their system and they sure as HELL wont keep ratting when we are there. not for long anyway.
THIS WONT CREATE PVP!!
it just adds a boring structure grind if the agressors drop one, and considering how short time it takes them to melt it. why would we leave one in space and waste the isk?
and it has been proven several times how stupid it is for the ratter to use one, since most of the time us roaming in 0.0 will be in ceptors. and just go.. trololol to steal the isk. what.. they will undock to defend their module? nope, not unless they are numerous to take us on, and if they where and wanted to pew.. they would pew us anyway!!!
the only ones i see going, "this is a good idea" are highsec carebears, and i dont use the term negatively. i used to be one for ages :) but the ones saying this is good, are the ones that will NEVER use or interact with one. so it is pure Schadenfreude, and seriously that isn't a good basis for feedback.. haha sucks to be you.. is a childish reaction. most of us care about EVE even areas we don't visit.
CCP, your feedback on this thread so far has made it quite clear you are feebly trying to defend your idea in the face of overwhelming negative feedback. It is ok to say, ok.. we will scrap this idea. It wont make you the weaker person, it takes a strong person to admit they are wrong. Being told your idea is bad hurts, of course it does. But lashing out with irrational .. we will fix this later.. that is just silly. we all know you dont. you even make.. arrogant little jokes about how you dont. Can't you see how that makes us, the playerbase feel?
Linda |
|
Fix Lag
639
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:33:00 -
[811] - Quote
The deployable needs to have its acronym changed to SFD (Stupid Financial Drain)
(So Fucking Dumb) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3370
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:39:00 -
[812] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Conflict driver?
How?
it just adds a boring structure grind if the agressors drop one, and considering how short time it takes them to melt it. why would we leave one in space and waste the isk?
and it has been proven several times how stupid it is for the ratter to use one, since most of the time us roaming in 0.0 will be in ceptors. and just go.. trololol to steal the isk. what.. they will undock to defend their module? nope, not unless they are numerous to take us on, and if they where and wanted to pew.. they would pew us anyway!!!
Linda
The rewards need to be tweaked so it is worthwhile for the nullbears to deploy. Additionally, the access times need to be tweaked so the nullbears can defend it (if they think they can). Tweak these aspects, and it can be a conflict driver.
Alternatively, give it a 10 minute online time, and a 48 hour RF timer (where it collects bounties even after it is RF'd, but only the owning corp can "cash out" the bounties it collects). Then it is an offensive tool that allows the aggressors to deploy it and nerf income in a system. |
Raminather
KnownUnknown
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:42:00 -
[813] - Quote
How about instead of further screwing with stuff that is working you finish the station walking that was supposed to be done already.....
Priorities in the dev department are flawed. Fix the current content and finish the stuff promised before adding new stuff to further screw people. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3370
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:45:00 -
[814] - Quote
Raminather wrote:How about instead of further screwing with stuff that is working you finish the station walking that was supposed to be done already.....
Priorities in the dev department are flawed. Fix the current content and finish the stuff promised before adding new stuff to further screw people.
W.i.S is not a priority... and hasn't been for quite some time. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
467
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:46:00 -
[815] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The rewards need to be tweaked so it is worthwhile for the nullbears to deploy. Additionally, the access times need to be tweaked so the nullbears can defend it (if they think they can). Tweak these aspects, and it can be a conflict driver.
Alternatively, give it a 10 minute online time, and a 48 hour RF timer (where it collects bounties even after it is RF'd, but only the owning corp can "cash out" the bounties it collects). Then it is an offensive tool that allows the aggressors to deploy it and nerf income in a system.
Tbh i dont think the access timers matter, if they are strong enough to come pew they will do so anyway. I can only speak for the roams I been in in 0.0 but when we reach a larger system we often ask if they want to pew. most of the times they will play stationgames for a few before it is obvious they dont want to. so they will just wait until we are gone to go pew it if we leave it behind.
your second point could work yes, but.. do we want more timers? |
Eternity Mistseeker
Renegades of Eve Aureus Alae
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 22:54:00 -
[816] - Quote
This got past the dev team and the CSM?
Is anyone actually awake... |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:04:00 -
[817] - Quote
ESS :
Concord bounty so why empire tags ? shouldn't we get concord tags ?
Why isk ? Could these tags be converted into LP ? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8467
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:04:00 -
[818] - Quote
CCP SoniClover:
What in the absolute **** do you think you're doing? My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3373
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:11:00 -
[819] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The rewards need to be tweaked so it is worthwhile for the nullbears to deploy. Additionally, the access times need to be tweaked so the nullbears can defend it (if they think they can). Tweak these aspects, and it can be a conflict driver.
Alternatively, give it a 10 minute online time, and a 48 hour RF timer (where it collects bounties even after it is RF'd, but only the owning corp can "cash out" the bounties it collects). Then it is an offensive tool that allows the aggressors to deploy it and nerf income in a system.
Tbh i dont think the access timers matter, if they are strong enough to come pew they will do so anyway. I can only speak for the roams I been in in 0.0 but when we reach a larger system we often ask if they want to pew. most of the times they will play stationgames for a few before it is obvious they dont want to. so they will just wait until we are gone to go pew it if we leave it behind. your second point could work yes, but.. do we want more timers?
I think the offensive version of this is not the optimal path to follow, but think it is a viable concept.
In my opinion this should be part of the nullsec farms and fields paradigm. This was concept brought front and center by the Mittani back in 2011.
The basic idea, is that players can setup "farms" to cultivate income, but these would be potentially vulnerable to attack by raiders. The value within the farm would motivate locals to potentially defend their assets, creating content for both the raiders and nullbears alike. Valuable Moongoo POS's are an example of this, but the scale is wrong, as a casual gang cannot attack even a small POS and achieve anything timely. This item has the potential to meet this design criteria by boosting income for those that utilize it, and potentially accruing enough value to make "defending it" worthwhile. However, there are several things that need to be taken into account: Defenders need time to assess the situation and form up an adequate response. The appropriate timeframe is not simple though, as too long and the defenders easily blob and/or the attackers will get bored. There is also the "is it worth it to deploy such an item" discussion. At the end of the day, these things need to be profitable to deploy 70+% of the time. If not, the risk of loss simply supersedes the value gained, and they won't be used.
The potential is there, we just need honest discussion on how to refine it. |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:12:00 -
[820] - Quote
Thanks for the quixotic module and the ratting nerf ccp, good to know you're still useless as always. If you insist on actually putting this on the market might I suggest dramatically increasing the time to give out the isk/items, easier capability to sell the damn things asides from high sec only (which is an awful idea as it lowers the true value of an item due to travel time and risk), make the warp bubble actually affect interceptors, and shift the risk/reward values significantly. I wouldn't rat with one of those in system as is, and I can't imagine anyone else would either. This is besides fixing the bugs already laid out by Kismeter.
While you're at it why not make it hackable - doing so reduces or eliminates the time required to make it dispense the isk/items.
Actually if you wanted to help immersion why not have pirates buy the items for slightly less than full market value to simulate some form of black market. At least that way people trying to hunt in hostile space would be able to dispose of the goods relatively easily instead of the vaguely higher risk of having to export them to high sec. |
|
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:13:00 -
[821] - Quote
Pic'n dor wrote:ESS :
Concord bounty so why empire tags ? shouldn't we get concord tags ?
Why isk ? Could these tags be converted into LP ? Concord tags which have set values in isk? LP that everyone can cash in regardless of standings? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18879
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:14:00 -
[822] - Quote
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪCCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique?
The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. 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. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
496
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:38:00 -
[823] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish?
I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. |
|
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:40:00 -
[824] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. 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¥
So basically if we aren't willing to sacrifice by forming up to kill a structure other people drop we should lose isk? Nice troll. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3373
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:41:00 -
[825] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
Tippia wrote: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¥
lol... |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:45:00 -
[826] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. blammeaux
I have to give up some sympathy here -- attempting to find any meaningful feedback in such a pile of entitled vitriol must be an arduous task indeed. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Fix Sov
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:46:00 -
[827] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. I fail to see what the point is supposed to be behind this deployable. If what you guys want to do is to make nullsec more rife with PVP action, then surely fixing the sov system would be a much better expenditure of your dev time. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
blackpatch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:47:00 -
[828] - Quote
well, that's the genius of it. sticking a 5% cut in nullsec income behind the ins and outs and ups and downs of a complicated new deployable means that you can ignore questions about the 5% cut in nullsec income in favor of arguments about the arcane peculiars of the ESS. |
AIric Vitex
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:49:00 -
[829] - Quote
Querns wrote:A thing a lot of you naysayers are missing is that anyone can deploy these ESSes in a system. Say I've got an inkling for messing with folks. I duckwalk into a system owned by hostiles and deploy my own ESS. Suddenly, I am sapping 20% of the bounties of the system. If you are a sovhaver, you have to deploy these items defensively to prevent this from happening to your systems, unless you want your space to be worth four-fifths of its current value.
So if you don't want someone to nerf your system to 4/5 its value by planting one of these..... you plant one of these and nerf it to 4/5 its value your self???? it would be at full value I guess assuming no one from in corp or out of corp steals it all for themselves....
so please goons put these in all your systems so I don't have to plant them myself and can just steal from your ESS |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
474
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:49:00 -
[830] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please? |
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:54:00 -
[831] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
Yes, we are in here fighting to keep this heap of dung module out of the game that WE, YOUR CUSTOMERS, pay to play. I think the way you come into this thread and completely ignore 700+ posts detailing how bad this module is and why it should not become part of eve while cherry picking points to address out of one of the 3-5 positive posts in this thread may have come off as dismissive and condescending, resulting in posts becoming increasingly more inflammatory.
Maybe if you just acknowledge that this might be a bad idea it would help. It's no big deal, people have bad ideas from time to time. Kill it now and in 2 weeks no one will remember it. Force this thing onto TQ and your name will be attached to this heap of crap for years to come. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
917
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:54:00 -
[832] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Raminather wrote:How about instead of further screwing with stuff that is working you finish the station walking that was supposed to be done already.....
Priorities in the dev department are flawed. Fix the current content and finish the stuff promised before adding new stuff to further screw people. W.i.S is not a priority... and hasn't been for quite some time.
Yet it is the only hope for eve's continued survival. CCP need to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to wis and fulfil their future vision. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2014.01.15 23:57:00 -
[833] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
For the benefit of those who don't want to go back a page: "If you're not willing to fight for what you have in EVE, you don't deserve it and you will lose it" is the signature.
What a lot of the feedback here is saying and what seems to be left out of the discussion is the mechanism by which the Dev team thinks this will generate those fights. We have heard from 0.0 residents from every corner of the galaxy saying that this won't generate those fights. We have also heard from those same people that deployables like this are concerning, since they represent a breakdown in the processes that players have come to rely on to vet additions like this to the game (namely the CSM and the various feedback forums).
To residents of 0.0, this represents a flat 5% reduction in bounty payouts since, as the module is currently designed, the risk/reward calculations will never favor friendly use of the module. The way the dev blog was phrased, this deployable is presented as a fun and interesting addition that is usually favorable to 0.0 ratters who trust the people they rat with. This means that the persons responsible for developing this module and the population of null-sec have very different ideas about how the risk/reward calculations are done and turn out in 0.0 space. This has very concerning implications for how 0.0 residents and their income streams ill be treated in future expansions.
Let me be clear, I don't like this deployable. I think it will see very little use in 0.0 space as it does not represent a valuable investment for either a 0.0 ratter or group of ratters or a roaming gang trying to disrupt 0.0 income. But that's not the real problem here. The real problem is that this is not a farms and field deployable. This is not what The Mittani meant when he talked about farms and fields. The real problem is that this deployable currently represents a lack of either inclination or willingness to meet with the player base on level ground and talk about the game in a meaningful way. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
573
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:00:00 -
[834] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
Referencing: 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¥
Why are null sec people the only people that have defend it? Why couldn't you do this module in high sec, where it could actually make for interesting game play? Or low sec, which this seems ideal for, if anyone ratted there.
If you're avoiding posts with inflammatory phrasing, is that your excuse why you're avoiding most of the posts in this thead?
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
384
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:00:00 -
[835] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
Do you also tend to avoid answering (or reading) posts expressing opinions opposed to yours? No sig. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
917
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:00:00 -
[836] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Conflict driverow?
I see several posters saying this will create pvp.. it wont.
I been down to 0.0 several times now (I live in lowsec myself.. yes people do live there) and most of the time the ratters pos up as fast as they can and wont come out to fight no matter what.
If we drop this piece of junk, they will still stay docked until we leave and then go out, nuke it and return to ratting/anoming... so.. no new pvp.
Or. they form up a fleet and we have epic pew pew.. but.. they would do that regardless of this module or not. (see above).
no ratter in their right mind will go out to shoot this thing while we are still in their system and they sure as HELL wont keep ratting when we are there. not for long anyway.
THIS WONT CREATE PVP!!
it just adds a boring structure grind if the agressors drop one, and considering how short time it takes them to melt it. why would we leave one in space and waste the isk?
and it has been proven several times how stupid it is for the ratter to use one, since most of the time us roaming in 0.0 will be in ceptors. and just go.. trololol to steal the isk. what.. they will undock to defend their module? nope, not unless they are numerous to take us on, and if they where and wanted to pew.. they would pew us anyway!!!
the only ones i see going, "this is a good idea" are highsec carebears, and i dont use the term negatively. i used to be one for ages :) but the ones saying this is good, are the ones that will NEVER use or interact with one. so it is pure Schadenfreude, and seriously that isn't a good basis for feedback.. haha sucks to be you.. is a childish reaction. most of us care about EVE even areas we don't visit.
CCP, your feedback on this thread so far has made it quite clear you are feebly trying to defend your idea in the face of overwhelming negative feedback. It is ok to say, ok.. we will scrap this idea. It wont make you the weaker person, it takes a strong person to admit they are wrong. Being told your idea is bad hurts, of course it does. But lashing out with irrational .. we will fix this later.. that is just silly. we all know you dont. you even make.. arrogant little jokes about how you dont. Can't you see how that makes us, the playerbase feel?
Linda
Well said, agreed on all points. Null bears will just hide and ignore the module or elect to accept lower bounties. It's not really a conflict driver unless it can be deployed in all security statuses, then it's just a griefing tool. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
497
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:01:00 -
[837] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. |
|
ner00n
Dead's Prostitutes Li3 Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:01:00 -
[838] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
The bounties in Nullsec are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures!
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
799
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:02:00 -
[839] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. CCP SoniClover I understand that you're getting a lot of posts which are close to attacks on you and that must be frustrating but ignoring Tippia's inflammatory phrasing in the post s/he had a valid point.
Right now we're struggling to see what the goal or point of these modules is from your (CCP's) point of view. Even with some of the more poorly written and ridiculous posts there have been a lot of constructive ones outlining issues which neither you or any member of your team have come and answered for us.
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own? * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item? * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain? Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
497
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:04:00 -
[840] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. Referencing: 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¥ Why are null sec people the only people that have defend it? Why couldn't you do this module in high sec, where it could actually make for interesting game play? Or low sec, which this seems ideal for, if anyone ratted there. If you're avoiding posts with inflammatory phrasing, is that your excuse why you're avoiding most of the posts in this thead?
You can-¦t expect everything we do to have equal affect on everyone. Yes, the ESS affects null sec more, just like the Hi Sec POCOs we did for Rubicon affected hi sec more. It evens out in the end. We hate everyone equally. |
|
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:04:00 -
[841] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Have you ever played Eve and lived in nullsec? |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
799
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:04:00 -
[842] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Can't we leave the bounties at the normal 100% and ignore the confusing and needless 95% aspect of the mechanics and instead have a module which lowers by 20% and builds up to 110-120% so it's purely an optional gamble and not something we feel forced to use because CCP suddenly decided we all deserve a 5% income nerf. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
918
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:05:00 -
[843] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. I fail to see what the point is supposed to be behind this deployable. If what you guys want to do is to make nullsec more rife with PVP action, then surely fixing the sov system would be a much better expenditure of your dev time.
But then they wouldn't have time to work on dust, wod, valkyrie and mobile apps... Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1418
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:08:00 -
[844] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Unlike many of my peers I am not opposed to this module as a general concept. However, I would suggest you go back and try to understand the EFFORT:ISK and RISK:REWARD for this module and rebalance it.
The ratio as it stands is not appealing to ratters. Black Ops groups sure, ratters no.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:08:00 -
[845] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Everything you've posted assumes that the bubble around the module represents an actual deterrent to roaming individuals accessing these modules. Anyone who has spent any time in 0.0 space since Rubicon 1.0 knows that with bubble-immune, instant-warping interceptors and nullified T3s, bubbles are not a significant deterrent to hostile mobility in a sovereign system. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
500
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:09:00 -
[846] - Quote
Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.
Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
|
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
270
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:10:00 -
[847] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. I think you're over-estimating the eagerness with which people will anchor a structure that will be used as a gun to their head later on.
"Dear Snake Jailbird, for your convenience and mine, the key is under the doormat, the money is in the till please remember to lock up when you leave thank you come again!" |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
918
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:11:00 -
[848] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Man, you are defending the indefensible. Give it up now, admit it's a bad idea, take it back to the drawing board. There's no shame in a rethink. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Razzor Death
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:12:00 -
[849] - 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.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
have you been to highsec lately ? do you even play this game ?
( let me help you out, if you did something to deal with the botting empires some no name alliances establish just to run RMT bot farms that number might go down by about 70% ) |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:12:00 -
[850] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kismeteer wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. Referencing: 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¥ Why are null sec people the only people that have defend it? Why couldn't you do this module in high sec, where it could actually make for interesting game play? Or low sec, which this seems ideal for, if anyone ratted there. If you're avoiding posts with inflammatory phrasing, is that your excuse why you're avoiding most of the posts in this thead? You can-¦t expect everything we do to have equal affect on everyone. Yes, the ESS affects null sec more, just like the Hi Sec POCOs we did for Rubicon affected hi sec more. It evens out in the end. We hate everyone equally. That's ok, I hate everyone too. The module as-is doesn't do what you think it does. It doesn't create conflict because no one will even bother with the minimal reward it potentially offers. This is due to the large reduction in current income, with a high risk of getting no reward and a small reward if the gambit succeeds.
Are you familiar with the concept of a risk/benefit analysis? |
|
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1658
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:12:00 -
[851] - 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. Why don't you minimize inflation some other way? |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:14:00 -
[852] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. This is going to succeed. Well done, empires, you're going to achieve your goals. |
Fix Sov
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:14:00 -
[853] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Alternatively, you could do things like increase sales taxes etc to respond to the inflation, and have an even bigger pot of gold to skim off of. vOv The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:14:00 -
[854] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
It's not a nerf if we chose to be, it is a definite nerf because of the way CCP has designed Nullsec ratting.
Here are the facts.
Income is completely dependent on DPS of a ratting ship. If a fit does less than 600 DPS, you will receive less Isk/hour than L4 missions (Faction Navy est 60 Mil/hour. SOE missions can hit 150+) . Ratting ships generally fit as much pure damage as possible over damage application and projection, never mind mobility and tackle.
Ratting Means tanking a decent amount of incoming damage for prolonged periods of time. This means ratting fits are optimized for endurance, and fare poorly against high burst ratter ganking fits. Not to mention the ratting ship will have rat damage from the start. In practice, this means a ratting ship will always lose to a ratter ganker, unless the ganker is extraordinarily inept.
Due to the way anomalies are designed, ratting is largely a solo/multiboxed activity. Rats have very low HP, and the frequent target switching from having multiple people ratting the same site reduces efficiency. Even if ratting ships could fight the gankers, that would be dependent on ratter gankers being honorable space samurai who always work alone and never have a gang behind them.
From these attributes, the only reasonable action when ratter gankers enter system is to dock.
I'm curious, what do CCP devs envision as " various choices in how to respond". Do you expect certain player behavior when implementing new features? a certain way they be used? they ways they impact EVE at large?
An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department. Were you wronged by a member of our fine space guild? We can get you the compensation you deserve. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:15:00 -
[855] - Quote
Razzor Death 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. ahahahahahahahahahahahaha have you been to highsec lately ? do you even play this game ? Your definition of income and CCP's definition differ, FYI.
You consider any increase in your wallet to be income. CCP defines income as "activities which increase the total amount of isk in the game." Highsec missions and incursions derive a nontrivial amount of their reward in LP, which is designed to reduce total isk in the game. Nullsec combat anomalies directly create isk. CCP is right to be wary of the total number of "isk faucets" which exist in the game, and while I don't necessarily know if tuning nullsec combat anomaly bounties in such a way is the right decision, it's certainly one effective way of going about it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
799
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:15:00 -
[856] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
With respect many have stated that if inflation was the reason we would rather just have CCP rework the bounties and be open and honest about it. Also it seems a little backwards to be fixing an inflation issue by adding a module which can potentially bring more money into the game. This goes back to my earlier posts that if CCP is looking for a way to sink some ISK out of the game have these modules pay out LP instead of ISK that way we will be dumping the money into LP stores which are one of the games larger ISK sinks.
LP would also work nicely with the lore you're trying to establish here and gives the racial variants of the modules more meaning as you will be choosing which LP you would like to be earning via the choice.
In the current state of the item it's really not worth it to most NullSec entities because it offers far too little gain for far to high a risk. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:16:00 -
[857] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Can you provide a breakdown of the magnitudes of isk faucets and sinks so the players that are interested can verify this? I'm not opposed to an across-the-board null-sec bounty nerf if this is true, but let's call a spade and spade. We're all adults.
CCP SoniClover wrote: That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.
There are better ways, both in lore and in game mechanics, for empires to draw us back into the fold. Use empire LP, rather than straight isk, as the incentive, it fits far better with the tropes you've established so far (LP for missions and faction warfare).
CCP SoniClover wrote:
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
A very large contingent of the null-sec power bases have demonstrated (relatively) objective that the gain is not worth the risk. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:16:00 -
[858] - Quote
EI Digin 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. Why don't you minimize inflation some other way? Between you, us, and N3's rental programs, we are generating trillions of isk a month in rent. Renters, in a large amount, generate that isk from ratting. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6028
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:17:00 -
[859] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
The ESS as implemented is garbage and you will probably not be getting what you'd get pre-1.1 because word will quickly get out about the morons who actually are dumb enough to use an ESS and you'll get camped and robbed left and right because you're the only ones dumb enough in five regions to do it. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
920
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:18:00 -
[860] - Quote
EI Digin 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. Why don't you minimize inflation some other way?
Yet if you use the ESS properly you get 105% of the bounty. So much for worrying about inflation. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
|
Nori Galathil
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:20:00 -
[861] - Quote
Do not put this module in game as is currently thought to function. This will not cause conflict like you think. Listen to the null player base it is telling you. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
920
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:20:00 -
[862] - Quote
You know an idea is bad when everyone agrees its bad. CCP have succeeded in uniting both Empire and null sec players into agreeing that the ESS is bad. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6028
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:21:00 -
[863] - Quote
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.pdf
This explanation doesn't hold water and you've published something to that effect. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1419
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:21:00 -
[864] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
One of CCP's stated goals in the past was to get rid of all possible NPC items. This item should not reverse that trend and should be player made.
If by subjective, you mean lotteries are also subjective because they are played by people really bad at math. Then yes, this is subjective too. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:22:00 -
[865] - Quote
not sure why this topic is unlocked. CCP won't care or change anything, but just reply to some posts about how you're all wrong. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6028
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:23:00 -
[866] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. ... This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
No it's not. You just admitted, in this post you've deliberately balanced it so it's not worth the risk (because you're assuming it will lead to a reduction in isk overall). So no, the risk isn't worth the reward and you know it. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Blackfin Arbosa
New Eden Order Sev3rance
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:23:00 -
[867] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
The bounties in Nullsec are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures!
ESS is dumb just don't |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
384
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:24:00 -
[868] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Are you suggesting that EyjoG's assessment ("Sinks and faucets are fairly balanced right now, with a bit more faucet than sink to allow for economic growth") that can be found in the CSM minutes is wrong? No sig. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:25:00 -
[869] - Quote
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.
Love that quality communication between the CSM, Developers, and CCP's analysts. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
231
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:25:00 -
[870] - 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.
Then just straight nerf the bounties.
This is a poorly designed mechanic, period.
It's contrived and exceedingly confusing. It's not the kind of change that is going to add new players to the game in the long term or make existing players enjoy the game more.
Interacting with a nonsensical system wide ratting bank account via a deployable is so ridiculously weird that I just can't even fathom how this made it so far.
It's probably the single worst example of game design I have seen come from CCP in a long time. |
|
Razzor Death
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:25:00 -
[871] - Quote
Querns wrote: Your definition of income and CCP's definition differ, FYI.
You consider any increase in your wallet to be income. CCP defines income as "activities which increase the total amount of isk in the game." Highsec missions and incursions derive a nontrivial amount of their reward in LP, which is designed to reduce total isk in the game. Nullsec combat anomalies directly create isk. CCP is right to be wary of the total number of "isk faucets" which exist in the game, and while I don't necessarily know if tuning nullsec combat anomaly bounties in such a way is the right decision, it's certainly one effective way of going about it.
A valid point, call me old fashioned but I would much rather CCP went to all the Regions filled with nothing but 24/7 botting renter trash and started dealing with them before making judgments on how much isk nullsec is generating. |
Dibblerette
Ships Chat
169
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:26:00 -
[872] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Are you serious?
You have Faction Warfare, Incursions and L4s that are disgusting amounts of income, and you pick on null rats? |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:27:00 -
[873] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
ah I get it, you only read suggestions from players who don't actually live in null sec. cause every null sec player has told you why they would never use it, and you addressed none of the concerns they have brought up.
for example,
risk far to hi for reward adds hassle to an activity which already has more risk/ less reward than other activities with the same skill set as it stands neut/red shows up everyone docks so no offensive use
|
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1659
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:27:00 -
[874] - Quote
Querns wrote:Between you, us, and N3's rental programs, we are generating trillions of isk a month in rent. Renters, in a large amount, generate that isk from ratting.
Here is a graph from fanfest 2013. http://i.imgur.com/tO8lW9C.png In March of 2013, approximately 30 trillion isk comes from "Bounty Prizes". You'll have to excuse me but this is the most recent statistic I could find.
The isk we get from renters isn't really much in the grand scheme of things. The question I have always had was, how much of these bounty prizes are coming from nullsec. Too bad no one has ever told us
There is room to increase this to 33 or 35 billion (maybe even 36 or 40 billion), perhaps in order to have more fairer gameplay you have to rebalance some areas of the game which are literal isk printing factories which don't provide the risk factor that nullsec does. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:28:00 -
[875] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Are you serious? You have Faction Warfare, Incursions and L4s that are disgusting amounts of income, and you pick on null rats? Yes, because that's the right place to do it.
READ THE FOLLOWING BELOW TO UNDERSTAND WHY:
Querns wrote: Your definition of income and CCP's definition differ, FYI.
You consider any increase in your wallet to be income. CCP defines income as "activities which increase the total amount of isk in the game." Highsec missions and incursions derive a nontrivial amount of their reward in LP, which is designed to reduce total isk in the game. Nullsec combat anomalies directly create isk. CCP is right to be wary of the total number of "isk faucets" which exist in the game, and while I don't necessarily know if tuning nullsec combat anomaly bounties in such a way is the right decision, it's certainly one effective way of going about it.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:28:00 -
[876] - Quote
The Weaselior/Aryth dunktrain has no brakes An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department. Were you wronged by a member of our fine space guild? We can get you the compensation you deserve. |
Razzor Death
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:28:00 -
[877] - Quote
Eve Online 2014: Yes, we made ratting more cancerous |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:30:00 -
[878] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:The Weaselior/Aryth dunktrain has no brakes It relies on bad posting by ccp devs, however. Which gradually will ground to a stop, sadly. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
800
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:30:00 -
[879] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Are you serious? You have Faction Warfare, Incursions and L4s that are disgusting amounts of income, and you pick on null rats? All of those are also sinks due to the ISK lost when you cash out the LP, FW being a complete removal of ISK because it's all LP earns instead of ISK. I'm not saying they don't make crazy amounts of ISK but there is a loss of pure ISK whenever LP is used, NullSec income is pure ISK with none of it being traded in.
The player may make good ISK from other players when selling LP Store items but this is just ISK moving around not the creation of it. Creation comes from Bounties, Sleeper Tags and Mission Rewards only AFAIK. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Fix Sov
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:31:00 -
[880] - Quote
Razzor Death wrote:Eve Online 2014: Yes, we made ratting more cancerous I didn't think this was possible. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:34:00 -
[881] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
IE no sandbox, use our feature no one wants or be punished. yeah this game is going in a very bad direction for me |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:35:00 -
[882] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Querns wrote:Between you, us, and N3's rental programs, we are generating trillions of isk a month in rent. Renters, in a large amount, generate that isk from ratting. Here is a graph from fanfest 2013. http://i.imgur.com/tO8lW9C.png In March of 2013, approximately 30 trillion isk comes from "Bounty Prizes". You'll have to excuse me but this is the most recent statistic I could find. The isk we get from renters isn't really much in the grand scheme of things. The question I have always had was, how much of these bounty prizes are coming from nullsec. Too bad no one has ever told us There is room to increase this to 33 or 35 billion (maybe even 36 or 40 billion), perhaps in order to have more fairer gameplay you have to rebalance some areas of the game which are literal isk printing factories which don't provide the risk factor that nullsec does. I use the rental program example as a point of reference because it represents activities which actually mint new isk from the ether, compared to LP things, whose value is primarily derived from destroying isk by converting it with the LP into items which are then sold on the market with previously-existing isk.
An example: http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=15766 A FN 10mn afterburner destroys 4 million isk for every 12,000 LP used to make it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Anhenka
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
95
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:36:00 -
[883] - Quote
Give up guys, it's obvious that one guy has the reins on this project and that this is SonicClover's darling project, for which foul player input is not allowed to effect.
When the players from all parts of eve told Team SuperFriends a million and one times the initial proposed stats for the dscan inhibitor needed to be toned back a bit, whoever was in charge there took the advice of the people who combined play this game tens of thousands more than any dev and toned it down to a point where most people could agree on.
But when those same people look upon the ESS and declare it a poorly trainwreck, suddenly the only acceptable input is innocuous questions about market seeding and access time.
SoniClover, I guess at the end of the day, you don't have to listen to us. But in advance: We told you so. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
895
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:36:00 -
[884] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Called it.
Dibblerette wrote: Are you serious?
You have Faction Warfare, Incursions and L4s that are disgusting amounts of income, and you pick on null rats?
Fac War, L4, and Incursions all come with an isk sink in the form of an LP store, which you pretty much have to use to maximize isk/hr. Incursions have also been nerfed.
How out of date are those minutes again? |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:37:00 -
[885] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
There was nothing inflamatory in that post. Perhaps you should http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvM7av1o1Q&list=PL4ACF917EAB70339A |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
385
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:40:00 -
[886] - Quote
How many manhours were destroyed working on the ESS? No sig. |
Nyan Lafisques
Legion Du Lys Insidious Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:42:00 -
[887] - Quote
Why not just add LP for killing rats in Null, or something similar ? Droneland is already bad, and now we have to deal with even worst bounties ? Obviously nobody's gonna use the ESS so...
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:44:00 -
[888] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:How many manhours were destroyed working on the ESS? Fortunately, anyone with any actual experience in this field knows that manhours are both A) a poor way to measure software development efficacy, and 2) are not generally fungible between different programming projects, so this sort of question is useless at best. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6038
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:44:00 -
[889] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: How out of date are those minutes again?
They are the most recent minutes and there has been no significant changes to nullsec ratting between then and now that would suppose it was out of date. SoniClover is wrong about isk faucets being a problem, and I know that because the independent CCP employee whose job it is to look at the data and understand what it means reviewed the data closely and said so. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Jase Fairimor
Erebus Down Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:44:00 -
[890] - Quote
I keep hearing that if you use it correctly you gain 5%.
I have to argue that is most likely not true as the time it takes to manage it and protect it are keeping "steel from target "so to speak and is time you aren't ratting therefore ...
Overall isk/hr will go down in most cases I feel.
|
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
896
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:46:00 -
[891] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: How out of date are those minutes again?
They are the most recent minutes and there has been no significant changes to nullsec ratting between then and now that would suppose it was out of date. SoniClover is wrong about isk faucets being a problem, and I know that because the independent CCP employee whose job it is to look at the data and understand what it means reviewed the data closely and said so. The same independant employee that said tech was fine? |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2976
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:47:00 -
[892] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
Now we're getting somewhere. I'd ask for figures on the breakdown on ISK generated by bounties to demonstrate what proportion was generated by 0.0 as opposed to lowsec and highsec, but I don't expect those figures to be forthcoming. 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. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:48:00 -
[893] - Quote
Kais Fiddler wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:The Weaselior/Aryth dunktrain has no brakes It relies on bad posting by ccp devs, however. Which gradually will ground to a stop, sadly.
After the economist report dunking I'll be shocked if we get another. I just don't understand the outright refusal to even consider that this might have been a bad idea. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6042
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:48:00 -
[894] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: The same independant employee that said tech was fine?
I don't know, you find me a specific quote like I found and we'll discuss. But even assuming you find one (and I doubt it, I assume you've got no idea what you're talking about) tech was not an economic problem, which is EyjoG's specialty, it was a game balance problem, which is not. SoniClover claimed the bounties were an economic problem, and he's wrong. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1169
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:48:00 -
[895] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
the amount of ISK you can make in Nullsec is still pretty damn low if you look at the work and coordination it takes to be able to harvest it, especially compared to income based on highsec missions, wormhole PvE and Factional Warfare ( i know that FW is an ISK-sink)
If you want to minimize inflation you should increase the costs for other stuff in the game. especially the prices for production lines in highsec stations are ridiculously low and could easily be increased by a factor of 100 without hurting anyone producing anything in highsec
CCP SoniClover wrote: This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
nope, it's not. it's to low for anyone to seriously consider putting down an ESS without having two blue regions in each direction.
once again:
The idea is great, the numbers need tuning. if you want to minimize inflation, take money from highsec industrialists by increasing the cost of production lines and/or sales tax
We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:51:00 -
[896] - Quote
It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1169
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:53:00 -
[897] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: The same independant employee that said tech was fine?
I don't know, you find me a specific quote like I found and we'll discuss. But even assuming you find one (and I doubt it, I assume you've got no idea what you're talking about) tech was not an economic problem, which is EyjoG's specialty, it was a game balance problem, which is not. SoniClover claimed the bounties were an economic problem, and he's wrong.
even if SoniClover was right, the solution he proposes is still wrong ;)
We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:54:00 -
[898] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote: They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This is entirely the point Weaselior is trying to make. The same numbers CCP has from its in-house economist were shared with the CSM and subsequently made public. The entire point is that, according the player's understanding of the role of the CSM, we have the same numbers. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6042
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:55:00 -
[899] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... CCP has the numbers. That doesn't mean SoniClover looked at them, or understood what they mean. That's why I'm pointing to a CCP employee who did look at the numbers, did understand what they mean, and said the opposite of what SoniClover is saying here.
I don't have the numbers, but EyjoG does. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
897
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:58:00 -
[900] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: SoniClover claimed the bounties were an economic problem, and he's wrong.
Ah yes, I forgot that Goonswarm receives the same up to the minute metrics from CCP that are available to the devs. My apologies, Goonsire. Clearly, that's how you know he's wrong, right? Right?
Honestly, most of the posts in this thread can be summed up as: "Boohooohooo, I don't want to fight for my 5%" |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 00:59:00 -
[901] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... CCP has the numbers. That doesn't mean SoniClover looked at them, or understood what they mean. That's why I'm pointing to a CCP employee who did look at the numbers, did understand what they mean, and said the opposite of what SoniClover is saying here. I don't have the numbers, but EyjoG does.
Doesn't the quote say "as of 2012?"
Maybe there's been a severe botting outbreak since then - who knows. Similar things have happened in other games I have played in the past.
Giant mechanic changes would come with a huge priority given to edging bots out of the market.
My favorite anti-bot addition was in Path of Exile -- they added supermobs that randomly and rarely spawn that are much tougher, stronger, and equipped with better than AI than normal mobs.
Bot killers, basically. Active players never minded them much because they had increased rewards.
But that's a solution that adds content to the game -- instead of a weird contrived anchorable widget thing and system-wide bank accounts. |
commander aze
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
44
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:02:00 -
[902] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
Wow drones lands blew from the start thanks for making it suck worse... thanks for that ... Also countering inflation by hitting ratting is like live trapping rats... people will continue to do it they will find ways to do it that male more isk. And in addition there going to still make that money plus more.
It's a bad idea gone worse...that some sort of perceived benefit makes you think it's the way to do. You want to fight inflation. Alliance level taxing. In addition to that alter high sec office fees. High sec tax rates.
The deployable will be destroyed in every system or stolen from via ceptards because they don't have to hack it or anything. And they have enough time to get out before a fleet can get after them... it's stupid and silly. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
627
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:02:00 -
[903] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities...
Regardless of whether or not more ->bounties<- come from null, more ->value<- to the individual comes from using the Osmon level 4 agent. That is reflected by the entire active population of Vale of the Silent (both GENTS and PBLRD sov space) being below Osmon and its surrounding couple of systems (where the runners also get sent).
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
802
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:03:00 -
[904] - Quote
I'm not posting this to be an ass but your posts have been somewhat contradicting in regards to the ISK sink.
CCP SoniClover wrote:If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
If the goal of the 5% decrease in bounties received is to reduce ISK coming into the game why are you developing a module which you're telling everyone will increase their income from what it is now. The only way this would work as an ISK sink is as someone else posted earlier you make the ESS so repulsive that no one wants to use it and just takes the 5% income hit.
You can't tell us you're worried about inflation and income of ISK while producing modules which are going to increase that if used correctly. Imagine if against all the laws of EVE everyone made a pact to not mess with each others ESS, you then just increased the ISK coming into the game.
I think CCP needs to put its hand up and admit that right now the ESS is not something which should be released in Rubicon 1.1 and take it to F&I to work over with the community. If there is an inflation issue speak openly about it with the community and tell us you need to take steps to fix it which will actually fix it. We don't want to see the economy go to hell any more than you.
I will once again say that if you want this as an ISK sink make it turn ISK into LP like myself and others have said. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1421
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:06:00 -
[905] - Quote
Turelus wrote:I'm not posting this to be an ass but your posts have been somewhat contradicting in regards to the ISK sink. CCP SoniClover wrote:If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. If the goal of the 5% decrease in bounties received is to reduce ISK coming into the game why are you developing a module which you're telling everyone will increase their income from what it is now. The only way this would work as an ISK sink is as someone else posted earlier you make the ESS so repulsive that no one wants to use it and just takes the 5% income hit. You can't tell us you're worried about inflation and income of ISK while producing modules which are going to increase that if used correctly. Imagine if against all the laws of EVE everyone made a pact to not mess with each others ESS, you then just increased the ISK coming into the game. I think CCP needs to put its hand up and admit that right now the ESS is not something which should be released in Rubicon 1.1 and take it to F&I to work over with the community. If there is an inflation issue speak openly about it with the community and tell us you need to take steps to fix it which will actually fix it. We don't want to see the economy go to hell any more than you. I will once again say that if you want this as an ISK sink make it turn ISK into LP like myself and others have said.
Because he is trying to invent excuses for the creation and botched implementation after the fact.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
555
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:06:00 -
[906] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. I'd honestly like to see a post that did not respond proportionally to the ignorance shown by CCP. Your assumption that the EVE community (Esp. 0.0) are idiots is inflammatory to us. Furthermore, your gross misrepresentation, strawmanning, and red herring back when you "summed up" the criticism was pretty disgusting. Your continued evasion of the criticism is, likewise, an insult to our intelligence and waste of development resources and customer goodwill/feedback. Your disregard for the wellbeing of a large portion of the game is troubling.
In short, I'm insulted. I hope you're trolling, I fear you aren't.
I've seen a few posters call into question the continouos employment of you and/or the team you are a part of. Where else has there been any inflammatory posts, or posts that weren't proportional to your insult to the community (As stated above)? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:08:00 -
[907] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:It's absolutely stupid to argue with a Dev about whether or not he's correct in that a huge amount of ISK (bounties) come in from nullsec.
They have the numbers. We don't.
That doesn't make the ESS any better of an idea, though.
This game needs more simplified and streamlined. understandable mechanics.
Not weird, arbitrary oddities... Regardless of whether or not more ->bounties<- come from null, more ->value<- to the individual comes from using the Osmon level 4 agent. That is reflected by the entire active population of Vale of the Silent (both GENTS and PBLRD sov space) being below Osmon and its surrounding couple of systems (where the runners also get sent).
I think the difference is, adding value is generally a good thing for the economy as it means more items for players to purchase and cheaper prices.
For example IIRC from the dev blog, something like 80% of all value in the market comes from players manufacturing items. If that activity was nerfed -- the prices of items would go up, which is bad for everybody (except maybe a few people who would be in a position to take advantage) . Likewise if it was harder to get LP -- then all the things that cost LP would increase in price....
Conversely adding straight ISK to the economy (too much anyways) has bad effects - especially on the price of PLEX - which CCP has always tried to keep at a reasonable price. They even seed PLEX's themselves if the price gets too high.
Why is nullsec ratting bounties being targeted in particular as an ISK faucet?
No idea -- my primary guess is just like I recently posted -- that it has been botted, and this is just their incredibly poor idea of dealing with it. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
690
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:09:00 -
[908] - Quote
What happens when an unstoppable force (team superfriends or more specifically SoniClover) meets an immovable object (eve playerbase)? Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3375
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:09:00 -
[909] - Quote
Turelus wrote:I'm not posting this to be an ass but your posts have been somewhat contradicting in regards to the ISK sink. CCP SoniClover wrote:If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. If the goal of the 5% decrease in bounties received is to reduce ISK coming into the game why are you developing a module which you're telling everyone will increase their income from what it is now. The only way this would work as an ISK sink is as someone else posted earlier you make the ESS so repulsive that no one wants to use it and just takes the 5% income hit. You can't tell us you're worried about inflation and income of ISK while producing modules which are going to increase that if used correctly. Imagine if against all the laws of EVE everyone made a pact to not mess with each others ESS, you then just increased the ISK coming into the game. I think CCP needs to put its hand up and admit that right now the ESS is not something which should be released in Rubicon 1.1 and take it to F&I to work over with the community. If there is an inflation issue speak openly about it with the community and tell us you need to take steps to fix it which will actually fix it. We don't want to see the economy go to hell any more than you. I will once again say that if you want this as an ISK sink make it turn ISK into LP like myself and others have said.
Perhaps there is a simple answer:
To prevent future inflation, they were asked not to overtly increase nullsec bounties. To make room for this, while maintaining the nullsec isk faucet at current levels, they are decreasing all nullsec bounties by 5% under the premise that the nullbears that utilize the new ESS will make that income back on the whole.
To be frank, I suspect most nullbears won't want to "defend their space" and wont use the module, but with some appropriate tweaks I bet there are plenty who would.
|
Kalenn Istarion
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:10:00 -
[910] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:
If you want to minimize inflation you should increase the costs for other stuff in the game. especially the prices for production lines in highsec stations are ridiculously low and could easily be increased by a factor of 100 without hurting anyone producing anything in highsec
Need to be careful in commenting on inflation versus money supply. Implementing a tax would take money out of the system thus reducing money supply, but would likely lead in the short term to inflation (defined as an increase in prices) as producers seek the easiest solution for maintaining margins. Eventually there would likely be a flow-through effect of reduced prices on minerals (and thus settling through into reduced finished good prices) as the value of the currency increases, but this would take time and wouldn't be a guaranteed outcome.
It is advantageous however in that producers have an avenue to recover their increased costs while ratters do not, short of the broken ESS. Producer price increases are also spread over a greater portion of the total system, rather than directly hitting a subset of players (mostly newer ones) for whom ratting is a sole income source.
Conclusion: This whole thing really needs to be re-thought, as it appears that there are conflicting and unclear goals driving the introduction of this device and associated flat nerf to ratting income. Try Harder. |
|
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2281
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:14:00 -
[911] - Quote
ITT: People surprised that CCP doesn't understand their own game, and makes completely **** decisions in trying to improve their game with any other result than something subpar to what they started with.
It takes a pretty special person to take the worst PvE content in an MMO, and then somehow make it worse. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1423
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:16:00 -
[912] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Turelus wrote:I'm not posting this to be an ass but your posts have been somewhat contradicting in regards to the ISK sink. CCP SoniClover wrote:If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. If the goal of the 5% decrease in bounties received is to reduce ISK coming into the game why are you developing a module which you're telling everyone will increase their income from what it is now. The only way this would work as an ISK sink is as someone else posted earlier you make the ESS so repulsive that no one wants to use it and just takes the 5% income hit. You can't tell us you're worried about inflation and income of ISK while producing modules which are going to increase that if used correctly. Imagine if against all the laws of EVE everyone made a pact to not mess with each others ESS, you then just increased the ISK coming into the game. I think CCP needs to put its hand up and admit that right now the ESS is not something which should be released in Rubicon 1.1 and take it to F&I to work over with the community. If there is an inflation issue speak openly about it with the community and tell us you need to take steps to fix it which will actually fix it. We don't want to see the economy go to hell any more than you. I will once again say that if you want this as an ISK sink make it turn ISK into LP like myself and others have said. Perhaps there is a simple answer: To prevent future inflation, they were asked not to overtly increase nullsec bounties. To make room for this, while maintaining the nullsec isk faucet at current levels, they are decreasing all nullsec bounties by 5% under the premise that the nullbears that utilize the new ESS will make that income back on the whole. To be frank, I suspect most nullbears won't want to "defend their space" and wont use the module, but with some appropriate tweaks I bet there are plenty who would.
The simple answer was how we all thought this would work when we first saw the rumors.
The easy solution was to have no nerf to null at all. If you install the module you would instead get increased payouts in LP or some other non-faucet. However, this would come with some sort of much longer minimum time to "harvest". Perhaps 24 hour timers or something else that makes it worth fighting over and worth using.
As it stands right now, no actual ratter will want to use this as the RISK:REWARD is hilariously bad. It is best used offensively not as a way to improve your income.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:16:00 -
[913] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Weaselior wrote: SoniClover claimed the bounties were an economic problem, and he's wrong.
Ah yes, I forgot that Goonswarm receives the same up to the minute metrics from CCP that are available to the devs. My apologies, Goonsire. Clearly, that's how you know he's wrong, right? Right? Honestly, most of the posts in this thread can be summed up as: "Boohooohooo, I don't want to fight for my 5%"
I don't think you get it, really. The 5% drop is literally nothing. I don't think anyone in Null would be too cut up over a 5% blanket cut in ratting bounties. If you want to put it in perspective, it's less than a mil lost per 20 mins ratting, making the average per tick income of the average solo null ratter 17.1 mil, rather than 18 mil.
That means (barring losses and discounting looting which can enhance income greatly now due to the MTUS) about 12 hours to a PLEX rather than 11 hrs 30 mins. That's right, 30 mins difference to make 620 mil. One and a half ticks extra (about the length of time it takes to complete one anom).
The ESS is literally the most pointless thing ever made, and does none of the things it's meant to. That's why people are being frustrated about it. It's a nerf dressed as a buff, which people are finding quite an insult to their intelligence.
Personally, I'd have prefered it if CCP had just said "OK guys, ratting income is a bit high, we're gonna drop it by 5%".
I literally have a bag of "better ideas" if null income is really that much of a problem, too! Since we've established these will literally cause zero gudfites, how about we keep the ESS, carve off the 20% income as intended, and make null income partially LP based, paid out by the ESS, and the LP store isk sink model is employed (with none of this silly incremental % increase nonsense)?
I'm literally putting no thought into these Ideas, and they all seem to be better than the ESS in it's current guise. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
897
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:24:00 -
[914] - Quote
Xaerael Endiel wrote: The ESS is literally the most pointless thing ever made
That's not true, it makes an excellent medium warp disruptor.
I agree that the ESS is a pointless item in general, but most of the people aren't complaining about the ESS, they're complaining about their income getting nerfed. We don't have the up-to-date metrics available to us to know if it is warranted. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4334
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:25:00 -
[915] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
Won't be a nerf at all as we'll simply adjust out of null sec into other places. Did you guys learn nothing from the systems upgrade nerf your company had to turn around and un-nerf (through the isk/ehp buff)?
Also, when this thing creates the detrimental effects we are predicting (not just to people who like to pve in null sec, but to people affected by the ripple effect of fewer ships dying because people start pveing in high sec, like I already have) are you really that eager to have to waste time fixing it?
We offer our advice out of a desire to not only preserve some gameplay we think is currently ok, but also in hopes of preventing you guys wasting man hours that could be devoted to progessing the game's design. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8479
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:26:00 -
[916] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk. How can you expect me to be civil when reading **** like this? Seriously. You need to stop developing for a while, pull your head out of your ass, actually see how people play the game, and then go back and decide what needs to be done. My EVE Videos |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2284
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:27:00 -
[917] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:I agree that the ESS is a pointless item in general, but most of the people aren't complaining about the ESS, they're complaining about their income getting nerfed. We don't have the up-to-date metrics available to us to know if it is warranted.
Nerfing an income source that supports at MAX maybe 5 simultaneous users in a fully upgraded system with decent true sec (that an alliance is paying for) seems a bit strange when Level 4 missions can support an infinite number of pilots, with little to no risk.
Edit: For what it's worth I haven't shot a rat in well over 2 years (at least). |
Tarikan
Evicted.
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:28:00 -
[918] - Quote
This "Quick fix" is, to be blunt, irritating.
The changes to Faction Warfare made the PvE mechanics and farming a little more enjoyable, then you take a 180 degree turn on null-sec and not only lower the bounties, but also create a mobile structure that will hardly be used.
I'm irritated with what you consider a proper fix, there are a number of different options that you can do to lower your inflation problem and possibly increase enjoyment for nullbears as well as make it so new isk isn't created, but traded with players.
Meh. We can work together to try and create a more enjoyable fix...
I personally would enjoy the idea of lowering the null-sec NPC bounties but then rewarding LP. |
Alim Omaristos
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:30:00 -
[919] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk. None of that changes what a stupid Item this is. Why not just lower the amount from bounties like a normal response to inflation would be. Why create literally a time sink. Honestly What are the CSMs opinions on this module? I can't imagine a worse item to be added to the game. Honestly if something this stupid comes into the game i'm Liable to unsub clearly the Devs are so out of touch with what to do with Eve any more it isn't even funny.
Disclaimer, I don't rat, i think it's awful and the isk hour just isn't worth it. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
898
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:31:00 -
[920] - Quote
Xolve wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:I agree that the ESS is a pointless item in general, but most of the people aren't complaining about the ESS, they're complaining about their income getting nerfed. We don't have the up-to-date metrics available to us to know if it is warranted. Nerfing an income source that supports at MAX maybe 5 simultaneous users in a fully upgraded system with decent true sec (that an alliance is paying for) seems a bit strange when Level 4 missions can support an infinite number of pilots, with little to no risk. As has been stated repeatedly, missions come with an isk sink: the lp store. In order to get maximum isk/hour, you need to sink much of the raw isk you make from isk payouts into the lp store, taking that isk out of circulation. Then you sell the LP store items on the market to get your most isk/hr.
If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) the problem isn't that income in null is too high, the problem is that ISK coming out of null it too high. Those two are not the same thing, e.g.when you get a deadspace drop and sell it on the market, your income goes up, but you inject no isk into the market. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
804
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:32:00 -
[921] - Quote
I just realised as well (give me a break I'm slow) if you install an ESS in a system it does NOTHING to lower ISK inflow into the game, it keeps it the same or improves it, all it's doing is changing whos hand that ISK goes into.
The tags printed are just going to Empire and being converted into ISK meaning with an ESS installed in a system you're just switching to another faucet which can be switched onto overdrive. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Raminather
KnownUnknown
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:32:00 -
[922] - Quote
If CCP is concerned with ISK income in any part of eve the answer is to promote fighting and actual loss of isk. Ships being lost = higher prices for those ships ect less isk in game overall.. BUT to have the free market that isn't messed with that isk will go to someone and that will be the ppl with the blue prints and the materials to whatever is being used and lost. its a circle that ccp created more isk is coming into the circle daily so it is balling up faster now inflation ect.
So the real question is then what actual new content could you add that costs isk but does not add to this massive cycle? Sell Shirts for ISK or plex sell outside of game but with in game currency. Sell ship models ect. That will be the only way to truly get isk out of EVE. That wont happen though bc bussiness wise that would be a financial loss to there overhead but would actually make this game last longer than adding new content that doesn't work.
Whatever happens I already know that this game is getting to spread out with Dust, Valkyrie ect. and is losing its true focus which shows they are trying to make the most money before it implodes. Lack of actual new content that doesn't bring in new players but pushes out older ones will be the demise of this game.
My opinion, like it hate it but it is still mine |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:36:00 -
[923] - Quote
Raminather wrote:If CCP is concerned with ISK income in any part of eve the answer is to promote fighting and actual loss of isk. Ships being lost = higher prices for those ships ect less isk in game overall..
ships being killed doesnt remove isk from the game. In fact it adds isk through insurance.
the money you paid for the ship isnt removed, it is just transferred to those of us that build them.
what i dont get is..
this module is mean to reduce an isk faucet, ok.. fine.. but then don't go and say we will have 5% more income. that.. doesn't make any sense CCP.
Specially when your own economist doesn't agree with you.
|
Barry Kring
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:37:00 -
[924] - Quote
"Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation."
-Cloversomething
Ah, ok, but then my dear friend you need to reduce hs income first so there is still a reason for people to be in null. Nobody wants to take on all that risk for no extra iskies. |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2285
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:39:00 -
[925] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:As has been stated repeatedly, missions come with an isk sink: the lp store. In order to get maximum isk/hour, you need to sink much of the raw isk you make from isk payouts into the lp store, taking that isk out of circulation. Then you sell the LP store items on the market to get your most isk/hr.
Somebody, somewhere is paying for that Sov (and it costs quite a bit more than the paltry costs of a few lp store items); although my point was about the number of pilots engaging in an activity and not so much about how much money they can pull out of it at as near max efficiency as they can manage. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4335
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:39:00 -
[926] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Xolve wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:I agree that the ESS is a pointless item in general, but most of the people aren't complaining about the ESS, they're complaining about their income getting nerfed. We don't have the up-to-date metrics available to us to know if it is warranted. Nerfing an income source that supports at MAX maybe 5 simultaneous users in a fully upgraded system with decent true sec (that an alliance is paying for) seems a bit strange when Level 4 missions can support an infinite number of pilots, with little to no risk. As has been stated repeatedly, missions come with an isk sink: the lp store. In order to get maximum isk/hour, you need to sink much of the raw isk you make from isk payouts into the lp store, taking that isk out of circulation. Then you sell the LP store items on the market to get your most isk/hr. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) the problem isn't that income in null is too high, the problem is that ISK coming out of null it too high. Those two are not the same thing, e.g.when you get a deadspace drop and sell it on the market, your income goes up, but you inject no isk into the market.
Then the fix is replace some of the bounties with CONCORD LP like incursions. In-game CONCORD is the source of the bounties anyways. A null pve player would need to physically move the pve toon to the nearest empire CONCORD station to cash in, with would be a further isk sink because the pve toon isn't ratting right then (though the time can be minmized by jump cloning and death cloning).
But this ESS thing is crazy, because all it's going to do is shift a balance sheet thats already slanted away from null sec further away from null sec. There's a reason I and others are running incursions and sisters/thukker missions and FW farming already rather than being in null full time where we'd like to be. |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:42:00 -
[927] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Xaerael Endiel wrote: The ESS is literally the most pointless thing ever made
That's not true, it makes an excellent medium warp disruptor. I agree that the ESS is a pointless item in general, but most of the people aren't complaining about the ESS, they're complaining about their income getting nerfed. We don't have the up-to-date metrics available to us to know if it is warranted.
I'm going to strongly disclaimer this as "I don't give a crap, unless some berk drops an ESS in space I use".
My opinion stands that (I hope) people are more annoyed at nerfs being dressed as buffs. To be honest, nullsec inhabitants totally have the right to be getting frustrated by all the nerfs to income. They've been coming in thick and fast for quite some time now, from the addition of frigs to anoms to Interceptors being made far to uncatchable.
The answer to controlling inflation isn't to gut the value of ratting in nullsec. If it continues (and this has already started), Null folks will simply start making FW alts and farm FW instead.
I hope people's primary concern is based on those two things, and condensed into the simple fact that Sov is increasingly becoming worth less and less, and heading to the brink of becoming a pointless endeavour. Sov should be the most valuable ground in the game bar none. It's fought for, it's expensive and time consuming to keep. If people in null corps start bleeding into FW on alts, those alts don't transfer tax % to corps to pay for the sov bills. And what has got CCP it's greatest media coverage in the past year? The battle for 6VDT. A battle in sov space, for sov space. Space that's soon to be devalued by 5%.
Can you see where people are getting annoyed yet? The ESS nerf (it's a nerf) as it stands isn't the answer. Nullsec LP from an ESS and LP stores that sell either pirate faction stuff, or new "nullware" mods are a great answer. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
285
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:45:00 -
[928] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
The risk reward equation seems to favor doing without the ESS. Perhaps there should be an intrinsic benefit to deploying one? Local in null-security space could be changed to operate in delayed mode, with the Encounter Surveillance System placing local back to immediate mode.
I'm sure people would hate that one, but hey, I've already pulled off the hat trick of three loathed ideas in a row. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1169
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:45:00 -
[929] - Quote
Kalenn Istarion wrote:Gilbaron wrote:
If you want to minimize inflation you should increase the costs for other stuff in the game. especially the prices for production lines in highsec stations are ridiculously low and could easily be increased by a factor of 100 without hurting anyone producing anything in highsec
Need to be careful in commenting on inflation versus money supply. Implementing a tax would take money out of the system thus reducing money supply, but would likely lead in the short term to inflation (defined as an increase in prices) as producers seek the easiest solution for maintaining margins. Eventually there would likely be a flow-through effect of reduced prices on minerals (and thus settling through into reduced finished good prices) as the value of the currency increases, but this would take time and wouldn't be a guaranteed outcome. It is advantageous however in that producers have an avenue to recover their increased costs while ratters do not, short of the broken ESS. Producer price increases are also spread over a greater portion of the total system, rather than directly hitting a subset of players (mostly newer ones) for whom ratting is a sole income source. Conclusion: This whole thing really needs to be re-thought, as it appears that there are conflicting and unclear goals driving the introduction of this device and associated flat nerf to ratting income.
manufacturing costs (read production line costs) make up a very (!) small part of the end price for items. most of the cost comes from material.
lets take a 425mm railgun as an example. market price is approximately 2.000.000 ISK, production lines costs are about 50 ISK for each. increase that by a factor of 100 we have 5.000 ISK. do you really think it's going to increase prices and inflation as you claim ? We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8483
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:51:00 -
[930] - Quote
So basically what I've gathered is that SoniClover is lying through his teeth when he states his intentions as creating a module to give us the possibility of increased payouts. That's definitely no what he's after. He knows the deployable will not induce conflict, he knows that ratters are not going to use this to potentially increase their payouts. He's only interested in introducing unnecessary ISK sinks (NPC sell orders for these items) and reducing the ISK faucet (NPC bounties - 5%) to counteract what he imagines as an economic problem, one that an actual economist said was perfectly fine.
He's entirely unconcerned with the massive amounts of ISK highsec and incursion runners are getting, especially in the wake of the SoE changes. He believes, for some completely insane reason, that income balance only needs to be discerned from the narrow lense of sinks and faucets and disparities of risk versus reward can be safely ignored. And he probably wonders why people stop ratting in null and move to highsec to make a decent income. My EVE Videos |
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
898
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:52:00 -
[931] - Quote
Xolve wrote: Somebody, somewhere is paying for that Sov (and it costs quite a bit more than the paltry costs of a few lp store items);
Your paltry sov fees are nothing compared to the amount of isk sunk in the lp stores by tens of thousands of people each day, every day.
Jenn aSide wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) the problem isn't that income in null is too high, the problem is that ISK coming out of null it too high. Those two are not the same thing, e.g.when you get a deadspace drop and sell it on the market, your income goes up, but you inject no isk into the market.
Then the fix is replace some of the bounties with CONCORD LP like incursions. In-game CONCORD is the source of the bounties anyways. A null pve player would need to physically move the pve toon to the nearest empire CONCORD station to cash in, with would be a further isk sink because the pve toon isn't ratting right then (though the time can be minmized by jump cloning and death cloning). Sure go for it.
See, I think the problem for CCP isn't "Those people make too much money in total safety" (hisec) or "that region has a per capita income that is too high!"
I think it's much simpler than that. I think the raw amount of isk coming out of nullsec and being injected into the market is too high for CCP's liking. Nothing to do with income from linemembers. Keep in mind that total amount of isk in the economy affects everyone and everything. Nerfing hisec won't fix the problem if most of the raw isk isn't coming from hisec, for example. |
Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
53
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:54:00 -
[932] - Quote
The ESS looks like the result of two things.
1. They want to nerf the 'safe' ratting income in null-sec. 2. They want to create more small anchorable structures, to take advantage of the recent work they've done in the direction.
Those are two valid concerns, but the solutions are just not compatible in this way. The ESS is a big miss. Trying to kill two birds with one stone, when instead you'll just have happy birds perched on top of a pile of stones. |
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:56:00 -
[933] - Quote
The reasoning is terrible mr sonic lover.
|
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:57:00 -
[934] - Quote
How bout you fix proper ****. And not move even more people from 0.0 to high sec? What am I thinking, thats good advice..
You have completely lost it btw. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 01:59:00 -
[935] - Quote
Turelus wrote: If there is an inflation issue speak openly about it with the community and tell us you need to take steps to fix it which will actually fix it. We don't want to see the economy go to hell any more than you.
this, if inflation is a serious issue just tell us and speak with us about solving the issue. there are many things that have to be looked at besides sinks and faucets. you also have to consider risk/reward. as it stands people can make far more isk anywhere except null sec, where the risk is greater than anywhere else. you want to fix inflation, look at all the great ideas we came up with in a matter of minutes that take this into account, most prominently null sec lp. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
900
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:03:00 -
[936] - Quote
Xaerael Endiel wrote: Sov should be the most valuable ground in the game bar none.
Debatable, could make an argument for WH's, but not really relevant to the topic at hand.
Xaerael Endiel wrote: I hope people's primary concern is based on those two things, and condensed into the simple fact that Sov is increasingly becoming worth less and less, and heading to the brink of becoming a pointless endeavour.
I understand where your coming from, I too live in nullsec. But where you're coming from is an income problem, not an isk problem.
CCP has an isk problem that they apparently are choosing to fix now. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1675
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:06:00 -
[937] - 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.
if you are concerned about isk inflation then just cut npc isk by half and replace the other half with tags that can be traded for LP.
much much better idea.
that way the amount of isk comming into the game is greatly reduced but the drops can then be traded for isk already in game.
heck i would just blanket this idea and put it all across eve. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1781
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:11:00 -
[938] - 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.
lmfao you actually have no idea do you |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
462
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:12:00 -
[939] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
You're just embarrassing yourself now. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8486
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:12:00 -
[940] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart 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. lmfao you actually have no idea do you I thought that was evident from the beginning. My EVE Videos |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
807
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:13:00 -
[941] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. if you are concerned about isk inflation then just cut npc isk by half and replace the other half with tags that can be traded for LP. much much better idea. that way the amount of isk comming into the game is greatly reduced but the drops can then be traded for isk already in game. heck i would just blanket this idea and put it all across eve.
A 5% reduction on all NPC bounties across EVE and then let allow current NPC tags to be traded for LP with various factions. This would reduce the inflow of pure bounties ISK from across the entirety of EVE and make the currently worthless NPC tags have greater value to sell for ISK or convert to LP. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
900
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:14:00 -
[942] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Blawrf McTaggart 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. lmfao you actually have no idea do you I thought that was evident from the beginning. And this ladies and gentlemen, is how you get the devs to ignore every single thing you say. Well done. *golfclap*
It is entirely possible for too much isk to be coming out of nullsec without income in nullsec being too high. The two are not mutually exclusive. |
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:15:00 -
[943] - Quote
Am I wrong, or is the ESS essentially a siphon on null-sec ratting bounties? |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1782
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:17:00 -
[944] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Blawrf McTaggart 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. lmfao you actually have no idea do you I thought that was evident from the beginning. And this ladies and gentlemen, is how you get the devs to ignore every single thing you say. Well done. *golfclap* It is entirely possible for too much isk to be coming out of nullsec without income in nullsec being too high. The two are not mutually exclusive.
stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:19:00 -
[945] - Quote
Drab Cane wrote:Am I wrong, or is the ESS essentially a siphon on null-sec ratting bounties?
It will probably be a siphon on nullsec based subscription numbers. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
901
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:20:00 -
[946] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote: stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about
Constructive posting at it's finest. Would it strain you overmuch to elaborate on what I said in the last two pages or so that is incorrect? Or would that be too hard? |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:20:00 -
[947] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Isn't there any legacy code that could stop you from introducing pointless stuff like ESS and/or MMJD?
One can only hope.
Sonilover...is there a limit to the number of these things which can be dropped in a system, or can I take a cloaky hauler into a system, drop like 25 of them at premade safespots?
The whole tags thing seems like just another annoyance for null sec ratters (not necessarily a bad thing)...also can you fix current tags so they're not quite as totally useless? Make them directly exchangeable for LP or something? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
232
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:20:00 -
[948] - Quote
Drab Cane wrote:Am I wrong, or is the ESS essentially a siphon on null-sec ratting bounties?
it's far weirder and more convoluted than that.
basically every system in the game will now have a personal ratting bank account attached to it.
anchoring an ESS allows income to accrue in that account and be accessed. if it gets taken down or destroyed the income will still stay in the ethereal system bank account.
it's kind of like the lighthouse problem in that as long as the lighthouse is there (ESS) there is "mutual gain" -- but then it is forcibly contorted so anybody can smash the lighthouse and take money, randomly.
so strange |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6062
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:28:00 -
[949] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Blawrf McTaggart wrote: stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about
Constructive posting at it's finest. Would it strain you overmuch to elaborate on what I said in the last two pages or so that is incorrect? Or would that be too hard? nothing you said had any merit to elaborate on it was just wild conjecture, all of which was wrong, which i did point out and you just bounced to new wrong wild conjecture "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:28:00 -
[950] - Quote
So a squad of pilots doing ratting might deploy an ESS, but they'll want some of their number to hang around and protect it from other squads (or solo pirates).
If we're a small 2-3 pilot squad, we might not bother with deploying one, but might get twitchy if someone else does.
I'm starting to see how this might promote more conflict. |
|
Anton Menges Saddat
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:29:00 -
[951] - Quote
so what I'm getting out of this is that certain CCP members seem to be completely out of ******* touch with their own game |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:31:00 -
[952] - Quote
Drab Cane wrote:Am I wrong, or is the ESS essentially a siphon on null-sec ratting bounties?
It looks like it's intended that way, but no it's a 30million isk speedbump. If you drop it in a hostile ratting system, it's only useful as long as it lives. If you camp it to defend it, ratters stay docked up anyways, you may as well AFK camp without the ESS. If you leave it, ratters in their high DPS ships will make short work of the 150k EHP and move on.
As for the ratters themselves, the high risk low reward keeps being brought up, but those are even ignoring the greater point which is that using an ESS draws hostiles to your space. You're not just losing that isk each time the ESS gets robbed, you're losing the ratting time as more hostiles show up to rob your ESS.
They serve no purpose for anyone and are apparently nothing more than an excuse to justify a nerf to nullsec bounties. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
235
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:31:00 -
[953] - Quote
Drab Cane wrote:So a squad of pilots doing ratting might deploy an ESS
Doubtful.
Drab Cane wrote:but they'll want some of their number to hang around and protect it from other squads (or solo pirates).
If they stay behind to "protect" the ESS, they aren't ratting, and are thus losing income. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
902
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:32:00 -
[954] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Blawrf McTaggart wrote: stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about
Constructive posting at it's finest. Would it strain you overmuch to elaborate on what I said in the last two pages or so that is incorrect? Or would that be too hard? nothing you said had any merit to elaborate on it was just wild conjecture, all of which was wrong, which i did point out and you just bounced to new wrong wild conjecture Where exactly did you point out any source that said I was wrong? CCP said their is too much isk coming out of nullsec, which is entirely possible. Where exaclty is your up to date source that contradicts this, oh goonsire?
|
Richard TheLordOfDance
Legendary Umbrellas Insidious Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:33:00 -
[955] - Quote
I like the idea of the ESS but the execution could use some tweaking.
This is what I've gathered from reading other peoples reactions towards the ESS. The nerf to bounties can stay as long as it's not more than 5%, it should give a slightly higher boost though, something like 115-120% instead of 105%, to motivate people to actually use it (most won't with the current ones). When you distribute the isk you shouldn't lose all the bonus you've built up but rather something like 1% so you can't spam it all the time, when you take everything it should reset though. the time for accessing would be better placed around 30-40 seconds and printing would fit better at 3-5 minutes since this should give people time to actually warp to station and swap to a pvp ship and respond to the threat, an inty shouldn't be able to warp in steal all the money and warp out before the BSes have even gotten out of warp! You should also be able to stop the printing and distribute the isk, if it's a large pot some major disputes could arise that would probably result in a ban on the ESS in that alliance if this wasn't possible.
The number may even more tweaking but the sum of it all is that a 5% increase of your isk reward isn't enough to justify the nerf and the risk of having a ESS with the currently presented stats and mechanics.
And no I will not read 45 pages of "discussion" to see if someone already suggested something similar |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2821
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:33:00 -
[956] - Quote
So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with bounties at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals.
In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well.
Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
167
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:33:00 -
[957] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: It is entirely possible for too much isk to be coming out of nullsec without income in nullsec being too high. The two are not mutually exclusive.
stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about Take your own advice -- this guy is one of the few posters in this thread who actually understands the difference between income and isk generation. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:34:00 -
[958] - Quote
i hatechosingnames wrote:Dear players,
We love the massive battles you wage that we use for publicity, to make these amazing 4000 man brawls even more rare we are making it (yet again) even harder for the basic alliance line member to make the isk to pay for it all.
GG :CCP:
Yea...seriously how much more tedious do they want to make earning the money so we can afford to keep doing pvp...I feel like I spend enough time grinding anomalies as it is. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
902
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:37:00 -
[959] - Quote
Querns wrote:Blawrf McTaggart wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: It is entirely possible for too much isk to be coming out of nullsec without income in nullsec being too high. The two are not mutually exclusive.
stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about Take your own advice -- this guy is one of the few posters in this thread who actually understands the difference between income and isk generation.
It's good to see reasoned, thought out proposals for change. +1 |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:37:00 -
[960] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list.
Despite my general acceptance of the way things are currently stated, this is a good compromise and would eliminate many issues with the design that people seem to have. I would ask that any LP being generated be redeemable in NPC low/nullsec, however, as to not accidentally preclude those with negative security status.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Anton Menges Saddat
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:39:00 -
[961] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. I'd honestly like to see a post that did not respond proportionally to the ignorance shown by CCP. Your assumption that the EVE community (Esp. 0.0) are idiots is inflammatory to us. Furthermore, your gross misrepresentation, strawmanning, and red herring back when you "summed up" the criticism was pretty disgusting. Your continued evasion of the criticism is, likewise, an insult to our intelligence and waste of development resources and customer goodwill/feedback. Your disregard for the wellbeing of a large portion of the game is troubling. In short, I'm insulted. I hope you're trolling, I fear you aren't. I've seen a few posters call into question the continouos employment of you and/or the team you are a part of. Where else has there been any inflammatory posts, or posts that weren't proportional to your insult to the community (As stated above)? I was basically going to post this but you saved me the trouble. I'm far more bothered by the CCP responses and attitude in this thread than I am by that of any capsuleer. Grow the **** up and learn to take criticism. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
235
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:43:00 -
[962] - Quote
To roughly quote somebody else in the thread...
"Any deployable that takes more than seventeen bullet points and seven paragraphs to justify is probably a bad idea."
I don't think your changes improve anything. If anything it might make it worse just because it's making it even more complicated.
Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?
Is that the kind of direction that is good for the game?
Most of the deployables I really like are ones that are easy to understand, easy to use, and with a clear, defined purpose. Something new that is enabled.
This thing is like "We're taking something away, and then making you anchor a stupid black box to give it back to you."
That's not new. It's not even a feature. It's just spacetrash. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:43:00 -
[963] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list.
i would go as far as to say this allows you to increase null sec player income and reduce inflation at the same time. now you can start balancing the risk/reward in the game in a real and effective way. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8494
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:45:00 -
[964] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Where exactly did you point out any source that said I was wrong? CCP said their is too much isk coming out of nullsec, which is entirely possible. Where exaclty is your up to date source that contradicts this, oh goonsire?
Our source would be the CSM summer summit minutes, where Dr. EyjoG specifically stated that isk faucets are not a problem in their current state.
You know, the guy actual economist they hired to know this kind of **** in the first place. I'm pretty sure he understands the economy better than codemonkey dev who'd rather be working for Sega. My EVE Videos |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4338
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:45:00 -
[965] - Quote
Querns wrote:mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list. Despite my general acceptance of the way things are currently stated, this is a good compromise and would eliminate many issues with the design that people seem to have. I would ask that any LP being generated be redeemable in NPC low/nullsec, however, as to not accidentally preclude those with negative security status.
Negative sec status doesn't matter if your in a pod. |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
31
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:46:00 -
[966] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list.
Mynnna,
This seems like it would be a happy medium, if I had the ability to snag some LP while I was grinding anoms, maybe I wouldn't just stop what I was doing the second one of these was dropped, and start forming up an instacane or alphanado gang to take it down. The 5% stick added to it seems like kind of a petty way to **** and moan about ratters making too much money to fund their pvp.
As far as these things spitting out the "isk tags" (or in your case LP tags) in 40 seconds...that's total bullshit. 40 seconds isn't enough time to form a fleet to counter one of these, or to counter the "warning" that someone just warped to your deployed unit. This will make them unusable. The timer should be 5 minutes with warnings posted in local every like 30 seconds, give us time to swap out of our ratting ships and actually get into some PvP gear.
This is the single most invalidating property of this thing. If we can't defend it, we won't use it. If it's purpose is to be a punitive punishment for ratters, then the hell with it, just decrease bounties and call it a day, don't introduce some broken item that has a terrible mechanic behind it because they're "worried about inflation." Look at what incursions are paying and tell me with a straight face that CCP is doing anything to fight inflation.
If CCP makes getting isk tedious enough, they will just be encourage botting. Nobody wants that, at least not those of us who actually play. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
902
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:46:00 -
[967] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Where exactly did you point out any source that said I was wrong? CCP said their is too much isk coming out of nullsec, which is entirely possible. Where exaclty is your up to date source that contradicts this, oh goonsire?
Our source would be the CSM summer summit minutes, where Dr. EyjoG specifically stated that isk faucets are not a problem in their current state. You know, the guy actual economist they hired to know this kind of **** in the first place. I'm pretty sure he understands the economy better than codemonkey dev who'd rather be working for Sega. Funny, your economic cabal people seem to agree with my points. vOv |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2832
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:46:00 -
[968] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:To roughly quote somebody else in the thread... "Any deployable that takes more than seventeen bullet points and seven paragraphs to justify is probably a bad idea." I don't think your changes improve anything. If anything it might make it worse just because it's making it even more complicated. Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM? Is that the kind of direction that is good for the game? Most of the deployables I really like are ones that are easy to understand, easy to use, and with a clear, defined purpose. Something new that is enabled. This thing is like "We're taking something away, and then making you anchor a stupid black box to give it back to you." That's not new. It's not even a feature. It's just spacetrash.
"Your payout is unchanged. If you want, you can risk a portion of your payout, and in doing so receive that portion and then some back in the form of LP."
Seems easy enough to me to explain. First sentence is also key. Idea would be making the carrot attractive enough to not need the stick.
Jenn aSide wrote:
Negative sec status doesn't matter if your in a pod.
Rather hard to carry tags when you're in a pod, too, and as thieves would be making off with tags, his point is sensible. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:49:00 -
[969] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote: Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?
if as he claims inflation is unchecked and rampant then this is a better alternative. but yes this deployable is convoluted bulky and overly complicated considering the problem at hand.
Pinky Hops wrote: This thing is like "We're taking something away, and then making you anchor a stupid black box to give it back to you." That's not new. It's not even a feature. It's just spacetrash.
as it is you are 100% correct |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
238
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:54:00 -
[970] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Pinky Hops wrote: Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?
if as he claims inflation is unchecked and rampant then this is a better alternative. but yes this deployable is convoluted bulky and overly complicated considering the problem at hand.
Here's a solution -- straight nerf ratting bounties. Period. Just do it, say you're doing it, and say why.
To compensate, add new content with new rewards for nullsec -- something that it isn't ISK (directly) but would be worth ISK.
The key is content, something that is actually fun and interesting to interact with. |
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
629
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 02:55:00 -
[971] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
I believe I have shot 5bil in bounties, and dropped and exported over 2bil in OPEs since I have lived here. (note that as it stands nearly half the drop payout of a piths penal is OPE by value on average at this point in time as the loot table is aged and not in demand).
ie it would be manifestly easier to make the OPE exchangeable for LP than it would rewrite boringomolies. I could still sell the OPEs in Jita and whoever wanted to go cash them in for LP could then buy them off me.
The concord buy orders for OPEs can then be dropped.
Presto - significant reduction in nullsec based pure isk generation and some cross-attachment of nullsec income to LP undersupply. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2530
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:00:00 -
[972] - Quote
It must suck to work at CCP. They've designed something that, if used, results in 100-105% of the current ISK faucet being in place. However, one stated design goal of the unit is to reduce ISK entering the system, meaning it needs to be designed such that more people rat without it, than with it.
That's like trying to solve global warming, by going to a BMW engineer and saying "I want you to design a car that makes people drive fewer miles per year .... no I don't know how to do that, try to make it stall all the time or something and generally be annoying to use".
There's 2 options: 1) Soniclover is lying 2) Soniclover is telling the truth. In this scenario, the intended design of this deployable has to make people not want to use it, and are being told to go and sell it as an exciting new feature.
It must suck to work at CCP. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Jin So
Sev3rance
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:01:00 -
[973] - Quote
shouldnt have the need to go to highsec unless it is to gank freighters |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:01:00 -
[974] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Querns wrote: Despite my general acceptance of the way things are currently stated, this is a good compromise and would eliminate many issues with the design that people seem to have. I would ask that any LP being generated be redeemable in NPC low/nullsec, however, as to not accidentally preclude those with negative security status.
Negative sec status doesn't matter if your in a pod.
Yeah, but then how do you get the LP reward items you've purchased out of the station? Does it then require dualboxing just to get paid for running a few sites? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Vahl Ahashion
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:04:00 -
[975] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:greiton starfire wrote:Pinky Hops wrote: Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?
if as he claims inflation is unchecked and rampant then this is a better alternative. but yes this deployable is convoluted bulky and overly complicated considering the problem at hand. Here's a solution -- straight nerf ratting bounties. Period. Just do it, say you're doing it, and say why. To compensate, add new content with new rewards for nullsec -- something that it isn't ISK (directly) but would be worth ISK. The key is content, something that is actually fun and interesting to interact with.
Like the rumored ring mining, link it to boosting null sec industry somehow et voila, people are manufacturing in null sec as CCP have said they want them to. |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:04:00 -
[976] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
Wait...what? Look, if it takes even a SINGLE pilot to sit and protect that thing (still won't be affective against something like a interceptor gang) then you're losing more isk/hr than you are by gaining the 5% increase unless you have 50 people out ratting.
A fairly lazy ratter who isn't salvaging can easily make 15 million isk ticks, with proper equipment in good sec status space you can double that. So the reward would have to be better than 45 million an hour for this to be worth it not even considering the risk a group of ratters would be taking.
This seems like a quite poorly conceived item. If you're looking for ways to crank down the isk faucet, why not add either deployables or POS modules that convert some of the bounty into LP. Sell those modules in high sec directly from the factions themselves (direct isk sink) and convert 20% of all bounty isk at like 800 isk per LP (which is what they'll probably drop to with the increased supply vs demand and dropping price of faction gear).
This would enable pilots to gather up some LP while in null sec, you could add units from various factions (SOE, pirate factions, etc) and it would encourage people to use faction modules in PvP as their prices would drop. Also it would accomplish your goal of slowing the nullsec isk faucet.
|
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2302
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:06:00 -
[977] - Quote
Allus Nova wrote: you're losing more isk/hr than you are by gaining the 5% increase unless you have 50 people out ratting.
...because any null-sec system supports 50 people ratting simultaneously without sparking extinction level drama.
|
Von Reichenbach
Maraque Enterprises WHYS0 Expendable
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:06:00 -
[978] - Quote
While I hate this idea as it stands, I see one option to make the process worth it.
Add a small standings buff with the Empires during turn in. This would sweeten the carrot by making the tags valuable in an extra way.
Other than that, it is purely an extra griefing tool. But I guess that's what the Grrr Goonies want...
Let me know when the people Burn Jita over this... Ill be there. |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:08:00 -
[979] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Allus Nova wrote: you're losing more isk/hr than you are by gaining the 5% increase unless you have 50 people out ratting. ...because any null-sec system supports 50 people ratting simultaneously without sparking extinction level event drama.
Exactly my point...there is no point at which this thing becomes cost effective to use, it seems like it is nothing more than a punitive way to penalize ratters. There are simpler ways to do this other than introduce worthless modules. |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2303
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:12:00 -
[980] - Quote
Von Reichenbach wrote:But I guess that's what the Grrr Goonies want...
Yeah, obviously the 'Goonies' want 90% of their alliance mates income nerfed for no other reason than 'just because'. This is literally just another bullet point in the stupid **** CCP has hamfisted into existence. |
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:22:00 -
[981] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Von Reichenbach wrote:But I guess that's what the Grrr Goonies want... Yeah, obviously the 'Goonies' want 90% of their alliance mates income nerfed for no other reason than 'just because'. This is literally just another bullet point in the list of stupid **** CCP has hamfisted into existence. Stagnant game is dying, etc.
i think he meant the people who blindly associate all null sec with us and therefore support any bad thing that happens to null cause it would in turn happen to us. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
593
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:27:00 -
[982] - Quote
WELP! Time to make a highsec alt to run missions/incursions. :condi: :CCP: :condi: "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Sokor Loro
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:30:00 -
[983] - Quote
Nori Galathil wrote:Do not put this module in game as is currently thought to function. This will not cause conflict like you think. Listen to the null player base GSF it is telling you.
As a member of the nullsec player base I offer only praise and support for the ESS. |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2306
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:31:00 -
[984] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:i think he meant the people who blindly associate all null sec with us and therefore support any bad thing that happens to null cause it would in turn happen to us.
Oh I just blindly assume anyone in WHYS0 whatever is a literal mouth-breathing idiot incapable of any level of higher order thinking, irony, or any other form of pass+¬ sardonicism.
I may have mis-read that, but I believe my point still stands. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:32:00 -
[985] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list. e1: Going to call back a much earlier post in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4108628#post4108628Elements of this could be incorporated, most notably the somewhat higher EHP and the short, fixed duration reinforcement timer as a means of governing access, thus committing someone seeking to steal from the structure to both having a decent amount of DPS and giving defenders a reasonable amount of time to reship and respond.
A couple of points and questions:
The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?
A stick may prove necessary to drive players to use the ESS if the LP payouts available to them are not desirable. What could be done in lieu of reducing bounty payouts?
|
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2306
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:33:00 -
[986] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?
Insinuating that this isn't and hasn't been a thing in nullsec alliances already for years now. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:36:00 -
[987] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome? Insinuating that this isn't and hasn't been a thing in nullsec alliances already for years now.
I don't mean to insinuate that it isn't already happening. I'm just concerned that this suggested change could amplify the trend. |
Luxotor
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:37:00 -
[988] - Quote
Actual man hours were spent trying to develop the ESS. THE NIGHT IS DARK AND FULL OF TERRORS! |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:39:00 -
[989] - Quote
Von Reichenbach wrote:
Other than that, it is purely an extra griefing tool. But I guess that's what the Grrr Goonies want...
Let me know when the people Burn Jita over this... Ill be there.
Actually, in this thread I've seen N3/PL and Goons generally in agreement that it is a horrible idea, as well as many other random alliance members and Goons agreeing. When these groups that damn near never agree on anything can all agree that an idea is horrible you can bet your ass it's a horrible idea.
No amount of tweaking these things will ever see them used by locals because, as someone stated, it's like encouraging neuts/pirates to come to your ratting systems, steal your banked isk/LP/tags, and prevent you from making money. Use by roaming fleets is pointless as well because the PvP averse will dock up as usual and wait. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
244
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:44:00 -
[990] - Quote
mynnna wrote:[list]
Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak. Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP. As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc. There are flaws inherent to this logic btw.
By tying the payout to the market value LP, and the bonus being so crappy (20% is still crappy btw given the stakes) - you risk the value of the item dropping as well.
For instance, the value of the loyalty points could drop to a level where you actually get less net income by having an ESS in system. - because that "bonus income in LP" doesn't recoup the losses in ISK.
What do you do then? Have CCP setup buy orders to artificially keep the value of the items high? That would just reverse the process of inflation to begin with - or basically just making the whole thing more complicated.
And it's already way too complicated.
Khanh'rhh wrote:It must suck to work at CCP. They've designed something that, if used, results in 100-105% of the current ISK faucet being in place. However, one stated design goal of the unit is to reduce ISK entering the system, meaning it needs to be designed such that more people rat without it, than with it.
That's like trying to solve global warming, by going to a BMW engineer and saying "I want you to design a car that makes people drive fewer miles per year .... no I don't know how to do that, try to make it stall all the time or something and generally be annoying to use".
There's 2 options: 1) Soniclover is lying 2) Soniclover is telling the truth. In this scenario, the intended design of this deployable has to make people not want to use it, and are being told to go and sell it as an exciting new feature.
It must suck to work at CCP.
Thanks a lot, this post made me spit beer out of my nose.
It's true in a really twisted, sick way. It's literally designed to be bad. I would hate to get paid to do bad work on purpose.
"You have to make this item be as crappy as possible. Make sure nobody uses it or the whole thing fails by design." |
|
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2310
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:44:00 -
[991] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:No amount of tweaking these things will ever see them used by locals because, as someone stated, it's like encouraging neuts/pirates to come to your ratting systems, steal your banked isk/LP/tags, and prevent you from making money. Use by roaming fleets is pointless as well because the PvP averse will dock up as usual and wait.
The only useful thing I can see for this structure, if it were to be implemented as it's currently proposed (because let's face it, it probably will be), is that it will effectively become the 'Cyno Trap, V2' and used offensively.
Warp to hostile ratting system, anchor structure inside of an anchoring T2 Large Mobile Warp Disruptor and begin farming angry ratters. This is obviously the best case scenario, as most ratters will probably just wait you out and go back to business as usual once you're gone- but there's always those one or two special snowflakes in every constellation that actually feel like they have some divine right to whichever system they happen to be in, and will needless fling comedy fit ships at you. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 03:49:00 -
[992] - Quote
i swear i remember reading that CCP are much less willing to adopt an idea that has been put forward by a player than by an original idea from one of their Devs. Something about Devs earning their wage or something. Is it possible that the playerbase has brainstormed all the good and semi-okayish ideas out of the possible implementable ideas pool that Devs can think up, and so have to resort to ridiculously idiotic ideas and solutions to problems like this ESS that CCP SoniClover and Team Super 'Friends' have announced?
But seriously, did you have to go and insult our intelligence by dressing this up as a buff when its realistically a blanket nerf? literally adding insult to injury, and you wonder why subscription levels are dropping currently...
ohh and any baseline PL member that approves with the implementation of the ESS as is currently, remember that they generate their isk in any way other than NPC rats in null, so they're not affected, just their enemies, and thats always a good thing in their terms.You can practically wipe their comments from this as they 'play' in nullsec but grind isk anywhere but. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:00:00 -
[993] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:No amount of tweaking these things will ever see them used by locals because, as someone stated, it's like encouraging neuts/pirates to come to your ratting systems, steal your banked isk/LP/tags, and prevent you from making money. Use by roaming fleets is pointless as well because the PvP averse will dock up as usual and wait. The only useful thing I can see for this structure, if it were to be implemented as it's currently proposed (because let's face it, it probably will be), is that it will effectively become the 'Cyno Trap, V2' and used offensively. Warp to hostile ratting system, anchor structure inside of an anchoring T2 Large Mobile Warp Disruptor and begin farming angry ratters. This is obviously the best case scenario, as most ratters will probably just wait you out and go back to business as usual once you're gone- but there's always those one or two special snowflakes in every constellation that actually feel like they have some divine right to whichever system they happen to be in, and will needless fling comedy fit ships at you.
TBH, in my space the likely response to one of these onlining would be warp to 100 in cloaky nullified T3, burn another 50km off out of line with the bubble and then warp 10 spider tanking 150km range dominix to blap whoever is there and the structure. Does anyone really want this kind of PvP? |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
293
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:01:00 -
[994] - Quote
The fact that a CCP Dev would lie through his teeth and insult our intelligence rather than admit his pet project is a steaming pile of bullcrap is far more concerning than a measly 5% nerf to nullsec bounties or a broken deployable no one will ever use (as stupid and unnecessary as those are). |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2312
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:03:00 -
[995] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:TBH, in my space the likely response to one of these onlining would be warp to 100 in cloaky nullified T3, burn another 50km off out of line with the bubble and then warp 10 spider tanking 150km range dominix to blap whoever is there and the structure. Does anyone really want this kind of PvP?
I too tackle things with hopes and dreams. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:05:00 -
[996] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:TBH, in my space the likely response to one of these onlining would be warp to 100 in cloaky nullified T3, burn another 50km off out of line with the bubble and then warp 10 spider tanking 150km range dominix to blap whoever is there and the structure. Does anyone really want this kind of PvP? I too tackle things with hopes and dreams.
Yeah who am I kidding, everyone will just dock up. |
AIric Vitex
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:10:00 -
[997] - Quote
Turelus wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. Can't we leave the bounties at the normal 100% and ignore the confusing and needless 95% aspect of the mechanics and instead have a module which lowers by 20% and builds up to 110-120% so it's purely an optional gamble and not something we feel forced to use because CCP suddenly decided we all deserve a 5% income nerf.
^^^^ THIS |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:22:00 -
[998] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:
A couple of points and questions:
The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?
A stick may prove necessary to drive players to use the ESS if the LP payouts available to them are not desirable. What could be done in lieu of reducing bounty payouts?
Since the LP would not be related to the space the player was ratting in, but the space to which the ESS was bought from, your first point is removed. Providing the Empires LP is considered equally valuable. Though this could also be balanced by making it Concord LP which is then fairly universal.
The 5% initial bounty nerf could also remain. Call it pirate siphons in between 'here' and Yulai or whatever you want to do. And the ESS blocks those siphons however they do some LP payout instead of isk in return.
The main thing is the potential reward needs to be at least 1.5 times the potential penalty. Since the structure itself has a built in cost any time you loose the LP, chances are the roaming gang will also blow the structure up to hurt you as well. So even if we assume 50% of the time you get the LP, you will only break even at that point.
This also means that the structure needs a sensible access method. Free access to owners alliance, Hacking required by anyone else sounds fair, especially given Black Ops have a hacking bonus so easy enough to bring a hacker. And a better EHP method. Maybe a 10 min reinforcement timer. That gives time for a fleet to actually form to defend it. More EHP simply makes for a bigger grind but doesn't put a real timer on it.
The concept itself isn't terrible, the numbers attached to it right now are. |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:37:00 -
[999] - Quote
I stopped reading at page 41. this is me trying to find silver linings.
as far as a conflict driver goes, you have managed to unite virtually every corner of null sec with this brilliant idea of yours. Team Super Friends indeed!
5% nerf to income across the board in null sec? did you learn nothing from the anom nerf years back and the mass exodus from null sec that took place afterwards?
constructive criticism...
ok, 3-5 minutes sounds decent before tags drop. this gives the defenders time to form up without giving them too much time. "dock, grab bombers/cruisers/whatevers" instead of organizing a proper fleet.
do we need a 5% nerf? leave it as it is. dropping an ESS drops income by 20%, with a max 105%. don't use it? you loose nothing. wanna go for a bit more? drop an ESS. im not a gambler, but I know a lot of folks probably would.
I know not much of null sec works like Provi does, but we have multiple entities living in our systems, and neutrals are welcome to come in at any time. I understand why you'd want anyone to be able to access them, but maybe the income benefit/debuff should only help/hinder the corp or alliance that actually anchors one? I really don't see roaming gangs using them to hurt ratters incomes by anchoring them for all the reasons previously mentioned.
I do like the idea of racial ESS. I live close to amarr low sex, so obviously I'd use the amarr one as opposed to someone living on the other side of the map. however, these things need to come from BPOs or at the least BPCs. PLAYER driven economy, remember?
given the servers seem to be fine with thousands of deployable structures now, can we have mines again? I missed that part of eve since I didn't start playing till apocrypha, would like to see what it was like :D |
Combat Wombatz
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:43:00 -
[1000] - Quote
I don't often post, but when I do, it is to point out that this module is a terrible idea in its current form and needs severe reworking. The blanket null income nerf is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening. Is this what you guys were envisioning when you spoke about a desire to pursue bottom-up income for alliances?
tl;dr - Either scrap this **** idea or rework it in such a way that it will actually be worthwhile without blanket-nerfing everyone who doesn't want to play tower defense in space. |
|
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2277
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:48:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:To roughly quote somebody else in the thread... "Any deployable that takes more than seventeen bullet points and seven paragraphs to justify is probably a bad idea." I don't think your changes improve anything. If anything it might make it worse just because it's making it even more complicated. Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM? Is that the kind of direction that is good for the game? Most of the deployables I really like are ones that are easy to understand, easy to use, and with a clear, defined purpose. Something new that is enabled. This thing is like "We're taking something away, and then making you anchor a stupid black box to give it back to you." That's not new. It's not even a feature. It's just spacetrash.
Put LP agents in NPC nullsec stations. Make the LP agent line up with the station type. This would make it actually useful to have a crappy caldari kickout station in your space for a change.
Combat Wombatz wrote:I don't often post, but when I do, it is to point out that this module is a terrible idea in its current form and needs severe reworking. The blanket null income nerf is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening. Is this what you guys were envisioning when you spoke about a desire to pursue bottom-up income for alliances?
tl;dr - Either scrap this **** idea or rework it in such a way that it will actually be worthwhile without blanket-nerfing everyone who doesn't want to play tower defense in space.
Yeah the fact that I'm + repping a Nulli post should really say something here. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 04:50:00 -
[1002] - Quote
It is important to remain constructive, so I'm going to be very deliberate...
In post #696 SoniClover has suggested some tweeks to the ESS module due to some great observations of how to abuse the fundamental mechanics of the module itself.
From posts #821, #835, #838 and #844 CCP SoniClover has gotten into some of the fundamentals behind the very existence of this module, i.e. the economic indicators driving the introduction of a new isk sink that will in theory off balance the introduction of turning down an ingame isk faucet. Frankly, all of this should have been upfront and direct from the very beginning. There aught to be graphs, charts and various other 8x9 color glossies included with the original devblog.
I'm going to dive into an exception that I am taking with the end of post #838...
CCP SoniClover wrote: ...We hate everyone equally.
While it may be fair to say 'as we take from Hisec, so we shall also take from Null' in order to justify a blanket nerf to 0.0 bounty incomes (and the isk faucet these bounties represent), it is not true that you 'hate everyone equally'. From all postings read so far, the political implications of deploying these modules suggests a nerf to the entire Provibloc community. I got my 0.0 feet wet there, as have countless others, and it is no overstatement to suggest ESS mechanics will be a political nightmare for the Holders to manage.
Beyond political considerations, the very real mechanics for the Drone Regions must not be understated. In fact, they are at the fundamental root of the problem. Virtually all income for ratting in Drones is derived directly from bounties. This will be a potential nerf greater in relative proportion to Drone inhabitants than it will be for all other players in null sec. No one else will face a real and true 5% diminishment of total potential income as a choice other than Drones residents. In every other region of space, its a 5% 'tax' on the 80% odd income that is directly added via the bounty system, while a considerable portion of the available potential income will remain untouched by ESS mechanics. I think that I'm being generous, considering that Officer loot drops, Exploration income and Moon mining tends to favor Pirate Nullsec space overall.
On the subject of this isk faucet problem, part of the problem is directly of CCP's own creation. Once it was decided that the loot drops from the Drone Regions had created an imbalanced mineral faucet, the response to this was drastic. NPC alloy loot drops were removed from 99.9% of the Drone NPC's and were replaced with 8 regions worth of bounty only producing rats. 8 Regions that did not contribute at all to the bounty isk faucet, overnight, went from 0 to 100% part of the bounty isk faucet problem. This is the cost CCP accepted when the Drone Alloy problem was fixed.
Now, all of null sec is being asked to accept an across the board 5% nerf to bounties or to accept the usage of a deployable that may potentially buff system bounties by 5%, if they are willing to risk the cost of maintaining said deployable. Because of bounty isk sink issues. Isk sink issues that cannot be disentangled from the fix for the Drone Alloy problem.
Here is a modest proposal to CCP, fix the Drone Region bounty problem first. Nerf drone bounties back inline with Pirate bounties and insert loot drops. Any loot drops would be fine. Roleplay the heck out of drone NPC's being a patchwork of empire parts and get on with fixing this isk faucet in the simplest fashion from top to bottom. Then, and only then, lets have a real conversation about conflict drivers, fields and farms or whatever else may be viewed as added content to justify the introduction of the ESS into New Eden.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18888
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:09:00 -
[1003] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. Yeah, seeGǪ
When I posted it without the inflammatory phrasing, it didn't generate an answer. So, so much for that idea. The fundamental question is still the same, and my signature does not answer it: why do you feel it is necessary to create a blanket nerf on what the regular nullseccer uses for income?
Quote:Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. That's interesting, since apparently there is no inflationary pressure at the moment. Also, in the bounty ISK fauceting department, what is the split between belt/anomaly bounties and, say, mission bounties?
Quote:This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk. So when the shared subjective opinion in this thread GÇö that i's not even remotely worth the minute gain GÇö turns out to be true, what then? Will the numbers be adjusted to something that makes it popular?
Or, given the previous statement that the goal is to minimise inflation, is it the objective design goal here to make the ESS less than desirable, on average. After all, if the intent is to reduce ISK influx, then surely the ESS must either not be deployed (leaving the bounties at 95%) or on average produce a <100% bounty payout, or it will end up doing the exact opposite of what you're aiming for. You can't in one sentence say that, no, its being worth-while is subjective and in another say that the intent is to reduce the bounty payouts on average to control inflation. To achieve the goal, it must objectively be a bad thing, even if some people choose to gamble on it and occasionally GÇö rarely GÇö get that above-100% payout.
Now, to go back to the GÇ£inflammatory languageGÇ¥ for a secondGǪ On the one hand, you're contradicting existing data. This is not a sound basis for game design. On the other hand, you're either contradicting your own goals or contradicting your defence of what others call a nerf (or, miraculously, both). This is not a sound basis for arguing the virtues of unsound game design. On the third hand, you're contradicting your reasons for not answering since you responded to the (supposedly) inflammatory post and skipped the same post without that language. This brings back the spectre of the shouting matches of yore, which is hardly a good thing eitherGǪ 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. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
629
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:17:00 -
[1004] - Quote
mynnna wrote: Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list.
mynnna's idea plus:
Make it so we can buy, sell, trade, manipulate, scam, send and receive (you can send isk to an from characters. Why not LP?), etc. on the market in either straight LP or a LP tag form. Let the free market take over. This Thread is the original idea. That way more NPC groups can get in on the LP for bounty gig and carebears can quickly calculate the isk payouts of their ratting. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Ivory Kantenu
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:19:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Honestly, I think most of us would just be a bit happier to know where this faucet is coming from in Null that justifies this module even coming into existence. Give us some harder numbers then just saying 'Trust us', as most people will still argue that Incursions and L4s are skill the cash cows of the universe.
After living in Nul for well over a year, I can honestly say that this module has no spot in my future what-so-ever, save using it as a Medium bubble replacement as some people are suggesting. I know this is not your goal with it, CCP, but at the moment, it looks like you don't realistically HAVE one for it other than a beacon of hopes and dreams. Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread
|
Dillonp
Burning Equilibrium
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:27:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Fantastic idea.
Please continue with the carebear rage/tears. *eats more popcorn
:D
Edit:
Tippia wrote:That's interesting, since apparently there is no inflationary pressure at the moment.
There is always inflation. A certain amount of inflation in an economy is healthy. (Careful management of the inflation rate is necessary) |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 05:32:00 -
[1007] - Quote
I don't want to confuse my major issues with the ESS with nitpicking, but I concerned about the 'lore' logic as taken from post #844...
CCP SoniClover wrote: ...mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.
It can be hard at the best of times to separate 'lore' from being anything other than the ingame, roleplayed thoughts and motives of the designers of any game. Historically, New Eden 'lore' has had specific and profound impact on the direction of gameplay. Here is what I'm seeing:
'[CCP is] coughing up money themselves because they're hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the [empire] fold'.
Regardless of intent, if the ESS makes life for Provibloc Holders harder, then the above is likely to happen. Regardless of isk faucet imbalance issues, if the ESS makes life harder for Drone Region inhabitants, then again, the above is likely to happen. The already spacerich in 0.0 will be just fine, they don't rat for a living anyways. It will be rank and file members in the toughest parts of 0.0 that will bear the brunt of this new content squarely on the chin. Please come back at this project with a thoughtful review of your playerbase feedback and take all the 'negative creep' out of the package prior to its release. Address not just the mechanical exploits that can turn 'an otherwise interesting idea' into a monster. Take a hard look at the deeper issues driving this thing and get out in front of it in a way completely differently than we have seen so far.
|
Sakido Cain
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 06:06:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Has anyone taken the time to understand why Null is a pure ISK venture? We are the ones blowing up the most ships, causing the most removal of assets and in the end destroying everything High took the time to build. In doing so, we also tend to not have many safe routes back into, Low or High which means we care little for any form of ISK making that requires us to move assets out.
Now I am now saying we don't move deadspace and such, but that is actually a small minority of players doing so, with the bulk of combat pilots who live full time in null ratting to fund the destruction. Removing ISK from null in the end actually leads to less funds taht can be transfered to the HighSec industrial centers which supply a fair share on the products that are needed for the destruction. This leads to less players in Null who want to grind longer and enjoy combat less. The true Null ISK machines though are not going to be phased. The botters.
The botters, 20 man ISOboxers and such, these are the ones that score a majority of the ISK from NPC bounties, and funnel those profits into High where they are then used for RMT or such, and even to just fund one mans desire to rule his own personal fleet. Though the point is still that a small number of living players are actually responcible for a large portion of this ISK that is coming into the game.
Creating a deployable is not going to slow this down, but in all likelyhood, increase this, because these guys are 1) gonna use the modual in the system he has been quietly ratting for months, increasing his already large income; 2) is not gonna use the modual, and still reaping in vast amounts of 'unused' ISK, meaning ISK that he has no need for personally, or 3) he uses the modual and he gets robbed, in which case, there is still the same overly large portion of ISK flowing into the game.
Deployables like this are just bad logic, instead, think about ways of causing havic on a botted, or AFK ratter. The rather rare, faction spawn, is a joke and officer spawns are so rare as to no be a concern, which don't show in anoms anyways. This could be off set though by having a random spawn that is slightly lower HP that a faction spawn, but has a much larger DPS scale. This way, a human player sees the UBER spawn, kills it and enjoys a bonus, and the bot dies cause the script didn't adjust for it. Oh and have said UBER spawn be the same name as normal spawns but rather have a diff target Icon, so visual confirmation of life rather than a name a script can adjust to.
That is how you reduce the ISK flow, make it where the stream of 'unused' ISK is much harder to acheive and not interfer with the normal day to day players that live and fight. those are the players that keep the economy running, and should not be punished |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 06:16:00 -
[1009] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
The ESS are a bad idea period. If the worry is isk coming in then drop the isk in bounties by 5% - Lore is simple - Concord reduce bounties after empire economic downturn etc We will all take the knock in our stride and you will have reduced inflation without wasting our time on a gimmick... But then again I am guessing you know that Classic really. introduce something so unpopular that people will actually beg you to rather reduce their income by 5% in a thread rather than see you introduce a shite module. Well played CCP |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 06:23:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Sakido Cain wrote: The botters, 20 man ISOboxers and such, these are the ones that score a majority of the ISK from NPC bounties, and funnel those profits into High where they are then used for RMT or such, and even to just fund one mans desire to rule his own personal fleet. Though the point is still that a small number of living players are actually responcible for a large portion of this ISK that is coming into the game.
Creating a deployable is not going to slow this down, but in all likelyhood, increase this, because these guys are 1) gonna use the modual in the system he has been quietly ratting for months, increasing his already large income; 2) is not gonna use the modual, and still reaping in vast amounts of 'unused' ISK, meaning ISK that he has no need for personally, or 3) he uses the modual and he gets robbed, in which case, there is still the same overly large portion of ISK flowing into the game.
Deployables like this are just bad logic, instead, think about ways of causing havic on a botted, or AFK ratter. The rather rare, faction spawn, is a joke and officer spawns are so rare as to no be a concern, which don't show in anoms anyways. This could be off set though by having a random spawn that is slightly lower HP that a faction spawn, but has a much larger DPS scale. This way, a human player sees the UBER spawn, kills it and enjoys a bonus, and the bot dies cause the script didn't adjust for it. Oh and have said UBER spawn be the same name as normal spawns but rather have a diff target Icon, so visual confirmation of life rather than a name a script can adjust to.
That is how you reduce the ISK flow, make it where the stream of 'unused' ISK is much harder to acheive and not interfer with the normal day to day players that live and fight. those are the players that keep the economy running, and should not be punished
Now this idea I like |
|
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 06:36:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Or, given the previous statement that the goal is to minimise inflation, is it the objective design goal here to make the ESS less than desirable, on average. After all, if the intent is to reduce ISK influx, then surely the ESS must either not be deployed (leaving the bounties at 95%) or on average produce a <100% bounty payout, or it will end up doing the exact opposite of what you're aiming for. You can't in one sentence say that, no, its being worth-while is subjective and in another say that the intent is to reduce the bounty payouts on average to control inflation. To achieve the goal, it must objectively be a bad thing, even if some people choose to gamble on it and occasionally GÇö rarely GÇö get that above-100% payout. I'm really disturbed at how obvious that ought to have been, right from the very beginning of this whole discussion. Really disturbed. |
Demica Diaz
SE-1
123
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 06:40:00 -
[1012] - Quote
I can think of few fun ways to exploit ESS module but one thing keeps bothering me dearly. Interceptors. Cruise around space, immune to all, looting ESS. Kinda bothers me this low risk high potential combination. I think with new era of ESS, we will see even further increase of interceptors in null. Call me paranoid . If ship can just pop in, loot and pop out in no time then its seems to be quite easy to loot ESS.
|
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:20:00 -
[1013] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be. I am going to point out a little fault with your maths here I think? We will use 1000 isk as an example. All bounties in null sec will be reduced to 95% of pre Rubicon 1.1 = -5% so your 1000isk (pre-rubicon 1.1) is now 950isk (post-rubicon 1.1) When an ESS drops into system it drops all bounties in system to 80% of the already reduced 95% of original pre rubicon figures. So your 950isk = -20% A grand total of 760isk. So once deployed you are left with 760 isk of your original pre rubicon1000isk. so when you get the ESS to the maximum it pays out which is plus 25% of the already reduced by 80% total you are left with a staggering 950isk which is exactly the same sum you would get if you did not install it in the first place.
Please can some maths wiz show me up for a fool and point out where I have gone wrong in my calculations... This cannot be right surely |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
790
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:36:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Shvak wrote: We will use 1000 isk as an example. All bounties in null sec will be reduced to 95% of pre Rubicon 1.1 = -5% so your 1000isk (pre-rubicon 1.1) is now 950isk (post-rubicon 1.1) When an ESS drops into system it drops all bounties in system to 80% of the already reduced 95% of original pre rubicon figures. So your 950isk = -20% A grand total of 760isk.
Not quite. The original message says that the ESS will move the % down to 80%, not 80% of the new 95.
If you collect the payout of an unbonussed you are back to 1000k, if the thing gets into bonus time then 1050 k
Not that I am supporting it, but I like the math to be right in the arguments
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18891
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:47:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Dillonp wrote:There is always inflation. A certain amount of inflation in an economy is healthy. (Careful management of the inflation rate is necessary) Not always, no, and either way, the inflation rate is where it's supposed to be so minimising it is a bad idea regardless.
That said, I rather question whether reducing nullsec (and only nullsec) bounties by a flat 5% will have any effect whatsoever on the influx of ISK. It's just as likely that it will be what it always was, but people will have to grind more to stay in position relative to all the other GÇö untouched GÇö personal income sources. So not only is the objective of this deployable disconnected with economic reality; the reason for its being developed is disconnected from behavioural reality and the bad gameplay it both forces and reinforces.
If the goal was ever to reduce the amount of ISK being brought into the game (highly doubtful and based on dubious logic), Mynnas idea of shifting some income over into something LP-like is a far better idea: don't touch the income itself, but alter the sourcing of (part of) that income to become a sink rather than a faucet. 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. |
Regan Rotineque
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober
187
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:52:00 -
[1016] - Quote
The logic, or lack of logic on this one astounds me.
CCP wants to have more people in null.....but now creates something that does not make it even remotely fun.
Now we have to online some stupid module that nobody asked for....engage in ratting.....the spend time after ratting to take tags....the undeploy said module.
You have added unneeded worthless gameplay.....it does not add to the enjoyment of the game ... There is no fun in using this...it does not correct a wrong, or fix a bug, or add value to eve in the slightest.
You want to nerf null ratting payouts... Nerf the payout....don't add some piece of garbage that gives a bunch of messages and adds nothing to the game.
Stop spending time on these kinds of new features and start spending some time on fixing some of the long standing issues that your long term playerbase have been asking for....for years....remember POS's?? We have not forgotten.
Nor have we forgotten the Incarna debacle. We were promised that you would be working on FIS.....I don't see that even remotely in this ESS thing. I see another bad attempt at new features run amok.
This does not create fun CCP....it's just a bad idea...plain and simple. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
662
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:54:00 -
[1017] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:At one point, I might've agreed with you. But these days, the sheer amount of people ratting in carriers tells a weeee bit of a different story, I think. I've been able to fly a carrier for just over 24 hours now. I'm having a very hard time convincing myself it would ever be a good idea, especially considering the warp speed changes, the fact that forsaken hubs now have warp disrupting rats, and the fact that fighters are really not that good for applying damage to subcaps. If carrier ratting is being abused then it's carriers that need to be changed.
People who rat in carriers do not use fighters.
They sit at range with sentries, so will not be tackled by the rats. |
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels The Obsidian Front
402
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 07:57:00 -
[1018] - Quote
This is problally the worst idear to date, i rather want new Towers and tower structure - WHY, WHY WHY, I can only see who this can serious benifit special by looking at who is commenting.
How is this going to work in the Drone Region? What faction will that be under? Nisroc Angels - The Obsidian Front Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:03:00 -
[1019] - Quote
So manny tears over loosing 5% of your income... It's actually a buff to your income if you are willing to protect your space.
The biggest issue is the overpowered interceptors but that's for another thread...
CCP, perhaps you should scrap the idea of reducing the income to 80% when a ESS is anchored and instead fix it at 95 or 90%. This way, there is a real incentive (20% buff) to use the structure and for the people who choose not to use it, a 5 or 10% loss isn't that big a deal. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:04:00 -
[1020] - Quote
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.
I went into some detail here: Snipe Post 1k and have since then spent awhile considering the November 2012 economic report, graciously brought into discussion by the above. I did a quick recheck and believe my original premise to be even stronger...
IF there is an isk faucet issue, derived from 0.0 bounties, then What Has Changed? Inferno happened. Moreover, the prolonged effects of Inferno have happened. Without finding the charts/graphs referenced in the 2012 economic report, and not seeing graphs and charts through 2013, we are all operating in a vacume. Like space though, this is not a perfect vacume. Taking into consideration that the single greatest addition to New Eden since 2012 in terms of bounty isk faucets happened with Inferno, its very likely that it has taken awhile for the momentum of that firehose to really have an impact. An impact that now has CCP targeting all 0.0 bounty isk faucet issues as a major priority.
Enough of a priority to blanket nerf 0.0 bounties and develop a very complicated mechanic to 'offset' the nerf. A nerf being built upon the back of a previous nerf. Because of Alloy.
|
|
Leachim Rengaw
The Nobodiez
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:12:00 -
[1021] - Quote
so in other words the fact that you can earn more running incursion in highsec then you can in anoms in a -1.0 system isn't enough of a slap in the face you need to do this. Nice .. well we all mide as well fire up lv4 mission running toons and give null to the CFC so you can then buff it(reminds me of the backing of BOB by some GM's). Would love to see actual work done on the pos's tidi and legacy coding. But instead more fluff to ensure subscriptions keep falling and leaving most of your long term players going .. what is ccp doing to the game and why are they trying to make it less fun instead of fixing issues we've had for years and, making fighting more fun. Lets not even start on how broken interceptors are .. basically rubicon has been a trash expansion at best what happened to the good content and programers? |
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels The Obsidian Front
403
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:13:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:So manny tears over loosing 5% of your income... It's actually a buff to your income if you are willing to protect your space.
The biggest issue is the overpowered interceptors but that's for another thread...
CCP, perhaps you should scrap the idea of reducing the income to 80% when a ESS is anchored and instead fix it at 95 or 90%. This way, there is a real incentive (20% buff) to use the structure and for the people who choose not to use it, a 5 or 10% loss isn't that big a deal.
If you live in Drone space, with ONLY bounty, no real loot drop except occation worthless BPC drops, no faction spawns, 5% is a big deal. For me this is only to make the rich richer. Nisroc Angels - The Obsidian Front Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18892
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:16:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:So manny tears over loosing 5% of your income... It's actually a buff to your income if you are willing to protect your space. GǪexcept it has nothing to do with protecting your space and everything to do with adding mindless tedium to an already tedious task, and that the stated design goal is that i's not meant to actually be a net buff.
But sure, if a 5% reduction of income is nothing to cry about, let's do it across the board. All bounties, incursion payouts, agent rewards, NPC buy orders, reimbursements are reduced by 5%. Hell, for good measure, let's reduce the character starting cash from 5,000 to 4,750. 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. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
663
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:16:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:I wonder whether the ESS is intentionally as bad as it is... I mean from a dev perspective it might make sense:
- You have an idea for your game but you know your players won't like it.
- So you come up with something even worse and wait for the collective outcry.
- Now you pretend to make some tweaks and adjustments and present your original idea.
- The players are relieved that the game change went from "horrid" to just "bad" and calm down.
- You tell everyone how you listen to the playerbase and that you just give them what they want.
- Kudos and promotions for everyone.
Abolutely...... I have been saying this for ages.... |
Lex Kali
Leftfield Synergy
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:24:00 -
[1025] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list. e1: Going to call back a much earlier post in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4108628#post4108628Elements of this could be incorporated, most notably the somewhat higher EHP and the short, fixed duration reinforcement timer as a means of governing access, thus committing someone seeking to steal from the structure to both having a decent amount of DPS and giving defenders a reasonable amount of time to reship and respond.
10/10! Mynna for CS... oh wait. Carry on. |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:37:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Shvak wrote: We will use 1000 isk as an example. All bounties in null sec will be reduced to 95% of pre Rubicon 1.1 = -5% so your 1000isk (pre-rubicon 1.1) is now 950isk (post-rubicon 1.1) When an ESS drops into system it drops all bounties in system to 80% of the already reduced 95% of original pre rubicon figures. So your 950isk = -20% A grand total of 760isk.
Not quite. The original message says that the ESS will move the % down to 80%, not 80% of the new 95. If you collect the payout of an unbonussed you are back to 1000k, if the thing gets into bonus time then 1050 k Not that I am supporting it, but I like the math to be right in the arguments m So they are not reducing all nullsec bounties by 95%?
|
Brad314
Prospero's Island
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:38:00 -
[1027] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
From the Summer minutes Eve Economy Part 1 page 21
(in reference to a graph shown) Mike Azariah noted that the taxes and bounties were going down. Dr EyjoG explained that this was because bounties and such were down overall. NPC loot was very stable, despite inflation.
And from page 22-23
Dr. EyjoG:
CCP is not worried about inflation, because deflations are occurring at a roughly similar rate.
I am confused. Which is it?
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:39:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Move to wormhole space where the isk comes thick and fast.
Null sec ratters bring virtually nothing to the game anyway. As soon as someone pops up in local they dock up. Maybe if some small gang starts messing with your income, you'll do a little PVP now and again. |
Cor Six
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:41:00 -
[1029] - 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.
Here you have the problem. Sence there is no decent buttom up income way in EvE for alliance you get masive rental empires.
You know what they do? They rat, and they rat ALOT!
Make a good bottom up income system and major alliance wont bother with the stress of running masive rental empires.
New alliance can get in to the whole sov stuff and we will have a healty nullsec again.
Then you can start fixing the code so it runns on more then 1 thread and then after that fix POSes.
There i just made a plan for you guys. Get to it, fix the major problems in eve instead of adding more problems.
|
Zappity
Kurved Space
764
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:44:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Apologise if answered but 50 something pages... Will the tags eventually be used to repair standings with the empire factions? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
113
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:44:00 -
[1031] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
CCP doesn't care about null sec at all and wants it empty. You heard it here first!
Must really hate all that free publicity. (WSJ, BBC, etc that came from where NULL SEC!) |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:50:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:So manny tears over loosing 5% of your income... It's actually a buff to your income if you are willing to protect your space. GǪexcept it has nothing to do with protecting your space and everything to do with adding mindless tedium to an already tedious task, and that the stated design goal is that i's not meant to actually be a net buff. But sure, if a 5% reduction of income is nothing to cry about, let's do it across the board. All bounties, incursion payouts, agent rewards, NPC buy orders, reimbursements are reduced by 5%. Hell, for good measure, let's reduce the character starting cash from 5,000 to 4,750.
Sure do that. No skin off my nose. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
113
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:52:00 -
[1033] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list. e1: Going to call back a much earlier post in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4108628#post4108628Elements of this could be incorporated, most notably the somewhat higher EHP and the short, fixed duration reinforcement timer as a means of governing access, thus committing someone seeking to steal from the structure to both having a decent amount of DPS and giving defenders a reasonable amount of time to reship and respond.
listen to the csm ccp, otherwise what's the point?
|
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:56:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Has the log question been answered yet. Will it keep a log of who filled it or emptied it and how long will it keep it for? Do ESS's have a lifespan or can they last forever until destroyed? Will records be kept after downtime. Will you be paid if you leave system |
Alesha Kalishi
Raven Flight 1 SQUEE.
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 08:59:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Sounds interesting.. needs to be 150% not 105%! 150% or 200% would be worth defending.
Otherwise I don't really see anyone bothering with it... |
Onslaughtor
Alexylva Paradox
73
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:05:00 -
[1036] - Quote
So I might be diving into this too much now, but I think I may have found why CCP is using such a bad idea and attaching it so heavily to lore.
CCP wants players to be upset at the empires > Empires are made to want to be relevant > Empires start making themselves relevant in null at the sake of the capsuleers > capsuleers get pissed and want to be out from under the silly rules > capsuleers fight back > capsuleers are forced out of the empires and into unknown space.
Or something like that. But yeah, it makes no sense in any other way to me so *shrug* this is all I got for reasoning. |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:07:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Counterproposal to Ess;
CCP to cut Team super friends salary by 5%, give them 1-5% bonus for delivering projects and and additional 1-5% for useful content that doesnt create outcrys.
Sorry TSF, every comment you have returned to the players telling you this needs to go back to the drawingboard, is met by a dillusion you can fix this?
Dont put more broken feauteres into the game im paying to play before adressing those first please. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:08:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Alesha Kalishi wrote:Sounds interesting.. needs to be 150% not 105%! 150% or 200% would be worth defending.
Otherwise I don't really see anyone bothering with it... Be sensible. It's not going to double your profits. However is you use Mynnna's idea of LP, you can take it up to 120-130%. Personally my feel is that the potential profit should be about 1.5 the risk. Risk here being 20% currently, so profit can be 30% since LP won't introduce an isk faucet.
But demanding 150% or 200% is just silly and will get CCP ignoring the sensible comments. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
376
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:09:00 -
[1039] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. 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..... |
Feka
IX Legio Hispana Aquila Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:18:00 -
[1040] - Quote
mynnna wrote:So, in light of "reduce nullsec inflation" being a design goal, I submit a humble proposal. Really, I echo the proposal several people have already made, but in a much more thorough manner.
- Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
- Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
- As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.
- As is the case now, a thief can come along and access the ESS after some appropriate length of time. Should they do so, they receive LP tokens.
By using LP and calibrating to something like 800 isk per LP, you maintain the income level for players who just want a fast cashout. However, the unit becomes more attractive to people who are willing to put in the extra bit of effort to find higher yield cashouts, which is generally a plus. This also has the added perk of making the factional choice for ones ESS more meaningful, and opens up the future possibility of ESS modules from other factions as well - naturally, the Sisters of Eve might want to get in on the action, or perhaps a special version of the ESS issued by one pirate faction rewards even more handsomely than the Empire versions, but only for kills against their rivals. In the worst case, no one uses this - as many individuals and even alliances have already sworn to do with the current version - and nothing changes inflation-wise. However, in the best case, they see widespread adoption, dramatically cutting into the faucet that bounties represent. A followup bonus here is that LP often as not is redeemed with an additional isk payment, so we get the added bonus of an additional sink as well. Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list. e1: Going to call back a much earlier post in this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4108628#post4108628Elements of this could be incorporated, most notably the somewhat higher EHP and the short, fixed duration reinforcement timer as a means of governing access, thus committing someone seeking to steal from the structure to both having a decent amount of DPS and giving defenders a reasonable amount of time to reship and respond.
I fully support this idea. The ESS in it's current form will sink into irrelevance after a few weeks of "Oh, new toy!" |
|
Schmata Bastanold
The brothers inc Brothers Of The Dark Sun
1282
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:23:00 -
[1041] - Quote
So did CSM see design/proposal/idea of ESS or it is total surprise to them as well it is for rest of community? Because it seems to me that what mynnna wrote about LP and stuff points to the latter. And if CSM didn't know about this structure and how it will be implemented what is the point of having CSM at all? Also if CSM did know how it will be implemented how da frakk did they let it pass? I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:28:00 -
[1042] - Quote
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' |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
113
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:28:00 -
[1043] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Tippia wrote:So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)GǪ CCP SoniClover wrote:Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique? The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands. Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. 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.....
really sad the extremes the paying playerbase has to go to in order to get a point across |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18896
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:35:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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' What if all it could be is, at best, completely useless and best not implemented to begin with?
There seem to be little to no redeeming qualities in this idea and the reasons presented for its inclusion are nonsensical. There is a point where GÇ£just delete itGÇ¥ is actually the right outcomeGǪ 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 09:39:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Tippia wrote: What if all it could be is, at best, completely useless and best not implemented to begin with?
There seem to be little to no redeeming qualities in this idea and the reasons presented for its inclusion are nonsensical. There is a point where Gǣjust delete itGǥ is actually the right outcomeGǪ
Except as Mynnna has posted, while keeping the risk mechanic, you can create a situation where players have a reason to use it, because it's not 95% likely to cost them isk, but they stand to make profit reasonably, yet also reduces the isk faucet, and has enough time to act as a conflict driver.
The basic concept of 'Structure which reduces instant payout but allows potentially greater rewards overall creating a point of conflict' is not a bad one. It's just not being implemented well in it's current form. So it doesn't need deleting, it needs modifying to make it actually work like it's concept says. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18896
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:44:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:The basic concept of 'Structure which reduces instant payout but allows potentially greater rewards overall creating a point of conflict' is not a bad one. It's just not being implemented well in it's current form. So it doesn't need deleting, it needs modifying to make it actually work like it's concept says. The basic concept fails at the word GÇ£structureGÇ¥.
If they want to implement alliance LP, implement alliance LP. It will do the same thing, only infinitely more cleanly. 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. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:45:00 -
[1047] - Quote
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.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18897
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:48:00 -
[1048] - Quote
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. 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 09:51:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Tippia wrote: The basic concept fails at the word GÇ£structureGÇ¥.
If they want to implement alliance LP, implement alliance LP. It will do the same thing, only infinitely more cleanly. Perhaps not for the devs GÇö I'm sure they want to toy around with this new personal deployable code before it goes out of style GÇö but definitely for everyone that matters.
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. Just because you don't like structures, doesn't mean they are bad. Alliance LP would serve none of the above roles, except perhaps working as an excuse to reduce bounties, but wouldn't actually remove any Isk from the game, since it would be paid to a player, not an NPC. And the players would need to buy everything for it. Alliance LP would also not create any risk element, nor anything to fight over and bother defending.
Does this also need to go along side an increase in how many people can make an income on ratting & anoms in a single system, so there are enough people present to actually form a defence fleet? I absolutely believe so. But again, none of this makes the concept bad, only the implementation. |
Feka
IX Legio Hispana Aquila Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 09:56:00 -
[1050] - 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.
This is good news indeed. |
|
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 ? |
|
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:14:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Zappity wrote: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.
Tags could still be produced, but using another metric calculating its worth..
But anyway you see it at the moment, ccp needs to pull the plug on this one and put it back on the drawing board.. as it is now it`s shortsighted, badly introduced, and not a very clever mechanic and a hole lot of other shortcomings due to game mechanic..
Is it true what i hear that it spams the living crap out of you as well? |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
180
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:14:00 -
[1082] - Quote
gascanu wrote: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 ?
LP of the faction the ESS is, so Caldari get Caldari LP (exchangable in any Caldari Corp LP store), Minmatar get Minmater LP. Concord LP for a concord ESS would be nice, since it's were all the meta capital stuff is, which incidently is used in Nullsec <3 Baddest poster ever |
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:18:00 -
[1083] - 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.
At what point do you objectively stand back, look at all this negativity about this badly thought out, conceptualised and communicated structure and be big enough to say, "You know what - this needs to go back to the drawing board"
Don't be big headed about you little baby - if it needs work, it needs work. Don't force through another half assed change that is not going to do what you want it to. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:22:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Just nerf bounties by 5% and leave it at that.
Because this abomination of a module neither generates fights nor fun in any way, shape or form. It's just over-complicated and unwanted hassle for everyone.
Don't Panic.
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:22:00 -
[1085] - 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.
Agreed, remove the 5% nerf and I'll no longer object to the inclusion of this deployable as it can then just become yet another unused module. At that point the only thing still offensive about it is that any dev time was wasted on it at all. I'd like to suggest maybe posting these ideas in the F&I forum early in the process so they can be vetted prior to spending significant time/resources on them. |
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:23:00 -
[1086] - Quote
"null sec bearz tears...best tears" WTS BPO : |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:24:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Come to think of it, this is not just a 5% blanket nerf to ratting income, it`s also a 5% blanket nerf to corporation incomes as well since ratting and and poco income pretty much everything CCP has managed to deliver in that department. |
Isbariya
Thundercats The Initiative.
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:31:00 -
[1088] - Quote
So here is an idea, all employees will get a salary reduction by 5% because Hilmar thinks he's paying you too much for the crap you come up with. But you are now alloed to place an ESS in your lobby, naturally thisreduces your salary by another 15%. But the full 20% that have been taken off your salary will the be transfered to the ESS. As a boni, if the subscription number have risen, you might get 5% extra, aint that great ? But of course there's a catch, those 20-25% can either be distributed to all employees equally or anyone who enters the building can say, nah the calculation is incorrect, give me a blanko check and I'lldistribute it correctly. Of course everyone will have a tiny LED at his monitor that indicates that someone is entering the lobby, you now have 40sec to get off your desk and run to the lobby, have fun. On a sidenote, the lobby is free of any juristriction, so you could be shot there.
So, all in favor ? Besides, did I mention that that check can be claimed by everyone, even those not working for CCP ? |
Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
205
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:33:00 -
[1089] - Quote
What kind of retards still rat in 0.0? |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:37:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:What kind of retards still rat in 0.0?
You do.. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
446
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:40:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Wulfy Johnson wrote:Gorski Car wrote:What kind of retards still rat in 0.0? You do..
he doesnt, none of PL do. see my previous post. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:45:00 -
[1092] - Quote
now, regarding all this "mobile structures" fever that seems ccp have it, wth happent to your promises of fixing poses and 0.0 sov? why do you spend this much effort and time to some "uncertain" improvements instead of keeping your promises and fix th broken things first? you guys just added 3 of them and some already need tweaks; now you want to add 3 more?
regarding this ESS, the ideea it\s not bad; but you had to rush it, and a good idea become a bad thing;
first, the timers are too short: 40" to take the isk from it? really? who the hell will be able to react that fast? you want ppl to defend the thing but you gave them no time to react to? 40" is STUPID, why will i go in anything else that an inty if taking the isk is so easy? and how the hell moving most of the roamers in inty is a good thing? is thinking so hard?
like some pppl already posted, increse the bonus to 110% , and if you are worried about inflation, link the ess with concord or other lp store; give it a 2-5' timer to take the isk if you are blue and a 10' timer if you are neutral: that should generate some fights
also: how will those ess affect 0.0 npc space? will they lower the bounty to npcs in 0.0 missions? |
dantes inferno
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:53:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:So here is an idea, all employees will get a salary reduction by 5% because Hilmar thinks he's paying you too much for the crap you come up with. But you are now alloed to place an ESS in your lobby, naturally thisreduces your salary by another 15%. But the full 20% that have been taken off your salary will the be transfered to the ESS. As a boni, if the subscription number have risen, you might get 5% extra, aint that great ? But of course there's a catch, those 20-25% can either be distributed to all employees equally or anyone who enters the building can say, nah the calculation is incorrect, give me a blanko check and I'lldistribute it correctly. Of course everyone will have a tiny LED at his monitor that indicates that someone is entering the lobby, you now have 40sec to get off your desk and run to the lobby, have fun. On a sidenote, the lobby is free of any juristriction, so you could be shot there.
So, all in favor ? Besides, did I mention that that check can be claimed by everyone, even those not working for CCP ?
ahahahahah
Seriously, this is a stupid idea...listen to your customer CCP, stop making our life in 0.0 harder every patch.... |
pipin meh
NED-Clan
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 11:57:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:So here is an idea, all employees will get a salary reduction by 5% because Hilmar thinks he's paying you too much for the crap you come up with. But you are now alloed to place an ESS in your lobby, naturally thisreduces your salary by another 15%. But the full 20% that have been taken off your salary will the be transfered to the ESS. As a boni, if the subscription number have risen, you might get 5% extra, aint that great ? But of course there's a catch, those 20-25% can either be distributed to all employees equally or anyone who enters the building can say, nah the calculation is incorrect, give me a blanko check and I'lldistribute it correctly. Of course everyone will have a tiny LED at his monitor that indicates that someone is entering the lobby, you now have 40sec to get off your desk and run to the lobby, have fun. On a sidenote, the lobby is free of any juristriction, so you could be shot there.
So, all in favor ? Besides, did I mention that that check can be claimed by everyone, even those not working for CCP ?
You sir.. are a hero
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:05:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:So here is an idea, all employees will get a salary reduction by 5% because Hilmar thinks he's paying you too much for the crap you come up with. But you are now alloed to place an ESS in your lobby, naturally thisreduces your salary by another 15%. But the full 20% that have been taken off your salary will the be transfered to the ESS. As a boni, if the subscription number have risen, you might get 5% extra, aint that great ? But of course there's a catch, those 20-25% can either be distributed to all employees equally or anyone who enters the building can say, nah the calculation is incorrect, give me a blanko check and I'lldistribute it correctly. Of course everyone will have a tiny LED at his monitor that indicates that someone is entering the lobby, you now have 40sec to get off your desk and run to the lobby, have fun. On a sidenote, the lobby is free of any juristriction, so you could be shot there.
So, all in favor ? Besides, did I mention that that check can be claimed by everyone, even those not working for CCP ?
you sir just made my day |
Dominionix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:05:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:So here is an idea, all employees will get a salary reduction by 5% because Hilmar thinks he's paying you too much for the crap you come up with. But you are now alloed to place an ESS in your lobby, naturally thisreduces your salary by another 15%. But the full 20% that have been taken off your salary will the be transfered to the ESS. As a boni, if the subscription number have risen, you might get 5% extra, aint that great ? But of course there's a catch, those 20-25% can either be distributed to all employees equally or anyone who enters the building can say, nah the calculation is incorrect, give me a blanko check and I'lldistribute it correctly. Of course everyone will have a tiny LED at his monitor that indicates that someone is entering the lobby, you now have 40sec to get off your desk and run to the lobby, have fun. On a sidenote, the lobby is free of any juristriction, so you could be shot there.
So, all in favor ? Besides, did I mention that that check can be claimed by everyone, even those not working for CCP ?
This is pretty much the best summary of this absolutely ridiculous idea for a deployable. Another nerf to nullsec passively generated income, and a module which is far more likely to cause drama and upset amongst it's users than actually provide them a benefit. On this basis, I expect most nullsec entities will simply ban the use of the deployable, meaning it just becomes a blanket nerf of 5% to personal income, and a smaller percentage to alliance level income.
So about that "fields and farms" concept CCP wanted to introduce, how's that going for you...?
To try and be at least a little bit constructive: Remove the 5% nerf, grant the potential for 10% increased income, and increase the timers to 5 minutes, if not more. Now you have a deployable that is beneficial to people in nullsec, they have nothing to lose by using it,a reason to want to protect it, and a possible generator for small gang PvP. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:07:00 -
[1097] - Quote
If CCP is so concerned about the introduction of isk inflation in the game then why:
1) Do they not limit the number of players that can join the server? 2) Allow the purchase of in-game isk with real cash?
Seems to me if you want to limit inflation, then you need to limit the ability to create isk out of nothing, which purchasing PLEX allows one to do.
Oh wait, I think we all know why this won't happen ...
Seems to me CCP wants to push more people to purchase PLEX or a subscription. Say it ain't so, greedy capitalistic forces at work again.
|
Rodasta Dius
Mordu's Military Industrial Command SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:08:00 -
[1098] - Quote
How much cargo space those one ESS unit contain (hom much m3?) |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2539
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:09:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: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.
a) You won't be getting more fights, because no one will be using them.
b) A fully upgraded -1.0 sec system supports ~5 people, any more and you lose a lot of income due to site spawn rates / occupancy. You'll lose more than 5% trying to group up to recoup the 5% ... so, no one will do this.
c) WH PVE is the lowest risk of anywhere outside of highsec. And before you say, 'abloobloo no local' - I'd happily use a deployable that removed local as a consequence of letting you jump an orca through a gate a few times and making it disappear, and any new stargates are clearly announced by new sigs.
This whole thing is a bad idea at the core concept of it, and even in some scenario where they revert the 95% nonsense it's still more effort to use than any possible gain covers. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2539
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:13:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Also, Soniclover, of course the amount of ISK pouring out of nullsec bounties is very high in comparison, since it's the faucet that balances the LP sinks that dominate other income streams (Missions / incursions). The way you can get a handle on this is by tweaking the rewards from incursions / missions to increase the ISK sink via LP. Doing this means you don't need shift the balance between the two to try to control a problem that doesn't (yet) exist. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
|
FistyMcBumBasher
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:14:00 -
[1101] - Quote
Contrary to many of the other posters in this thread, I actually like this idea. It has the ability to create content and drive conflict when deployed both offensively and defensively. It can even function as an anti botting mechanism.
Offensively it allows those 'AFK cloakers' in system to do something other than being AFK. Dropping one of these in system will get the inhabitants to either stay docked, continue ratting and trust each other to divide up the bounties, or kill the ESS.
If they stay docked, business as usual
If they continue ratting and divide up the bonus bounties they will have to warp to the ESS, which alerts the whole system, puts them in a bubble, and takes 20 seconds to access the contents. This is plenty of time for a covert ops ship to de-cloak and activate an aggressive module. On top of this, they have to trust each other to not take all of the loot. So far this is looking like a pretty good conflict driver.
If they decide to kill this structure (which has the EHP of a battleship), the system is alerted, and the aggressors are then able to make their move.
As a defensive structure, it takes 60 seconds to print the tags out for yourself (20s to access and 40s to print). This will allow more than enough time for the 'owners' of the system to reship and warp to the ESS to defend their hard earned income.
As an anti-botting mechanic this thing is ingenious. It will increase the difficulty of botting, throw in some player countermeasures, and make the botter return to their computer in order to kill a hostile ESS.
I for one am looking forward to Rubicon 1.1.
TLDR: Stop being so scared of change. |
Random Woman
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:14:00 -
[1102] - Quote
This thread is pure gold... just saying.
The 0.0 elite should just move to w-space, there that incredible 5% income nerf wont hit em.
And from what i am reading they are in incredible constant danger now, so moving anywhere but into that dead end 0.0 system with 20 scouts down the pipe and 500 km worth of bubbels on every gate, will lead to absolute safety and riches. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18912
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:18:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:If CCP is so concerned about the introduction of isk inflation in the game then why:
1) Do they not limit the number of players that can join the server? 2) Allow the purchase of in-game isk with real cash?
Seems to me if you want to limit inflation, then you need to limit the ability to create isk out of nothing, which purchasing PLEX allows one to do. PLEX does not allow you to create ISK out of nothing, and reducing the numbers wouldn't matter GÇö it's a relative measurement anyway and reducing the number of people just makes the absolutes smaller while the relative numbers stay the same.
GǪand since they've gone back on the inflation problem, it doesn't matter anyway. Now, it's just a pointless nerf. 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. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:19:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Rek Seven wrote: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. a) You won't be getting more fights, because no one will be using them. b) A fully upgraded -1.0 sec system supports ~5 people, any more and you lose a lot of income due to site spawn rates / occupancy. You'll lose more than 5% trying to group up to recoup the 5% ... so, no one will do this.
^ This. Don't forget that most of nullsec, especially renter space, is a vast spaceghetto made up of -0.1 to -0.4 space. In these areas it is even worse, they can support 1, maybe 2 people ratting. Any more than that and you are below level 4 mission income. If you really expect the one active person in a PvE ship to deploy and defend an ESS when a 10 man roaming fleet in PvP ships with a proper FC could show up at any time to rob it then you are so ignorant of 0.0 life/mechanics that it is a waste of time to even have a discussion. Not to mention that with only 1-2 people ratting it is impossible for this ESS to pay a proper return on the risk in a reasonable amount of time.
This module is one of two things:
1. if the 5% income reduction remains on the TQ release it is a module which will never be used and results in a 5% income nerf to all nullsec ratters.
2. if the 5% income reduction is removed on the TQ release it is a module which will never be used and was just a waste of dev time
Both are bad options, but option 2 is the less bad one. |
Shux Legion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:19:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Can't you just tax the top 1% or 10% more like the rest of the real world does?
Daily tax for anyone in a Supercap.
Null ratting is for the blue collar folks just trying to make a living you bourgeoisie pricks. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:22:00 -
[1106] - Quote
DEV: uhm. Boss. They don't seem to like this new deployable that will nerf income for the general pilot in nullsec. I've tried lying to them and give them falsified facts. I even tried to pick my the feedback that i though was usefull, not what the players actually think is usefull. Boss: ignore them, they will eventually go away. Dev: Ok, how about this new module that i came up with while doing massive amounts of drugs? Boss: It seems reasonable to beleive that this is a good module, despite what the players say. it's preposterous to think that they know more about nullsec ratting than we do. We are the devs afterall.
Just a normal day in iceland. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4969
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:22:00 -
[1107] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1 ... Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. ... 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.
So the purpose of the ESS is to increase income, so we should want to use it. However you are already giving us too much ratting income, so in order to increase it, you need to decrease it first.
Sure that makes sense from a numbers and balancing point of view. From a consumer's point of view, it's like those BS Christmas sales where companies say everything is 50% off - after increasing prices by 75%. It's a load of horse manure.
I see what you're trying to do - put some of that isk at risk and use the new deployable toys. But you're doing a poor job of selling it to us, and the design lacks any sort of desirability from our point of view beyond hoping to dodge a 5% nerf.
Please try again.
CCP SoniClover wrote: I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
...
CCP SoniClover wrote: We hate everyone equally.
Pick a side - humorous inflammatory phrasing is good/bad?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:23:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:What kind of retards still rat in 0.0?
If people didn't still rat, you'd have noone left to hotdrop. Don't Panic.
|
Ashlore
Svea Rike Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:23:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Isbariya wrote:So here is an idea, all employees will get a salary reduction by 5% because Hilmar thinks he's paying you too much for the crap you come up with. But you are now alloed to place an ESS in your lobby, naturally thisreduces your salary by another 15%. But the full 20% that have been taken off your salary will the be transfered to the ESS. As a boni, if the subscription number have risen, you might get 5% extra, aint that great ? But of course there's a catch, those 20-25% can either be distributed to all employees equally or anyone who enters the building can say, nah the calculation is incorrect, give me a blanko check and I'lldistribute it correctly. Of course everyone will have a tiny LED at his monitor that indicates that someone is entering the lobby, you now have 40sec to get off your desk and run to the lobby, have fun. On a sidenote, the lobby is free of any juristriction, so you could be shot there.
So, all in favor ? Besides, did I mention that that check can be claimed by everyone, even those not working for CCP ?
Nice one...
ESS What ****** came up with that idea from the start?
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
272
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:26:00 -
[1110] - Quote
If you're not willing to threadnaught for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it. |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:27:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote:If CCP is so concerned about the introduction of isk inflation in the game then why:
1) Do they not limit the number of players that can join the server? 2) Allow the purchase of in-game isk with real cash?
Seems to me if you want to limit inflation, then you need to limit the ability to create isk out of nothing, which purchasing PLEX allows one to do. PLEX does not allow you to create ISK out of nothing, and reducing the numbers wouldn't matter GÇö it's a relative measurement anyway and reducing the number of people just makes the absolutes smaller while the relative numbers stay the same. GǪand since they've gone back on the inflation problem, it doesn't matter anyway. Now, it's just a pointless nerf.
PLEX does create it in a way because it encourages bot-ratting and bot-mining. Where there might be a person with one account mining or ratting under normal circumstances, the introduction of PLEX basically ensured some would be willing to run 4-5 accounts to support each other. What's easier for the uber space rich? Running 4-5 accounts with PLEX or actual RL dough each month?
But we can agree the new module is pointless, so let's not put it in the game.
This idea is like Obamacare. A very small minority think it's great, the rest hate and don't want it, and the powers that be intend to go forward and shove it down your throat regardless of it's unintended consequences because it's "good" for you. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:30:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Shux Legion wrote:Can't you just tax the top 1% or 10% more like the rest of the real world does?
Daily tax for anyone in a Supercap.
Null ratting is for the blue collar folks just trying to make a living you bourgeoisie pricks.
Ha! Classic. Spit my coffee out on this one. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18912
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:34:00 -
[1113] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:PLEX does create it in a way because it encourages bot-ratting and bot-mining. PLEX still does not create ISK out of nothing GÇö it requires the ISK to be created the old-fashioned way. If that old-fashioned way is being automated through botting, chances are that it'll go away in the end anyway regardless of the mechanism of transfer.
If you're going to make an argument, at least make it based on realityGǪ unlike the OP. Oops. Inflammatory again. 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. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16473
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:35:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Tippia wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote:If CCP is so concerned about the introduction of isk inflation in the game then why:
1) Do they not limit the number of players that can join the server? 2) Allow the purchase of in-game isk with real cash?
Seems to me if you want to limit inflation, then you need to limit the ability to create isk out of nothing, which purchasing PLEX allows one to do. PLEX does not allow you to create ISK out of nothing, and reducing the numbers wouldn't matter GÇö it's a relative measurement anyway and reducing the number of people just makes the absolutes smaller while the relative numbers stay the same. GǪand since they've gone back on the inflation problem, it doesn't matter anyway. Now, it's just a pointless nerf. PLEX does create it in a way because it encourages bot-ratting and bot-mining. Where there might be a person with one account mining or ratting under normal circumstances, the introduction of PLEX basically ensured some would be willing to run 4-5 accounts to support each other. What's easier for the uber space rich? Running 4-5 accounts with PLEX or actual RL dough each month? But we can agree the new module is pointless, so let's not put it in the game. This idea is like Obamacare. A very small minority think it's great, the rest hate and don't want it, and the powers that be intend to go forward and shove it down your throat regardless of it's unintended consequences because it's "good" for you. Sorry what? No the Plex does not create ISK, no matter what ridiculous correlation you come up with.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:40:00 -
[1115] - Quote
Oh dear. It appears I've offended some pro-robo botting supporters.
Oh noes! Bounties coming my way for sure!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18915
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:43:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Oh dear. It appears I've offended some pro-robo botting supporters. Your complete ignorance of how PLEX work has nothing to do with the support for anything. What you said is factually incorrect, that's all. 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. |
Fix Lag
684
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:47:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Well, it's getting to be about lunch time in Iceland. I know I can't be the only one expecting some kind of response from CCP at this point. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1301
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 12:48:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote: ^ This. Don't forget that most of nullsec, especially renter space, is a vast spaceghetto made up of -0.1 to -0.4 space. In these areas it is even worse, they can support 1, maybe 2 people ratting. Any more than that and you are below level 4 mission income. If you really expect the one active person in a PvE ship to deploy and defend an ESS when a 10 man roaming fleet in PvP ships with a proper FC could show up at any time to rob it then you are so ignorant of 0.0 life/mechanics that it is a waste of time to even have a discussion. Not to mention that with only 1-2 people ratting it is impossible for this ESS to pay a proper return on the risk in a reasonable amount of time.
This module is one of two things:
1. if the 5% income reduction remains on the TQ release it is a module which will never be used and results in a 5% income nerf to all nullsec ratters.
2. if the 5% income reduction is removed on the TQ release it is a module which will never be used and was just a waste of dev time
Both are bad options, but option 2 is the less bad one.
Edit: nullsec alliance leaders already have enough headaches herding cats and will just outright ban the deployment of these by their members. Nobody wants their mailboxes filled with complaints because Joe Spaceprick logged on and looted the ESS that had been active all day. How many ways do nullsec residents have to say it? THESE MODULES WILL NEVER BE USED
Oh well, i doesn't really matter if a few risk avers renters leave the null sec.
Only time will tell if these things will be used or not. +1 |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
353
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:15:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Post consisting of profanity was removed. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL |
|
Cor Six
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:18:00 -
[1120] - Quote
I just hope that we get a good awnser from a dev soon on how they are going to fix this module. Mynas really had the best idea so far if you ask me. Good way to not nerf income but will lead to less inflation.
My hope is just that they make a bottom-up tax system for alliances soon. |
|
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
353
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:20:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Trolling post with veiled attack on CCP has been removed. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL |
|
Kendarr
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:23:00 -
[1122] - 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.
You just sed yourself CCP SoniClover that it is an uneccessary nerf.
Don't drop the bounty by 5%. Please?
http://crossingzebras.com/ |
ORLICZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:24:00 -
[1123] - Quote
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:Contrary to many of the other posters in this thread, I actually like this idea. It has the ability to create content and drive conflict when deployed both offensively and defensively. It can even function as an anti botting mechanism.
Offensively it allows those 'AFK cloakers' in system to do something other than being AFK. Dropping one of these in system will get the inhabitants to either stay docked, continue ratting and trust each other to divide up the bounties, or kill the ESS.
If they stay docked, business as usual
If they continue ratting and divide up the bonus bounties they will have to warp to the ESS, which alerts the whole system, puts them in a bubble, and takes 20 seconds to access the contents. This is plenty of time for a covert ops ship to de-cloak and activate an aggressive module. On top of this, they have to trust each other to not take all of the loot. So far this is looking like a pretty good conflict driver.
If they decide to kill this structure (which has the EHP of a battleship), the system is alerted, and the aggressors are then able to make their move.
As a defensive structure, it takes 60 seconds to print the tags out for yourself (20s to access and 40s to print). This will allow more than enough time for the 'owners' of the system to reship and warp to the ESS to defend their hard earned income.
As an anti-botting mechanic this thing is ingenious. It will increase the difficulty of botting, throw in some player countermeasures, and make the botter return to their computer in order to kill a hostile ESS.
I for one am looking forward to Rubicon 1.1.
TLDR: Stop being so scared of change.
+
|
Zappity
Kurved Space
765
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:29:00 -
[1124] - Quote
I'm glad everyone is so happy with the new siphon units. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Cor Six
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:35:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I'm glad everyone is so happy with the new siphon units.
Siphons is pritty good for the game IF they make a bottom-up income system. Right now Siphons is pritty **** aswell sence moons is the only way for major alliances to be able to supply itself without a masive amount of out of game systems to check for examle how mutch a corp has ratted for and then calc like 5% out of that then get the corp to pay the alliance those 5%....
Make a system were a alliance can tax just as corps can do with there members. Then the siphons are awesome. Decreasing the top-down income is good IF they fix a bottom-up income system. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:40:00 -
[1126] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Honestly, most of the posts in this thread can be summed up as: "Boohooohooo, I don't want to fight for my 5%"
The modules are simply going to be banned in most of 0.0. With inty's essentially being unstoppable in 0.0 no alliance in the game is going to bother to take the hit because they will waste more isk trying to defend these things than what the rewards bring. At best renter corps/alliances will deploy them to help pay for the rent and they will only be used in "safe" 0.0. Everyone else will ban them.
If CCP wants to create more conflict and ISK sinks in 0.0, then go back to the good ol' days when one actually had to use tactics instead of gank hotdropping everyone and to when you couldn't effortlessly look at space data to see who is ratting and where they are doing it. You know, when probing actions, standing fleets and holding sov actually had some value. Now it's rare to see anything larger than a few T2/T3 cruiser gangs / hot dropping SB / inty's in most of 0.0. I ask you what takes more minerals to build? A big ship or small one?
PVP tears are the best. PVPer's cried they couldn't find targets so being able to find the ratting systems data without work was added to the game. PVP'ers then cried that even when the ratters were located and killed, the ships get replaced too easily, so the amount of minerals to build them was increased. They then cried that dscan allowed people to see what ships they had so offensive cloakies were added. Now it appears they are crying because they are finding out ratting in null is actually a more profitable use of someone's time versus pvp and obviously the isk faucets must be turned down. Incidentally, this also seems to be the reason CCP has no intentions of addressing afk null cloakers, one of the biggest, cheapest isk-sinks in the entire game.
Those PVP tears just don't seem to stop do they?
|
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16476
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:48:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Oh dear. It appears I've offended some pro-robo botting supporters.
Oh noes! Bounties coming my way for sure!
No, you were simply wrong. As you are again.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:54:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote: ^ This. Don't forget that most of nullsec, especially renter space, is a vast spaceghetto made up of -0.1 to -0.4 space. In these areas it is even worse, they can support 1, maybe 2 people ratting. Any more than that and you are below level 4 mission income. If you really expect the one active person in a PvE ship to deploy and defend an ESS when a 10 man roaming fleet in PvP ships with a proper FC could show up at any time to rob it then you are so ignorant of 0.0 life/mechanics that it is a waste of time to even have a discussion. Not to mention that with only 1-2 people ratting it is impossible for this ESS to pay a proper return on the risk in a reasonable amount of time.
This module is one of two things:
1. if the 5% income reduction remains on the TQ release it is a module which will never be used and results in a 5% income nerf to all nullsec ratters.
2. if the 5% income reduction is removed on the TQ release it is a module which will never be used and was just a waste of dev time
Both are bad options, but option 2 is the less bad one.
Edit: nullsec alliance leaders already have enough headaches herding cats and will just outright ban the deployment of these by their members. Nobody wants their mailboxes filled with complaints because Joe Spaceprick logged on and looted the ESS that had been active all day. How many ways do nullsec residents have to say it? THESE MODULES WILL NEVER BE USED
Oh well, i doesn't really matter if a few risk avers renters leave the null sec. Only time will tell if these things will be used or not.
If the risk averse renters leave and take their barges and pve ships with them who will the risk averse "PvP" interceptor gangs shoot? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1301
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:55:00 -
[1129] - Quote
each other +1 |
L'ouris
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
115
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:56:00 -
[1130] - Quote
The biggest shortfall of this idea and its fixes so far for me is the lack of motivating ratters for defense.
Sure we talked about the timing being adjusted to make it even possible to defend, but what do we have at stake that would encourage us to grab a home defense fleet and go defend these things?
I represent a decent target for these modules. I rat for ISK in 0.0, badly, like 10 mil per tick bad. I keep PVP ships in system or nearby and often have a PVP fit on my ratting boat. The current state today is that going to interdict a roaming gang just isn't worth my time at the moment unless they hang around long enough and I can either organize a group, join a group being organized or stand a chance in hell of fighting the group solo with what I have at my disposal. There just isnt enough at stake for me to risk a ratting BS charging in to intercept baddies in my ratting ship. Currently I have no gain to defend and only stand to lose a ship.
We are talking about a bonus delivering device that is worth 30 mil. If its destroyed or scooped what ISK or LP or whatever is cooked up is still held in the ether of the system unless someone specifically clicks a loot all button. So, from my perspective, what advantage to defending the device itself? if it goes pop, nothing is lost until we deploy a new one.
even with the terrible ISK per hour I get ratting, defending a 30 mil deployable is kinda meh. I can easily see just having a few spare in a nearby station or POS. We need to have something real at risk with these devices. Having something real at risk means I should have a real reason to take that risk. It needs to be worth deploying in the first place.
In my shoes, I look at risking my meager assets and the return. I would be expected to at least put about 40 mil on the line to defend this module ( PVP fit T1 cruiser or AF ballpark numbers? ) That means that my stake in the defense of the module should be in the ballpark of 40 mil. I rat at 10m/tick. In the current proposed forms, I would have to be ratting non-stop all day or two on a weekend to even get that kind of stake loaded into the device.
It needs to be worth defending in addition to being possible to defend. I firmly believe that meaningful conflict drivers should exist in 0.0 without the billion hit points of SOV structures. We need small gang equivalent goals that SBU's and POS's provide for larger forces. Even if the proposed changes to this module are made, we must have a reason to defend it that gets us out of POS shields or station and onto the grid with the bad guys.
My number is about 40 mil per ratter on the line, stolen or blown up. What would be the number that gets you out of the POS? What would be the minimum bonus before you would risk something like that?
|
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
565
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 13:59:00 -
[1131] - Quote
I canGÇÖt believe I am writing this. I had hoped that CCP SoniClover had any idea of how to design features, or how to communicate, or indeed any ability to read and comprehend criticism. ItGÇÖs appalling that players have to lecture CCP on how to do stuff like this. This post will be written from some common sense and from my almost 10 years experience as storyteller and game master in various forms of role playing games and LARP. IGÇÖm not a game designer by profession, but I do political science for a living (And study). When I ran for office, my ability to respond to other candidates criticism in debates wouldnGÇÖt really change their minds, but the audience might be swayed GÇô but only if I actually answered the questions, comprehensively, clearly, with some kind of relevance to the election, the office and my partyGÇÖs politics.
First, when designing features in a game, you should set a goal. That goal might be GÇ£we want to increase/decrease activity XGÇ¥, or maybe GÇ£we want to introduce activity YGÇ¥, or perhaps even GÇ£we want to promote social interaction ZGÇ¥. Setting a goal, and being open about it, will not just help yourself keep on track and your internal evaluation; it will also help constructive criticism from your customers to reach that goal. If your goal is to GÇ£increase activity XGÇ¥, and those with great experience in that particular activity can explain how your proposed feature will decrease activity X, you are in a much better position to make positive changes than if your feedback is on how this will decrease social interaction Z. This also means that if you have two central goals, you need to be sure they are compatible. GÇ£Increasing activity XGÇ¥ and GÇ£promote social interaction anti-XGÇ¥ may be compatible, but chances are it isnGÇÖt. Then either drop one of the goals, or only increase or promote one to keep it in balance.
Now, with a goal, you can see if there are already incentives to do or avoid activity X, a basis for activity Y or if social interaction Z is already happening. If yes, you should see to those first. Sometimes you can improve an activity simply by making it easier to get into, get an overview, manage... Something as GÇ£simpleGÇ¥ as an interface improvement can incentivise activity X or enable activity Y. The rest of the time you have to do something new. If itGÇÖs an activity that currently provides rewards, you can up the rewards, and if it doesnGÇÖt, you can introduce them. If it is associated with risks or costs, you can decrease those. If you want to decrease an activity, you can decrease rewards or increase risks or costs.
If you donGÇÖt have these GÇ£buttons to push, screws to tighten/loosenGÇ¥ you need to get creative. Can activity X use a new tool? What kind of tool, what kind of effects will it have? Can activity Y be enabled by a new skill or (If it already happens on a small, free-form basis) a demand for that activity elsewhere? What other implications would that have, and would to enable activity Y mean an effective decrease in incentive to activity X? If you promote social interaction Z, will that make activity X easier or maybe harder? Will enabling activity Y make social interaction Z redundant?
When you have your rough outline of the feature or changes to features you are introducing, you need to take a good look at it. Essentially, what you need to identify is 1) if the feature is in accordance with your goal, 2) if it impacts on or is impacted by any other part of the game and 3) if there are more than one possible way to achieve your goal. ItGÇÖs important because you should never design blind. ItGÇÖs not just a quick way to waste resources and customer goodwill, but it is also very likely to be an overall detrimental thing to the game.
About half a year ago, CSM member Malcanis made a list of 8 things that would help the CSM promote ideas to CCP. I think you would gain something from reading that list, since your idea would not have passed muster: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3178202#post3178202
Now, that was some ground rules for how to design. ItGÇÖs a lot of common sense and some experiences I have had from designing role playing games, both tabletop campaigns that have endured for years and weekend live action role plays for up to 250 participants. I havenGÇÖt had to sell my ideas to customers the way you must, but I still had to show why a thing or a change was necessary, how it would work, what it would effect, if the participants overall would find it enjoyable GÇô if nothing else then to myself: GÇ£Will A amount of effort translate into adequate amount of enjoyment for my players?GÇ¥ is a central question.
With these helpful pointers I hope you get the gist of designing new stuff in a game. Introducing new content needs a justification, and needs to live up to that justification.
Moving on to your communication, I am not sure where to start. Some parts of it scream of avoidance of tough questions. You seem to ignore all but the most accepting and innocent questions, and to many of the participants in the tread, itGÇÖs clearly because you donGÇÖt want to be told what we think of the ESS. There are a good amount of problems with that, some in general and some specific to CCP. A general theme is that any complainer that feels ignored will either increase attempts to be heard, or will become apathetic to the issue as a whole. To CCP, that will either mean massive thread noughts and Player Versus Structure in Jita, or it will mean fewer participants in tests, less feedback, less activity GÇô in specific areas or in general GÇô and if itGÇÖs bad enough, falling subscription numbers. Adding to this is the justified and reasonable expectation of CCP to drop the ball, sooner or later, and this has all the signs of being ball-drop worthy. Honestly, I donGÇÖt think any of your communication through this thread has been done properly. (to be continued) |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
565
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 14:00:00 -
[1132] - Quote
(continued from before)
But IGÇÖm not just one to criticise. As above, I want to enable you to understand communication so that the game I love can be improved. But first, a little disclaimer: IGÇÖm not in marketing. If a company sells a product based on a lie, they are liable. If a politician lies, thatGÇÖs somewhat par for the course. You should attempt to be perceived as more honest and better to deliver than politicians.
What should you have done? Be honest and upfront. If what you had said GÇ£CCP has determined that inflow of ISK in 0.0 is too high, and we are going to decrease all 0.0 bounties with 5%. We also want to give small gangs a target, so weGÇÖre giving ratters the option of recouping that loss by a dropping a structure which small gangs can disrupt...GÇ¥ GÇô which might not have made responses positive, but they would have been responses to your specific intentions, and it would have been honest of you. In this case, you werenGÇÖt honest. At best you were deceived yourself, at worst you were lying and relied on the community not realising. That you werenGÇÖt deceived yourself got pretty clear when you summed up what you felt was the communityGÇÖs response to the ESS, a summary that nobody who had read the thread would have guessed. If you misattribute peopleGÇÖs responses or complaints, you canGÇÖt claim to have their best interest at heart. You wonGÇÖt win over anyone by so openly using fallacies and/or disregarding hundreds of posts. The same goes when you answer questions about the market parts of the ESS, and not even acknowledging the points made about the core of the complaint. Your 3 points you said you were looking at based on the feedback, and the actual feedback you got, is nicely summed up in a post by Scatim Helicon here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4113295#post4113295
ItGÇÖs a problem when you blatantly assume the community will accept your own contradictions, or when your posts contradict the actual professional (The economist), but the problems only increase when you refuse to read and comprehend the nature of the complaints. If you really want to continue the development course youGÇÖre on right now, by all means do, but donGÇÖt expect any sensible member of the community to agree or like it, and when you screw it up expect us to say GÇ£told you soGÇ¥.
Your three flaws (Design, communication, reaction to feedback) are all symptomatic for the CCP way of handling things. You promise the moon, deliver the ditch, but in 18 months just wait GÇÿn see, it will be AWESOME. All the while your players all the way through grow disenfranchised and lethargic because you refuse to listen to those who know better.
I think the best lesson that can be learnt from this is that you donGÇÖt respect the players. I had hoped it was a really poor troll, but now I know better. In all honesty, your style is bad for the game. Learn to do better. |
Vahl Ahashion
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 14:21:00 -
[1133] - Quote
The whole concept should be scrapped, take the art and go make something else with it. In low or particularly high sec this could be interesting, in null it just wont be used. Even the suggestions of Marlona sky and other about how to make this work are still excessively complicated and flawed with things like the requirement that null dwellers cash in tags in empire. The whole idea is badly thought out and poorly implemented. Probably one of the worst examples of game design i've seen in several years: appalling understanding of risk/reward, excessively complicated and terrible understanding of existing game mechanics.
Null sec income needs a major rethink and a major buff, it costs more in effort and isk to live there than any other section of space (possibly barring WH space) and the rewards are lower. You could start resolving this using deployables, this is so far from the way to do it that its like a bad joke. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6086
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 14:24:00 -
[1134] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: 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.
That is very far from apples and oranges. You're talking about a faucet (and suggesting it is disturbing the overall balance of faucets and sinks) and EyjoG is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. That's the exact same thing and when you're making decisions based on theories about the overall balance of faucets and sinks why on earth are you not looping in the guy who looks at that and saying it's not even relevant?
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.
It will decrease. You've guaranteed it will decrease. If you're worried about too much of an increase (a) talk to ErjoG about what increases are and are not a problem and (b) use the LP idea instead that doesn't just flatly nerf 0.0 on the theory that SOON(tm) the ESS will make up for it. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
353
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 14:54:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Trolling post removed. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL |
|
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
126
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 14:56:00 -
[1136] - Quote
Hm. Generally I like the idea of this Bounty monitor, because it is (or should be) designed to overcome the "hiding in the darkest spot and grinding rats, but warp safe instantly if anything happens" pattern. All this negative feedback here is certainly exaggerated (remember the carebears in the Marauder thread? WH00T?!?!?? Removing the web bonus KILLS them totally - glad it did still happen).
However... certain things about this monitor seem wrong. Why the bubble around it? OK, anyone taking money should be vulnerable for a moment, but a bubble is maybe not the right thing. Would be exploited as insta-down-bubble or 1min-up-bubble as some have pointed out.
I'd say: remove the bubble, put a hacking game in - but only to "take all". That will keep the moneytaker busy and vulnerable. Maybe with the funny explosion from GHOST sites... that should keep the Inties at bay unless they really concentrate and pay less attention.
Oh, and I don't know whether someone already posted, because I did not read all 60 pages... There was talk about nullsec empires BANNING these devices. What if the notorious afk-or-not-cloaker comes to the busy ratting systems and drops this thing on his safespot? He might not care about bonus 5%, but just scoop the thing up when disturbed and drop it again when it's more quiet. Either someone has to deal with him within 1 minute or he'll be able to leech 20% of the ratting efforts...
Or is that what the bubble is for? Wouldn't an unanchoring/scooping up delay be more appropriate? |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
693
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:04:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Hm. Generally I like the idea of this Bounty monitor, because it is (or should be) designed to overcome the "hiding in the darkest spot and grinding rats, but warp safe instantly if anything happens" pattern. All this negative feedback here is certainly exaggerated (remember the carebears in the Marauder thread? WH00T?!?!?? Removing the web bonus KILLS them totally - glad it did still happen).
However... certain things about this monitor seem wrong. Why the bubble around it? OK, anyone taking money should be vulnerable for a moment, but a bubble is maybe not the right thing. Would be exploited as insta-down-bubble or 1min-up-bubble as some have pointed out.
I'd say: remove the bubble, put a hacking game in - but only to "take all". That will keep the moneytaker busy and vulnerable. Maybe with the funny explosion from GHOST sites... that should keep the Inties at bay unless they really concentrate and pay less attention.
Oh, and I don't know whether someone already posted, because I did not read all 60 pages... There was talk about nullsec empires BANNING these devices. What if the notorious afk-or-not-cloaker comes to the busy ratting systems and drops this thing on his safespot? He might not care about bonus 5%, but just scoop the thing up when disturbed and drop it again when it's more quiet. Either someone has to deal with him within 1 minute or he'll be able to leech 20% of the ratting efforts...
Or is that what the bubble is for? Wouldn't an unanchoring/scooping up delay be more appropriate?
How do people STILL not get this.
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:13:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).
DonGÇÿt worry, people actually DO get this. For example IGÇÿve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs.
ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
696
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:22:00 -
[1139] - Quote
Something that I am still quite curious about (and has not been answered yet):
Was the ESS the feature referred to in the CSM8 Summer Summit Minutes?
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.
If yes, what changes were made that are considered to be "a more satisfactory solution"? What concerns were expressed? How and why did this feature make it to singularity (and a dev blog) without further review?
If no, (I am trying really, really hard to write this post so it cannot possibly be construed as "inflammatory") did you discuss the ESS at the CSM8 Summer Summit? What feature was "shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns"? If the feature shelved was not the ESS, just how bad of an idea was it, to get shelved, while such a fundamentally flawed concept managed to "pass muster"?
Thank you in advance for answering any of these questions you can, SoniClover. I look forward to seeing if any other DEVs chime in, as well. This thread has turned into "SoniClover vs. EVE". Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
253
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:22:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses). DonGÇÿt worry, people actually DO get this. For example IGÇÿve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs. ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
It doesn't sound like you understand this game very well, despite your "years" of experience.
Ratters don't dock up to be risk averse pansies -- they dock up because they don't want to fight a PvP fit in their ratting PvE fit - because that would be stupidity.
Also if you are coming in with an entire gang, as you say, it would be even more stupidity for them not to dock up.
There's nothing "manly" or "tough guy" about fighting a PvP fit in a PvE fit - and ratting isn't inherently a "carebear" activity, it's just a way to make ISK....And if you stop making ISK, you stop being able to PvP -- so pretty much everybody has to make ISK in some way or another. |
|
Foo Chan
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:22:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Meanwhile, in my dreams:
CCP - Hey guys, we need to balance our sheets so we decided to nerf rat bounties in null sec to 95% hoping we can get a few more sales in the future.
Community: Well, **** happens.. if CCP has no cash we can't play anyway, so thats fair. Game on.
CCP - Thanks for your understanding guys, meanwhile we're going to make use of our time by fixing the POS legacy code.
.. but then I woke up
Yes, I can build that. |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
51
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:23:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses). DonGÇÿt worry, people actually DO get this. For example IGÇÿve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs. ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
Except that you don't PVP in PVE ships. If you try to dock up (instead of POSing up and waiting) to switch ships, there might be a bubble there from that random neut. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
696
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:24:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£.
Except for, as stated dozens of times in this thread, by people with backgrounds and experience in all areas of eve, this does not do that. The idea is so fundamentally flawed that it would never do that. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:24:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses). DonGÇÿt worry, people actually DO get this. For example IGÇÿve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs. ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
Facepalm. There is no incentive for nullbears to fight. Look, the deployment of these will be banned by all major alliances and even if they aren't, ratters wont deploy them. Putting this in your system is an open invite for hostiles to disrupt your ratting activities. People don't want hostiles in their ratting system, they want to rat. People don't want to do emergency PvP in their ratting system, they want to PvP in a properly organized fleet and on a roam. There is no chance that these will be deployed by any locals in a ratting system.
If a hostile comes to deploy this, ratters will remain docked as always until the gang moves on and gets bored. They either scoop their ESS and take it with them or it will get blown up in 30 seconds after they are gone and before any ratting starts.
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU. |
MasterAsher
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:24:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Eram Fidard wrote:How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)
When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.
Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses). DonGÇÿt worry, people actually DO get this. For example IGÇÿve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs. ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
I dont think there is anyway to mitigate the large amount of risk of this item the way interceptors work now.
If they nerf bounties to lets say 60% or lower without ess all you will do is completely drive people from 0.0 because it wont be worth it. ( a lot of people have high sec alts already this will just cause all pve to move out of 0.0 into highsec or low sec fw alts)
On the other had lets say you make the carrot bigger and you get like 50-60% more isk for deploying this. Whats to stop awoxers from stealing all your isk or random douchbags from doing it? This will cause way too much drama for any isk gain that's worth it.
I read the writing on the wall a long time ago...CCP will nerf 0.0 to the ground before they fix any real issue we care about in fixing sov. I have made myself a new account for fw site running.
I just hope they never release this for other areas of space because this item is a done deal. CCP never backs down from any idea they have, sure they tweak them a little but never fix the major glaring flaws in them. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
699
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:29:00 -
[1146] - Quote
MasterAsher wrote:I have made myself a new account for fw site running.
CCP: "Mission Accomplished!" Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:31:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: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. They would never put it up in the first place, it requires far too much reward to ever offset the cost of having it around while you pve. |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:33:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Right, a few cups of coffee and a nice chocolate flapjack, and I think I've finally designed a finished better idea (tm). Here we go!
ESS (improved)
1) As so many people have already said, remove the current planned reward system and employ an LP reward system converting minimum (I actually think the reward should be higher since Sov space should be worth more) every 800 isk soaked by the ESS into 1 concord LP. This will do wonders for controlling the very real inflation that currently exists in the game.
2) The warp bubble isn't effective as a defensive thing due to bubble nullification and silly fast warp outs. Here's a better solution: Give the ESS instalocking turrets that cause a concord-like infinite point, long range warp disruption, possibly also add a web. The ESS MUST NOT be an object that can be risk-free accessed by hostiles. Smash and grab tactics should not be allowed.
3) The access times and method are terrible, and require no special equipment (seriously, what sane organisation would make an object that any berk could stumble up to and empty. That's like an ATM made of paper and glue). There should be significant risks and penalties taken by attackers as well as defenders. Therefore, a new module should be needed to access an ESS, with cyno like drawbacks (ship is locked in place until the module has cycled). Like a cyno, this module should have it's cycle time reduced by it's skill (I like the idea of making this a hacking skill module) by 1 min per level from a base of 10 mins. The MINIMUM time should be no less than 5 minutes, and even that is pushing it to the point of undefendable.
4) Add some real benefits to an ESS in the system. Systems with an ESS have double anomaly spawns to draw more players to them, meaning more people to defend them.
5) Add standings increase. There's an intangible value to missioning in high sec, and that's standings increases. |
Tritis Mentari
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:34:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
A gang deploying an ESS creates the same effect as a gang without an ESS. Ratters dock up either way. The hostile ESS generates no income for the roaming gang but costs 30 million. If the gang leaves with the ESS still deployed then the ratters undock, destroy the ESS, and go about their business. If the gang hangs around, then the ratters log off and go spend time with their loved ones or something. The ESS generates no fights.
After generating zero isk and zero fights, gangs won't waste the 30 million isk. The end result being a straight 5% nerf to ratting income, everyone moves on, and SonicLover's pet project gets forgotten. |
Foo Chan
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:34:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
Damn right. Yes, I can build that. |
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
700
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:37:00 -
[1151] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Rek Seven wrote: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. They would never put it up in the first place, it requires far too much reward to ever offset the cost of having it around while you pve.
If anyone was stupid enough to place an ESS in their own space, you can guarantee that alliance will be torn apart by internal struggles after a single noob-alt in an ibis is seen flitting around, 'stealing' income. "Whose alt is that?" "I saw _____ in system at the same time as NoobAlt!!"
Perhaps this is the conflict SoniClover is hoping to generate. The thing is, this type of conflict already exists, in the form of "sneaky awoxing". Once again, nothing added. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1434
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:40:00 -
[1152] - 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.
Swap to LP. Avoid this entire rabbit hole and keep it in the player economy too.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:41:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Tahnil wrote:ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: GÇPNullbears donGÇÿt fight, they dock upGÇ£, CCPs answer is: GÇPWe give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentiveGÇ£. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly. It doesn't sound like you understand this game very well, despite your "years" of experience. Ratters don't dock up to be risk averse pansies -- they dock up because they don't want to fight a PvP fit in their ratting PvE fit - because that would be stupidity. Also if you are coming in with an entire gang, as you say, it would be even more stupidity for them not to dock up. There's nothing "manly" or "tough guy" about fighting a PvP fit in a PvE fit - and ratting isn't inherently a "carebear" activity, it's just a way to make ISK....And if you stop making ISK, you stop being able to PvP -- so pretty much everybody has to make ISK in some way or another.
GǪandGǪ
Funless Saisima wrote:Except that you don't PVP in PVE ships. If you try to dock up (instead of POSing up and waiting) to switch ships, there might be a bubble there from that random neut.
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
Eram Fidard wrote:Except for, as stated dozens of times in this thread, by people with backgrounds and experience in all areas of eve, this does not do that. The idea is so fundamentally flawed that it would never do that.
No. The idea behind ESS isnGÇÿt flawed at all. It is a good idea, but the proposed mechanism seems to be flawed in several ways.
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Facepalm. There is no incentive for nullbears to fight. Look, the deployment of these will be banned by all major alliances and even if they aren't, ratters wont deploy them. Putting this in your system is an open invite for hostiles to disrupt your ratting activities. People don't want hostiles in their ratting system, they want to rat. People don't want to do emergency PvP in their ratting system, they want to PvP in a properly organized fleet and on a roam. There is no chance that these will be deployed by any locals in a ratting system.
IGÇÿve got news for you: NULL SECURITY SPACE is not designed for undisturbed ratting. I donGÇÿt care that inhabitants want to rat in peace. Not at all :-) Your complaint is in no way different from hisec carebears demanding an end of ganking, war decs and other activies disturbing their mission running and mining. |
Cheekything
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
140
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:42:00 -
[1154] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Negatives: Income isn't worth the risk Too useful as a Harassment too. Tags
Positives: It's a great idea as a concept I love the idea isk small gang pvp
Solutions: Changes to how the module functions: -Make it required to be placed next to an ihub -Change Tags to just isk -Increase the reward amounts but increase how long it takes per increase, i.e. up to 120% but would take multiple days solo ratting.
This change makes it worth using for ratters, risk and reward, the Ihub makes it only usable in a system that is owned, as NPC 0.0 should remain unaffected by this change.
Change the way you remove isk: - Lock the ship to the Module for 90 seconds - To withdraw you need to press the button and wait 120+ second (and announced in locals in all of the constellation)
This change gives people enough time to kill an ceptor while at the same time giving small gangs a nice message that there is an easy kill to be had in 2 minutes time in X system. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:42:00 -
[1155] - Quote
MasterAsher wrote:I dont think there is anyway to mitigate the large amount of risk of this item the way interceptors work now.
If they nerf bounties to lets say 60% or lower without ess all you will do is completely drive people from 0.0 because it wont be worth it. ( a lot of people have high sec alts already this will just cause all pve to move out of 0.0 into highsec or low sec fw alts)
On the other had lets say you make the carrot bigger and you get like 50-60% more isk for deploying this. Whats to stop awoxers from stealing all your isk or random douchbags from doing it? This will cause way too much drama for any isk gain that's worth it.
Did you ever live in wormhole space? What you are describing there is daily business over there. People do live together in a POS, sharing a lot of equipment, stockpiling sleeper loot until it can be sold safely in hisec, etc. Drama is an essential part of EVE. If somebody chooses to set up an ESS, there is a certain chance for drama. And thatGÇÿs positive. It seems there are not only autistic players in hisec, but in nullsec also, only in a different way. Everybody should have to deal with these problems. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
825
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:45:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote: Facepalm. There is no incentive for nullbears to fight. Look, the deployment of these will be banned by all major alliances and even if they aren't, ratters wont deploy them. Putting this in your system is an open invite for hostiles to disrupt your ratting activities.People don't want hostiles in their ratting system, they want to rat. People don't want to do emergency PvP in their ratting system, they want to PvP in a properly organized fleet and on a roam. There is no chance that these will be deployed by any locals in a ratting system.
If a hostile comes to deploy this, ratters will remain docked as always until the gang moves on and gets bored. They either scoop their ESS and take it with them or it will get blown up in 30 seconds after they are gone and before any ratting starts.
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
In this single post I have highlighted every reason why the ESS is a flawed module and wont be used, thank you to Andrea for giving me a simple way to yet again post the same points which CCP seem to be missing in this whole debate. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
704
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:46:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Everybody should have to deal with these problems.
And everyone does, it's called "AWOXing" Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
255
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:46:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems.
And by this time, all the loot in the ESS is gone because the people coming in just warped to it and clicked the TAKE ALL button while you screw around changing your fit, dock, undock, "call for reinforcements" etc.
Now do you understand why nobody will use them?
While they go to change their ship, you can just go straight to the ESS. |
Rdubs
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:49:00 -
[1159] - Quote
I have followed this forum for years, played EVE on and off for a while since 2009 and never felt the need to post. So this is my first post to the EVE forums, and I am using it to say that if CCP goes through and actually rolls out this ESS after this kind of player/customer feedback, it will be an act of developer hubris unseen since the ending of Mass Effect 3. I see this a lot in my line of work, someone comes up with an idea they think is so great that they impose it top-down and anyone who doesn't like it just doesn't understand the brilliance of the idea. Sure people generally don't like change and will normally whine, but there are such things as bad ideas. That's how the ME3 ending happened - the executive producer and lead writer decided they wanted to write the ending themselves and didn't need the input of the other writers, and then would not let any of the other writers see it until after the voice actors recorded it (so by then it was a fait accompli). They bypassed the peer review process that all the other writing underwent because they didn't think the other writers would grasp the creative brilliance, but in reality they were just afraid the other writers might expose it for the crap it was and they didn't want to hear negative feedback on their work product.
It takes moral courage to listen to feedback and walk back an idea, and hopefully the guys at CCP who came up with this have that. Granted the dev's are aware of the "vocal minority" aspect, and no doubt only a small fraction of subscriptions write on this forum, but to just ignore this wave of displeasure because the complainers supposedly don't get the creative genius is a bad idea. Others smarter than me have posted ideas on this thread about how to modify the item if the dev's would lose too much face just shelving it completely, but please don't let it roll out the way currently designed and even more importantly, please don't try to coerce more people into using it by increasing the penalty from 5% to something higher. Turning up the magnitude because your product isn't having the desired outcome usually results in more unintended consequences and customer anger than it does help the "problem" of your product isn't doing what you hoped. |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:50:00 -
[1160] - 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.
holy **** bro you basicly just said: we really need a thing that can generate pvp to keep you guys happy but since we really cant give you anything in return we gotta nerf your income first so we can try to give you some incentive to try this out but it wont actually be worth the effort we know this hence the nerf is REQUIRED.
do you even know how bad that is? |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:52:00 -
[1161] - Quote
How about this:
- Drop the 5% global decrease in bounties and any ability to increase bounties above 100%
- Make the deployable siphon 20% of all bounties across the whole constellation its deployed in (perhaps even make a hauler sized one that does a whole region)
- Have anyone in range able to take all siphoned ISK directly into their wallet
People not watching intel channels might continue to rat. People stuck in anoms or escalations will probably continue to rat. Attackers get some ISK and a fight if they stick around. Defenders have to go fight you or lose multiple systems of ratting space. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 15:54:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Tahnil wrote:ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. And by this time, all the loot in the ESS is gone because the people coming in just warped to it and clicked the TAKE ALL button while you screw around changing your fit, dock, undock, "call for reinforcements" etc. Now do you understand why nobody will use them? While they go to change their ship, you can just go straight to the ESS.
As I stated repeatedly in this thread, I also think that the timer is a big problem. ThatGÇÿs why I would ask for a payout over time instead of a payment after a timer as my top priority change request. It means after an attacker accessed the ESS he gets one tag every x seconds, and not all tags at once after a fixed amount of time. Therefore the attacker has to stay at the ESS as long as possible in order to get the maximum amount of ISK or tags. And the defenderGÇÿs time to react would be in direct proportion to the greed and annoyance of the attacker. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
125
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:02:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
No. The idea behind ESS isnGÇÿt flawed at all. It is a good idea, but the proposed mechanism seems to be flawed in several ways.
IGÇÿve got news for you: NULL SECURITY SPACE is not designed for undisturbed ratting. I donGÇÿt care that inhabitants want to rat in peace. Not at all :-) Your complaint is in no way different from hisec carebears demanding an end of ganking, war decs and other activies disturbing their mission running and mining.
Look, we have already established that even the best ratting systems in nullsec can support at most 4-5 pilots ratting at one time. So for the ratters to deploy an ESS they would have to expect that they can defend the ESS against any hostiles that come into the system. I don't care how you monkey with the payout system or what you increase the timer for payouts to, the bottom line is the ratters have 4-5 pilots in system to defend the ESS vs. a roaming gang which would likely be 5-20 people in PvP fit ships already set up in a proper fleet, and may have a cyno or blops capabilities as well. So in the time it takes for you to get pilots in from other systems and organize a large enough defense fleet the roaming gang will have robbed the ESS blind and moved on.
I mean tbh, I can barely talk myself into ratting so if my options are to take a 5% income nerf or interact with this god awful deployable and possibly get an 20% nerf along with the drama of alliancemates robbing it and hostiles camping it I'm gonna take the 5% nerf. The real question is does nullsec need a 5% bottom-up income nerf and the answer is no. |
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics Mildly Intoxicated
227
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:03:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Yes I'm saying it and no you can't have my stuff or isks... if I some day find my self quitting this game I will trash all my belonging and say screw you nerds go get your own stuff.
So back to business...
This game is just getting more and more desirable to play. All these siphons and other crap you pour out from your dev department just shows you are starting to run out of ideas how to balance the game properly. After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
257
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:11:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Tahnil wrote:ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. And by this time, all the loot in the ESS is gone because the people coming in just warped to it and clicked the TAKE ALL button while you screw around changing your fit, dock, undock, "call for reinforcements" etc. Now do you understand why nobody will use them? While they go to change their ship, you can just go straight to the ESS. As I stated repeatedly in this thread, I also think that the timer is a big problem. ThatGÇÿs why I would ask for a payout over time instead of a payment after a timer as my top priority change request. It means after an attacker accessed the ESS he gets one tag every x seconds, and not all tags at once after a fixed amount of time. Therefore the attacker has to stay at the ESS as long as possible in order to get the maximum amount of ISK or tags. And the defenderGÇÿs time to react would be in direct proportion to the greed and annoyance of the attacker.
I simply don't agree with the design philosophy behind it.
Even if there was no passive ratting nerf involved, I still think it's a poor idea. No matter how you monkey the numbers, it's a poor idea.
It's a strange, unnatural creation that no logical person or entity would create within the game itself.
Contrast this to any other income generating activity, in nullsec or even wormhole space.
In either case, your loot is near where you are. If somebody comes into the system, you know it takes them time to find you/scan you down/warp to you. You can then assess the situation and decide what you want to do about it....
In wormholes for instance, you would first see them on dscan, but then you would be watching out for probes, and you would have a rough idea of how long it will take them to probe you down. You can then leave, put your loot in your POS, etc.
With the ESS, it weirdly and inexplicably deposits loot into an ATM Machine somewhere in the system that you then have to warp to retrieve. Do you not see the fundamental difference and weirdness behind this?
What the hell? |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
53
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:13:00 -
[1166] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
If someone actually makes a ping to defend an ESS, they will get laughed at and have their ping rights removed. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:14:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Look, we have already established that even the best ratting systems in nullsec can support at most 4-5 pilots ratting at one time. So for the ratters to deploy an ESS they would have to expect that they can defend the ESS against any hostiles that come into the system. I don't care how you monkey with the payout system or what you increase the timer for payouts to, the bottom line is the ratters have 4-5 pilots in system to defend the ESS vs. a roaming gang which would likely be 5-20 people in PvP fit ships already set up in a proper fleet, and may have a cyno or blops capabilities as well. So in the time it takes for you to get pilots in from other systems and organize a large enough defense fleet the roaming gang will have robbed the ESS blind and moved on.
I mean tbh, I can barely talk myself into ratting so if my options are to take a 5% income nerf or interact with this god awful deployable and possibly get an 20% nerf along with the drama of alliancemates robbing it and hostiles camping it I'm gonna take the 5% nerf. The real question is does nullsec need a 5% bottom-up income nerf and the answer is no.
I see it different. In the current state of nullsec, a roaming gang of 5-20 people canGÇÿt do **** to provoke a fight. Yes, itGÇÿs possible to gank somebody, and if youGÇÿre really, really lucky you find a gang of locals willing to fight. But this will happen once in like five roamings. At least this is my experience from small scale roamings, twice or three times weekly, in different parts of the nullsec regions.
The sad truth is: if a smallscale roaming gang enters nullsec, all ratters dock up, and all other inhabitants donGÇÿt care at all.
It is simply a necessity that roaming gangs are able to do SOMETHING that hurts the local inhabitants. Right now they are mostly ignored, and for good reasons.
The idea behind ESS GÇô at least as I understand it GÇô is to give nullsec ratters a new deployable that potentially increases their income, but with a price. A part of their income will be at risk. CCPs job is to balance it properly. Risk vs reward.
Whenever there is even a small amount of extra profit, some people are willing to risk more in order to get it. Sometimes they are aware of the risk, sometimes not. ThatGÇÿs only natural. CCPs job is to balance it such that enough people are willing to take this risk.
Therefore we should only talk about the right balance, and the exact mechanics of the module, not if it should exist at all. There has to be some kind of ESS!
And a TCU doesnGÇÿt cut it, and itGÇÿs quite obvious. No small or mid scale roaming gang could ever do anything to harm a TCU. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3379
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:14:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Foo Chan wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
Damn right.
This is the wrong scale....
A small gang can't attack a POS, they can't deploy and/or defend an SBU... This game DESPERATELY needs small gang oriented objectives. Something that the locals find worth defending, and any small (<10 cruisers) can achieve. Otherwise, your small gangs are relegated to "hunting ratters" which safe up and don't fight because they have no reason to fight. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:18:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Funless Saisima wrote:Tahnil wrote:
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
If someone actually makes a ping to defend an ESS, they will get laughed at and have their ping privileges removed.
IGÇÿm not talking about forming a fleet of 200 CFC Dominixes. WeGÇÿre talking about small gang warfare here. Maybe alliances would have to adapt a little to the fact that there is a very local problem. Maybe you would need local pings then. I am sure CFC IT will be able to come up with some solution ;-) |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:18:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: I see it different. In the current state of nullsec, a roaming gang of 5-20 people canGÇÿt do **** to provoke a fight. .
Head over to any of the major staging systems in nullsec, and you will get a fight. But you will probably die, and then you will cry that you got blobbed. And you will eventually blame everything under the sun instead of realizing the inevitable fact.
This inevitable fact is that you are dumb. |
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
275
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:22:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Foo Chan wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
Damn right. This is the wrong scale.... A small gang can't attack a POS, they can't deploy and/or defend an SBU... This game DESPERATELY needs small gang oriented objectives. Something that the locals find worth defending, and any small (<10 cruisers) can achieve. Otherwise, your small gangs are relegated to "hunting ratters" which safe up and don't fight because they have no reason to fight. Well what kind of money are we talking here? A structure for 30 mil and how much isk in the rat bounty pot, another 30? Maybe people will get four or five friends together and put cruisers, fitting, and pods on the line for that amount of isk, but I doubt it. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
257
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:23:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Funless Saisima wrote:Tahnil wrote:
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
If someone actually makes a ping to defend an ESS, they will get laughed at and have their ping privileges removed. IGÇÿm not talking about forming a fleet of 200 CFC Dominixes. WeGÇÿre talking about small gang warfare here. Maybe alliances would have to adapt a little to the fact that there is a very local problem. Maybe you would need local pings then. I am sure CFC IT will be able to come up with some solution ;-)
The solution is to not use them because putting your loot in a Space ATM Machine is unnatural and stupid.
(spAceTM Machine?) |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:23:00 -
[1173] - Quote
after giving it much thought i have to say just switching it to lp is wrong too.
remember the pve player is starting at a huge disadvantage. a pve ship will lose to a pvp ship of the same class every time, this means they have to get into a station that was probably bubbled right away, reship, and get a fleet together.
not to mention the most a null sec system can support at once is 5 active ratters. that means it only takes a 7 man gang to skew the odds out of favor of it ever being defended. this is because of the way sites spawn. in highsec you get a site anytime someone talks to their agent, but in null all players share a set pool of sites and have to wait for them to re-spawn. if more than 5 are in a system they will not spawn fast enough to support the people running them so the extras have to go to other systems.
there is no potential upside for a ratter to use this, they cannot get the odds in their favor. the rewards for use would have to be astronomical for the constant badgering to be worth it. because dont forget this module entices people to come raid your systems. there is no downside to it for them. get in smash and leave, the attackers wont even be looking for pvp. they will just fly interceptor that cant be caught, if someone resists too much just hit a different one a few jumps out. they outrun any kind of defense fleet, so they can zip around grabbing isk while the defenders chase them. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:25:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: I see it different. In the current state of nullsec, a roaming gang of 5-20 people canGÇÿt do **** to provoke a fight. Yes, itGÇÿs possible to gank somebody, and if youGÇÿre really, really lucky you find a gang of locals willing to fight. But this will happen once in like five roamings. At least this is my experience from small scale roamings, twice or three times weekly, in different parts of the nullsec regions.
The sad truth is: if a smallscale roaming gang enters nullsec, all ratters dock up, and all other inhabitants donGÇÿt care at all.
It is simply a necessity that roaming gangs are able to do SOMETHING that hurts the local inhabitants. Right now they are mostly ignored, and for good reasons.
The idea behind ESS GÇô at least as I understand it GÇô is to give nullsec ratters a new deployable that potentially increases their income, but with a price. A part of their income will be at risk. CCPs job is to balance it properly. Risk vs reward.
Whenever there is even a small amount of extra profit, some people are willing to risk more in order to get it. Sometimes they are aware of the risk, sometimes not. ThatGÇÿs only natural. CCPs job is to balance it such that enough people are willing to take this risk.
Therefore we should only talk about the right balance, and the exact mechanics of the module, not if it should exist at all. There has to be some kind of ESS!
And a TCU doesnGÇÿt cut it, and itGÇÿs quite obvious. No small or mid scale roaming gang could ever do anything to harm a TCU.
Look, no one is going to deploy this even if the potential bonus to bounties was 200%. Think about it this way:
1. What is to stop someone from your alliance with a 1 day old alt from robbing the ESS?
2. What is to stop someone from your alliance from logging on a neutral alt they have logged off in system and robbing the ESS?
These are two obvious ways to exploit this deployable/mechanic to the point that no ratter is going to agree to use these no matter what the potential bonus is. If i log on to rat and see one of these in system the first thing I will do is blow it up. Me blowing up someone's deployable = alliance drama. The 1 day old alts robbing the ESS = alliance drama. Alliance leaders deal with enough drama already and will just ban the use of these.
I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. Maybe if you have never lived in or don't understand nullsec you should stop posting in this thread?
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:26:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Funless Saisima wrote:Tahnil wrote:
ESS doesnGÇÿt require you to fight in your PvE fit. Not at all. PvE ratters should be able to dock / POS up and switch to suitable combat ships, maybe even call for reinforcements from nearby systems. (ThatGÇÿs one of my main concern with the current mechanic of the ESS. A fixed timer doesnGÇÿt cut it. Depending on the situation it is either too short or too long. Right now itGÇÿs too short. ESS can be robbed long before the defenders are able to react. Therefore the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option should be a payment over time, not a single payment after a timer. For example the attacker could get one tag for every x seconds that heGÇÿs willing to wait at the ESS module.)
If someone actually makes a ping to defend an ESS, they will get laughed at and have their ping privileges removed. IGÇÿm not talking about forming a fleet of 200 CFC Dominixes. WeGÇÿre talking about small gang warfare here. Maybe alliances would have to adapt a little to the fact that there is a very local problem. Maybe you would need local pings then. I am sure CFC IT will be able to come up with some solution ;-)
the problem is these systems cant support a reasonable number of players ratting in them. the lowest truesec supports maybe 5, the rest 1 or 2. null is empty because it will not support larger groups in systems doing things at the same time. and if you think the attacking small gang wont bring 7 because the local populous is probably only 5 you are dumb. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3380
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:34:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Billybob Sheepshooter wrote:Tahnil wrote: I see it different. In the current state of nullsec, a roaming gang of 5-20 people canGÇÿt do **** to provoke a fight. .
Head over to any of the major staging systems in nullsec, and you will get a fight.
Do you have any sense of scope at all? As someone that regularly takes out 5-10 man frigate & cruiser gangs, if I head to VFK, or Doril, or ... I don't get anything close to a fight. I show up looking for fun, and the response is a 30 man frigate, cruiser, bc fleet with logi, jams, and links.
When I'm wielding a 60 man frigate or destroyer or cruiser fleet, these are exactly the places I go for a good fight (often), but for most players in this game gangs of this size are not a nightly activity. In contrast, when I take out my 5-10 man gang, the locals know I generally don't have a 50 man AHAC fleet ready to cyno in as backup, they know that scouting me and mine the force we bring, such that a 4-5 locals can ship up and actually take us on in a good fight (especially if they have backup in route). As it is though, most locals have no reason to fight. If they stay safe, there is nothing our small gang can do to harm them and theirs.
Frankly, there are two elements to "defending" your space:
One is claiming space as yours (i.e. the Sov game). This is well established, even if the mechanics aren't ideal.
The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
827
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:38:00 -
[1177] - Quote
As a serious question to CCP, why are almost all other changes being posted on F&I and Test Server Feedback but the ESS skipped all of that? or have we just not got there yet because this became the thread that would have been on F&I?
It seems that Fozzy, Rise and Karkur have threads up for player feedback and ideas for iteration before things get too serious but this didn't. Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:38:00 -
[1178] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:not to mention the most a null sec system can support at once is 5 active ratters. that means it only takes a 7 man gang to skew the odds out of favor of it ever being defended. this is because of the way sites spawn.
GǪandGǪ
greiton starfire wrote:the problem is these systems cant support a reasonable number of players ratting in them. the lowest truesec supports maybe 5, the rest 1 or 2. null is empty because it will not support larger groups in systems doing things at the same time. and if you think the attacking small gang wont bring 7 because the local populous is probably only 5 you are dumb.
As I see it there are a lot of systems with a lot more than 5 inhabitants in local. Most of the time there is a station, or several POS, or whatever. Just for the sake of argument I accept your notion that any given system with upgrades can only support 5 ratters at the same time. But not all people in local are ratting. Some people are doing other things, while still logged in and potentially available for a PvP operation. And there are more people in adjacent systems.
The problem as I see it is that most ratters in nullsec behave kind of autistic when ratting. Oftentimes when you attack somebody, this guy will call for help in local chat. How poor is that? There are alliance mates or even corp mates in the same system, and the guy has to call for help in local? Come on, nullbears, you surely can do better than this.
As I said, I would greatly support a different mechanic, allowing for a longer reaction time for defenders. For example the payout for GÇPtake allGÇ£ should be in chunks over time, not all at once after a set timer. Attackers would for example get one tag every ten seconds, or something like this. Therefore the defenders canGÇÿt just say GÇPokay, I wonGÇÿt be there in time anywayGÇ£. The situation would go on as long as there is money in the ATM, only limited by the attackerGÇÿs greed and the defenders will to fight back. |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:38:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
Station services were added to entice more small gang warfare. (Yes, that is sarcasm). The EES just won't get used by anyone.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3381
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:39:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Foo Chan wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
Damn right. This is the wrong scale.... A small gang can't attack a POS, they can't deploy and/or defend an SBU... This game DESPERATELY needs small gang oriented objectives. Something that the locals find worth defending, and any small (<10 cruisers) can achieve. Otherwise, your small gangs are relegated to "hunting ratters" which safe up and don't fight because they have no reason to fight. Well what kind of money are we talking here? A structure for 30 mil and how much isk in the rat bounty pot, another 30? Maybe people will get four or five friends together and put cruisers, fitting, and pods on the line for that amount of isk, but I doubt it.
Perhaps your right... but solving this is very simple: Increase the reward given by the ESS. If it had 100m in the rat bounty pool, I bet more people would step up. Additionally, ensure that the locals have enough time to actually respond. I'd like to see about 10 minutes before the isk-tag drops, thereby allowing them time to pull in friends nearby, to ship up, and to come out swinging. |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
430
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:39:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
Why?
Why should people spend their time in game waiting around for you to arrive? Or more accurately, waiting around for you to jump a scout in, change your mind and run away? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
259
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:41:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Turelus wrote:As a serious question to CCP, why are almost all other changes being posted on F&I and Test Server Feedback but the ESS skipped all of that? or have we just not got there yet because this became the thread that would have been on F&I?
It seems that Fozzy, Rise and Karkur have threads up for player feedback and ideas for iteration before things get too serious but this didn't.
My suspicion is that they already knew it would have negative feedback and be poorly received. They probably erroneously view it as "tough love" - something that will "improve" the game despite everybody affirming them that it won't.
Thus, if they put a bunch of dev time into it, and have the "pot odds" on the feature be very high, they won't back down on overwhelming negative player feedback because....They already put too much time into it.
I guess this feature is "too big to fail." It happens no matter what because they kept it hidden and put a bunch of time/money into it. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:42:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
Why? Why should people spend their time in game waiting around for you to arrive? Or more accurately, waiting around for you to jump a scout in, change your mind and run away?
Don't be harsh man, I mean, Sirius Fleet and Agony Empire will need to defend their borders and infrastructure just as vigilantly as.. oh, oh, I see. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
4726
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:42:00 -
[1184] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1 ... Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. ... 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.
So the purpose of the ESS is to increase income, so we should want to use it. However you are already giving us too much ratting income, so in order to increase it, you need to decrease it first. Sure that makes sense from a numbers and balancing point of view. From a consumer's point of view, it's like those BS Christmas sales where companies say everything is 50% off - after increasing prices by 75%. It's a load of horse manure. I see what you're trying to do - put some of that isk at risk and use the new deployable toys. But you're doing a poor job of selling it to us, and the design lacks any sort of desirability from our point of view beyond hoping to dodge a 5% nerf. Please try again. ... CCP SoniClover wrote: We hate everyone equally.
Pick a side - humorous inflammatory phrasing is good/bad?
I love you all equally, hope that helps!
Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:43:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
Why? Why should people spend their time in game waiting around for you to arrive? Or more accurately, waiting around for you to jump a scout in, change your mind and run away?
They shouldnGÇÿt. They should do whatever they are doing. But IF somebody shows up, there should be some chance for small scale PvP. Currently there is nearly none at all. There might be a gank, and very rarely some locals decide to fight. But this is only once every five or more small gang roamings. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
170
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:45:00 -
[1186] - Quote
this ESS thing would make a lot more sense, if 0.0 anomalies would actually support:
1) a small gang of inhabitants in PvP-ready ships 2) still making reasonable profit, while beeing in fleet with more than one other pilot and in another site than sanctums.
current system is more in favor of systems with as few pilots as possible to keep income ticks as high as possible. nobody likes to grind more than neccessary. besides that, 50% of all anomalies in a system (even when fully upgraded) are not worth the time (below forsaken hub). new bros make more isk with belt chaining till you can fly forsaken hubs.
looks to me like it's better to put the ESS back for a bit and redesign 0.0 PVE content first. maybe design sites around a number of pilots needed to complete the site. force gang setups also usable in small gang pvp. then you can implement something like the ESS to introduce new conflict drivers for small scale pvp. at that point give the concept of mynnna another look.
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:50:00 -
[1187] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
Why? Why should people spend their time in game waiting around for you to arrive? Or more accurately, waiting around for you to jump a scout in, change your mind and run away? Don't be harsh man, I mean, Sirius Fleet and Agony Empire will need to defend their borders and infrastructure just as vigilantly as.. oh, oh, I see.
So, now big alliance arrogance?
As I see it small corporations like mine are an enrichment for this game. We donGÇÿt do sovereignty warfare, this is not our league.
You are allowed to perceive us as brigands, roaming your empireGÇÿs borders. For fun and personal gain. ThatGÇÿs okay. And you donGÇÿt have to like us for what weGÇÿre doing. But you should really appreciate the existence of banditry in this game. ItGÇÿs an enrichment. In the end, this game is about simulated conflict, drama, and social experiments.
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:53:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Perhaps your right... but solving this is very simple: Increase the reward given by the ESS. If it had 100m in the rat bounty pool, I bet more people would step up. Additionally, ensure that the locals have enough time to actually respond. I'd like to see about 10 minutes before the isk-tag drops, thereby allowing them time to pull in friends nearby, to ship up, and to come out swinging.
wrong:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Look, no one is going to deploy this even if the potential bonus to bounties was 200%. Think about it this way:
1. What is to stop someone from your alliance with a 1 day old alt from robbing the ESS?
2. What is to stop someone from your alliance from logging on a neutral alt they have logged off in system and robbing the ESS?
These are two obvious ways to exploit this deployable/mechanic to the point that no ratter is going to agree to use these no matter what the potential bonus is. If i log on to rat and see one of these in system the first thing I will do is blow it up. Me blowing up someone's deployable = alliance drama. The 1 day old alts robbing the ESS = alliance drama. Alliance leaders deal with enough drama already and will just ban the use of these.
I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. Maybe if you have never lived in or don't understand nullsec you should stop posting in this thread?
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
431
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:53:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: They shouldnGÇÿt. They should do whatever they are doing. But IF somebody shows up, there should be some chance for small scale PvP. Currently there is nearly none at all. There might be a gank, and very rarely some locals decide to fight. But this is only once every five or more small gang roamings.
Ratting is almost purely a money making exercise. If dropping an ESS gives you 10% more income over not dropping an ESS then you need 10 people ratting in a system for every 1 person defending. Space in EVE is almost completely porous so you can't reliably defend borders. This means you need at least 1 defender for every ESS you have so any system unable to support 10 or more ratters at the same time is better off without an ESS (hint: this is all of them). |
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
105
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:54:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Read It, its really good! I'll wait
The ESS screams: We want to make x number of deploy-able structures that fit the "disruption" theme. And it seems rather forced at that. Many of the concerns mentioned in this thread should have come up during design ...
... or maybe they did? link to the minutesCSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdf @ page 42 wrote: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. Speaking of minutes and CSM, apart from a nice post from mynna I have not seen much opinions on that matter from the CSM. (maybe I just missed It though) With all that talk about Minutes and CSM accountability I have to say that the current minutes lack meat in that regard. Its controversial topics like this one, where I'd like to know the standpoint of as many individuals from our elected council as possible. |
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:56:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!
Why? Why should people spend their time in game waiting around for you to arrive? Or more accurately, waiting around for you to jump a scout in, change your mind and run away? Don't be harsh man, I mean, Sirius Fleet and Agony Empire will need to defend their borders and infrastructure just as vigilantly as.. oh, oh, I see. So, now big alliance arrogance? As I see it small corporations like mine are an enrichment for this game. We donGÇÿt do sovereignty warfare, this is not our league. You are allowed to perceive us as brigands, roaming your empireGÇÿs borders. For fun and personal gain. ThatGÇÿs okay. And you donGÇÿt have to like us for what weGÇÿre doing. But you should really appreciate the existence of banditry in this game. ItGÇÿs an enrichment. In the end, this game is about simulated conflict, drama, and social experiments. But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
the problem is your small group is trying to attack a group that by definition must be orders of magnitude larger and better coordinated than you. we don't need better ways to get tiny fights out of massive groups, we need ways for tiny groups to get lots of fights together. ideally pvp should scale up, small in high, medium in low, big in null. so you need to look at ways to get people to actually fight in highsec fleets. be it fleet duels etc. ccp tried to use war decs but that was just a mess.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:56:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Funny how to you it's "big alliance arrogance" when it reality it's my small band can't form up enough warm bodies to affect sov.
As long as we're getting this out there, let's be brutally honest. I see this as yet another pvper boo hoo because they are not able to make iskies while trying to kill someone else that might be PVE ratting and making them.
How many more advantages would pvp'ers need to feel satisfied? You've got the intro of blops, hot drops, bridging without Titan risk, cheap cloaky pvp setups and a huge advantage in selecting the time place and method of your attack.
And STILL, you cannot find fun in the game? How about this? How about some pvp organizations "nut up" and attempt to take Sov instead of just complaining about it and sitting afk in someone's ratting system 23 hours a day. |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:57:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If you only have a couple people in system, this is probably indefensible (normally). If you have 20 people in system, then this is probably very defensible. This thereby encourages you to bunch up, which gives you more overall protection, and more overall entertainment in game. At this point, CCP needs only buff some of the mid-level anomalies to be group-oriented activities that pay as well or better than solo running.
The current anom system encourages not working together. If there's 20 people in a system, I choose a different system. A fully upgraded system has 3 forsaken hubs, 1 haven, 1 sanctum, rest are trash. Changing the PVE content to be group-orientated activities for null would require an expansion in itself. I see that happening very soonTM. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3381
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 16:58:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Look, no one is going to deploy this even if the potential bonus to bounties was 200%. Think about it this way:
1. What is to stop someone from your alliance with a 1 day old alt from robbing the ESS?
2. What is to stop someone from your alliance from logging on a neutral alt they have logged off in system and robbing the ESS?
These are two obvious ways to exploit this deployable/mechanic to the point that no ratter is going to agree to use these no matter what the potential bonus is. If i log on to rat and see one of these in system the first thing I will do is blow it up. Me blowing up someone's deployable = alliance drama. The 1 day old alts robbing the ESS = alliance drama. Alliance leaders deal with enough drama already and will just ban the use of these.
I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. Maybe if you have never lived in or don't understand nullsec you should stop posting in this thread?
1.) It tells you who robbed the ESS. You take care of it the same way you would an AWOXer.
2.) It tells you when yor ESS is being robbed. You take care of it the same way you would a neutral (assuming CCP increases the access timer to something reasonable).
p.s. Drama is a part of EvE. It basically creates conflict and content. You'll cope with it the same way you cope with your alliance mates not delivering your courier package, or AWOXing you, or ... |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:01:00 -
[1195] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:the problem is that the only ones that actually give a damn if the isk is stolen are the ones ratting, as it is no one is coming to save you in your ratting ship if you get caught, why would they try to save your isk. there is no reason a ratter would use this, the cost is too high. there is no reward. also, there may be more than 5 people in a system but many people go afk in station for hours at a time.
I understand this problem. But I think this may be a problem of corporation or alliance culture. As I know it, corp mates help each other out. I guess there is less familiar atmosphere in a large alliance than in a small scale pvp corporation with 20-50 active pilots in sum.
DonGÇÿt confuse cause and effect. Alliance structure and culture in EVE has developed over time. Nullsec ratters even in the same system act autonomously most of the time. Cause they are doing a solo activity. Therefore they might not be in alliance comms. But if there were incursion-like anomalies in 0.0, they would have to play differently. At the same time, they would have to play differently if there were an ESS like structure, that connects them in a new way with other ratters, like never before. This would change their behaviour over time. At the same time, ratters will have to gang up not only with their mates in the same system, but also create a network with ratters in nearby system. The ratters with the best network would have the best income, because they would get the 5% income buff provided by ESS more often than ratters without this network and good friends, helping each other out.
ESS is just a module, but the idea behind ESS is a challenge of how nullsec ratters perceive their activities in nullsec, and how it relates to intruders. And thatGÇÿs a good thing. Things have to be shaken up sometimes. And small gang warfare still needs a lot more buffs. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
181
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:02:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
You are allowed to perceive us as brigands, roaming your empireGÇÿs borders. For fun and personal gain. ThatGÇÿs okay. And you donGÇÿt have to like us for what weGÇÿre doing. But you should really appreciate the existence of banditry in this game. ItGÇÿs an enrichment. In the end, this game is about simulated conflict, drama, and social experiments.
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
If you poke a bear with a stick, you shouldn't be surprised it reacts. If you want small gang roams that are fun, SOV nullsec might not be the place you should be looking.
It appears that small gang roams keep bashing their heads against the same rock, unable to see their mistake. Baddest poster ever |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
379
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:04:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Look, no one is going to deploy this even if the potential bonus to bounties was 200%. Think about it this way:
1. What is to stop someone from your alliance with a 1 day old alt from robbing the ESS?
2. What is to stop someone from your alliance from logging on a neutral alt they have logged off in system and robbing the ESS?
These are two obvious ways to exploit this deployable/mechanic to the point that no ratter is going to agree to use these no matter what the potential bonus is. If i log on to rat and see one of these in system the first thing I will do is blow it up. Me blowing up someone's deployable = alliance drama. The 1 day old alts robbing the ESS = alliance drama. Alliance leaders deal with enough drama already and will just ban the use of these.
I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. Maybe if you have never lived in or don't understand nullsec you should stop posting in this thread?
1.) It tells you who robbed the ESS. You take care of it the same way you would an AWOXer. 2.) It tells you when yor ESS is being robbed. You take care of it the same way you would a neutral (assuming CCP increases the access timer to something reasonable). p.s. Drama is a part of EvE. It basically creates conflict and content. You'll cope with it the same way you cope with your alliance mates not delivering your courier package, or AWOXing you, or ... for 1, it's not like one could use an alt.......oh wait....... |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:04:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: The ratters with the best network would have the best income, because they would get the 5% income buff provided by ESS more often than ratters without this network and good friends, helping each other out.
No, they wouldn't. Because a 5% income buff means you need to have 20 people ratting per ESS in order to make it worthwhile over just not deploying one and putting that many people in one system drops all of their income way below highsec level 4s. At that point they just won't be there. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
131
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:05:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Look, no one is going to deploy this even if the potential bonus to bounties was 200%. Think about it this way:
1. What is to stop someone from your alliance with a 1 day old alt from robbing the ESS?
2. What is to stop someone from your alliance from logging on a neutral alt they have logged off in system and robbing the ESS?
These are two obvious ways to exploit this deployable/mechanic to the point that no ratter is going to agree to use these no matter what the potential bonus is. If i log on to rat and see one of these in system the first thing I will do is blow it up. Me blowing up someone's deployable = alliance drama. The 1 day old alts robbing the ESS = alliance drama. Alliance leaders deal with enough drama already and will just ban the use of these.
I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. Maybe if you have never lived in or don't understand nullsec you should stop posting in this thread?
1.) It tells you who robbed the ESS. You take care of it the same way you would an AWOXer. 2.) It tells you when yor ESS is being robbed. You take care of it the same way you would a neutral (assuming CCP increases the access timer to something reasonable). p.s. Drama is a part of EvE. It basically creates conflict and content. You'll cope with it the same way you cope with your alliance mates not delivering your courier package, or AWOXing you, or ...
No, you won't be able to take care of #2 the same way. I can steal from the ESS for a bit and then warp off, warp to my main, jetcan tags, log off, rinse repeat.
This deployable is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3381
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:08:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Start with an ESS-like module, you get 90% of bounties without it, 110% with. This module has 500k EHP, a one hour reinforcement timer, and a global corporation notification. It requires starbase config to use.
It collects 25% of all ratting bounties which, if it's not reinforced, are automatically paid out to the ratter an hour(possibly longer edit: six hours seems more appropriate) later. If destroyed it drops the ESS isk-tags of the value of bounties it's holding.
You could even add a taxation option where a configurable percentage of that 25% goes to the corp that owns the module, in effect creating an opportunity to shift taxation from corp to system based and providing strong incentives to care about the modules.
This biggest issue with the above EHP and RF suggestions is that it moves the ESS module from "small gang" (5-10) to medium gang (10-20) or larger territory. An alliance does NOT need a full hour to respond, and giving them this much time will result in a very heavy response. Really, the time between the attack on the RF and the payout on the RF should be on the order of 10-20 minutes. This is plenty of time for an alliance to gather the troops and defend it, without bringing in the whole shebang! |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:08:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
No, you DESPERATELY WANT something which allows you to make huge isk gains while risking an whole interceptor. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3381
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:11:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Look, no one is going to deploy this even if the potential bonus to bounties was 200%. Think about it this way:
1. What is to stop someone from your alliance with a 1 day old alt from robbing the ESS?
2. What is to stop someone from your alliance from logging on a neutral alt they have logged off in system and robbing the ESS?
These are two obvious ways to exploit this deployable/mechanic to the point that no ratter is going to agree to use these no matter what the potential bonus is. If i log on to rat and see one of these in system the first thing I will do is blow it up. Me blowing up someone's deployable = alliance drama. The 1 day old alts robbing the ESS = alliance drama. Alliance leaders deal with enough drama already and will just ban the use of these.
I really don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. Maybe if you have never lived in or don't understand nullsec you should stop posting in this thread?
1.) It tells you who robbed the ESS. You take care of it the same way you would an AWOXer. 2.) It tells you when yor ESS is being robbed. You take care of it the same way you would a neutral (assuming CCP increases the access timer to something reasonable). p.s. Drama is a part of EvE. It basically creates conflict and content. You'll cope with it the same way you cope with your alliance mates not delivering your courier package, or AWOXing you, or ... No, you won't be able to take care of #2 the same way. I can steal from the ESS for a bit and then warp off, warp to my main, jetcan tags, log off, rinse repeat. This deployable is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
The ESS gives a notice in local that Andrea's Alt has landed by the ESS. If your alliance mates can't warp a ship over and blap your alt then you deserve to run off the the isk-tags. I'll admit that the current 60s to claim the tags is too short, but increase this to 6-10 minutes, and your alliance mates will stop your alt if they are even a tid bit competent. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
379
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:11:00 -
[1203] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:Tahnil wrote:
You are allowed to perceive us as brigands, roaming your empireGÇÿs borders. For fun and personal gain. ThatGÇÿs okay. And you donGÇÿt have to like us for what weGÇÿre doing. But you should really appreciate the existence of banditry in this game. ItGÇÿs an enrichment. In the end, this game is about simulated conflict, drama, and social experiments.
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
If you poke a bear with a stick, you shouldn't be surprised it reacts. If you want small gang roams that are fun, SOV nullsec might not be the place you should be looking. It appears that small gang roams keep bashing their heads against the same rock, unable to see their mistake. it's being ages that small gang is almost dead, the odds of crossing another gang that will fight you are......well, i do FC such roams once or twice a week, and in 5 month, had only 2 fights, wich ended by the opposite gang lighting a cyno in the end, first one dropping a phoenix + chimera (yes, you read that! for a cruiser gang! and failed dying in fire ), the 2nd cyno dropped 2 triage archon and a proteus fleet of 20 ppl for a 5 cruiser + 1 BC gang.
rest of the time, your small gang will just make ratters dock up, or dodge knwon cyno roaming in the hope to give the 200+ ppl waiting on the titan something to ****.
and this is in lowsec, in null it's even worse, you cross......nothing for ages.....then eventually a bigass fleet you can't do crap against or a few ratters who are already docking / in pos by the time you hit warp / align at the gate...... |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:11:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: As I see it small corporations like mine are an enrichment for this game. We donGÇÿt do sovereignty warfare, this is not our league.
You are allowed to perceive us as brigands, roaming your empireGÇÿs borders. For fun and personal gain. ThatGÇÿs okay. And you donGÇÿt have to like us for what weGÇÿre doing. But you should really appreciate the existence of banditry in this game. ItGÇÿs an enrichment. In the end, this game is about simulated conflict, drama, and social experiments.
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
Thats kinda the point. Big, small, we all do our own thing, and cross paths when we stick our heads in the others game (be it small groups bombing/pipebombing or whatever a strategic fleet, or a small group within a larger entity goes roaming), and thats cool. Banditry in and of itself is fine, it adds danger and uncertainty to travelling through space, and I wouldn't want it gone. What I disagree with though, is that there seems to be some obligation on the larger entities to keep you entertained. Why? What have you done for us lately?
Ultimately, raiders like you show up in a tight-comp, at a time your organisation has planned in advance, with pre-sourced boosters and an experienced FC. And that's fine, but you get the rewards that skewing the situation in your favour deserves. But for some unfathomable reason, you seem to expect there should be some mechanic that forces a portion of us to fall in front of your guns in an un-FCed, un-boosted, kitchen-sink comp, entirely for your amusement, as some sort of compensation for us playing a different way. Err, how about no. If I proposed there should be a mechanic to force NPC-station dwellers out of the door into our 200-man battleship fleet, you would think I was insane, and rightly so.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6098
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:11:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: This biggest issue with the above EHP and RF suggestions is that it moves the ESS module from "small gang" (5-10) to medium gang (10-20) or larger territory. An alliance does NOT need a full hour to respond, and giving them this much time will result in a very heavy response. Really, the time between the attack on the RF and the payout on the RF should be on the order of 10-20 minutes. This is plenty of time for an alliance to gather the troops and defend it, without bringing in the whole shebang!
I don't think you'd see much of a difference in response between 10-20m reinforced and 1h, in both cases it's going to be bored people around the area. But that's a good reason to make it the shorter time, alliance gets time to respond, attackers don't need to twiddle their thumbs for an hour. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:13:00 -
[1206] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:the problem is your small group is trying to attack a group that by definition must be orders of magnitude larger and better coordinated than you. we don't need better ways to get tiny fights out of massive groups, we need ways for tiny groups to get lots of fights together. ideally pvp should scale up, small in high, medium in low, big in null. so you need to look at ways to get people to actually fight in highsec fleets. be it fleet duels etc. ccp tried to use war decs but that was just a mess.
And thatGÇÿs the fun part of it: on the small scale, Goonswarm Federation or any other large alliance ISNGÇÿT BETTER COORDINATED than our small scale pvp gangs. ThatGÇÿs the reason why we can gank carriers and marauders deep within your empires. Sov 0.0 ratters are acting very isolated, and thatGÇÿs why they are easy prey for any roaming gang. And thatGÇÿs why they HAVE to dock up. There is no alternative for them, cause alliances donGÇÿt have an answer to the kind of threat that we small scale pvp roamers are posing.
As I stated in an earlier post, alliances would have to adapt to the fact that suddenly there are some things at risk by gangs that you were able to completely ignore in the past.
As I see it, most of the opposition to the ESS in this thread is by large alliance nullsec dwellers who see the game from a completely different angle. Everybodies point of view in this thread is highly subjective, and determined by our selfish interest. Therefore it is wrong to accuse CCP SoniClover of not understanding the game. HeGÇÿs just coming from a different perspective, one that most people here donGÇÿt like. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:16:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
I understand this problem. But I think this may be a problem of corporation or alliance culture. As I know it, corp mates help each other out. I guess there is less familiar atmosphere in a large alliance than in a small scale pvp corporation with 20-50 active pilots in sum.
you have no idea what you are talking about, nullsec groups work together more than highsec groups. you cant complain in one hand about being blobbed and in the other say we don't work together. as for ratters going it alone the system is set up that way. it punishes you for having too many people around. not to mention the severe disadvantage a pve fit has against a pvp fit. so you are saying we need to have fully stocked pvp supplies in all our ratting system, besides just the capital and war fronts where people are actually taking sov. also fyi incursions are in nullsec too, it is just too dangerous to have a large group in pve fits in null sec. 1 bubble +1 cyno= billions of isk down without much of a chance to defend themselves. focus on making ideas on how to fix where you live instead. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3381
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:17:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Tahnil wrote:
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
No, you DESPERATELY WANT something which allows you to make huge isk gains while risking an whole interceptor.
I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight.
In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec. |
Bohneik Itohn
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:18:00 -
[1209] - Quote
New player, new character. This is my perspective as someone who is trying to get skilled up and ready to go into null about the same time this is released.
"What... Really? I'm leaving high sec to get away from this behavior...."
I've been coming across a lot of juveniles lately as I attempt to practice "safe" null sec habits. People jumping into relic sites in a BS and bumping me because I got there first (Really? Running relic sites in an Apocalypse?) people coming in after I start a combat site and blitzing the ship with the largest bounty after I pull aggro, ninja salvagers in level 3 security missions (great job, enjoy that 20k isk you earned for your half an hour of being a twit, don't mind me while I warp out and drop all of the aggro on your t1 frigate.)
I'm leaving high sec to get away from the petty kids, and lo, what happens but we get something to encourage people in null to behave just like the high sec brats.
I like the idea of there being 4 simple methods of interaction in null:
Kill me (I see this happening a lot) Get killed by me (expect an apology for taking advantage of you when your mouse crapped out) Avoid me Fleet up with me for some cooperative shenanigans that may or may not be profitable.
Now as someone who will probably spend the majority of their time hiding alone in cloak in null, this has almost no impact on me. The money I make from ratting will still be far superior to anything I make in high sec. This is not an eloquent exposition on the finer intricacies of how this is going to affect null-sec politics. This is my own selfish view of how it affects me and me only, as a new player who is looking to start playing in null.
I see this changing the behavior of everyone else, and it sets a precedent for more changes like this in the future. WoW pub zone behavior should remain in WoW. Game mechanics being what they are, it's to be expected we'd see that behavior in high sec, but there's no reason it should spread any further.
Lets keep it simple and mature. You want my rat bounties? Come at me, bro. Just don't be upset when I smack you with a fleet invite as soon as you uncloak. There may or may not be a growing pool of odorous fluids in the bottom of my capsule, so could you give me a moment to deal with this?
Since I really didn't care, my SP is currently all over the place and has only recently been focused towards exploration in null. But if people in null start with the playground drama I see in high, I'll just move back to high and run lolsec missions while I gear my character up for industry, assuming I'm still playing. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
590
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:21:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This biggest issue with the above EHP and RF suggestions is that it moves the ESS module from "small gang" (5-10) to medium gang (10-20) or larger territory. An alliance does NOT need a full hour to respond, and giving them this much time will result in a very heavy response. Really, the time between the attack on the RF and the payout on the RF should be on the order of 10-20 minutes. This is plenty of time for an alliance to gather the troops and defend it, without bringing in the whole shebang! You know, if CCP suggested a structure along these lines: "- Boosts PI outcome with 5% on corp level. - Has ~70k shield, 10k armour, 70k hull EHP. - At 50% armour it enters a 30 minutes RF timer. - Can be anchored/unanchored and scooped with roles. - Costs apprx. 50M. - Gives suspect timer if shot at in HS or LS without a wardec. - Can be deployed anywhere except POS, may need to be scanned down. - It will provide salvage and PI materials if killed depending on use.
Corps with a PI focus would set them up in systems they're doing enough PI in, and with 30 minutes respond timer they either react or the gang kills it. Doing it on corp level will probably limit the responses (So a gang of 10-20 will attack it, a corp will respond with whoever are online). It boosts something small, it incentivises player corp over NPC corp, and with ~150k EHP total it's easy killable."
So it's much simpler, it's actually beneficial if you expect it to live long enough, it doesn't make a log over who rats where, it's killable by a small cruiser gang, and it would be in-line with the old Farms & Fields ideas. Obviously this was thought up in 10 minutes, improvements should happen, but it's better than ESS... FOR EVERYONE. That's the point. It would be used as something more than a bubble. UNLIKE THE ESS.
Something which WON'T be used by those who live WHEREVER.
Holy expletives, how are you able to defend the ESS? |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
264
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:22:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Everybodies point of view in this thread is highly subjective, and determined by our selfish interest.
I disagree.
I can identify bad game design without taking my self interest into account.
It's a bulky, overly complicated and bizarre concept.
I can't think of any other feature that adds so little, while being so complicated.
If you really are that set on the conflict driver aspect -- believe me when I tell you that this isn't the fix for that. Conflict drivers are usually a good thing, but it is best when they are emergent.
Maybe we should start another thread for conflict driver ideas just to prove the point that many of us here welcome them.
That doesn't however mean that any mechanic that COULD cause a conflict is automatically a good idea. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:23:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Tahnil wrote: As I see it small corporations like mine are an enrichment for this game. We donGÇÿt do sovereignty warfare, this is not our league.
You are allowed to perceive us as brigands, roaming your empireGÇÿs borders. For fun and personal gain. ThatGÇÿs okay. And you donGÇÿt have to like us for what weGÇÿre doing. But you should really appreciate the existence of banditry in this game. ItGÇÿs an enrichment. In the end, this game is about simulated conflict, drama, and social experiments.
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
Thats kinda the point. Big, small, we all do our own thing, and cross paths when we stick our heads in the others game (be it small groups bombing/pipebombing or whatever a strategic fleet, or a small group within a larger entity goes roaming), and thats cool. Banditry in and of itself is fine, it adds danger and uncertainty to travelling through space, and I wouldn't want it gone. What I disagree with though, is that there seems to be some obligation on the larger entities to keep you entertained. Why? What have you done for us lately? Ultimately, raiders like you show up in a tight-comp, at a time your organisation has planned in advance, with pre-sourced boosters and an experienced FC. And that's fine, but you get the rewards that skewing the situation in your favour deserves. But for some unfathomable reason, you seem to expect there should be some mechanic that forces a portion of us to fall in front of your guns in an un-FCed, un-boosted, kitchen-sink comp, entirely for your amusement, as some sort of compensation for us playing a different way. Err, how about no. If I proposed there should be a mechanic to force NPC-station dwellers out of the door into our 200-man battleship fleet, you would think I was insane, and rightly so.
Honestly, no I donGÇÿt want that. Neither being forced out of my NPC station, nor shooting you guys with a tight composition fleet in your kitchen sink fleet.
As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. But their existence would unfold a certain pressure on nullsec alliances to deal with small scale engagements as well. Therefore you would have to be able to react in a decent manner to bandits like us. And IGÇÿm entirely sure that this is possible. All thatGÇÿs needed is a local network, spanning a constellation or two, and some pvp response setup fleets, that locals can grab within short notice.
I understand that the large alliances at the moment are ill prepared for this kind of engagements. Because they can be avoided easily, so why care at all? Whenever there IS an engagement right now, it is like you said: kitchen sink defenders versus tight composition attackers. But this doesnGÇÿt have to be so.
If there are small gang objectives like ESS in this game, nullsec alliances need to, can, and will adapt to it. Resulting in more pvp engagements. And then it will be very different from the current situation with ganks and slaughtering of kitchen sink compositions.
CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has itGÇÿs flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:23:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The ESS gives a notice in local that Andrea's Alt has landed by the ESS. If your alliance mates can't warp a ship over and blap your alt then you deserve to run off the the isk-tags. I'll admit that the current 60s to claim the tags is too short, but increase this to 6-10 minutes, and your alliance mates will stop your alt if they are even a tid bit competent.
but as soon as that button is pressed isk is converted to tags and everyone is ****** anyways. who gets what? how do i know you didnt take a 15 min break while i went at it the whole time. etc etc. the moment you push that button someone lost isk and someone made isk. it will only cause distrust, and grudge matches from corp mates. large groups will ban its use for this alone. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
438
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:29:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has itGÇÿs flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS.
CCP need to drop the idea that an ESS is ever going to be something a spaceholder would deploy themselves. You'd need a 50% or more difference in income between a system with and without one in order to make it viable in the vast majority of 0.0 space which means either reducing bounties by 50% across the board or giving the ESS the potential to increase them way too much.
Its also never going to work as purely offensive module if it only affects one system. People don't rat with hostiles in system. An undefended ESS is a dead ESS. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:29:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
no, it was never here. nullsec has always been for large scale conflict. small scale used to be in high sec, id did it for a while when i started. but the war dec system got screwed up, and groups switched over to small, stabbed ships that couldn't be caught in an unfavorable situation. so small gang started trying to ttack null sec and are pissed because it is a whole new tier of pvp they can't compete on. like i said in the past focus on fixing your own space and the screw ups ccp has going there.
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
134
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:32:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote:Tahnil wrote:
But we DESPERATELY NEED __something__ like ESS. We can talk about how it can be done right, but not IF it should be done at all.
No, you DESPERATELY WANT something which allows you to make huge isk gains while risking an whole interceptor. I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight. In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
I would just like to point out that we form up to fight regularly, and as soon as the roaming gang sees that there is a good chance they wont win the engagement they flee as fast as their their risk averse nanoed ganking fleet can get them out of there. Its bad to the point that the defense fleet comps revolve around resebos and instant lock tackle. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:32:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: And thatGÇÿs the fun part of it: on the small scale, Goonswarm Federation or any other large alliance ISNGÇÿT BETTER COORDINATED than our small scale pvp gangs. ThatGÇÿs the reason why we can gank carriers and marauders deep within your empires. Sov 0.0 ratters are acting very isolated, and thatGÇÿs why they are easy prey for any roaming gang. And thatGÇÿs why they HAVE to dock up. There is no alternative for them, cause alliances donGÇÿt have an answer to the kind of threat that we small scale pvp roamers are posing.
As I stated in an earlier post, alliances would have to adapt to the fact that suddenly there are some things at risk by gangs that you were able to completely ignore in the past.
As I see it, most of the opposition to the ESS in this thread is by large alliance nullsec dwellers who see the game from a completely different angle. Everybodies point of view in this thread is highly subjective, and determined by our selfish interest. Therefore it is wrong to accuse CCP SoniClover of not understanding the game. HeGÇÿs just coming from a different perspective, one that most people here donGÇÿt like.
You're more an annoyance to isk-making than a real threat. A real threat in null is someone that can trap all your 0.0 stuff in a station or has the numbers to overwhelm you. Cloaky neuts and afk'ers already provide a nullification of isk so why would this deployable be needed as well?
By definition, a bigger alliance is and will always be better coordinated than a smaller corp. They have more people acting as part of a larger intelligence network which thwarts your plans for a quick land and gank and usually provides more pvp muscle to stop such incursions. Oh well. Sorry, but that's EVE. If you can't adapt to that perhaps you should find a different game or join an alliance.
You point kinda strikes me as Lebannon or some other similar sized country lamenting the fact they can't take on the UK in a naval battle.
Alliances have already adapted to plenty. Roaming invincible inty gangs, sov warfare, blops, hot droppers, covert cynos, etc., etc., etc. I'm sorry, but I missed the part where roaming gankers are actually taking any real risks against pve ratters.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3381
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:35:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This biggest issue with the above EHP and RF suggestions is that it moves the ESS module from "small gang" (5-10) to medium gang (10-20) or larger territory. An alliance does NOT need a full hour to respond, and giving them this much time will result in a very heavy response. Really, the time between the attack on the RF and the payout on the RF should be on the order of 10-20 minutes. This is plenty of time for an alliance to gather the troops and defend it, without bringing in the whole shebang! You know, if CCP suggested a structure along these lines: "- Boosts PI outcome with 5% on corp level. - Has ~70k shield, 10k armour, 70k hull EHP. - At 50% armour it enters a 30 minutes RF timer. - Can be anchored/unanchored and scooped with roles. - Costs apprx. 50M. - Gives suspect timer if shot at in HS or LS without a wardec. - Can be deployed anywhere except POS, may need to be scanned down. - It will provide salvage and PI materials if killed depending on use. Corps with a PI focus would set them up in systems they're doing enough PI in, and with 30 minutes respond timer they either react or the gang kills it. Doing it on corp level will probably limit the responses (So a gang of 10-20 will attack it, a corp will respond with whoever are online). It boosts something small, it incentivises player corp over NPC corp, and with ~150k EHP total it's easy killable." So it's much simpler, it's actually beneficial if you expect it to live long enough, it doesn't make a log over who rats where, it's killable by a small cruiser gang, and it would be in-line with the old Farms & Fields ideas. Obviously this was thought up in 10 minutes, improvements should happen, but it's better than ESS... FOR EVERYONE. That's the point. It would be used as something more than a bubble. UNLIKE THE ESS. Something which WON'T be used by those who live WHEREVER. Holy expletives, how are you able to defend the ESS?
I'd be completely down with something like this: A few modifications: Reduce the RF timer from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. Add corp/alliance notifications that it is being attacked. This isn't necessarily better than the ESS for one major, major reason. The locals have to defend it 24/7, whereas the ESS only needs to be defended while you are actively ratting (casue players would normally cash it out when they are done for the night, thereby emptying the ESS of value). Furthermore, we generally wouldn't blow up an ESS, as it we get value in having it in system as much as the ratters do. Finally, your PI machine might drop PI loot, but gangs like mine honestly wouldn't even bother scooping it, as the hauler required to transport it simply isn't worth it. We would simply attack it in the hopes you form up to defend it. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
115
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:35:00 -
[1219] - 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.
Change the ESS bonus to LP then. Bump it up to 50-100% so we can get comparable income in nullsec to empire/low sec. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
296
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:39:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Facepalm. There is no incentive for nullbears to fight. Look, the deployment of these will be banned by all major alliances and even if they aren't, ratters wont deploy them. Putting this in your system is an open invite for hostiles to disrupt your ratting activities. People don't want hostiles in their ratting system, they want to rat. People don't want to do emergency PvP in their ratting system, they want to PvP in a properly organized fleet and on a roam. There is no chance that these will be deployed by any locals in a ratting system.
If a hostile comes to deploy this, ratters will remain docked as always until the gang moves on and gets bored. They either scoop their ESS and take it with them or it will get blown up in 30 seconds after they are gone and before any ratting starts.
If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
CCP, is there any way we can get this man/woman put in charge of Team Superfriends? |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3382
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:40:00 -
[1221] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
no, it was never here. nullsec has always been for large scale conflict. small scale used to be in high sec, id did it for a while when i started. but the war dec system got screwed up, and groups switched over to small, stabbed ships that couldn't be caught in an unfavorable situation. so small gang started trying to ttack null sec and are pissed because it is a whole new tier of pvp they can't compete on. like i said in the past focus on fixing your own space and the screw ups ccp has going there.
What are you talking about. Agony has been partaking in small gang asymmetric warfare in nullsec since 2006. Nullsec isn't for "large scale conflict only". That's simply ridiculous!
Claiming space from invasion is Large Scale conflict. Policing space is small scale conflict. And you need to do both. How many of your VFK buddies roam around Deklein & Fade defending your space, because my experience tells me many goons will readily form up small and medium gangs to attack intruders. Perhaps your simply not one of them, and don't realize that that constitutes small gang warfare in nullsec, and that's exactly the activity I want to promote!
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:42:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight.
In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
So you roll in 6 v 1 and wonder why people wouldn't undock to fight you in PVE fitted ships? Don't be stupid. If you want easy ganks go to low sec, then you can 10 v 1 pod everything coming through the gate.
I really could care less if small gangs leave 0.0. There's already a place for them, a little sandbox called low-sec where you can gank to your heart's desire and play griefing butt pirate all day long.
Spare us all the crying. Null sec provides for Sov warfare, big ships and big risks and low sec provides for ganks. That's just how it is, as well as it should be.
As it has been stated, as soon as you come in system all activity is likely to stop anyway. Go ahead and place that ESS. As soon as you leave, it's going to get blasted. Alliances aren't going to install them because THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE IN DOING SO. ANY FOOL CAN ROB THEM, ALLIANCE OR OTHERWISE. THEY PROVIDE SMALL PENALTY AND SMALLER REWARD.
The entire idea behind this module is ill-conceived and just plain dumb. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:42:00 -
[1223] - 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.
No, you specifically mentioned NULL bounties.
"Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation."
I don't have access to the numbers ,but I would wager since a majority of players make isk in hi-sec space, only a small fraction comes from NULL bounties.
|
Fix Sov
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:43:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight. Then you should probably prod CCP into fixing more central things like oh I dunno the risk/reward ratio in nullsec vs other areas of the game, and/or things like sov systems so a smaller gang can more easily make an impact.
The ESS isn't going to have the kind of impact you wish it'd have. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3382
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:44:00 -
[1225] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The ESS gives a notice in local that Andrea's Alt has landed by the ESS. If your alliance mates can't warp a ship over and blap your alt then you deserve to run off the the isk-tags. I'll admit that the current 60s to claim the tags is too short, but increase this to 6-10 minutes, and your alliance mates will stop your alt if they are even a tid bit competent.
but as soon as that button is pressed isk is converted to tags and everyone is ****** anyways. who gets what? how do i know you didnt take a 15 min break while i went at it the whole time. etc etc. the moment you push that button someone lost isk and someone made isk. it will only cause distrust, and grudge matches from corp mates. large groups will ban its use for this alone.
There are two buttons to press: Share all or Take all.
If Andrea's Alt enters system, and your mates have 3-5 minutes to stop him from pressing the button, I'm pretty sure they can do it. Especially if they get a notice the moment your alt lands on grid with the thing. |
Fix Sov
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:47:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Except it won't be a "small scale conflict driver". The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:49:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Trust me, I vocally support revamping Sov. I want a use it or have it easily taken from you game play. I want some smaller-scale, objectives, etc. But that doesn't mean the ESS is a fail concept. It can still be a small scale conflict driver, which is a very good thing!
how, what benefit is there for someone to put it up themselves, and why would they let is stay up after you leave. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6103
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:50:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Trust me, I vocally support revamping Sov. I want a use it or have it easily taken from you game play. I want some smaller-scale, objectives, etc. But that doesn't mean the ESS is a fail concept. It can still be a small scale conflict driver, which is a very good thing!
the conflict just needs to not be "this ****** in our alliance put up an ESS, kick him out" "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:51:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Have SBU SOV provide a 25% increase to bounties generated in system then.
Problem solved, now you have a reason to fight for SOV and a reason to have it without introduction of a dumb idea.
|
Vereesa
Gallivanting Travel Company Rebel Alliance of New Eden
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:52:00 -
[1230] - Quote
I get the point of the ESS is to promote more reactions from people living in null to small gangs flying through. I just think at the moment it provides not enough benefit to the people using it compared to the invading fleets (see single interceptor scooping all of the tags before any defence fleet could feasably respond by putting a disco ship in one of the structures, because lets face it that's the only way you're going to catch him now).
Instead, it should probably be re-worked like this. You put one of these mmodules down and it gives a 10-15% bonus to all bounties in the system, paid with the regular bounty payouts. But, if it is destroyed (not taken down), it disrupts the bounties in the system down to 75-80% (or less, idk) for a period of six-twelve hours.
Give the thing the EHP of a small capital ship so it takes a good ten to fifteen minutes to kill with a moderately sized gang (to give the defenders time to form up- with smaller alliances especially) and can't be abused by your random solo bomber and it gives a big incentive for people to come out and fight.
I wouldn't reccomend a very long penalty time though, otherwise you'll have gangs coming through in an alliance's dead hours and punishing people for sleeping on a regular basis.
Also I don't see the reasoning behind a 5% cut in nullsec bounties. If there was a valid economic reason it would be OK, but at the moment it just seems to be 'we want to make people in nullsec feel bad about how they play in the sandbox'. |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
272
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:56:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Vereesa wrote:But, if it is destroyed (not taken down), it disrupts the bounties in the system down to 75-80% (or less, idk) for a period of six-twelve hours.
Go into enemy ratting system. Drop ESS. Destroy ESS.
Now you nerfed all their income for 6 - 12 hours.
I can't say this sounds like a solid idea. |
Baljos Arnjak
Dark Praetorian Order
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:57:00 -
[1232] - Quote
I just want to take another tack with the ESS.
Think about what this will mean for nullsec ratter bots! MUAHAHAHAHA!
See someone botting the local rats? Put up an ESS and let him be (you'd have a hard time catching them anyway), you just stole 20% of his revenue for zero work and maybe even a bonus! Come back a couple hours later and collect a nice pile of cash, assuming nobody beats you to it, but still, there's places in null where the span of time between pilots entering the system is hours. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3382
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:58:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight.
In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
So you roll in 6 v 1 and wonder why people wouldn't undock to fight you in PVE fitted ships? Don't be stupid. If you want easy ganks go to low sec, then you can 10 v 1 pod everything coming through the gate. I really could care less if small gangs leave 0.0. There's already a place for them, a little sandbox called low-sec where you can gank to your heart's desire and play griefing butt pirate all day long. Spare us all the crying. Null sec provides for Sov warfare, big ships and big risks and low sec provides for ganks. That's just how it is, as well as it should be. As it has been stated, as soon as you come in system all activity is likely to stop anyway. Go ahead and place that ESS. As soon as you leave, it's going to get blasted. Alliances aren't going to install them because THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE IN DOING SO. ANY FOOL CAN ROB THEM, ALLIANCE OR OTHERWISE. THEY PROVIDE SMALL PENALTY AND SMALLER REWARD. The entire idea behind this module is ill-conceived and just plain dumb.
1.) If they deploy an ESS in system, they know they will have to defend it. If you are a lone ratter, I doubt you'd deploy it. And those that do, I'd suspect would keep combat ships close at hand so they can defend it.
2.) I didn't say I wanted a 6v1 gank. There could be 20 pilots in system, and quite often everyone will get safe. Furthermore, numbers aren't everything in this game. The gang I listed would be counterable by 2-3 BS's and BC's. That's one of the reasons I'd role light, is so an opponent wouldn't need 12 people to fight me.
3.) Nullsec is for more than Sov warfare and big ships, and you're a troll of you continue to state otherwise. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 17:58:00 -
[1234] - Quote
For the small gangs community, please detail the specifics of how this will get fights that you are not already able to get? I'm pretty certain that pages of posts have happened underlining how this WILL NOT get more fights, at least not the fights you are looking for. Ever.
Quick recap: 1. Not enough risk v. reward incentive to begin with. 2. Your hostile ESS will be ignored, since while you are in system, no one will be ratting. 3. You could have dropped an SBU.
There will be groups that already form up Home Defense and fight small gangs. There are groups that don't. I am still failing to see what the ESS will be doing to help change the current status quo in a meaningful fashion. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
385
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:02:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:For the small gangs community, please detail the specifics of how this will get fights that you are not already able to get? I'm pretty certain that pages of posts have happened underlining how this WILL NOT get more fights, at least not the fights you are looking for. Ever.
Quick recap: 1. Not enough risk v. reward incentive to begin with. 2. Your hostile ESS will be ignored, since while you are in system, no one will be ratting. 3. You could have dropped an SBU.
There will be groups that already form up Home Defense and fight small gangs. There are groups that don't. I am still failing to see what the ESS will be doing to help change the current status quo in a meaningful fashion. small gang FC here, this won't change anything, since most null ppl will not anchor it, and putting one ourself is pointless, local will just not rat or blow it up the second we leave.
pointless ESS is pointless |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:06:00 -
[1236] - Quote
why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1208
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:08:00 -
[1237] - Quote
I like the idea behind this module, but it's badly implemented. The Tears Must Flow |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3382
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:10:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:For the small gangs community, please detail the specifics of how this will get fights that you are not already able to get? I'm pretty certain that pages of posts have happened underlining how this WILL NOT get more fights, at least not the fights you are looking for. Ever.
Quick recap: 1. Not enough risk v. reward incentive to begin with. 2. Your hostile ESS will be ignored, since while you are in system, no one will be ratting. 3. You could have dropped an SBU.
There will be groups that already form up Home Defense and fight small gangs. There are groups that don't. I am still failing to see what the ESS will be doing to help change the current status quo in a meaningful fashion.
1.) I acknowledge the risk is imbalanced: It is too quickly accessed (meaning the locals don't have time to defend it), and its bonus is negligible compared to the upfront bounty reduction, especially in regards to the difficulties defending it. However, these can be resolved as ccp tweaks the access time and the payout rewards.
2.) You would only put up a hostile ESS in a bot's ratting system (until the computer programs become smart enough to recognize and destroy them). The only way this concept works (in its current form) is if the ESS's benefits make it worthwhile for you to deploy for yourself (see point 1).
3.) SBU's are not small gang entities, and not relevant to this discussion.
How does this get you fights? It encourages the locals to form up and fight you to defend their ESS bounty pool. It also gives them a limited time for response which limits the magnitude of their response. Finally it has small rewards, which means any hostiles accessing the ESS for isk will be encouraged to do so in small, engage-able numbers. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
485
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:11:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight.
In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
I'm curious how you think ESS would change this.
If locals aren't deploying one, you don't have anything to shoot or rob. Your desire to be able to use them to draw out ratters to kill is enough reason to not anchor one regardless of potential payout. This leaves your only option to spend 30mil to anchor one yourself. You now have a fixed point in space that YOU have to defend. Those ratters you wanted to kill are still docked up, while the other people in the region know exactly where you are, what you have, and where to go to kill you.
At this point you have a couple of options.
You can camp the ESS. Your mere presence in local is keeping the ratters docked up, so you're not hurting them any more with the ESS than you would by cloaking and going to bed. Defense fleets in the area may come after you, but they're coming after you, not the ESS, you can achieve the same effect more effectively simply by camping a gate. About the only edge you get is that you have more warning before potential hostile reinforcements arrive at your location.
You can abandon the ESS. You leave system with the ESS up, the ratters wait until you've left the area, undock, spend a couple minutes killing the ESS, then go back to ratting.
In the end the ESS doesn't add anything that roaming fleets don't already do by their mere presence.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:13:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.) If they deploy an ESS in system, they know they will have to defend it. If you are a lone ratter, I doubt you'd deploy it. And those that do, I'd suspect would keep combat ships close at hand so they can defend it.
2.) I didn't say I wanted a 6v1 gank. There could be 20 pilots in system, and quite often everyone will get safe. Furthermore, numbers aren't everything in this game. The gang I listed would be counterable by 2-3 BS's and BC's. That's one of the reasons I'd role light, is so an opponent wouldn't need 12 people to fight me.
3.) Nullsec is for more than Sov warfare and big ships, and you're a troll of you continue to state otherwise.
1) ESS WILL NOT GET DEPLOYED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO ADVANTAGE FOR AN ALLIANCE TO DO SO. Why are you having a hard time with this? The economic incentive simply is NOT THERE. If a hostile installs one, then ratting will have stopped anyway until the hostile leaves, at which point fleet will form up for yet another null sec quickie structure grind. Said pvper will then be out 30M isk and crying to CCP about how these structures don't have enough hit points or how CCP should stop letting alliances form 40 man fleets to take them out fast.
2) Doesn't matter what you WANT. That's what EVE IS. Small gang warfare is prison **** warfare and I could probably look through many KB and see 4-6+ to 1 versus the target. THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS. You know it, and so do I. Stop trying to pretend that small gang warfare is somehow more "fair" than SOV warfare or more sophisticated or intricate. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's brutal, quick and usually for the poor man.
3) Prove me wrong. What null sec structures can I deploy in low sec? But you can gank in low and null sec can't you? Null sec is SOV fleets and warfare as I stated because you can't do it anywhere else. Does that mean I care if your frigate gang shows up for easy ganks? Not at all. But on the other hand, you should not be a "threat" to alliance space as your size is small. You want the advantages of being a big "threat" while maintaining small gang size and it just doesn't work that way.
It would be like trying to rationalize that Somali Pirates near Madagascar should not have to engage the U.S. 5th fleet, yet still be classified a major threat.
You strike me as someone that doesn't understand null sec or capitalism very well.
|
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4344
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:14:00 -
[1241] - Quote
I understand what CCP SoniClover is saying, they need to be careful about null sec income because the income from the most used null sec pve activity (anom ratting) is high and it's pure isk.
No problem there, that just confirms something some of us hav ebeen saying for a long time: you CAN'T just "buff null sec" because if you do you screw up the economy.
The problem is that allainces are gonna ban it's use because of its potential to cause INTERNAL conflicts (ie headaches an allaince leadership don't need when they're trying to figure out how to beat slowcats lol) so that potential +5% is 100% useless.
Solo raiders won't use them because all it means is getting 30 mil isk popped when afk cloaking is free.
So forth and so on. I hope there are some serious deliberations going in inside CCP (and between CCP and the CSM) about this instead of them walking around the office high fiving each other saying "you ticked off a lot of peole and prompted a threadnaught, it must be working!", lol |
Fix Sov
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:15:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:How does this get you fights? It encourages the locals to form up and fight you to defend their ESS bounty pool. Implying it'll be deployed by anyone who's actually living in a system, and not by someone "just passing by". The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6111
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:19:00 -
[1243] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:23:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight
There's also a difference between those who want to inconvenience individuals in that sov, and those who want to actually get fights in that sov.
The fact that a large percentage of gankers are using invincible interceptors now shows where most people who enter an alliances sov sit on that spectrum. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4344
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:23:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
2.) You would only put up a hostile ESS in a bot's ratting system (until the computer programs become smart enough to recognize and destroy them). The only way this concept works (in its current form) is if the ESS's benefits make it worthwhile for you to deploy for yourself (see point 1).
This right here demonstrates why you tend to be wrong. If CCP wants to put in a deployable to fight botting the thing would be named FSS (Forge Survelience System) because guess where most of the Bots CCP cleaned out came from...
Your views seem to come from an incredibly prejudiced view of null sec.
Quote: How does this get you fights? It encourages the locals to form up and fight you to defend their ESS bounty pool. It also gives them a limited time for response which limits the magnitude of their response. Finally it has small rewards, which means any hostiles accessing the ESS for isk will be encouraged to do so in small, engage-able numbers.
And this is severely naive. How do you encourage peole to fight when they arne't there but rather are running high sec incursions for no penalty.
MANY of the characters engaged in null sec pve are ALTs for pvp player. As with the 1st anom nerf, that'salts are mobile, the pvp player doesn't care where his isk making alt is as long as he canlog it in to make isk. And if null isn't a good place for that, the alt gets moved (see 1st anom nerf).
Why people cling to theroies of behavior that we have PROVEN time and time again don't apply in the real game is beyond me. We're not sitting here arguing with CCP because they are taking 5% of our anom isk away, we're arguing with them because they are repeating an old mistake (the anom/systems upgrade nerf was supposed to be a "conflcit driver" too, ask CCP how well that worked when all it did was "Drive" high sec incursion wait lists longer).
Frankly, you don't understand the situation enough to even comment. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
486
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:24:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight
What amuses me about this is that siphons were specifically designed so that they couldn't be used by small groups to generate fights. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3382
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:25:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I don't give a rats ass about the isk it drops. I want the locals to form up and fight.
In the current environment, if I roll into the area with 3 thorax, a sabre, and 2 inties, the locals have no reason what so ever to undock or leave their POS. The only conflict we can instigate when raiding their territory is catching a ratter, and that's why small gang PvP is leaving nullsec.
I'm curious how you think ESS would change this. If locals aren't deploying one, you don't have anything to shoot or rob. Your desire to be able to use them to draw out ratters to kill is enough reason for the locals to not anchor one regardless of potential payout. This leaves your only option to spend 30mil to anchor one yourself. You now have a fixed point in space that YOU have to defend. Those ratters you wanted to kill are still docked up, while the other people in the region know exactly where you are, what you have, and where to go to kill you. At this point you have a couple of options. You can camp the ESS. Your mere presence in local is keeping the ratters docked up, so you're not hurting them any more with the ESS than you would by cloaking and going to bed. Defense fleets in the area may come after you, but they're coming after you, not the ESS, you can achieve the same result more effectively simply by camping a gate. About the only edge you get is that you have more warning before potential hostile reinforcements arrive at your location. You can abandon the ESS. You leave system with the ESS up, the ratters wait until you've left the area, undock, spend a couple minutes killing the ESS, then go back to ratting. In the end the ESS doesn't add anything that roaming fleets don't already do by their mere presence. Edit: Imagine there's two adjacent regions of nullsec that are similar in every meaningful way. Except one of these regions bans ESS, the other has ratters using them in every system. Which region do you choose to terrorize? This is why nullsec alliances will ban their use.
If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18929
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:26:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. [GǪ] CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has itGÇÿs flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS. Really? Why?
If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away. 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. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:26:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. There are different types of threats in the world: A 10-man terrorist cell doesn't pose a threat to the sovereignty of a country, but it can cause a ruckus if they hijack some planes and crash them into a few skyscrapers. Why should your 5000 man group NOT have to worry about small groups roaming their territory? You think shooting some structures and planting a TCU should give you a safety zone? Get real!
Nothing stops a small group from coming in now. They could gate camp any part of a system they wanted to. The difference is by the small group choosing to use their time to hope to find a target to gank they won't make any passive isk. I believe that's what this cry is really all about. Gankers wanting a source of easy passive isk in someone else's space with little to no risk in return.
Gee as a SOV alliance, let's think about that. Yeah, we should give gutless punks a reason to come in and shoot up our space. While we're at it, we're all going to start belt ratting in carriers too. After all, we want to keep encouraging our enemies to come back for easy ganks and fat killmails.
Why would you assume your small gang should be revered as some major alliance threat? What risk does the small gang take in flying 8-9 interceptors and a sabre into a system hanging out for 15 min, then moving on?
In the "real world" a ten man terrorist group can get smashed by superior numbers or even just one well placed drone with no hope of cloning. EVE ain't RL.
The inability for people to use logic or critical thinking will be the downfall of our society. |
Fix Sov
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:28:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. So what do you think'll happen? I'd hold a finger on the ESS being banned from deployment by most locals.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances! What'd be the incentive for me to put up an ESS? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4346
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:30:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote: You strike me as someone that doesn't understand null sec or capitalism very well.
This thread is full of people (including CCP devs) who don't understand nullsec very well and thats 95% of the problem
it's frustrating because you try to explain it to them, they don't listen, the F'd thing they were going to add gets added, then they have to come back and spend all that time fixing something they could have just not addedin the 1st place.
This happened during the NPC AI switch. We (pve players who were posting) had to point out to them the madness that would insue if guns and overseers switched targets because they didn't know this themselves. So they went and tested it and the next thing we know there is a DEV post saying that they had to roll back some of the NPC AI changes because overseers firing citadel torps switching targets was really really bad. The most frustrating part was when I pointed out the "Fleet Staging point 3" problem and CCP FoxFour posted saying he wasn't familiar with that plex.....
To which I ask "if you aren't familiar with the content, WHY are you the one making changes to it?" I think we're seeing some of this now, because no one familiar with null sec PVE could possibly think this is in any way a good idea. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
440
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:33:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances!
Disregarding the fact you aren't going to get this choice (nobody is going to ESS an entire region) you'd still be a moron. If you spend more than 6 minutes an hour dealing with the ESS you might as well have not deployed it, and thats disregarding the cost of the deployable itself. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:36:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Edit: Imagine there's two adjacent regions of nullsec that are similar in every meaningful way. Except one of these regions bans ESS, the other has ratters using them in every system. Which region do you choose to terrorize? This is why nullsec alliances will ban their use.
If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances! [/quote]
Too nullbear? Gimmie a break. There is enough to defend in a SOV system now. You have POCO's, POS's, Moon Goo, Stations, not to mention the time in hunting down siphons, enemy mobile tractors, etc. Ah definitely null sec needs some more structures to grind.
While we're at it, why not give the ESS a bazillion hit points and allow it to deploy in mere seconds? Then, surely then, small gang pvp will ensue.
There is enough "increased activity" in null sec to keep people busy as it is. This is just a fail cry to get more ability to grief people that are perceived as untouchable. It won't affect most alliances as they will be banned outright. Any hostiles that deploy will simply lose 30M the second they don't defend them or can't because they lack the numbers.
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
486
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:39:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances!
So what you now have is an ESS-free region where the ratters are safely making isk without interruption, and an ESS-laden region in which ratters are being constantly harassed and regularly losing chunks of isk, not only to theft but also to simply spending a lot of time in pos/stations waiting for hostiles to move on. The region without ESS is making more isk, with less work while it's combat pilots are free to go engage in fun fights. The region with the ESS has its pilots chasing uncatchable interceptor fleets and all manner of other roaming cloaky types terrorizing the region.
This is why nobody will use ESS, and why nullsec alliances will ban them rather than risking some of their members decide that it's a good idea. A couple of people using ESS doesn't just hurt the people using them, it hurts everyone in nearby systems as well.
As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3383
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:40:00 -
[1255] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Weaselior wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight There's also a difference between those who want to inconvenience individuals in that sov, and those who want to actually get fights in that sov. The fact that a large percentage of gankers are using invincible interceptors now shows where most people who enter an alliances sov sit on that spectrum.
Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.
There are three reasons inties are very popular: 1.) They are fast, meaning you can partake in a 60-system roam in the time it takes BC's to traverse 20 systems. 2.) They have the best shot at catching ratters (mainly because they are fast). 3.) They can disengage and gtfo (this is why nano-gangs are so popular).
I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
140
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:43:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote: If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
Yes it will. It will nerf their incomes by 5%. CCP has not agreed to remove that nerf yet just because its necessity has been refuted.
|
Fix Sov
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:47:00 -
[1257] - Quote
I'm still not seeing a reason why I'd actually deploy the ESS. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:50:00 -
[1258] - Quote
For the Dev team:
CCP SoniClover wrote: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.
This is getting very convoluted, and would not be so difficult if a detailed upfont discussion was had beforehand.
What I am gleaning from this is that giving too much incentive to use this device and all its associated mechanics will imbalance the current isk faucets of Eve? Someone really wants to bring this out and see New Eden adapt or die, but can't really go all the way, because it could threaten the overall economy? In order for this to 'work' a negative incentive will need to be applied across the board, with significant risk associated, while the reward can't be so high that it will be an inflation driver?
There is a fix. Finish the Drone Alloy rebalance. REMOVE the 100% bounty rats from 8 regions of space and you will have more room to play with the carrot for your new stick. I'm not against the idea of the ESS, and I don't even rat for income anymore. But I do help new players everytime I get the opportunity. I encourage others to experience 0.0 life. It is already a challenge to convince the current playerbase to move away from Empire. As it is, the ESS is not designed to help this equation.
The ESS, in its current form, will punish the inhabitants of the poorest/hardest parts of 0.0 to live in greater than it will other regions of space. Provibloc issues have not been responded to so far. Drone region inhabitants issues have not been responded to so far. Rank and File members will be forced to accept a 5% TIME sink or add a 30mil isk structure with complicated mechanics just to keep at their current income levels. It will be more than a 5% TIME sink to receive added value from the ESS in its current format. It will be more than a 5% TIME sink to assign an alt to babysit the structure, when that alt could have been generating income. Small gangs will not likely get more fights, as either nullbears stop ratting long enough to wait out roams (as they currently do) or just stop ratting period, moving to hisec for their personal isk printing needs.
Just imagine how much fun for us all this COULD bring, if there was really enough incentive. Finishing the Drone Alloy rebalance and including some of the LP reward ideas others have suggested could give this module a lot of room to add value to the Rank and File players bottom line. There would be positive reasons to deploy these things, and make it a much better decision to in fact defend them, bringing more of the gudfites that Eve does need more of.
As it is now, its just wickedly gimped and will only hurt those on the margins. Because of Alloy. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:50:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IrJosy wrote:Weaselior wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight There's also a difference between those who want to inconvenience individuals in that sov, and those who want to actually get fights in that sov. The fact that a large percentage of gankers are using invincible interceptors now shows where most people who enter an alliances sov sit on that spectrum. Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie. There are three reasons inties are very popular: 1.) They are fast, meaning you can partake in a 60-system roam in the time it takes BC's to traverse 20 systems. 2.) They have the best shot at catching ratters (mainly because they are fast). 3.) They can disengage and gtfo (this is why nano-gangs are so popular). I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.
Judging by the previos comments from the likes of you. You are not out to find a fight, you are out to catch ratters.
Which is fine and all. But call a spade a spade. Leave the discussion to thoose who actually know what they are talking about.
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:50:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Innominate wrote:[quote=Gizznitt Malikite] As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight.
This!!!!!11
What the game needs is less invincible interceptors. (Remove their interdictor nullification)
In the grand scheme of things it achieves little to nothing against a big alliance. You spend 3-4 hours roaming through a region killing a few afk ratters. Meanwhile they have dozens or more active ratters in other systems still generating isk.
If instead there were deploy-able structures mining asteroids, moons, ice, or planets. What we have is a target for a gang to attack and an objective for the local inhabitants to defend. We can call these structures "farms and fields". They require pvp fit defense ships and haulers for small gangs to bubble and kill on either the station or the "farm and field". Give it a short 5-30 minute RF timer. Balance cost and ROI appropriately. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3383
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:54:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances!
So what you now have is an ESS-free region where the ratters are safely making isk without interruption, and an ESS-laden region in which ratters are being constantly harassed and regularly losing chunks of isk, not only to theft but also to simply spending a lot of time in pos/stations waiting for hostiles to move on. The region without ESS is making more isk, with less work while it's combat pilots are free to go engage in fun fights. The region with the ESS has its pilots chasing uncatchable interceptor fleets and all manner of other roaming cloaky types terrorizing the region. This is why nobody will use ESS, and why nullsec alliances will ban them rather than risking some of their members decide that it's a good idea. A couple of people using ESS doesn't just hurt the people using them, it hurts everyone in nearby systems as well. As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight.
How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region? How much enjoyment would your home-defense group gain out of additional small gangs entering the area?
And as a side note: We can QQ inty gangs all we want, but we reap what we sow. Last time I took an 8 man cruiser gang into VFK looking for some fun, yall j-bridged around to pin our group in a pipe with two 30man helldeath gate camps. That's completely ok, but it forces our hand to bring inties instead. On the otherhand, I think nullified inties are a terribly broken thing. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:55:00 -
[1262] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:IrJosy wrote:Weaselior wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight There's also a difference between those who want to inconvenience individuals in that sov, and those who want to actually get fights in that sov. The fact that a large percentage of gankers are using invincible interceptors now shows where most people who enter an alliances sov sit on that spectrum. Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie. There are three reasons inties are very popular: 1.) They are fast, meaning you can partake in a 60-system roam in the time it takes BC's to traverse 20 systems. 2.) They have the best shot at catching ratters (mainly because they are fast). 3.) They can disengage and gtfo (this is why nano-gangs are so popular). I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.
A gang of 5-10 interceptors is for all intensive purposes invincible. At best with perfect scenario (Which requires a equal sized 5-10 man fleet) you can conceivably kill 1 or 2 IF the server ticks magically align on a gate. If you bait them, they just orbit at 5km/s and warp off when you uncloak or warp to your bait to try to kill them.
Nano gangs can be bubbled and killed on gates relatively easily and risk 200m+ isk cruisers to do so. Not only are invincible nullified interceptors much MUCH harder to kill, they only risk 20m isk frigates.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3384
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:56:00 -
[1263] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Innominate wrote:[quote=Gizznitt Malikite] As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight. This!!!!!11 What the game needs is less invincible interceptors. (Remove their interdictor nullification) In the grand scheme of things it achieves little to nothing against a big alliance. You spend 3-4 hours roaming through a region killing a few afk ratters. Meanwhile they have dozens or more active ratters in other systems still generating isk. If instead there were deploy-able structures mining asteroids, moons, ice, or planets. What we have is a target for a gang to attack and an objective for the local inhabitants to defend. We can call these structures "farms and fields". They require pvp fit defense ships and haulers for small gangs to bubble and kill on either the station or the "farm and field". Give it a short 5-30 minute RF timer. Balance cost and ROI appropriately.
I'm moreless completely down with everything you just suggested... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3384
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:57:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Weaselior wrote:greiton starfire wrote:why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size. there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight What amuses me about this is that siphons were specifically designed so that they couldn't be used by small groups to generate fights.
POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid). |
Fix Sov
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:57:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region? More than the ESS would provide, since it only encourages bullshit drama for little to no return on investment.
So, again, I'm still not seeing any real incentives as to why I should deploy an ESS, anywhere. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:58:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.
I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.
So you admit the inty's are a bit OP now, but admit to using them in hostile space for your fights many times. Why not roll in with blingy Tengu's or Loki's? Probably because the risk outweighs the reward, right?
Now you know why alliances plainly will not deploy ESS and likely eject anyone found doing so. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1278
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:58:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:Batelle wrote:Re-posting. This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?" Because the ESS is just the interface & token printer, the actual data is stored on Empire servers. That is, stored in CCPs database linked to the solar system not the ESS. Like: SystemID (PK); PlayerID (PK); ISK or something like that
I was asking from a lore perspective, given that the dev blog saw fit to justify their existence with lore stuff. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 18:59:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.
I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.
So you admit the inty's are a bit OP now, but admit to using them in hostile space for your fights many times. Why not roll in with blingy Tengu's or Loki's? Probably because the risk outweighs the reward, right? Now you know why alliances plainly will not deploy ESS and likely eject anyone found doing so.
Why fly a 500m isk cloaky nullified ship that does 300 dps when you can fly a 20m isk nullified ship that does 300 dps and doesn't need to cloak because it goes 5km/s and aligns faster than a 6k scan res keres can lock if the server ticks are off? |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
143
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:03:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote:Batelle wrote:Re-posting. This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?" Because the ESS is just the interface & token printer, the actual data is stored on Empire servers. That is, stored in CCPs database linked to the solar system not the ESS. Like: SystemID (PK); PlayerID (PK); ISK or something like that I was asking from a lore perspective, given that the dev blog saw fit to justify their existence with lore stuff.
The lore for this thing is about as horrible as the lore for the Nestor. Whoever writes that stuff is really stretching.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:09:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region? How much enjoyment would your home-defense group gain out of additional small gangs entering the area?
1. 300% atleast, So you can replace your ratting battleship every hour, since you'll be camped every other half hour, you'll be caught while mid warp far more often.
2. Home Defense group? Do you believe in Santa too? or do you think people only do one thing in eve? Baddest poster ever |
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
491
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:09:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region? How much enjoyment would your home-defense group gain out of additional small gangs entering the area?
And as a side note: We can QQ inty gangs all we want, but we reap what we sow. Last time I took an 8 man cruiser gang into VFK looking for some fun, yall j-bridged around to pin our group in a pipe with two 30man helldeath gate camps. That's completely ok, but it forces our hand to bring inties instead. On the otherhand, I think nullified inties are a terribly broken thing.
In the current mechanics, it's difficult to say as it would have to be an unreasonable increase. The balance between roaming fleets and defense fleets is currently so far in the favor of the roamers that the best defense is to create circumstances where the roamers don't bother coming to your space.
You also seem to have the idea that everyone in this equation has the same motivation of getting fights, when in reality that is nobody's motivation.
Your motivation is easy kills of people who can't really fight back. (This is not disparagement, ganking is fun as hell.) But let's call it what it is. The motivation of ratters is to make isk. That includes both staying alive as ratting ships are expensive, and minimizing disruptions as pauses in ratting are one of the biggest sources of income loss.
What seems to be most misunderstood is the motivation of the defense fleets. Sometimes a hostile fleet will show up and mill about without causing any real damage and some intrepid FC will decide to have a fun fight, but this is an uncommon case. Most of the time the defenders are not looking for good fights, or even easy kills. They are looking to defend their space, to get rid of you and make sure you come back, they're going to to their best to not present you with a good fight. They're out to utterly crush you and make damn sure you don't want to come back anytime soon.
Nullsec is so porous and travel so easy that the only real way to keep people out of your space is to make sure they'd rather go somewhere else.
To bring this around to the topic at hand, ESS are entirely contrary to this principle which is the root reason why nobody will use them. Making the ESS workable requires addressing this side of it.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid).
That(or perhaps even off-grid) and they'd also need notifications rather than being stealthy. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3384
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:12:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tahnil wrote:As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. [GǪ] CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has itGÇÿs flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS. Really? Why? If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away. Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul. GǪexcept for the wasted dev time and the pointless blanket nerf to nullsec bounties.
I'm under the impression the dev time has already been invested (since there is a semi-functional version on sisi). As for the blanket nerf to nullsec bounties... argue against that! I don't particularly see a need to reduce nullsec bounties. Also, by moving much of the ESS rewards to LP, much of the isk faucet issues can be addressed.
If the benefits of using an ESS is are enough, then the ratters will use them, and they can be a viable small gang objective. You are right, if the benefits are poor compared to its risks of use, few will utilize them and they will add very little utility to the sandbox. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4349
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:18:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Tippia wrote:Tahnil wrote:As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. [GǪ] CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has itGÇÿs flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS. Really? Why? If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away. Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul. GǪexcept for the wasted dev time and the pointless blanket nerf to nullsec bounties. I'm under the impression the dev time has already been invested (since there is a semi-functional version on sisi). As for the blanket nerf to nullsec bounties... argue against that! I don't particularly see a need to reduce nullsec bounties. Also, by moving much of the ESS rewards to LP, much of the isk faucet issues can be addressed. If the benefits of using an ESS is are enough, then the ratters will use them, and they can be a viable small gang objective. You are right, if the benefits are poor compared to its risks of use, few will utilize them and they will add very little utility to the sandbox.
CCP will probably try to change some of this stuff to keep the ESS going ahead.
Let me ask you this. When none of this stuff works, the bad things we predict (based on the history of null sec pve gameplay we've observed over the years) happen, will you come back to this very thread and admit you wer wrong?
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:21:00 -
[1274] - Quote
When CCP decides to address the AFK cloaker issue, then I'll think a little harder about supporting this ESS idea.
Otherwise, it's simply another mechanic to screw with existing alliances. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3387
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:27:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Tippia wrote:Tahnil wrote:As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. [GǪ] CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has itGÇÿs flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS. Really? Why? If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away. Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul. GǪexcept for the wasted dev time and the pointless blanket nerf to nullsec bounties. I'm under the impression the dev time has already been invested (since there is a semi-functional version on sisi). As for the blanket nerf to nullsec bounties... argue against that! I don't particularly see a need to reduce nullsec bounties. Also, by moving much of the ESS rewards to LP, much of the isk faucet issues can be addressed. If the benefits of using an ESS is are enough, then the ratters will use them, and they can be a viable small gang objective. You are right, if the benefits are poor compared to its risks of use, few will utilize them and they will add very little utility to the sandbox. CCP will probably try to change some of this stuff to keep the ESS going ahead. Let me ask you this. When none of this stuff works, the bad things we predict (based on the history of null sec pve gameplay we've observed over the years) happen, will you come back to this very thread and admit you wer wrong?
I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong. If CCP implements the changes I request: -- Better Rewards -- 10 Minute response window.
and then it doesn't get used regularly I'll be shocked. And if less than 20% of the locals don't bother to defend it in the systems it is deployed in, I'll be very sad. I'm trying to think of an appropriate barometer to monitor its success, so I can also put my money where my mouth is.
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:39:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Also CCP if you are still reading, the argument is now this should not exist(majority) against it needs massive retooling and base premise changes. no one i've seen thinks it should have gotten this far looking like this. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3387
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:52:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Innominate wrote:
How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region?
In the current mechanics, it's difficult to say as it would have to be an unreasonable increase. The balance between roaming fleets and defense fleets is currently so far in the favor of the roamers that the best defense is to create circumstances where the roamers don't bother coming to your space.
I won't lie, I find this a very sad state of affairs. The locals should have bookmarks around system, POS & stations presetup with combat ships meeting some quick-response doctrines, with enough inhabitants in system to take on a small gang (5-10 pilots) roaming through. There is something very wrong when this isn't the case during your alliances peak hours.
Innominate wrote: You also seem to have the idea that everyone in this equation has the same motivation of getting fights, when in reality that is nobody's motivation. Your motivation is easy kills of people who can't really fight back. (This is not disparagement, ganking is fun as hell.) But let's call it what it is.
While I like to come out victorious in the end, my motivation is to get fights, not to engage in easy kills. My favorite activities in EvE are knock-out brutal fights where victory isn't pre-determined and all sides take losses. Even when we held Sov, as soon as an enemy gang is spotted we'd drop all normal PvE to form up and attack, because that's why we play.
Innominate wrote: The motivation of ratters is to make isk. That includes both staying alive as ratting ships are expensive, and minimizing disruptions as pauses in ratting are one of the biggest sources of income loss.
What seems to be most misunderstood is the motivation of the defense fleets. Sometimes a hostile fleet will show up and mill about without causing any real damage and some intrepid FC will decide to have a fun fight, but this is an uncommon case. Most of the time the defenders are not looking for good fights, or even easy kills. They are looking to defend their space, to get rid of you and make sure you come back, they're going to to their best to not present you with a good fight. They're out to utterly crush you and make damn sure you don't want to come back anytime soon.
Nullsec is so porous and travel so easy that the only real way to keep people out of your space is to make sure they'd rather go somewhere else.
To bring this around to the topic at hand, ESS are entirely contrary to this principle which is the root reason why nobody will use them. Making the ESS workable requires addressing this side of it.
You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.
Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid). That(or perhaps even off-grid) and they'd also need notifications rather than being stealthy.
Believe it or not, I suggested the moongoo siphon well before it was deployed (2012 thread). I suggested back then it give out notifications and create Killmails too. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6118
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 19:59:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid).
They can't really ever generate fights, they're just not designed in a way that lets fights happen. Even if you have to bring a ship to blap them instead of using pos guns, there's nothing that would ever get both parties on grid at the same time except sheer luck. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:01:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.
You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it?
Ratting ships are very specialized PvE ships not cut out for PvP, expecting a ratter to openly engage in PvP means they are either stupid, suicidal, bait fit, or earning terrible isk. Non-bait ratters are ALWAYS going to run from PvP ships as both parties know who is going to win the encounter, while the people looking to kill the ratters rarely hang around for the ratters to switch into PvP setups anyways. Not that it's particularly important because when these ratters are looking for fights, they go and do it away from their money making systems. The phrase "Don't **** where you eat." comes to mind.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4354
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:03:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.
You misunderstand (evidenced by your perjorative use of the word nullbear). Lots of those characters doing pve in null are alts. PVP players supplying themselves for pvp. They are going to do that in the least irratating way as possible. The ESS (under almost any interation) is just going to repeat the old anom nerf and fuel pvp players using those alts somewhere in empire. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4354
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:04:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Innominate wrote:
You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it?
You see it too, his prejudice won't allow him to see another perspective. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1961
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:09:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.
You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it? Ratting ships are very specialized PvE ships not cut out for PvP, expecting a ratter to openly engage in PvP means they are either stupid, suicidal, bait fit, or earning terrible isk. Non-bait ratters are ALWAYS going to run from PvP ships as both parties know who is going to win the encounter, while the people looking to kill the ratters rarely hang around for the ratters to switch into PvP setups anyways. Not that any of that is particularly important because when these ratters are looking for fights, they go and do it away from their money making systems. The phrase "Don't **** where you eat." comes to mind. You speak of "nullbears" as people who will do nothing to defend their space, when in reality denying kills and fights to hostiles is exactly what is best for defending their space. If you get fights, you come back. If you face nothing but boredom and ratting ships watching you from the safety of a pos shield, you go somewhere else.
Presumably there will be no more calls by lo-sec and null-sec folks to move all level 4 missions out of hi-sec for the very reasons you have so clearly elucidated.
Your support in this matter is greatly appreciated. This is not a signature. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
444
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:15:00 -
[1283] - Quote
The ESS needs to have a larger effect relative to baseline income (whether in isk or LP). The basic premise, however, is essentially fine. The real mistake is designing a pillage-and-burn mechanic that the pillagees can (and should) opt out of.
Quote:Best case scenario after a perfect gate camp you still have 3-8 (or more) interceptors in your region terrorizing ratters Then perhaps you ought to try a tactic other than gate camping.
Quote:As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight. This is flagrantly untrue. You probably just don't see them very often because you're deliberately trying to discourage people from looking for fights in your space, so you just get bear hunters instead. (see below)
Quote: The balance between roaming fleets and defense fleets is currently so far in the favor of the roamers that the best defense is to create circumstances where the roamers don't bother coming to your space. That seems like a problem with how you handle defense. The defenders will generally get to see what the attackers have brought. Even if they don't completely over do it with their response, they can still very easily pull out a hard counter to whatever the attacker brought. They should also have better intel, a set of bookmarks that allow them to maneuver safely, and a numerical advantage.
The expectation is not that ratters will rally together in their deadspace-fit bearmobiles to drive off the invader for the joy of doing so. Rather, they should be able to respond within a reasonable frame of time to someone trying to disrupt their activities or else suffer some negative consequence beyond the income lost from hiding in station. If they choose to delay so that they can utterly crush the intruders, they should run a serious risk of losing something of authentic value (e.g. a deployable that accounts for a major chunk of their revenue). |
Kalenn Istarion
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:15:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Ratter / PVPer here confirming that the ships I use for ratting are completely useless for PVP (sans re-fit) and vice versa. The assumption that ratters are (generally) going to use their ratting ships to defend space is objectively wrong. You'll get the odd failure doing so because they don't know any better, but otherwise most people will either:
a) dock up and wait b) dock up and fleet up to stomp the bads into the dirt. Gudfights in your home turf are stupid. c) dock up and clone-jump / log-in to their PVP alt and go pick fights in someone else's sandcastle.
Those who say they like gudfights live in places where they make sense to get and you're not making a mess of your income source by engaging in the fights. The last thing I want is for small roaming gangs to think they'll have a good time by hanging around my ratting system(s). Try Harder. |
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
110
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:16:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Taking the 5% base income nerf into account: (so that 95% is your new 100%)
Carebear point of view:
-áGÖª risk: -á-á-á-áGû¬ 15.79% less income than without ESS in case of theft. -á-á-á-áGû¬ price of the structure -á-á-á-áGû¬ travel-time (setup, scoop, cash out)
-áGÖª reward: -á-á-á-áGû¬ less than 10.5% in the best case -á-á-á-áGû¬ 5.26% until the ATM is in bonus-mode
-áA sanctum-anomaly has 40 NPCs -áHave a look at NPCs killed per 24h in a sample region. -áGP¬ I really can't see why I would use it, except in one hotspot per region maybe.
Roamer point of view:
-áGÖª possible rewards: -á-á-á-áG£ö 21-26% of base-income since the last scoop -á-á-á-áG£ö A structure kill-mail -á-á-á-áG£ÿ A fight with a response-fleet that tries to intercept you and beat the spoils back out of you? -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGP¬ have fun catching up with an interceptor-gang (tags would need to be too big for inties to haul) -á-á-á-áG£ÿ A fight with a response-fleet from Ratters that re-ship to PvP ships? -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGP¬ far too less time for that in its current state -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGP¬ amount of ratters per system won't do much to a small roaming gang -á-á-á-áG£ÿ A fight with a roaming defense fleet? -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áGP¬ The reward is not enough to warrant new defense-fleets
-áGÖª risks & downsides: -á-á-á-áGû¬ Hauling -á-á-á-á-á Maybe that's just me, but I frown upon the prospect of having to haul the pillage all the way back to empire. -á-á-á-áGû¬ KB stats -á-á-á-á-á (having to evade a fight because your precious cargo would be bad for KB stats = less PvP instead of more) -á-á-á-áGû¬ Structure-shoot -á-á-á-áGû¬ Waiting out a timer for the money to come out
-á-áGP¬ I have troubles seeing new opportunities for fun here.
If you want more fights, you have to create situations where fighting a loosing battle is still better than to not fight at all |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
208
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:16:00 -
[1286] - Quote
All right, I admit to writing this mostly to get my own thoughts together on this. And I admittedly have not been able to follow the thread too much do to RL work and I while I have seen some good post both ways on this I didn't want to reply to anyone them so not to give off the impression I was milking tears or starting a fight. But now that I have a break for few minutes I wanted to post my thoughts here,
When I first saw this yesterday I was all "Rarrwww the incomes!" "don't nerf the incomes!". "why CCP hate the average 0.0 guy!?" "Rarrrwww CCP is incompetent boobs". But after thinking on it for a day and calming down I think I see what they are trying to do, and I think it should at least be given a chance. This is the "farms and Fields" we've all mostly been screaming for isn't it? I mean you didn't think the farms and fields where going to be farmed by the Serenity server people for us to kill did you? Now yea, I think it needs tweaks. TIme on station for the thief needs to be longer. The payout (and even the nerf) may need to be adjusted either way, but the mechanic I think has merit.
Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against. You just can't rely on a massive 50 bubble camp in one or two systems anymore to protect your space, and I think that's a good thing. I know the idea of a "home defense force" seems absurd to many, but isn't that the point of the whole "live in and defend your own space" problem farms and fields was supposed to fix in the first place? Frankly a home defense force seems like the perfect thing to have an alliance's newbies (or anyone really) do while they learn the game and train for fleet doctrine ships. Now with the extra income the new structure lets you generate, you can now pay those newbies (or anyone who does this) and replace their ships, to actually defend your ratters and space while they learn. This new mod brings that possibility now. I love the idea of seeing a group of ceptors fly by in 0.0 being chased by another gang of people in ceptors yelling in local. I think having a couple of newbies in cruisers hanging out at these structures getting instructions on how to fly would be a great deterrent to the ceptor thieves, and more importantly a great target for them or others.
Now sure that's best case, and no one may end up using this thing at all. But that's where the tweaks can come in. Poop, I have more but boss man is coming gotta goGǪ. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:17:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I won't lie, I find this a very sad state of affairs. The locals should have bookmarks around system, POS & stations presetup with combat ships meeting some quick-response doctrines, with enough inhabitants in system to take on a small gang (5-10 pilots) roaming through. There is something very wrong when this isn't the case during your alliances peak hours.
Many of us "nullbears" have bookmarks, PVP-fit ships, quick-response ships, and so forth ready to go. However, as discussed at great length here a single null-sec system cannot support enough simultaneous ratters to make quickly re-shipping to fight a gang viable. At best, 3-4 pilots can make a reasonable living simultaneously in one system. This means that in the time it takes those people to dock up, pick a set of ships, and go find the gang they will be fighting at a positional disadvantage as well as a numbers disadvantage, which makes the entire idea pointless. Even if this wasn't true, the current Interceptors Online meta means that the roaming gang is likely in uncatchable interceptors and can just disengage and find another system. Thus, there is no point in even trying to fight back.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: While I like to come out victorious in the end, my motivation is to get fights, not to engage in easy kills. My favorite activities in EvE are knock-out brutal fights where victory isn't pre-determined and all sides take losses. Even when we held Sov, as soon as an enemy gang is spotted we'd drop all normal PvE to form up and attack, because that's why we play.
Continuing above, this is exactly why we don't form up. If you can't find the fight you want with my ratting alt, you are more likely to go somewhere you'll get that fight. If I dock up and don't fight, you're less likely to interrupt me in the future and the ratting that I need to do to fund the PvP I want to do takes less real-life time.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.
You're assuming that a nullbear only wants to rat in null-sec and has no other in-game objectives other than making the wallet number go higher. I can't speak for everyone in the GSF, but I can speak for myself when I say that just isn't true. ISK is a means to an end. I don't want to rat any more than I absolutely must to fund the stuff I actually want to do, like participating in fleets, both massive tidi slug-fests and small roaming gangs. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:20:00 -
[1288] - Quote
[quote=Manssell Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against. [/quote]
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
498
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:22:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:Manssell wrote: Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work.
What he means is that an interceptor that chooses to engage can be killed, which is true but irrelevant to the discussion. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:26:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:Manssell wrote: Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work.
No no no!
If you have a HIC, two remote sensor boosting ships(because inty's are hard to lock fast), a 90% web ship (this is incase the inty crashes the gate), a keres (hi scan res/long scram range), eos boosts for locktime and scram range, a dps ship (perferably with another remote sebo ship supporting), and a bumping/decloak ship. (You end up with a 6k scan res keres)
You can in fact catch one or two ceptors on a gate if the server ticks align perfectly.
It ONLY takes 8-9 ships, great coordination, and a bit of luck! |
|
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:30:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Omanth Bathana wrote:Manssell wrote: Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work. What he means is that an interceptor that chooses to engage can be killed, which is true but irrelevant to the discussion.
My bad. From my reading of his post, he seems to be encouraging "home defense forces" as a "perfect thing to have an alliance's newbies do while they learn the game." All this would teach GSF newbies is that there's no point in try to defend, as any fight the newbie could win a (rational) interceptor pilot would choose not to have and any fight the interceptor would win would result in the death of the newbie. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
208
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:31:00 -
[1292] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Omanth Bathana wrote:Manssell wrote: Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work. No no no! If you have a HIC, two remote sensor boosting ships(because inty's are hard to lock fast), a 90% web ship (this is incase the inty crashes the gate), a keres, eos boosts for locktime and scram range, a dps ship (perferably with another remote sebo ship supporting), and a bumping/decloak ship. You can in fact catch one or two ceptors on a gate if the server ticks align perfectly. (With a 6k scan res keres) It only takes 8-9 ships and a bit of luck!
Sorry if I gotta bolt after this for a while, but I was trying to has out the idea that if the time on station is made much longer (and no warp off and come back junk) to steal from the structure, then the ceptors end up not being a threat (to income) as long as you have some kind of fleet in the area to chase them off. That's where the newbie training fleets idea comes in. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:32:00 -
[1293] - Quote
All one really has to do is check the killboards to see someone's motivation on the ESS topic.
http://www.agony-unleashed.com/killboard/index.php/pilot_detail/294286434/kills/
Surprise, surprise you like to cloak gank at very favorable odds or engage relatively helpless ratters or mission runners.
The ESS doesn't give someone in null sec something to defend, it simply gives you (at least you are hopeful) a way to make some passive isk income while pvping. Hoping that it goes unnoticed perhaps?
May I suggest using empire alts like 90% of the rest of EVE has to do? |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:32:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught". |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:33:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Manssell wrote:IrJosy wrote:Omanth Bathana wrote:Manssell wrote: Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work. No no no! If you have a HIC, two remote sensor boosting ships(because inty's are hard to lock fast), a 90% web ship (this is incase the inty crashes the gate), a keres, eos boosts for locktime and scram range, a dps ship (perferably with another remote sebo ship supporting), and a bumping/decloak ship. You can in fact catch one or two ceptors on a gate if the server ticks align perfectly. (With a 6k scan res keres) It only takes 8-9 ships and a bit of luck! Sorry if I gotta bolt after this for a while, but I was trying to has out the idea that if the time on station is made much longer (and no warp off and come back junk) to steal from the structure, then the ceptors end up not being a threat (to income) as long as you have some kind of fleet in the area to chase them off. That's where the newbie training fleets idea comes in.
The newbie defense fleet can defend one structure.
The inties can enter a region split up hitting multiple ess "take all" buttons. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
208
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:34:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:Innominate wrote:Omanth Bathana wrote:Manssell wrote: Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.
It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work. What he means is that an interceptor that chooses to engage can be killed, which is true but irrelevant to the discussion. My bad. From my reading of his post, he seems to be encouraging "home defense forces" as a "perfect thing to have an alliance's newbies do while they learn the game." All this would teach GSF newbies is that there's no point in try to defend, as any fight the newbie could win a (rational) interceptor pilot would choose not to have and any fight the interceptor would win would result in the death of the newbie.
I was thinking more of it being a roaming gang type learning experience with a few newbs, especially when people are first learning who to work in small fleets. But I should have read this first, because yes, I can see your point. |
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:35:00 -
[1297] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught".
If you can't catch them on a gate with plenty of time to prepare and 8-9 ships, where are you going to catch them? |
Keeper of TheLost
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:41:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Ok so your going to nerf the null sec bounties. Are you going to nerf the Drone regions too because you already nerfed them into the ground. Just sayin |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3387
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:46:00 -
[1299] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.
You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it? Ratting ships are very specialized PvE ships not cut out for PvP, expecting a ratter to openly engage in PvP means they are either stupid, suicidal, bait fit, or earning terrible isk. Non-bait ratters are ALWAYS going to run from PvP ships as both parties know who is going to win the encounter, while the people looking to kill the ratters rarely hang around for the ratters to switch into PvP setups anyways. Not that any of that is particularly important because when these ratters are looking for fights, they go and do it away from their money making systems. The phrase "Don't **** where you eat." comes to mind. You speak of "nullbears" as people who will do nothing to defend their space, when in reality denying kills and fights to hostiles is exactly what is best for defending their space. If you get fights, you come back. If you face nothing but boredom and ratting ships watching you from the safety of a pos shield, you go somewhere else.
Nullbear == a person carebearing in nullsec. This is not meant to be a pejorative. Merely a statement of activity (in which I regularly partake in).
I don't insist a person PvE'ing attempt to engage us in PvE fit ships either. What I want to see is raid-able farms and fields where you get benefits for harvesting but only if you defend it from others harvesting it first.
This idea has some major design aspects are are fairly brilliant: 1.) The amount in the ESS is proportional to the number of ratters in system. So the rewards for raiders will be most in systems filled with enough players to properly defend it. Spending 10 minutes in a system with a local population of 1, just to recover 20m isk in loot is not worth your time, unless you are only 1 or 2 players, because the local will not bother to defend it otherwise.
2.) Scorched earth policy is completely unnecessary. I'm ok with these things have POCO level EHP and even an RF timer. So long as they can be accessed & stolen from within 10ish minutes. Destroying them doesn't give value, only harvesting them does.
3.) It has an access time & notification system that could be tweaked to allow the locals to swap ships from PvE to PvP fits. This is important, as defenders wont be setup ahead of time ready to fight, and need time to scout, organize, and deploy.
4.) It is time zone independent: The bounties are collected and typically will be dispersed at the end of a PvE session. A gang roaming through 5 hours later when nobody is on gains nothing by attacking it.
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:48:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I don't insist a person PvE'ing attempt to engage us in PvE fit ships either. What I want to see is raid-able farms and fields where you get benefits for harvesting but only if you defend it from others harvesting it first.
Let's take that stuff here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4118365#post4118365 |
|
L'ouris
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
116
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:56:00 -
[1301] - Quote
spitballing here:
goal: small gang offensive target ( farm ) enable group PVE rewards Separate from SOV so alliance and whole CORP mobilization is de-incentivized Put more PVP fit ships active in space minimize raw-isk faucet of benefits
suggestion: deployable for fleet tracks all bounties shared by fleet provides LP or some other non-isk compensation to fleet to promote multiplayer PVE in belts and anomolies maybe tracks up to one squad per unit? can't be scooped after deployed fleet Payout at timed intervals ( 1 hr? 2? ) if destroyed prior to payout, payout lost bubble, overview notification all that jazz of proposed ESS fleet payout can be taken with hacking mini-game successful hacker id'd in fleet broadcast give it few hit-points, but a reinforcement timer of only about 20 min or so to permit defense form-up
theory gameplay: small easily interdicted deployable that can be deployed by a group of ratters who can see non-isk faucet profit by actually working together in PVE in Null Sec. Actual profit from ratting is placed directly at risk, but the bonuses of the structure actually allow PVP fit ships to make money as a group for quick interdiction. If a group too big comes in a blows up the structure, 20 min gives time for an actual defense fleet to be formed and get a fight if desired. if not, tough luck, stuff happens. smaller groups coming to interdict rat income can be met directly by a pre-formed fleet of PVP fit ships.
I would throw something like that up if it didn't cost me too much to deploy and run around with my buddies to make money. Real target, real motivation to defend, realistic timelines for response, real opportunities to be burned by friendlies without it being a 5 second inty driveby by a neutral alt. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
500
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:57:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) The amount in the ESS is proportional to the number of ratters in system. So the rewards for raiders will be most in systems filled with enough players to properly defend it. Spending 10 minutes in a system with a local population of 1, just to recover 20m isk in loot is not worth your time, unless you are only 1 or 2 players, because the local will not bother to defend it otherwise.
Most nullsec systems can't support more than 2-3 ratters at once, the very best can pack in five or so(but who will feel very crowded there). |
Jason Atavuli
SA-Brotherhood WHYS0 Expendable
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:05:00 -
[1303] - Quote
If you were to drop one ahead of a ceptor roam, an ESS sounds like a nice place to camp smartbombs :)
That aside it's just more crap to assplode like the siphons Pretoria EVE meet 7 December 2013, Centurion Rugby Club.Bring & Braai, Cash Bar on site.-á-áMany thanks to-áthe Organisers, "Warpcore Stabilisers"-áDit gaan 'n lekker jol wees manne :D-á |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3388
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:05:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Please spend more than 10 seconds looking at my KB before making a judgement:
Muffet McStrudel wrote: Surprise, surprise you like to cloak gank at very favorable odds
We were a 6 man frigate/cruiser gang, and a 40 man BNI fleet came into the area to pick a fight with Usurper. So we swapped to bombers and attempted to lay out a trap, which their FC smartly avoided (mostly).
Muffet McStrudel wrote: or engage relatively helpless ratters or mission runners.
An alt corp of one of our members was wardecced by Shadow Squadron. We asked them politely to drop the wardec and leave the corp alone, but they insisted following through with their attack. As such, Agony joined the war as an ally, smashed Shadow Squadron's POS, after which they dropped the war.
I primarily partake in solo and small gang warfare, quite often outnumbered and facing superior forces. Nothing on my killboard will bring shame to me, so attack it all you want.
Muffet McStrudel wrote: The ESS doesn't give someone in null sec something to defend, it simply gives you (at least you are hopeful) a way to make some passive isk income while pvping. Hoping that it goes unnoticed perhaps?
May I suggest using empire alts like 90% of the rest of EVE has to do?
I make my isk through many avenues: I belt rat & run plexes in nullsec, I'm involved in t2 production in Highsec, PI in nullsec, and if I need lots of isk quickly I mission run or incursion in highsec. The truth is, I don't care about the isk-tag getting dropped. I care about motivating the locals to do more than dock up for 5 minutes. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8524
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:10:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Manssell wrote:This is the "farms and Fields" we've all mostly been screaming for isn't it? No. No it isn't. My EVE Videos |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:12:00 -
[1306] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Milton Middleson wrote:Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught". If you can't catch them on a gate with plenty of time to prepare and 8-9 ships hand picked for the task worth billions of isk, where and how exactly are you going to catch them? Chase them. If they ever plan to do anything except warp gate to gate, a decent pilot can catch an interceptor. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:14:00 -
[1307] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Manssell wrote:This is the "farms and Fields" we've all mostly been screaming for isn't it? No. No it isn't.
If this is what CCP thinks we mean by "Farms and Fields," there has been a stunningly large miscommunication between CCP and the player base. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3388
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:15:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) The amount in the ESS is proportional to the number of ratters in system. So the rewards for raiders will be most in systems filled with enough players to properly defend it. Spending 10 minutes in a system with a local population of 1, just to recover 20m isk in loot is not worth your time, unless you are only 1 or 2 players, because the local will not bother to defend it otherwise.
Most nullsec systems can't support more than 2-3 ratters at once, the very best can pack in five or so(but who will feel very crowded there).
This is a game design problem... and CCP needs to address it pronto. Still, most high-value systems are clumped together. As such, while there may be 2-3 in a single system, they should be able to form up by utilizing neighbor ratters too.
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:16:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:IrJosy wrote:Milton Middleson wrote:Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught". If you can't catch them on a gate with plenty of time to prepare and 8-9 ships hand picked for the task worth billions of isk, where and how exactly are you going to catch them? Chase them. If they ever plan to do anything except warp gate to gate, a decent pilot can catch an interceptor.
Chase them in what? They are faster than anything other than a leopard.
How do you catch them if they don't want to be caught?
What does this mythical "decent pilot" have that those 8-9 guys on the gate camp didn't? |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:18:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Manssell wrote:This is the "farms and Fields" we've all mostly been screaming for isn't it? No. No it isn't. If this is what CCP thinks we mean by "Farms and Fields," there has been a stunningly large miscommunication between CCP and the player base.
This fits past descriptions of "Farms and Fields" pretty well. It just doesn't have a big enough payoff. |
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:21:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote:For the small gangs community, please detail the specifics of how this will get fights that you are not already able to get? I'm pretty certain that pages of posts have happened underlining how this WILL NOT get more fights, at least not the fights you are looking for. Ever.
Quick recap: 1. Not enough risk v. reward incentive to begin with. 2. Your hostile ESS will be ignored, since while you are in system, no one will be ratting. 3. You could have dropped an SBU.
There will be groups that already form up Home Defense and fight small gangs. There are groups that don't. I am still failing to see what the ESS will be doing to help change the current status quo in a meaningful fashion. 1.) I acknowledge the risk is imbalanced: It is too quickly accessed (meaning the locals don't have time to defend it), and its bonus is negligible compared to the upfront bounty reduction, especially in regards to the difficulties defending it. However, these can be resolved as ccp tweaks the access time and the payout rewards. 2.) You would only put up a hostile ESS in a bot's ratting system (until the computer programs become smart enough to recognize and destroy them). The only way this concept works (in its current form) is if the ESS's benefits make it worthwhile for you to deploy for yourself (see point 1). 3.) SBU's are not small gang entities, and not relevant to this discussion. How does this get you fights? It encourages the locals to form up and fight you to defend their ESS bounty pool. It also gives them a limited time for response which limits the magnitude of their response. Finally it has small rewards, which means any hostiles accessing the ESS for isk will be encouraged to do so in small, engage-able numbers.
For the record, small gang roams are the greatest fun I've ever had playing Eve. Defending against small gang roams is pretty high up there, imho. Too much home defense however bleeds fleet participation over time, and gets you, the roaming gang fewer counter formups. And you know this to be true. For the ESS to be appreciated added content, the risk v. reward has to be significantly higher. High enough so that alliance level leadership can't dictate to the rank and file not to use such a thing. The incentive has to be high enough for corp and alliance leadership to consider investing resources into defending these damn things. Right now, just banning them will be the easymode answer from the 'defender' POV.
Except perhaps for Drones. Where this will hit hardest and where more negative incentive applies to figuring out SOME upside to this content. Small gangs of course will say 'YAY' fights in Drones. This will last until fleet participation falls off the cliff and then there will be no more fights, as everyone realizes that ANY other income source would be better and moves all their isk printing off to Hisec.
No one is winning with what we are being presented with as 'the' done deal. If one is pulling on the high side of 100mil isk an hour, it's 6 HOURS of farming to offset the base cost of the module, HOURS of TIME sink for Rank and File before it even begins to pay for itself, much less to offer any added benefit to a given system. Rank and File aren't exactly pulling in 100mil isk an hour though are they? Newbros aren't exactly pulling in 100mil isk an hour either. The effects of ESS mechanics aren't evenly balanced across 0.0, so already marginalized parties will have smaller margins. There really should be several stps taken back here before one inch of implementation moves forward. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:22:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Innominate wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) The amount in the ESS is proportional to the number of ratters in system. So the rewards for raiders will be most in systems filled with enough players to properly defend it. Spending 10 minutes in a system with a local population of 1, just to recover 20m isk in loot is not worth your time, unless you are only 1 or 2 players, because the local will not bother to defend it otherwise.
Most nullsec systems can't support more than 2-3 ratters at once, the very best can pack in five or so(but who will feel very crowded there). This is a game design problem... and CCP needs to address it pronto. Still, most high-value systems are clumped together. As such, while there may be 2-3 in a single system, they should be able to form up by utilizing neighbor ratters too.
CCP has only known about this problem for a few years now. I'm sure a fix would be "coming soon" if devs weren't spending their time on horribly designed deployables that no one will use. Maybe now you can understand our frustration with this crap. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:31:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Omanth Bathana wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Manssell wrote:This is the "farms and Fields" we've all mostly been screaming for isn't it? No. No it isn't. If this is what CCP thinks we mean by "Farms and Fields," there has been a stunningly large miscommunication between CCP and the player base. This fits past descriptions of "Farms and Fields" pretty well. It just doesn't have a big enough payoff.
There's a big difference between "Fitting the description" and being something that's of value and going to be used. Anyone who has done any requirements/project management is familiar with this concept. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:34:00 -
[1314] - Quote
After reading the 20+ additional pages I am glad to see that we are finally addressing the topic of small gang warfare. I believe that allowing small gangs to disrupt null sec industrial (ratting) areas is a good idea. It seems like this is part of CCP's overall plan for adding "Farms and Fields" to null sec.
Summit 2011 wrote:CCP and the CSM agreed about the need for more small gang activities and targets to disable (GÇÿFarms and FieldsGÇÖ) - not necessarily more structure shooting, which is boring. Stealing moon goo from harvesters was one idea.
CCP planning and implementing there ideas for this. This means a null sec resident should expect even more items which disrupt isk generation, and hopefully provide more rewards for those who defend their areas. I wonder what the summer expansion will bring. CCP could be planing to build on their small tests recently.
Most of the rage in this thread seems to be generated by the 5% nerf to ratting bounties (with differing effects based on loot, and other considerations). They cannot imagine the ESS having benefits and just see this as a nerf. With CCP's current direction they may be in for a great deal of shock and horror.
Even if this module is not used it will be a good development experiment from CCP's point of view. They need to know what works and doesn't work as they move forward on the 'Farms and Fields' plan. This is their Tech 1 module, with lots of design room for improvement (more versions with additional bonuses). |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:36:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Kadl wrote:After reading the 20+ additional pages I am glad to see that we are finally addressing the topic of small gang warfare. I believe that allowing small gangs to disrupt null sec industrial (ratting) areas is a good idea. It seems like this is part of CCP's overall plan for adding "Farms and Fields" to null sec.
Did you actually read the 20 pages? They have mostly been people explaining why this provides no disruption to null sec isk generation above and beyond what small gangs already do just by existing. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:39:00 -
[1316] - Quote
Yes, and most of that boils down to "ratters are cowards and will vehemently oppose anything which negatively impacts their ability to be cowards".
Quote:There's a big difference between "Fitting the description" and being something that's of value and going to be used. Anyone who has done any requirements/project management is familiar with this concept. So you agree that it is too conservative? |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
330
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:40:00 -
[1317] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Lady Naween wrote: maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?
As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.
so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.
please?
If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it-¦s up to you. Don-¦t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It-¦s only a nerf if you choose it to be.
CCP SoniClover, because you don't play Eve Online, I'll explain here what it is that you don't realise:
- Nul sec entities tend to have dedicated ratting systems. There are a myriad of reasons why that particular system ended up being the ratting system, none of which are important here.
- That system is the one system you definitely don't want roaming gang going to, if you can avoid it at all. You don't want any fights there; you want to go to there systems to have good fights, not your system.
- As it is the ratting system, it is of course exactly where the gangs will head to, so you still minimise the fighting, you dock up, and stay docked.
- Ergo, the last thing you would EVER want to put into your ratting system is a giant beacon for every murder gang from three regions away screaming "...the party is here guys, free iskies as well!!!!."
- Play the damn game.
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8526
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:42:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Yes, and most of that boils down to "ratters are cowards and will vehemently oppose anything which negatively impacts their ability to be cowards". A good system would have baseline rewards same as they are now, with the potential for significantly increased rewards, yet also the potential to be disrupted below what they are now by enemies.
The proposed ESS has baseline rewards less than what they are now, with almost zero potential for even slightly increased rewards, with almost no potential to be disrupted below what it is now.
It has nothing to do with ratters being cowards. Not wanting to lose isk when you're doing an activity for the purpose of getting isk isn't cowardly, it's pragmatic. My EVE Videos |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:46:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Please spend more than 10 seconds looking at my KB before making a judgement: We were a 6 man frigate/cruiser gang, and a 40 man BNI fleet came into the area to pick a fight with Usurper. So we swapped to bombers and attempted to lay out a trap, which their FC smartly avoided (mostly). An alt corp of one of our members was wardecced by Shadow Squadron. We asked them politely to drop the wardec and leave the corp alone, but they insisted following through with their attack. As such, Agony joined the war as an ally, smashed Shadow Squadron's POS, after which they dropped the war. I primarily partake in solo and small gang warfare, quite often outnumbered and facing superior forces. Nothing on my killboard will bring shame to me, so attack it all you want. I make my isk through many avenues: I belt rat & run plexes in nullsec, I'm involved in t2 production in Highsec, PI in nullsec, and if I need lots of isk quickly I mission run or incursion in highsec. The truth is, I don't care about the isk-tag getting dropped. I care about motivating the locals to do more than dock up for 5 minutes.
I think the bottom line is this. If you really want pvp in someone's space, you will show up in something other than an interceptor or stealth bomber. Drop an SBU and you'll have all the pvp you want. That's not your game because that's not what you want. I think its fine you want that, but let's not pretend that you're something you aren't. That's an insult to my intelligence, plus the others reading the discussion.
Nothing on your KB indicates that you were or were not "outnumbered" by "superior forces". Maybe you were or maybe it's just BS. It really isn't important, as the types of ships you seem to like to fly are mainly cheap gank ships that either can 1) evade detection; 2) avoid getting shot up (inty)
Since you said you don't care about the isk-tagging for ESS, then what would be the point of introducing them into the game? Why would I, as the alliance player advocate anything to make your stay in my space more pleasurable with minimal gain for me? Quite the opposite. I want you to leave poor, frustrated and demoralized and I want to be able to control my space with logistics, tactics and numbers.
Like you desperately want to gank others, you may find it surprising that there are many attentive players that don't want to be on your killboard as gloat-food.
As someone that has characters that need to rat for some pvp isk, I can tell you I've simply adjusted my playstyle and stuck a cloak on my ratting ships since the introduction of all this cloaky camping. This is basically the only way to frustrate cloaky campers enough to make them leave. I do find it deliciously ironic how much they hate cloaks, warp stabs, and will gladly tell you how much a coward you are etc., then proceed to use them themselves.
The butt-hurt golden tears I give pvper's gives me great pleasure. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:48:00 -
[1320] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Yes, and most of that boils down to "ratters are cowards and will vehemently oppose anything which negatively impacts their ability to be cowards".
You say "cowards," I say "rational." Ratters know the risk/reward calculations and know they're going to lose to the small gang every time so they choose not to engage. Ratters know that this new deployable will not increase their income enough to justify the risk.
Milton Middleson wrote:Quote:There's a big difference between "Fitting the description" and being something that's of value and going to be used. Anyone who has done any requirements/project management is familiar with this concept. So you agree that it is too conservative?
I don't see how you came to that conclusion from my statement, so I will make it more clear: This deployable may meet the letter of the idea behind the farms and fields program, but it does not meet the spirit. My point was that it is very easy to make something that meets the letter of a poorly defined set of requirements and have it completely miss the spirit. If you're meaning "conservative" as "it doesn't shake up the paradigm of null-sec income generation enough," then yes, I believe it is too conservative. However, if you're using "conservative" to mean "the numbers aren't big enough," then I don't care how conservative it is, the design is wrong. |
|
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:51:00 -
[1321] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Yes, and most of that boils down to "ratters are cowards and will vehemently oppose anything which negatively impacts their ability to be cowards".
i.e. "No I haven't read it but I am speaking on the assumption that it agrees with my notion of how nullsec ratting works even though I don't actually understand it."
It has nothing to do with "cowardice", which is a worthless ad hominem. Ratters not giving you a fight is not cowardice, it is a logical, rational, and in the current game mechanics, correct response. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
147
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:52:00 -
[1322] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Milton Middleson wrote:Yes, and most of that boils down to "ratters are cowards and will vehemently oppose anything which negatively impacts their ability to be cowards". A good system would have baseline rewards same as they are now, with the potential for significantly increased rewards, yet also the potential to be disrupted below what they are now by enemies. The proposed ESS has baseline rewards less than what they are now, with almost zero potential for even slightly increased rewards, with almost no potential to be disrupted below what it is now. It has nothing to do with ratters being cowards. Not wanting to lose isk when you're doing an activity for the purpose of getting isk isn't cowardly, it's pragmatic.
Let me put it like this, if there was a deployable that could be dropped in 100% safety behind a POS shield and all I had to do was warp to it once per hour and sit there for 40 seconds in my ratting ship and it gave me a 5% bonus to bounties I wouldn't do it because it's not worth it. Maybe that gives some idea of what the potential bonus % would have to be in order for these things to be used. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:53:00 -
[1323] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Manssell wrote:This is the "farms and Fields" we've all mostly been screaming for isn't it? No. No it isn't.
I am afraid it is. Small gangs? Targets to disable? Avoid structure shooting?
Wyn Pharoh wrote:For the record, small gang roams are the greatest fun I've ever had playing Eve. Defending against small gang roams is pretty high up there, imho. Too much home defense however bleeds fleet participation over time, and gets you, the roaming gang fewer counter formups. And you know this to be true.
Nullsec Empire will need to anticipate more small scale deployments and account for that in their large scale expansion plans. Long term, long distance deployments will be disrupted when small gangs can effect the industrial plans of an alliance.
Omanth Bathana wrote:It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work.
For this and other comments about interceptors please check this quote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
If you can accept the basic idea that ratters should gather to defend against roaming gangs (in return for extra rewards) then the ESS needs improvement not elimination. The form of that improvement is certainly a topic for debate. Increasing timers and reducing interceptor effectiveness are being considered. I have my doubts about CCP's willingness to change the rewards, but there have been some useful suggestions there. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18937
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:55:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Innominate wrote:Most nullsec systems can't support more than 2-3 ratters at once, the very best can pack in five or so(but who will feel very crowded there). This is a game design problem... and CCP needs to address it pronto. Still, most high-value systems are clumped together. As such, while there may be 2-3 in a single system, they should be able to form up by utilizing neighbor ratters too. They did address it.
Then they un-addressed it because they were of the incorrect belief that being able to make your space worth living in would reduce the incentive to go and fight GÇö by removing that ability they were hoping to create combat opportunities (sound familiar?). Obviously, the exact opposite happened: having space you could live in increased the incentives to fight; removing that ability removed combat opportunities, since people left in droves. 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. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
100
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:59:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Kadl wrote:
If you can accept the basic idea that ratters should gather to defend against roaming gangs (in return for extra rewards) then the ESS needs improvement not elimination. The form of that improvement is certainly a topic for debate. Increasing timers and reducing interceptor effectiveness are being considered. I have my doubts about CCP's willingness to change the rewards, but there have been some useful suggestions there.
I accept the premise that null-sec income generators should gather together to defend against roaming gangs in return for extra rewards, but I do not accept the premise that ratters should do so. Right now, the two terms are identical (for all practical purposes), which is the problem. The whole point of farms and fields is that there are ways to generate personal income outside of ratting, which is exactly the mark that this deployable misses. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
777
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:08:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Turelus wrote: It seems pretty obvious that as it is right now the feature isn't wanted or going to be used a great deal.
Meh, it has passed CSM review so it is pretty much good to go.
Seriously, this item will stir up the pot a little but is far from a game breaker. While this item will provided nothing for me in value (positive or negative), I am a bit curious to what CCP is trying to achieve with its introduction.
Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Fix Sov
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:14:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Most of the rage in this thread seems to be generated by the 5% nerf to ratting bounties (with differing effects based on loot, and other considerations). They cannot imagine the ESS having benefits and just see this as a nerf. With CCP's current direction they may be in for a great deal of shock and horror. No, it's more a case of "why the **** would I bother to deploy this myself, and if someone else does it, why the **** would I bother to rat while he's in the system ready to defend it?"
I'm still not seeing a good reason why I should deploy one, and I still very much doubt it'll have any effect at all beyond the old AFK cloaker, and I'm not really seeing anyone seriously trying to convince me otherwise. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
101
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:15:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote: Meh, it has passed CSM review so it is pretty much good to go.
Did you miss the part in the minutes from the last CSM meeting where SoniClover proposed something that the CSM shouted down and got shelved, but then SoniClover announced this deployable completely skipping the Features and Ideas section? The (pretty :tinfoil:, I admit) implication is that this deployable was roundly rejected by the CSM but shoved down our throats anyway. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:16:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:Kadl wrote:After reading the 20+ additional pages I am glad to see that we are finally addressing the topic of small gang warfare. I believe that allowing small gangs to disrupt null sec industrial (ratting) areas is a good idea. It seems like this is part of CCP's overall plan for adding "Farms and Fields" to null sec. Did you actually read the 20 pages? They have mostly been people explaining why this provides no disruption to null sec isk generation above and beyond what small gangs already do just by existing.
I have read (or skimmed when they were just raging) all the posts on all 67 pages. Most of them are from people concerned about their income being nerfed by 5%. That was itself enough for them to call for firing various employees. The worst among those complainers didn't read the devblog and merely repeated various mixed up rumors. The best of the complainers gave real alternative options (LP) as rewards to avoid the nerf.
Among the people explaining the disruption there have been many people complaining about interceptors (SoniClover already addressed this), many people saying that everyone will dock up (i.e. they don't want PvP despite being in Null Sec), and a few people who don't like the current setup of ESS. Recently I have seen another small group saying that PvP in Null is only about large sovereignty fights (look at CCP's stated plans).
Someone raging about how a plan is blatantly stupid and CCP should be punished is not an effective argument for me. The people just planning on docking up sound like they are not really in the spirit of Null Sec EVE. I am among the people who don't like the current ESS setup, but think that the timers or other mechanics can make this work. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:20:00 -
[1330] - Quote
If you actually read the thread and legitimately believe that this entire thing is about a 5% nerf to nullsec ratting income then I can't help you. |
|
Genoa Al Salam
I Sneezed Nerfed Alliance Go Away
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:21:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Myanna's solution sounds like a good compromise. Also, I fully support the bot-murdering super spawn idea. Good stuff! |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:29:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:I accept the premise that null-sec income generators should gather together to defend against roaming gangs in return for extra rewards, but I do not accept the premise that ratters should do so. Right now, the two terms are identical (for all practical purposes), which is the problem. The whole point of farms and fields is that there are ways to generate personal income outside of ratting, which is exactly the mark that this deployable misses.
So your problem with the ESS is that CCP is not introducing another feature for generating isk in Null Sec? One potential answer to that complaint is that CCP is using this idea to work out ideas before inventing those new isk generating systems. First they would make a simple deployable like the Mobile Depot. Then they would make a siphon for the moons. Then they would include ratting in the mobile object plans. Then they would mess with mining (and ring mining?). Perhaps then (? 2014) they mess with POSes replacing them with these modular pieces. This looks like it could be part of the development progression. I certainly hope that they don't fail and give up at this point.
Fix Sov wrote:I'm still not seeing a good reason why I should deploy one, and I still very much doubt it'll have any effect at all beyond the old AFK cloaker, and I'm not really seeing anyone seriously trying to convince me otherwise.
Perhaps the plan is for the first deployable will look uninspiring, but perhaps acceptable in XYZ situation (Tech 1). Then they add variations which look more interesting. It looks like CCP is scared of adding something really good and messing up the balance too much. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:30:00 -
[1333] - Quote
So now the thread degenerates into pvper's complaining that people (ratters) that dock up in 0.0 aren't playing in the "spirit of null sec".
Really? What a joke. What exactly is "the spirit of null sec"? I thought the point of it was play EVE like you want, how you want, as a pirate, explorer, industry mogul, etc. Or maybe I was just too caught up in their marketing BS?
You want ESS deployed by alliances then provide a huge buff to income or make SBU warfare more needed by adding buffs to bounties and so forth. Otherwise there is no reason to deploy them. I assure you I will shoot them every time I see them, regardless of who does the deployment. All they are is a beacon to the enemy which says "here's where these guys rat".
But don't sit there and complain that you want single or even at best 2-3 ratters to attack roaming gangs of 5-8 people and this module will do it. The ESS isn't going to "force" this kind of pvp and lets face it, you can lead a horse to water (0.0) but you cannot make it drink (pvp)! It's just as valid a playstyle to avoid detection, scan down sites, sell them and so forth and do what you will rather than to be somebody's target practice. And only stupid players engage when they know the odds are unlikely to be on their side.
Personally, I'd love to see some actual 0.0 pvp, but when I'm out there, I'm usually too busy avoiding the 6+ man gang of cloaky hot droppers. At what point did this become "pvp"? So an ambush is just acceptable to ratters and they should just sit there and let it happen.
Like I said, I will shoot every one of these regardless of who deploys them. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
107
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:34:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Kadl wrote:
So your problem with the ESS is that CCP is not introducing another feature for generating isk in Null Sec? One potential answer to that complaint is that CCP is using this idea to work out ideas before inventing those new isk generating systems. First they would make a simple deployable like the Mobile Depot. Then they would make a siphon for the moons. Then they would include ratting in the mobile object plans. Then they would mess with mining (and ring mining?). Perhaps then (? 2014) they mess with POSes replacing them with these modular pieces. This looks like it could be part of the development progression. I certainly hope that they don't fail and give up at this point.
My problem with the ESS is that it is indicative of 1) a poor choice in direction for deployables as a category that doesn't support long-term use other than quality-of-life deployables like the MTU and Mobile Depot, 2) a fundamental breakdown of the channels CCP uses to communicate with the player base, and 3) a complete lack of understand of how null-sec personal income generation works and what can be done to make it more palatable to players. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3389
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:41:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote: I think the bottom line is this. If you really want pvp in someone's space, you will show up in something other than an interceptor or stealth bomber.
I fly a lot of ships regularly, and outside of the taranis (which I routinely use for soloing), interceptors and stealth bombers are not on the top of the list. Again, you have to spend more than 10 seconds looking at first two kills on page 1 of 110 to have any clue to my playstyle.
Muffet McStrudel wrote: Drop an SBU and you'll have all the pvp you want. That's not your game because that's not what you want. I think its fine you want that, but let's not pretend that you're something you aren't. That's an insult to my intelligence, plus the others reading the discussion.
You're not even making sense. Herp Derp... drop an SBU so your 10 man small cruiser gang can get some PvP. Trust me, I'm not insulting your intelligence!
Muffet McStrudel wrote: Nothing on your KB indicates that you were or were not "outnumbered" by "superior forces". Maybe you were or maybe it's just BS. It really isn't important, as the types of ships you seem to like to fly are mainly cheap gank ships that either can 1) evade detection; 2) avoid getting shot up (inty)
We're the AT team that managed to combine Tinker, Sentry drones, and Jams all in one setup! Everything we fly is cloaky, stabbed, has jammer support, logi, and links to boot. Expect no less!!!
Muffet McStrudel wrote: Since you said you don't care about the isk-tagging for ESS, then what would be the point of introducing them into the game? Why would I, as the alliance player advocate anything to make your stay in my space more pleasurable with minimal gain for me? Quite the opposite. I want you to leave poor, frustrated and demoralized and I want to be able to control my space with logistics, tactics and numbers.
This isk tags are a nice boon to encourage small gangs to roam about. As you are an alliance player, I fully understand why you would fight tooth an nail against this. I mean, you don't want me roaming about the space disrupting your PvE. We fully understand that since you managed to plant an TCU and IHUB you feel entitled to peaceful life within your domain. Thank God there are CCP devs who think otherwise!
Muffet McStrudel wrote: Like you desperately want to gank others, you may find it surprising that there are many attentive players that don't want to be on your killboard as gloat-food.
As someone that has characters that need to rat for some pvp isk, I can tell you I've simply adjusted my playstyle and stuck a cloak on my ratting ships since the introduction of all this cloaky camping. This is basically the only way to frustrate cloaky campers enough to make them leave. I do find it deliciously ironic how much they hate cloaks, warp stabs, and will gladly tell you how much a coward you are etc., then proceed to use them themselves.
The butt-hurt golden tears I give pvper's gives me great pleasure.
What is your point? That you are butthurt about the 5% nerf to ratting income? I don't care if you cloak up when I enter system. Good for you. And I don't support nerfing nullsec income directly (at least, not without highsec income nerfs too).
The point of this device, is that you can deploy it and risk a small portion of your income with the hope you get even more isk at the end of your ratting session. The risk is that someone might roam into system and harvest that risked income before you cash out. Your not forced to deploy it, your not forced to risk your income and/or your ships to defend it. But if balanced, it is something the more entrepreneurial members of EvE will gladly utilize.
|
Fix Sov
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:42:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Perhaps the plan is for the first deployable will look uninspiring, but perhaps acceptable in XYZ situation (Tech 1). Then they add variations which look more interesting. It looks like CCP is scared of adding something really good and messing up the balance too much. Um, it's not just "uninspiring", it doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone spend 30 ticks worth of "extra bounty" on a structure, only to have someone else (neutral or blue) come along, press a button and make them lose even more than they would if they just never deployed the thing in the first place?
Why would I rat with that structure deployed by a neutral/hostile, especially if said person is still in the system with the ability to hotdrop you if you do go after the structure?
Where's the incentives? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1209
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:42:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Remove all npc bountys from null and replace it with tags that can be picked up (by everyone) on a new sov. structure every hour. The Tears Must Flow |
Vahl Ahashion
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:45:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Its ok everyone, Tuburg has discovered what's really going on: http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/icelandic-police-raid-ccps-headquarters.html |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4358
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:50:00 -
[1339] - Quote
OMG dude, I damn near crapped myself. have a like and some isk. ok, just kidding about the isk. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:50:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Remove all npc bountys from null and replace it with tags that can be picked up (by everyone) on a new sov. structure every hour.
lol - and watch empire fill up so fast it would make your head swim.
More incentives for 0.0, not less. More incentives, more ability to earn, more ability to decide your destiny, more likely to stumble on conflict and more targets for you hot droppers.
Otherwise, there really is no point in going into 0.0 |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3390
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:50:00 -
[1341] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Innominate wrote:Most nullsec systems can't support more than 2-3 ratters at once, the very best can pack in five or so(but who will feel very crowded there). This is a game design problem... and CCP needs to address it pronto. Still, most high-value systems are clumped together. As such, while there may be 2-3 in a single system, they should be able to form up by utilizing neighbor ratters too. They did address it. Then they un-addressed it because they were of the incorrect belief that being able to make your space worth living in would reduce the incentive to go and fight GÇö by removing that ability they were hoping to create combat opportunities (sound familiar?). Obviously, the exact opposite happened: having space you could live in increased the incentives to fight; removing that ability removed combat opportunities, since people left in droves.
I was very sad when the nerfed Anomalies in the higher security nullsec systems. At the same point in time, I was also under the impression the game was gushing isk (Dominion is when I made my first billion isk simply by ratting). I believe that the lowest sec status systems should be the most valuable, just like the rarest moongoo should be the most valuable. I also believe that having nullsec with invested infrastructure (and maybe WH space with infrastructure) should be the creme-de-la-creme in income potential. There are ways to balance this using LP and ingame materials rather than raw isk, and I wish they would look into that. I would love to see certain classes of anomalies be "group" activities, especially with the hope a system can support 10-20 pilots (like it was touted to do so at one point in time).
The point is, there are lots of areas of game play that need a balancing pass. But that doesnt' mean this device is crap or salvageable. It's the first generation of farms and fields devices perfect for small gang objectives that we've seen, and not supporting it seems ridiculous to me! |
Verskon Qaual
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:51:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Incase people have not been following the Dev Posts for Suggestions and Ideas in the German forum for ESS, it seems the devs are actually interacting over there. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=312615
With approximate Google translations of the relevant posts by CCP Phantom:
The intent of Rubicon:
Quote:The Team Super Friends has for Rubicon and the dot extensions three main objectives:
1. To be able to influence the game of other players to new ways 2. Introduce new opportunities and Risikien that did not exist previously 3. Offer players interesting choices and overall produce some creative mess
Player's response to ESS as presented
Quote:I have forwarded a summary of the main points of criticism of our game designers. Three main points seem to be mainly criticized here:
- Concerns about the high risk of losing up to 20% of income can be generated (compared to the current income) at the same time very little additional opportunities, as only a maximum of 5% more income (compared to the current income).
- Concerns that the ESS is more or less nothing but griefing tool and any relevant structural elements containing that make EVE Online more interesting or make the game more fun.
- Displeasure that Ratting in nullsec other activities had already been unsuccessful and the introduction of the ESS Ratting make even less attractive.
Background information with actual numbers, justifying, to them, the changes:
Quote:I would also like to point out some background information, regardless of the ESS: Several mobile structures (siphons, mobile Cynojammer ESS) have been introduced with the aim to enable kleinr+ñumigeres PVP and also to give small groups a chance against the big alliances. There are more options exist, than to be run over by a blob against whom one has no chance - at least that was the urgent demand of many nullsec residents and smaller groupings. Several mobile structures have been developed with the aim of it especially small groups to be able to allow against large blocks of power in certain dimensions proceed. During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.
And many of the points brought up so far in that thread and here.
Quote:What if the bonus of these units to be collected bounty premiums the amount would not let on 105% fast, but at 110%, 120%, 150%, 200%, more? What if there would be other forms of reward than ISK? What would be if the access time of 20 seconds at 40, 60, 200, 600 or more seconds would be changed? What if you generally can not warp from the Warpbubble to the ESS, no matter what ship you have? Would that ESS will be better? Find More exhortation? From the German forum, I can only report to our developers that this unit receives generally extremely low popularity. Unfortunately I can not make any suggestions as to how this unit could be improved. That's a shame.
CCP has not completely abandoned us to be insane and drive their awesome game into the ground. Let's help them help us with less hyperbolic rhetoric and more constructive posts. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
602
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:57:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Kadl wrote:If you can accept the basic idea that ratters should gather to defend against roaming gangs (in return for extra rewards) then the ESS needs improvement not elimination. The form of that improvement is certainly a topic for debate. Increasing timers and reducing interceptor effectiveness are being considered. I have my doubts about CCP's willingness to change the rewards, but there have been some useful suggestions there. The ESS can't be improved. That's the sad fact. The premise and CCP is flawed. You have already been explained exactly why (And if you read through the thread, you would know) from a mechanical point of view, here's why from a CCP point of view: It encourages CCP to repeat these mistakes. It encourages CCP to to insert their heads in their rectums when developing. If their worst and most idiotic ideas are merely "challenges to be improved upon" then they will continue to act in ways detrimental to the game. I used the example of a dog that you allow to take anything from the dinner table, but when it does so, it only gets half of what it takes. CCP is that dog. It needs to be taught manners, it needs to learn respect, and each time we allow it to take from the dinner table, we will make it harder and at some point impossible for it to learn anything.
It's not the name, or the art assets, or neat phrases like "farms & fields" that we are opposed to. It's the mechanic on which it is based. Summed up, it is*: - Nerfing bottom-up income in nullsec. - Creating a module that will not generate fights or increased income. - Setting up a system-wide bank account that logs who rats there (until the log is reset). - Arbitrary or hardly explainable mechanics by which it works. And multiplicative factors that sadly often defines pet projects in CCP: - No explanation on why it's needed or what it's thought to do. - Directly lying, misrepresenting feedback, ignoring feedback, trolling, etc. by DEV.s.
*Did I forget any overall grievance? I know that "bottom-up income in null"-trouble is magnified by other things, but with this particular ESS?
CCP are known for dropping the ball every so often, and then disregard player feedback and implement their crappy excrements anyway, because they know best and because AWESOME and EXCELLENCE and because "it will be magnificent in 18 months!". There have been a few examples of ideas that, if summed up to a single line, 7-12 words, could look like the ESS, but the fundamental principles and mechanics would be so much different, it would not be the same. So the question isn't "can we improve the ESS?" - not just because we can't, but also because we shouldn't - but rather "let's scrap it, learn from this horrible mistake, and then what can we do better in the future?". Would nullsec players like farms & fields? Yes please, since forever. Does this fit the bill? Only if you grossly misrepresent it or reduce it to a 10-sec-soundbite.
There is no reason for any ratter to set this up. There is no reason for any gang to set it up. There aren't any way to redeem it while still keeping any of the fundamental ideas (And especially not with the "enlightenment" that CCP SoniClover has provided: That it should reduce nullsec bounties overall). The ESS needs to be scrapped. The art assets can be reused. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
288
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:57:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.
That's actually staggeringly huge
And I think with that figure alone most players would be OK with nerfing the amount of /ISK/ coming in from nullsec....but not income.
Also, this in no way justifies the ESS. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:00:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:So now the thread degenerates into pvper's complaining that people (ratters) that dock up in 0.0 aren't playing in the "spirit of null sec".
Really? What a joke. What exactly is "the spirit of null sec"? ...I assure you I will shoot them every time I see them, regardless of who does the deployment. All they are is a beacon to the enemy which says "here's where these guys rat". ...Like I said, I will shoot every one of these regardless of who deploys them.
The existence of an ESS isn't going to be a 'beacon' in itself, better than other tools that exist right now for hunting ratters. I'm panning the whole slew of mechanics pushing this added content, but there are already better ways to ID a good system for hunting. For example, you can look ingame on the Map Browser and quickly check Military Levels in any given system, suggesting quickly where people regularly kill NPC's. Just as simply, you can open up Dotlan and see at a glance the number of NPC kills in any system over either the last hour, or over the last 24 hours for an entire region. Small gang FC's will have already done both of the above before flying out to any particular system hunting for ESS's.
If ESS's were worth installing in the first place, and worth defending secondly, there might be an entirely different conversation to be had. People that earn their isk by ratting will not get traction having this project shelved or reexamined if the arguments against its deployment just heighten a perception that nullbear = risk adverse. CCP SoniClover made it clear that we will have to fight for what we want to have, but we simply haven't been given something exactly worth fighting for in the first place.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:01:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote:
The butt-hurt golden tears I give pvper's gives me great pleasure.
What is your point? That you are butthurt about the 5% nerf to ratting income? I don't care if you cloak up when I enter system. Good for you. And I don't support nerfing nullsec income directly (at least, not without highsec income nerfs too). The point of this device, is that you can deploy it and risk a small portion of your income with the hope you get even more isk at the end of your ratting session. The risk is that someone might roam into system and harvest that risked income before you cash out. Your not forced to deploy it, your not forced to risk your income and/or your ships to defend it. But if balanced, it is something the more entrepreneurial members of EvE will gladly utilize.
I don't care about the 5% isk nerf. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept it as a penalty rather than to defend some asinine structure that at best adds a minor amount to the ratting income, while making the space an attractive beacon to enemies.
So you really don't care that I'll cloak up when you come into system? Oh my, but how will that promote small gang pvp?
Honestly, you're simply talking out of both sides of your behind.
You want pvp, start flying something other than ships designed to avoid it. The ESS isn't the panacea deployable to make it happen, being visible to your enemies, however, IS. You start with that, then maaaaaaybe you have a reason to moan about how difficult 0.0 small gang pvp is to get. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
777
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:03:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:Jowen Datloran wrote: Meh, it has passed CSM review so it is pretty much good to go.
Did you miss the part in the minutes from the last CSM meeting where SoniClover proposed something that the CSM shouted down and got shelved, but then SoniClover announced this deployable completely skipping the Features and Ideas section? The (pretty :tinfoil:, I admit) implication is that this deployable was roundly rejected by the CSM but shoved down our throats anyway. No need to go on crazy rumormongering when the CSM members can speak for themselves. I do not see them making a fuzz. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8538
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:06:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:I do not see them making a fuzz. I don't see them defending it either. My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3390
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:08:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote: It's not the name, or the art assets, or neat phrases like "farms & fields" that we are opposed to. It's the mechanic on which it is based. Summed up, it is*: - Nerfing bottom-up income in nullsec. - Creating a module that will not generate fights or increased income. - Setting up a system-wide bank account that logs who rats there (until the log is reset). - Arbitrary or hardly explainable mechanics by which it works. And multiplicative factors that sadly often defines pet projects in CCP: - No explanation on why it's needed or what it's thought to do. - Directly lying, misrepresenting feedback, ignoring feedback, trolling, etc. by DEV.s.
*Did I forget any overall grievance? I know that "bottom-up income in null"-trouble is magnified by other things, but with this particular ESS?
Your list is full of fallacies: 1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS.
2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded!
3.) What is problematic about a system wide bank account?
4.) You set it up, it takes 15% of your income, and stores that income in the bank. It will pay out 25 for every 15 you put in. Hardly convoluted.
5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani)
6.) Direct lying? How, where? Misrepresenting feedback? Hardly.
Do you have any other unfounded accusations you wish to sling?
Alphea Abbra wrote: There is no reason for any ratter to set this up. There is no reason for any gang to set it up. There aren't any way to redeem it while still keeping any of the fundamental ideas (And especially not with the "enlightenment" that CCP SoniClover has provided: That it should reduce nullsec bounties overall). The ESS needs to be scrapped. The art assets can be reused.
Are the risks wroth the rewards? I admit I find them unfavorable given the first implementation, but believe it could easily be balanced. And you dont' even need to deploy it, so why are you butthurt?
|
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:08:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote: No need to go on crazy rumormongering when the CSM members can speak for themselves. I do not see them making a fuzz.
Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one. |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:12:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:
If ESS's were worth installing in the first place, and worth defending secondly, there might be an entirely different conversation to be had. People that earn their isk by ratting will not get traction having this project shelved or reexamined if the arguments against its deployment just heighten a perception that nullbear = risk adverse. CCP SoniClover made it clear that we will have to fight for what we want to have, but we simply haven't been given something exactly worth fighting for in the first place.
Yes, I will give you that. They will not be worth installing at all.
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
603
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:14:00 -
[1352] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area. That's actually staggeringly huge And I think with that figure alone most players would be OK with nerfing the amount of /ISK/ coming in from nullsec....but not income. Also, this in no way justifies the ESS. If, say, nullsec bounties were halved but you got either concord or an opposing pirate factions LP? No problem. My concern isn't really the amount of ISK - and actually I would probably support moving nullsec ratting value from ISK to something less prone to devaluation through inflation - but the amount of value that any amount of time spent ratting will net me. ISK is easiest because it's directly usable. LP or items (Salvage e.g.) would also be fine. I'm not adverse to discussing the merits of changing the specific rewards to living in nullsec, but contrary to the ESS it should be clear that the purpose was to either have no impact upon or improve living-in-nullsec-quality-of-life. And, just to make it absolutely clear: I'd still rat in nullsec and I'd eat the 5% nerf. Since the alternative would be a third subscription to run HS missions - and I'm not a masochist! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8539
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:16:00 -
[1353] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:Jowen Datloran wrote: No need to go on crazy rumormongering when the CSM members can speak for themselves. I do not see them making a fuzz.
Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one. Well you missed (and so did I for that matter) Chitsa Jason, who lent their support. That's hardly surprising for a w-space CSM member though. My EVE Videos |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18943
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:19:00 -
[1354] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area. That's actually staggeringly huge Not particularly, since it's the only significant ISK faucet in null. Last we got any numbers on it, the system coughed up about 900bn ISK daily in the form of bounties GÇö that would mean ~650bn came from null.
Compare this to the total injection of roughly 2 trillion ISK daily. A third of that is null bounties; nearly two thirds come from highsec ventures (the only other large separate post was ~250bn from w-space). 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. |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:20:00 -
[1355] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Well you missed (and so did I for that matter) Chitsa Jason, who lent their support. That's hardly surprising for a w-space CSM member though.
Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:22:00 -
[1356] - Quote
Verskon Qaual wrote:Background information with actual numbers, justifying, to them, the changes:Quote:...During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.
This is indeed staggering. A breakdown of these numbers would be really helpful. A public examination of exactly this type of data would make it a lot easier to digest some part of this poison pill. I wonder how Drone Regions compare against Faction NPC space? I wonder if that 72% figure could be brought rapidly into (whatever acceptable) line by dealing with the 100% Bounty rats spread across those odd 8 regions of New Eden?
|
Jin So
Sev3rance
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:24:00 -
[1357] - Quote
I like how there has not been much said from ccp about this since it was posted. |
Fix Sov
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:25:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Your list is full of fallacies: 1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS. Debatable, but it would be preferable if CCP had just gone out and said "we're reducing bounties by 5%" and been done with it.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded! I would ban it, not because of the "potential for generating fights", but for the "potential for generating ****** inter-alliance/intra-blues **** drama".
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:3.) What is problematic about a system wide bank account? The fact it's raidable by everyone, including blues, which means its use is nothing but a recipe for bullshit drama with very little reward.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:4.) You set it up, it takes 15% of your income, and stores that income in the bank. It will pay out 25 for every 15 you put in. Hardly convoluted. And it opens up the potential for bullshit drama for what, 2m/tick/person, which means what, 200-250k/tick/person in alliance income?
Yep, definitely worth it.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani)
Are the risks wroth the rewards? I admit I find them unfavorable given the first implementation, but believe it could easily be balanced. And you dont' even need to deploy it, so why are you butthurt? How does it "meet the farms and fields criteria"? Why should I bother to deploy it? How would it "generate fights", when it would either be undefended while attacked, or the guy who dropped it would have to still be in the system and keep an eye on things, which means the people ratting would treat him as another hotdropper?
Where Are The Incentives? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
604
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:26:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Your list is full of fallacies: 1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS. So it's purely and absolutely by accident that they're presented as one and the same?
Quote:2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded! ... They're not afraid of the conflict (That potential conflict is already there) - we'd ban it because it could provide a lot of blue-on-blue drama and because it's worthless to us. You gotta be pretty daft to think this will increase income (As already shown), and it won't generate additional fights.
Quote:4.) You set it up, it takes 15% of your income, and stores that income in the bank. It will pay out 25 for every 15 you put in. Hardly convoluted.
5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani) Did you see the amount of bullet points in the summary? It doesn't meet the farms & fields criteria unless you reduce it to a 10-sec-soundbite. That's my point.
Quote:6.) Direct lying? How, where? Misrepresenting feedback? Hardly. You should check the SoniClover post where he "sums up" the feedback they got. You can find it by going through the dev. posts in this thread. SoniClover has also been lying about whether this will increase nullsec income or reduce it (Either or).
In general, I'd say you have roughly zero idea about the subject, and if you're willing to give CCP leniency on this one, there's only Incarna+NeX-grade stuff to be angry about. I'm sorry because I think CCP SoniClover will "listen" to "feedback" like yours... ... but at least I'll have those precious words: "told you so". |
Vahl Ahashion
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:28:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote: Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one.
Marlona Sky rather than Mynnna.
|
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:28:00 -
[1361] - Quote
After review of this thread and it's intended statement in regards to the ESS of being an inflation counter measure... I'm afraid I have to wave the bullshit flag. Yes, if it's not used, it's a 5% decrease in isk flowing from null, but only in regards to rat bounties... (which says nothing of all the other sources of isk flow from null such as mining which only helps point out the fallacy of this claim), which is rather blatantly abit of 'crying wolf' since if used, it's potentially actually generating an extra 5% isk... I see this, rather, as a blatant attempt by CCP Devs who enjoy null sec pvp roams on the null bears as a chance to now not only farm them for kills but also for easy isk.
Please, oh mighty Devs, tell me how I'm wrong. |
Fix Sov
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:30:00 -
[1362] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:(which says nothing of all the other sources of isk flow from null such as mining which only helps point out the fallacy of this claim) Imma let you finish, but mining doesn't inject isk into the economy. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:31:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area. That's actually staggeringly huge Not particularly, since it's the only significant ISK faucet in null. Last we got any numbers on it, the system coughed up about 900bn ISK daily in the form of bounties GÇö that would mean ~650bn came from null. Compare this to the total injection of roughly 2 trillion ISK daily. A third of that is null bounties; nearly two thirds come from highsec ventures (the only other large separate post was ~250bn from w-space).
Sure, I can grok this.
But we're talking about a specific activity generating 72%...Not a specific area of space.
That's a lot of ISK for one activity to generate. You also deleted the part of my post where I said the main point is income -- not ISK, which I still think is valid. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
778
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:34:00 -
[1364] - Quote
I am quite certain that there is no NDA preventing any CSM member to announce in this thread, that they hate (disapprove) of the proposed ESS. Nor that they approve of it, for that matter.
Actually, I would prefer if they made noise one way or the other, so it at least appeared like they care. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Omanth Bathana
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:34:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not particularly, since it's the only significant ISK faucet in null. Last we got any numbers on it, the system coughed up about 900bn ISK daily in the form of bounties GÇö that would mean ~650bn came from null.
Compare this to the total injection of roughly 2 trillion ISK daily. A third of that is null bounties; nearly two thirds come from highsec ventures (the only other large separate post was ~250bn from w-space).
Assuming this is actually a correct representation of the numbers:
Reducing null-sec bounties by 5% would remove 32.5bn of daily isk injection. This is a little more than 1.5% of the total isk injected into the system daily.
This is, of course, assuming that the 5% reduction actually goes through and there isn't a net increase of 5% like CCP SoniClover seems to think there will be when every corner of null-sec is chock-full of these beautiful new modules. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:36:00 -
[1366] - Quote
I meant it as an example of a source for isk income, my apologies for not clarifying that better... as for 'inflation' in general... I remember when Plex sold for around 350m isk... before incursions. This bloat on plex prices didn't come about till incursions launched... coincidence? (as a side note, I run incursions myself for my main source of isk, I say this to point out that this proposed module will not directly affect me, I argue my point simply to point out why I feel this module is a bad idea) |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
289
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:37:00 -
[1367] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:I am quite certain that there is no NDA preventing any CSM member to announce in this thread, that they hate (disapprove) of the proposed ESS. Nor that they approve of it, for that matter.
Actually, I would prefer if they made noise one way or the other, so it at least appeared like they care.
The NDA should be nullified on official release of the feature. If it isn't, it's a poorly written or downright awful contract that the CSM's were basically forced to sign on picking up the role.
It's entirely possible that you're right, I would just be disappointed that CCP devised a contract in that fashion. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8543
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:48:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Vahl Ahashion wrote:Omanth Bathana wrote: Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one.
Marlona Sky rather than Mynnna. Uh no, Mynnna posted the alternative. Marlona was perfectly happy with the original ESS idea (predictably). My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3390
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:09:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote: 1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS. So it's purely and absolutely by accident that they're presented as one and the same?
They could rescind on the bounty reduction and it would have no effect on the ESS module!
Alphea Abbra wrote: 2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded!
They're not afraid of the conflict (That potential conflict is already there) - we'd ban it because it could provide a lot of blue-on-blue drama and because it's worthless to us. You gotta be pretty daft to think this will increase income (As already shown), and it won't generate additional fights.
Drama is a form of conflict (although not the conflict I first envision)... And blue on blue drama would be a great foundation to drive a wedge between those large coalitions. Sounds even more win-win.
Alphea Abbra wrote: 5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani)
It doesn't meet the farms & fields criteria unless you reduce it to a 10-sec-soundbite. That's my point.
I understand you feel that way, but disagree with you. It is an object anyone can deploy to increase their income. To benefit from it, you must harvest it after ratting for a while. It can be harvested by hostiles, too. So you must defend it or risk losing the isk you invested in it. How is this not a farms and field concept? Just because you won't risk it (because your allies will take advantage of you if you do?) doesn't make change its fundamental nature: A farms and field device that qualifies as a small gang objective.
Alphea Abbra wrote: 6.) Direct lying? How, where? Misrepresenting feedback? Hardly.
You should check the SoniClover post where he "sums up" the feedback they got. You can find it by going through the dev. posts in this thread. SoniClover has also been lying about whether this will increase nullsec income or reduce it (Either or).
That wasn't lying. And given your propensity for embellishment, I hardly think you should be throwing stones. Furthermore, whining and moaning that you hate it isn't constructive feedback. Explain what is wrong with it, how it can be improved, etc, is the feedback that any developer would look for. I'm not saying it is perfect (certainly not in its first incarnation), but it has potential and screaming that it doesn't is unfathomable to me.
What is the big hooplah over a device this simple: Deploy it or not. If deployed, you sacrifice 15% of your bounty, with the hope of eventually recovering 25 isk for every 15 invested. If deployed, anyone can harvest it taking all the isk, so deploy it only if you think you can defend it.
It is pretty simple and straight forward, and I really don't understand the negativity towards the ESS. Some complain its reward isn't good enough. Some complain defending it is too hard. While both valid viewpoints, these are things that are easily tweaked and changed with feedback. Neither of these imply the idea is terrible and salvageable! |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
442
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:17:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I understand you feel that way, but disagree with you. It is an object anyone can deploy to increase their income. To benefit from it, you must harvest it after ratting for a while. It can be harvested by hostiles, too. So you must defend it or risk losing the isk you invested in it. How is this not a farms and field concept? Just because you won't risk it (because your allies will take advantage of you if you do?) doesn't make change its fundamental nature: A farms and field device that qualifies as a small gang objective.
But it doesn't increase your income. Right now it requires someone to be guarding it 100% of the time for 10% extra bounty. For it to increase anyone's income would require 9 people ratting for every 1 person defending. There isn't a single system in the game that can support 9 people ratting profitably.
And thats assuming only one single attacker who can be beaten off by a single defender. The defensive effort increases with the number of attackers but the time to loot does not. While a single defender could concievably prevent a single interceptor from looting the ESS if you bring 2 or more attackers the defenders now have to have 20+ people ratting in a system to make it worthwhile to deploy (or 4-5 times the number even the best 0.0 system can support). |
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
149
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:19:00 -
[1371] - Quote
Part of the problem is that CCP is trying to force the square peg that is this deployable into the round hole that is nullsec. This module creates no new content in nullsec. Those who wish to engage in PvP already have the opportunity to do so. It is normal procedure in nullsec to dock up when a neutral enters local because even what appears to be a semi-fair fight with a roaming gang always carries the threat of blops or capitals being dropped on you.
Additionally, because the PvE content in Eve is so bad (and of it anom grinding is some of the worst) the majority of ratters don't want to do it any longer than they absolutely have to. To get them to deploy an ESS on themselves and risk the loss of income the reward would have to be significantly increased and would end up well beyond where CCP would be comfortable with it (think 100% increase in bounties).
So where might this deployable work? With some mechanics tweaks, hisec would be the perfect place for it.
Imagine you could drop one of these in a hisec mission hub or incursion system and for 1 hour it would collect 5% of all bounties/LP earned. After the hour is up the module fully onlines and becomes a warpable beacon for 15 minutes.
When you land in the site you have a faction warfare style button where as long as you are within a set range of it you collect a portion of the isk/LP pool. Everyone warping to the beacon can be shot without Concord intervention until they warp away and if you blow up a player's ship you are awarded 50% of whatever portion of the reward pool that player earned.
Just to keep things fun and more hisec noob oriented (we don't need lowsec v2.0 here) no forms of ewar or remote reps can be activated in the site and no fleet boosts/links are applied. However, once you warp to the site your ship cannot reactivate it's warp drive for 30 seconds so you are committed to the battle.
At the end of the 15 minutes any uncollected bounties/LP are automatically returned to the player who originally earned them and the process can start over if someone else onlines a different ESS. If the bounty pool expires before the 15 minutes are up the beacon goes offline, all target locks are broken, all ships in the site warp 1M km in random directions, and normal hisec aggression mechanics again apply.
Now you have a completely new conflict driver as well as opportunities for financially rewarding hisec PvP that doesn't involve griefing, ganking, wardecs, or being Falconed. Hisec players might actually have a positive PvP experience and look for ways to become further involved.
A deployable like the ESS could add content and value to the game if it is introduced into the right region of space with the right mechanics. Yes, we need farms and fields in nullsec but the ESS as it is currently designed doesn't create either. Nullsec is just not the right place for this deployable. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:20:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: It is pretty simple and straight forward, and I really don't understand the negativity towards the ESS. Some complain its reward isn't good enough. Some complain defending it is too hard. While both valid viewpoints, these are things that are easily tweaked and changed with feedback. Neither of these imply the idea is terrible and salvageable!
apparently, you aren't reading this thread as carefully as your implying you do. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:23:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote: So where might this deployable work? With some mechanics tweaks, hisec would be the perfect place for it.
Imagine you could drop one of these in a hisec mission hub or incursion system and for 1 hour it would collect 5% of all bounties/LP earned. After the hour is up the module fully onlines and becomes a warpable beacon for 15 minutes.
When you land in the site you have a faction warfare style button where as long as you are within a set range of it you collect a portion of the isk/LP pool. Everyone warping to the beacon can be shot without Concord intervention until they warp away and if you blow up a player's ship you are awarded 50% of whatever portion of the reward pool that player earned.
Just to keep things fun and more hisec noob oriented (we don't need lowsec v2.0 here) no forms of ewar or remote reps can be activated in the site and no fleet boosts/links are applied. However, once you warp to the site your ship cannot reactivate it's warp drive for 30 seconds so you are committed to the battle.
At the end of the 15 minutes any uncollected bounties/LP are automatically returned to the player who originally earned them and the process can start over if someone else onlines a different ESS. If the bounty pool expires before the 15 minutes are up the beacon goes offline, all target locks are broken, all ships in the site warp 1M km in random directions, and normal hisec aggression mechanics again apply.
Now you have a completely new conflict driver as well as opportunities for financially rewarding hisec PvP that doesn't involve griefing, ganking, wardecs, or being Falconed. Hisec players might actually have a positive PvP experience and look for ways to become further involved.
A deployable like the ESS could add content and value to the game if it is introduced into the right region of space with the right mechanics. Yes, we need farms and fields in nullsec but the ESS as it is currently designed doesn't create either. Nullsec is just not the right place for this deployable.
^^ This idea, I actually like, and approve of. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:25:00 -
[1374] - Quote
Omanth Bathana wrote:My problem with the ESS is that it is indicative of 1) a poor choice in direction for deployables as a category that doesn't support long-term use other than quality-of-life deployables like the MTU and Mobile Depot, 2) a fundamental breakdown of the channels CCP uses to communicate with the player base, and 3) a complete lack of understand of how null-sec personal income generation works and what can be done to make it more palatable to/enjoyable for players.
1) I am not seeing any opposition from you to the Small Mobile Siphon, Cynosural Inhibitor, or the Mobile Jump Unit. Are those all on the right track? Or perhaps at least one is a sidetrack. This unit fulfills one of the goals of 'Farm and Fields' as stated two and a half years ago in the summit meeting notes.
2) The plan for things like this was communicated two and a half years ago. We have heard about it since then. Perhaps 'Farm and Fields' became a code word for fun and joy for null sec where people forgot the fighting aspects it was supposed to encourage. That the null sec people missed the fight small gangs aspect in the plan might point to a lack of communication.
3) In the May 2011 Summit Meeting Minutes 'Farms and Fields' is specifically associated with small groups of players utilizing a piece of null sec and being disabled by small gangs. It does not say anything about making isk generation more fun. Perhaps it was assumed that null sec would want to fight for their income, and that would make it more palatable to/enjoyable for players. They did talk about changing rats to be more PvP like, adding low end minerals, messing with Technetium, and removing high end ores from wormholes.
Remove small gangs and this is a straight boost of isk with the potential for generating drama. With the right setup this is defendable against those gangs meeting the 'Farms and Fields' plan. Perhaps the 'Farms and Fields' idea is bad and was made by people with "a complete lack of understanding of how null-sec personal income generation works". |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3391
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:28:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I understand you feel that way, but disagree with you. It is an object anyone can deploy to increase their income. To benefit from it, you must harvest it after ratting for a while. It can be harvested by hostiles, too. So you must defend it or risk losing the isk you invested in it. How is this not a farms and field concept? Just because you won't risk it (because your allies will take advantage of you if you do?) doesn't make change its fundamental nature: A farms and field device that qualifies as a small gang objective.
But it doesn't increase your income. Right now it requires someone to be guarding it 100% of the time for 10% extra bounty. For it to increase anyone's income would require 9 people ratting for every 1 person defending. There isn't a single system in the game that can support 9 people ratting profitably. And thats assuming only one single attacker who can be beaten off by a single defender. The defensive effort increases with the number of attackers but the time to loot does not. While a single defender could concievably prevent a single interceptor from looting the ESS if you bring 2 or more attackers the defenders now have to have 20+ people ratting in a system to make it worthwhile to deploy (or 4-5 times the number even the best 0.0 system can support).
What is this, you have to defend it 100% of the time?
Scenario 1: You are part of a big alliance ratting. Hostiles enter the area and are reported on intel channels. Warp to it and hit share all bounties, and suddenly there isn't very much left in the thing for hostiles to confiscate.
Scenario 2: You are are ratting solo in the system. A hostile enters system, one of you warps to the POS, swaps to an inty, warps to the thing and the hostile has 20 seconds to stop you from hitting share all and reclaiming your bounties. Sure, they may be in an inty that can warp to it too, but they will often fail to hold you as your "button pushing" inty is certainly stabbed.
Scenario 3: A random solo neut routinely attempts to steal the loot. Next time they come into system, you surprise them with a direct counter to their ship. If they turn out to be a hotdropper, you can setup to hotdrop them back....
Scenario 4: You and 3 others are ratting in a system. One of you puts a noobship alt at zero on the beacon. If a hostile comes into system, he can instantly hit share all if anything lands on grid with the beacon.
There are plenty of ways this can work, you just have to think for 10 seconds on, "How can I reclaim those ticks". |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:29:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Kadl wrote:With the right setup this is defendable against those gangs meeting the 'Farms and Fields' plan. Perhaps the 'Farms and Fields' idea is bad and was made by people with "a complete lack of understanding of how null-sec personal income generation works". Actually, as previously pointed out, for the amount of 'farmers' vs 'defenders' ratio, this would quickly overwhelm what any system is capable of supporting for long enough to make it a viable option... unless you just plan on spending entire days farming belt rats *yawn* |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3391
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:31:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote: So where might this deployable work? With some mechanics tweaks, hisec would be the perfect place for it.
Imagine you could drop one of these in a hisec mission hub or incursion system and for 1 hour it would collect 5% of all bounties/LP earned. After the hour is up the module fully onlines and becomes a warpable beacon for 15 minutes.
When you land in the site you have a faction warfare style button where as long as you are within a set range of it you collect a portion of the isk/LP pool. Everyone warping to the beacon can be shot without Concord intervention until they warp away and if you blow up a player's ship you are awarded 50% of whatever portion of the reward pool that player earned.
Just to keep things fun and more hisec noob oriented (we don't need lowsec v2.0 here) no forms of ewar or remote reps can be activated in the site and no fleet boosts/links are applied. However, once you warp to the site your ship cannot reactivate it's warp drive for 30 seconds so you are committed to the battle.
At the end of the 15 minutes any uncollected bounties/LP are automatically returned to the player who originally earned them and the process can start over if someone else onlines a different ESS. If the bounty pool expires before the 15 minutes are up the beacon goes offline, all target locks are broken, all ships in the site warp 1M km in random directions, and normal hisec aggression mechanics again apply.
Now you have a completely new conflict driver as well as opportunities for financially rewarding hisec PvP that doesn't involve griefing, ganking, wardecs, or being Falconed. Hisec players might actually have a positive PvP experience and look for ways to become further involved.
A deployable like the ESS could add content and value to the game if it is introduced into the right region of space with the right mechanics. Yes, we need farms and fields in nullsec but the ESS as it is currently designed doesn't create either. Nullsec is just not the right place for this deployable.
^^ This idea, I actually like, and approve of.
So it is ok to have one fo these collect bounties in a highsec system, but not in a nullsec system? That's hypocritical to ssay the least. (note: I actually would LOVE to see these implementable in lowsec and highsec too). |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:32:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I understand you feel that way, but disagree with you. It is an object anyone can deploy to increase their income. To benefit from it, you must harvest it after ratting for a while. It can be harvested by hostiles, too. So you must defend it or risk losing the isk you invested in it. How is this not a farms and field concept? Just because you won't risk it (because your allies will take advantage of you if you do?) doesn't make change its fundamental nature: A farms and field device that qualifies as a small gang objective.
But it doesn't increase your income. Right now it requires someone to be guarding it 100% of the time for 10% extra bounty. For it to increase anyone's income would require 9 people ratting for every 1 person defending. There isn't a single system in the game that can support 9 people ratting profitably. And thats assuming only one single attacker who can be beaten off by a single defender. The defensive effort increases with the number of attackers but the time to loot does not. While a single defender could concievably prevent a single interceptor from looting the ESS if you bring 2 or more attackers the defenders now have to have 20+ people ratting in a system to make it worthwhile to deploy (or 4-5 times the number even the best 0.0 system can support). What is this, you have to defend it 100% of the time? Scenario 1: You are part of a big alliance ratting. Hostiles enter the area and are reported on intel channels. Warp to it and hit share all bounties, and suddenly there isn't very much left in the thing for hostiles to confiscate. Scenario 2: You are are ratting solo in the system. A hostile enters system, one of you warps to the POS, swaps to an inty, warps to the thing and the hostile has 20 seconds to stop you from hitting share all and reclaiming your bounties. Sure, they may be in an inty that can warp to it too, but they will often fail to hold you as your "button pushing" inty is certainly stabbed. Scenario 3: A random solo neut routinely attempts to steal the loot. Next time they come into system, you surprise them with a direct counter to their ship. If they turn out to be a hotdropper, you can setup to hotdrop them back.... Scenario 4: You and 3 others are ratting in a system. One of you puts a noobship alt at zero on the beacon. If a hostile comes into system, he can instantly hit share all if anything lands on grid with the beacon. There are plenty of ways this can work, you just have to think for 10 seconds on, "How can I reclaim those ticks". considering the time investment needed to make such a small % to pay off, that sounds like a hell of alot more hassle then it's worth. Quite honestly, the only place I see this thing being regularly used is by those uber large bloc null alliances which have total lockdowns for secure isk generation systems... ie, this makes life harder for the 'nubs' and easier for the ones the nubs already have issues with.
In short, CCP is showing favoritism? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
290
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:35:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Kadl wrote:1) I am not seeing any opposition from you to the Small Mobile Siphon, Cynosural Inhibitor, or the Mobile Jump Unit. Are those all on the right track? Or perhaps at least one is a sidetrack. This unit fulfills one of the goals of 'Farm and Fields' as stated two and a half years ago in the summit meeting notes..
Oh please.
It's essentially a Rube Goldberg machine. Yeah, it "fulfills it's purpose" but I think that's a pretty low standard to put on game design. |
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:37:00 -
[1380] - Quote
Meditril wrote:Tahnil wrote:My problem with ESS is of a different nature: I donGÇÿt like the way it is operated. Instead of a single transaction I would prefer a gas station approach: the longer somebody tries to steal ISK from it, the more ISK he gets. For example: ESS has stored 100 million ISK, I warp to it, start "hacking", then I get one transaction (or tag, whatever) for every x seconds. For example 1 million ISK in 10 seconds. It would take a longer time to deplete the ISK pool. This would allow for defenders to form a defense fleet. At the same time it would allow the attackers to better find the "pain point" of the defenders, and force a reaction.
This is only an example. Obviously you would have to find the right formula. Maybe the structure would have to boost income much more, in order to make it attractive. And maybe this should even be a permanent feature of the iHub, not a deployable. I donGÇÿt know.
This is an excellent improvement proposal! I second that!
I agree with this idea. The gas pump idea is a better idea.
Although I would RATHER just see the ESS as a deployable that harasses the locals like the Moon Siphon.
Much better thing to get the sand castle destroying going and people fighting over "king of the hill!"
!!!! |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
442
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:38:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scenario 1: You are part of a big alliance ratting. Hostiles enter the area and are reported on intel channels. Warp to it and hit share all bounties, and suddenly there isn't very much left in the thing for hostiles to confiscate.
So every time someone reports hostiles in intel I spend 5 minutes warping to my ESS and slowboating through the bubble then slowboating back and warping out again? Sounds like a great way to lose my ratting ship (and waste the 6 minutes of ratting time the 10% bounty bonus has bought me).
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 2: You are are ratting solo in the system. A hostile enters system, one of you warps to the POS, swaps to an inty, warps to the thing and the hostile has 20 seconds to stop you from hitting share all and reclaiming your bounties. Sure, they may be in an inty that can warp to it too, but they will often fail to hold you as your "button pushing" inty is certainly stabbed.
Again, considering warp time I'm losing 2-3 minutes (or 50% of my bonus for deploying the module) and risking losing my button pushing interceptor.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scenario 3: A random solo neut routinely attempts to steal the loot. Next time they come into system, you surprise them with a direct counter to their ship. If they turn out to be a hotdropper, you can setup to hotdrop them back....
And this involves how many accounts not ratting? Sat waiting around for a returning hostile who may never come? Sounds like a great fun thing to do in a computer game.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scenario 4: You and 3 others are ratting in a system. One of you puts a noobship alt at zero on the beacon. If a hostile comes into system, he can instantly hit share all if anything lands on grid with the beacon.
Cool, so this account I'm dedicating to sitting on the beacon 100% of the time, theres no way I could use that same account to make more than the 10% extra bounties the 4 of us are hauling?
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:48:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: considering the time investment needed to make such a small % to pay off, that sounds like a hell of alot more hassle then it's worth. Quite honestly, the only place I see this thing being regularly used is by those uber large bloc null alliances which have total lockdowns for secure isk generation systems... ie, this makes life harder for the 'nubs' and easier for the ones the nubs already have issues with.
In short, CCP is showing favoritism?
The time investment to make a small % of pay off? It takes you 60s to anchor this at the start of your farming session.
Anytime a hostile enters system, or when you are done ratting for the day, it takes you another 60 seconds to swap to an inty, warp on grid, and hit share all, AND scoop it to your cargo.
That's 120 seconds of your life. I'll double it in case your slow. So, in 4 minutes you make 5-10% more isk per tick. What's a good return on 4 minutes of your time? 75m isk / hour would mean this must net you 5 million isk to be worth your time. Gee, after 100 m isk in bounties, its paying that 75m isk / hr. At 200m isk in bounties, thats 150m isk per hour.
But it isn't worth your time?
And then there's the nonsense that only "large alliances" with "Secure isk generation" can benefit from this? Well, that just described half of nullsec. And the truth is, I already pointed out how a solo player could utilize this themselves. This is a straight up boon to ratting, and it is a great farms and fields device. The main animosity in this thread is from the 5% nerf to nullsec ratting that was brought up (and should be discussed independent of this module).
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:49:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: considering the time investment needed to make such a small % to pay off, that sounds like a hell of alot more hassle then it's worth. Quite honestly, the only place I see this thing being regularly used is by those uber large bloc null alliances which have total lockdowns for secure isk generation systems... ie, this makes life harder for the 'nubs' and easier for the ones the nubs already have issues with.
In short, CCP is showing favoritism?
The time investment to make a small % of pay off? It takes you 60s to anchor this at the start of your farming session. Anytime a hostile enters system, or when you are done ratting for the day, it takes you another 60 seconds to swap to an inty, warp on grid, and hit share all, AND scoop it to your cargo. That's 120 seconds of your life. I'll double it in case your slow. So, in 4 minutes you make 5-10% more isk per tick. What's a good return on 4 minutes of your time? 75m isk / hour would mean this must net you 5 million isk to be worth your time. Gee, after 100 m isk in bounties, its paying that 75m isk / hr. At 200m isk in bounties, thats 150m isk per hour. But it isn't worth your time? And then there's the nonsense that only "large alliances" with "Secure isk generation" can benefit from this? Well, that just described half of nullsec. And the truth is, I already pointed out how a solo player could utilize this themselves. This is a straight up boon to ratting, and it is a great farms and fields device. The main animosity in this thread is from the 5% nerf to nullsec ratting that was brought up (and should be discussed independent of this module). Your completely ignoring the time to travel through the bubble it generates for one thing,
but that aside, no, I mean the time investment to grind through the isk the % has to work off of. |
Fix Sov
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:50:00 -
[1384] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 1: You are part of a big alliance ratting. Hostiles enter the area and are reported on intel channels. Warp to it and hit share all bounties, and suddenly there isn't very much left in the thing for hostiles to confiscate. Or someone can get a new guy into an alliance and run around and pressing the "steal" button, and there's nothing that can be done about it once it does happen.
So why, pray tell, should I deploy it, instead of just not deploying it and not give a ****?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 2: You are are ratting solo in the system. A hostile enters system, one of you warps to the POS, swaps to an inty, warps to the thing and the hostile has 20 seconds to stop you from hitting share all and reclaiming your bounties. Sure, they may be in an inty that can warp to it too, but they will often fail to hold you as your "button pushing" inty is certainly stabbed. Or a blue enters and you have to dock/POS up, run out to it in an interceptor and press share, every single time (or risk that guy being that guy), thus wasting even more time.
So why, pray tell, should I deploy it, instead of just not deploying it and not give a ****?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 3: A random solo neut routinely attempts to steal the loot. Next time they come into system, you surprise them with a direct counter to their ship. If they turn out to be a hotdropper, you can setup to hotdrop them back.... This is assuming the same guy'll be in the same ship, or won't bring friends. And, it ignores the fact that if you do try to defend the ESS, not only have you put 15% of your bounties on the line (a pitiable amount), you've also had to put more money on the line to defend those 15% just to try to get an extra 10% of a pitiable amount).
So why, pray tell, should I deploy it, instead of just not deploying it and not give a ****?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 4: You and 3 others are ratting in a system. One of you puts a noobship alt at zero on the beacon. If a hostile comes into system, he can instantly hit share all if anything lands on grid with the beacon. So instead of multiboxing an anom, they should be multiboxing an anom and protecting the ESS, thus increasing the time between ticks?
So why, pray tell, should I deploy it, instead of just not deploying it and not give a ****? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:51:00 -
[1385] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The main animosity in this thread is from the 5% nerf to nullsec ratting that was brought up (and should be discussed independent of this module).
as for this statement... no, it shouldn't be discussed seperately, as it is part and parcel with this module, since they intend it to be the 'stick' to help drive us to use the 'carrot'. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:52:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: So it is ok to have one fo these collect bounties in a highsec system, but not in a nullsec system? That's hypocritical to ssay the least. (note: I actually would LOVE to see these implementable in lowsec and highsec too).
It's not about fairness, it's about if the mechanic works or not. In nullsec we dock up and stop ratting when neutrals come in system so this kind of mechanic will never work. I mean technically hisec mission/incursion runners could dock up and choose to give up 100% of their income when one of these is dropped like we would in nullsec but I'm guessing they won't opt to do that |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
292
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:56:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Pelea Ming wrote: considering the time investment needed to make such a small % to pay off, that sounds like a hell of alot more hassle then it's worth. Quite honestly, the only place I see this thing being regularly used is by those uber large bloc null alliances which have total lockdowns for secure isk generation systems... ie, this makes life harder for the 'nubs' and easier for the ones the nubs already have issues with.
In short, CCP is showing favoritism?
The time investment to make a small % of pay off? It takes you 60s to anchor this at the start of your farming session. Anytime a hostile enters system, or when you are done ratting for the day, it takes you another 60 seconds to swap to an inty, warp on grid, and hit share all, AND scoop it to your cargo. That's 120 seconds of your life. I'll double it in case your slow. So, in 4 minutes you make 5-10% more isk per tick. What's a good return on 4 minutes of your time? 75m isk / hour would mean this must net you 5 million isk to be worth your time. Gee, after 100 m isk in bounties, its paying that 75m isk / hr. At 200m isk in bounties, thats 150m isk per hour.
Sounds like bad game design.
Like adding a new, thoughtless click-fast to S&I to get a slightly improved yield, but a lesser yield if you don't do it at all.
Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:56:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scenario 1: You are part of a big alliance ratting. Hostiles enter the area and are reported on intel channels. Warp to it and hit share all bounties, and suddenly there isn't very much left in the thing for hostiles to confiscate.
So every time someone reports hostiles in intel I spend 5 minutes warping to my ESS and slowboating through the bubble then slowboating back and warping out again? Sounds like a great way to lose my ratting ship (and waste the 6 minutes of ratting time the 10% bounty bonus has bought me). Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 2: You are are ratting solo in the system. A hostile enters system, one of you warps to the POS, swaps to an inty, warps to the thing and the hostile has 20 seconds to stop you from hitting share all and reclaiming your bounties. Sure, they may be in an inty that can warp to it too, but they will often fail to hold you as your "button pushing" inty is certainly stabbed. Again, considering warp time I'm losing 2-3 minutes (or 50% of my bonus for deploying the module) and risking losing my button pushing interceptor. Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scenario 3: A random solo neut routinely attempts to steal the loot. Next time they come into system, you surprise them with a direct counter to their ship. If they turn out to be a hotdropper, you can setup to hotdrop them back....
And this involves how many accounts not ratting? Sat waiting around for a returning hostile who may never come? Sounds like a great fun thing to do in a computer game. Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scenario 4: You and 3 others are ratting in a system. One of you puts a noobship alt at zero on the beacon. If a hostile comes into system, he can instantly hit share all if anything lands on grid with the beacon.
Cool, so this account I'm dedicating to sitting on the beacon 100% of the time, theres no way I could use that same account to make more than the 10% extra bounties the 4 of us are hauling?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is, when you won't use the isk generating module because it could cost you a few minutes of your time and risks a button pushing stabbed inty being caught and destroyed? Especially since you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE IT.
Certainly there are more pressing things for you to gripe about, because your stance is unjustifiably absurd!
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
324
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:58:00 -
[1389] - Quote
Hate to break it to you, Gizznitt, but really, your last statement most directly applies to you, especially when your continueing to ignore some of the proposed facets of this new module when they're inconvenient to your proposed argument. |
Fix Sov
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:02:00 -
[1390] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is, when you won't use the isk generating module because it could cost you a few minutes of your time and risks a button pushing stabbed inty being caught and destroyed? Especially since you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE IT.
Certainly there are more pressing things for you to gripe about, because your stance is unjustifiably absurd! Um. The module is supposed to "make your isk-making more efficient", and we're saying "it'll make it less efficient because of things we'd have to do to protect said investment (every time blues or neuts or reds appear in system, for example)" and ... it's unjustifiably absurd?
Okay there bud. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:05:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: So it is ok to have one fo these collect bounties in a highsec system, but not in a nullsec system? That's hypocritical to ssay the least. (note: I actually would LOVE to see these implementable in lowsec and highsec too).
It's not about fairness, it's about if the mechanic works or not. In nullsec we dock up and stop ratting when neutrals come in system so this kind of mechanic will never work. I mean technically hisec mission/incursion runners could dock up and choose to give up 100% of their income when one of these is dropped like we would in nullsec but I'm guessing they won't opt to do that
Why do you dock up and stop ratting when neutrals come in system? More specifically, why don't you form up into PvP ships and blap them out of system?
The answer is pretty simple: 1.) You are attempting to make isk, and doing this hinders your isk making. 2.) You don't want to risk ships. 3.) The locals (especially small gangs) really can't harm you and yours in any manner what-so-ever.
So, you blueball them, they move on, and you then continue to rat and make isk.
Do you really think this is good game design? That everything is peachy-king? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:06:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Hate to break it to you, Gizznitt, but really, your last statement most directly applies to you, especially when your continueing to ignore some of the proposed facets of this new module when they're inconvenient to your proposed argument.
Please elaborate when I am ignoring about this new module. |
Rarnak Ki
Unforeseen Consequences. The Unthinkables
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:08:00 -
[1393] - Quote
The ESS is a terrible idea and it is unfathomable to me that CCP would release it. From a design perspective it is awful. I haven't seen anyone yet that can decisively tell whether this is supposed to be used by pirates or ratters. That confusion in itself will prevent its use almost universally.
If it is for the Ratters:
Right off the bat this "feature" nerfs ratting income 5% across the board. This indicates to me that it is designed to be used by ratters and the idea was that it would produce so much extra income that a universal nerf was required. It is either that or the designer just wanted to use the stick to entice ratters to use it. We don't play games to get the stick by the developers. We play for fun. Carrots are fun, not sticks. It seems to me that the authority for such a drastic change to one of the major sources of income in the game should not be held by every dev who wants to push through his or her pet project. Was there a comprehensive economic and behavioral study done on the effects of this? I seriously doubt it. It seems to me, with this feature, that CCP is flying blind.
5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.
Even then, the ratter now has to empty the tags from the ESS and haul them back to empire without dying just to get the isk that otherwise would be instantly added to his wallet. What happened to the idea that null sec should be sustainable on its own? Sustainability aside, this hauling takes more time and adds more risk, further taking away from any extra income this ESS might produce for him.
Conclusion: No ratter in the right mind would use this as a "benefit" to their ratting. What they get instead is an across the board 5% nerf in ratting income and then on top of that, pirates using this to steal more of their income and wantonly dropping these to further reduce their payouts to 80%.
If it is for Pirates:
I am a null sec pirate. I want to kill ratters. So I decide I am going to drop one of these ESS things in a ratting system and sit their cloaked until they come to kill it. Either that or I want to drop it to steal their income. They will know the instant I drop it. Will they a.) come fight me and try to kill it (because they do this a lot right?) b.) continue ratting at 80% of the payout and either allow me to take the isk or try and fight me for it at a later time (umm.. no) or C.) dock up or go rat in another system until I get bored and leave, after which they pop it, I get a red mark on my kb, and they continue on doing what they were doing, having only lost time.
What this actually does for me as a null sec pirate that preys on ratters, since this is a total nerf to ratting, is reduce the number of potential targets in null sec for me to prey on. This is exactly what I [i]don't/i] want.
Conclusion: I as a pirate will not bother with these just as I don't really bother with siphons. They may be used by groups who's job it is to move into a system to harass the locals for a while but that is it. It will not see widespread use outside of that. What it does instead is further reduce the shootable population of null sec.
So congratulations CCP! You have designed perhaps one of the worst features I have ever seen introduced into this game. It is a lose, lose, lose situation for every player. I have no idea what benefit you are seeing in it that we, the majority of players, are not. The ESS is going to make this game less fun for everyone.
If you want to build good deployables, that don't nerf both sides of the coin, I can think of several right off the top of my head, and I'm sure that others on here can do even better than me. Why not make deployable miners that sit in asteroid belts and slowly mine away? Deployable gate guns? Deployable reinforcement structures so that we can all get killmails when we reinforce things?
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
325
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:10:00 -
[1394] - Quote
to begin with... the bubble it forms around itself, for another, that it takes time to farm the rats to generate the bounty payouts for the module to work off of. sure, some rats will give a 1m payout, but overall, it still takes time to farm them over and over again, and even in that case, it's only a 100k isk 'bonus' you can get for it... and finally, the fact that the 5% bounty nerf is in essence part of this module, since it is intended to be CCP's 'stick' to provide us more reason to go for this presumed 'carrot'. |
Zircon Dasher
320
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:11:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: Or a blue enters and you have to dock/POS up, run out to it in an interceptor and press share, every single time (or risk that guy being that guy), thus wasting even more time.
So you and your corp already dock up when a blue enters system right? I mean.... you never know which blue is actually a safari alt..... Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
325
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:16:00 -
[1396] - Quote
also, side note... Deployable Gate Guns... YES! Peeps have been wanting these for YEARS! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:16:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is, when you won't use the isk generating module because it could cost you a few minutes of your time and risks a button pushing stabbed inty being caught and destroyed? Especially since you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE IT.
Certainly there are more pressing things for you to gripe about, because your stance is unjustifiably absurd! Um. The module is supposed to "make your isk-making more efficient", and we're saying "it'll make it less efficient because of things we'd have to do to protect said investment (every time blues or neuts or reds appear in system, for example)" and ... it's unjustifiably absurd? Okay there bud. Edit: Oh, and as for the "you don't even have to use it" ... we're saying it's an absolute **** addition because of reasons x, y and z, and you're continually saying "well you don't have to use it!". Okay there bud, we won't, so it won't be a "small gang objective", so it'll be a complete waste of time and could've just been changed in its entirety with "we'll reduce payouts by 5% have fun with that" and wasted a fucktonne less developer/artist/etc time. Time which could've been spent fixing things like oh I dunno THE SOV SYSTEM.
You can't change the past. This has already been developed, meaning CCP didn't fix the Sov System like you wanted, and the developer time spent on it has already been paid out.
So, you really have two options:
1.) Make suggestions to improve it so it gains utility within the current environment. 2.) Demand it be removed from game, giving you no value for the money that has already been spent on it.
I see no reason to go with option 2, especially since I see some utility in the module, even if it will only be used by niche groups. Your mention of, it is a **** addition because of X, Y, and Z is a good step along path 1: -- You risk too much for too little reward. -- It is too easily/quickly accessed, making it hard to defend. -- It isn't a small gang objective, because it is unreasonable to defend.
These were listed in Soni's feedback thread, something knows he has to work on. Can you point to other reasons why this is a **** idea? Can you see any ways this breaks the game? What would you like tweaked about the module to make it worth your time? That is information that is helpful and moves the concept along.
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:25:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: So it is ok to have one fo these collect bounties in a highsec system, but not in a nullsec system? That's hypocritical to ssay the least. (note: I actually would LOVE to see these implementable in lowsec and highsec too).
It's not about fairness, it's about if the mechanic works or not. In nullsec we dock up and stop ratting when neutrals come in system so this kind of mechanic will never work. I mean technically hisec mission/incursion runners could dock up and choose to give up 100% of their income when one of these is dropped like we would in nullsec but I'm guessing they won't opt to do that Why do you dock up and stop ratting when neutrals come in system? More specifically, why don't you form up into PvP ships and blap them out of system? The answer is pretty simple: 1.) You are attempting to make isk, and doing this hinders your isk making. 2.) You don't want to risk ships. 3.) The locals (especially small gangs) really can't harm you and yours in any manner what-so-ever. So, you blueball them, they move on, and you then continue to rat and make isk. Do you really think this is good game design? That everything is peachy-king?
No, people dock because of cynos, blobbing, and blops drops. |
Fix Sov
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:27:00 -
[1399] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:1.) Make suggestions to improve it so it gains utility within the current environment. 2.) Demand it be removed from game, giving you no value for the money that has already been spent on it. Given the alternatives of having something that's absolute **** using every available metric imaginable, I'd rather have it removed from the game, yes.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Your mention of, it is a **** addition because of X, Y, and Z is a good step along path 1: -- You risk too much for too little reward. -- It is too easily/quickly accessed, making it hard to defend. -- It isn't a small gang objective, because it is unreasonable to defend.
These were listed in Soni's feedback thread, something knows he has to work on. Can you point to other reasons why this is a **** idea? Can you see any ways this breaks the game? What would you like tweaked about the module to make it worth your time? That is information that is helpful and moves the concept along. If it had been turned into something which was easily reinforcable by a small gang, and payouts would be something like 25% (or whatever) of today's payouts, and the module being online would turn it back into 100% payouts, but incapping it would offline it (and reduce payouts to 25%), then it would be a valuable "small gangs target". The current edition, where everyone, including blues or even the same people you're ratting with can **** you over, be it on purpose or by accident, all for a ludicrously small ROI, is ****. It's stupid, it's ****, and it should never have been thought of or developed in this fashion, and it cannot be salvaged into a good mechanic without scrapping more or less in its entirety.
And all of this has been mentioned repeatedly, and SoniClover has ignored it fully. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:27:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Good post, but a few things I want to nitpick:
Rarnak Ki wrote:The ESS is a terrible idea and it is unfathomable to me that CCP would release it. From a design perspective it is awful. I haven't seen anyone yet that can decisively tell whether this is supposed to be used by pirates or ratters. That confusion in itself will prevent its use almost universally.
If it is for the Ratters:
Right off the bat this "feature" nerfs ratting income 5% across the board. This indicates to me that it is designed to be used by ratters and the idea was that it would produce so much extra income that a universal nerf was required. It is either that or the designer just wanted to use the stick to entice ratters to use it. We don't play games to get the stick by the developers. We play for fun. Carrots are fun, not sticks. It seems to me that the authority for such a drastic change to one of the major sources of income in the game should not be held by every dev who wants to push through his or her pet project. Was there a comprehensive economic and behavioral study done on the effects of this? I seriously doubt it. It seems to me, with this feature, that CCP is flying blind.
I'm not a fan of the 5% base nerf to income... and that should be addressed.
Rarnak Ki wrote: 5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.
Even then, the ratter now has to empty the tags from the ESS and haul them back to empire without dying just to get the isk that otherwise would be instantly added to his wallet. What happened to the idea that null sec should be sustainable on its own? Sustainability aside, this hauling takes more time and adds more risk, further taking away from any extra income this ESS might produce for him.
This is incorrect. At anytime, you can hit "share bounties" to cash out and scoop up the module, thereby leaving you with an immediately profit. The isk is transfered DIRECTLY to the ratters who contributed, meaning there is no tag you have to return to highsec. In other words, you make a profit as long as someone else doesn't access it and hit "Take All".
Rarnak Ki wrote: Conclusion: No ratter in the right mind would use this as a "benefit" to their ratting. What they get instead is an across the board 5% nerf in ratting income and then on top of that, pirates using this to steal more of their income and wantonly dropping these to further reduce their payouts to 80%.
Given your misunderstanding of the payout mechanics, I feel your conclusion if fallacious. The 5% nerf inratting income on top of it is sad, but that is a separate issue.
Rarnak Ki wrote: If it is for Pirates:
I am a null sec pirate. I want to kill ratters. So I decide I am going to drop one of these ESS things in a ratting system and sit their cloaked until they come to kill it. Either that or I want to drop it to steal their income. They will know the instant I drop it. Will they a.) come fight me and try to kill it (because they do this a lot right?) b.) continue ratting at 80% of the payout and either allow me to take the isk or try and fight me for it at a later time (umm.. no) or C.) dock up or go rat in another system until I get bored and leave, after which they pop it, I get a red mark on my kb, and they continue on doing what they were doing, having only lost time.
What this actually does for me as a null sec pirate that preys on ratters, since this is a total nerf to ratting, is reduce the number of potential targets in null sec for me to prey on. This is exactly what I [i]don't/i] want.
Conclusion: I as a pirate will not bother with these just as I don't really bother with siphons. They may be used by groups who's job it is to move into a system to harass the locals for a while but that is it. It will not see widespread use outside of that. What it does instead is further reduce the shootable population of null sec.
So congratulations CCP! You have designed perhaps one of the worst features I have ever seen introduced into this game. It is a lose, lose, lose situation for every player. I have no idea what benefit you are seeing in it that we, the majority of players, are not. The ESS is going to make this game less fun for everyone.
If you want to build good deployables, that don't nerf both sides of the coin, I can think of several right off the top of my head, and I'm sure that others on here can do even better than me. Why not make deployable miners that sit in asteroid belts and slowly mine away? Deployable gate guns? Deployable reinforcement structures so that we can all get killmails when we reinforce things?
This isn't for pirates directly. Its benefits are specifically setup for the Ratters to utilize, and a pirate may benefit from this by taking the ratters isk assuming they can get to it before the ratters do. |
|
Zircon Dasher
320
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:29:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Rarnak Ki wrote:
5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.
Except that you get 100% of your current ISK the second it activates. 80% will be in your wallet and 20% in the EES. The 1% level ups are over and above that amount. According to SoniClover 'several' people ratting will max out the bonus in about 30min. Assuming 20min ticks that means about 2 ticks before you are at 105%. Assuming you get an extra 2mil/tick/character that means it should take about 1-1.5 hours to break even Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
914
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:31:00 -
[1402] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Quote:During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area. That's actually staggeringly huge Not particularly, since it's the only significant ISK faucet in null. Last we got any numbers on it, the system coughed up about 900bn ISK daily in the form of bounties GÇö that would mean ~650bn came from null. Compare this to the total injection of roughly 2 trillion ISK daily. A third of that is null bounties; nearly two thirds come from highsec ventures (the only other large separate post was ~250bn from w-space). The most recent figures I am aware of are the figures from March 2012 to March 2013. If you have more recent figures please reference them.
These figures show an average of about 50 Trillion a month isk Faucet. Of which Bounties (I.E. NPC kills) are averaging 30-31 trillion.
So Bounties are about a Trillion a day, out of 1.66. Trillion a day.
Meaning Null Bounties are 72% of 1 Trillion a day. Or 720 Billion a day. 43% of the total isk Faucet in the game. Low & High Bounties (Remember Low sec exists, we have no separation of that figure from high at this point) Account for a further 280 Billion. 17% WH Space averages about 330 Billion a day. (10 Trillion a month) 20% Incursions average about 167 Billion a day. (5 Trillion a month average, though there was a slight growth trend near the end, but that may be at it's limit, lack of figures to extrapolate further) Or a mere 10%. 1/4 of what Null Bounties generate. Guess we just debunked that myth. Though it is fair to say High Sec will account for most incursion income. Then rewards, ship insurance, & NPC sales of items like overseer effects account for the last 10%. Again we have no separation from Null, Low & High in these figures. (Hello insured dreads)
So, lets stop the rubbish that high sec is an Isk Faucet and null is all innocent shall we. Null is the single largest isk faucet region in the game. Even if we attribute all the rewards, insurance & say Low Sec earned no bounties (Which would be patently false) it still doesn't add up to as much as Null generates.
Does this justify a nerf to bounties. Who knows. Maybe, Maybe not. But if it does, I agree, they should say so with a fresh batch of economic figures to show it. And not tie it in with the ESS. The only income 'nerf' that should come attached to the ESS itself is the 'at risk' part of the income. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:38:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: 1.) the bubble it forms around itself
The buble that it forms around itself was originally intended to have ships in a semi-trapped while accessing it. It has been pointed out that inties bypass the bubble, and one top of their great agility and speed, wouldn't be hindered by this at all. This was directly addressed as something CCP is looking into:
CCP SoniClover wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.
also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft? Based on feedback, we're looking at three things: - Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased - Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal - Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.
Pelea Ming wrote: 2.) that it takes time to farm the rats to generate the bounty payouts for the module to work off of. sure, some rats will give a 1m payout, but overall, it still takes time to farm them over and over again, and even in that case, it's only a 100k isk 'bonus' you can get for it...
I'm not sure I understand you. According to the dev blog, the ESS immediately starts giving a 5% increase in bounties (assuming you hit the share all option). Then, over time, this benefit increases to a 10% increase in bounties.
Pelea Ming wrote: 3.) finally, the fact that the 5% bounty nerf is in essence part of this module, since it is intended to be CCP's 'stick' to provide us more reason to go for this presumed 'carrot'.
Again, and I have acknowledge this, the 5% bounty nerf sucks. But that isn't a function of the module. CCP mentioned it here, but according to the post in the german thread, 72% of all bounty income generates from nullsec ratting, and they wish to knock down the nullsec isk faucet. This can be viewed as a completely separate issue from the ESS.
|
Rarnak Ki
Unforeseen Consequences. The Unthinkables
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:49:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Rarnak Ki wrote: 5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.
Even then, the ratter now has to empty the tags from the ESS and haul them back to empire without dying just to get the isk that otherwise would be instantly added to his wallet. What happened to the idea that null sec should be sustainable on its own? Sustainability aside, this hauling takes more time and adds more risk, further taking away from any extra income this ESS might produce for him.
This is incorrect. At anytime, you can hit "share bounties" to cash out and scoop up the module, thereby leaving you with an immediately profit. The isk is transfered DIRECTLY to the ratters who contributed, meaning there is no tag you have to return to highsec. In other words, you make a profit as long as someone else doesn't access it and hit "Take All". Rarnak Ki wrote: Conclusion: No ratter in the right mind would use this as a "benefit" to their ratting. What they get instead is an across the board 5% nerf in ratting income and then on top of that, pirates using this to steal more of their income and wantonly dropping these to further reduce their payouts to 80%.
Given your misunderstanding of the payout mechanics, I feel your conclusion if fallacious. The 5% nerf inratting income on top of it is sad, but that is a separate issue.
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I was wrong on the way the payout works. What happens if the ESS is destroyed before anyone takes a payout? It seems to me that risk is still increasing over time while the benefit is not.
|
Zircon Dasher
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:53:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Destruction resets the payout level but leaves the pool untouched Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3392
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:54:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Rarnak Ki wrote:
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I was wrong on the way the payout works. What happens if the ESS is destroyed before anyone takes a payout? It seems to me that risk is still increasing over time while the benefit is not.
I'm not certain what is intended, but last reported (from sisi testing) was that you could deploy another ESS, and the unbaid bounties would be retained and available for distribution.
Generally speaking, people would steal the isk-tag before destroying it if they were going that route. To be honest though, as a small gang PvPer, I wouldn't destroy one of these. I'd leave it standing with the hope I could steal the bounties at a later date. I know some people prefer salting the land, but I'm not one of them.
*edit*
Zircon Dasher wrote:Destruction resets the payout level but leaves the pool untouched
A reset payout is still an immediate 5% increase in bounties. |
Fix Sov
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:58:00 -
[1407] - Quote
I guess Giznitt Malikite didn't like my idea, since he's ignoring it. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3393
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:02:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: If it had been turned into something which was easily reinforcable by a small gang, and payouts would be something like 25% (or whatever) of today's payouts, and the module being online would turn it back into 100% payouts, but incapping it would offline it (and reduce payouts to 25%), then it would be a valuable "small gangs target". The current edition, where everyone, including blues or even the same people you're ratting with can **** you over, be it on purpose or by accident, all for a ludicrously small ROI, is ****. It's stupid, it's ****, and it should never have been thought of or developed in this fashion, and it cannot be salvaged into a good mechanic without scrapping more or less in its entirety.
And all of this has been mentioned repeatedly, and SoniClover has ignored it fully.
I'm trying to understand this statement:
You want bounties in system reduced to 25% of their current levels. Then, deploying one of these will increase it back to 100%. But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%.
And how long and how easily is this RF'd for? Frankly, this is extremely harsh compared to the current version of the module, and essentially forces every nullsec ratter out there to deploy an ESS if they want to rat in a system.
Either I misunderstand what you are suggesting, or ... wow... that's a brutal and mean mechanic. I much prefer the current version to yours, as I value the fact that it is optional, but beneficial if you risk using it.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10019
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:02:00 -
[1409] - Quote
hamfisted changes like this are why my income depends on the gullibility of random eve players Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:06:00 -
[1410] - Quote
just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included? |
|
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises The Marmite Collective
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:08:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Wow, I'm all for new goodies, but honestly... These 3 new deployables will probably only get used by maybe 1 - 3% of the Eve population. The ESS could be a good cause for conflict if it wasn't just limited to Null. And yeah, Interceptors having bubble nullification kinda makes them OP, and the ESS just only highlights that more... Cause it wasn't good enough that Inty's are easily the fastest ship in the game, they had to be nigh uncatchable. Honeslty, don't you guys see obvious flaws by now? Listen to the testers/ read feedback before moving forward? eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1677
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:09:00 -
[1412] - Quote
everybody we need to thank CCP SoniClover for comming out with the most hair brained idea and posting it as a dev blog... he has now edged CCP Zulu's carrier nerf from 2007 http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/capital-ships-in-eve-whats-up-doc/ There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Fix Sov
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:09:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Fix Sov wrote: If it had been turned into something which was easily reinforcable by a small gang, and payouts would be something like 25% (or whatever) of today's payouts, and the module being online would turn it back into 100% payouts, but incapping it would offline it (and reduce payouts to 25%), then it would be a valuable "small gangs target". The current edition, where everyone, including blues or even the same people you're ratting with can **** you over, be it on purpose or by accident, all for a ludicrously small ROI, is ****. It's stupid, it's ****, and it should never have been thought of or developed in this fashion, and it cannot be salvaged into a good mechanic without scrapping more or less in its entirety.
And all of this has been mentioned repeatedly, and SoniClover has ignored it fully.
I'm trying to understand this statement: You want bounties in system reduced to 25% of their current levels. Then, deploying one of these will increase it back to 100%. But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%. And how long and how easily is this RF'd for? Frankly, this is extremely harsh compared to the current version of the module, and essentially forces every nullsec ratter out there to deploy an ESS if they want to rat in a system. Either I misunderstand what you are suggesting, or ... wow... that's a brutal and mean mechanic. I much prefer the current version to yours, as I value the fact that it is optional, but beneficial if you risk using it. *edit* my response was slow, because I was honestly having trouble understanding it. It was radical enough I just didn't comprehend it right away. I said "25% (or whatever)", meaning it was a placeholder figure, but yes, it would be harsh to give an incentive to actually keep the module online and un-reinforced (i.e. there would have to be an actual reason to defend it). The absolute **** increase in rewards the ESS would bring, combined with the ease with which that increase is turned into a loss, means that the ESS would most likely be a detrimental thing to deploy for someone living in a system.
And I didn't talk about how to reinforce it, because there are multiple ways of doing it, either through hacking or shooting or whatever other idea someone might come up with, the actual minute details of that doesn't really matter at this point. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
916
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:10:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included? CCP considers low sec a separate area of space. Though if it is linked to anything it is linked to high Sec, as both are 'Empire Space' rather than 'Lawless'.
PvP Bounties aren't included in any of this as they aren't created isk. but simply paid from one player to another. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3393
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:11:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included?
Lowsec is considered Empire space, as concord still has a role there. This is why there are gate guns, sec status hits, and the like. Furthermore, the dev blog specifically states it can only be deployed in nullsec.
I have no idea if PvP claimed bounties are included. This is a question CCP should answer, or we could test it out on the test server. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:12:00 -
[1416] - Quote
sorry, Gizz, I wasn't aware inty's are immune to bubbles now... wtf, CCP, that was a ~really~ ****** move to make on those hulls! |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:14:00 -
[1417] - Quote
anyways, I do appreciate the clarification on this all, and I now find myself saying this... do whatever you want with the module, but I think the 5% nerf was a very sad 'stick' to go and beat us with (again, saying this as someone who farms most of his isk these days in HS, so not directly impacted by it) |
Zircon Dasher
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:18:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Rumor is that you can park on the structure. Meaning that scary bubble immune inty will have to burn something down before it can touch the bacon button. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:19:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Also, I still say this thing is going to only be mostly used by the 'big boys' who can hold systems secure from outside interference to successfully use it (like goons, and etc). |
Fix Sov
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:20:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%. *edit* You mean someone simply incaps it, and then has to repair it (no RF timers).
Or it can be hacked, and be offline for x hours or whatever, I don't care.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:And how long and how easily is this RF'd for? How much HP are we talking to rep it up here, and is it easier to finish it off or rep it up?
I see no point in talking raw HP figures, since it's much more pertinent to talk about how long a response time someone should have, and if we're talking hacking then it's easy, if we're talking shooting it to incap it then we have to discuss how many people we should assume should be called "a small gang", which is a moving target.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Frankly, this is extremely harsh compared to the current version of the module, and essentially forces every nullsec ratter out there to deploy an ESS if they want to rat in a system. That's the point.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I much prefer the current version to yours, as I value the fact that it is optional, but beneficial if you risk using it. The level of benefits are questionable, at best. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1677
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:33:00 -
[1421] - Quote
hmm that hacking game might be an interesting way to make it so anyone can steel from the ess. basically the ess has the standings of the persons corp who lauched it. think of how a wreak works when you kill something is it white or yellow?
based on the standing if they are blue they can access it and if they are nuet or red they have to hack it.
the thing about hacking is you need to fill midslots to be effective and be in a specialized ship.
which would give the owner of the ess time to reship and kill the hacker if he is unescorted.
i think that couppled with mynnna's idea for lp instead of extra isk would make the ess a really fun addition and actually generate some of that mad old school solo pvp i remember back in 2007 There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Zircon Dasher
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:34:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: Which means spending an account sitting on the structure, instead of either not paying for a second (or whatever) account, or having that account help the first account in making the ticks roll in quicker, thus earning more than if you deployed the structure and had to babysit it all the time.
Yup.
Given the efficiency caps on systems some people will find having that alt better employed shooting and whatnot. Other people can field more alts than the system really allows in which case that alt is best suited camping the structure. I am not sure what the problem is.
EDIT: additionally, since the alt takes no attention until the red/neut show up in system some people would rather slap the alt on the structure just because they do not want the effort of actively using it/ can give the off-grid booster something to do. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Fix Sov
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:41:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Yup.
Given the efficiency caps on systems some people will find having that alt better employed shooting and whatnot. Other people can field more alts than the system really allows in which case that alt is best suited camping the structure. I am not sure what the problem is. The problem is that the part where some of the bounty can be stolen by blue, neut or red (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button) is a bullshit mechanic which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal, because overall it'll be a lot better to just not erect the ESS in soniclover's current form.
I.e. the problem is a fundamental flaw in the entire reasoning behind deployable's creation. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
297
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:50:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button)
Are you SURE you want to take ALL the ISK?
[CONFIRM?] |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:51:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%. *edit* You mean someone simply incaps it, and then has to repair it (no RF timers).
Or it can be hacked, and be offline for x hours or whatever, I don't care.
I have thought of other mechanics like the one you are suggesting here, and the mechanics CCP suggested are superior to yours. The x hour mechanic forces people to suffer for something they could not control. The scenario: raiders come through and lock ratting in a region a half hour before you log on. Now you suffer even though you would have fought them off. The ESS gives you control. Start the ESS when you start ratting. Fight people while you are logged in. Stop the ESS when you are done. You controlled your fate.
Your example shows that you don't like the risks to rewards for this structure, not that you are opposed to structures like this. If you can get CCP to move on the rewards balance then great. My focus is on the making the device more defensible because I am cynical about a rewards argument swaying CCP at this point. I think the 5% nerf is unnecessary, because with the current boost suggested it will be used by a very small percent of people (highly defended areas, or random dead ends no one goes anyway). I think that CCP is scared that the bonuses will be used in many more places and that will increase their null sec isk faucet. |
Zircon Dasher
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:54:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: The problem is that the part where some of the bounty can be stolen by blue, neut or red (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button) is a bullshit mechanic
Glad to see we have finally boiled the issue down to its core. I applaud your honesty.
Fix Sov wrote: which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal
Did you really expect a single addition to the game would make F&F "reach its goal"? Sounds like you want a Jesus Feature...
Fix Sov wrote: because overall it'll be a lot better to just not erect the ESS in soniclover's current form.
For you that may be perhaps true. For others it would be silly not to drop one.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:56:00 -
[1427] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:The problem is that the part where some of the bounty can be stolen by blue, neut or red (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button) is a bullshit mechanic which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal, because overall it'll be a lot better to just not erect the ESS in soniclover's current form.
The drama issue is important, and a good one that you raised. Much earlier someone suggested adding hacking to steal. Thus to make a mistake you would have to activate a module and actively hack the system instead of push button for everyone to receive their money. Given this issue it might make sense to at least require a confirmation dialog to steal. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
298
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:09:00 -
[1428] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Fix Sov wrote:The problem is that the part where some of the bounty can be stolen by blue, neut or red (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button) is a bullshit mechanic which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal, because overall it'll be a lot better to just not erect the ESS in soniclover's current form. The drama issue is important, and a good one that you raised. Much earlier someone suggested adding hacking to steal. Thus to make a mistake you would have to activate a module and actively hack the system instead of push button for everyone to receive their money. Given this issue it might make sense to at least require a confirmation dialog to steal.
I agree that increasing the complexity of this deployable is the correct approach.
Can we as a group think of any more random mechanics to attach to this thing? |
Fix Sov
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:09:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Fix Sov wrote: which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal Did you really expect a single addition to the game would make F&F "reach its goal"? Sounds like you want a Jesus Feature... Notice how I said help reach its goal, and not actually would reach its goal?
Kadl wrote:I have thought of other mechanics like the one you are suggesting here, and the mechanics CCP suggested are superior to yours. The x hour mechanic forces people to suffer for something they could not control. The scenario: raiders come through and lock ratting in a region a half hour before you log on. Now you suffer even though you would have fought them off. Solution attempt: if you're online and in a system that's having its ratting bounty thingy incapped/hacked, regardless of whether you leave or go offline between the time they start and the time they actually incap/hack it, you're marked with the coward flag and given a bounty penalty in that system. You can go to a different system and still receive full bounty, but in that system you didn't defend, you're not going to get full bounty for x period. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Zircon Dasher
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:23:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: Notice how I said help reach its goal, and not actually would reach its goal?
Meh. That seems like a fair complaint so long as you don't think about it. The fact of the matter is that players do not know how this item works into a larger system of changes. In other words, to be blunt, the player base does not have a clue* about whether it helps or hinders F&F until a more complete picture has been shown to them.
* Assuming the merry band of players who have been briefed by the DEVs have not been breaking their NDA...... Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8550
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:37:00 -
[1431] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Also, I still say this thing is going to only be mostly used by the 'big boys' who can hold systems secure from outside interference to successfully use it (like goons, and etc). Even we're not going to use it. My EVE Videos |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 03:39:00 -
[1432] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Also, I still say this thing is going to only be mostly used by the 'big boys' who can hold systems secure from outside interference to successfully use it (like goons, and etc). Even we're not going to use it. Question, if what you stood to gain was more than the potential loss, would that encourage you to try it? |
Command Execute
I Sneezed Nerfed Alliance Go Away
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 04:03:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Okay im not going to make a wall of text and if CCP is not reading the 72 pages of people saying this is a bad idea then we are all screwed BUT i feel i have to say something just the same.
THIS IS A VERY VERY VERY BAD IDEA CCP.
http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/icelandic-police-raid-ccps-headquarters.html
Also i think the EVE Onion guys got it right for a change. |
Llyona
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Brothers of Tangra
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:29:00 -
[1434] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Raminather wrote:How about instead of further screwing with stuff that is working you finish the station walking that was supposed to be done already.....
Priorities in the dev department are flawed. Fix the current content and finish the stuff promised before adding new stuff to further screw people. W.i.S is not a priority... and hasn't been for quite some time.
I think that's exactly the point he's making. CCP is legendary for their ability to release half arsed garbage and then just leaving it that way.
From all the bugs reported thus far by players, this ESS smacks of another qualifier for the scrap heap of other half finished, or never even functioning projects. Need I really list them?
EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8551
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:03:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Also, I still say this thing is going to only be mostly used by the 'big boys' who can hold systems secure from outside interference to successfully use it (like goons, and etc). Even we're not going to use it. Question, if what you stood to gain was more than the potential loss, would that encourage you to try it? In theory it already is. In practice, however, it won't be.
If what we stood to gain was significantly greater than the potential loss, and if we actually had a decent chance of that gain, then yeah it would. My EVE Videos |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
920
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:18:00 -
[1436] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: In theory it already is. In practice, however, it won't be.
If what we stood to gain was significantly greater than the potential loss, and if we actually had a decent chance of that gain, then yeah it would.
I think you need to maths check James.
Even if we ignore the 5% and attribute that to an overall Isk Faucet Nerf and nothing to do with the ESS. We start at 95% as a result. Drop your ESS, that's 80% so you have 15% at risk. + 30 million investment. At maximum you get 105%. So that's a potential 10% gain.
Now, normally I'd consider 15% greater than 10%. And due to the density issues of Null systems meaning more than 2 people ratting is normally over capacity in most systems that 30 million is also worth a few percent. (If you could put 20 ratters into every single system and more into the good systems, that 30 million becomes much less significant overall).
So you are risking between 15-20% for a potential 5-10% gain.
I.E. Potential gains could triple. At least double for sure. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8552
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:36:00 -
[1437] - Quote
It's not my math that's wrong, it's your disagreement over the word "significantly" and the fact that you ignored the rest of my post.
Edit: Wait, what are you talking about? You're essentially agreeing with me but you're saying I need a maths check? My EVE Videos |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
606
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:42:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Even if we ignore the 5% and attribute that to an overall Isk Faucet Nerf and nothing to do with the ESS. We start at 95% as a result. Drop your ESS, that's 80% so you have 15% at risk. + 30 million investment. The problem here is that the 5% nerf is the stick to make SoniClovers pet project desirable. That Agony guy is consistently making the same mistake, by seperating a key aspect of the ESS from the rest you are giving the impression that 1) nullsec needs to be poorer in value (And drone regions moreso), 2) that only nullsec bounties can be a problem, 3) the ESS is "innocent" in terms of the nerf - which it isn't. If it was, the 5% nerf would be everywhere, and SoniClover would have given a justification for it (In this thread he lied to us instead and tried to contradict the economist), and instead of consistently using 20% from 100, not 15% from 100, SoniClover has clearly not meant this to be a new level of bounties. It's the stick that is to drive his pet project, it's not from an economic rationale.
So let's call a spade a spade. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
921
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 06:49:00 -
[1439] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It's not my math that's wrong, it's your disagreement over the word "significantly" and the fact that you ignored the rest of my post.
Edit: Wait, what are you talking about? You're essentially agreeing with me but you're saying I need a maths check? I'm agreeing it's not worth it currently yes, However you said (possibly not what you meant to say?) that the rewards exceed what is at risk. Where as the reverse is true.
If someone steals from you, you loose 15% of your income below not using it. If you get perfect payout, you gain an extra 10% income above not using it at all. So currently assuming 50/50 return, you loose money. Not even counting the cost of the ESS.
So to make it worth it assuming a mechanic that gives a reasonable chance of 50/50 getting your payout/having it stolen, you need to about triple the potential rewards. Which given Null Bounties already are the largest isk faucet, means you have to go in the direction of Mynnna's proposal and have that extra payout as LP or some non isk faucet method. Or risk causing isk inflation.
----Edit---- To Alphea. Null Bounties are 42% (Or higher) of the total Isk Faucets in EVE. So, it may be that a 5% nerf on Null & only Null Bounties is actually needed to ease pressure on the system. That, I don't know, they haven't released enough figures for that recently to really have a clue. But, I'm ignoring that 5% because it's irrelevant in terms of risk/reward of the ESS. It happens before you apply the ESS. So the ESS actually becomes a 15% penalty, 5-10% bonus item. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8553
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 07:07:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:I'm agreeing it's not worth it currently yes, However you said (possibly not what you meant to say?) that the rewards exceed what is at risk. Where as the reverse is true. Yeah you're right, that's not what I meant to say. I've been sick for the past few days, so my posts have generally been of a lower quality than usual. My EVE Videos |
|
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 07:45:00 -
[1441] - Quote
How many times can it be said. It is just not worth deploying. Currently ceptors have made no system in space unreachable or safe. Ratters by nature want to fly below the radar, they are not going to deploy something that screams isk rich ratters here come and kill us. For F-sakes it even give the names to whoever wants to look of exactly which pilots are ratters in a system. The intel the ESS gives out is mindboggling. This is an offensive doctrine tool pure and simple. By that I mean only enemy fleets will deploy them. Because if I was a ratter the last thing I would want is for a roaming captor fleet to think I was a juicy target. Screw the money the intel is priceless New spai career selling ESS data to the highest bidder |
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 08:03:00 -
[1442] - Quote
The siphon unit was a terrible idea, a sort of casino game-play negating all other aspects of the game. And now you are expanding on it...WTF is going on with you guys at CCP?
I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 08:17:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Rarnak Ki wrote:
5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.
Except that you get 100% of your current ISK the second it activates. 80% will be in your wallet and 20% in the EES. The 1% level ups are over and above that amount. According to SoniClover 'several' people ratting will max out the bonus in about 30min. Assuming 20min ticks that means about 2 ticks before you are at 105%. Assuming you get an extra 2mil/tick/character that means it should take about 1-1.5 hours to break even. EDIT: Assuming 3-4 characters
What SoniClover said was that each bounty payout has a chance of triggering a tick. Yay for more chance based mechanics in New Eden. I did a run at the maths, and presumed that a pair of Ishtar's grouped together for ratting. Speculating on what was stated, that it could take a single player an hour or more, but several players could knock it up in 1/2 an hour, I gave each tick a 1% bonus, and ran that forward. It will take 3 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting, according to the new mechanics, to reach break even with where we are at today. It will take another 5 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting for the Ishtar pair (presuming each pulls 20mil/isk/tick) to PAY for the upgrade with the 'bonus isk' generated by this device.
Let us suppose that we have a system that can support 4 ishtars. That's really pushing most single systems, but lets go with it. We will let each tick give +2% and see what happens...Its only about an HOUR and a HALF of uninterrupted ratting, with a total of 4 HOURS to pay for the 'upgrade'. None of these considerations take into account the cost/logistics of getting the upgrade into nullsec to begin with.
If you have to clear the cache anytime during ramp up and reset, then the nightmare starts all over again. Even if the ESS lasts long enough to pay for itself without getting blapped, a couple of people are going to have to agree to work together for 4 HOURS every time they opt for PVE to see a 3mil/isk/hr 'bonus'. This is nuts. Its rubbish.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: So, you really have two options:
1.) Make suggestions to improve it so it gains utility within the current environment. 2.) Demand it be removed from game, giving you no value for the money that has already been spent on it.
3) Demand it not be implemented until its fixed, applying the suggestions that will improve it AND get full value for the money that has been already spent on it.
Its a trainwreck and when its suggested that we all just 'forget' the 5% or when you and others say the 5% isn't part of ESS mechanics, that's just plain wrong. It's built into the lore supporting the thing. Its built into the posted 'logic' supporting why the 5% is even being implemented. CCP believes that there is an isk faucet issue. So, instead of dealing with the isk faucet they created when they fixed the Drone Alloy mineral faucet problem, ALL of 0.0 get to deal with an across the board nerf to ratting income, with an ABSURDLY BAD potential of getting pocket change as a reward.
Lol Drones... I've come across that a few times. Lol Drones...its so bad, the rest of you get to pay for how bad it really is.
I'm not trying to sling mud across New Eden here. I'm really trying to get answers. To be honest, I personally think good conflict drivers are good. I see this one as horribly and fundamentally flawed, and that no one has put enough effort into making it GREAT. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1377
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:13:00 -
[1444] - Quote
"Money for Pirates, ISK for Free"
Nothing for pirates, maybe some ISK if you are dumb enough to give up 15% more ISK than the 5% you make now I'm already taking away.
"...like Michael Bay missed the mark, when he made Pearl Harbor..." "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Optimo Sebiestor
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
215
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:25:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Nerf everyone in a Place that is already having issues With population. Now we are heading somewhere! |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
607
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:45:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:----Edit---- To Alphea. Null Bounties are 42% (Or higher) of the total Isk Faucets in EVE. So, it may be that a 5% nerf on Null & only Null Bounties is actually needed to ease pressure on the system. That, I don't know, they haven't released enough figures for that recently to really have a clue. But, I'm ignoring that 5% because it's irrelevant in terms of risk/reward of the ESS. It happens before you apply the ESS. So the ESS actually becomes a 15% penalty, 5-10% bonus item. The CCP economist is quoted in the CSM minutes saying there are no actual issues with inflation. Inflation is not a sound justification for this, which is probably also why CCP SoniClover pulled it.
But the issue with this is to seperate the two. I guess it makes a neat argument, but please, take a look back at the DEV. blog. The 5% initial nerf is not irrelevant to the ESS, because it's a part of the ESS - and even worse, it's intended as a stick to use it ("or else"), and as a carrot ("the stick needs not be so tough") - the ESS reduces 20% from the original 100%, with the possibility of going to 105% of the original. The 5% nerf is to make the ESS matter at all. I asked, in my first post in this thread, for CCPs justification for this module. I never got it.
Now, the 5% nerf is partly in need of the ESS, and the ESS is partly in need of the 5% nerf, so you can't really have one without the other. CCP is seemingly inventing a problem, just to be able to solve it. That's really bad game design. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
153
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:48:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote: Let us suppose that we have a system that can support 4 ishtars. That's really pushing most single systems, but lets go with it. We will let each tick give +2% and see what happens...Its only about an HOUR and a HALF of uninterrupted ratting, with a total of 4 HOURS to pay for the 'upgrade'. None of these considerations take into account the cost/logistics of getting the upgrade into nullsec to begin with.
If you have to clear the cache anytime during ramp up and reset, then the nightmare starts all over again. Even if the ESS lasts long enough to pay for itself without getting blapped, a couple of people are going to have to agree to work together for 4 HOURS every time they opt for PVE to see a 3mil/isk/hr 'bonus'. This is nuts. Its rubbish.
This is a huge issue because the damn PvE content in eve is so bad that I honestly can't see how anyone could sit there and do it for 4 hours without wanting to kill themselves. |
Fix Sov
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:50:00 -
[1448] - Quote
The 5% nerf isn't strictly in need of the ESS, CCP could just go "we've got a problem with inflation, we're going to nerf bounty payouts in nullsec" and that would be that. There'd be bitching, but at least it wouldn't be attached to a bullshit mechanic which is taking up (and has taken up) resources on both developers and artists and which won't yield enough benefits to make a large number of people go "yes, I shall deploy this".
Alphea Abbra wrote:CCP is seemingly inventing a problem, just to be able to solve it. That's really bad game design. I dunno if they're inventing a problem just to fix it, but they're certainly inventing a poor solution to the problem of not enough small gang objectives etc. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
840
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:52:00 -
[1449] - Quote
I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the group and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO.
Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's? Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District |
Fix Lag
709
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:52:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Obviously the answer to anomalies and content is to have eight warp scrambling frigates spawn when a carrier warps in. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
607
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:57:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:The 5% nerf isn't strictly in need of the ESS, CCP could just go "we've got a problem with inflation, we're going to nerf bounty payouts in nullsec" and that would be that. There'd be bitching, but at least it wouldn't be attached to a bullshit mechanic which is taking up (and has taken up) resources on both developers and artists and which won't yield enough benefits to make a large number of people go "yes, I shall deploy this". Well, strictly speaking true, but the implementation and justification is in need of the ESS. SoniClover didn't say "inflation is a problem, we'll solve it, tough love", he sold it as a boost to nullsec ratting, and then later claimed that inflation was bad and that the nerf was to make sure the module wouldn't make the problem worse. Which admitted didn't come through in my post.
It's still missing the justification of a 5% nerf (There might be one, the CCP economist might look at the numbers again and say so, but until then it's only CCP SoniClovers Buttom speaking), and it's missing the justification of the ESS other than to make up the 5% nerfed. It's a circular argument where the easiest thing would be to say "don't implement the ESS". |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
155
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 10:59:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Turelus wrote:I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO. Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's?
Unlikely, typically once the responses end it means the change will be implemented as originally proposed. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
607
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 11:04:00 -
[1453] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO. Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's? Unlikely, typically once the responses end it means the change will be implemented as originally proposed. "Based on your feedback, we have decided not to add broken glass to the excrements we will smear on your face." - The CCP DEV.s when responding to feedback outside F&I (And sometimes in F&I).
Sadly. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18948
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 11:35:00 -
[1454] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Sure, I can grok this.
But we're talking about a specific activity generating 72%...Not a specific area of space. It's not a specific activity, though. It's every NPC-based activity in null because they all rely on bounties to pay out (since there are no NPC agents or buy orders to use as an alternative). So it's a combination of ratting and plexing and anomalies.
Sure, from the perspective that it demonstrates how poorly the system is set up, that's one thing: making 100% of ISK injection be a single mechanic makes for a hugely inflexible system. But then, that's also something people have been suggesting that they change for a lo-o-ong time now. It also demonstrates what a silly thing it is to go after should they want to limit ISK injection (which they apparently don't): the total effect is utterly minute, but it disproportionally hits a small segment of players.
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. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1313
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 11:49:00 -
[1455] - Quote
My heart bleeds for you tippia
Seriously though, i think you guys are wasting your time here. CCP are going to do this so the best things you can do is start demanding that they add more PVE content to make it worth living in null. +1 |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8564
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:05:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:My heart bleeds for you tippia Seriously though, i think you guys are wasting your time here. CCP are going to do this so the best things you can do is start demanding that they add more PVE content to make it worth living in null. "Start" My EVE Videos |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:09:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO. Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's? Unlikely, typically once the responses end it means the change will be implemented as originally proposed.
it will be something like this:
CCP Rise wrote: ............. I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.
THIS^^ was CCP Rise response in the r/h rapid missile launchers rebalance topic. the fact that after rubicon rapid missile launchers sales went down to 50% of theyr previous number shows probably how good is "... the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing..."
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1313
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:13:00 -
[1458] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Rek Seven wrote:My heart bleeds for you tippia Seriously though, i think you guys are wasting your time here. CCP are going to do this so the best things you can do is start demanding that they add more PVE content to make it worth living in null. "Start"
Well you never know. More Ghost sites, combat sights or even null sec only incursions could be right around the corner, followed by the sov update people have being asking for...
Oh, who am i trying to kid carry on guys. +1 |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
230
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:16:00 -
[1459] - Quote
So...
The potential time wasted dealing with this ridiculous deplyoyable involved with deploying the the thing, babysitting it, interacting with it after a session of ratting, arranging how to get the tags sent to high-sec for cashing-in....
Might just as well use all that wasted time ratting some more instead and probably make up the 5% lost bounties and more. Also saving a shitload of hassle at the same time.
This is why this deployable stinks. Even village idiots agree.
Don't Panic.
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
230
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:22:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Coming soon rom team Superfriends for Rubicon 1.2
Deployable Titans! Don't Panic.
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
923
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:28:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:My heart bleeds for you tippia Seriously though, i think you guys are wasting your time here. CCP are going to do this so the best things you can do is start demanding that they add more PVE content to make it worth living in null. Rek, lets put it this way. This idea with it's current numbers has me agreeing with James. This is almost certainly a forum first, given how often I've butted heads with him & Tippia lately on other threads, normally on a null/high side. I've been to Null for a bit, never could make the fleets as they were either 3am my time with work the next day, or mid work for me, terrible time zone I live in for null basically, then failscade coalition and I moved back out. Live in high now, so I'm not without null experience but basically a high seccer.
And even I think this is a terrible implementation. I think the concept has merit enough to make it worth fixing rather than scrapping, but right now? Terrible. When you have functionally High Sec players agreeing with Goons on things? |
Jeremiah Saken
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:41:00 -
[1462] - Quote
The more i read the more i think i'm rat in labirynth made by CCP. Sandbox is a lie. EvE is one, big social experiment with changing conditions. I have seen one experiment: loot cans expolding from sites will make group exploration better (patient died). Basically its good that there are any ideas to push people to interact but why with such low argument? Throw a meat and see which rat will be fastest. "Take all" button for making new friends?
Two questions:
1) is null ratting solo or group activity? 2) To devs: I've read CSM8 1st smmit...blog. How are you guys disscus new ideas? Brainstorm? Karl Popper hypothesis falsification? "Get it done, for yesterday"? |
Hoban Gallifrey
New Eden University
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:09:00 -
[1463] - Quote
What if the ESS raised true sec? |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
181
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:19:00 -
[1464] - Quote
|
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:36:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Zerb Arus wrote:Taking the 5% base income nerf into account: (so that 95% is your new 100%)Carebear point of view:-áGÖª risk:-á-á-á-áGû¬ 15.79% less income than without ESS in case of theft.-á-á-á-áGû¬ price of the structure -á-á-á-áGû¬ travel-time (setup, scoop, cash out)-áGÖª reward:-á-á-á-áGû¬ less than 10.5% in the best case -á-á-á-áGû¬ 5.26% until the ATM is in bonus-mode -áA sanctum-anomaly has 40 NPCs -áHave a look at NPCs killed per 24h in a sample region. -áGP¬ I really can't see why I would use it, except in one hotspot per region maybe. ...
CCP Phantom wrote: [translated from german] during the last 90 days 72% of NPC bounties came from 0.0 Just an idea: -á-á-á-áGû¬ make the ESS dirt-cheap -á-á-á-áGû¬ a little more nerf to base income (lower than 95%) -á-á-á-áGû¬ less worst-case difference between using and not using it -á-á-á-á(Gû¬) make tags too big for interceptors -á-á-á-á(Gû¬) scrap the bubble. If you want a bubble, just anchor one
-á-á-á-áGP¬ Then there is almost NO reason NOT to use it. Even for lone ratters in bad systems. -á-á-á-áGP¬ this leads to frequent successful theft -á-á-á-áGP¬ which in turn leads to roaming pinatas ... if that's no incentive for PvP i don't know
Benefits of roaming pinatas: -á-á-á-áGû¬ this might lead to an actual income for roaming defense-fleets -á-á-á-áGû¬ engaging the thieves might be worth it even when you loose a bunch of ships GP¬ more incentive to fight -á-á-á-áGû¬ depending on how many tags burn with their thieves in PvP, you can increase the max bonus even more |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
390
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:38:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO. Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's? Unlikely, typically once the responses end it means the change will be implemented as originally proposed. yup, pretty much, they really need to be kicked in the nuts hard, this is enought of their little kid attitude |
Fix Sov
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:42:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Zerb Arus wrote:GP¬ Then there is almost NO reason NOT to use it. Even for lone ratters in bad systems.
Zerb Arus wrote:GP¬ this leads to frequent successful theft
Zerb Arus wrote:GP¬ which in turn leads to roaming pinatas ... if that's no incentive for PvP i don't know Impeccable logic. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:55:00 -
[1468] - Quote
I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. Baddest poster ever |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:00:00 -
[1469] - Quote
General consensus of people posting on Alliance threads regarding this pile of DS is that it would be better for the Game if you went right back into hibernation.........and stayed there. |
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
114
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:00:00 -
[1470] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Impeccable logic. Let's face it, the ESS is going to arrive on TQ. In one way or another. Might as well go wild with ideas :)
Anyways, If the prospect of fat loot from thief-gangs is no incentive for a response, then I can't imagine what would be?
The main question is: -á-áWhat would motivate people to do small-scale roaming, that are not doing so already?
And yes, I'm aware that it's currently better to just sit it out @ pos or station. |
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
611
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:17:00 -
[1471] - Quote
Zerb Arus wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Impeccable logic. Let's face it, the ESS is going to arrive on TQ. In one way or another. Might as well go wild with ideas :) Anyways, If the prospect of fat loot from thief-gangs is no incentive for a response, then I can't imagine what would be? Yes, all those roams to HS where you can shoot the HS alts running missions? There's a very limited amount you can reduce the effective income amount per account per time interval in nullsec and still expect people to actively live there for PvE. Beyond that, and it might even be more cost&effort-efficient to jumpclone to HS and do missions compared to ratting in nullsec. Your "idea" would probably cross that line.
The flaw, both with you and the ESS, is that nullsec ratters do have elsewhere to go, so any "stick-incentive" (Read: Use Feature or Take Nerf) won't increase population in nullsec, it will move that population elsewhere. Which is what happened the other times line-member-income got nerfed.
If the incentive was for example "yes, you can get X% more PI than right now, but only if you actively defend the investment" you'd see the people who didn't care enough still not use it (So no change) and the people who did care would try to actively defend it when possible. An incentive won't scare people off (Although it may make other areas worse by comparison). Nerfing people out of nullsec won't give small gangs more to do. Anyone should be able to see that. |
Jagoff Haverford
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:37:00 -
[1472] - Quote
It's great to see everyone jumping in and offering suggestions or even just screaming about what a monumentally bad idea this is (and it really is a bad idea). But I'm also surprised that you guys are bothering. Most of us are 0.0 veterans, and have been around the game for a while. We've seen CCP do amazingly bad and stupid things in the past, despite having clear, convincing, and copious feedback from the player base that their the plan was amazing bad and stupid.
CCP is very arrogant this way. They really have (in my memory) never changed an idea (even really stupid ones) based on player feedback. Or to be more clear, they haven't done so until they have placed their bad ideas onto Tranquility and seen it blow up in their faces.
If you want this to change like I do, you might as well not bother arguing about it here. They are just going to ignore you. They can't help themselves. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
844
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:39:00 -
[1473] - Quote
I'm again going to post saying that if the entire point of the ESS is to tackle issues with NullSec producing too much ISK (which seems to be the common point of discussion now). Why are we looking at a module where if deployed has no effect on ISK generated in NullSec?
If everyone uses them like CCP seems to want it's not going to tackle the ISK issues at all, it's just changing who gets the ISK, it also opens up the chance for MORE ISK. So CCP any argument made that this module is being introduced to tackle ISK issues is absurd because it doesn't tackle them at all, it only has the potential to create more ISK generation if used.
Which again goes back to the fact you seem to want the module to fail in its appeal of being used so no one uses it and everyone brings in 5% less ISK. As everyone has already posted you could do by just lowering all bounties in EVE by 5% and release a statement that you're lowering raw ISK income due to future threats on the economy, where no one would really care.
We're not pissed off you're lowering the bounties by 5% we're pissed off you're lowering them in way which makes no sense then trying to remedy that with a module which then goes against the whole point of lowering bounties for protection against inflation.
Can we please have a developer come in here and start answering the core questions asked and if you insist on going forward with the ESS start working with us so it becomes something both beneficial and wanted within EVE. Right now in this thread we're all seeing the CCP who made Incarna and not the CCP who made Crucible, if CCP Fozzie can delay changes to heating modules based on feedback why can't Super Friends do the same here?
Right now the issues you face are.
* ESS does not solve ISK generation or inflation issues if used, making the whole 5% bounties nerf pointless. * ESS doesn't do anything to create fights as is intended. * ESS Risk vs Reward isn't balanced. * None of the Sov holders want to use them. * Defenders are always at a disadvantaged when an organised roam comes into system (PVE vs PVP issue not an ESS one). * The four variants have no flavour at all. * The story/lore behind the ESS is unbelievable and unrealistic.
I would ask that others posting start making lists of issues like above in the hopes that CCP will rejoin the thread and start discussing and debating them.
*edit because I make awful typos. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:43:00 -
[1474] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works.
To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game.
And I support that. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
612
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:52:00 -
[1475] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. I'm not sure how much this will change, honestly. What I expect is that we'll see fewer new players move to nullsec, and the established nullsec players may move their money alts if they haven't already. The directly measurable changes will be for the worse, but not the end of the world. What I can tell you, though, is that CCP aren't trying to improve nullsec in any discernable way, and "welfare for the game" is a good laugh. You really have to make a better attempt than this. See, it's not just demonstrably wrong (Both currently and historically), it's also na+»ve and delusional.
A positive change to nullsec won't see members (Both rank-and-file and higher-ups) from all the coalitions, from all the big-name alliances, from most of all alliances visible on freaking Verite maps, complain and be dismayed. Or at least, not a positive change from the perspective of what nullsec currently is. If CCP desires to radically change nullsec to fit another vision (Maybe something themepark-ish?), then say so. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4367
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:55:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that.
The point is if you understood what really happens in null better, you'd understand that what CCP is doing right now is going to hurt more than help. The last time to did something that affected null combat pve (like running anoms) in the name of "driving conflict" all they did was drive us out of null till they semi-fixed it with the EHP/isk buff.
We didn't imagine that, it actually happened and we don't want them to keep repeating the same mistakes.
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
312
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:58:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that.
My niece noticed my dog was thirsty, and responded by preparing a bowl of chocolate milk.
I caught it pretty quickly, and put an end to that....But she had good intentions -- she was just trying to give the dog a treat and satiate it's thirst.
I had to explain to her that chocolate is poison to dogs. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:00:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that.
To change something you must first understand it. And CCP does not seem to understand neither small gang pvp, nullsec pve nor nullsec in general.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4368
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:07:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Billybob Sheepshooter wrote:Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that. To change something you must first understand it. And CCP does not seem to understand neither small gang pvp, nullsec pve nor nullsec in general.
Exactly.
one of the things CCP doesn't understand is that a lot of alliances have the unwritten rule of "don't crap where you eat" ie don't engage in pvp in your pve grounds because that just encourages them to come back because they know they can get a fight.
If they understood this concept they would not think a potential 5% increase in in eventual pay out would be a reason to launch a "come get some pvp here" beacon.......
|
Zircon Dasher
326
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:12:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote: It will take 3 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting, according to the new mechanics, to reach break even with where we are at today.
That is false.
Assume current RatBounty = 100k
Without ESS: 95k goes into your wallet. TOTAL BOUNTY: 95k
Immediately upon ESS activating: 80k goes to wallet 20k goes into ESS TOTAL BOUNTY: 100k
Current rat bounty - Activated ESS bounty = 0 SO after the 60sec activation time you break even by comparison to the current system.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:15:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that.
but this doesn't come close to that. there is 0 incentive to fight with it the way it is. infact there is only incentive to leave nullsec. so instead of your roams getting a couple bad ratters you will see empty system after empty system with the only people still around hanging out in staging systems, where you get out gunned 10 to 1. really great for small gang pvp there. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:18:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote: It will take 3 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting, according to the new mechanics, to reach break even with where we are at today.
That is false. Assume current RatBounty = 100k Without ESS: 95k goes into your wallet. TOTAL BOUNTY: 95k Immediately upon ESS activating: 80k goes to wallet 20k goes into ESS TOTAL BOUNTY: 100k Current rat bounty - Activated ESS bounty = 0 SO after the 60sec activation time you break even by comparison to the current system.
No you don't. You have to factor in the cost of the deployable and the time spent flying to and from it to retrieve your bounty. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:24:00 -
[1483] - Quote
As has been constantly pointed out, ESS is an attempt to add more small-scale pvp targets to the game, and it is a mechanic inspired by the GÇPfarms and fieldsGÇ£ idea. If there are farms and fields, they will automatically be at risk. They may be pillaged by brigands (small scale roaming gangs), or abused by neighbours (awoxers).
Most people who reject the ESS seem to reject it out of one or several of the following reasons:
a) they donGÇÿt want their income to be nerfed b) they argue that they want to rat with their PvE alts mostly or completely undisturbed c) they say that the mechanic is too complex to be good for the game
With regards to a: GÇPI don't want my income to be nerfedGÇ£ I can understand that. And I agree that there might be an issue with income levels in sov nullsec compared with hisec. Some have pointed out that this is a more general issue, and I tend to agree. No single module will fix that for you, so this is not a very strong argument against ESS.
With regards to b: GÇPI want to rat safely or mostly undisturbedGÇ£ Sorry to say so, but this argument is plainly ridiculous. YouGÇÿre living in NULL SECURITY SPACE. So by definition you do only have security as far as you yourself or your corporation or your alliance are able to provide. Did you ever hear wormhole people complain about the fact that they can be slaughtered anytime in their sleeper anomalies? I bet there have been a lot of complaints, but I am also quite sure that very few nullsec people would agree with such complaints.
I do understand though that there is a long history and tradition in nullsec. All existing game mechanics have led to the current state of affair. Warfare in sov nullsec is all about bazillion hitpoint structures that have to be attacked and defended by huge fleets. There are massive deployments, often far away from home. ItGÇÿs far more convenient to have two characters, one specialized for such large scale PvP encounters, one specialized for PvE activity back home.
I really understand it.
But the thing is: none of this is GÇPgoodGÇ£ in itself. It may be normal, but only by tradition and because of how the game evolved.
Again, I can only reiterate: CCP is trying to introduce some change to how the game works. For years it has been a sad fact that large portions of 0.0 space is rather empty. There are a thousand reasons why. ONE reason is: there are no GÇPfarms and fieldsGÇ£, and therefore not a lot of good reasons to fight for something on the small scale. And therefore roaming gangs are few, and they need to specialize on hunting down the slowest and dumbest ratters.
All of this is the result of game mechanics already in place. And there has to be some change. And with change, all people involved will have to adapt. Nullsec ratters as well as small scale roaming gangs.
I hear a lot about nullsec alliances. Most of them are not very accessible for newbies. There are some, of course, but there are also a lot who only accept characters with 10 or 20 million skillpoints. There has to be a reason why organizations like Brave Newbies exist.
Small scale warfare, defending their home, killing single interceptors trying to steal from the farms and fields GÇô-áthat may not be the preferred activity for 100m sp characters, who are interested in fighting with their blap dread in a big sov fight. But there are a lot of people in EVE who would like to do that.
If you want farms and fields in the long run, then you will have to accept that nullsec entities might have to change the way they operate as well.
With regards to c: GÇPESS is too complex to be any goodGÇ£ Yeah, maybe. But if THIS is your main argument, then please try to improve the module. There have been a lot of good suggestions in this thread already.
So please stop fighting this module out of the wrong reasons. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:30:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: So please stop fighting this module out of the wrong reasons.
We will. When CCP introduces the module for the right reasons.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3403
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:30:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Rarnak Ki wrote:
5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.
Except that you get 100% of your current ISK the second it activates. 80% will be in your wallet and 20% in the EES. The 1% level ups are over and above that amount. According to SoniClover 'several' people ratting will max out the bonus in about 30min. Assuming 20min ticks that means about 2 ticks before you are at 105%. Assuming you get an extra 2mil/tick/character that means it should take about 1-1.5 hours to break even. EDIT: Assuming 3-4 characters What SoniClover said was that each bounty payout has a chance of triggering a tick. Yay for more chance based mechanics in New Eden. I did a run at the maths, and presumed that a pair of Ishtar's grouped together for ratting. Speculating on what was stated, that it could take a single player an hour or more, but several players could knock it up in 1/2 an hour, I gave each tick a 1% bonus, and ran that forward. It will take 3 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting, according to the new mechanics, to reach break even with where we are at today. It will take another 5 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting for the Ishtar pair (presuming each pulls 20mil/isk/tick) to PAY for the upgrade with the 'bonus isk' generated by this device.
It takes 60 seconds to deploy, after which you IMMEDIATELY make the same bounty/tic that you do today. Then, as you rat, that feedback increases to a 5% boost in ratting income. And if a hostile enters system, scoop it up.... the isk is still stored in the system bank, so you don't lose anything (the ESS included) and can deploy it again after the ratters leave.
Wyn Pharoh wrote:Let us suppose that we have a system that can support 4 ishtars. That's really pushing most single systems, but lets go with it. We will let each tick give +2% and see what happens...Its only about an HOUR and a HALF of uninterrupted ratting, with a total of 4 HOURS to pay for the 'upgrade'. None of these considerations take into account the cost/logistics of getting the upgrade into nullsec to begin with. If you have to clear the cache anytime during ramp up and reset, then the nightmare starts all over again. Even if the ESS lasts long enough to pay for itself without getting blapped, a couple of people are going to have to agree to work together for 4 HOURS every time they opt for PVE to see a 3mil/isk/hr 'bonus'. This is nuts. Its rubbish. Gizznitt Malikite wrote: So, you really have two options:
1.) Make suggestions to improve it so it gains utility within the current environment. 2.) Demand it be removed from game, giving you no value for the money that has already been spent on it.
3) Demand it not be implemented until its fixed, applying the suggestions that will improve it AND get full value for the money that has been already spent on it. Its a trainwreck and when its suggested that we all just 'forget' the 5% or when you and others say the 5% isn't part of ESS mechanics, that's just plain wrong. It's built into the lore supporting the thing. Its built into the posted 'logic' supporting why the 5% is even being implemented. CCP believes that there is an isk faucet issue. So, instead of dealing with the isk faucet they created when they fixed the Drone Alloy mineral faucet problem, ALL of 0.0 get to deal with an across the board nerf to ratting income, with an ABSURDLY BAD potential of getting pocket change as a reward. Lol Drones... I've come across that a few times. Lol Drones...its so bad, the rest of you get to pay for how bad it really is. I'm not trying to sling mud across New Eden here. I'm really trying to get answers. To be honest, I personally think good conflict drivers are good. I see this one as horribly and fundamentally flawed, and that no one has put enough effort into making it GREAT.
If CCP had not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income in the same dev blog, this module would be a fairly solid success. The module design, while it has some flaws that CCP mentioned it is addressing, is a straight up boon to those that risk using it and successfully defend it. The majority of the hate here is because people can't distinguish between the 5% income nerf and the release of the new module.
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:45:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:some rambling garbage you forgot the biggest reason everyone is fighting it... it will never work.
if someone did use it, they are at a huge disadvantage when the roaming fleet appears, since their systems dont support enough ratters to be able to mount a defense together they would need reinforcements. and since a bubble on station would catch them before they can refit the reinforcements have to do all the fighting, for isk that isn't theirs.
but lets move on from the fact they wont be able to defend it, once the take button is pressed it turns it into tags, whether they form up to fight or not. so now after the drama of divvying up the tags, they have to take them somewhere to turn them in. in null sec shipping (especially safe shipping) costs isk. so just by showing up the roamers have put a large dent into the income of the ratters.
also, when the button is pushed the rewards reset, so they have to slowly grind it up again. (remember only a few ratters can be supproted in a system, it takes a while to grind up again.) and if it is destroyed you are out 30 mill isk, which takes a long time to grind 5% at a time. if that gang decides to come back during those hours of ginding you are out even more isk, rinse repeat.
you claim this was them trying to push small gang warfare in null sec, but the fact is fundementally this is not true. if they wanted more small gang warfare they never would have involved pve in the first place, as no one ever fights in a pve ship in eve willingly, anywhere, ever, in all time.
as for your issues with small gangs being dead, you realize that is what wormholes were designed for right? systems that can only be accessed by a few ships at a time before the connection resets. the idea was that people wanting to fight would roam them, maybe kill some locals here and there, and run into other roaming fleets. te problem is small gangs dont want even fights, they want ganks. not having local scared them cause they couldn't tell if another ship was off scan somewhere. it didn't matter that unless you lived there any fleet could ony have the same mass as them. don't give me boohoo small gang is neglected and needs help, you have an entire region of space to live in. (profitable region too)
finally, if you can make far more isk safer running level 4's in highsec where roaming gangs can't steal your money and kill you everyday over and over again, why the hell would you stay in nullsec. this mod does the oposite of what you want, it incentives people to stay out of null except for staging systems, and those people want to fight you but you don't want to fight them. |
Zircon Dasher
326
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:45:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: Exactly.
one of the things CCP doesn't understand is that a lot of alliances have the unwritten rule of "don't crap where you eat" ie don't engage in pvp in your pve grounds because that just encourages them to come back because they know they can get a fight.
If we defend the Farm today, attackers will come to the Farm more often. If attackers come to the Farm more often, we will have to spend an ever increasing amount of time defending the Farm. So, If we defend the Farm today, then we will have to spend an ever increasing amount of time defending the Farm.
Time spent defending the Farm is time we cannot spend generating ISK So, If we defend the Farm today, then we will generate an ever decreasing amount of ISK. We do not want to generate an ever decreasing amount of ISK So, We should not defend the Farm today.
Does that sum up the argument? Sounds like a Farm&Fields concept is doomed unless people don't have to defend the Farm. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
445
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:45:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP had not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income in the same dev blog, this module would be a fairly solid success.
No, it wouldn't. Because there would still be no reason for a spaceholder to deploy it themselves. A 5% increase in ratting income is not worth the time, effort and isk required to defend it.
Zircon Dasher wrote: Sounds like a Farm&Fields concept is doomed unless people don't have to defend the Farm.
Defending the farm is fine so long as you can still make more money farming than people still sucking on the teat of highsec missions. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8579
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:03:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Most people who reject the ESS seem to reject it out of one or several of the following reasons:
a) they donGÇÿt want their income to be nerfed You forgot "without a legitimate reason." Reasons were given, none were legitimate.
Tahnil wrote:b) they argue that they want to rat with their PvE alts mostly or completely undisturbed Pretty much nobody has said this, because this really wouldn't increase the amount of disturbance. If you spend 30 million isk you can occupy a few carebears away from ratting for maybe 5 more minutes after you leave the system. Not really a big difference.
Tahnil wrote:c) they say that the mechanic is too complex to be good for the game Too complex? Who said this? It's not that it's complex, it's that it's stupid. It doesn't work in any of the intended ways.
I'll address the rest of your arguments when you're ready to make arguments that aren't strawmen. My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3403
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:03:00 -
[1490] - Quote
greiton starfire wrote:Tahnil wrote:some rambling garbage you forgot the biggest reason everyone is fighting it... it will never work. if someone did use it, they are at a huge disadvantage when the roaming fleet appears, since their systems dont support enough ratters to be able to mount a defense together they would need reinforcements. and since a bubble on station would catch them before they can refit the reinforcements have to do all the fighting, for isk that isn't theirs. but lets move on from the fact they wont be able to defend it, once the take button is pressed it turns it into tags, whether they form up to fight or not. so now after the drama of divvying up the tags, they have to take them somewhere to turn them in. in null sec shipping (especially safe shipping) costs isk. so just by showing up the roamers have put a large dent into the income of the ratters. also, when the button is pushed the rewards reset, so they have to slowly grind it up again. (remember only a few ratters can be supproted in a system, it takes a while to grind up again.) and if it is destroyed you are out 30 mill isk, which takes a long time to grind 5% at a time. if that gang decides to come back during those hours of ginding you are out even more isk, rinse repeat. you claim this was them trying to push small gang warfare in null sec, but the fact is fundementally this is not true. if they wanted more small gang warfare they never would have involved pve in the first place, as no one ever fights in a pve ship in eve willingly, anywhere, ever, in all time. as for your issues with small gangs being dead, you realize that is what wormholes were designed for right? systems that can only be accessed by a few ships at a time before the connection resets. the idea was that people wanting to fight would roam them, maybe kill some locals here and there, and run into other roaming fleets. te problem is small gangs dont want even fights, they want ganks. not having local scared them cause they couldn't tell if another ship was off scan somewhere. it didn't matter that unless you lived there any fleet could ony have the same mass as them. don't give me boohoo small gang is neglected and needs help, you have an entire region of space to live in. (profitable region too) finally, if you can make far more isk safer running level 4's in highsec where roaming gangs can't steal your money and kill you everyday over and over again, why the hell would you stay in nullsec. this mod does the oposite of what you want, it incentives people to stay out of null except for staging systems, and those people want to fight you but you don't want to fight them.
How can you accuse Tahni of "rambling garbage" and then spew this load of bullshit?
1.) A ratter can hit warp to station long before the station is bubbled by a hostile that just enters system. Ratter has to hit warp... Nuet has to actually warp there, drop a bubble (aligned to your local no less), and do so before you hit the warp button.
2.) If you cant defend it, don't use it.
3.) It immediately gives you a 5% bump in net income the moment it is deployed. The grind is to improve the payout to 10%.
4.) This doesn't involve your PvE ships... it involves your PvE mechanics. What the **** do you think a farm is? When hostiles enter the area, you reship to PvP ships to fight them off, as no one is expecting you to defend the farm with hoes and rakes.
5.) WH were designed for many purposes, and while small gang combat occassionally exists there, they were not designed to shoehorn all small gang pvp there. Have you ever been to W-space, because you're coming across very ignorant.
6.) The imbalances between safe-ish highsec income and risky-nullsec income should be addressed, but this module is a straight up boon to those who use it and can defend it. The imbalanced income between security regions truly is another matter (albeit an important one!).
|
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
203
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:11:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Have you ever been to W-space, because you're coming across very ignorant.
Oh the irony. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3403
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:12:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP had not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income in the same dev blog, this module would be a fairly solid success.
No, it wouldn't. Because there would still be no reason for a spaceholder to deploy it themselves. A 5% increase in ratting income is not worth the time, effort and isk required to defend it.
How much would you like to bet that this module will be routinely deployed in CFC ratting space within 2 months of its release. I don't care if you ban it, you'll have plenty of pewbies that deploy it so they can earn some extra income.
Yeep wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote: Sounds like a Farm&Fields concept is doomed unless people don't have to defend the Farm.
Defending the farm is fine so long as you can still make more money farming than people still sucking on the teat of highsec missions.
We understand the QQ'ing over the income disparity between highsec and lowsec, especially considering the risk: reward and effort:reward paradigms. That still doesn't undermine this as a farms and field concept though, it just means your unhappy with the balances of income between security classes. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:15:00 -
[1493] - Quote
@greiton starfire:
Sorry, but all of your arguments are pretty bad. And they disregard most of which has been said by people in this thread who support the idea behind ESS (not necessarily the proposed game mechanics, as they are currently on SiSi). Let me show you why.
greiton starfire wrote:if someone did use it, they are at a huge disadvantage when the roaming fleet appears, since their systems dont support enough ratters to be able to mount a defense together they would need reinforcements. and since a bubble on station would catch them before they can refit the reinforcements have to do all the fighting, for isk that isn't theirs.
That depends entirely on circumstances. I have been in nullsec oftentimes, and I know how the population is distributed. There are a lot of systems with no inhabitants at all, or only a single pilot ratting, travelling, or doing whatever. But these are not the interesting systems for roaming gangs. We go where a lot of people are. Not necessarily the HQ system, but roaming gangs love to visit systems with 15 to 30 local players. And there are systems like that. I know it. IGÇÿve been there often. And IGÇÿm talking about roaming gangs with less than 15 to 30 pilots.
As has been pointed out before: even if I accept it as a fact that any given system may only support four to six ratters at the same time, this is not the problem. Because (a) not all people are ratting at once and (b) given that inhabitants have some intel and some more time to react than the suggested 60 seconds, you will be able to have some support from other systems as well.
Also your argument with regards to a bubble at the station is none at all. I donGÇÿt know if you ever roamed in a small gang. Only in rare circumstances a roaming gang is able to catch anybody in a bubble at the station. Because as soon as the ratters get intel about enemies, they initiate warp, and no bubble will catch them.
greiton starfire wrote:but lets move on from the fact they wont be able to defend it, once the take button is pressed it turns it into tags, whether they form up to fight or not. so now after the drama of divvying up the tags, they have to take them somewhere to turn them in. in null sec shipping (especially safe shipping) costs isk. so just by showing up the roamers have put a large dent into the income of the ratters.
This is only a problem if the attackers push da button first ;)
Also this is not a good argument against the idea behind ESS, only against a specific aspect of itGÇÿs current iteration on SiSi. So why donGÇÿt you try to come up with a better game mechanic instead of rejecting the whole idea?
greiton starfire wrote:also, when the button is pushed the rewards reset, so they have to slowly grind it up again. (remember only a few ratters can be supproted in a system, it takes a while to grind up again.) and if it is destroyed you are out 30 mill isk, which takes a long time to grind 5% at a time. if that gang decides to come back during those hours of ginding you are out even more isk, rinse repeat.
These may be valid arguments, but not against the introduction of an ESS style module, only against the current iteration. You could make some constructive proposals how it would work better! I think this would be exactly the kind of feedback CCP is looking forward to.
greiton starfire wrote:you claim this was them trying to push small gang warfare in null sec, but the fact is fundementally this is not true. if they wanted more small gang warfare they never would have involved pve in the first place, as no one ever fights in a pve ship in eve willingly, anywhere, ever, in all time.
PvE is a wonderful thing to fight over! And itGÇÿs done all the time, all over EVE. Your statement is plainly and simply wrong.
greiton starfire wrote:as for your issues with small gangs being dead, you realize that is what wormholes were designed for right? systems that can only be accessed by a few ships at a time before the connection resets. the idea was that people wanting to fight would roam them, maybe kill some locals here and there, and run into other roaming fleets. te problem is small gangs dont want even fights, they want ganks. not having local scared them cause they couldn't tell if another ship was off scan somewhere. it didn't matter that unless you lived there any fleet could ony have the same mass as them. don't give me boohoo small gang is neglected and needs help, you have an entire region of space to live in. (profitable region too)
Wormhole space is very different from all other space, and thatGÇÿs a good thing. What I strongly reject is the notion that there should be dedicated areas in EVE Online for different kinds of engagements. Because that reminds me of WoW and other games, where players are strongly encouraged to stay in certain areas, if their skills and levels are not GÇPgood enoughGÇ£.
I believe in an EVE Online where the one day old rifter pilot has his place right next to a titan.
Your last argument (balance between risk and reward in hisec compared to nullsec) is not an issue of ESS, but of general game balance. This is a different topic, but I tend to agree with you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8581
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:15:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Actually, I feel compelled to respond to this:
Tahnil wrote:Sorry to say so, but this argument is plainly ridiculous. YouGÇÿre living in NULL SECURITY SPACE. So by definition you do only have security as far as you yourself or your corporation or your alliance are able to provide. Did you ever hear wormhole people complain about the fact that they can be slaughtered anytime in their sleeper anomalies? I bet there have been a lot of complaints, but I am also quite sure that very few nullsec people would agree with such complaints. This argument is so utterly tired and debunked, it's a wonder you people still bother trying to make it. You're obviously ignoring the fact that interruptions reduce the amount of ISK we can make. If these interruptions threaten to bring us below the amount of isk we can make in highsec, then does it really make sense for us to stay in nullsec? No, not really.
Your utterly predictable and equally stupid response would be along the lines of "clearly you need people to protect your ratting spaces more" to which I respond "really? Great idea. How much should we pay them?" At which point you say "I don't know, with the isk you get from ratting?" Yeah, right.
You should probably check how many people actually die in wormhole space PVE, compared to how many people die in null PVE, adjusted for population. My EVE Videos |
Zircon Dasher
326
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:17:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Yeep wrote: No you don't. You have to factor in the cost of the deployable and the time spent flying to and from it to retrieve your bounty.
1) The post I responded to broke the recoup time out of the equation. I responded to the part of the post where the author said it takes 3hrs to get back to generating 100% of the current bounty. That is false.
2) Do you calculate your ISK/HR subtracting out the cost of your ship? No, you don't, because that cost is a sunk cost. Same for deployable cost.
3) Time spent to take the ISK out of the ESS can range from 0 to a couple min depending on how you chose to accomplish that task. Luckily, it does not particularly matter since you generated the ISK regardless of whether you collected the ISK.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:19:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: Exactly.
one of the things CCP doesn't understand is that a lot of alliances have the unwritten rule of "don't crap where you eat" ie don't engage in pvp in your pve grounds because that just encourages them to come back because they know they can get a fight.
If we defend the Farm today, attackers will come to the Farm more often. If attackers come to the Farm more often, we will have to spend an ever increasing amount of time defending the Farm. So, If we defend the Farm today, then we will have to spend an ever increasing amount of time defending the Farm. Time spent defending the Farm is time we cannot spend generating ISK So, If we defend the Farm today, then we will generate an ever decreasing amount of ISK. We do not want to generate an ever decreasing amount of ISK So, We should not defend the Farm today. Does that sum up the argument? Sounds like a Farm&Fields concept is doomed unless people don't have to defend the Farm.
I disagree.
If you defend your farm EFFICIENTLY and SUCCESSFUL, then there will be less incentive for brigands to come back. They might choose to terrorize a different alliance instead, one which is less successful in home defense.
But nevertheless: it would create new content for everybody. And nobody is forced to be a part of it. But alliances will have to adapt to this new threat, and I'm sure they are able to do so. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4371
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:21:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
I disagree.
If you defend your farm EFFICIENTLY and SUCCESSFUL, then there will be less incentive for brigands to come back.
I doubt you play EVE.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8583
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:32:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:If you defend your farm EFFICIENTLY and SUCCESSFUL, then there will be less incentive for brigands to come back. If you defend your farm "EFFICIENTLY and SUCCESSFUL", you completely negated any ISK you could have been making by just farming in highsec instead. My EVE Videos |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
446
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:32:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: As has been pointed out before: even if I accept it as a fact that any given system may only support four to six ratters at the same time, this is not the problem. Because (a) not all people are ratting at once and (b) given that inhabitants have some intel and some more time to react than the suggested 60 seconds, you will be able to have some support from other systems as well.
Those people who aren't ratting are AFK, or doing industry, or doing research, or managing a POS, or logged in from work just to chat. If they are idly defending your ESS then they could be ratting (or doing any of the other things I mentioned) so you need to budget them into your costs. And those costs currently don't break even until there are 10 people ratting in a system.
I'll say it again. CCP need to drop the idea this is ever something a spaceholding alliance would want to deploy themselves and re-work it to be a purely offensive module. |
Zircon Dasher
326
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:40:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP had not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income in the same dev blog, this module would be a fairly solid success. The module design, while it has some flaws that CCP mentioned it is addressing, is a straight up boon to those that risk using it and successfully defend it. The majority of the hate here is because people can't distinguish between the 5% income nerf and the release of the new module.
This. If CCP only announced a nerf the ensuing threadnaught would have had people demanding some way to bypass the nerf via effort/risk.
CCP anticipated said threadnaught, provided a mechanism to bypass the nerf AND buff income via effort/risk, and people still complain.
I <3 EVE players. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:52:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote: It will take 3 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting, according to the new mechanics, to reach break even with where we are at today.
That is false. Assume current RatBounty = 100k Without ESS: 95k goes into your wallet. TOTAL BOUNTY: 95k Immediately upon ESS activating: 80k goes to wallet 20k goes into ESS TOTAL BOUNTY: 100k Current rat bounty - Activated ESS bounty = 0 SO after the 60sec activation time you break even by comparison to the current system.
I am ok with revising figures to account for the lost% going directly into the ESS, along with the held isk. Lets use a progression instead that begins with 1% added to the 20% withheld and move forward. It is better for the farmer not to have the ridiculous ramp up time. Now, lets pay for the upgrade...
Hour 1. Our pair of Ishtars raise 2.4mil isk to pay for upgrade. Hour 2. Our pair of Ishtars raise 5.6mil isk to pay for upgrade. Hour 3. Our pair of Ishtars raise 6.0Mil isk to pay for upgrade. ETC... ...requiring ONLY 5.66 uninterrupted hours to pay for the 'upgrade'. Reasonable people should hardly bank on 2 hours of undisturbed PVE life, so it will more likely take 7.66 hours to pay for the upgrade. A LOT of people will only get in an hour, those folks will lose 12.6 hours of their life to pay for 'upgrade'. As long as there are at least two folks working together. As long as it never gets killed of course. Failing to take into consideration cost in fuel and time to import from Empire as well.
All these things are better than my original projection that improperly accounted for withholding mechanics. Not that this is really good at all. Its still entirely rubbish and needs to be put on hold while CCP takes the time to do this right.
We cannot forget the risk factor here, of isk in holding. The cost of an entire ESS is being held for our two ratters over each hour that it is in place. Losing 1 hour of withheld isk to either friend or foe then sets you back 5.66 hours of gametime to get caught back up to where you would have been pre-ESS. If its blapped in process, oops, you and a friend have now lost 11 and 1/3 hours of your life over what would have been put in the pockets of the Rank and File, pre-ESS.
Ofc, one could babysit the monster with an alt. An alt that isn't being productive, losing 60mil/isk an hr to guard the 30mil isk 'investment' and and potential gains from this 'upgrade'. Its such a lose-lose scenario, I can't believe we've gotten this far without a sincere and honest apology from all of Team Super Friend.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4374
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:55:00 -
[1502] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tahnil wrote:If you defend your farm EFFICIENTLY and SUCCESSFUL, then there will be less incentive for brigands to come back. If you defend your farm "EFFICIENTLY and SUCCESSFUL", you completely negated any ISK you could have been making by just farming in highsec instead.
And this is the entire point. I honestly don't know why it's such a hard concept to grasp. CCPs fundamental thinking behind this is flawed because they don't understand player behavior.
If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me?
Wait, i'm wrong, it's not a "pvp here" beacon, it's a "pvp or loot here" beacon, on requiring my or my mates to waste a toon sitting on it read to scoop and hoping that toon can get our before the ceptor lands half a server tick from now.
CCp hasn't had a bigger cheerleader than me, i even stuck with them through somer gate, but at this point i feel very close to threatening to unsub my 17,000 accounts thus crippling Iceland's economy (and then where we import out sheep's head and fermented shark from?).
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:25:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Kadl wrote:I have thought of other mechanics like the one you are suggesting here, and the mechanics CCP suggested are superior to yours. The x hour mechanic forces people to suffer for something they could not control. The scenario: raiders come through and lock ratting in a region a half hour before you log on. Now you suffer even though you would have fought them off. Solution attempt: if you're online and in a system that's having its ratting bounty thingy incapped/hacked, regardless of whether you leave or go offline between the time they start and the time they actually incap/hack it, you're marked with the coward flag and given a bounty penalty in that system. You can go to a different system and still receive full bounty, but in that system you didn't defend, you're not going to get full bounty for x period.
This is a better mechanic than incapacitating the system for a certain amount of time. I still think it is weaker than the ESS. My first objection is that the penalty is to move one system away. That is simply resolved by tweaking this to be a penalty which follows you from system to system.
You never specified how this coward flag is set, and that makes a huge difference. Is this a ship module? Is this a deployable structure? Obviously logging out should not avoid the penalty so the penalty will need to be applied quickly. If the penalty is applied quickly then how do we stop an afk cloaker from randomly applying it? I don't like the idea of giving afk cloakers more power. To stop afk cloakers we force the attackers to have more players than the defenders. Now CCP is deciding who would win a fight, encouraging afk login and more afk cloaking.
There are some other issues. Development time, they already have the ESS and future plans may be mapped out based on ESS. There is no focus for PvP. The ESS can be setup by the defenders so that they have advantages (bookmarks, distances to warp) and focuses the PvP. A ship module or offensive structure allows the attacker to determine the location. Also a coward flag seems a bit out of place in EVE.
An advantage is that coward flags could be adapted to high sec and calling people out of stations during war. Perhaps the third time will be your charm, or you can some how develop this idea to work around the issues. |
Billybob Sheepshooter
The Scope Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:28:00 -
[1504] - Quote
All of you doing math, please add in costs for the sov upgrades for an individual system to be able to sustain the pilots, sov bills etc. Some sov has been held for a long time, some hasn't. but it should probably be added into the calculation.
|
Zircon Dasher
327
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:28:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote: I am ok with revising figures to account for the lost% going directly into the ESS, along with the held isk. Lets use a progression instead that begins with 1% added to the 20% withheld and move forward. It is better for the farmer not to have the ridiculous ramp up time. Now, lets pay for the upgrade...
Hour 1. Our pair of Ishtars raise 2.4mil isk to pay for upgrade. Hour 2. Our pair of Ishtars raise 5.6mil isk to pay for upgrade. Hour 3. Our pair of Ishtars raise 6.0Mil isk to pay for upgrade. ETC... ...requiring ONLY 5.66 uninterrupted hours to pay for the 'upgrade'. Reasonable people should hardly bank on 2 hours of undisturbed PVE life, so it will more likely take 7.66 hours to pay for the upgrade. A LOT of people will only get in an hour, those folks will lose 12.6 hours of their life to pay for 'upgrade'. As long as there are at least two folks working together. As long as it never gets killed of course. Failing to take into consideration cost in fuel and time to import from Empire as well.
All these things are better than my original projection that improperly accounted for withholding mechanics. Not that this is really good at all.
We cannot forget the risk factor here, of isk in holding. The cost of an entire ESS is being held for our two ratters over each hour that it is in place. Losing 1 hour of withheld isk to either friend or foe then sets you back 5.66 hours of gametime to get caught back up to where you would have been pre-ESS. If its blapped in process, oops, you and a friend have now lost 11 and 1/3 hours of your life over what would have been put in the pockets of the Rank and File, pre-ESS.
So your issue here is with the 30mil cost of the ESS?
Wyn Pharoh wrote:Ofc, one could babysit the monster with an alt. An alt that isn't being productive, losing 60mil/isk an hr to guard the 30mil isk 'investment' and and potential gains from this 'upgrade'. Its such a lose-lose scenario, I can't believe we've gotten this far without a sincere and honest apology from all of Team Super Friend.
As has already been stated, there is an efficiency cap on systems. If you have more characters than the cap allows (or do not want to spend the effort of actively using a character OR have an OGB), putting that character on the button makes sense. If you have not reached the cap, then it does not make sense. Some people will find it useful and others not. This is ok. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
327
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:30:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: at this point i feel very close to threatening to unsub my 17,000 accounts thus crippling Iceland's economy (and then where we import our sheep's head and fermented shark from?).
Dibs on stuff! Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:35:00 -
[1507] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me?
Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be secure from small gang PvP. That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here.
Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3404
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:38:00 -
[1508] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Actually, I feel compelled to respond to this: Tahnil wrote:Sorry to say so, but this argument is plainly ridiculous. YouGÇÿre living in NULL SECURITY SPACE. So by definition you do only have security as far as you yourself or your corporation or your alliance are able to provide. Did you ever hear wormhole people complain about the fact that they can be slaughtered anytime in their sleeper anomalies? I bet there have been a lot of complaints, but I am also quite sure that very few nullsec people would agree with such complaints. This argument is so utterly tired and debunked, it's a wonder you people still bother trying to make it. You're obviously ignoring the fact that interruptions reduce the amount of ISK we can make. If these interruptions threaten to bring us below the amount of isk we can make in highsec, then does it really make sense for us to stay in nullsec? No, not really. Your utterly predictable and equally stupid response would be along the lines of "clearly you need people to protect your ratting spaces more" to which I respond "really? Great idea. How much should we pay them?" At which point you say "I don't know, with the isk you get from ratting?" Yeah, right. You should probably check how many people actually die in wormhole space PVE, compared to how many people die in null PVE, adjusted for population.
Your like a broken record:
We understand there is a game imbalance between nullsec income and highsec income when viewed in relation to Risk: Reward and Effort: Reward paradigms.
So what? Do you suddenly think you shouldn't have to defend your ratting space because of this? Do you suddenly think you deserve some concord level of safety because you placed an IHUB in system? Of course you don't!! You are responsible for defending your own space, and the whole POINT of farms and fields is to have infrastructure susceptible to attack by small roaming gangs. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4374
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:42:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: at this point i feel very close to threatening to unsub my 17,000 accounts thus crippling Iceland's economy (and then where we import our sheep's head and fermented shark from?). Dibs on stuff!
I have no stuff, I RMT'd it all for fermented shark. Amonia based foods, best foods. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8584
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:43:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Your like a broken record: Maybe because I'm responding to people who don't use their brain.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:We understand there is a game imbalance between nullsec income and highsec income when viewed in relation to Risk: Reward and Effort: Reward paradigms.
So what? Do you suddenly think you shouldn't have to defend your ratting space because of this? Do you suddenly think you deserve some concord level of safety because you placed an IHUB in system? Of course you don't!! You are responsible for defending your own space, and the whole POINT of farms and fields is to have infrastructure susceptible to attack by small roaming gangs. Congratulations, you don't use your brain. I never said I shouldn't have to defend my ratting space. I never said I deserve CONCORD levels of safety. But if I have to defend my fields, they damn well better be worth defending. And they need to be substantially more profitable than they currently are for that to happen. My EVE Videos |
|
Fix Sov
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:48:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If CCP had not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income in the same dev blog, this module would be a fairly solid success. No, it wouldn't.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The module design, while it has some flaws that CCP mentioned it is addressing, is a straight up boon to those that risk using it and successfully defend it. No, it isn't.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The majority of the hate here is because people can't distinguish between the 5% income nerf and the release of the new module. No, it isn't. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
713
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:50:00 -
[1512] - Quote
so? if you dont deploy this EES thingy you loose bounties. IF you deploy it, you MIGHT loose some bounties to raiders but whatever \o/ In any case you profit from them and not deploying one will get you loosing ISK. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4374
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:51:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me? Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be more secure from small gang PvP (than other null sec spaces). That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here. Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage.
Who said anything about more security.
I'm saying it's hard enough in null sec as is. We accept that, it comes with the Territory. But this ESS thing is set to make it worse
Since the 1st anom nerf, many of us have taken to just making isk in high sec as a matter of convenience. high Sec incursions and lvl 4 missions are tedious and unfun but a quickish means of making isk for other things. Faction Warfare is INSANE for making quick isk which we then take to do other things. The ONLY real hook null sec pve has is that it's liquid isk so you don't have to screw around with selling LP.
If YOUR goal is making isk to do fun stuff, what would YOU do, make isk in some place where you are easily interrupted and where you have to fight against unknown or crazy odds? our would you simply supply yourself in a less irritating place and just take the isk and go have fun?
I don't mind risking stuff in null and i have fought other people for the right to be there. But this ESS ting is so seriously misguided it's making me lose some faith in CCP.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8586
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:53:00 -
[1514] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:so? if you dont deploy this EES thingy you loose bounties. IF you deploy it, you MIGHT loose some bounties to raiders but whatever \o/ In any case you profit from them and not deploying one will get you loosing ISK. "You might [read: very likely will] lose some bounties but you profit anyway." Yeah no. My EVE Videos |
Fix Sov
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:53:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Kadl wrote:I have thought of other mechanics like the one you are suggesting here, and the mechanics CCP suggested are superior to yours. The x hour mechanic forces people to suffer for something they could not control. The scenario: raiders come through and lock ratting in a region a half hour before you log on. Now you suffer even though you would have fought them off. Solution attempt: if you're online and in a system that's having its ratting bounty thingy incapped/hacked, regardless of whether you leave or go offline between the time they start and the time they actually incap/hack it, you're marked with the coward flag and given a bounty penalty in that system. You can go to a different system and still receive full bounty, but in that system you didn't defend, you're not going to get full bounty for x period. This is a better mechanic than incapacitating the system for a certain amount of time. I still think it is weaker than the ESS. My first objection is that the penalty is to move one system away. That is simply resolved by tweaking this to be a penalty which follows you from system to system. Or alternatively, make it an ihub module, like the station modules, and enable people to hack it. To restore bounties, unhack it. Voila, problem solved, and nobody should care if it was hacked before they logged on. vOv The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:56:00 -
[1516] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I never said I shouldn't have to defend my ratting space. I never said I deserve CONCORD levels of safety. But if I have to defend my fields, they damn well better be worth defending. And they need to be substantially more profitable than they currently are for that to happen.
So you don't like the risk vs reward of the ESS. I think your objection has been substantially made in this thread, with a great deal of insulting emphasis. One great advantage of the ESS is that you don't have to set it up. Unless you have another argument there really isn't a great deal more to say on the subject.
In the future I hope that the rewards are increased to the point where a variation of this deployable does look appealing on the rewards vs risk for you. In the meantime I have focused on the ways to make the ESS defensible so that the risk side of equation is significantly decreased. A defensible ESS may make a 20% increased income (hopeful varient of the future) worth it for more people. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
714
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:59:00 -
[1517] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: "You might [read: very likely will] lose some bounties but you profit anyway." Yeah no.
no what? not deploying one doesnt make sense at all, maybe even hostiles will put one up then you even have to shoot this ****** structure to loose bounties after then again. Why not deploy? Its not that there are constantly hostiles around, you wouldnt rat anyways in this case, so what? Why not deploy? vOv |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8586
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:02:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond. My EVE Videos |
Fix Sov
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:13:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage. Farms and fields isn't hard to make work in nullsec, it's just a matter of not bringing up **** ideas which can't possibly work in the fashion you might want them to work, like a module which is supposed to boost something you do, but lets everybody **** with it, easily, and which provides negligible benefits even if people don't **** with it.
Kadl wrote:One great advantage of the ESS is that you don't have to set it up. Unless you have another argument there really isn't a great deal more to say on the subject.
In the future I hope that the rewards are increased to the point where a variation of this deployable does look appealing on the rewards vs risk for you. In the meantime I have focused on the ways to make the ESS defensible so that the risk side of equation is significantly decreased. A defensible ESS may make a 20% increased income (hopeful varient of the future) worth it for more people. Or you could just realize that the problem with the module is that it's a schizophrenic mess. It's made to reverse a nerf, but by deploying it you set yourself up for a much bigger nerf, and to protect that un-nerf you have to expend more time and energy which may be useless anyways since anyone can steal the un-nerf.
Nut up and realize that if you want to make this something which can actually work even half-way as a "small gang objective/part of farms and fields", then it has to be something which provides an actual benefit which matters, and which requires some effort to actually fiddle with (i.e. more than pressing a single button). Making it so f.ex there's a heavy nerf to bounty payments if the module isn't active, reverses the nerf when it is active, and is hackable/incappable so the hackers receive some part of the bounties (but not all, some of them can go into the ether for all I care) until the residents fixes the module, and voila you'll have something which the residents will actually consider deploying AND possibly even defending. Something the ESS will never accomplish, because the premise is absolute ****. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3404
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:17:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Kadl wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me? Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be more secure from small gang PvP (than other null sec spaces). That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here. Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage. Who said anything about more security. I'm saying it's hard enough in null sec as is. We accept that, it comes with the Territory. But this ESS thing is set to make it worse Since the 1st anom nerf, many of us have taken to just making isk in high sec as a matter of convenience. high Sec incursions and lvl 4 missions are tedious and unfun but a quickish means of making isk for other things. Faction Warfare is INSANE for making quick isk which we then take to do other things. The ONLY real hook null sec pve has is that it's liquid isk so you don't have to screw around with selling LP. If YOUR goal is making isk to do fun stuff, what would YOU do, make isk in some place where you are easily interrupted and where you have to fight against unknown or crazy odds? our would you simply supply yourself in a less irritating place and just take the isk and go have fun? I don't mind risking stuff in null and i have fought other people for the right to be there. But this ESS ting is so seriously misguided it's making me lose some faith in CCP.
When we held Sov, we insisted players make isk in our home area, as it ensured we had enough members online and present that we could quickly form up a response gang to any hostiles that came in the area. I understand this takes time away from your precious isk making, but we generally considered the interruption a VERY good thing, as pew pew is more entertaining than shooting red crosses.
In Today's EvE, I understand that many of your 5000 line members prefer to grind as efficiently as possible, be it nullsec anomaly blitzing, FW LP alts, Highsec Missions, HS Incurions, or WH farming. I understand that you then get your pewpew fix by CTA's to attack/defend sov at the large-warfare scale, and that you consider small gang combat a blight upon your territory. Yes, farms and fields are specifically designed to bring this blight to your front steps (adapt or die). We also understand you don't want to deal with it, especially since other income methods are better or easier. That's something worth addressing, and we aren't disagreeing that the income disparagy given risk:reward and effort:reward needs addressing.
Look at it this way: Leaving the mechanics of the device the same, and leaving the nullsec bounties unnerfed, why would you loathe the following reward scheme: Deploy it, and you risk 15% of your income, with the potential of increase your net income 5-10%. This is nothing but a boon, and you don't even need to deploy it.
You stated your real issue many times: You feel the risk:reward isn't worthwhile in nullsec as it is; are extremely upset at the 5% nerf to nullsec ratting, and don't believe the ESS makes up for the loss of income or the unfair imbalance of risk:reward vs other areas of space.
This is a fair issue to have, but your virulence toward the income imbalance is really coloring your view of the ESS.
|
|
Zircon Dasher
329
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:21:00 -
[1521] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond.
Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Fix Sov
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:26:00 -
[1522] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Look at it this way: Leaving the mechanics of the device the same, and leaving the nullsec bounties unnerfed, why would you loathe the following reward scheme: Deploy it, and you risk 15% of your income, with the potential of increase your net income 5-10%. This is nothing but a boon, and you don't even need to deploy it. Except if you deploy it you have to babysit it the entire time, and you have to make sure bounties are paid out to the appropriate people in a timely manner, lest someone else (blue, red, neut) comes along and steals it. This requires either spending valuable time warping to the structure, or keeping a valuable account busy doing nothing but that.
Or you could just not give a **** and rat with all your chars and make more for less effort, and shoot any ESS any red, neut or blue puts up after he's left the system. vOv
There's nothing in the proposal justifying its existence on any level. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:30:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:
As has already been stated, there is an efficiency cap on systems. If you have more characters than the cap allows (or do not want to spend the effort of actively using a character OR have an OGB), putting that character on the button makes sense. If you have not reached the cap, then it does not make sense. Some people will find it useful and others not. This is ok.
the problem is that it is still no where's near profitable enough for nullsec to be "full". so while your alt may not be able to be in your system you can always move them a system over. not to mention just have them mine in highsec, cause they could probably make more than the 5% doing that. (i stick with 5% cause as others have pointed out you do not have 5 hours to upgrade it to the 10 without someone coming through) |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
940
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:34:00 -
[1524] - Quote
Guys, large parts of this thread have descended into the popular highsec vs nullsec profitability row. Lets not do that and focus our energies on the fact that the ESS is an astonishingly bad idea. Let's get back to attacking the ESS for what it is. A highly contrived and stupid game mechanic that absolutely no one is happy with.
As it stands now we're divided and the core message that we're unhappy about the ESS is being diluted. Lets just continue to remind CCP that the ESS needs to go back to the drawing board and re-emerge in either a different form that is playable or not at all... Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:44:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: "You might [read: very likely will] lose some bounties but you profit anyway." Yeah no.
no what? not deploying one doesnt make sense at all, maybe even hostiles will put one up then you even have to shoot this ****** structure to loose bounties after then again. Why not deploy? Its not that there are constantly hostiles around, you wouldnt rat anyways in this case, so what? Why not deploy? vOv
because you are operating at a major loss for hours once it is deployed, with little hope of ever seeing gain. as others pointed out the moment you buy it you have to dig out of that hole, which will take a long time. if someone comes into system you have two choices, click share or scoop. since there is a cool down time on the share option they can be on you and killing it before you scoop. at this point it is probably dead. if you scoop it, they can place one and steal anyways since the system remembers. there is no reasonable way to defend the system, and no reasonable incentive alliance wide to go through the effort of defending the system.
as for the arguments saying that our real issue is with the isk disparity between high low and null. well yeah you are right. this compounds on an already present issue. if the rewards were far better and the disparity wasn't there, then maybe maybe someone would use it. but as is, after 2 weeks on tq those dumb enough to use it will have their crap pushed in so far by roaming inty gangs they will abandon it forever, remembering all the problems and isk loss that came from it. if you want it to ever work you would call for its delay until the pve disparity issue was resolved. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:44:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Kadl wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Solution attempt: if you're online and in a system that's having its ratting bounty thingy incapped/hacked, regardless of whether you leave or go offline between the time they start and the time they actually incap/hack it, you're marked with the coward flag and given a bounty penalty in that system. You can go to a different system and still receive full bounty, but in that system you didn't defend, you're not going to get full bounty for x period. This is a better mechanic than incapacitating the system for a certain amount of time. I still think it is weaker than the ESS. My first objection is that the penalty is to move one system away. That is simply resolved by tweaking this to be a penalty which follows you from system to system. Or alternatively, make it an ihub module, like the station modules, and enable people to hack it. To restore bounties, unhack it. Voila, problem solved, and nobody should care if it was hacked before they logged on. vOv
A simple reading is obviously bad. If you can just unhack the module when the gang has left then we are not encouraging small gang PvP. Unless you are thinking that the time to unhack will be long (in which case you are just going backwards to the time issue).
Lets look at a more complicated reading. Hacking the module gives people a coward's flag. So the solution is GǪ log quicker than they can hack? Lets give the debuff to everyone who logged out when the hacking was started. An afk cloaker can give this debuff. So you have provided the structure with a bit more defender control (but not as much as the ESS). You have not eliminated the afk cloaker issues. You have added a number of potential corporate role issues, particularly for renters. This also eliminates the ability to try a variant of these in NPC null, or make the deployable available in low sec.
I am going to ignore your rewards arguments and insults. Either something can work (with enough rewards) or it can't.
Fix Sov wrote:Farms and fields isn't hard to make work in nullsec
You have tried three times and still haven't come up with a method meeting the ESS.
Fix Sov wrote:Or you could just realize that the problem with the module is that it's a schizophrenic mess.
Anything requiring balance is schizophrenic. In this case defenders and attackers need to be balanced. I don't think the ESS as written is well balanced, but I think the fundamental mechanic can be setup if various parts are tweaked.
I wonder if your real problem is with the gambling mechanic. You put something into the pot and gamble that you can get it back. If that is the case then perhaps one of the tweaks you would like is removing the initial 15% placed into the pot. The bonus income would still be in the pot. I don't have an opinion on that idea. It sounds like another tweak that could be suggested. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4375
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:44:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
When we held Sov, we insisted players make isk in our home area, as it ensured we had enough members online and present that we could quickly form up a response gang to any hostiles that came in the area. I understand this takes time away from your precious isk making, but we generally considered the interruption a VERY good thing, as pew pew is more entertaining than shooting red crosses.
We try to not be any where near that authoritarian.
Quote: In Today's EvE, I understand that many of your 5000 line members prefer to grind as efficiently as possible, be it nullsec anomaly blitzing, FW LP alts, Highsec Missions, HS Incurions, or WH farming. I understand that you then get your pewpew fix by CTA's to attack/defend sov at the large-warfare scale, and that you consider small gang combat a blight upon your territory. Yes, farms and fields are specifically designed to bring this blight to your front steps (adapt or die). We also understand you don't want to deal with it, especially since other income methods are better or easier. That's something worth addressing, and we aren't disagreeing that the income disparagy given risk:reward and effort:reward needs addressing.
As usual, your prejudiced view is blinding you to what's being said. This is exactly why you are one of maybe 5 people in 77 page (so far) thread defending the indefensible.
The pve players of null have always adapted. We adapted our asses to high and low sec and wormholes because CCP made null not as worth it. When they fixed it, we came back. They are threatening to break it again with mandatory "come get the fruits of my labor you crafty interceptor you" beacons.
You can talk theroy all you like, i'm talking practicalities. The outcome these things will have will be negative to all involved, fewer ratters to be targets for roaming gangs, more people squeezing isk out of high sec rather than ratting in null where they are subject to pvp.
The problem I (and I think others) have with you in this thread is that you're thinking like CCP and making the same mistake. The reason I think this is a bad idea is EVE is a freaking PVP game and creating a situation that encourages people to make isk in the safety of high sec rather than to do so in places where they are pvp targets is plain stupid. Lots of 'emergent gameplay' comes for people ratting in null (and low and WHs) and yet this 'brilliant' ESS idea (no matter how it's done) will do nothing to progress this pvp game.
that you don't understand that what you are advocating is anti-pvp is not surprising in the least.
Part of me hopes that CCP goes ahead with the ESS, so we can teach them (and you) the same lesson we taught after the anom nerf: trying to artificially drive conflict is dumb and anti-sandbox and will backfire. CCP should not be trying to spur/gerrymander behavior (like 'more conflict'), they should simply be providing tools and let the players figure it out.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8590
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:49:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond. Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"? No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down. My EVE Videos |
Fix Sov
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:52:00 -
[1529] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Farms and fields isn't hard to make work in nullsec You have tried three times and still haven't come up with a method meeting the ESS. Uh, yes, I have. My idea is infinitely more farms and field-compatible than the ESS will ever be. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:52:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:
So your issue here is with the 30mil cost of the ESS?
As has already been stated, there is an efficiency cap on systems. If you have more characters than the cap allows (or do not want to spend the effort of actively using a character OR have an OGB), putting that character on the button makes sense. If you have not reached the cap, then it does not make sense. Some people will find it useful and others not. This is ok.
TBH, my real issue is that like the MTU, the ESS DEVALUES the Drone Regions even more than it always has been in relative comparison to the rest of nullsec. My real point it that IF CPP dealt with the isk faucet issue they created when they fixed the mineral/alloy faucet that existed in Drones, there would be enough room for them to wipe the risk:reward issues off the map with an otherwise interesting conflict driver. Instead of nerfing ratting for all 0.0 space, they could drop that stick entirely, or keep the stick and give the ESS enough juice to make its deployment and defense something worthwhile.
The 30 million isk cost of the unit IS in addition to the 5% lost income for not having the unit. The 'reward' is paltry in relation to the risk. By not having the unit, I lose 5% of my personal real life freetime pre-ESS 'benefits' of sov holding. Should I accept the ESS, then I could possibly get back to where I was prior to this debate, but am always risking setting myself hours back, hours of real life time, just to cover the cost of the investment and then, maybe, see a trickle of benefit.
As far as system efficiency caps go, there is still no point in having an idle alt. There is LOTS of undeveloped space, and cramming more folks into smaller pockets, leaving larger emptiness than already exists CAN NOT BE GOOD. As it is now, if local space is crowded, I'd move on into a system that could support all the active accounts that my friends and I could handle. Now, we get to draw straws for babysitting a structure, separate from any alts already deployed as scouts.
What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:00:00 -
[1531] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Kadl wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me? Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be more secure from small gang PvP (than other null sec spaces). That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here. Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage. Who said anything about more security.
I think you did. You want the current level of security from people screwing with you. Thus you want more security then the 'Fields and Farms' plan may offer, since it is designed to encourage small gangs to come.
Jenn aSide wrote:If YOUR goal is making isk to do fun stuff, what would YOU do, make isk in some place where you are easily interrupted and where you have to fight against unknown or crazy odds? our would you simply supply yourself in a less irritating place and just take the isk and go have fun?
There are many ways to approach fun stuff and isk in a game. The 'Fields and Farms' plan is to encourage one of those paths (fight small gangs and get rewards because you win). It seems that you do not like that path. You seem to want 'do stuff in a place where once I fight the big fights I can make my good isk'. You also mention doing 'boring stuff in a safe environment'. One way I like is the travel around EVE and see fun stuff method while making some isk. I guess the 'Fields and Farms' idea of encouraging small gang fights is not good for you, and will reduce your fun in this game. Perhaps, most people in null sec like the 'big fights and then minimal small gangs'. That sounds boring to me. |
Zircon Dasher
329
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:00:00 -
[1532] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond. Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"? No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down.
So no ROI is acceptable. Got it.
I <3 irrational people Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3404
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:17:00 -
[1533] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote: What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.
To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary.
There are several complaints which I agree with:
It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content. The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS). The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose. I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me. and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18951
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:25:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"? No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down. So no ROI is acceptable. Got it. Oh, 300-400% should do it. A system that holds 3 ratters can then pay for the 9GÇô12 people required to protect the ESS. The problem is that it's still a moronic idea since it's a lot of faff to solve a problem that would be far more easily solve by not creating the problem to begin with.
Quote:I <3 irrational people It's not irrational to try to stop a problem from ever being implemented instead of fiddling with the details of a more or less useless solution to a problem that was only created to give the solution itself a reason to exist.
Because that's what we have here: they're creating a problem so they can sell us a solution. You are suggesting that we alter the solution; everyone else is suggesting that we don't even create the problem.
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. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4375
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:27:00 -
[1535] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Kadl wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me? Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be more secure from small gang PvP (than other null sec spaces). That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here. Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage. Who said anything about more security. I think you did. You want the current level of security from people screwing with you. Thus you want more security then the 'Fields and Farms' plan may offer, since it is designed to encourage small gangs to come. Jenn aSide wrote:If YOUR goal is making isk to do fun stuff, what would YOU do, make isk in some place where you are easily interrupted and where you have to fight against unknown or crazy odds? our would you simply supply yourself in a less irritating place and just take the isk and go have fun? There are many ways to approach fun stuff and isk in a game. The 'Fields and Farms' plan is to encourage one of those paths (fight small gangs and get rewards because you win). It seems that you do not like that path. You seem to want 'do stuff in a place where once I fight the big fights I can make my good isk'. You also mention doing 'boring stuff in a safe environment'. One way I like is the travel around EVE and see fun stuff method while making some isk. I guess the 'Fields and Farms' idea of encouraging small gang fights is not good for you, and will reduce your fun in this game. Perhaps, most people in null sec like the 'big fights and then minimal small gangs'. That sounds boring to me.
One thing I notice is that the few people who are pro ESS tend to seem like "theory" people to me, they aren't looking at the realities, they are looking at some kind of "should be this way case" and it seems CCP is doing it that way to (which is why they think that this idea would lead to more fights when a more practical view would dictate less fights),
Players always follow the path of least resistance. if the path of least resistance for making that last 200 mil for a plex for gametime or dual training is "run a couple hours of incursions" rather than "rat in null with an ESS active and HOPE you can defend 20-25% of you isk from hostiles or unscrupulous blues" people will end up in high sec. Null doesn't need to be safer or more profitable, it needs to be POSSIBLE and efficient.
The way it is now it's barely just worth the hassle of dealing with the super-warping frig gangs to do anomalies , null doesn't need anything to tip the balance further into the "screw this I'll risk the incursions wait list" direction. The goal should be more ratters in null (because some of them will die and their ship deaths fuel the EVE economy) not less.
|
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:27:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.
Funny, that besides all other complains is just the thing...it doesn't make any sense at all.
See, if you are concord and do not like some unknown actor also monitoring actions that you like and even reward. Will you punish the every actor that does the things you like them to do killing pirates) by paying out less?
Of course not.
And who is concord...It is not an entity that stands on its own! It is funded and authorized for certain activities by the main empires. Will concord delegate control of a certain percentage of payout to the empires? Which then hand over the ISK tags to whomever grabs them...because of some interference in the monitoring task concord has?
Seriously...if you think this all makes even remotely sense you need as I told CCP......see a doctor! I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5321
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:34:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote: What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.
To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary. There are several complaints which I agree with: It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content. The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS). The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose. I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me. and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound. Yep. Again, this touches on the true value of this unit not necessarily being obvious. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4375
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:38:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote: What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.
To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary. There are several complaints which I agree with: It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content. The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS). The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose. I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me. and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.
You like the base concept but dislike EVERY feature of the unit meant to implement the concept? Ok yea.
The problem with the base concept is the reality on the ground (I mean in space lol). The "concept" is to encourage people to fight to defend their 'farm'. The problem is that it's not the only place to earn a living. The farmer can fight, risk dying or loosing his crops, or he can just move to the city, be protected by the cops and get a job at Wal-mart making a little less than he would on his farm but without the back breaking labor, risk of bandits and risk of locusts......
In other words, High sec is the city, wal-mart is incursions/missions. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:40:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"? No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down. So no ROI is acceptable. Got it. Oh, 300-400% (on top of the base rewards) should do it. A system that holds 3 ratters can then pay for the 9GÇô12 people required to protect the ESS. The problem is that it's still a moronic idea since it's a lot of faff to solve a problem that would be far more easily solve by not creating the problem to begin with. All it does is enforce indentured servitude and monotony on people who'd rather be doing more interesting things. Quote:I <3 irrational people It's not irrational to try to stop a problem from ever being implemented instead of fiddling with the details of a more or less useless solution to a problem that was only created to give the solution itself a reason to exist. Because that's what we have here: they're creating a problem so they can sell us a solution. You are suggesting that we alter the solution; everyone else is suggesting that we don't even create the problem. The concept of introducing a potential weak link into a ratters ISK supply chain is not inherently bad, especially in a way that can potentially turn into a small conflict driver.
The implementation could use some work however.
Even if they didn't change a thing though, the module would still have considerable value... just not doing any of the things it's "supposed" to be doing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5322
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:44:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular.
That pretty much puts a spot light on the real reason people don't like it. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
313
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:49:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular.
I don't know how people get this idea.
It's like they have no idea what constitutes good game design and bad game design.
You realize the only reason this is getting implemented is because it's leftover code from Incarna, right?
It's vending machine code.
An excellent addition to any spaceship game... |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:50:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote: What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.
To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary. There are several complaints which I agree with: It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content. The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS). The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose. I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me. and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.
We are actually risking 20 to get 5. As I've had to recalculate my own projections, lets make certain we keep it all together. Today, we are at 100%. In the ESS era we stand to just lose 5% or risk 20% of what we make now, if we are willing to grind for hours, to first break even with where we are today, and then perhaps be gifted with a 5% return. For something you are willing to concede to be '...hard to defend...'.
Honestly...
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
When we held Sov...
Yes, I had forgotten that Agony Empire once held Sov.
It hasn't gotten any better for those of us still out here, and I envy from time to time those that have thrown off their shackles to embrace the freedom of Empire, LowSec or W-hole space. Then I sober up, and get busy with helping my friends shore up whats left of the empire building we have of our own, and remember that I have never done this for the isk. Its just simply more fun. And I teach they younglings how to shoot red crosses far from the reaches of Concord, not because shooting red crosses is fun, but at a minimum it should afford the cost of far more fun than staying in Empire, shooting slightly different patterns of red crosses with no amount of potential fun allowed at all.
We are on the same side, we actually want the same thing for New Eden. They have the technology. They CAN make the Sandbox better. And just like in Eve sometimes, we have to MAKE them do it.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5323
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:56:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. I don't know how people get this idea. It's like they have no idea what constitutes good game design and bad game design. You realize the only reason this is getting implemented is because it's leftover code from Incarna, right? It's vending machine code. An excellent addition to any spaceship game... Hardly.
The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept.
Few people are arguing for the percentage of risk to be adjusted... instead they would prefer the concept be abandoned if there is any element of risk involved what so ever.
However if this provided bonuses only, the majority would be strongly in favor of it.
It puts the entire debate into perspective.
Personally I feel the level of risk should be adjusted, but the concept as a whole is very sound... although there is the strong potential for the module to see use more often for other purposes than intended. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4375
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:00:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. That pretty much puts a spot light on the real reason people don't like it.
I'm sorry but this isn't true. if it was all bonuses, honest people would still be opposed, null doesn't need reward buffing. The last time CCP buffed null rewards the economy suffered (which I think was the real motivation being the 1st anomaly nerf).
The problem is the risk/reward balance sheet being tipped in the wrong direction. The direction should be towards more dangerous space, not away from it. The EVE economy needs ships to die. As with the 1st anom nerf that was supposed to create conflict, the idea of a module that might give hostiles access to rewards for coming to your farming space is more likely to spur people to leave the space rather than fight for it.
People can believe this opposition is about greed, but it's not, there is plenty of isk outside of high sec to farm (have yall seen FW lately). Can't speak for others but my opposition is base on not wanting to see CCP repeat yet another mistake that they'll have to go back and fix (like they had to fix the anom nerf with the ehp/isk buff which created other problems) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3405
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:01:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: You like the base concept but dislike EVERY feature of the unit meant to implement the concept? Ok yea.
The problem with the base concept is the reality on the ground (I mean in space lol). The "concept" is to encourage people to fight to defend their 'farm'.
Reasons I like it:
It is an objective that can be raided by a solo pilot. It is not some uber structure you need capitals and/or a medium+ sized gang to attack.
It is not vulnerable to timezone warfare: You deploy it when online, and you take it down when not using it.
It is rewards players flying in space: It doesn't do anything for you unless you are flying around shooting red crosses.
It's rewards are proportional to those investing in it. 1 ratter means it's potential rewards aren't as high as with 3-5 ratters. This also means attacking the solo ratter with a 5 man group is not as profitable as attacking the 3-5 ratters with your 5 man gang.
It is optional, meaning if you don't feel like risking your ratting bounties, you don't have to.
It requires a timely response, putting pressure on the ratters to respond quickly if they wish to defend it (although more time is reasonable).
It is potentially worth defending. If 3 ratters making 60m an hour are suddenly interrupted by a 5 man interceptor gang after ratting for 3 hours may suddenly find 100+m isk in bounties is going to be lost if they don't' defend it.
That is a lot of positive features about this unit that are really well designed. As far as farms and fields go, it really hits the nail on the head. The things that are missing/less than ideal are tweaks to the design, but not major design flaws.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3405
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:06:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:The problem is that it's not the only place to earn a living. The farmer can fight, risk dying or loosing his crops, or he can just move to the city, be protected by the cops and get a job at Wal-mart making a little less than he would on his farm but without the back breaking labor, risk of bandits and risk of locusts......
In other words, High sec is the city, wal-mart is incursions/missions.
The imbalance of highsec vs nullsec in terms of risk to reward and effort to reward are completely independent of this unit. You think alliances don't struggle today with the "Joe can earn more iskies in highsec running missions, incursioning", or "John can earn more income farming FW LP?" These are real issues front and center to EvE, but that's not an issue with this particular device.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4376
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:12:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: You like the base concept but dislike EVERY feature of the unit meant to implement the concept? Ok yea.
The problem with the base concept is the reality on the ground (I mean in space lol). The "concept" is to encourage people to fight to defend their 'farm'.
Reasons I like it: It is an objective that can be raided by a solo pilot. It is not some uber structure you need capitals and/or a medium+ sized gang to attack. It is not vulnerable to timezone warfare: You deploy it when online, and you take it down when not using it. It is rewards players flying in space: It doesn't do anything for you unless you are flying around shooting red crosses. It's rewards are proportional to those investing in it. 1 ratter means it's potential rewards aren't as high as with 3-5 ratters. This also means attacking the solo ratter with a 5 man group is not as profitable as attacking the 3-5 ratters with your 5 man gang. It is optional, meaning if you don't feel like risking your ratting bounties, you don't have to. It requires a timely response, putting pressure on the ratters to respond quickly if they wish to defend it (although more time is reasonable). It is potentially worth defending. If 3 ratters making 60m an hour are suddenly interrupted by a 5 man interceptor gang after ratting for 3 hours may suddenly find 100+m isk in bounties is going to be lost if they don't' defend it. That is a lot of positive features about this unit that are really well designed. As far as farms and fields go, it really hits the nail on the head. The things that are missing/less than ideal are tweaks to the design, but not major design flaws.
Is "not going to work like you want it to" not a design flaw?
Anyone can loot at dotlan maps, see where someone is ratting, go there in an interceptor and force the ratter to scoop his ESS (if he can). If it gets scoops mt interceptor alt can drop a depot, fit a cloak, and sit there forever (or more easily bring in someone else to cloak or whatever.
As a player your choice is then keep doing that ad nauseam or gain your isk someplace less disruptable. For many, isk is a tool to use for other more fun things, the acquisition of it isn't for fun or adventure and is thus done as quickly and efficiently as possible.
A ratter can't be caught in null if he ain't in null man. We have a historical occurrence (the anom nerf) from which to judge the potential outcomes here. i don't know why you ignore that.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5323
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:15:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. That pretty much puts a spot light on the real reason people don't like it. I'm sorry but this isn't true. if it was all bonuses, honest people would still be opposed, null doesn't need reward buffing. The last time CCP buffed null rewards the economy suffered (which I think was the real motivation being the 1st anomaly nerf). The problem is the risk/reward balance sheet being tipped in the wrong direction. The direction should be towards more dangerous space, not away from it. The EVE economy needs ships to die. As with the 1st anom nerf that was supposed to create conflict, the idea of a module that might give hostiles access to rewards for coming to your farming space is more likely to spur people to leave the space rather than fight for it. People can believe this opposition is about greed, but it's not, there is plenty of isk outside of high sec to farm (have yall seen FW lately). Can't speak for others but my opposition is base on not wanting to see CCP repeat yet another mistake that they'll have to go back and fix (like they had to fix the anom nerf with the ehp/isk buff which created other problems) Heya Jenn,
Keep in mind that we will likely see a very similar concept being introduced eventually not only in Null, but in Low and High sec as well.
If the element of risk were removed this would be heralded (at least initially) as one of the greatest additions to the game yet conceived.
I truly believe your arguments are not based in greed, but I don't hold the same high opinion for the majority of those who are now (and certainly for those who would then) chime in on the subject.
Greed in EVE is a very, very powerful motivator. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4376
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:17:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The problem is that it's not the only place to earn a living. The farmer can fight, risk dying or loosing his crops, or he can just move to the city, be protected by the cops and get a job at Wal-mart making a little less than he would on his farm but without the back breaking labor, risk of bandits and risk of locusts......
In other words, High sec is the city, wal-mart is incursions/missions. The imbalance of highsec vs nullsec in terms of risk to reward and effort to reward are completely independent of this unit. You think alliances don't struggle today with the "Joe can earn more iskies in highsec running missions, incursioning", or "John can earn more income farming FW LP?" These are real issues front and center to EvE, but that's not an issue with this particular device.
EVE is interconnected. What affects one affects all.
If you were a game designer, would you deploy something into you game that seemed like a pretty good thing until it interacted with the reality of your game? The reality is that the existence of other ways to earn combat pve isk make the probable outcome of the deployment of something like the ESS LESS pvp oppurtunities.
It's just backwards thinking. The only way something like the ESS (even without the small 5% nerf to income) work is if you nerfed the ever loving beejesus out of every single other combat pve isk making activity leaving players no choice but to fight over "farms and fields" to make decent isk.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18954
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:18:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. Then the concept would be even more meaningless GÇö just add a flat increase. 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. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8595
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:20:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond. Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"? No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down. So no ROI is acceptable. Got it. I <3 irrational people CCP: "Here's a broken thing. Fix it or you get stuck with a broken thing." Me: "No, get rid of it entirely."
And I'm irrational. My EVE Videos |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5323
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:23:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. Then the concept would be even more meaningless GÇö just add a flat increase. Eh, not entirely true. It would be a potential increase that could be snatched away by others.
Which would inspire rage in those that lost what (in their opinion) should be rightfully theirs, and would provide a (small) income stream for those who prefer to raid and pillage to earn their daily ISK.
That has value, and meaning, for all involved. However, there should be some (small) up front risk for those wanting to increase their potential final profit. The amount of that risk should be the only point of debate (along with the other incredible unintended uses of the module that everyone keeps ignoring because greed has clouded their judgement). To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3405
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:24:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:
We are actually risking 20 to get 5. As I've had to recalculate my own projections, lets make certain we keep it all together. Today, we are at 100%. In the ESS era we stand to just lose 5% or risk 20% of what we make now, if we are willing to grind for hours, to first break even with where we are today, and then perhaps be gifted with a 5% return. For something you are willing to concede to be '...hard to defend...'.
We are both wrong. The new base payout is 95 of stated payouts. That is the baseline for determining the reward of the device. So, killing 100m worth of NPC's will net you 95m isk without this device. With this device, you earn 80m isk off the bat, and risk 15m isk. The device then pays out 20-25m isk when instructed to do so.
So, you risk 15, and get payed 20-25. Alternatively, you could say you risk 15m isk to gain an extra 5-10m isk.
Wyn Pharoh wrote:Honestly... Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
When we held Sov...
Yes, I had forgotten that Agony Empire once held Sov. It hasn't gotten any better for those of us still out here, and I envy from time to time those that have thrown off their shackles to embrace the freedom of Empire, LowSec or W-hole space. Then I sober up, and get busy with helping my friends shore up whats left of the empire building we have of our own, and remember that I have never done this for the isk. Its just simply more fun. And I teach the younglings how to shoot red crosses far from the reaches of Concord, not because shooting red crosses is fun, but at a minimum it should afford the cost of far more fun than staying in Empire, shooting slightly different patterns of red crosses with no amount of potential fun allowed at all. We are on the same side, we actually want the same thing for New Eden. They have the technology. They CAN make the Sandbox better. And just like in Eve sometimes, we have to MAKE them do it.
I could probably fill 68 pages myself flushing out the potential issues with nullsec and the sov system, and thoughts on how to improve it. Describing my experiences on what works, what doesn't work, from the perspective of a fairly nomadic NPC Nullsec corp. Trust me, nothing makes me happier then to encourage more players flying in space in nullsec. I want it to be a home available to small groups and large groups (with large groups regularly smashing castles and small groups smashing farms). |
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:25:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept. This risk vs reward nonsense argument gets abused left, right and center...usually to bolster a bad idea or concept!
Risk vs reward is just one of many elements that makes up a game, and it is not even the most important one at that!
I can think of several other elements:
1. Mechanics/tools need to make sense in the story of the game. 2. It needs to be a fun and not beak other things ...win or loose....this is a game first! 3. Serious effort needs to be rewarding, not get punished. 4. Most elements should not be overly complex, nor time intensive...nor mandatory to deal with.
For most most people, a game is past time..relaxation or something to get their mind of work and/or problems. Some take it a bit more serious then others, but when you center everything around risk vs reward, you break not only the game, but peoples lives. A good example is 8 hour battles in 0.0...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge.
I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3406
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:30:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Is "not going to work like you want it to" not a design flaw?
Anyone can loot at dotlan maps, see where someone is ratting, go there in an interceptor and force the ratter to scoop his ESS (if he can). If it gets scoops mt interceptor alt can drop a depot, fit a cloak, and sit there forever (or more easily bring in someone else to cloak or whatever.
As a player your choice is then keep doing that ad nauseam or gain your isk someplace less disruptable. For many, isk is a tool to use for other more fun things, the acquisition of it isn't for fun or adventure and is thus done as quickly and efficiently as possible.
A ratter can't be caught in null if he ain't in null man. We have a historical occurrence (the anom nerf) from which to judge the potential outcomes here. i don't know why you ignore that.
We look at dotlan now... fly out to systems that show ratting activity, and shotgun the system to catch ratters. Many people put cloaky alts in busy ratting systems in order to extort money from locals, in order to hotdrop ratters, and often just to disrupt ratting. Nullsec residence already deal with these interruptions and difficulties, and the ESS isn't going to alter that. Many of these groups, that already deal with these roamers, will easily utilize the ESS to boost profits. And if they can't, so what? They don't have to use it.
As I already stated, there are tons of excellent attributes to this mechanic, and it has excellent potential to be a good addition to the game!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5323
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:30:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept. This risk vs reward nonsense argument gets abused left, right and center...usually to bolster a bad idea or concept! Risk vs reward is just one of many elements that makes up a game, and it is not even the most important one at that! I can think of several other elements: 1. Mechanics/tools need to make sense in the story of the game. 2. It needs to be a fun and not beak other things ...win or loose....this is a game first! 3. Serious effort needs to be rewarding, not get punished. 4. Most elements should not be overly complex, nor time intensive...nor mandatory to deal with. For most most people, a game is past time..relaxation or something to get their mind of work and/or problems. Some take it a bit more serious then others, but when you center everything around risk vs reward, you break not only the game, but peoples lives. A good example is 8 hour battles in 0.0...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge.
1. The story spun to justify this new mechanic has more thought put into it that most game mechanics do in other games. 2: True. Not sure what your point is. 3: Good thing there is a reward involved in this risk vs reward scenario. 4: If you want a simple game you've picked the wrong one, and you don't have to use this module. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4377
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:32:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge.
C. assign drones then go to sleep.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5323
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:33:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Inspiration wrote:...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge.
C. assign drones then go to sleep.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3406
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:37:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept. This risk vs reward nonsense argument gets abused left, right and center...usually to bolster a bad idea or concept! Risk vs reward is just one of many elements that makes up a game, and it is not even the most important one at that! I can think of several other elements: 1. Mechanics/tools need to make sense in the story of the game. 2. It needs to be a fun and not beak other things ...win or loose....this is a game first! 3. Serious effort needs to be rewarding, not get punished. 4. Most elements should not be overly complex, nor time intensive...nor mandatory to deal with. For most most people, a game is past time..relaxation or something to get their mind of work and/or problems. Some take it a bit more serious then others, but when you center everything around risk vs reward, you break not only the game, but peoples lives. A good example is 8 hour battles in 0.0...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge.
1.) So get a story righter to explain the device in lore terms. I honestly don't care about the lore aspect.
2.) It doesn't break anything. You can choose not to use it and nothing is different for you (in regards to the module). The nerf to nullsec income is independent of the ESS.
3.) Serious effort is rewarded. If you can defend it, and you use it, you get more isk. If your system generates 100m in bounties an hour, this rewards you with an extra 5-10m in bounties.
4.) It is a pretty simple concept: Deploy it, and 15% of your bounties are confiscated. Access it and you can recover 20-25m for every 15m put in.
This generally wont cause you to lose sleep. It wont cause you to risk more then you choose to. It shouldn't have any effect on your relaxation, unless you choose to utilize it but can't cope with someone else usurping it.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4378
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:37:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
We look at dotlan now... fly out to systems that show ratting activity, and shotgun the system to catch ratters. Many people put cloaky alts in busy ratting systems in order to extort money from locals, in order to hotdrop ratters, and often just to disrupt ratting. Nullsec residence already deal with these interruptions and difficulties, and the ESS isn't going to alter that. Many of these groups, that already deal with these roamers, will easily utilize the ESS to boost profits. And if they can't, so what? They don't have to use it.
The ESS is going to alter it, it will either need defending or a wasted toon to insta-scoop it if the owners use it. The raiders can use it as log off trap bait. The owners will have to destory the hostile one before resuming. etc etc.
Those are effects, tilting the scale more in the direction of "why am I screwing with this when I could be making the isk I want to by my new wormholing ship doing sister's missions in osmon?".
That's the point, it's not practical.
i hope CCP deploys it so you can see what really happens....till they fix it by removing it while mourning the last man-hours lol. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3407
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:46:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
We look at dotlan now... fly out to systems that show ratting activity, and shotgun the system to catch ratters. Many people put cloaky alts in busy ratting systems in order to extort money from locals, in order to hotdrop ratters, and often just to disrupt ratting. Nullsec residence already deal with these interruptions and difficulties, and the ESS isn't going to alter that. Many of these groups, that already deal with these roamers, will easily utilize the ESS to boost profits. And if they can't, so what? They don't have to use it.
The ESS is going to alter it, it will either need defending or a wasted toon to insta-scoop it if the owners use it. The raiders can use it as log off trap bait. The owners will have to destory the hostile one before resuming. etc etc. Those are effects, tilting the scale more in the direction of "why am I screwing with this when I could be making the isk I want to by my new wormholing ship doing sister's missions in osmon?". That's the point, it's not practical. i hope CCP deploys it so you can see what really happens....till they fix it by removing it while mourning the last man-hours lol.
Your grasping at straws, as your counterpoints are pretty thin!!!
If you use the ESS, you need to defend it. Your complaining because you have to defend it if and only if you use it? If your losing too much precious manpower utilizing it, then dont. I'm certain there are plenty of ratters out there that will find a means to utilize it.
And raiders can use it as a log off trap? If hostiles deploy it in an unsafe area, the blow it up! Use a sniping ship if you fear some log-on trap.
Have you thought about the traps you can set with it? Put it on grid with your POS, as well as a catch bubble, such that anyone warping to it from the ingate will land in a bubble next to a deathstar. Bubbles pull as far as the grid, so this is very easy to setup.
At the end of the day, if you don't' want to use it, you don't have to. At the end of the day, if you think missioning for SOE is a better use of your time, that has NOTHING to do with the ESS.
|
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:47:00 -
[1562] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept. This risk vs reward nonsense argument gets abused left, right and center...usually to bolster a bad idea or concept! Risk vs reward is just one of many elements that makes up a game, and it is not even the most important one at that! I can think of several other elements: 1. Mechanics/tools need to make sense in the story of the game. 2. It needs to be a fun and not beak other things ...win or loose....this is a game first! 3. Serious effort needs to be rewarding, not get punished. 4. Most elements should not be overly complex, nor time intensive...nor mandatory to deal with. For most most people, a game is past time..relaxation or something to get their mind of work and/or problems. Some take it a bit more serious then others, but when you center everything around risk vs reward, you break not only the game, but peoples lives. A good example is 8 hour battles in 0.0...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge. 1. The story spun to justify this new mechanic has more thought put into it that most game mechanics do in other games. 2: True. Not sure what your point is. 3: Good thing there is a reward involved in this risk vs reward scenario. 4: If you want a simple game you've picked the wrong one, and you don't have to use this module.
1. Thus it doesn't have to make sense, as long as there are weirder stories out there in other games? 2. The suggested deploy-able breaks things, many flaws have been described. 3. There is no rewards for those doing the real effort. Unless you now count warping to an undefended structure to grab isk is considered effort that compares to the pilots that generated that isk in the first place. For reasons you full well understand the structure will never be truely defensed, there is no risk vs reward to the ninja thief. Just reward. 4. I do not advocate simple, i just advocate against overly complex...as in more complex to reach a certain goal then is needed for fun, good game play and story line.
I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5326
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:52:00 -
[1563] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
We look at dotlan now... fly out to systems that show ratting activity, and shotgun the system to catch ratters. Many people put cloaky alts in busy ratting systems in order to extort money from locals, in order to hotdrop ratters, and often just to disrupt ratting. Nullsec residence already deal with these interruptions and difficulties, and the ESS isn't going to alter that. Many of these groups, that already deal with these roamers, will easily utilize the ESS to boost profits. And if they can't, so what? They don't have to use it.
The ESS is going to alter it, it will either need defending or a wasted toon to insta-scoop it if the owners use it. The raiders can use it as log off trap bait. The owners will have to destory the hostile one before resuming. etc etc. Those are effects, tilting the scale more in the direction of "why am I screwing with this when I could be making the isk I want to by my new wormholing ship doing sister's missions in osmon?". That's the point, it's not practical. i hope CCP deploys it so you can see what really happens....till they fix it by removing it while mourning the last man-hours lol. I think you shot yourself in the foot "slightly" with this particular post.
Even if the majority of ratters don't use the module, it has definite use for the raiders (at a basic level, and for others when you being to think about what the ancillary abilities of the module could be used for).
The possibility of the module to simply not be used is minute... it simply may not be used in the manner that people are currently arguing about. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3407
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:56:00 -
[1564] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE is interconnected. What affects one affects all.
If you were a game designer, would you deploy something into you game that seemed like a pretty good thing until it interacted with the reality of your game? The reality is that the existence of other ways to earn combat pve isk make the probable outcome of the deployment of something like the ESS LESS pvp oppurtunities.
It's just backwards thinking. The only way something like the ESS (even without the small 5% nerf to income) work is if you nerfed the ever loving beejesus out of every single other combat pve isk making activity leaving players no choice but to fight over "farms and fields" to make decent isk.
Let me summarize what you just said:
People don't rat in nullsec because they can earn potentially more isk in a less risky manner in highsec. Let me introduce you to the reality of this game:
A HUGE amount of the isk flowing into this game comes from ratting in nullsec. I think CCP was quoted saying recently, 72% of all bounties paid into our game comes from nullsec ratting.
The ESS is a boost to nullsec income for those that successfully utilize it, but a source of conflict & loss for those unsuccessful.
Your notion that it will create less PvP is completely unfounded forecasting, and you really should back up your view of game-reality with numbers for it be come across as realistic.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5326
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:04:00 -
[1565] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept. This risk vs reward nonsense argument gets abused left, right and center...usually to bolster a bad idea or concept! Risk vs reward is just one of many elements that makes up a game, and it is not even the most important one at that! I can think of several other elements: 1. Mechanics/tools need to make sense in the story of the game. 2. It needs to be a fun and not beak other things ...win or loose....this is a game first! 3. Serious effort needs to be rewarding, not get punished. 4. Most elements should not be overly complex, nor time intensive...nor mandatory to deal with. For most most people, a game is past time..relaxation or something to get their mind of work and/or problems. Some take it a bit more serious then others, but when you center everything around risk vs reward, you break not only the game, but peoples lives. A good example is 8 hour battles in 0.0...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge. 1. The story spun to justify this new mechanic has more thought put into it that most game mechanics do in other games. 2: True. Not sure what your point is. 3: Good thing there is a reward involved in this risk vs reward scenario. 4: If you want a simple game you've picked the wrong one, and you don't have to use this module. 1. Thus it doesn't have to make sense, as long as there are weirder stories out there in other games? 2. The suggested deploy-able breaks things, many flaws have been described. 3. There is no rewards for those doing the real effort. Unless you now count warping to an undefended structure to grab isk is considered effort that compares to the pilots that generated that isk in the first place. For reasons you full well understand the structure will never be truely defensed, there is no risk vs reward to the ninja thief. Just reward. 4. I do not advocate simple, i just advocate against overly complex...as in more complex to reach a certain goal then is needed for fun, good game play and story line.
1: The foreshadowing for this has already been evident for some time now. Most people have either ignored it or were unaware of it. However now it is beginning to affect their daily game play. Expect more changes over the next couple of years that fundamentally alter how the Empires and Concord interact with capsuleers.
2: The assertion that it breaks things has been made, however the jury is still out on how factual that assertion is. In fact, the only thing that might need to be adjusted (at least at this layer of the onion) is the amount of ISK risked by the ratter. That's broken, that a tweak being needed.
3: There are distinct rewards for those doing the work, as you well know. To state otherwise is more than a bit silly as the facts are evident and well documented. The only thing causing controversy is the level of risk involved.
4: Good game play is not the same thing as risk free game play. Providing more opportunities for a raiding style of game play, as well as providing even better rewards for ratters if they can defend their system (or have good enough intel to take down the module in time) is good game play. The need to adjust the relative levels of risk vs reward is a far cry from this being a mechanic that equals "BAD" game play. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:05:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The entire concept is a clever wrinkle to the risk vs reward concept. This risk vs reward nonsense argument gets abused left, right and center...usually to bolster a bad idea or concept! Risk vs reward is just one of many elements that makes up a game, and it is not even the most important one at that! I can think of several other elements: 1. Mechanics/tools need to make sense in the story of the game. 2. It needs to be a fun and not beak other things ...win or loose....this is a game first! 3. Serious effort needs to be rewarding, not get punished. 4. Most elements should not be overly complex, nor time intensive...nor mandatory to deal with. For most most people, a game is past time..relaxation or something to get their mind of work and/or problems. Some take it a bit more serious then others, but when you center everything around risk vs reward, you break not only the game, but peoples lives. A good example is 8 hour battles in 0.0...do i sleep or play a few more hours to give the alliance an edge. 1.) So get a story righter to explain the device in lore terms. I honestly don't care about the lore aspect. 2.) It doesn't break anything. You can choose not to use it and nothing is different for you (in regards to the module). The nerf to nullsec income is independent of the ESS. 3.) Serious effort is rewarded. If you can defend it, and you use it, you get more isk. If your system generates 100m in bounties an hour, this rewards you with an extra 5-10m in bounties. 4.) It is a pretty simple concept: Deploy it, and 15% of your bounties are confiscated. Access it and you can recover 20-25m for every 15m put in. This generally wont cause you to lose sleep. It wont cause you to risk more then you choose to. It shouldn't have any effect on your relaxation, unless you choose to utilize it but can't cope with someone else usurping it.
1. Making a game make no sense doesn't help the game either, if you personally care or not!
2. This thread seems to disagree with you.
3. If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it...you are ratting and the like. If you use it offensively, and with an interceptor swarm you can defend it...if the system locals choose to take action. Else your just sitting there looking silly. The system owners can either continue ratting and hand you free isk or take a break and waste both parties time. No emergent game i expect.
4. Simple maybe, but it's not rational (see point 1), its doesn't seem likely to create action very often. I expect it more often to turn into a waiting game. No fun, doesn't really add anything useful and is this a waste of dev and player time.
You can ignore it to some extend, but if you do so, it will affect you negatively in income. It really isn't that optional in this regard and the effort that puts you into this straight jacked is next to none as far as i can see. Certainly less then regular pvp threats. I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5327
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:11:00 -
[1567] - Quote
Quote:If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it...you are ratting and the like.
This is the mentality that keeps people docked for days because there is an AFK cloaker in the system.
As a ratter you have just as many options available to you as those who seek to prey upon you. You are not welded into a particular ship, nor are you unable to change the fit of that ship to match the situation... and you certainly aren't cut off from the rest of your corp mates (and their hopefully well organized intel channels) as far as communications goes.
Prey mentality is self fulfilling. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3407
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:17:00 -
[1568] - Quote
I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress! They would hold onto really bad concepts like: If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it, or If there is a hostile in system, I can only sit and spin ships in station, or Everyones is fleeing to highsec because the risks aren't worth the rewards.
|
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:20:00 -
[1569] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it...you are ratting and the like. This is the mentality that keeps people docked for days because there is an AFK cloaker in the system. As a ratter you have just as many options available to you as those who seek to prey upon you. You are not welded into a particular ship, nor are you unable to change the fit of that ship to match the situation... and you certainly aren't cut off from the rest of your corp mates (and their hopefully well organized intel channels) as far as communications goes. Prey mentality is self fulfilling.
In theory that is all true.
But you well know why it works that way, don't you? If locals mission, just one ship with a cyno means there are actually many more if you choose to respond! I know from low sec that the big alliances aren't really shy from dropping dozens of capitals to gank a single carrier. The whole theory that with proper intel it all works out well, doesn't fly for smaller entities.
And the last thing we need in EVE is more very large impersonal entities imho.
I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:24:00 -
[1570] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress! They would hold onto really bad concepts like: If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it, or If there is a hostile in system, I can only sit and spin ships in station, or Everyones is fleeing to highsec because the risks aren't worth the rewards.
Your point being?
Look at it from more then one angle and you too will see the flaws. I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5328
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:27:00 -
[1571] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it...you are ratting and the like. This is the mentality that keeps people docked for days because there is an AFK cloaker in the system. As a ratter you have just as many options available to you as those who seek to prey upon you. You are not welded into a particular ship, nor are you unable to change the fit of that ship to match the situation... and you certainly aren't cut off from the rest of your corp mates (and their hopefully well organized intel channels) as far as communications goes. Prey mentality is self fulfilling. In theory that is all true. But you well know why it works that way, don't you? If locals mission, just one ship with a cyno means there are actually many more if you choose to respond! I know from low sec that the big alliances aren't really shy from dropping dozens of capitals to gank a single carrier. The whole theory that with proper intel it all works out well, doesn't fly for smaller entities. And the last thing we need in EVE is more very large impersonal entities imho. All that means is that the situation will resolve in favor of the group that is better prepared, and yes I've been on both sides of that situation. Some of the best fights I've ever seen has come from doing what you would normally do (on the surface) when an AFK cloaker is in system... but being well prepared to deal with the eventual, inevitable hot drop that will occur.
But you're beginning to drift away from the topic, no offense. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Zircon Dasher
332
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:29:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Oh, 300-400% (on top of the base rewards) should do it. A system that holds 3 ratters can then pay for the 9GÇô12 people required to protect the ESS.
Good. So when CCP finally addresses the problem of systems not supporting adequate population... for the sake of argument lets say they bump it to supporting a measly 6 ratters..... then the actual % increase necessary to make a decent return is 150%-200% of current value. That assumes, of course, that you have to use 9-12 people to protect an ESS.
Quote:Because that's what we have here: they're creating a problem so they can sell us a solution. You are suggesting that we alter the solution; everyone else is suggesting that we don't even create the problem.
Right. CCP obviously is nerfing ratting only because they want people to use the EES. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4380
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:36:00 -
[1573] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Let me summarize what you just said:
People don't rat in nullsec because they can earn potentially more isk in a less risky manner in highsec. Let me introduce you to the reality of this game:
A HUGE amount of the isk flowing into this game comes from ratting in nullsec. I think CCP was quoted saying recently, 72% of all bounties paid into our game comes from nullsec ratting.
The problem with you is that in you zeal to defend something that most people wouldn't bother, you end up putting words in people's mouths.
Where did I say "people don't rat in nullsec"? I have said lots of people in sov alliances have alts making isk in other places. the 720 bil a day coming out of nullsec is enough for 5, maybe 6000 ratters to each make a 1 hour average of 80to 120 mil isk an hour in a 24 hour period. There are (last count I saw) 90,000 characters in sov holding alliances and some of those players have out of corp/alliance alts.
Quote: The ESS is a boost to nullsec income for those that successfully utilize it, but a source of conflict & loss for those unsuccessful.
Which is why I hope ccp deploys it. you're not willing to listen to 80 pages of other people telling you they won't use it, perhaps actual in the field failure will convince you?
Quote: Your notion that it will create less PvP is completely unfounded forecasting, and you really should back up your view of game-reality with numbers for it be come across as realistic.
We'll back it up with it's own failure because almost everyone save you and ccp can see it coming. When this happens, are you adult enough to admit yo were wrong? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4380
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:40:00 -
[1574] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress! They would hold onto really bad concepts like: If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it, or If there is a hostile in system, I can only sit and spin ships in station, or Everyones is fleeing to highsec because the risks aren't worth the rewards.
Why do pie in the sky hippie dreamer types always misinterpret practical reality as "the status quo"? Reality doesn't alter itself because you think it should. Reality just "is". This is why most businesses fail, people have these surefire ideas for success that don't take into account the realites in the ground.
The reality is this will be a repeat of the anom nerf. if CCP deploys it as it it will have noticable bad effects and will get rolled back or scrapped all together forcing another round of 'soul searching" on ccp's part asking how somehting like this could have possibly gone wrong despite several threadnaughts worth of warning.
Oh well, time to x up in an incursion channel. |
Abulurd Boniface
The Scope Gallente Federation
85
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 21:58:00 -
[1575] - Quote
On the feature page of the ESS, where the pod pilot is introduced to its functionality, I read this:
Quote:You took out the pirates. You kept the system safe. It's time to collect what's owed, but CONCORD's check is lighter than usual. Don't worry. The Empires have you covered.
followed by this:
Quote:You took out the pirates. You kept the system safe. It's time to collect what's owed, but CONCORD's check is lighter than usual. They claim the cost of monitoring Nullsec is high, and they're paying you less for the same job those lightweights in High Sec are doing. Don't worry. The Empires have you covered.
I'm thinking one paragraph would suffice, unless the guy doing the copy/pasta of the copywriting had a tad too much Brennivin in which case I would totally see how that could happen and I raise my glass in support.
[I'm still not enough of a hero to try the shark though. I don't know how hungry the person must have been who thought that was a better alternative than sucking on volcanic rock for sustenance].
Yours. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1060
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:01:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Ill say this again - the ESS needs to have a very long online time (like say, 20-30 minutes) to allow a defense gang to form. If the defense gang fails, then the ESS should be active for at least 1-2 days (give it a reinforcement timer, and have it keep leeching bounties)
This makes it work very well as a "come and fight us" tool, and give a 2nd arranged fight as well (fighting over taking the isk) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3408
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:12:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Ill say this again - the ESS needs to have a very long online time (like say, 20-30 minutes) to allow a defense gang to form. If the defense gang fails, then the ESS should be active for at least 1-2 days (give it a reinforcement timer, and have it keep leeching bounties)
This makes it work very well as a "come and fight us" tool, and give a 2nd arranged fight as well (fighting over taking the isk)
Your design has several flaws:
a.) You operate an EU timezone corp. I then have my aussie or US squadron RF the ESS when you aren't even online. Suddenly your system is suffering heavy ratting penalties if you want to rat... not to mention if the ESS RF timer comes out during a non-EU timezone, you will lose out on the isk to boot.
b.) People generally wont rat if an enemy has RF one of these in system.
Generally speaking, anything gives the opponent more than 20 minutes to "form up and defend it" very quickly escalates beyond small gang. One of the premises of farms and fields are that small gangs can raid them.
In general, RF timers insure large responses, which is NOT the intention behind this module. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
615
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:14:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Right. CCP obviously is nerfing ratting only because they want people to use the EES. Yes, that's the gist of it. Make up problem-> pet project solves it-> players use pet project. This has a few more details to the basic formula, but it's still not a justification. |
Fix Sov
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:17:00 -
[1579] - Quote
And the design behind the ESS has several flaws: 1) there's no actual reason to deploy it, since you'd spend more time (and consequently more isk) making sure nobody steals from it than you would just ignoring the whole damn thing and ratting as normal 2) if someone comes in and deploys one, nobody'll rat there until it's gone, just like they wouldn't rat if there's a neutral/red in system 3) if a blue deploys one, people won't rat with it, it'll get destroyed and said blue'll get kicked out of the corp for deploying it The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1060
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:55:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Ill say this again - the ESS needs to have a very long online time (like say, 20-30 minutes) to allow a defense gang to form. If the defense gang fails, then the ESS should be active for at least 1-2 days (give it a reinforcement timer, and have it keep leeching bounties)
This makes it work very well as a "come and fight us" tool, and give a 2nd arranged fight as well (fighting over taking the isk) Your design has several flaws: a.) You operate an EU timezone corp. I then have my aussie or US squadron RF the ESS when you aren't even online. Suddenly your system is suffering heavy ratting penalties if you want to rat... not to mention if the ESS RF timer comes out during a non-EU timezone, you will lose out on the isk to boot. b.) People generally wont rat if an enemy has RF one of these in system. Generally speaking, anything gives the opponent more than 20 minutes to "form up and defend it" very quickly escalates beyond small gang. One of the premises of farms and fields are that small gangs can raid them. In general, RF timers insure large responses, which is NOT the intention behind this module.
A) Expand your corp to cover multiple TZ. Or share your system with people who use it when you arent there. Or if I am the one placing it, I accept that not every ESS will result in a fight, any more than camping the locals into their station for an hour will result in a fight. B) Thats the point. If you dont stop it from onlining, you lose a system to rat in for 1-2 days. C) I was on a roam today where we tackled 3 carriers, and fought the enemy corp for over an hour. We had 15 people, no logi. 20 minutes is a very fair time to allow people to form up, and is also enough time to fly around enemy space, seed a bunch of them, and then collect fights on the way back out. I dont really see people forming up more aggressively in 20 minutes over an ESS, than they would with an hour over 3 carriers. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2987
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:07:00 -
[1581] - Quote
The problem behind this whole mess is a long standing one. CCP knows that nullsec, like numerous other areas of Eve, is a broken mess badly needing to be fixed. But taking the time to comprehensively overhaul nullsec will be a large project requiring a large number of designers carrying out a great deal of work over a long period of time. And post Incarna CCP has demonstrated they don't have the will or the vision to commit to such a large project.
So instead we get this latest in a series of random tweaks and widgets, developed by virtue of fitting neatly into a sprint schedule, without any need for a joined-up plan. CCP's position is like that of a chef who has created a particularly bland and tasteless soup, and rather than taking the time to tip the mess down the sink and starting again with a properly planned recipe, is now stirring in random ingredient after random ingredient in the hope that one of them will magically fix their mess. 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. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
577
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:24:00 -
[1582] - Quote
This is still a badly broken system for fixing what you see as an over generous isk faucet. Like reducing bounties 5% but trying to compensate with a badly implemented deployable doesn't fix the issue. And ignoring the uproar just makes it worse. |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:34:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Right. CCP obviously is nerfing ratting only because they want people to use the EES.
they have said as much in this very thread |
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:40:00 -
[1584] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Ill say this again - the ESS needs to have a very long online time (like say, 20-30 minutes) to allow a defense gang to form. If the defense gang fails, then the ESS should be active for at least 1-2 days (give it a reinforcement timer, and have it keep leeching bounties)
This makes it work very well as a "come and fight us" tool, and give a 2nd arranged fight as well (fighting over taking the isk) Your design has several flaws: a.) You operate an EU timezone corp. I then have my aussie or US squadron RF the ESS when you aren't even online. Suddenly your system is suffering heavy ratting penalties if you want to rat... not to mention if the ESS RF timer comes out during a non-EU timezone, you will lose out on the isk to boot. b.) People generally wont rat if an enemy has RF one of these in system. Generally speaking, anything gives the opponent more than 20 minutes to "form up and defend it" very quickly escalates beyond small gang. One of the premises of farms and fields are that small gangs can raid them. In general, RF timers insure large responses, which is NOT the intention behind this module. A) Expand your corp to cover multiple TZ. Or share your system with people who use it when you arent there. Or if I am the one placing it, I accept that not every ESS will result in a fight, any more than camping the locals into their station for an hour will result in a fight. B) Thats the point. If you dont stop it from onlining, you lose a system to rat in for 1-2 days. C) I was on a roam today where we tackled 3 carriers, and fought the enemy corp for over an hour. We had 15 people, no logi. 20 minutes is a very fair time to allow people to form up, and is also enough time to fly around enemy space, seed a bunch of them, and then collect fights on the way back out. I dont really see people forming up more aggressively in 20 minutes over an ESS, than they would with an hour over 3 carriers.
i love how your small gang solution requires smaller groups to become large entities. you make tons of sense /s please carry on. |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:39:00 -
[1585] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
The bounties in Nullsec are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures!
"Do you even play this game"?
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
Shokubai
Aurora Industries Inc Battle Beavers
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:54:00 -
[1586] - Quote
I have a great idea. Lets make ratting in nullsec harder to do, and overall pay out less. While we are at it lets give interceptor pilots the chance to steal 20% of the isk i worked for just for warping to an ESS that's lit up like a christmas tree.
My first read was hey that might be cool. The more i think about it the more i thing "CCP wants more people in High Sec".
I cant speak for everybody but I consider this whole thing a 5% net loss in income. Most systems that are anywhere close to unfriendly space just wont bother risking 20% for a possible 5% gain. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 01:00:00 -
[1587] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: We are both wrong. The new base payout is 95 of stated payouts. That is the baseline for determining the reward of the device. So, killing 100m worth of NPC's will net you 95m isk without this device. With this device, you earn 80m isk off the bat, and risk 15m isk. The device then pays out 20-25m isk when instructed to do so.
So, you risk 15, and get payed 20-25. Alternatively, you could say you risk 15m isk to gain an extra 5-10m isk.
I am going to take this slowly.
Today, if I kill a 100k isk bounty rat, I get 100k.
In a post ESS world, I will shoot the same rat, it still says 100k and either suck up a 5% loss or...
I deploy an ESS that withholds 20% of what the rat bounty shows. I receive 80k isk, and the ESS withholds 15k isk from the 95k that would have come to me directly, and 5k isk that I would have gotten the day before the ESS world began. I directly risk 15k isk of immediate return, and the 5k isk carrot hidden within the box I have invested 30mil isk into, in the hopes that I will just break even, according to how well the system worked in the pre-ESS world. That 5k hidden in the box is just there to keep me at break even, while I grind off the cost of my new 'upgrade'. It can not be discounted. Its 20% at risk for an eventual, potential 5% reward, since I'm not going to forget how things worked before this 'added content' rolls out.
Imagine me waving a cane and ranting...I remember Sonny, The Good Ole days when bounties were REAL bounties, and not this namby pamby credit system cooked up as a plot by the Empires to leach pilots back into comfy ole 'High Security Space'. I'll give you High Security all right...Where was Concord when that 'nado gang suicide ganked...fade out camera...
Give me 7.5% reward and 12.5 % in LP and CCP can 'pay' for it by fixing the 100% bounty only rats in Drone Space, and we might get into taking point range just based on the most basic of risk v. reward discussions. I expect others would want a lot more than that.
I'm going to have to look into the m3 on this thing, but that's a lot of HP in armor and structure to fit in my back pocket. What do we get from refinery? Will it be a new and exciting way to use raw isk for mineral compression? Guess we could always use more trit in Null anyways. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3408
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 02:20:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: We are both wrong. The new base payout is 95 of stated payouts. That is the baseline for determining the reward of the device. So, killing 100m worth of NPC's will net you 95m isk without this device. With this device, you earn 80m isk off the bat, and risk 15m isk. The device then pays out 20-25m isk when instructed to do so.
So, you risk 15, and get payed 20-25. Alternatively, you could say you risk 15m isk to gain an extra 5-10m isk.
I am going to take this slowly. Today, if I kill a 100k isk bounty rat, I get 100k. In a post ESS world, I will shoot the same rat, it still says 100k and either suck up a 5% loss or... I deploy an ESS that withholds 20% of what the rat bounty shows. I receive 80k isk, and the ESS withholds 15k isk from the 95k that would have come to me directly, and 5k isk that I would have gotten the day before the ESS world began. I directly risk 15k isk of immediate return, and the 5k isk carrot hidden within the box I have invested 30mil isk into, in the hopes that I will just break even, according to how well the system worked in the pre-ESS world. That 5k hidden in the box is just there to keep me at break even, while I grind off the cost of my new 'upgrade'. It can not be discounted. Its 20% at risk for an eventual, potential 5% reward, since I'm not going to forget how things worked before this 'added content' rolls out. Imagine me waving a cane and ranting...I remember Sonny, The Good Ole days when bounties were REAL bounties, and not this namby pamby credit system cooked up as a plot by the Empires to leach pilots back into comfy ole 'High Security Space'. I'll give you High Security all right...Where was Concord when that 'nado gang suicide ganked...fade out camera... Give me 7.5% reward and 12.5 % in LP and CCP can 'pay' for it by fixing the 100% bounty only rats in Drone Space, and we might get into taking point range just based on the most basic of risk v. reward discussions. I expect others would want a lot more than that. I'm going to have to look into the m3 on this thing, but that's a lot of HP in armor and structure to fit in my back pocket. What do we get from refinery? Will it be a new and exciting way to use raw isk for mineral compression? Guess we could always use more trit in Null anyways.
You don't include the universal bounty nerf that exists completely independent of the ESS when looking at the profitability of the ESS.
To put it in perspective: Imagine you run a snow removal service. Today you get paid 100 bucks per hour to remove snow of a lot. Tomorrow, because of changes to the business environment, you only get paid 95 bucks for removing snow off that same lot. Tomorrow, a new snowplow comes on the market. To rent this snowplow costs 15 bucks per hour to rent, but your new hourly income will net 100 bucks an hour (including rental cost). Is it profitable to use?
You don't look at the, but back in the good old days I was paid 100 bucks an hour, so the new snowplow isn't profitable to use cause I'm still only making 100 bucks an hour. You compare present values...
|
Fix Sov
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 02:27:00 -
[1589] - Quote
Nice rewrite of history there. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
322
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 03:35:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:To put it in perspective: Imagine you run a snow removal service. Today you get paid 100 bucks per hour to remove snow of a lot. Tomorrow, because of changes to the business environment, you only get paid 95 bucks for removing snow off that same lot. Tomorrow, a new snowplow comes on the market. To rent this snowplow costs 15 bucks per hour to rent, but your new hourly income will net 100 bucks an hour (including rental cost). Is it profitable to use?
Wait, what?
First of all, there are no snowplows in Somalia. Wrong climate. Second of all, your plowtruck is going to get swarmed by people with AK47's, and stolen. You yourself will probably get away because you have a clone back in northern Canada or wherever you live that is making you compare snowplow trucks to EVE. |
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 04:23:00 -
[1591] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: We are both wrong. The new base payout is 95 of stated payouts. That is the baseline for determining the reward of the device. So, killing 100m worth of NPC's will net you 95m isk without this device. With this device, you earn 80m isk off the bat, and risk 15m isk. The device then pays out 20-25m isk when instructed to do so.
So, you risk 15, and get payed 20-25. Alternatively, you could say you risk 15m isk to gain an extra 5-10m isk.
I am going to take this slowly. Today, if I kill a 100k isk bounty rat, I get 100k. In a post ESS world, I will shoot the same rat, it still says 100k and either suck up a 5% loss or... I deploy an ESS that withholds 20% of what the rat bounty shows. I receive 80k isk, and the ESS withholds 15k isk from the 95k that would have come to me directly, and 5k isk that I would have gotten the day before the ESS world began. I directly risk 15k isk of immediate return, and the 5k isk carrot hidden within the box I have invested 30mil isk into, in the hopes that I will just break even, according to how well the system worked in the pre-ESS world. That 5k hidden in the box is just there to keep me at break even, while I grind off the cost of my new 'upgrade'. It can not be discounted. Its 20% at risk for an eventual, potential 5% reward, since I'm not going to forget how things worked before this 'added content' rolls out. Imagine me waving a cane and ranting...I remember Sonny, The Good Ole days when bounties were REAL bounties, and not this namby pamby credit system cooked up as a plot by the Empires to leach pilots back into comfy ole 'High Security Space'. I'll give you High Security all right...Where was Concord when that 'nado gang suicide ganked...fade out camera... Give me 7.5% reward and 12.5 % in LP and CCP can 'pay' for it by fixing the 100% bounty only rats in Drone Space, and we might get into taking point range just based on the most basic of risk v. reward discussions. I expect others would want a lot more than that. I'm going to have to look into the m3 on this thing, but that's a lot of HP in armor and structure to fit in my back pocket. What do we get from refinery? Will it be a new and exciting way to use raw isk for mineral compression? Guess we could always use more trit in Null anyways. You don't include the universal bounty nerf that exists completely independent of the ESS when looking at the profitability of the ESS. To put it in perspective: Imagine you run a snow removal service. Today you get paid 100 bucks per hour to remove snow of a lot. Tomorrow, because of changes to the business environment, you only get paid 95 bucks for removing snow off that same lot. Tomorrow, a new snowplow comes on the market. To rent this snowplow costs 15 bucks per hour to rent, but your new hourly income will net 100 bucks an hour (including rental cost). Is it profitable to use? You don't look at the, but back in the good old days I was paid 100 bucks an hour, so the new snowplow isn't profitable to use cause I'm still only making 100 bucks an hour. You compare present values... There is NOTHING independent about the universal bounty nerf, separate from introducing the ESS deployable. It's an offset, so far loosely tied to concerns over Isk faucets run amok. Its a stick to hang a carrot from at the very least, and it still totals 20% of what the listed bounty of the rat is. The rat still has 100% bounty. The only thing changed is that I need a prepaid card to access my own money, if you want to keep getting all real life, while I was trying to be somewhat lighthearted. The Lore, man, the lore...Concord tight for cash, Empires kickin' down, but needs dem monitors mon...
The 5% nerf to bounty payouts if no less toed to the ESS than a snowplow is to there actually being snow. To plow.
|
interesangt
Artic Drilling Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 05:19:00 -
[1592] - Quote
Not to mention hos the system works today, you get your bountys every 20 mins. So with this new system you have to wait 20 mins after your session is finished to go claim your isk.
So in other terms, if you log off due to rl, you forfit the last 18 mins of bountys which can be claim by anyone.. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 07:37:00 -
[1593] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Edit: Based on frequent misinterpretations, I want to clarify the statement regarding the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties a bit. This is NOT saying that the amount of ISK is too much and we're using the ESS as a weird nerfing tool of some sort. What is being said is that because the amount of ISK is so high, slight changes up or down makes a huge difference - there are many activities in EVE where the income could be affected by dozens of % and it would just be a blip in the ocean for the economy as a whole, but NPC bounties are not one of them - even a few % points up or down will have ripple effect everywhere in the game. So the point being made is that we have to be careful about altering these amounts. Turelus wrote:
* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation. Turelus wrote: * Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?
That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they-¦re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold. Turelus wrote: * Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?
This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
Dude, you should totally go into politics with double speak that good. P.T. Barnum would be proud! |
Inspiration
108
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 07:54:00 -
[1594] - Quote
If they want to limit NPC bounties and create conflict, they should simply make NPCs a deplete and a slowly regenerating resource.
This will promote spreading out, limit income per system and give much more interesting conflicts. It is also more real, i always wondered how the NPCs have an unlimited amount of ships...where is their manufacturing based? In the whole plot of EVE they are the thing that least make sense and it is causing problems. CCP tries to combat these with ever more exotic and non-nonsensical content. It's like trying to make a wrong right by adding many more wrongs...surely that doesn't work very well.
PS. Likewise, missions should be regionally pooled and deplete. Make people compete for a resource instead of auto-instancing the resource on demand. I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
620
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 11:01:00 -
[1595] - Quote
CCP is probably on weekend now. Can anyone give some odds on CCP answering us Monday?
Say, I'll even start.
CCP pulls the plug on Monday: 1:100. CCP pulls the plug at all: 1:40. CCP takes the ESS off Rubicon 1.1: 1:25.
Aren't those fair odds?
Although the "pulls the plug Monday" should probably be 1:250 or something. |
Fix Sov
53
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 11:04:00 -
[1596] - Quote
CCP won't be pulling the plug on this at all. It's a **** idea, and we haven't gotten a large portion of the hisec community to shoot a statue about it yet, so of course it'll be going in. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1961
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 13:26:00 -
[1597] - Quote
Shokubai wrote:I have a great idea. Lets make ratting in nullsec harder to do, and overall pay out less. While we are at it lets give interceptor pilots the chance to steal 20% of the isk i worked for just for warping to an ESS that's lit up like a christmas tree.
My first read was hey that might be cool. The more i think about it the more i thing "CCP wants more people in High Sec".
I cant speak for everybody but I consider this whole thing a 5% net loss in income. Most systems that are anywhere close to unfriendly space just wont bother risking 20% for a possible 5% gain.
No thanks.
Hi-sec is already over crowded with null-sec care bears leading the hard life. This is not a signature. |
Ettish Ormsbeast
Opium.
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 13:54:00 -
[1598] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback.
If the CSM thinks the EES is a good idea, then you guys have lost touch with the player base faster than any CSM to date.... Good job being the fastest at something I guess..... |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
665
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 14:44:00 -
[1599] - Quote
That's something I suppose. They are **** at everything else. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
665
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 14:55:00 -
[1600] - Quote
CCP Soniclover...... you really are a special snowflake.
To quote you.... "I don't usually respond to inflammatory posts"
Well....when you refuse to acknowledge 800 posts pointing out that your awesome ESS idea is a complete bag of horseshit, you will get some negative posts.
Then you say you are thinking about some changes, none of which address the issue.
So, when did you undock last, and not on SISI ? |
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
81
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 15:27:00 -
[1601] - Quote
yea, "we will fix null space" was one of those promises, made in 2011 and probly this is how they will fix it; who cares about sov and structure grinding, "we give you ess,msi mmjd" |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
717
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 15:30:00 -
[1602] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:CCP Soniclover......
This, so much this.
1600 posts (wooh, go me) and you still talk down to the community and still think this is a good idea? I bet you won't even read the 30 pages that will be added onto this thread by monday. You'll just cherry pick one or two responses from people that have no clue what they are talking about (hrm, sound familiar?) and post as if a tweak here or there will magically make this a good idea. There is not enough fire in the world to burn the ESS down with (and we're talking about a planet with a molten core, here). Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8629
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 17:38:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Scrap the ESS. Get rid of it entirely. Throw it out. There's no way you can tweak it to make it good. Don't even try. You've already transgressed by making a devblog about it before giving anybody the opportunity to comment on it. My EVE Videos |
Verskon Qaual
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:47:00 -
[1604] - Quote
CCP. If the intent of Rubicon and its iterations is to increase conflict, please try fixing the code so that we can actually have battles we want before spending time on new 'content' that will not keep the subscription numbers up and will not draw new people in.
Some of your most active and proactive players have organized player events that are not enjoyable in the least by watching 6 'soul crushing lag' popups, waiting to jump into a system. The big conflicts are what make the news. The big kills, fail-cascades and player events are what set EVE apart and bring in new players.
Let us use the content already in EVE, that has gone through iterations of balancing, and actually have a conflict driving use.
If it takes two or three 'expansions' worth of time and resources to code, you might actually make it 5 more years, or even 10, but that's only if you reevaluate your strategy and actually face the facts of a woefully inadequate system, presently and for the future. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:34:00 -
[1605] - Quote
Verskon Qaual wrote:CCP. If the intent of Rubicon and its iterations is to increase conflict, please try fixing the code so that we can actually have battles we want before spending time on new 'content' that will not keep the subscription numbers up and will not draw new people in.
Some of your most active and proactive players have organized player events that are not enjoyable in the least by watching 6 'soul crushing lag' popups, waiting to jump into a system. The big conflicts are what make the news. The big kills, fail-cascades and player events are what set EVE apart and bring in new players.
Let us use the content already in EVE, that has gone through iterations of balancing, and actually have a conflict driving use.
If it takes two or three 'expansions' worth of time and resources to code, you might actually make it 5 more years, or even 10, but that's only if you reevaluate your strategy and actually face the facts of a woefully inadequate system, presently and for the future.
Not empty quoting.
It gets really hard to enjoy the aspects of the game that I actually pay four subs to participate in - when the game can't handle itself and lags out, crashes, and generally makes a complete mess of everything we are doing with the tools provided.
I do not give two flying f***s about a new deployable structure or anything related to it; what I would like is for the epic conflicts that are theoretically allowed by the game, to actually occur, and I don't care to see new content until this fundamental issue is resolved.
If every epic battle is ruined because CCP isn't willing to re-code their system to support it, I will take my time and money elsewhere in the future. |
Moor Deybe
Delusional Aspirations Of Grandure
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:53:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Hi CCP,
I tried out the ESS module on Singularity last night for several hours, and I would like to provide some customer feedback for you.
I did some Drone Hordes and have the following thoughts :
I found the 20% reduction to the normal bounty unacceptable. It made me want to do something else..........anything else i.e. log out of EVE.
I'm not interested in gambling any of the bounty for a bit more, even if the reward was 50% more, nope, not interested in rushing back to change to a PVP ship to defend a structure that's holding my ISK, any more than I'd be interested in abandoning a PVP roam to do some PVE mission or ratting.
Other players won't want to sit there hanging around staring at empty space for hours on end "defending it" either, how boring.
After 1.5 hours the "rate" had risen to 82%.........which basically means, forget solo ratting with the ESS deployed, as you'll have to arrange your gameplay around the schedule of others ALL the time which would be quite restrictive I think.
Other's I've spoken to feel the same and they won't be ratting with one of those in a system if it goes live. Worse case scenario, people will take the 5% hit and rat at 95% of the previous bounty rate, or jump clone back to high sec until the ESS modules are gone and do something more interesting.
Some have posted to the effect that they are looking forward to dropping them in ratting systems and looping back around later on to see what's there in terms of ISK/tags or the possibility of a fight with people trying to take them down.
I can see how that would be fun if it were to actually happen, but human nature being what it is, I think they will just find that the devices have extracted 30M ISK from their wallets that they will never recoup, either in ISK or fun PVP encounters.
Based upon this whole ESS design, I'm assuming that CCP employees aren't allowed to actually play the game once they're employed there (probably quite rightly) as nothing else could explain how far wide of the mark the ESS is both from the PVE'ers point of view and the PVPer's point of view with regard to creating more interesting fun gameplay for everyone.
Still, you have 80 pages and counting of customer feedback to read, so its a simple case of totting up for and against and deciding how many customers you want to irritate, or you could take the path of irritating none of them by consigning the ESS to the round filing cabinet (thats the bin BTW).
P.S. If you want a quick win to make up for the time spent on the ESS, just bring back level 5 security missions to high sec, honestly, the number of people I know who are bored out of their minds with level 4's will love you for it. The ability to get in a fleet with others or a single ship specialised PVE fit that can handle level 5, will keep people entertained for quite a while.
And why don't they just do the current level 5 security missions in low sec you ask? Glad you asked...............because of the difference in ship fitting between PVE and PVP is so wide, that taking a PVE fitted ship into a lowsec mainly PVP environment, leaves it so vulnerable that its a joke.........and taking a PVP fit ship into a low sec level 5 mission means that its probably not capable of even completing a level 5.
Anyway, I digress.
Those are this customers thoughts anyway.
Thanks for reading CPP.
|
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:58:00 -
[1607] - Quote
20 pages and counting since a dev reply. Yup, their really interested in our feedback. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
945
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 01:13:00 -
[1608] - Quote
I think it may be time for a vote of no confidence in CCP seagull as the plan is not working plus it's forcing the dynamics of the game to go in a direction that is anathema to the majority of the player base. All of changes have occurred under her watch have either served to dumb the game down or make engaging, interesting content such as exploration so trivial and valueless as to take the thrill, joy and discovery that would lead to engagement of new players into a boring theme park ride in the hope that it will somehow lead to more cooperative game play and bridge the social wall. Lootspill anyone? Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 04:32:00 -
[1609] - Quote
I read somewhere that improving the new player experience, from Hisec to Null aught to be a serious priority. Even over the concerns of those caught in Soul Crushing Lag in HED today. That was posted in fact by someone in that very fight. I admire some of the rather clever mechanics of the ESS concept, to be brutally honest. I like that CCP wants to shake up some of the status quo, and give a bone to small gang dogs along the way. We haven't heard much from Team CCP, but I'm pretty sure that its been posted, or at least implied that piecemeal explanations haven't been winning anyone over to seeing things 'their' way. I'm hoping that there are charts, graphs and an entire new devblog in the works, because I really want New Eden to be a great place to play.
If making the game better for newbros is a high level priority, this isn't the right implementation. Not as presented at least. There are too many 'outs' for those that can afford to not play the 'ESS game'. The richest parts of New Eden will just get richer, while the divide separating them from those on the margins will rise, partially as a direct result of trying to 'improve' their own fields with this new 'farms and fields' content. This hits the cellar of an already broken Trickle Down economic system in a way, with too little upside, to inspire a willingness to endure. The ESS should be a lot more like the Combine was to all those before then that relied upon the yoke and oxen. Something that doesn't nerf fundamental 0.0 life so far below the crude income potential of Hisec that 0.0 is only a playplace for terribly spacerich nerds to posture over.
What an ESS like module aught to do, is give those tending the farms and fields enough upside to do something radically different. It should inspire them to farm in COMBAT SHIPS. Now that would be mindblowing, it would be lots of fun, and I have no idea at all how CCP could possibly make that happen, but it would be WOW, that was a GREAT idea CCP. If you look close enough, that is basically what they want out of the ESS as it is. As it is, it won't work. All the fears of isk faucet and whatnot is just gimping this thing into the ground so badly that 99% of the negrep community just won't use the thing, and have stated bluntly at the alliance level this thing will not be allowed. At all. Provibloc won't even touch it, and having lived there, that's some dirt poor folks saying, no, no way and maybe even never. If any part of New Eden should be embracing a potential wow, +5% TO ratting feature, it should be those guys. If Lol roleplayers and Lol some guy from Drones can't get behind this feature, then there has got to be something terribly terribly wrong.
If the ESS make enough of an impact that ratting in a PVP ship was preferable to being in a PVE ship, every FC in this game would love you. If I was in a small gang, looking at Dotlan for a high NPC kill area, and I had to send in a scout to check if there was an ESS, and then have to seriously consider if it was worth getting the fight that was sure to come, then the ESS would be really be working as intended. Those gangs then would either get to pillage failfit PVE ships that thought they could get away with it, or they'd see ready formups happen, gudfites would be had and no one would be complaining about TIDI in HED, because they were just having too much fun elsewhere in New Eden. |
Nicemeries
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:17:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Untill HED-GP last night I was trying really hard to find some positive things about the new deployables and new expansions in general. However after jumping in 10 corp dreads that basicly got stuck in the node and returned home as insurance pay outs without any control over them whatsoever, I gave up on trying to be positive about Rubicon 1.1 or even the next expansion. I can only guess what happened to the other 900 dreads that got jumped in.
I pay 75 euros / month for my 5 accounts. Use my money to improve your game or lose it altogether. We are moving towards a second Incarna here.
- Last night made painfully clear that your servers cannot handle current SOV mechanics.
- Stop devoting resources to adding small content like your new deployable that really no one is interested in until the basics are sound.
- Spend resources on fixing a game mechanic that ruined the night for 4000 active accounts that were directly involved in what was supposed to be the biggest battle in EvE history.
- Create an expansion that is worth waiting for. I rather have you guys work on an expansion for 2 years than making these 6 month deadlines with crappy stuff. Fix the core.
So:
Scrap the ESS, do not waste resources on trying to fix it. And for the love of EvE do not release this piece of junk.
Devote your resources to this:
- Fix SOV mechanics. Either you remove the incentive for us to put 4.000 people with drone assist doctrines in 1 system, or fix the code/server to allow 10.000 of us.
- Fix corp / alliance / coalition management.
- When you have done this, fix the HORRENDOUS POS code that we have been screaming for even longer.
Cheers
|
|
Kotaru
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 11:22:00 -
[1611] - Quote
Listen to your subscribers - 4000 accounts were screwed over last night by your failure to fix the basic game. HED last night should have been shot at birth - you managed to turn the clock back 20 years in a single night. Stop playing with silly little toys (particularly this useless one) |
Inspiration
111
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:02:00 -
[1612] - Quote
One major problem for 0.0 and that is the vision!
CCP is proud to have 2000 vs 2000 battles going on, which can only be decisively won by one side throwing another 1000 on top etc. This has all the hallmarks of a broken system, and is an evolutionary dead end!
From this perspective I really cannot phantom why so many 0.0 players (the rest don't care) seem to like big battles. In such battles there are at most a handful of people really playing (there playing chess at that). The rest is following order as when to be where and press a button and they must be in a prescribed doctrine ship. The actions of those players have not much influence on the outcome, only the numbers. There drones, plain and simple.
That is why EVERY everything in 0.0 and its vast spaces should be made hospitable to smaller scale combat. And to be ahead of CCPs mindset on this, that does NOT mean smaller ships, dammit!! Right now 0.0 control is dominated by who can field the most drones and dedicate the most time. It is as care bear as it can get, no better then missions IMO.,
At some point CCP decided it was great to introduce FW, which quickly got attention of 0.0, turning low sec into the same sort of game 0.0 is. I long for the days a small corp with some assets could do something without constant influence and risk coming form 0.0 alliance battle groups. FW kind of killed the low sec game for me tbh, the delusional grand aspirations of wanting ever more fights is hurdling the game. Even the players part of these humongous fights are complaining.
CCP....can't you see this is a path to oblivion?
You taken wonder and personal gratis faction out of the game, all in the name of big blobs and the urge to satsfy a handful of high level 0.0 players. By social network and personal dependency mechanics, those are the people that will always be dominant in the CSM, advising you to play THEIR game. To hell with the majority of paying subscribers.
It's time to downscale battles and do it fast!
Imagine how awesome smaller scale battles would be without the constant thread of a 1000 man blob ruining everything. Imagine how well it would run and how fast a game pace would be possible with even the current infrastructure. Make big power blocks less feasible to make room for new evolution in the other direction then bigger and bigger.
Don't try to tinker it with deployables, develop a vision, build it and let the rest up to the players! I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
279
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:04:00 -
[1613] - Quote
Inspiration wrote: Make big power blocks less feasible by making population spread out (by economic feasibility and reducing cyno/bridge). ! Null systems are already so bad that they can pretty much only support a couple of people at a time. And you want to make them worse?
This is starting to feel like Dr. Strangelove. "You can't play together in here, this is a MMO!" |
Fix Sov
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:07:00 -
[1614] - Quote
There's no reason to make "big power blocs (not blocks, blocs) less feasible". The problem isn't "big power blocs", it's "huge, node-breaking fights".
It's possible to have big power blocs without every single engagement being node-breakers. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Inspiration
112
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:17:00 -
[1615] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Inspiration wrote: Make big power blocks less feasible by making population spread out (by economic feasibility and reducing cyno/bridge). ! Null systems are already so bad that they can pretty much only support a couple of people at a time. And you want to make them worse? This is starting to feel like Dr. Strangelove. "You can't play together in here, this is a MMO!"
Together is something else as 4000 players in one system...that is just ludicrous!
Of course if you reshape null to limit quick troop buildup and make spreading out preferable, you will need to make those systems worth living in for dozens of people. And we can always add regions and systems as the population grows (as it will when its worth it).
For certain size conflicts to occur that the server will always handle gracefully with nearly no time dilation, you need a certain maximum population tho. If things escalate reinforcements must come from surrounding systems and not all over eve in the blink of an eye. I don;t think it will stop larger planned conflicts, and that is perfect, but it will make day to day living somewhere more viable.
I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Fix Sov
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:22:00 -
[1616] - Quote
There's no reason to add more space to nullsec, it's heavily underutilized as it is.
And there's no point in talking about size conflicts, as the problem isn't with the bloc sizes, but the number of people final system timers tend to bring to one single system at a time. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Inspiration
112
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:22:00 -
[1617] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:There's no reason to make "big power blocs (not blocks, blocs) less feasible". The problem isn't "big power blocs", it's "huge, node-breaking fights".
It's possible to have big power blocs without every single engagement being node-breakers.
Honestly...I do agree with you 100%.
I was not advocating limiting player organisation, in fact, there is little one can do against such a thing. But there is a certain connection...power blocks work because they can project power by using large numbers of players. They work because those players are mobile enough as to make it easy to concentrate that firepower quickly. And that is in turn what drives the large fights.
Limiting troop mobility, automatically means a more modest role for big power blocks. They won't disappear, and there will be room for new ones to form and grow if the existing ones are more power projection constraint. I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Fix Sov
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:27:00 -
[1618] - Quote
No, what drives the large fights is that it's a timer that both sides has a lot of time to prepare for, and which both sides must win (the defenders so they'll reset all progress for the attacker, and the attacker to finally get that final push into taking a system after a week's worth of work). Fix it so both sides has to attack/defend in multiple systems at the same time, and chances are you'll see much smaller fleets spread over multiple systems, which means the nodes'll be able to deal with it without going to sub-10% tidi every time. And there'd be more interesting strategy involved in choosing where to send which forces. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:41:00 -
[1619] - Quote
81 pages mostly filled with rage in this thread. GG again, keep pushing more stuff in that sucks and keep pushing more customers out.
ESS is a bad idea, mkay? And you could and should have known it.
Also we all know sov is not working since Dominion (or maybe even before that), maybe address this issue first instead of creating more of the fail deployables. |
Inspiration
112
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:51:00 -
[1620] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:No, what drives the large fights is that it's a timer that both sides has a lot of time to prepare for, and which both sides must win (the defenders so they'll reset all progress for the attacker, and the attacker to finally get that final push into taking a system after a week's worth of work). Fix it so both sides has to attack/defend in multiple systems at the same time, and chances are you'll see much smaller fleets spread over multiple systems, which means the nodes'll be able to deal with it without going to sub-10% tidi every time. And there'd be more interesting strategy involved in choosing where to send which forces.
There is that too :)
And I think both play a role, one maybe more urgent then the other. Big structures with timers is just part of CCP aiming deliberately to create large fights. I personally don't believe that putting objectives in multiple systems will change much. The amount of players in a few systems will still be staggering and the basic theme of if the other side brings 1000, we must and can bring 2000, remains. You will keep stuck in the same system and run into the same brick wall...its time to break that mold! I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:14:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Nicemeries wrote:Untill HED-GP last night I was trying really hard to find some positive things about the new deployables and new expansions in general. However after jumping in 10 corp dreads that basicly got stuck in the node and returned home as insurance pay outs without any control over them whatsoever, I gave up on trying to be positive about Rubicon 1.1 or even the next expansion. I can only guess what happened to the other 900 dreads that got jumped in. I pay 75 euros / month for my 5 accounts. Use my money to improve your game or lose it altogether. We are moving towards a second Incarna here.
- Last night made painfully clear that your servers cannot handle current SOV mechanics.
- Stop devoting resources to adding small content like your new deployable that really no one is interested in until the basics are sound.
- Spend resources on fixing a game mechanic that ruined the night for 4000 active accounts that were directly involved in what was supposed to be the biggest battle in EvE history.
- Create an expansion that is worth waiting for. I rather have you guys work on an expansion for 2 years than making these 6 month deadlines with crappy stuff. Fix the core.
So: Scrap the ESS, do not waste resources on trying to fix it. And for the love of EvE do not release this piece of junk. Devote your resources to this:
- Fix SOV mechanics. Either you remove the incentive for us to put 4.000 people with drone assist doctrines in 1 system, or fix the code/server to allow 10.000 of us.
- Fix corp / alliance / coalition management.
- When you have done this, fix the HORRENDOUS POS code that we have been screaming for even longer.
Cheers
This. Stop creating new crap while the old crap is still broken. I don't care if it's 2 years of "sorry, still working on it" and not one new expansion/feature is introduced in that time. You created sov, your software and hardware can't support what you created, now it's on you to fix it. You should be able to understand why seeing dev time spent on stupid deployables would **** off your customers. It's like having a car that won't even run but you install a new stereo in it. It's bad enough that the time was spent but it will be worse if you take 80 pages of negative customer feedback and decide "we know better" and shove it down our throats anyway.
I mean you guys are walking in stations level of out of touch with your player base at the moment.m. A massive portion of the game is completely broken. How long do you really expect your players to keep playing a broken game with not even a mention from you as to when it will be fixed.
|
greiton starfire
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:26:00 -
[1622] - Quote
this topic got derailed a bit. yes sov right now is **** and pushing people into one system per fight is a bad idea, but the topic at hand is the ess.
the ess, does not tackle the problem of sov in any way, in fact it doesn't affect it at all. it does not, and may not ever be able to promote small gang warfare. at a fundamental level it fails to take into account the real issues of the game.
this would work if: a) pve was done in pvp ships b)null sec could support more ratters in a system c)ratters had ample time to defend it d)ratters had actual benefit to it's deployment e)interceptors were not nullified and able to warp before the server ticks f)probably another factor i have forgotten
it is not a fix one of the above situation, it is fix all of the above before it sees any kind of use. if it is your desire for all of the above to be true, then you must tackle them in a logical way. you don't try to hang ornaments before cutting down the Christmas tree, otherwise you will just make a mess. don't put out shiny toys for a system you have not yet instituted. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
950
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:56:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Kotaru wrote:Listen to your subscribers - 4000 accounts were screwed over last night by your failure to fix the basic game. HED last night should have been shot at birth - you managed to turn the clock back 20 years in a single night. Stop playing with silly little toys (particularly this useless one)
I don't remember problems as prevalent as this five years ago when I joined. I have a theory that CCP have scaled back server performance or failed to upgrade over the years on account of the fact that they clear are tight up financially. I suspect that other games are renting space on tranquility like Dust which whilst not huge are nevertheless leaching resources from the array to the detriment of eve. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:16:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is, when you won't use the isk generating module because it could cost you a few minutes of your time and risks a button pushing stabbed inty being caught and destroyed? Especially since you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE IT.
Certainly there are more pressing things for you to gripe about, because your stance is unjustifiably absurd!
Indeed, it's like complaining no small gang pvp exists already in null sec, then refusing to show up in a ship with something other than a cloak or the ability to hotdrop and demand pvp.
I'd LOVE to see some actual small gang pvp in null sec, but the bottom line is that attacking gangs aren't looking for pvp, they are looking for ganks, so they use ships with cloaks or that can blow through gate camps - yourself included.
Nobody will use the ESS module. Alliances have already been discussing bans and you can bet anyone in alliance putting one up will get ejected after maybe one warning. It causes drama with no real rewards so NO THANKS! People simply aren't going to use it NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK THEY SHOULD.
When there is only risk and no worthwhile reward people seldom try the behavior. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:18:00 -
[1625] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Kotaru wrote:Listen to your subscribers - 4000 accounts were screwed over last night by your failure to fix the basic game. HED last night should have been shot at birth - you managed to turn the clock back 20 years in a single night. Stop playing with silly little toys (particularly this useless one) I don't remember problems as prevalent as this five years ago when I joined. I have a theory that CCP have scaled back server performance or failed to upgrade over the years on account of the fact that they clear are tight up financially. I suspect that other games are renting space on tranquility like Dust which whilst not huge are nevertheless leaching resources from the array to the detriment of eve.
Maybe they could start by getting rid of their expensive economists and actually investing in some server lag reduction technologies ...
|
Fix Sov
74
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:21:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Maybe they could start by getting rid of their expensive economists and actually investing in some server lag reduction technologies ... This would require them making a fairly radical change to the way they process requests. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening any time soon. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:36:00 -
[1627] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:If you deploy it for yourself, you cannot defend it...you are ratting and the like. This is the mentality that keeps people docked for days because there is an AFK cloaker in the system. As a ratter you have just as many options available to you as those who seek to prey upon you. You are not welded into a particular ship, nor are you unable to change the fit of that ship to match the situation... and you certainly aren't cut off from the rest of your corp mates (and their hopefully well organized intel channels) as far as communications goes. Prey mentality is self fulfilling. And no, you lose nothing by not using this module. The reward reduction is going to come anyway and is an unrelated issue. So if you don't use the module your pay out is unchanged from what it would be anyway.
LOL - have you ever actually done any ratting?
1) Ratting fits are PVE fits. PVE fits cannot take on PVP fits. It's really just that simple.
2) better than 90% of nullsec "PVP" amounts to watching local for hostiles, only to find out when they do show up, they appear in a gang of 5-8 in cloaking ships or interceptors. The obvious reasons to choose these ships for "PVP" purposes is that they are nearly impossible to counter.
3) The math has already been done. Starts at 80% (so 1M rat is an 800k rat), and then after 1.5 solo hours in a system the bounty goes to 82%. Whoopadeedoo. That's definitely worth blowing 30M isk on. Especially when I might need to guard it in a PVE vs PVP fit.
So basically PVP'rs are crying that they want another "I win" button, when they have plenty at their disposal already. Don't get pissed off at the nullsec residents because they have learned to work around gank tactics. Change your tactics.
Sooooo tired of having to waste time posting against a vocal but very small minority of the EVE players.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:46:00 -
[1628] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:
Limiting troop mobility, automatically means a more modest role for big power blocks. They won't disappear, and there will be room for new ones to form and grow if the existing ones are more power projection constraint.
Amen. Start by nerfing how far someone can hot drop and you'll see a few more actual fights.
For that matter, nerf the hotdrop altogether. Funny how these "issues" we are having with the game now didn't really exist before hot drops and bridging titans.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:53:00 -
[1629] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Kotaru wrote:Listen to your subscribers - 4000 accounts were screwed over last night by your failure to fix the basic game. HED last night should have been shot at birth - you managed to turn the clock back 20 years in a single night. Stop playing with silly little toys (particularly this useless one) I don't remember problems as prevalent as this five years ago when I joined. I have a theory that CCP have scaled back server performance or failed to upgrade over the years on account of the fact that they clear are tight up financially. I suspect that other games are renting space on tranquility like Dust which whilst not huge are nevertheless leaching resources from the array to the detriment of eve.
Then perhaps they could start making everyone pay for their accounts? 45k accounts were on at one time today. I assume that's $15 or the equivalent for each person on at the time. $675k in potential income a month and they can't fix server issues?
|
Fix Sov
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:59:00 -
[1630] - Quote
You do realize that everyone does pay for their account, right? Those plexing their account is actually paying more, because the people who buy the PLEXes pay more per month than the guy buying the PLEX would if he'd just paid for his account directly. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:32:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:You do realize that everyone does pay for their account, right? Those plexing their account is actually paying more, because the people who buy the PLEXes pay more per month than the guy buying the PLEX would if he'd just paid for his account directly.
Well actually the people paying with isk aren't paying more, somebody else is paying for that account. Sure it's more $, but it also creates a bigger drain on the server - yeah I'm talking to the people that multibox 10+ accounts. Would they do that if they had to pay $150/month in cash? I'm betting not.
How many do you think would drop off the subs if everyone was forced to pay in cash? I'm betting new eden would lose about 1/3 of it's pilots. Fewer pilots, less lag, fewer issues to fix, especially if the technology is "better".
CCP has sort of driven this upon themselves. They wanted more people in null sec, so they nerfed empire, then they wanted more income and ballooned the number of subscribers. Interestingly enough, they still seem to have the same issues as they did 10 years ago. Server lag, node crashing are still around.
Anyway, this got off topic.
ESS isn't the new "driver" for small gang warfare in 0.0. There's 80 pages of feedback showing why. Nerf cloaking and hot dropping and then beef up nullsec with even more rewards and you'll get the small conflict drivers you want. |
Zircon Dasher
343
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:31:00 -
[1632] - Quote
This thread is reminding me more and more of the Sifl and Olly Show
For the life of me I cannot figure out why..... Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
78
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:46:00 -
[1633] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Querns wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote: There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important.
It-¦s 60 seconds. I think he means "how long does it take for the ESS to go from 20% to 25% bounties" bit. It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more.
I take it you never heard of "SOV bills" Which "Special Snowflake" can up with that mechanic? Calling this "********" would be too much of a compliment. All i see happening is even more space being used less (We need this like another hole in the head) because of this "padded room module" In addition has it occurred to you how many people pay their subscriptions with plex? Have you guys considered numbers of potential cancellations do to people cannot offered to pay with cash for their monthly subs???
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
Mackenzie Ayres
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:04:00 -
[1634] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
The bounties in Nullsec are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures!
I don't think the reduction of bounty payouts in null of 5% is enough to warrant the risk an ESS brings. Maybe you should consider a reduction similar to NPC taxes of 11%. Concords gotta eat right? :) |
Mackenzie Ayres
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:21:00 -
[1635] - Quote
Thead Enco wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Querns wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote: There's also no info on how long it takes this thing to power up, which is sort of important.
It-¦s 60 seconds. I think he means "how long does it take for the ESS to go from 20% to 25% bounties" bit. It depends on the amount of activity in the system (as each bounty payout has a chance of triggering increase). If several people are ratting together it should take around 30 minutes. If it-¦s a solo player it can take an hour or more. I take it you never heard of "SOV bills" Which "Special Snowflake" can up with that mechanic? Calling this "********" would be too much of a compliment. All i see happening is even more space being used less (We need this like another hole in the head) because of this "padded room module" In addition has it occurred to you how many people pay their subscriptions with plex? Have you guys considered numbers of potential cancellations do to people cannot offered to pay with cash for their monthly subs???
Or maybe you'll have a lot more people using less space, since pilots would have to defend their space instead of running around PVPin in wars of stupidity. Which currently is being paid for by AFK empires of bots and R64 towers.
I suspect a few will burn out after this next patch :)
|
Regan Rotineque
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:02:00 -
[1636] - Quote
To ensure i was not speaking out of my ass in my earlier post in this thread.....
I logged into SiSi and tried said module out
My previous post stands.....this is junk....you want to nerf bounties then please just do that shave the 5% off because that is what this module is going to do anyway. And we wont have another piece of trash floating about EvE.
I must have missed where not only is your isk inside this thing - but you also have to go through a BUBBLE to get to it.
I can see all the carriers and ratting ships lined up...going into a warp disruption bubble to get at their bounties.....yup we are all completely insane.
So....now i have to launch one of these (overpriced) modules.....then do what i would normally do....then change ships to go get said isk because taking my ratting ship inside a disruption bubble is the equivalent of stabbing myself in the eye with a knitting needle. If i am really quite daft i `take all` and end up with some fun tags which I then have to find a way to get to high sec to trade in. YaaaaY more fun game-play because hauling stuff around EvE is one of the best things in the game. Not to mention CCP do you really want a bunch of bitter angry null bears headed to high sec to turn in their tags? Cause last time I checked ganking freighters and shooting miners was supposed to be 'fun'.....perhaps this might not be a bad idea afterall because customer retention is such a high priority....
Yup exciting gameplay.....makes me want to keep paying for my accounts.
If you dont believe me.....got and try it out on SiSi - it is unbelievably not fun and I cannot believe that CCP will spend anymore time on developing this "feature".
All this module does is create problems in corps and alliances where some idiot will drop one and all hell will break loose.
I don't mean to use so much sarcasm in a post or be unfair or disrespectful. I still love my EvE....but these kinds of things make me question it.
That is my 2 cents....i have a feeling that it won't matter much since I have not seen a Dev post in quite some time. And that generally means you are circling the wagons to defend your actions....something you would never have to do if you said "Hey we have this idea - this is it....and then before having spent a bunch of time on it - heard from the player base in advance." I can assure you that when N3, PL, Goons et al agree on something you have touched a nerve.
|
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:17:00 -
[1637] - Quote
I really don't understand all the whinning, nullbears have gotten pretty much what they asked for since 2008 when their representatives took over the CSM. If nullsec is a huge mess, enjoy what you begged for - pretty please give me X, Y and Z with a cherry on top CCP.
IMHO EVE began to get out of CCP's hands a long time ago when they nerfed supers because they were being used as haulers and not for what the devs had envisioned. Let the players play the game the way they want and not have to follow a set path thought out by, dare I write it, selfish nullbears and, oh the horror, implemented on their behalf by a dozen or so devs who were/are/always will be nullbears.
|
Fix Sov
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:20:00 -
[1638] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:I really don't understand all the whinning, nullbears have gotten pretty much what they asked for since 2008 And hisec's been continuously nerfed since 2008 too, right? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
McDarila
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 05:21:00 -
[1639] - Quote
I can confim that Get off my LAWN alliance is going to have KOS with this deployable. Next time just say your nerfing the rat rewards by 5%. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
620
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 06:27:00 -
[1640] - Quote
It's soon Monday morning in Iceland, and people show up on the workplace where they earn a living. Except CCP SoniClover, but that's probably the "earn" thing, not "show up" thing that's wrong...
No seriously, can we get an answer? After 5 days, CCP has yet to respond to any issue with the ESS. I'm not particularly surprised, but still, it's always one step forwards, one step back with CCP. Would have been nice with just two steps forward for a change. |
|
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 07:59:00 -
[1641] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:I'm really hoping that the lack of any more replies from CCP means they're having internal meetings about what to do with the ESS. Though sorry to say my belief is more on the lines of the CCP I have come to know which is them sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the issue (angry players) goes away. Sorry CCP but that is your normal MO. Anyone from CCP willing to face the mob and post what the plans for the ESS are, will our feedback be taken seriously and in full or should we just shut up and HTFU before moving our assets to Osmon for SOE L4's? Unlikely, typically once the responses end it means the change will be implemented as originally proposed. it will be something like this: CCP Rise wrote: ............. I also assure you that I am not ignoring negative feedback. There are absolutely a lot of people giving that in this thread. In the past when I've gotten negative feedback which is backed with well articulated arguments I don't hesitate to make changes (see industrial rebalance, electronic attack frig rebalance, battleship rebalance), but in this thread the majority of complaint is very disorganized and unhelpful, that's why I'm instead going with the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing and from some posters here.
THIS^^ was CCP Rise response in the r/h rapid missile launchers rebalance topic. the fact that after rubicon rapid missile launchers sales went down to 50% of theyr previous number shows probably how good is "... the positive feedback coming from the CSM, from our testing..."
Rapid missile launchers and the ESS are not on the same level of stupidity. The one RMLs you can ignore but an ESS which as I have stated before is an intelligence gathering tool and an ISK nerf is not just a stupid idea. It is so flawed as to be laughable. When you have to change other ship game mechanics to make it even remotely work as intended (sic) you have been sniffing too much white board cleaner |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
392
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 09:39:00 -
[1642] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Kotaru wrote:Listen to your subscribers - 4000 accounts were screwed over last night by your failure to fix the basic game. HED last night should have been shot at birth - you managed to turn the clock back 20 years in a single night. Stop playing with silly little toys (particularly this useless one) I don't remember problems as prevalent as this five years ago when I joined. I have a theory that CCP have scaled back server performance or failed to upgrade over the years on account of the fact that they clear are tight up financially. I suspect that other games are renting space on tranquility like Dust which whilst not huge are nevertheless leaching resources from the array to the detriment of eve. Then perhaps they could start making everyone pay for their accounts? 45k accounts were on at one time today. I assume that's $15 or the equivalent for each person on at the time. $675k in potential income a month and they can't fix server issues? fixing the lag / tidi issue is not that simple, yet it' s been 2 years since tidi has been introduced, and yet, NOTHING has changed on this side of the game.
i remember some ppl said when tidi was introduced, that CCP would not do anything since tidi pushed back the need to actually improve server performances (whether adding power, or reducing / distributing the load).
and they were right!
CCP had 2 years to react, and they failed, they could have made the core server code scalable, they could have made it mutli threaded, they could have made the load dynamically shared on the nodes....yet nothing, but a few shy statement on how they think they should add more band aid solution like brain in a box.....
when i look back those 2 years, i only see mostly terrible "expansion", either screwing up mass ppl gameplay, removing features, introducing crappy ones like the ESS, and wasting dev time on side projects wich are doomed to fail before they are even born (dust)....
lately, tidi is kicking more often than ever, and there are more and more fights ending up with the server crashing......maybe it's time to actually WAKE THE F*** UP CCP!!!! |
Optimo Sebiestor
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
226
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 11:54:00 -
[1643] - Quote
Remove local chat. |
Shvak
The Warp Core Stabilizers Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 12:54:00 -
[1644] - Quote
http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window.
S hit You know who I feel sorry for the most. The little guy that sneaks into nullsec for a little R and R. This is just going to make him so easy to find. I agree with the rest it will be a 30m isk kill blot on eve kill every time I see one.
Curious how these will be used in WH space when the time comes |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:07:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Shvak wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window.
wow. well, maybe ccp sold us out as a test crowd for some psychology & behaviour studies? this kinda demands a total rework of 0.0 PVE content in the next expansion, at the latest.
or at least let us drop these in high sec mission hubs (as earlier suggested) and everyone who tries to steal the honey pot for him- or herself gets a suspect timer . |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
673
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:23:00 -
[1646] - Quote
Shvak wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window.
The last time CCP actually admitted that they were wrong and rolled back a feature was Incarna, and that took the Jita riot and a lot of cancelled accounts to accomplish.
They were never going to cancel this pile of horseshit. The letter from Hilmar after Incarna was a clever piece of PR designed to calm people down, while being full of hollow promises about a new, humbler CCP. Everyone really knew that it was a load of bollox. |
Omega Tron
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:27:00 -
[1647] - Quote
I guess I have a really dumb question for Team Super Friends --
Can you please explain how this batch of deployable stuff fits in to the vision of being able to expand exploration by moving into new space areas and the building of new stargates? EVE Online is CCP's sand box. -áThe sand is owned by CCP. -áWe just get to pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other. -áGet over your thoughts that you have some influence on what they will add or do for you. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:46:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Optimo Sebiestor wrote:Remove local chat.
Because hi-sec needs more residents ...
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:57:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Mackenzie Ayres wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:
- Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
- One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)
The bounties in Nullsec are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor. Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures! I don't think the reduction of bounty payouts in null of 5% is enough to warrant the risk an ESS brings. Maybe you should consider a reduction similar to NPC taxes of 11%. Concords gotta eat right? :)
Ha! Why does the player base need nullsec for if the plan is to continually nerf it? I would think the leet pvp'ers would want more ratting and mining targets in a system and not less to pad their gank boards. And you think to do that the right way is to penalize nullsec residents more?? That's as useful as a poop flavored candy.
Obviously there is a huge disconnect here. The leet pvp'ers claim nobody wants to fight, yet the game mechanics are set up so that ratting and PVP fits are mutually exclusive. Ratting, like it or not, is required to fund pvp activities since the 0.01 isk game isn't terribly fun to play in empire constantly.
CCP could try something radical like, oh I dunno, making it possible to pvp with a ratting fit. Then there isn't any need to change fits at station or elsewhere, losing precious response time. Oh, no but they can't because that's how they set the game up.
Why not just make it a 50% bounty nerf with 150% bonus after 2 weeks of ratting? Because Jita can't hold that many people, that's why.
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
392
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:59:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Shvak wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window. S hit You know who I feel sorry for the most. The little guy that sneaks into nullsec for a little R and R. This is just going to make him so easy to find. I agree with the rest it will be a 30m isk kill blot on eve kill every time I see one. Curious how these will be used in WH space when the time comes as i, like many others said before, unless we have a massive protest and unsub like the incarna thingy, CCP wil never give a crap about the player base...... |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 15:09:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:I really don't understand all the whinning, nullbears have gotten pretty much what they asked for since 2008 when their representatives took over the CSM. If nullsec is a huge mess, enjoy what you begged for - pretty please give me X, Y and Z with a cherry on top CCP. IMHO EVE began to get out of CCP's hands a long time ago when they nerfed supers because they were being used as haulers and not for what the devs had envisioned. Let the players play the game the way they want and not have to follow a set path thought out by, dare I write it, selfish nullbears and, oh the horror, implemented on their behalf by a dozen or so devs who were/are/always will be nullbears.
I'm fairly convinced that the gankers will ever only be happy when the null bears are continually warp scrambled by belt rats so they can be lined up firing squad style. They're pretty much like someone that would try and give you a toilet swirly from behind while you are urinating, only when you turn to punch them in the mouth they run as fast as they can.
EVE started getting out of hand when they let people pay for accounts with in game isk, encouraging (hell basically ensuring multiboxing and additional server lag) and they introduced hot dropping. Hot dropping basically removed any reason to fight because there was no way to see what you were up against. A fairly reasonable 1:1 fight could suddenly turn into a 4-6 on 1. Now that hotdropping can be done several jumps behind enemy lines, the problem has only gotten worse. Nobody is going to engage 1 on 6 no matter how badly you want them to in their PVE setup. Far easier to dock up somewhere and wait til the gankers get bored. Yes, yes, you really owned us this time ... oh wait, we still own the space ...
So which features have nullbears gotten to make it easier to hold their space? Bridging Titans? Covert Cynos? Stealth Bombers? Uncatchable interceptors? AFK cloakies isk-locking systems? And now small roving gangs want more handouts (ESS - fund my pvp while I try and gank nullbears)? There's a big whiny group in the game allright, but it's not the nullbears.
Keep it up CCP, I can choose to use my disposable income in other ways. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
725
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 15:17:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Shvak wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window. S hit You know who I feel sorry for the most. The little guy that sneaks into nullsec for a little R and R. This is just going to make him so easy to find. I agree with the rest it will be a 30m isk kill blot on eve kill every time I see one. Curious how these will be used in WH space when the time comes
What a ******* joke. Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 15:20:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Speaking from the perspective of a brigand who is roaming sovereignty space, I can only say that the best fights I can remember were those where people actually stood up against us. I donGÇÿt enjoy ganks very much, but as a roamer you learn to take what you can get. Better to kill a solo ratting Drake or Carrier than nothing at all. ThatGÇÿs all. I donGÇÿt want to gank, I wish there were more small-scale fights (say 4-6 vs 4-6, or double that size). And in this case I am perfectly fine with losing the engagement. As long as I got a good fight, no problem with that.
That doesn't tell anything about ESS at all. Just my two cents with regards to the perceived motivation of roamers vs the roamers perspective. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
342
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 15:37:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Shvak wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ I think all speculation that CCP may can the idea just flew out the window.
CCP; listening to player feedback since never. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 15:38:00 -
[1655] - Quote
It's been a little bit since our last feedback from CCP. How goes the discussion about iterations and changes to these deployables? (granted, you might be tied up on other discussions given HED-GP).
|
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
95
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:00:00 -
[1656] - Quote
CCP like to do stuff that ppl do not need and also they like not do to stuff that ppl would like to have. Atm I'm talking about INCARNA.
CCP started to develop DUST514, not even for PC, then VALKYRIE... and nobody knows what it will be. What will be next? Little hacking games for dendy?
I realy want CCP to launch normal incarna instead of wasting time and human resources for such crap as ESS. Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:17:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: It's been a little bit since our last feedback from CCP. How goes the discussion about iterations and changes to these deployables? (granted, you might be tied up on other discussions given HED-GP).
CCP doesn't seem to care as no announcements to stop release of the module have been made, alliances are beginning to declare them KOS if deployed. Not really anything has changed.
I'd say in all likelihood they'll be implemented, alliances will ban their use for the most part and after the hostiles deploy one leave the system - BOOM. They'll lose 30M. Just another nullsec structure to grind really.
All in all, just a big waste of resources and time for everyone all the way around.
|
Zircon Dasher
346
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:34:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote: alliances will ban their use..... Just another nullsec structure to grind really.
So your alliance is 1) nerfing your income and 2) mandating that you shoot structures that play no part in SOV?
And your mad at CCP. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
394
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:38:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: It's been a little bit since our last feedback from CCP. How goes the discussion about iterations and changes to these deployables? (granted, you might be tied up on other discussions given HED-GP).
CCP's idea on discussion and feedback:
http://www.eveonline.com/rubicon/features/encounter-surveillance-system/ |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:40:00 -
[1660] - Quote
They are not obliged to ask for permission to add something to their game. That being said, the announcement isnGÇÿt very specific, feature-wise. So there still seems to be plenty of room for changes to the way it operates.
Not releasing the module seems to be no option, though. |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:42:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote: alliances will ban their use..... Just another nullsec structure to grind really.
So your alliance is 1) nerfing your income and 2) mandating that you shoot structures that play no part in SOV? And your mad at CCP.
No CCP is nerfing the bounty. I don't recall alliances asking for this asinine structure, just less fleet lag.
I will shoot them because strategically there is nothing else to do with them. If one goes up and it remains unmolested it simply provides a target for enemies to warp to and encourages them to hang around my space and steal. And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? How about this - I'll trade you the ESS and go for it if small gang pvp gives up cloaking ships and hot drops. Hmmmmm, wonder what the odds of them doing that are? |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
394
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:45:00 -
[1662] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:They are not obliged to ask for permission to add something to their game. That being said, the announcement isnGÇÿt very specific, feature-wise. So there still seems to be plenty of room for changes to the way it operates.
Not releasing the module seems to be no option, though. of course, but with such an attitude, it's how it'll end, THEIR game, not ours, they'll endup witha massive cluster for a hundred devs......
the subs number are already dropping, the nb of ppl connected is dropping, and pissing up the remaining player is NOT something they can afford, yet they do it...... |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:47:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:They are not obliged to ask for permission to add something to their game. That being said, the announcement isnGÇÿt very specific, feature-wise. So there still seems to be plenty of room for changes to the way it operates.
Not releasing the module seems to be no option, though.
By all means, you are correct, they don't have to ask. However, it's pretty short-sighted of them to think players can't vote with their subs. I mean it's not like there aren't any other MMO's to play these days. Generally speaking, not giving your customers what they want results in a lack of customers.
When my customers ask me for something in RL, I generally try to oblige by forming a win-win deal. This isn't a win-win deal. Let CCP find out the hard way again. Fine with me.
|
Zircon Dasher
346
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:02:00 -
[1664] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote: No CCP is nerfing the bounty. I don't recall alliances asking for this asinine structure, just less fleet lag.
I will shoot them because strategically there is nothing else to do with them. If one goes up and it remains unmolested it simply provides a target for enemies to warp to and encourages them to hang around my space and steal. And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? How about this - I'll trade you the ESS and go for it if small gang pvp gives up cloaking ships and hot drops. Hmmmmm, wonder what the odds of them doing that are?
CCP is also providing a mechanism to ignore the nerf. If your alliance does not allow you to ignore the nerf, then your alliance is actively nerfing your income.
So you will shoot them even though you don't have to, but complain about more structure grinds. Got it.
Why would you collect tags unless your 'stealing'(lol) them? If you are 'stealing' why would you use a ratting ship? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:05:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote: And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? How about this - I'll trade you the ESS and go for it if small gang pvp gives up cloaking ships and hot drops. Hmmmmm, wonder what the odds of them doing that are?
So, after 84 pages in this discussion, you still didnGÇÿt realize, that the ratters DONGÇÿT have to collect any tags? If somebody pushes the SHARE button, then all ratters get an ISK transfer directly to their wallet, proportionally to the bounties they collected since the last share event in the system, while the module was active.
Quote:Generally speaking, not giving your customers what they want results in a lack of customers.
ThatGÇÿs right. But nullsec alliances are only one part of CCP customers, and they have to see the big picture, such as GÇPin which direction do we want to develop this gameGÇ£. |
Fix Sov
84
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:10:00 -
[1666] - Quote
So what's the direction this useless module is supposed to be taking "this game"? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
394
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:10:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote: And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? So, after 84 pages in this discussion, you still didnGÇÿt realize, that the ratters DONGÇÿT have to collect any tags? If somebody pushes the SHARE button, then all ratters get an ISK transfer directly to their wallet, proportionally to the bounties they collected since the last share event in the system, while the module was active. Quote:Generally speaking, not giving your customers what they want results in a lack of customers. ThatGÇÿs right. But nullsec alliances are only one part of CCP customers, and they have to see the big picture, such as GÇPin which direction do we want to develop this gameGÇ£. one thing is pretty clear about CCP's big picture:
the null sec is mostly empty, and they want it even more empty |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:17:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote: No CCP is nerfing the bounty. I don't recall alliances asking for this asinine structure, just less fleet lag.
I will shoot them because strategically there is nothing else to do with them. If one goes up and it remains unmolested it simply provides a target for enemies to warp to and encourages them to hang around my space and steal. And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? How about this - I'll trade you the ESS and go for it if small gang pvp gives up cloaking ships and hot drops. Hmmmmm, wonder what the odds of them doing that are?
CCP is also providing a mechanism to ignore the nerf. If your alliance does not allow you to ignore the nerf, then your alliance is actively nerfing your income. So you will shoot them even though you don't have to, but complain about more structure grinds. Got it. Why would you collect tags unless your 'stealing'(lol) them? If you are 'stealing' why would you use a ratting ship?
NO, CCP is the one nerfing the income. My alliance doesn't want these and didn't ask for them. Was there some alliance somewhere complaining that they were making too much isk in null? I guess I missed that post. By design, the only option is to KOS these regardless of who deploys them.
Basically CCP is saying put these ESS up and guard them or receive a 5% nerf to income, oh, and by the way, there's no real reason to put them up because they will attract more enemies to your quiet ratting space, the rewards are garbage because it takes too long to pay for itself, any day old alt can take from them, and you can't really defend them. We also stuck some warp bubbles around them, just to make you a juicy pre-scrammed target for the small gangs in the hopes to make null sec even worse. And if that wasn't enough to convince you about how useful and great they are, we even want you to risk taking these to empire to get any gain from them.
You'd have to be a moron to think any alliance will deploy these or allow them to be deployed in their current state.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:30:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote: And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? So, after 84 pages in this discussion, you still didnGÇÿt realize, that the ratters DONGÇÿT have to collect any tags? If somebody pushes the SHARE button, then all ratters get an ISK transfer directly to their wallet, proportionally to the bounties they collected since the last share event in the system, while the module was active. Quote:Generally speaking, not giving your customers what they want results in a lack of customers. ThatGÇÿs right. But nullsec alliances are only one part of CCP customers, and they have to see the big picture, such as GÇPin which direction do we want to develop this gameGÇ£.
I hate to break it to you but you are only a very small albeit VOCAL minority pushing for this thing. Well organized alliances run EVE no matter how badly DEV's don't want it to be different. The major warring factions agree not to want it. A large majority of subscribers have mains or alts in at least one alliance. Alliances really gain nothing by deploying the ESS in it's current form.
If the payout was immediate, say +25%-%50 of ratting income in the system, it doesn't have a bubble around it, and there is no reason to interact with it and empire in any way, then MAAAAAYBE there is a reason to cheer for this thing. All I see with it now is a reason to encourage a day old alt or small roving gang to steal isk from it while it nerfs the bounties to boot. And hey, what person trying to rat for isk doesn't need that, right? I mean who wouldn't want yet another reason to entice someone in a PVP fit to come ruin your PVE day?
This really isn't that hard guys.
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:32:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:So what's the direction this useless module is supposed to be taking "this game"?
Farms and fields. I hope CCP was somewhat prepared for the resistance by nullbears once it became more than an empty slogan :-P |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:36:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So what's the direction this useless module is supposed to be taking "this game"? Farms and fields. I hope CCP was somewhat prepared for the resistance by nullbears once it became more than an empty slogan :-P
lol - we'll see how prepared CCP is when subs start dropping off.
Here's a few more empty slogans:
- What is your definition of epic combat? Is it fleets of hundreds clashing in battle? Is it war for control of entire constellations?
- Does high risk PvP get your blood racing? 1000+ ship fleet battles - hundreds of ship types - thousands of ship module options
lol
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
345
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:38:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So what's the direction this useless module is supposed to be taking "this game"? Farms and fields. I hope CCP was somewhat prepared for the resistance by nullbears once it became more than an empty slogan :-P
If CCP thinks that when we said that we wanted farms and fields that we meant we wanted nullsec line members' already tedious income nerfed, then we need to have a talk about what "farms and fields" actually means. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:38:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Tahnil wrote:Muffet McStrudel wrote: And if I'm really lucky, maybe I'll get my ratting ship caught in the warp bubble while trying to collect my tags that I'll need to burn time lugging to empire, where maybe I'll get lucky twice and get podded along the way.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you? So, after 84 pages in this discussion, you still didnGÇÿt realize, that the ratters DONGÇÿT have to collect any tags? If somebody pushes the SHARE button, then all ratters get an ISK transfer directly to their wallet, proportionally to the bounties they collected since the last share event in the system, while the module was active. Quote:Generally speaking, not giving your customers what they want results in a lack of customers. ThatGÇÿs right. But nullsec alliances are only one part of CCP customers, and they have to see the big picture, such as GÇPin which direction do we want to develop this gameGÇ£. I hate to break it to you but you are only a very small albeit VOCAL minority pushing for this thing. Well organized alliances run EVE regardless if the DEV's want it or not. The major warring factions agree not to want the ESS. A large majority of subscribers have mains or alts in at least one alliance. Alliances really gain nothing by deploying the ESS in it's current form. If the payout was immediate, say +25%-%50 of ratting income in the system, it doesn't have a bubble around it, and there is no reason to interact with it and empire in any way, then MAAAAAYBE there is a reason to cheer for this thing. All I see with it now is a reason to encourage a day old alt or small roving gang to steal isk from it while it nerfs the bounties to boot. And hey, what person trying to rat for isk doesn't need that, right? I mean who wouldn't want yet another reason to entice someone in a PVP fit to come ruin your PVE day? This really isn't that hard guys.
Then by all means don't use it. But don't whine and ***** about it as well. If the module isn't used at all, CCP will have to revisit it in spring. And if you're concerned about your income, then either use it or do one more site a week.
If you see potential in the idea behind it, suggest some improvements. Nuff said. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
345
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:40:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Then by all means don't use it. But don't whine and ***** about it as well. If the module isn't used at all, CCP will have to revisit it in spring. And if you're concerned about your income, then either use it or do one more site a week.
Just like CCP is going to fix Sov, POSes, corp roles, and lag? lol, please.
Tahnil wrote:If you see potential in the idea behind it, suggest spme improvements. Nuff said.
There have been 80+ pages of suggestions, all of which have been ignored by CCP. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:50:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:
Then by all means don't use it. But don't whine and ***** about it as well. If the module isn't used at all, CCP will have to revisit it in spring. And if you're concerned about your income, then either use it or do one more site a week.
If you see potential in the idea behind it, suggest some improvements. Nuff said.
Improvements were suggested. Many times. CCP doesn't seem to have any interests to entertain them.
You want fights in 0.0? Get rid of afk cloakers and cloaking hot drops as well as uncatchable interceptors and the whining pvpers will get some fights. Allow PVP fits to be able to rat more effectively and more fights will come. But nope, that isn't what the gankers like you want, they simply want some free isk while they pvp with easy targets.
They'd rather cry about how everyone just docks up when local spikes and they shouldn't have to adjust their tactics. Well boo fricken hoo. Enjoy watching people dock up and shoot your ESS modules after you leave now, because that's what's going to happen. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:50:00 -
[1676] - Quote
No they haven't. |
Fix Sov
86
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:54:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:If the module isn't used at all, CCP will have to revisit it in spring. That never happens.
Tahnil wrote:If you see potential in the idea behind it, suggest some improvements. Nuff said. We have, abut some people don't seem to listen. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:55:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Quote:There have been 80+ pages of suggestions, all of which have been ignored by CCP. No they haven't.
That remains to be seen until after the patch. Based off the present hearsay and innuendo though, there's really no reason for an alliance to say "yeah!" to ESS at this time.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18969
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 18:28:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So what's the direction this useless module is supposed to be taking "this game"? Farms and fields. This isn't farms and fields, though. Farms and fields is about being able to grow your own little patch of land, but having to keep the wildlife from trampling all over it. Replacing the fertile earth on the farm with sand and giving players fences that suck up any remaining water (not to mention attracting wildlife rather than keep it out) doesn't do that.
This is more like wheel of pain GÇö a pointless toil in a wasteland that grows increasingly depopulated and rarely visited as time goes by. 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:01:00 -
[1680] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tahnil wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So what's the direction this useless module is supposed to be taking "this game"? Farms and fields. This isn't farms and fields, though. Farms and fields is about being able to grow your own little patch of land, but having to keep the wildlife from trampling all over it. Replacing the fertile earth on the farm with sand and giving players fences that suck up any remaining water (not to mention attracting wildlife rather than keep it out) doesn't do that. This is more like wheel of pain GÇö a pointless toil in a wasteland that grows increasingly depopulated and rarely visited as time goes by.
Normally you make good posts tippia.. but this is just bullshit garbage.
The ESS is essentially fertilizer.. it has the potential to increase your crop yield while also attracting bugs.
It absolutely qualifies as a Farms & Fields device, and no bullshit analogy you pull out of your ass will change that. What you may honestly debate is the utility of the device, and whether the risks outweigh the rewards. |
|
Fix Sov
87
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:05:00 -
[1681] - Quote
How does it qualify as farms and fields? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:12:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:How does it qualify as farms and fields?
The Farms & Fields concept centered on small-scale infrastructure that could potentially increase the productivity of a system while being susceptible to small-gang raiding.
Fact 1: This device, if successfully utilized, increases the ratting yield of a system. Fact 2: This device is susceptible to raiding by a small gang.
Hence, it is a Farms and Fields Device.
|
Fix Sov
87
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:15:00 -
[1683] - Quote
The yield it increases a system with is negligible, and it's raidable by everyone, including blues, to the point where nobody'll deploy it because it's utter ****.
If that's really what CCP's idea of "farms and fields" is, and siphons + ESS seems to be indikating that yes, it is indeed their idea of "farms and fields", then they should just drop the whole idea of "farms and fields" now and never bring it up ever again, because they're absolute **** at it. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:30:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:The yield it increases a system with is negligible, and it's raidable by everyone, including blues, to the point where nobody'll deploy it because it's utter ****.
If that's really what CCP's idea of "farms and fields" is, and siphons + ESS seems to be indikating that yes, it is indeed their idea of "farms and fields", then they should just drop the whole idea of "farms and fields" now and never bring it up ever again, because they're absolute **** at it.
Well, from the sounds of it, CCP is hesitant about having too big of a yield increase, since it is altering the yield of one of the largest isk faucets in the game.
And guess what, the whole idea of the farms & fields was that it would be raidable by everyone, including blues.
It is devices like this that I personally want to see implemented in the game. Now, I want them to be worthwhile to use, and capable of being defended, but IMO, that simply requires tweaking this device. |
Fix Sov
87
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:34:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Well, from the sounds of it, CCP is hesitant about having too big of a yield increase, since it is altering the yield of one of the largest isk faucets in the game. Solution: make it suck more if you don't deploy it, so there's an actual reason for deploying it and defending it What CCP did: make it suck more to deploy it, with a chance that you won't get robbed by blues ... i.e. nobody deploys it.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:And guess what, the whole idea of the farms & fields was that it would be raidable by everyone, including blues. At the press of a single button? No, that's **** gameplay.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:It is devices like this that I personally want to see implemented in the game. Now, I want them to be worthwhile to use, and capable of being defended, but IMO, that simply requires tweaking this device. It requires more than just "tweaking". The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:34:00 -
[1686] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Normally you make good posts tippia.. but this is just bullshit garbage.
The ESS is essentially fertilizer.. it has the potential to increase your crop yield while also attracting bugs.
It absolutely qualifies as a Farms & Fields device, and no bullshit analogy you pull out of your ass will change that. What you may honestly debate is the utility of the device, and whether the risks outweigh the rewards.
Oh the ESS is fertilizer allright ...
That's about the only part of your post you got right.
This thread reeks of nothing more than the desperation of pvper's that want free isk to gank in enemy territory in the guise of "this will help pvp". Sorry, but your small gang JUST ISN'T REALLY THAT THREATENING TO MAJOR ALLIANCE SPACE and ALLIANCES AREN'T INTERESTED IN EVEN TAKING THE RISK TO PAY YOU TO PVP IN THEIR SPACE. Why would they be? AND THAT'S ALL THE ESS WILL DO AND EXACTLY WHY IT WILL GET BANNED AND KOS.
You are trying to make your gang a round peg when it's a square. Small gangs can never really be a threat to a major alliance, unless they are united. Hey, there's a tactic and concept for you. You guys can organize a conglomerrate of small gangs working together and try and threaten big alliance space. Oh, that takes work. Sorry, my bad. This is all about making things easy for gankers, my apologies. You shouldn't have to work for anything.
Where small gangs work: Low-Sec, where they can gank anything moving through a gate; at alliance JB's or gate chokepoints where they can force a fight Where they don't: Trying to take sov; trying to force locals to fight when they have POS or hold stations
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1213
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:52:00 -
[1687] - Quote
No iteration on this module? The Tears Must Flow |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:05:00 -
[1688] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Normally you make good posts tippia.. but this is just bullshit garbage.
The ESS is essentially fertilizer.. it has the potential to increase your crop yield while also attracting bugs.
It absolutely qualifies as a Farms & Fields device, and no bullshit analogy you pull out of your ass will change that. What you may honestly debate is the utility of the device, and whether the risks outweigh the rewards.
Oh the ESS is fertilizer allright ... That's about the only part of your post you got right. This thread reeks of nothing more than the desperation of pvper's that want free isk to gank in enemy territory in the guise of "this will help pvp". Sorry, but your small gang JUST ISN'T REALLY THAT THREATENING TO MAJOR ALLIANCE SPACE and ALLIANCES AREN'T INTERESTED IN EVEN TAKING THE RISK TO PAY YOU TO PVP IN THEIR SPACE. Why would they be? AND THAT'S ALL THE ESS WILL DO AND EXACTLY WHY IT WILL GET BANNED AND KOS. You are trying to make your gang a round peg when it's a square. Small gangs can never really be a threat to a major alliance, unless they are united. Hey, there's a tactic and concept for you. You guys can organize a conglomerrate of small gangs working together and try and threaten big alliance space. Oh, that takes work. Sorry, my bad. This is all about making things easy for gankers, my apologies. You shouldn't have to work for anything. Where small gangs work: Low-Sec, where they can gank anything moving through a gate; at alliance JB's or gate chokepoints where they can force a fight Where they don't: Trying to take sov; trying to force locals to fight when they have POS or hold stations I would add that you are the one that chooses whether to be in a small gang or a large alliance. Both have advantages and limitations. If you cannot do what you want, then perhaps you should reconsider your tactics.
There are two aspects to owning territory: 1.) Defending it from outsiders. 2.) Defending it from within.
Currently, the Sov mechanics are all about defending space from Outside territorial disputes. That's fine and good. Unfortunately, once you own the space, everything you invest into it (i.e. its infrastructure like POS's, IHUB upgrades, POCOs, and stations) are all large gang targets. There is nothing in the current design that is small gang oriented, and this is what should change. I totally understand why you don't want to have vulnerable infrastructure. We all know you hate the concept of defending space, and prefer to just get safe and simply waiting for the raiders to move on, but that is a terrible void for game conflict and content.
Siphons are sort-of small gang targets, but unfortunately the are located within POS weapon range, which eliminates any & all small gang conflict. The ESS is the first truly small gang farms and fields device that CCP is implementing, and if you don't think you can handle the risks deploying it entails, then don't. But give everyone the choice to make that decision for themselves!
|
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:09:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Um. Siphons have a fairly low EHP which you can grind through solo in no-time. Them not being on the POS grid wouldn't change a thing. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
578
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:10:00 -
[1690] - Quote
So, are our opinions being considered at all? Or is CCP just pushing forward with another mechanic that won't be used much in a year's time, and will fall into disuse entirely like so many others? |
|
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:12:00 -
[1691] - Quote
My magic 8-ball is saying "yes". The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:16:00 -
[1692] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Well, from the sounds of it, CCP is hesitant about having too big of a yield increase, since it is altering the yield of one of the largest isk faucets in the game. Solution: make it suck more if you don't deploy it, so there's an actual reason for deploying it and defending it What CCP did: make it suck more to deploy it, with a chance that you won't get robbed by blues ... i.e. nobody deploys it.
You do realize that 75% of the complaints in the thread are people whining about the 5% nerf to nullsec income? Forcing people to risk large percentages of their income would cause all sorts of uproar and hate. This is the wrong approach. There are ALWAYS gangs that can come through that you have no possibility what-so-ever of defending your infrastructure against, especially in very active hostile regions. Forcing people to utilize these to make any reasonable income, and then having that income ravished the moment an unengageable force comes through, is TERRIBLE game design. Your suggestion is way off base, and while we both agree sov needs fixing, I prefer the carrot approach (which this is) as to your nuclear dickuptheass approach.
Fix Sov wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:And guess what, the whole idea of the farms & fields was that it would be raidable by everyone, including blues. At the press of a single button? No, that's **** gameplay.
Do you get a warning that someone has landed on grid with the device? Yes. Which means you shouldn't be surprise buttsexed by the guy taking your isk!
Do you then have the opportunity to go stop that person from taking your isk? Truthfully, not with a 20s access time. But increase that to 5 minutes and you certainly will! This is a minor tweak that will make this very much a small game conflict device.
|
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:24:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:You do realize that 75% of the complaints in the thread are people whining about the 5% nerf to nullsec income? Forcing people to risk large percentages of their income would cause all sorts of uproar and hate. This is the wrong approach. What would 75% of a single tick be, vs 20% of multiple hours worth of ticks be?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Forcing people to utilize these to make any reasonable income, and then having that income ravished the moment an unengageable force comes through, is TERRIBLE game design. Your suggestion is way off base, and while we both agree sov needs fixing, I prefer the carrot approach (which this is) as to your nuclear dickuptheass approach. Your problem is that you seem to be having an issue with what is supposed to be "farms and fields". If it's something which 99% of the nullsec population will not deploy themselves because it sucks, then it's not "farms and fields", because it us useless and there's nothing there for this "roaming gang" to do anything with.
It has to be something which the majority chooses to deploy, or it's useless. The ESS is not something most people'll deploy.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Do you get a warning that someone has landed on grid with the device? Yes. Which means you shouldn't be surprise buttsexed by the guy taking your isk!
Do you then have the opportunity to go stop that person from taking your isk? Truthfully, not with a 20s access time. But increase that to 5 minutes and you certainly will! This is a minor tweak that will make this very much a small game conflict device. It'll have to be deployed first. It won't. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
699
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:26:00 -
[1694] - Quote
Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:32:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool.
How hard do you think it is for CCP to tweak its risk reward ratio? If it isn't used, it is not like it can't be tweaked. And I'm willing to be that even if the major powerblocks all make it KOS that it will still see use, even in its current form!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18970
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:33:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Normally you make good posts tippia.. but this is just bullshit garbage.
The ESS is essentially fertilizer.. it has the potential to increase your crop yield while also attracting bugs. GǪexcept that fertilizers generally don't kill your crops, which this whole idea does.
Quote:It absolutely qualifies as a Farms & Fields device GǪaside from the simple fact that it makes it less productivity out of the gate and works far better as an offensive tool than to improve your own space.
Quote:How hard do you think it is for CCP to tweak its risk reward ratio? Very, based on what we've seen from this thread. 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:35:00 -
[1697] - Quote
To be frank, I really just don't agree with your design strategies. I don't think you understand the balance that must exist between the hunters and their prey in order to ensure a healthy mix of both. |
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:35:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Heh, far better as an offensive tool? Nah, it'll get blown up the instant the guys who dropped it leave, and in the meantime nobody'll be ratting anyways because there are hostiles around. So I'd say it's not working as an offensive tool either. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18970
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:40:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Heh, far better as an offensive tool? Nah, it'll get blown up the instant the guys who dropped it leave, and in the meantime nobody'll be ratting anyways because there are hostiles around. So I'd say it's not working as an offensive tool either. It delays their ability to go back to farm, giving you more (free) disruption time. Granted, it might not be much, but it's still a far better offensive tool than a tool for improving your own output. 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. |
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:42:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Heh, far better as an offensive tool? Nah, it'll get blown up the instant the guys who dropped it leave, and in the meantime nobody'll be ratting anyways because there are hostiles around. So I'd say it's not working as an offensive tool either. It delays their ability to go back to farm, giving you more (free) disruption time. Granted, it might not be much, but it's still a far better offensive tool than a tool for improving your own output. It's disruption time bought at 30m isk, but I see your point. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:42:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Normally you make good posts tippia.. but this is just bullshit garbage.
The ESS is essentially fertilizer.. it has the potential to increase your crop yield while also attracting bugs. GǪexcept that fertilizers generally don't kill your crops, which this whole idea does. Quote:It absolutely qualifies as a Farms & Fields device GǪaside from the simple fact that it makes it less productivity out of the gate and works far better as an offensive tool than to improve your own space. Quote:How hard do you think it is for CCP to tweak its risk reward ratio? Very, based on what we've seen from this thread.
1.) CCP is implementing the 5% nerf out of the gate to the ESS. This can and should be addressed. However, the ESS may easily exist outside of this stigma, and it is unfortunate they haven't addressed this.
2.) It doesn't make a system less productive outside of the gate. That's like saying fertilizer makes crop yield less productive off the bat because the farmer must invest in the fertilizer. The ESS instantly increases the bounties you will earn when ratting by 5%, and this increases to 10% over time to boot. Yes, you must risk some of your income to get this, but that doesn't make the system less productive. Your assertion that the system is "less productive outside of the gate" is completely FALSE.
3.) We haven't seen any revisions in this thread, so we honestly don't know how difficult it will be to tweak the reward ratio. From a design perspective, it is a simply change in numbers. From a bureaucratic perspective, it probably has some significant red tape if it has the potential to dramatically alter the isk faucets in the game. |
Arkanon Nerevar
The Riot Formation Fatal Ascension
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:44:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Mirthander Kane wrote: As someone that struggles to make enough ISK to pvp vs. the time it takes by doing nullsec ratting, this is one of the worst deployables in the history of EVE... Seriously, please re-think this deployable.
maybe thats the point, maybe all these compounding nerfs is to destroy the ability for a null pilot to both a) enjoy a vigourious pvp life of carnage and mayhem b) the reasonable ability to make a isk income to support yourself through active ratting on the side. baseically the pure null dweller or the quintessential EVE player, you know, the kind the game is in oft repeated "theory" designed to support.
maybe all this is part of some CCP master plan to destroy the independent gamer balance to force us into some sort of "GTC for ISK" orwellian cycle, very...tinfoil hat sounding i know, but look at the breadth of the "balance passes" over the last 12-18 months, no longer so preposterous is it?, maybe this "maybe" has something to it..... Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Hail L |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3415
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:45:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Tippia wrote:To put it another way GÇ£worcing people to risk large percentages of their income would cause all sorts of uproar and hate. This is the wrong approachGÇ¥, and that is exactly what the ESS does on top of a completely unnecessary and pointless income nerf.
No, it doesn't force people to risk a large percentage of their income, because deploying it is OPTIONAL.
Again, another false statement. Your reputation for pretty solid logic is failing you today!
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
699
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:53:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool. How hard do you think it is for CCP to tweak its risk reward ratio? If it isn't used, it is not like it can't be tweaked. And I'm willing to be that even if the major powerblocks all make it KOS that it will still see use, even in its current form!
First off, the only people who are likely to use it are small or solo renter corps in backwater systems. Because those are the only people likely not to suffer from the drama issues of having hundreds of blues who could steal the tags. Major power blocks hold most of the space, so as it stands now this thing will not be seen in entire regions. Don't come looking for one in Deklein, because not only will they be KOS, but we will likely kick blues who insist on anchoring them.
I think they should ditch the idea that it keeps a portion of the ratters' bounties. Roaming gangs can already hurt income by chasing off the ratters. The roamers can make isk looting the wrecks of ratters they kill, or even running the PvE content after chasing off the locals.
Nullsec alliances already have to spend isk and effort to upgrade a system to produce all this isk making PvE content. If roamers want to dip into that, they should have to grind the PvE stuff like the locals, or be actual pirates and loot the ratting ships. A "give me the ratters' isk" button is such a lame low-effort cop out. If there is going to be a "steal the isk" feature, it should be tied to hacking, so that it takes at least some effort/skills/fitting beyond 'open dialog box, press button'.
To get away from the whole isk inflation issue, the ESS should give out Concord LP. The longer the ratters can keep the ESS alive, the more LP/rat they get. Then it might be something worth putting up and defending without being an even worse isk printer. Really, if CCP is worried about isk production, and the ESS is widely used, it will cause even more isk production because there are just not enough roaming gangs to kill them all. |
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:54:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:1.) CCP is implementing the 5% nerf out of the gate to the ESS. This can and should be addressed. However, the ESS may easily exist outside of this stigma, and it is unfortunate they haven't addressed this. They haven't addressed this, because in their broken logic it's necessary to make the ESS work.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:2.) It doesn't make a system less productive outside of the gate. That's like saying fertilizer makes crop yield less productive off the bat because the farmer must invest in the fertilizer. The ESS instantly increases the bounties you will earn when ratting by 5%, and this increases to 10% over time to boot. Yes, you must risk some of your income to get this, but that doesn't make the system less productive. Your assertion that the system is "less productive outside of the gate" is completely FALSE. Except people would have to spend time continually pressing the button, or having an alt sit on grid and pressing the button instead of being used to make the ratting ticks much higher than the meager boost the ESS will ever provide.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:3.) We haven't seen any revisions in this thread And we won't, because CCP has made up their mind as to how it's going to work, despite the majority of people in this thread saying "we will not be using it, or even allowing it, in our space." The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18971
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:57:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:1.) CCP is implementing the 5% nerf out of the gate to the ESS. This can and should be addressed. However, the ESS may easily exist outside of this stigma, and it is unfortunate they haven't addressed this.
2.) It doesn't make a system less productive outside of the gate. That's like saying fertilizer makes crop yield less productive off the bat because the farmer must invest in the fertilizer. The ESS instantly increases the bounties you will earn when ratting by 5%, and this increases to 10% over time to boot. GǪexcept that the combination of the two means it doesn't actually increase anything GÇö it just restores it to normal and puts that restoration, and more, at risk. As such, it also over (according to the testers a very long) time increase it insignificantly while still putting everything at risk.
So it most definitely makes things less productive out the gate because that's how CCP has stupidly decided to make this abomination GÇ£worth-whileGÇ¥.
Quote:We haven't seen any revisions in this thread, so we honestly don't know how difficult it will be to tweak the reward ratio. You read that one wrong. It's not hard to change the ratio. It's a single SQL command. What I'm saying that it will be next to impossible for it to actually happen since, based on the dialogue we've seen here, they have no interest in doing so.
Quote:No, it doesn't force people to risk a large percentage of their income, because deploying it is OPTIONAL. They can optionally lose 5% or their income or risk 20%. So yes, the loss is mechanically enforced no matter which option they choose. Neither for a good reason, and neither with anything worth-while balancing it out. Because no matter how much you try to paint it as anything else, the 5% reduction is a part of the ESS mechanic. It's the single point of the change that gives the ESS any reason (even if it's an utterly idiotic one) to exist. Remove the ESS, and the reduction has no point; remove the reduction, and the ESS has no point.
Or, more accurately, both are pointless because they're just a coupling of an artificial problem and an artificial solution GÇö both of which have only been invented to give the other a 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. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3416
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:58:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool. How hard do you think it is for CCP to tweak its risk reward ratio? If it isn't used, it is not like it can't be tweaked. And I'm willing to be that even if the major powerblocks all make it KOS that it will still see use, even in its current form! First off, the only people who are likely to use it are small or solo renter corps in backwater systems. Because those are the only people likely not to suffer from the drama issues of having hundreds of blues who could steal the tags. Major power blocks hold most of the space, so as it stands now this thing will not be seen in entire regions. Don't come looking for one in Deklein, because not only will they be KOS, but we will likely kick blues who insist on anchoring them. I think they should ditch the idea that it keeps a portion of the ratters' bounties. Roaming gangs can already hurt income by chasing off the ratters. The roamers can make isk looting the wrecks of ratters they kill, or even running the PvE content after chasing off the locals. Nullsec alliances already have to spend isk and effort to upgrade a system to produce all this isk making PvE content. If roamers want to dip into that, they should have to grind the PvE stuff like the locals, or be actual pirates and loot the ratting ships. A "give me the ratters' isk" button is such a lame low-effort cop out. If there is going to be a "steal the isk" feature, it should be tied to hacking, so that it takes at least some effort/skills/fitting beyond 'open dialog box, press button'. To get away from the whole isk inflation issue, the ESS should give out Concord LP. The longer the ratters can keep the ESS alive, the more LP/rat they get. Then it might be something worth putting up and defending without being an even worse isk printer. Really, if CCP is worried about isk production, and the ESS is widely used, it will cause even more isk production because there are just not enough roaming gangs to kill them all.
This is excellent feedback, thank you for posting it. |
Zircon Dasher
347
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 20:59:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:and it's raidable by everyone, including blues,
I get the distinct impression that Fix Sov needs different blues Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Fix Sov
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:01:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Fix Sov wrote:and it's raidable by everyone, including blues, I get the distinct impression that Fix Sov needs different blues Must I remind you that this is actually EVE? The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Zircon Dasher
347
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:01:00 -
[1710] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool.
Are you going to kick corps who put them up? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
|
Zircon Dasher
347
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:05:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Fix Sov wrote:and it's raidable by everyone, including blues, I get the distinct impression that Fix Sov needs different blues Must I remind you that this is actually EVE?
Does your alliance assplode your ratting boats, JFs, and POS too?
Hmm. Now that I think about it, can I join? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
700
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:09:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Fix Sov wrote:and it's raidable by everyone, including blues awoxers, I get the distinct impression that Fix Sov needs different blues air-tight security
As I mentioned in the GD thread about the ESS;
If it goes live as currently planned, and if it is used widely, I will;
Get in an interceptor, warp to every ESS in non-friendly space, press the "take all" button, and go to the next system.
I won't even try to collect the stupid tags because I'm already rich.
What I will do is be grinning ear to ear, because I know that those ratters are going to have to manually divide up those tags and truck them to empire to get their isk. And no doubt, some of those guys are going to be at each others' throats because they didn't think the tags were divided evenly, or one of their blues will take them all and try to blame me. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3416
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:19:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:1.) CCP is implementing the 5% nerf out of the gate to the ESS. This can and should be addressed. However, the ESS may easily exist outside of this stigma, and it is unfortunate they haven't addressed this.
2.) It doesn't make a system less productive outside of the gate. That's like saying fertilizer makes crop yield less productive off the bat because the farmer must invest in the fertilizer. The ESS instantly increases the bounties you will earn when ratting by 5%, and this increases to 10% over time to boot. GǪexcept that the combination of the two means it doesn't actually increase anything GÇö it just restores it to normal and puts that restoration, and more, at risk. As such, it also over (according to the testers a very long) time increase it insignificantly while still putting everything at risk. So it most definitely makes things less productive out the gate because that's how CCP has stupidly decided to make this abomination GÇ£worth-whileGÇ¥.
The bounty nerf is a reflection of the macro-scale economics of our universe, monitoring income entering and leaving the game.
The ESS is a micro device, that alters income into a system. While the macro level overview must take into account the inputs at the micro level, the micro level device is an independent input.
To be blatant... CCP simply needs to say, the bounty nerf is happening whether or not the ESS is implemented, and suddenly the two issues are decoupled from the players perspective. Alternatively, they could say that they aren't going to implement the bounty nerf, and the ESS is suddenly decoupled too.
I would recommend removing the bounty nerf, leaving the ESS providing a 5-10% boost to income, and monitoring the macro-level changes in the bounty isk faucet before universally changing nullsec bounties. This decouples the device from this stigma most people are complaining about, and allows CCP to come back with hard numbers on why a bounty nerf is needed (if it is needed). Hell, the incursion faucet was allowed to run wild for quite a while before adjusting it, I don't see a reason not to let nullsec ratting (which is riskier) do the same!
|
Zircon Dasher
348
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:34:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Fix Sov wrote:and it's raidable by everyone, including blues awoxers, I get the distinct impression that Fix Sov needs different blues air-tight security As I mentioned in the GD thread about the ESS; If it goes live as currently planned, and if it is used widely, I will; Get in an interceptor, warp to every ESS in non-friendly space, press the "take all" button, and go to the next system.
Wait. So are you going to awox or only do it to nuet/reds (or both)?
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8683
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:46:00 -
[1715] - Quote
CCP needs to look at significantly increasing the number of anomalies in nullsec systems before they touch anything else related to it.
The fact that we have to spend billions to upgrade systems that can still only support 3-5 people ratting at a time is ridiculous. My EVE Videos |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
704
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:52:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Fix Sov wrote:and it's raidable by everyone, including blues awoxers, I get the distinct impression that Fix Sov needs different blues air-tight security As I mentioned in the GD thread about the ESS; If it goes live as currently planned, and if it is used widely, I will; Get in an interceptor, warp to every ESS in non-friendly space, press the "take all" button, and go to the next system. Wait. So are you going to awox or only do it to nuet/reds (or both)?
I'll just do it to neut/reds. Setting aside that none of my blues are going to use the thing, I wouldn't do it to blues because I would get kicked from GSF, and this game isn't worth playing if I'm not with my fellow Goons.
Although, I do imagine it would be something awoxers do just to screw with their target corp even more. But I think a better tactic would be to drop one, wait for the locals to come out and blow it up, and then light a cyno to bring in the gank fleet.
As I also mentioned in the GD thread;
Imagine a button that will take 20% of the ore out of all the mining ships in a given highsec system, and dump it all into one can next to the sun. The can could be looted by anyone or just popped with a Thrasher. You don't think this button wouldn't be abused as a major griefing tool, and highsec miners would be screaming for the button to be removed? |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
706
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:03:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Just to add a little more historical perspective;
Remember a few expansions back when they revamped Faction Warfare.
Remember people running the FW plexes in speed tanking T1 frigates, with no guns, that would just run from any sort of confrontation and go orbit a plex somewhere else? And they made tons of isk doing this.
The "take all" button on the ESS is like that. It allows one to mess with others, or potentially make isk, in a Malediction fit with WCS, nanos, and a cloak for taking bio-breaks in hostile space. Just zip around in a ship that can't even fight and can't really be caught, and eventually you'll come across a system where you can grab the tag can. |
Zircon Dasher
349
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:28:00 -
[1718] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: I'll just do it to neut/reds. Setting aside that none of my blues are going to use the thing, I wouldn't do it to blues because I would get kicked from GSF, and this game isn't worth playing if I'm not with my fellow Goons.
That was my point. If someone is going to awox, then they will awox. Doesn't much matter if its a 30mil deployable or a 30mil ship. Awoxing is always something that has to be dealt with, there are ways of dealing with it, and everyone accepts this. You can't consistently object to the module on the grounds of "but a blue can steal mah iskies" without also objecting to all new items because "but a blue can shoot mah 30mil [insert item]" Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:36:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
There are two aspects to owning territory: 1.) Defending it from outsiders. 2.) Defending it from within.
Currently, the Sov mechanics are all about defending space from Outside territorial disputes. That's fine and good. Unfortunately, once you own the space, everything you invest into it (i.e. its infrastructure like POS's, IHUB upgrades, POCOs, and stations) are all large gang targets. There is nothing in the current design that is small gang oriented, and this is what should change. I totally understand why you don't want to have vulnerable infrastructure. We all know you hate the concept of defending space, and prefer to just get safe and simply waiting for the raiders to move on, but that is a terrible void for game conflict and content.
Siphons are sort-of small gang targets, but unfortunately the are located within POS weapon range, which eliminates any & all small gang conflict. The ESS is the first truly small gang farms and fields device that CCP is implementing, and if you don't think you can handle the risks deploying it entails, then don't. But give everyone the choice to make that decision for themselves!
1) it has never been nor ever will be practical to stop every kind of small 3-5 man attack into an alliance with large porous space. The recent interceptor changes have guaranteed that even more. Making a large alliance vulnerable to a small gang attack is not needed, because they already are. If you don't believe me, go into a system with a single SB and go cloak afk. There is no anti-SB tactic to stop it. Stop trying to force others to play the game your way.
2) establishing SOV means you already are defending your space so wtf are you talking about?
Your statements are ridiculous. You want every large alliance in the game to be vulnerable to a 3 man nuisance gang as if its some sort of major incursion. Small gangs have always been, and should always continue to be nothing more than a minor distraction. Sort of like SAS in WWII. Alone and on any single action they are unlikely to cause anything more than a little mayhem. They certainly won't win the war alone, and shouldn't.
Small gangs are great for setting up quick ganks at vulnerable points. You want anything more than that, learn to fleet up. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
622
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:38:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The bounty nerf is a reflection of the macro-scale economics of our universe, monitoring income entering and leaving the game.
The ESS is a micro device, that alters income into a system. While the macro level overview must take into account the inputs at the micro level, the micro level device is an independent input. How to put this nicely ... How about not talking out of your rectum?
Quote:To be blatant... CCP simply needs to say, the bounty nerf is happening whether or not the ESS is implemented, and suddenly the two issues are decoupled from the players perspective. Alternatively, they could say that they aren't going to implement the bounty nerf, and the ESS is suddenly decoupled too. No, at that point the ESS would be worthless. It would be a solution to a problem that no longer exists.
I'm not sure how many more pages before you finally get it, but here's the short version of the design: - The ESS is not allowed to give an incentive for its use. - The ESS then has to be given a stick with which to beat non-users. - The ESS should not increase total income even when used "correctly".
Conclusion: 5% nerf across the board, no incentive to speak of. If the ESS did not have the 5% nerf, it would be useless. That's the really easy part.
If the ESS was not about the stick, but carrot (So you optionally risk to get potential benefits) and the mechanics were such that it was feasible to achieve those rewards and defending it was both sensible and had such a chance to succeed to make it likely to profit over long-term use ... Well, in other words, if it was all the nice things you wrongly claimed the ESS is or can be ...
It might be used. If the ESS would be nothing like what we see before us, we might see it used. As it is, the ESS is an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem, with a few bad sideeffects.
I'd say "thanks but no thanks", but unfortunately those who actually live in nullsec are forced to get extremely rich with this wonderful module, so I guess I'll just have to suck it up with all my coming ESS wealth, right? Gizznitt Malikite, you're wrong. Come patch day, expect you might see it.
I won't hold my breath for CCP. |
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:50:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You do realize that 75% of the complaints in the thread are people whining about the 5% nerf to nullsec income?
This has ZERO to do with the 5% nerf and everything to do with the ESS not being worthwhile for a SOV alliance to install. If you got something out of it quickly, then it's placement and payout could be justified.
Instead you have something which is:
1) don't deploy and lose 5% of isk 2) deploy and lose 20% and have to guard for many days to get it to pay out 105% 3) causes drama amongst the people it is supposed to helping
The "reward" is simply not there. OR DO YOU SIMPLY NOT GET THIS?
|
Fix Sov
93
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:58:00 -
[1722] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:You can't consistently object to the module on the grounds of "but a blue can steal mah iskies" without also objecting to all new items because "but a blue can shoot mah 30mil [insert item]" This is a logical fallacy.
If bounties were adjusted downwards rather heavily and the ESS was a module you installed in the IHUB which restored the bounties to their proper level, but it was hackable so a roaming gang could rob it for parts of the last tick's accumulated isk or incap it to annoy the locals, then it would be an actual target which the locals would have an incentive to install and utilize, and which would still provide some F&F functionality the roaming gangs could aim for (and which would be ignored at their peril or defended if they felt like it vOv). It'd actually be worth using.
It wouldn't be a 30m module anyone could blow up or rob for hours' worth of invested bounties, it wouldn't be something you had to pay attention to constantly, wasting time and money by being less efficient than if you'd let that char/account come with you to help red crosses go boom quicker, etc etc etc ... and it's just not worth it. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
709
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 23:17:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: I'll just do it to neut/reds. Setting aside that none of my blues are going to use the thing, I wouldn't do it to blues because I would get kicked from GSF, and this game isn't worth playing if I'm not with my fellow Goons.
That was my point. If someone is going to awox, then they will awox. Doesn't much matter if its a 30mil deployable or a 30mil ship. Awoxing is always something that has to be dealt with, there are ways of dealing with it, and everyone accepts this. You can't consistently object to the module on the grounds of "but a blue can steal mah iskies" without also objecting to all new items because "but a blue can shoot mah 30mil [insert item]"
Sure I can complain about it. If it is deployed the way CCP intends, it is another way awoxers can screw with a corp more then they already can. It is one thing for awoxers to shoot ships and structures, and cyno in hostiles, but now they can loot or destroy bounties.
And even aside from awoxing, the thing is a drama generator, which is the biggest reason we are not going to allow the use of them in our space. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 23:37:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool. Are you going to kick corps who put them up? EDIT: nm he answered that in a later post
Corps, probably not. Individuals and their alts? Yup. Bank on that 100%.
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 03:39:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Give it up Gizznitt Malikite.
The major nullsec alliances have already said that the ESS in its current form will be Shoot On Sight.
The ESS is dead on arrival, and won't see any real use after the first month of people trying to use it as a griefing tool. Are you going to kick corps who put them up? EDIT: nm he answered that in a later post Corps, probably not. Individuals and their alts? Yup. Bank on that 100%.
Actually, it sounds like entire corps would be kicked for repeatedly dropping these in GSF space, and it would likely influence the same policy be held throughout the CFC. IDK what they will tell their renters though :) N3 & PL have yet to make any formal policy statements for either their sov space or for the space held by their renters AFAIK.
It's a testament to the reward being so far below the potential risk that potentially tens of thousands of players will be following Alliance level decisions that deem the 'upgrade' to be unsatisfactory. Even if it means taking a 5% bullet to the wallet for their Rank and File members. If its not good enough for the plebs to even consider a rebellion over, then its probably just not good enough to go into the game in its current Incarna. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
712
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 05:36:00 -
[1726] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote: Actually, it sounds like entire corps would be kicked for repeatedly dropping these in GSF space, and it would likely influence the same policy be held throughout the CFC. IDK what they will tell their renters though :) N3 & PL have yet to make any formal policy statements for either their sov space or for the space held by their renters AFAIK.
It's a testament to the reward being so far below the potential risk that potentially tens of thousands of players will be following Alliance level decisions that deem the 'upgrade' to be unsatisfactory. Even if it means taking a 5% bullet to the wallet for their Rank and File members. If its not good enough for the plebs to even consider a rebellion over, then its probably just not good enough to go into the game in its current Incarna.
Corps can probably get kicked over this the same way they can get "reset" over awoxers or other trouble makers that they themselves do not purge in a timely manner.
Renters can do what ever they want in their space. They are paying for it after all. Chances are, few of them will use it because it will attract trouble makers, and be too hard to build up to full bonus in systems with bad true-sec and few ratters.
Not sure about N3, but PL won't use them because PL doesn't take low SP players that would consider the ESS bonus or ratting in general to be worth their time. They would probably allow their renters to use them, same as we would allow ours, but that crappy drone region space already seems to be farmed more for mining than for the rats.
The "plebes" aren't stupid. And I don't mean that rebelling over this is stupid. I mean that they can read the dev blog and come to the conclusion themselves that this thing is more of a pain than it is worth. For the most part, it just seems like a lame attempt at CCP covering their back-side over a nerf to anom ratting by trying to say that we could jump through ridiculous hoops to undo the nerf.
And line members are already asking around about us guys that make isk outside of nullsec ratting. You can bet that the higher SP players that make enough to notice that 5% are going to be heading to wormholes, FW and highsec Incursion farming. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8688
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 06:24:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Has this terrible idea been canned yet? My EVE Videos |
Fix Sov
93
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 07:50:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Nope. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8691
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 07:51:00 -
[1729] - Quote
How about now? My EVE Videos |
Fix Sov
93
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 07:51:00 -
[1730] - Quote
No. The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change. |
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
623
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 08:59:00 -
[1731] - Quote
A new day, another non-work by SoniClover. I don't really know why I expected better ...
But I did. Silly me. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:10:00 -
[1732] - Quote
the only way this ever gets deployed is by switching around the % of the income nerf: (all those things have been proposed more or less multile times)
1) without ESS only 80% of the income is payed out. (flame away for me saying it loud ^^) 2) with freshly deployed ESS 95% of the income is payed out. the other 5% go into the honey pot. -> now this would actually give an incentive to deploy this dead baby. 3) after ratting for a while the 5% which go into the pot increase to what ever number seems reasonable.
-> if you want to steal the honey pot you need to hack this damn thing. just pushing a button seems rather unimmersive, maybe introduce a special hacker with a spool-up time to lengthen the hacking process to a reasonable time span, giving the defenders some time to react. when the hacker is attacked, the hacking process should be interrupted. so when the defenders show up, the raiders need to repell them, then get the loot. .
this way you can keep a roaming interceptor gang from stealing your stuff with a dedicated smartbomb bs or whatever and ensuring, that not only the defenders need to fight to safe their assets but also the attacker need to muster some force to take the loot. as it is proposed right now, it's just stealing candy from a baby.
and in case of me repeating myself: for the love of all things good make 0.0 PVE content which actually entices me to do it in a small group and still pays out like the ratting right now. there doesn't need to be more money to be made, just let everyone get what hes getting right now, while doing it together. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:43:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Almost 30 pages without a Dev response, tell us again about how our feedback is important. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:47:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:the only way this ever gets deployed is by switching around the % of the income nerf: (all those things have been proposed more or less multile times)
1) without ESS only 80% of the income is payed out. (flame away for me saying it loud ^^) 2) with freshly deployed ESS 95% of the income is payed out. the other 5% go into the honey pot. -> now this would actually give an incentive to deploy this dead baby. 3) after ratting for a while the 5% which go into the pot increase to what ever number seems reasonable.
-> if you want to steal the honey pot you need to hack this damn thing. just pushing a button seems rather unimmersive, maybe introduce a special hacker with a spool-up time to lengthen the hacking process to a reasonable time span, giving the defenders some time to react. when the hacker is attacked, the hacking process should be interrupted. so when the defenders show up, the raiders need to repell them, then get the loot. .
this way you can keep a roaming interceptor gang from stealing your stuff with a dedicated smartbomb bs or whatever and ensuring, that not only the defenders need to fight to safe their assets but also the attacker need to muster some force to take the loot. as it is proposed right now, it's just stealing candy from a baby.
and in case of me repeating myself: for the love of all things good make 0.0 PVE content which actually entices me to do it in a small group and still pays out like the ratting right now. there doesn't need to be more money to be made, just let everyone get what hes getting right now, while doing it together.
This is very constructive feedback. I really appreciate this. Sorry, IGÇÿm no CCP dev though :-D |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:51:00 -
[1735] - Quote
For those that missed it: http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/icelandic-police-raid-ccps-headquarters.html
I lolled so hard.
CCP, maybe just maybe you should reconsider this if a significant part of the player population is adament that this is not a good idea. The ESS (Extra Stupid Structure) is a bad idea, get your heads around it. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2569
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:11:00 -
[1736] - Quote
You want to make people use these in Sov Null?
Require them for the Military Index to go up.
Still, I'd suggest a higher bonus on it, with the risk involved. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
518
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:25:00 -
[1737] - Quote
Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
|
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4410
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:33:00 -
[1738] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
519
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:37:00 -
[1739] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4410
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:41:00 -
[1740] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed.
Now this is good. Hell, very good.
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4974
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:46:00 -
[1741] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:52:00 -
[1742] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
From dumb to dumber. Thanks for devaluing all 4 empire navy's LP. It's not like the people that grinded standings and missions for LP should be rewarded, naa screw that, make it so EVERY RAT IN NULL gives out navy LP!! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
525
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:58:00 -
[1743] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
Regarding the warp disruption effect, we're still tweaking the effect, so it's not 100% set right now, but most likely will be similar to infinity point that does not prevent MWD or MJD.
Regarding moving out of range, this stops you interacting with the ESS (resetting the timer), so the effect stops. |
|
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
97
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:58:00 -
[1744] - Quote
Come on players, stop going on compromise!!! Just say NO!
ESS is crap even with LP reward. IMHO! Just remove this useless code from eve!!! And never add it!
Then only way to keep it ingame, as for me, is not to decrease base bounty reward. Let it be 100%. Who wants more - let them set up ESS. Who does not want, then stop nerfing GAME!
P.S. I have last 15 days on my alt. Not going to pay for it anymore. And will think about my main. I do not like such aweful stuff that devs are doing. Should do old thing that promised (INCARNA) instead of generation new and not very smart ideas. Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4410
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:58:00 -
[1745] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
Those are good questions. I might try to jump on SiSi later and test it.
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:01:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote: From dumb to dumber. Thanks for devaluing all 4 empire navy's LP. It's not like the people that grinded standings and missions for LP should be rewarded, naa screw that, make it so EVERY RAT IN NULL gives out navy LP!!
Edit: running numbers, that's about 15k LP per hour @ BASE, more when it upgrades. (based on 30mil ticks) Tell me about how you want to avoid inflation again?
Every 1 day old character may freely engage in Level 1 missions for Navies.
The LPs gained by using ESS seem to be moderate, to say the least. |
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad
619
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:04:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Hey what's the size of the ESS? I don't recall seeing it mentioned anywhere or is that still up in the air http://i.imgur.com/6j6cIZE.gif-á |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:06:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote: From dumb to dumber. Thanks for devaluing all 4 empire navy's LP. It's not like the people that grinded standings and missions for LP should be rewarded, naa screw that, make it so EVERY RAT IN NULL gives out navy LP!!
Edit: running numbers, that's about 15k LP per hour @ BASE, more when it upgrades. (based on 30mil ticks) Tell me about how you want to avoid inflation again?
If you're grinding Navy LP for money I think you're doing it wrong. Money from LP = SOE and Industry Corps, Navy LP has been the weakest for years because everyone think "working for the Navy will be cool!" then add the fact all the ships from the Navy stores are cheaper via FW where it's faster to grind LP.
In regards to the ESS thanks for the update. The move towards LP is nice however I still have some questions and concerns with the module.
* Will there still be a 95%/80% drop in bounties or are all the bounties changes stripped now this is an LP module.
* The 180 seconds might still be a too short time to dock, switch ships, form gang, undock, pew. Players doing PVE tend to be caught off guard when reds come in.
* Some more understanding how the pointed system works would be nice.
* Is there any chance of making it so someone who isn't from the Alliance which dropped it would have to play the hacking game in order to access this? It would add something extra for the hacking game, add more realism that players are breaking into the module as well as giving the new SoE ships another nice area of gameplay.
Otherwise I'm glad to see work is being done towards this module, thank you for partially restoring my confidence. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
884
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:09:00 -
[1749] - Quote
This will heavily devaluate LP prices. Not that it is necessarily bad but there are some activities like lv5 mission running that are less and less matching the reward compared to the risk involved.
So overall if it wasn't for the viability of lv5s I'd say this is a good change ! Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
308
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:12:00 -
[1750] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:War Kitten wrote:
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
Regarding the warp disruption effect, we're still tweaking the effect, so it's not 100% set right now, but most likely will be similar to infinity point that does not prevent MWD or MJD. Regarding moving out of range, this stops you interacting with the ESS (resetting the timer), so the effect stops.
So, has it been thought out what this would do to current LP valuations? Seems like this is another dildo rammed up the ass of people running level 5s, which seems to happen more and more since you people genuinely don't give a **** about them. |
|
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:13:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Nice more hitpoints. Because every1 likes shooting structures!
You know what will happen with this feature:
- If this thing is deployed by friendly or enemy forces it wil get shot at since almost every major alliance is against them - If there is an enemy in system the carebears will just wait till he leaves and only then shoot the structure - If there is an enemy in system carebears will not rat, since they know they can get hotdropped, so the structure will not be filled, so there is zero effect. x LP per ratting bounty or x% of the ratting bounties equals to zero when there are no bounties. So there is no incentive for the enemy to stay in the system other then the already possible afk cloaky thing to block ratting. - Adjusting and tweaking does not solve this problem in any which way. The core gameplay element is wrong: this is even more structure shooting and we dont like that. Why is that so hard to understand?
Conclusion: bad gamedesign, bad response to customer complaints (how long does a threadnaut need to be for CCP to understand something) and bad prioritizing of development resources.
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:17:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:War Kitten wrote:
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
Regarding the warp disruption effect, we're still tweaking the effect, so it's not 100% set right now, but most likely will be similar to infinity point that does not prevent MWD or MJD. Regarding moving out of range, this stops you interacting with the ESS (resetting the timer), so the effect stops. So, has it been thought out what this would do to current LP valuations? Seems like this is another dildo rammed up the ass of people running level 5s, which seems to happen more and more since you people genuinely don't give a **** about them.
Yeah. But on the other hand there is such a thing as an open market: prices for navy LP items may drop, which in turn may lead to more people buying fancy navy LP stuff (such as Navy Battlecruisers and Navy Battleships), which in turn may lead to higher prices again. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:18:00 -
[1753] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed.
Have you factored the time required to convert LP into ISK into your reward calculations? At least with tags you could outsource the shipping for a cut of your profit but with LP you have to fly that exact character all the way into empire and back to claim your reward. |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:20:00 -
[1754] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: Yeah. But on the other hand there is such a thing as an open market: prices for navy LP items may drop, which in turn may lead to more people buying fancy navy LP stuff (such as Navy Battlecruisers and Navy Battleships), which in turn may lead to higher prices again.
You didnt pay a whole lot of attention in Economics 101 class, did you?
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
308
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:21:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:War Kitten wrote:
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
Regarding the warp disruption effect, we're still tweaking the effect, so it's not 100% set right now, but most likely will be similar to infinity point that does not prevent MWD or MJD. Regarding moving out of range, this stops you interacting with the ESS (resetting the timer), so the effect stops. So, has it been thought out what this would do to current LP valuations? Seems like this is another dildo rammed up the ass of people running level 5s, which seems to happen more and more since you people genuinely don't give a **** about them. Yeah. But on the other hand there is such a thing as an open market: prices for navy LP items may drop, which in turn may lead to more people buying fancy navy LP stuff (such as Navy Battlecruisers and Navy Battleships), which in turn may lead to higher prices again.
Pfrrrt what like anything but ammo is worth the LP dump anyways. (cause you know, factional warfare) |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
174
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:23:00 -
[1756] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
i still think, having a pvp-flag timer (the 5 minute one) which is not ticking down (means someone is shooting at you) should interrupt the "take all, screw you"-action and the share-action. there should be no loot as long as there are defenders actually defending and no locking away the silver plates as long as the raiders rampage in your living room.
despite that. still not a big fan of this and rather have it canned until a total revamp and group play adaption of 0.0 mPVE content
|
Juliette Asanari
Saeder-Krupp Trading Division
44
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:23:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Yeep wrote: At least with tags you could outsource the shipping for a cut of your profit but with LP you have to fly that exact character all the way into empire and back to claim your reward.
You have heard of Jumpclones? |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:24:00 -
[1758] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the warp disruption effect, we're still tweaking the effect, so it's not 100% set right now, but most likely will be similar to infinity point that does not prevent MWD or MJD.
Regarding moving out of range, this stops you interacting with the ESS (resetting the timer), so the effect stops.
Will the warp disruption effect of the ESS be visually distinct from the existing warp disruption effects? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6176
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:24:00 -
[1759] - Quote
I posted this in the other thread, but thanks for taking feedback into account so quickly and turning around a new version this quickly, that couldn't have been easy and this is a huge improvement. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:25:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Juliette Asanari wrote:Yeep wrote: At least with tags you could outsource the shipping for a cut of your profit but with LP you have to fly that exact character all the way into empire and back to claim your reward. You have heard of Jumpclones?
or pod express. |
|
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:26:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I posted this in the other thread, but thanks for taking feedback into account so quickly and turning around a new version this quickly, that couldn't have been easy and this is a huge improvement.
You got a little something brown on your nose mate... |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
855
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:27:00 -
[1762] - Quote
My thoughts in regards to the LP concerns.
L1-4 Missions: This isn't exactly a bad thing as the community has been asking for nerfs to HighSec ISK for a very long time, having a slight hit in the LP value makes Empire a little less of the ultimate place to make ISK. Although as I stated in my previous post the real money from LP is currently not with any of the four Empire Navies, Factions like SoE, Thukker etc.
L5 Missions: It does harm these and it would be an idea for CCP to address L5 missions in finding a way to make them valuable again, although saying that FW LP income has already made most L5 missions not greatly viable.
More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Also being Navy LP we miss out on any chance at using the LP to gain Industry Implants, if the above was enabled it would be nice to have an LP store where we had access too all the non-FW LP items. The only way I see this working would be for CCP to add a new corporation for each Empire (xxxx Navy Requestions Corp.?) where it would have an LP store separate from those in Empire, this would also give CCP room to set the prices of items separate from those in Empire, maybe because we're not directly in the Empire helping they would cost a little more but we would at least have access to them any time. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
341
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:28:00 -
[1763] - Quote
Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:28:00 -
[1764] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:Juliette Asanari wrote:Yeep wrote: At least with tags you could outsource the shipping for a cut of your profit but with LP you have to fly that exact character all the way into empire and back to claim your reward. You have heard of Jumpclones? or pod express.
Cool, so my options are blow my jumpclone timer and not do any ratting or pvp tomorrow or spend 30m+ in clone costs. Sounds reasonable. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6176
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:29:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1388
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:30:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Dear CCP,
The only real, tangible good that can come from any updates to the ESS module is to get rid of it completely. Admit it was is a failure and be done with it. It will be banned from many regions of space. Your precious coding time would be far better utilised fixing existing problems.
My 2c worth.
Personnel Division Director - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse CEO Sanctuary Pact Alliance --áSanctuary Pact |
Ertai Erquilenne
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:31:00 -
[1767] - Quote
This seems pretty terrible. Why would I want to drop one of these, when all it does is tell reds flying through system that I'm planning on staying here and that by logging off in system or camping the gates you can catch me?
CCP is ridiculous. You build a gameplay mechanic that requires players to specialize their ships in order to make any money (PvE), then tell people that that style of gameplay isn't good, even though it's one of the few newbie friendly gameplay types. You make it incredibly hard to do, while all of the other things that make people money in game (Moon mining, reaction chains, etc) are extremely skill intensive and contolled by older/wealthier players.
I'm starting to feel like CCP hates the 99%. Give Mittens another coupl hundred R64's, kick the stool out from under the lower classes. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9050
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:31:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you.
This is correct. The LP goes directly to the wallets of each pilot as they get their isk ticks. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
854
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:32:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Neat. I like it!
Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS. For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
308
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:33:00 -
[1770] - Quote
So that's the plan huh, just close your eyes and ears for what effects this could have on current LP generation methods. |
|
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:34:00 -
[1771] - Quote
CCP SoniClover 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THIS ON PLEX SITES!?!?!?!? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6176
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:36:00 -
[1772] - Quote
Turelus wrote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Given what CCP has said in the past about the horrors involved in coding mission agents into outposts I assume this is technically infeasible especially for a point release. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:36:00 -
[1773] - Quote
MinutemanKirk wrote:CCP SoniClover 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THIS ON PLEX SITES!?!?!?!? because you asked for it, CCP only gives you crap that no one asks for. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:39:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Falkor1984 wrote:Tahnil wrote: Yeah. But on the other hand there is such a thing as an open market: prices for navy LP items may drop, which in turn may lead to more people buying fancy navy LP stuff (such as Navy Battlecruisers and Navy Battleships), which in turn may lead to higher prices again.
You didnt pay a whole lot of attention in Economics 101 class, did you?
In fact I thought I got it right. Supply and demand. What did I miss? Please enlighten me. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
856
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:40:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Turelus wrote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Given what CCP has said in the past about the horrors involved in coding mission agents into outposts I assume this is technically infeasible especially for a point release. Well it would be more along the lines of a station service rather than an agent but I guess if the code is similar or tied you could be right. If they want to make the ESS work this would go a long way to making it more desirable though, I can't speak for every NullSec Capsuleer but the ability to buy new implants from an LP store in my home system would be amazing. Currently I need to go to Empire and either buy or cash in LP then haul/JF implants back home every time I get low on them, less dependants on Empire for a NullSec Alliance is always a good thing.
Still I threw the idea out there would be nice if it can be done! Please CCP... please! *puppy dog eyes* Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
310
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:40:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Supply is already too high, twerp. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:41:00 -
[1777] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:Falkor1984 wrote:Tahnil wrote: Yeah. But on the other hand there is such a thing as an open market: prices for navy LP items may drop, which in turn may lead to more people buying fancy navy LP stuff (such as Navy Battlecruisers and Navy Battleships), which in turn may lead to higher prices again.
You didnt pay a whole lot of attention in Economics 101 class, did you? In fact I thought I got it right. Supply and demand. What did I miss? Please enlighten me. Simple, demand does NOT get dictated by supply, It's the other way around. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4411
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:42:00 -
[1778] - Quote
Turelus wrote:My thoughts in regards to the LP concerns.
L1-4 Missions: This isn't exactly a bad thing as the community has been asking for nerfs to HighSec ISK for a very long time, having a slight hit in the LP value makes Empire a little less of the ultimate place to make ISK. Although as I stated in my previous post the real money from LP is currently not with any of the four Empire Navies, Factions like SoE, Thukker etc.
L5 Missions: It does harm these and it would be an idea for CCP to address L5 missions in finding a way to make them valuable again, although saying that FW LP income has already made most L5 missions not greatly viable.
Yep, and this is why I oppose the idea of CCP "developing in a vacuum" . Everything they do affects everything else and sometimes they don't outwardly seem aware of this. Lvl 5s have needed some love for years and this is going to make them a much much worse option.
Quote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Also being Navy LP we miss out on any chance at using the LP to gain Industry Implants, if the above was enabled it would be nice to have an LP store where we had access too all the non-FW LP items. The only way I see this working would be for CCP to add a new corporation for each Empire (xxxx Navy Requestions Corp.?) where it would have an LP store separate from those in Empire, this would also give CCP room to set the prices of items separate from those in Empire, maybe because we're not directly in the Empire helping they would cost a little more but we would at least have access to them any time.
+1. using existing LP stores is IMO a mistake. If CCP wants to do this they should make up new faction corps with new LP stores.
|
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:44:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Turelus wrote:My thoughts in regards to the LP concerns.
L1-4 Missions: This isn't exactly a bad thing as the community has been asking for nerfs to HighSec ISK for a very long time, having a slight hit in the LP value makes Empire a little less of the ultimate place to make ISK. Although as I stated in my previous post the real money from LP is currently not with any of the four Empire Navies, Factions like SoE, Thukker etc.
L5 Missions: It does harm these and it would be an idea for CCP to address L5 missions in finding a way to make them valuable again, although saying that FW LP income has already made most L5 missions not greatly viable. Yep, and this is why I oppose the idea of CCP "developing in a vacuum" . Everything they do affects everything else and sometimes they don't outwardly seem aware of this. Lvl 5s have needed some love for years and this is going to make them a much much worse option. Quote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Also being Navy LP we miss out on any chance at using the LP to gain Industry Implants, if the above was enabled it would be nice to have an LP store where we had access too all the non-FW LP items. The only way I see this working would be for CCP to add a new corporation for each Empire (xxxx Navy Requestions Corp.?) where it would have an LP store separate from those in Empire, this would also give CCP room to set the prices of items separate from those in Empire, maybe because we're not directly in the Empire helping they would cost a little more but we would at least have access to them any time.
+1. using existing LP stores is IMO a mistake. If CCP wants to do this they should make up new faction corps with new LP stores.
Actually not a bad idea |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:54:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Supply is already too high, twerp.
GǪandGǪ
Mah Boobz wrote:Simple, demand does NOT get dictated by supply, It's the other way around.
Now listen, IGÇÿm not going to play the economist, cause thatGÇÿs not what I am. But itGÇÿs not that simple.
Especially with regards to Navy ships, demand is a variable. In fact I remember that in the past some large nullsec alliances used doctrines involving Navy battleships, and I think one problem was supply. Whenever a large fight went south, they needed to replace a large amount of ships fast. If there is not enough supply, prices rise. Or the doctrine dies.
EVE markets tend to adapt to changes. If nullbears start to grind LP fast, this will lead to more supply, therefore sinking prices. If there is some use for those items, demand will rise. If the utility of those items is limited and there is no mass market, demand will stay low. But even then prices may rise again, because some people will just stop grinding those LP. Because there are better opportunities to get ISK. At this point prices will rise again.
Maybe with introduction of nullsec Navy LP there will be a new price floor for some of the LP items. We will see. But itGÇÿs difficult to tell. |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1451
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:55:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Turelus wrote:My thoughts in regards to the LP concerns.
L1-4 Missions: This isn't exactly a bad thing as the community has been asking for nerfs to HighSec ISK for a very long time, having a slight hit in the LP value makes Empire a little less of the ultimate place to make ISK. Although as I stated in my previous post the real money from LP is currently not with any of the four Empire Navies, Factions like SoE, Thukker etc.
L5 Missions: It does harm these and it would be an idea for CCP to address L5 missions in finding a way to make them valuable again, although saying that FW LP income has already made most L5 missions not greatly viable. Yep, and this is why I oppose the idea of CCP "developing in a vacuum" . Everything they do affects everything else and sometimes they don't outwardly seem aware of this. Lvl 5s have needed some love for years and this is going to make them a much much worse option. Quote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Also being Navy LP we miss out on any chance at using the LP to gain Industry Implants, if the above was enabled it would be nice to have an LP store where we had access too all the non-FW LP items. The only way I see this working would be for CCP to add a new corporation for each Empire (xxxx Navy Requestions Corp.?) where it would have an LP store separate from those in Empire, this would also give CCP room to set the prices of items separate from those in Empire, maybe because we're not directly in the Empire helping they would cost a little more but we would at least have access to them any time.
+1. using existing LP stores is IMO a mistake. If CCP wants to do this they should make up new faction corps with new LP stores. Actually not a bad idea Not going to happen |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:56:00 -
[1782] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
Very nice. All solid and good changes. I cannot think of anything offhand that is left that is too unbalanced. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:59:00 -
[1783] - Quote
cause thatGÇÿs not what I am.
Then stfu, you have no idea what your talking about. |
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:59:00 -
[1784] - Quote
Here's an idea to "compensate the high sec mission runners".
ESS, rather than being seeded on the market directly, comes from LP stores and requires a minimum standing of 5.0 with the corp to buy it.
Could be made available from all high sec NPC corps (so not pirates/soe) such you could choose whose LP you are getting.
By requiring standing as well as LP it gives a small boon to mission runners as not everyone has 5.0 with every faction.
The LP sink (along with ISK sink) would offset some of the LP generated in this new deployable.
Becomes semi-renewable for the null-bear by means of LP able to buy a new one if the old one gets bust, so long as they had the standing in the first place (used to run missions).
Just a thought.
All else besides, changes seem good. Might suggest making the share time 40 seconds, not 20, as the alt-on-hand can still react fast enough in 20 seconds to most interlopers to the system who'd have to see there's someone there, get there AND stop them in 20 seconds.
Admittedly this is also an alt (thus full account) not otherwise earning money but I don't know if that's enough to warrant leaving the timer at 20 seconds. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1186
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:01:00 -
[1785] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
MUCH better
We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:01:00 -
[1786] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:cause thatGÇÿs not what I am.
Then stfu, you have no idea what your talking about.
Yeah, and what about you? LOL. --> Ignore list. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:01:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Kenneth Skybound wrote:Here's an idea to "compensate the high sec mission runners".
ESS, rather than being seeded on the market directly, comes from LP stores and requires a minimum standing of 5.0 with the corp to buy it.
Could be made available from all high sec NPC corps (so not pirates/soe) such you could choose whose LP you are getting.
By requiring standing as well as LP it gives a small boon to mission runners as not everyone has 5.0 with every faction.
The LP sink (along with ISK sink) would offset some of the LP generated in this new deployable.
Becomes semi-renewable for the null-bear by means of LP able to buy a new one if the old one gets bust, so long as they had the standing in the first place (used to run missions).
Just a thought.
Lets take something that's already too complicated and make it even more complicated! |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
229
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:03:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Paging Dinsdale to this thread.
In all seriousness, this looks quite a bit better than the first iteration. Seems like it provides good enough incentive to actually use the module, which has the potential for interesting interaction between players across multiple paths. Some of that may be a little forced (such as the influx of navy LP that will happen), but i still think it's good overall.
Definitely interested to see how it turns out if you launch with this version. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1688
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:04:00 -
[1789] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:War Kitten wrote:
So accessing the ESS now points you. Is it like a dictor's infinipoint, or will warp core stabs help? Will it prevent MWD or MJD? If you move out of range of the ESS, do you become unpointed, or are you stuck there until the timer runs out?
Regarding the warp disruption effect, we're still tweaking the effect, so it's not 100% set right now, but most likely will be similar to infinity point that does not prevent MWD or MJD. Regarding moving out of range, this stops you interacting with the ESS (resetting the timer), so the effect stops.
and how far away can you deploy the new mobile mjd deployable from the ESS? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:09:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Wow. I am pleasantly surprised to see these changes. Thank you, CCP -- this is a marked improvement over the old design and provides a great compromise between the differing viewpoints on this issue. There's the great possibility of "meta" and faction variants of the ESS that have different properties, too (like hacking, or pirate LP.) This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Primus Fortune
We Make Weapons Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:09:00 -
[1791] - Quote
Better cash in your Lp now faction ship price are gonna drop like a stone. In before faction domi's are a fleet doc lol |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:09:00 -
[1792] - Quote
It just occurred to me. Are these still NPC made? Can we get these blueprinted and player made? Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
229
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:10:00 -
[1793] - Quote
Primus Fortune wrote:Better cash in your Lp now faction ship price are gonna drop like a stone. In before faction domi's are a fleet doc lol
Navy domis are worse than normal domis in most cases, and will be made even worse after the omnidirectional change in 1.1 |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4416
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:10:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Paging Dinsdale to this thread.
OMG that's going to be epic when he finds out that the null sec cartels had a secret meeting with CCP and the end result was the screwing of high sec...
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
449
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:11:00 -
[1795] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance.
Is this "normal ISK reward" 100% of current bounties or still 95%? Is the 20% ISK payout still stored in the ESS? If so is it ISK or LP that is stolen?
CCP SoniClover 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Is this instead of or in addition to the disruption bubble?
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
857
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:11:00 -
[1796] - Quote
Kenneth Skybound wrote:Here's an idea to "compensate the high sec mission runners".
ESS, rather than being seeded on the market directly, comes from LP stores and requires a minimum standing of 5.0 with the corp to buy it.
Could be made available from all high sec NPC corps (so not pirates/soe) such you could choose whose LP you are getting.
By requiring standing as well as LP it gives a small boon to mission runners as not everyone has 5.0 with every faction.
The LP sink (along with ISK sink) would offset some of the LP generated in this new deployable.
Becomes semi-renewable for the null-bear by means of LP able to buy a new one if the old one gets bust, so long as they had the standing in the first place (used to run missions).
Just a thought. In regards to them coming from LP stores I actually like that as it's another tie in where everyone in EVE effects everyone without having to directly be involved with each other.
I would still put forward my argument that the ESS should run off it's own LP and LP Store so that CCP can better balance the ISK/LP ratios of the NullSec LP and not cause any dramatic effects on the LP of a NPC corp already in the game. This would also let CCP hand pick which items the NullSec LP can be spent on if they want to keep some items at higher values. As others have stated L5 missions are already suffering enough from FW and L4 LP there isn't a need to further decrease their LP values by having people farming LP in NullSec able to buy all Navy LP items it will cause the value of everything but industrial implants to go down.
My idea works better with an implementation of an LP store in NullSec however (something others have already stated may not be possible) so the items on that specific LP list can be tailored to the things NullSec groups want easier access to in their space, Implants etc.
The current Navy LP stores are the same as all Combat LP stores (to my knowledge) meaning we would see all combat modules, combat implants, and skill books drop in value making the Industrial NPC corps much more viable to mission for.
FW is pretty much safe from this change due to their FW LP only items (implants, drones, cheaper ships). Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
734
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:19:00 -
[1797] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Destoya wrote:Paging Dinsdale to this thread. OMG that's going to be epic when he finds out that the null sec cartels had a secret meeting with CCP and the end result was the screwing of high sec...
Nah, the end result was that CCP decided to yet again launch a personal attack on Dinsdale. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
583
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:19:00 -
[1798] - Quote
The changes make this thing a lot better.
But I still wish developers would spend time fixing known broken stuff. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
857
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:21:00 -
[1799] - Quote
Primus Fortune wrote:Better cash in your Lp now faction ship price are gonna drop like a stone. In before faction domi's are a fleet doc lol I don't think this will be the case. Currently most L4 mission runners don't use their LP on ships because they don't have a great ISK/LP ratio due to FW having the discount on all faction ships. Normally from the combat stores you will see people selling tanking and damage modules as these still have an okay LP/ISK ratio. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Darth Kilth
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:23:00 -
[1800] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you. This is correct. The LP goes directly to the wallets of each pilot as they get their isk ticks. Wait wait wait, hold on.
So what you're saying is, LP goes directly to those Ratting and thus can not be stolen by those using the ESS? or LP is stored in the system wide pool just like the ISK and is Directly added to the wallet of the ratters or the thief as soon as either option on the ESS is used?
I still think the ESS is kind of useless and the time being put in it could have been put in better things, but at least it sounds a bit better now. |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
343
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:24:00 -
[1801] - Quote
So, assuming 10% of the nullsec ratters have one of these up....How much new Navy LP will be added to the game?
There were some numbers posted earlier in the thread.
It seems like this could add a metric crapload of LP to the game even assuming only a small percentage of ratters use it. |
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery Team Liquid
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:28:00 -
[1802] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
Speaking as one of the worst offenders from when you initially buffed fw (even after nerfing it I can still get several hundred mission isk per mission cycle at tier 4) I can only support this change. I highly suggest you make it similar to concord lp so you can turn it into any lp store because that would really be balanced for everyone and wont cause significant personal wealth generation. Nope, not one bit.
Speaking as someone who still thinks the lp from lvl 4 fw missions needs to be cut by like 50%, I can see a couple ways this could result in interesting economic impacts but I am for more interested in seeing these things pan out than trying to make changes that might prevent them. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
857
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:32:00 -
[1803] - Quote
Darth Kilth wrote:Wait wait wait, hold on.
So what you're saying is, LP goes directly to those Ratting and thus can not be stolen by those using the ESS? or LP is stored in the system wide pool just like the ISK and is Directly added to the wallet of the ratters or the thief as soon as either option on the ESS is used?
I still think the ESS is kind of useless and the time being put in it could have been put in better things, but at least it sounds a bit better now. It goes to the ESS but when you claim at the ESS it goes to your journal instead of printing tags, at least that's how I interpreted it. You'll still be able to steal the LP but you wont need to make a break for it in your ship with the LP in you cargo.
Which does bring the problem CCP of people using disposable newbie alts to try and steal the LP. Please add the hacking game so people need to bring a specific kind of ship to actually achieve this goal rather than newbie ships and pods (which admittedly we can just kill) Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:37:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Initially I liked these. But after a lot of internal discussion I've been made to realize that these add 'fiddly' to an activity that's very straight forward.
PVE is one of the least complicated actions and most readily adopted in the player base. This item goes against that so much that PVE in NPC space will be completely different than PVE in Sov space. Totally different fits and behavior. Currently Null sec PVE is a nice progression from NPC space, just need better fits, a scout network, and all those things you should have anyway.
Likewise the risk/reward for all parties was out of wack. Even with the new system they're off. The ratters used to have = footing vs. the thief. now they have it too good. And there's nothing anyone can do to improve their chances. No SP and no pilot skill will effect that playing ground.
Here's an alternate approach:
ESS stats: 30m price tag HP set to ~150k (resistance holes based on faction used)
ESS is a beacon for empires to monitor activity and reward good behavior. - That reward comes automatically in 2 hour ticks. - if the ESS is destroyed all payout is now loot in the form of tickets.
The EHP is high enough to require the thief risk something of value. The ratters could interrupt the thief, remote rep the structure, or take it off line. The Cost is high enough that ratters don't want to be replacing these all the time, but do need them to stay deployed for at least 2 hours to get their payout. It engages the PVP timer. This is PVP and should be treated as such.
Notes: It requires everyone to risk something in order to gain. In all cases smart playing and decent skills are useful at improving chances.
It gives small gangs a reason to go to Sov Null space and harass ratters. It gives ratters a reason to undock in PVP fleets when reds come. It is simpler to use and won't require an extensive wiki page to describe. Numbers help both sides but large raiding fleets will be cumbersome to manage payouts and the risked asset is not so high that defense fleets need to be giant either (no sense risking billions in fleet assets to save millions in ratter income)
Please give us a simpler route to content creation. the current item does not encourage group play and makes ratting in Sov space too much like busy work. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18979
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:41:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Turelus wrote:* Will there still be a 95%/80% drop in bounties or are all the bounties changes stripped now this is an LP module. +1 for this question. 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. |
Rabugento
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:47:00 -
[1806] - Quote
MinutemanKirk wrote:CCP SoniClover 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THIS ON PLEX SITES!?!?!?!?
^^ |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:47:00 -
[1807] - Quote
I can seethe future. ESS gets deployed, hostile comes in trying to steal, friendly dude warps to a spot 130km from the ESS in a "nothing but sensor boosters and target painters" maelstrom and blaps him while yelling "get off my porch" in local, then back to ratting lol.
[Maelstrom, ESS Driveby Flyswatter] Signal Amplifier II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
Large Targeting System Subcontroller I Large Targeting System Subcontroller I Large Polycarbon Engine Housing I
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:53:00 -
[1808] - Quote
+1
This would be soooo much better than autistic docking / POSing up. |
Combat Wombatz
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 15:57:00 -
[1809] - Quote
The fact that this now gives LP as an addid bonus is a good change, and I am glad you guys seem to be open to the ideas presented by the community here. As long as this structure is attached to a blanket nullsec nerf, however, it has no place in the game. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
725
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:05:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Nope, still doesn't make sense.
Does the LP go to the player or the ESS?
Does it get printed out into tags to be stolen?
Is isk payout still removed from bounties?
Does that isk go to the ESS to be printed and stolen?
Is the 5% blanket reduction still in place?
Somebody get on the test server and figure this thing out, the explanation sure did nothing.
Onto the more...pointed questions:
Why do you still think nullsec residents should be unable to be self-sufficient, suckling off empire's teat?
Was this idea brought to the CSM8 Summer Summit?
What was the original iteration of the idea?
If the original iteration was shelved, the devblog iteration reviled, how does a 'fresh coat of paint' or 'tweaking the numbers' fix the fundamental flaws?
Namely:
-Current system- hostiles in local players dock pve ships home defence fleet forms or not
-Friendly ESS- hostiles in local players dock pve ships disposable alt pushes button home defence fleet forms or not
-Hostile ESS- hostiles in local players dock pve ships home defence fleet forms or not structure shoot!
The only thing that has changed between -current- and -ESS- is either: The existence of a disposable alt (and killmail) in something like a t1 cruiser that will survive 20 seconds OR a (now longer, more EHP YAY) structure shoot.
Meanwhile an alt in a t1 cruiser could be as easily afking hubs for 15m/tick. I don't think whatever LP gained will much offset the babysitting of this module, given nullsec systems can support perhaps 3-4 simultaneous ratters, and the character that runs the sites has to go to empire on a regular basis to cash out. If you don't babysit, you run a very high risk of not making it to the ESS (3 minutes is an incredibly short period of time when warping in a battleship, for example). If you change the numbers to favour the thief, the locals have no reason to use it, if you change the numbers to favour the locals, the thieves will never appear.
Once again, you've proven there's literally no reason anyone in their right mind would use this module. Lot's of theoretical, 'maybe if...' wishful thinking going on. Absolutely zero thought about how the base concept would fly or fail based on how eve is actually played.
I do like some of the tweaks, it would be neat to see this "infinipoint module" in some iteration (ie. FW complexes) and it's nice to see you're finally putting some serious thought into this. The problem is it's ultimately just a bad idea, and needs to go back to the drawing board, be dismantled, set fire to, ashes examined, and lessons learned. Stop wasting time and making shiny features pages. Restore the faith.
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2614
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:07:00 -
[1811] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you. This is correct. The LP goes directly to the wallets of each pilot as they get their isk ticks. Is that for both the "share" and "take all" buttons? Or does "take all" still print tags? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:10:00 -
[1812] - Quote
I just want to be clear: This is the how the system now works:
All Systems are still receiving a 5% nerf to bounty income. Rats that display a 100k isk bounty will put 95k isk in your wallet.
If you Deploy an ESS:
You risk ~15% of your income from bounties: Rats that display a 100k isk bounty will now put 80k isk directly into your wallet. The 15k isk you risked, as well as an additional 5-10k isk are then stored in the ESS. You get a Direct recompense for the isk you risk: You earn Empire Navy LP for every NPC you kill. A 100k isk bounty rat pays 15-20 LP directly into your LP Wallet. The Claimable Award: To claim the isk stored in the ESS (20-25k for every 100k rat you kill) you must access the ESS. It takes 20s to access the ESS and hit "share all". The Share all button distributes the isk stored into the LP directly into every ratters wallet (no tags), It takes 3 minutes to access the ESS and hit "claim all". The claim all action drops an ISK-tag you can return to empire Navies to exchange for all the isk stored in the ESS. When accessing the ESS, your ship is infinite point warp disrupted (no more bubble). A few points: -- There is still a 5% nerf to all ratting income that doesn't use the ESS. Is everyone alright with the ESS now because it pays out better rewards?
A few questions: -- Can two people attempt to access the ESS at the same time?
-- Outside of being ward disrupted, will accessing the ESS cause combat hindering popups and the like?
-- After the 3 Minute access period, how long does it take the ESS to drop the isk-tags? (is 3 minutes enough time for the locals to form up and defend the ESS from a hostile inty stealing your stuff?)
-- Can I park an alt on the ESS, with the share all button open and ready to be pressed, such that I can hit press all the moment someone comes into system?
-- What happens when you stop interacting with the ESS: Are you still warp disrupted? For example, if I land on the ESS and hit share all (20s later), can I then warp off, or must I burn away first and/or scoop the ESS?
-- How can your opponent stop you from interacting with the ESS? Example Scenario: Let's say we bring in a fleet into system and the ratters get safe. They then warp a noobship alt directly to the ESS with the goal of hitting share all and distributing the income within. I don't get notification that this is happening until the noobship is on top of the ESS, at which point I have 20 seconds to warp to the ESS and stop them from hitting the share all feature. Does this not seem too short to anyone else, especially if I have to blow up their ship to accomplish this?
-- Can I access the ESS in a pod?
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:18:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Does the LP go to the player or the ESS? --- LP goes directly to the Player!
Does it get printed out into tags to be stolen? ---- LP goes directly to the Player
Is isk payout still removed from bounties? --- Deploying the ESS reduces your bounty payout by and additional 15%. The blanket 5% reduction is still in effect, so with an ESS deployed, you get 80k isk for every 100k NPC you destroy. 20k-25k isk will be stored in the ESS. 15-20 LP appears in your LP wallet.
Does that isk go to the ESS to be printed and stolen? --- Isk in the ESS may be shared (at which point it goes directly into your wallet) or stolen (which prints an isk-tag that must be taken to empire navies to redeem).
Is the 5% blanket reduction still in place? --- Yes it is.
Why do you still think nullsec residents should be unable to be self-sufficient, suckling off empire's teat? --- They purposely intertwine game resources so one area of game play may affect another.
What was the original iteration of the idea? --- It didn't pay out LP, and had quicker access to the "take all" button. It also had a warp bubble around it instead of focused warp disruption.
If the original iteration was shelved, the devblog iteration reviled, how does a 'fresh coat of paint' or 'tweaking the numbers' fix the fundamental flaws? --- It changed the risk reward ratio, which made it more desirable to utilize.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:20:00 -
[1814] - Quote
Also, can these be deployed in NPC nullsec? I was under the impression they could. |
Johan March
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:21:00 -
[1815] - Quote
Much better CCP. I might actually use the thing now.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2571
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:22:00 -
[1816] - Quote
In a bout of shameless self promotion:
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/
CN https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/sell/10000002/1000035/withblueprints FN https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/sell/10000002/1000120/withblueprints RF https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/sell/10000002/1000051/withblueprints AN https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/sell/10000002/1000084/withblueprints Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
RoCCommander
Aurora Armaments Gentlemen's Agreement
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:25:00 -
[1817] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance.
* Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300.
If got 2 Questions: 1. What is the effect on ISK? Is it still 95% without ESS, and 80% with ESS and 20-25% in LP stored in the ESS or is just a plain addition, so 80% with ESS, 20-25% in ISK soret in the ESS (with the option for Tags) and the LP? 2. Does the range increase also cover POS? Or can I still setup a deathstar next to the ESS that just kills everyone interacting with the ESS?
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
351
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:25:00 -
[1818] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
I don't understand why people who were opposed to the ESS before suddenly now love the idea. These changes fix nothing; stop trying to polish a turd - it's still just a turd.
There's no mention of rolling back the 95%/80% nerf to nullsec ratting income, so most of the changes in your post are irrelevant since ESSs will still be KOS to all major alliances and no ratter in his right mind is going to deploy one. No one is going to risk 20% of their ratting income for a measly LP payout, especially since if everyone used an ESS that LP would soon be worthless. Lowering the price and upgrading the EHP are stupid "shooting structures is fun!" changes. 120 seconds is still 480 too short - minimum. I would be pissed about you trying to devalue LP for both highsec and nullsec, but since no one is going to use this, hopefully that will be avoided.
tl;dr - the fundamental concepts behind this deployable as still present and deeply flawed and none of these minor changes fixes that, if it even can be fixed. You would still be far better served simply scrapping the ESS entirely and going back to the drawing board instead of continuing to try to force this piece of trash down our throats. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
344
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:28:00 -
[1819] - Quote
Sell orders are a bit deceptive, as are the low volume outliers.
I'd put the honest average at about 1200 isk / lp |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2572
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:33:00 -
[1820] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Sell orders are a bit deceptive, as are the low volume outliers. I'd put the honest average at about 1200 isk / lp
Buy prices (all materials acquired at sell order prices, based of the average price for 5% of the market)
CN https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/buy/10000002/1000035/withblueprints FN https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/buy/10000002/1000120/withblueprints RF https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/buy/10000002/1000051/withblueprints AN https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/buy/10000002/1000084/withblueprints
You're entirely right. The tool doesn't eliminate a requirement to think, just allows for a little more focusing. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
727
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:34:00 -
[1821] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Why do you still think nullsec residents should be unable to be self-sufficient, suckling off empire's teat? --- They purposely intertwine game resources so one area of game play may affect another. You can hardly call mineral compression, hideous mineral proportions in nullsec grav sites, jump-freightering of everything relevant PURPOSEFUL INTERTWINING, sorry =D. No more so for this, it's bad. I didn't even touch on the LP market impacts.
What was the original iteration of the idea? --- It didn't pay out LP, and had quicker access to the "take all" button. It also had a warp bubble around it instead of focused warp disruption. I meant the 'original' iteration, not the one posted in this devblog, which was obviously a patchwork. Since you're not CSM or CCP I can't take your word that was the original iteration.
If the original iteration was shelved, the devblog iteration reviled, how does a 'fresh coat of paint' or 'tweaking the numbers' fix the fundamental flaws? --- It changed the risk reward ratio, which made it more desirable to utilize. That's your opinion, and since you're not a CCP dev, I'm not particularly interested. My assertion is that (too high) opportunity cost is much more important in this calculation that risk/reward.
Thanks for taking the effort to respond Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:34:00 -
[1822] - Quote
RoCCommander wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance.
* Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300.
If got 2 Questions: 1. What is the effect on ISK? Is it still 95% without ESS, and 80% with ESS and 20-25% in LP stored in the ESS or is just a plain addition, so 80% with ESS, 20-25% in ISK soret in the ESS (with the option for Tags) and the LP? 2. Does the range increase also cover POS? Or can I still setup a deathstar next to the ESS that just kills everyone interacting with the ESS?
1.) Imagine you kill a 100m isk in NPC's: With out the ESS, you get 95m isk into your wallet. (i.e. it is still 95% without the ESS). With the ESS, you get 80m into your wallet, and you get 15k-20k LP into your wallet. 20-25m isk will be stored in the ESS (to be shared or stolen by any player that accesses it). 2.) The ESS may not be deployed within several 100 km's of a POS. (Hopefully the 3000 km range increase is for POSes too, as 300 is too close!).
|
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
44
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:35:00 -
[1823] - Quote
91 pages and counting.....just saying....maybe its a good idea to reconsider this.....
Edit: any answer on this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4128627#post4128627
Would be nice to know if the other deployables from this SF crew are actually working. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
344
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:35:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The tool doesn't eliminate a requirement to think, just allows for a little more focusing.
I wasn't dissing your tool, was just making a heads up in case anybody clicked into it and DIDN'T think...I sorted by ISK and saw some that were listed at like 12,000 isk/ LP (low volume obviously)
I use your website all the time btw <3...the blueprint calculator is a killer |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1688
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:35:00 -
[1825] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you. This is correct. The LP goes directly to the wallets of each pilot as they get their isk ticks.
so then all the ess holds is the 20% of the isk that i would have made? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:43:00 -
[1826] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you. This is correct. The LP goes directly to the wallets of each pilot as they get their isk ticks. so then all the ess holds is the 20% of the isk that i would have made?
Yes... the ESS holds the isk you would have potentially earned.
Imagine you kill a 100m isk in NPC's: With out the ESS, you get 95m isk into your wallet. (i.e. it is still 95% without the ESS). With the ESS, you get 80m into your wallet AND you get 15k-20k Empire Navy LP directly into your wallet. 20-25m isk will be stored in the ESS (to be shared or stolen by any player that accesses it). If you successfully utilize a maxed-benefited ESS (sharing all once you are done): You will get 105m isk and 20k LP put directly into your wallet for every 100m in NPCs you kill.
|
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:49:00 -
[1827] - Quote
Thank you CCP for tuning into the LP rather than blanket nerf, and adjusting this initial trainwreck this fast. It`s looking better now, but still is a bit Meh..
To make it something useful, you should now play into the farms and field concept and add another deployable which allows the players to attract the rats they want to farm for the option of tuning into the lp they want, without it system attracts less rats..
Further into the isk sink, as people have said earlier here, station rentable lp stores.
A combination of this over regional fixed rats (could) if tweaked properly would play nicely into the concept, as 0.0 gets more playerdriven and more options as to what they want to farm and ability to switch out markets to stay competetive towards the meta.
This will also make the systems more fields like, and the fields is now disturbable by small gangs.
I.e without the deployables the system produces less total.
Going this route it will go more from meh, to interresting.. And as a turnout balance out some of the regional problems where envy of sertain rats is a thing, and most important, the ability to switch out what you want to shoot. the boredom of shooting the same rats with the same quality for years.. the boredom..
But as i have stated earlier in this tread, this should have gone back to the drawingboard.. it has the potential.. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6179
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:50:00 -
[1828] - Quote
Quote:* With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases.
Is this pre-reduction or post-reduction? i.e. if I kill a rat worth 1m isk now, but 800k with the ESS, for the LP reward formula is it worth 1m or 800k? "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2572
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:52:00 -
[1829] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Weaselior wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Adding a third form of distribution currency doesn't alleviate any of my complaints: that it's too complicated/convoluted.
It just makes it more complex. Coupled with the fact that it puts the LP in the can and not in my wallet is a slam dunk for fail.
Why would I have my /loyalty points/ put in a can? That goes against the entire premise of LP - that they are an untradable good, and represent services rendered to a specific faction.
Pressing the "take all" button does not to me sound like a service rendered.
I still can't figure out how such an idea actually made it this far...
I read this as the loyalty points are not in the can, they are awarded directly to you. This is correct. The LP goes directly to the wallets of each pilot as they get their isk ticks. so then all the ess holds is the 20% of the isk that i would have made?
The ESS holds 15.7% of the ISK you would have made, plus an additional 5.2% to 10.5%
Going by the adjusted figures for what you would have made without one. (with the 95% adjustment to the base figure) Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:53:00 -
[1830] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:I don't understand why people who were opposed to the ESS before suddenly now love the idea. These changes fix nothing; stop trying to polish a turd - it's still just a turd.
There's no mention of rolling back the 95%/80% nerf to nullsec ratting income, so most of the changes in your post are irrelevant since ESSs will still be KOS to all major alliances and no ratter in his right mind is going to deploy one. No one is going to risk 20% of their ratting income for a measly LP payout, especially since if everyone used an ESS that LP would soon be worthless. Lowering the price and upgrading the EHP are stupid "shooting structures is fun!" changes. 120 seconds is still 480 too short - minimum. I would be pissed about you trying to devalue LP for both highsec and nullsec, but since no one is going to use this, hopefully that will be avoided.
tl;dr - the fundamental concepts behind this deployable as still present and deeply flawed and none of these minor changes fixes that, if it even can be fixed. You would still be far better served simply scrapping the ESS entirely and going back to the drawing board instead of continuing to try to force this piece of trash down our throats.
Yeah, you're kinda fighting against windmills here.
First of all: donGÇÿt you see that itGÇÿs all the more seducting to use this module, the more nullsec alliances are trying to boycott it? Because if nobody BUT ME uses it, the better for me! Cause IGÇÿm earning additional LP now, and you donGÇÿt.
Second, the LP payout itself seems to be quite okay. Assuming a nullbear now earns 30m ISK an hour ratting, after the change the following will happen:
NO ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income nerfed to 28.5m ISK. No additional benefits or frills.
ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income lowered to 24m ISK. Additional 3,600 to 4,800 LP directly to LP wallet. 6-7.5m ISK go into ESS.
Given current LP values this sums up to c. 32.9m to 35.3m, depending on how long the ESS has been deployed and not cashed out. This is a potential buff of 9.7 to 17.7 percent to nullbear income. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
536
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:54:00 -
[1831] - Quote
Just wanted to put out an official clarification on a few points:
1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS.
2) The Loyalty Points are paid directly to the ratting player. No LPs are stored/available in the ESS.
3) The warp disruption effect put on ships interacting with the ESS is in addition to the bubble.
4) Interacting with the ESS immediately gives you the option to either Share or Take all. Once either is selected a timer starts (length determined by choice), when timer finishes the system pool is emptied. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
536
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:55:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Quote:* With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. Is this pre-reduction or post-reduction? i.e. if I kill a rat worth 1m isk now, but 800k with the ESS, for the LP reward formula is it worth 1m or 800k?
It uses the total amount, so its based on 1m |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:00:00 -
[1833] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The ESS holds 15.7% of the ISK you would have made, plus an additional 5.2% to 10.5%
Going by the adjusted figures for what you would have made without one. (with the 95% adjustment to the base figure)
While your percentage changes in income are technically right, it is my understanding that NPC bounties will still say 100k isk and only pay out 95k isk (no ess) or 80k isk & 15-20 LP with the ess with an additional 20-25k isk stored in the ESS. I think putting it this way is easier for players to understand.
Weaselior wrote:Quote:* With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. Is this pre-reduction or post-reduction? i.e. if I kill a rat worth 1m isk now, but 800k with the ESS, for the LP reward formula is it worth 1m or 800k?
Again, the bounties listed on the rat are not changing.
If you kill a 100k isk NPC rat:
Without ESS, you get paied 95k isk.
With the ESS, your immediate payout will be 80k isk, and 15-20 LP (the payout is based on the rats posted bounty). 20k-25k isk will be stored in the ESS for later distribution.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:02:00 -
[1834] - Quote
A few questions: -- Can two people attempt to access the ESS at the same time?
-- Outside of being ward disrupted, will accessing the ESS cause combat hindering popups and the like?
-- After the 3 Minute access period, how long does it take the ESS to drop the isk-tags? (is 3 minutes enough time for the locals to form up and defend the ESS from a hostile inty stealing your stuff?)
-- Can I park an alt on the ESS, with the share all button open and ready to be pressed, such that I can hit press all the moment someone comes into system?
-- What happens when you stop interacting with the ESS: Are you still warp disrupted? For example, if I land on the ESS and hit share all (20s later), can I then warp off, or must I burn away first and/or scoop the ESS?
-- How can your opponent stop you from interacting with the ESS? Example Scenario: Let's say we bring in a fleet into system and the ratters get safe. They then warp a noobship alt directly to the ESS with the goal of hitting share all and distributing the income within. I don't get notification that this is happening until the noobship is on top of the ESS, at which point I have 20 seconds to warp to the ESS and stop them from hitting the share all feature. Does this not seem too short to anyone else, especially if I have to blow up their ship to accomplish this?
-- Can I access the ESS in a pod?
-- Can these be deployed in NPC nullsec? I was under the impression they could.
-- Can is immediately scoop the ESS upon landing, removing the beacon in local and not have to worry about warp disruption?
-- Is the warp disruption mechanic targeted, meaning I can no longer cloak if it is "disrupting" me? |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:04:00 -
[1835] - Quote
HmGǪ No. I think the bounties displayed on the rat info screen will be exactly the amount thatGÇÿs valid for the current payout level. Without ESS deployed a 100k rat will show 95k. With ESS deployed, it will show 80k. And it should also show LP value, but this might be technically complicated. Everything else would be very confusing, I guess. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
214
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:06:00 -
[1836] - Quote
I have been on the test server using both the mobile jump drive and the RSI [scan inhibitor]. As a fwer the fact that they can be used inside plexes is pretty good.. The RSI should probably last longer, as depending on the final price of them if they get released, using it for a prolonged gate camp is not as viable. The mobile jump drive outside of a plex, is probably not as viable due to the fact that it has such low hp.
Havn't had the chance to test the ess yet. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:10:00 -
[1837] - Quote
On second thoughtGǪ thatGÇÿs kinda confusing.
I think in their info rats should display exactly the right (current) bounty. Therefore it would have to show the amount of ISK thatGÇÿs going straight to your wallet, as well as the amount of ISK thatGÇÿs gonna get stored in the ESS module, as well as the amount of LP gained by killing it.
But I think thatGÇÿs quite difficult to show in the info window. Therefore it might be more suitable to only show the exact amount of ISK that will go directly to your wallet, if you shoot this rat. Without ESS deployed this would be 95k for a current 100k rat, and with ESS deployed it would be 80k.
Players who deploy an ESS do know whatGÇÿs happening here, and everybody else in the system can see the ESS module on the overview. If the overview beacon of the ESS shows some info on whatGÇÿs happening here, everything should be fine. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
312
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:18:00 -
[1838] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote:Quote:* With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. Is this pre-reduction or post-reduction? i.e. if I kill a rat worth 1m isk now, but 800k with the ESS, for the LP reward formula is it worth 1m or 800k? It uses the total amount, so its based on 1m
So are we just going to ignore people who realize what a disaster this is going to be for LP valuations? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:24:00 -
[1839] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote:Quote:* With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. Is this pre-reduction or post-reduction? i.e. if I kill a rat worth 1m isk now, but 800k with the ESS, for the LP reward formula is it worth 1m or 800k? It uses the total amount, so its based on 1m So are we just going to ignore people who realize what a disaster this is going to be for LP valuations?
Meh... L5 Mission runners deserve a boon if their LP income is undermined... |
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:26:00 -
[1840] - Quote
I see nullsec is getting another buff, as expected. Any plans to unerf high-sec? Maybe add Concord LP per every rat killed?
|
|
Terrence Malick
Standard Fuel Company
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:29:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Weaselior wrote:Quote:* With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. Is this pre-reduction or post-reduction? i.e. if I kill a rat worth 1m isk now, but 800k with the ESS, for the LP reward formula is it worth 1m or 800k? It uses the total amount, so its based on 1m So are we just going to ignore people who realize what a disaster this is going to be for LP valuations?
What disaster? I was under the impression that nullsec alliances are going to ban those modules from their space! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8703
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:37:00 -
[1842] - Quote
Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8703
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:39:00 -
[1843] - Quote
And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done? My EVE Videos |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
345
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:40:00 -
[1844] - Quote
My take on the thing:
It costs 25m. Assume 1 LP = 1300 ISK. I think this is a favorable assumption for the ESS. Assume LP gain = .19 so isk from LP = .25. assume the flat isk gain from ess is .24.
The four outcomes I can see of using an ESS are:
1) Successful retrieve of ESS module with all bonus ISK.
Income without ESS = .95 in wallet
Income with ESS = .8 in wallet + .25 isk in lp in wallet + .24 isk in ESS = 1.29
1.29 / .95 = 1.36 income modifier vs no ESS.
2) Successful retrieve of ESS module but not the bonus ISK.
This is just the ratio of isk in your wallet. So 1.05 / .95 = 1.11x
3) ESS was destroyed but you received "almost all" bonus ISK (you managed to share recently before a gang came in to destroy the ESS)
This is more complicated since it is dependent on how much you have farmed. We can simply consider the difference in profit and look at the break even point to get a quick idea.
This would happen about when you would have farmed 70m ISK without an ESS, or 95m value with an ESS. When this would happen would depend on how quickly rats spawned in the system and what they were worth...
4) ESS was destroyed and all bonus ISK is stolen
So it is like 3) except there is no bonus ISK.
The break even point becomes astronomical, around 275m isk/lp farmed before it happens. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
864
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:42:00 -
[1845] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: 1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS.
That's a shame to hear because it was (and still is) one of the biggest issues with anyone wanting to use one of these structures. With this gambling on the ISK it still seems that the module will most likely end up not being used.
CCP SoniClover wrote:4) Interacting with the ESS immediately gives you the option to either Share or Take all. Once either is selected a timer starts (length determined by choice), when timer finishes the system pool is emptied. Under this system I can see players sitting a rookie corp alt on the ESS seeing intel blink with a red one jump out, hitting claim and then docking their main up with no care if the alt doesn't make it out before the red kills them. They would receive the ISK due then their alt would reclone in station (presumably in system) with no care to being killed/podded.
CCP SoniClover would you also be able to answer the following?
* How feasible it would be to have the LP for a corporation not already in the game with a set choice of rewards (meaning current LP stores can keep some valued items).
* LP store services in NullSec stations/outposts meaning we can cash in our LP without a return trip to Empire (this would be very useful in getting new attribute implants out in NullSec)
* Is it possible or even feasible that attacking players would need to use the hacking mini-game to steal the LP giving Cov-Ops, T3 and SoE ships a more anti-player PVP role.
* Having the ESS be sold via LP stores in Empire so current mission runners have something new to sell and adding a new Empire/NullSec link where each benefits from the others needs. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Nicen Jehr
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:45:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Can someone activate the shorter timer while someone else is activating the longer timer?
Does the new warp disruption effect only happen while the character is accessing the ESS (e.g. while the window is open?) Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á| My Little Things posts |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
352
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:45:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: Yeah, you're kinda fighting against windmills here.
First of all: donGÇÿt you see that itGÇÿs all the more seducing to use this module, the more nullsec alliances are trying to boycott it? Because if nobody BUT ME uses it, the better for me! Cause IGÇÿm earning additional LP now, and you donGÇÿt.
Second, the LP payout itself seems to be quite okay. Assuming a nullbear now earns 30m ISK for each hour ratting, after the change the following will happen:
NO ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income nerfed to 28.5m ISK. No additional benefits or frills.
ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income lowered to 24m ISK. Additional 3,600 to 4,800 LP directly to LP wallet. 6-7.5m ISK go into ESS.
Given current navy LP values (c. 800 ISK/LP) this sums up to c. 32.9m to 35.3m, depending on how long the ESS has been deployed and not cashed out. This is a potential buff of 9.7 to 17.7 percent to nullbear income.
But most important of all: this ratter will potentially earn 25% more than a ratter who doesn't deploy an ESS. ThatGÇÿs kind of a motivation :D
Those LP values are the current values. Any widespread use of this deployable in nullsec will quickly devalue already low value LP meaning that nullsec players making less ISK is built into the success of this deployable. This is my FW character, I know all about LP devaluation.
As repeatedly pointed out in this thread, an average system can only support 3 to 5 ratters in PvE ships trying to make ISK not PvPing. The rewards of this deployable are insufficient to force these 3 to 5 players to deploy and risk having to reship to PvP ships and try to fight usually outnumbered or outgunned by the red/neut roaming gang who probably are better organized and have more PvP experience too. Risking 20% of your income for a chance of a small reward that you will lose all of if a even a small roaming gang comes through is more than enough to result in this deployable's banning thoroughout most of nullsec.
If you want to use this deployable, then by all menas please do. In fact, I encourage it. Because it will quickly become known who uses ESSes and who doesn't and roaming gangs are going to spend far more time in territory that use these. So in the end, ratters not using these will make far more ISK because they'll be out ratting while those groups using ESSes will be defensive PvPing or docked up. |
Combat Wombatz
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:52:00 -
[1848] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS.
Still not okay unless you hit hisec with an equal or greater income nerf at the same time. |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
249
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:56:00 -
[1849] - Quote
Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.
If they do nothing, you milk them dry.
If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.
Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete) |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:57:00 -
[1850] - Quote
This is a very good step towards the ESS being "good for all". The LP addition will sink isk out of circulation, while not significantly impacting negatively on a Nullsec ratter's income.
The changes made have turned the ESS from something I'd never touch with a 40' bargepole into something I'm at the very least curious in trying out, and at the most seriously hopeful that it changes the way nullsec ratting works for the good of all.
Thanks for listening, Team Superfriends. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
866
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:58:00 -
[1851] - Quote
TL;DR: Delay the ESS from 1.1 and make it something worthy of EVE Online, not another failed feature.
I would also say that CCP might want to think about not placing the ESS in 1.1
There are some really great ideas coming from the community and a better back and forth with CCP about this module now, with some more time, testing and feedback it could actually be a fantastic module. I worry that if rushed out in 1.1 before people are happy with it we will just see it abandoned (like many features) while Super Friends are moved onto their next project for the summer expansion.
I understand things will never be perfect before they're deployed but a few more revisions and work on changes besides the base ESS module to help support it would make for a far better released feature (NullSec LP stores, Specific LP/Store Lists, Hacking games).
Make a thread in Features and Ideas and work with the community to create something worthy of EVE Online, not another feature which we're told will be finished/tweaked/fixed later and sits in a worthless state for over a year.
Once this thread turns from "still not worth using" to "OMG GOT TO HAVE" you know you're looking at something ready for release, you only have to look at the Hype for the Nestor vs the dread of this module and the changes it brings to see how one feature (which has had a thread up for a couple of months) is what players want vs the one which us only a couple of weeks old and people still don't want any where near TQ. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4425
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:00:00 -
[1852] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done?
They don't need to increase the number of anomalies, they need to make more than 3 (sanctum, haven, forsaken hub) of them worthwhile.
Sure, forlorn hubs, regular and forsaken rally points are ok if you have no choice but still much less than optimal. Half to two-thirds of anomalies in any given system are totally useless. You won't find a single soul in all of EVE online who will say "hey man, Hidden Hubs are GREAT" lol. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:00:00 -
[1853] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done? This dovetails into something I'd been wanting to talk about -- the old change to anomaly distribution based on truesec. Now that the ESS exists as a way to arbitrarily tune the isk faucet being emitted from nullsec, I'd highly recommend that CCP revisit the changes to the Pirate Detection Array that choked off the top combat sites from vast swathes of nullsec.
Some background: in the Incursion 1.4 patch, Pirate Detection Arrays were changed so that a system's truesec affected how many combat sites would spawn. The net of this change was to choke off roughly a third of conquerable nullsec from having any viable combat sites. Here are the raw numbers:
sqlite> select count(*) FROM mapSolarSystems a left join mapRegions b ON (a.regionID = b.regionID) WHERE a.security > -0.25 AND a.security < 0.00 and b.factionID IS NULL; 1262 sqlite> select count(*) FROM mapSolarSystems a left join mapRegions b ON (a.regionID = b.regionID) WHERE a.security < 0.00 and b.factionID IS NULL; 5356
For those that don't grok sql: 1262 systems in conquerable nullsec have a security status between 0.00 and -0.25, compared to 5365 total. Systems in this band are unable to generate any Forsaken Hubs, which are the lowest tier site that generates a livable income in nullsec. This change, either intentionally or unintentionally, made a third of nullsec a barren wasteland for line member income generation. Regions like Pure Blind, Providence, and Cloud Ring were hit disproportionately by these changes; in Pure Blind in particular there are only seven systems that can generate a Forsaken Hub at all and only one that can generate a Sanctum at all (and that system is EC-P8R; a system which is notoriously untenable for any sort of PvE on account of having a direct highsec connection, with all the pvp attention carried by such a distinction.)
Part of the effect of this change was a net reduction in the "isk faucet" coming from nullsec; not only was a third of the space in the game no longer eligible for combat sites, but the total number of combat sites was drastically reduced. I think that now is a great time to revisit the scaling done by Pirate Detection Arrays to make lower-quality space a little more livable for its residents. I suspect a minor adjustment to allow these systems to generate at least one combat site would suffice. Any isk faucet concerns can be allayed by adjusting the scaling on the ESS such that it generates more LP than isk than the current desired balance.
I'm not suggesting that these changes be incorporated for Rubicon 1.1 or in fact any particular release at all, but I'd like to plant the bug in the relevant ears, at the very least, while we are on the topic of such an important change to nullsec profitability.
On another note, these calculations have a slight wrinkle in the Drone regions. Drone regions, for whatever reason, generate vastly larger numbers of combat sites. I don't have hard numbers in front of me, but anecdotal reference from my personal experience hunting ratters in these regions, along with the anecdotal evidence from my confederates in Goonswarm Federation doing similar things suggests that up to ten Drone Horde sites (the top tier combat site in these regions) can spawn at once, compared to a maximum of three Sanctums in other pirate faction regions. This incongruency may be worth visiting as well. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4425
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:06:00 -
[1854] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.
If they do nothing, you milk them dry.
If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.
Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)
if the ESS disabled ALL cynos (even covert) around it for 250km, you'd never hear me complain about the thing ever. But yea, as it stands now, it's just cyno/hotdrop bait. As has been said, it's just going to mean "hey, someone put a disposable alt on this sucker so we can rat without getting out isk stolen".
|
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:10:00 -
[1855] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:if the ESS disabled ALL cynos (even covert) around it for 250km, you'd never hear me complain about the thing ever. But yea, as it stands now, it's just cyno/hotdrop bait. As has been said, it's just going to mean "hey, someone put a disposable alt on this sucker so we can rat without getting out isk stolen".
LOL the fleet application of this would be ********. bad idea. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:11:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.
If they do nothing, you milk them dry.
If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.
Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)
The point is to have you defend it if you want the bonus it provides. And the isk it holds makes it potentially valuable to you. In other words, it encourages you to fight without forcing you to fight. Something that a roaming gang coming through your territory has no means of doing at the moment.
Also, cyno jam your system, note names of hotdroppers... disable the hotdrop ship so it won't actually catch anything when they bridge in their fleeet, etc. This is actually a great game design, even if you are afraid of the possibilities.
|
Phoenix Jones
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
396
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:18:00 -
[1857] - Quote
There has to be a more elegant solution for this. I'm not sure where it is but there has to be. The concept (meaning the device itself and how it runs is fine, anchor, creates a warp bubble, prizes inside), how it calculates its pot of gold is bizarre.
Is it the bounty and LP thats the problem? Or the loot drops/salvage?
What I mean is if you are going to create a device like this, make it more extreme. If this is meant for null, you might as well just go all out and force people to deal with it.
Right now its a deadspace early detection system, (incase you wound up missing the combat scanner probes), or a temporary griefing tool (which is fine but it should probably grief more).
Honestly, this is probably two different devices.
One being a Detection system, the second deployable a system isk/lp sucking system. Its odd being both but hell we can try it for now.
Stabbers are totally broken
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
283
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:24:00 -
[1858] - Quote
It now has some kind of megapoint on it because ~interceptors~ plus a proximity demand, and you guys want to add cynojamming too? Why not just make it plonk out an acceleration gate with cruiser limits and be done with it? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:25:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:There has to be a more elegant solution for this. I'm not sure where it is but there has to be. The concept (meaning the device itself and how it runs is fine, anchor, creates a warp bubble, prizes inside), how it calculates its pot of gold is bizarre.
Is it the bounty and LP thats the problem? Or the loot drops/salvage?
What I mean is if you are going to create a device like this, make it more extreme. If this is meant for null, you might as well just go all out and force people to deal with it.
Right now its a deadspace early detection system, (incase you wound up missing the combat scanner probes), or a temporary griefing tool (which is fine but it should probably grief more).
Honestly, this is probably two different devices.
One being a Detection system, the second deployable a system isk/lp sucking system. Its odd being both but hell we can try it for now.
Deadspace detection system? You mean you deploy it at a deadspace plex so anyone entering it is reported in local? That's a unique use of the device!
To limit inflaction, CCP needs to be careful with their isk faucets. This is why they are conservative with the isk payouts. LP is honestly an isk sink, so that can be a reward that isn't isk (and helps offset it).
Forcing people to deal with it is a pretty heavy handed approach that is likely to upset the balance of players in nullsec. By keeping it optional, and small gang oriented, it has utility without being overly harsh.
|
Tiberizzle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:32:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Jessica Danikov wrote:Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.
If they do nothing, you milk them dry.
If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.
Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete) if the ESS disabled ALL cynos (even covert) around it for 250km, you'd never hear me complain about the thing ever. But yea, as it stands now, it's just cyno/hotdrop bait. As has been said, it's just going to mean "hey, someone put a disposable alt on this sucker so we can rat without getting out isk stolen".
the same people who sit cynos on hostile ESSes in hostile space will sit cynos on friendly ESSes in friendly space when they're at home, hot dropping has always been an inseparable part of the nullsec and lowsec risk vs reward equation.
whoever has the most organized and mobile force in the immediate area can opt to control the ESS to receive a reward.
what's wrong with that? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18984
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:37:00 -
[1861] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:I see nullsec is getting another buff, as expected. Any plans to unerf high-sec? Maybe add Concord LP per every rat killed? GÇ£AnotherGÇ¥? What other buffs are you referring to, and how was it expected that they decided to nerf income even more (because that's still what they're doing)? Also, when was highsec nerfed in such a way that it now needs GÇ£un-nerfingGÇ¥?
CCP SoniClover wrote:1) The ISK adjustments are the same as before. Without an ESS you'll get 95% value, with an ESS you get 80% directly and 20-25% are accessible through the ESS. GǪand the question remains the same as before: why are you introducing this nerf to all of null when every statement from your side says that no such nerf is needed? Again, if it's there to give the ESS a reason to exist GÇö to make it worth-while GÇö all that means is that the ESS has no reason to exist and isn't worth-while to begin with, which means you should adjust the ESS, not arbitrarily punish every rank-and-file nullseccer. Even the previous miscommunication about it being risky to increase nullsec bounties is now completely nullified: the ESS is already self-compensating through the use of LP.
If you have to use such heavy-handed tactics to incentivise the use of your new design, it means your design is wrong. 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. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:40:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: Yeah, you're kinda fighting against windmills here.
First of all: donGÇÿt you see that itGÇÿs all the more seducing to use this module, the more nullsec alliances are trying to boycott it? Because if nobody BUT ME uses it, the better for me! Cause IGÇÿm earning additional LP now, and you donGÇÿt.
Second, the LP payout itself seems to be quite okay. Assuming a nullbear now earns 30m ISK for each hour ratting, after the change the following will happen:
NO ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income nerfed to 28.5m ISK. No additional benefits or frills.
ESS DEPLOYED Direkt ISK income lowered to 24m ISK. Additional 3,600 to 4,800 LP directly to LP wallet. 6-7.5m ISK go into ESS.
Given current navy LP values (c. 800 ISK/LP) this sums up to c. 32.9m to 35.3m, depending on how long the ESS has been deployed and not cashed out. This is a potential buff of 9.7 to 17.7 percent to nullbear income.
But most important of all: this ratter will potentially earn 25% more than a ratter who doesn't deploy an ESS. ThatGÇÿs kind of a motivation :D
This deployable is still a DOA feature that will not be used even with the changes. Not to mention that it still includes a BS nerf to ratting income that has been proven unnecessary repeatedly in this thread.
Let me see if I can make you understand. The PvE content in Eve is so f-ing horrible I can barely be assed to undock my carrier and grind a few sites per day. If you think i'm going to deploy this heap of crap and have to worry about defending it, and then at some point have to go through the pain that is converting LP to items to isk just to avoid losing 5% ratting income you have lost your mind.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.
This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.
Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers.
The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1690
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:44:00 -
[1863] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.
that is my question too...
is not the 20% risk enough?
perhaps a base increase in meta drops could help offset a drop in isk drops? i.e. if you want more isk you have to work for it There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Combat Wombatz
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:45:00 -
[1864] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.
A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness.
Andrea Keuvo wrote:This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.
Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers.
The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed.
Someone give this man a medal. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1690
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:48:00 -
[1865] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done?
that or make high end annom like incursions. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1690
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:51:00 -
[1866] - Quote
Combat Wombatz wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness. Andrea Keuvo wrote:This + 1000%. I shouldn't have to say this because i'm not the game designer/developer but if you have to implement a penalty to "force" me to use a module then THIS IS BAD DESIGN AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.
Like seriously, if I was talking to staff at any store I spend money at I'd be asking to talk to a manager by now. What is the option to talk to a manager at CCP when staff are completely ignoring their customers.
The fact that dev time is spent on this garbage is beyond upsetting to me as a customer when HED shows that the core of game is fundamentally broken and badly needs to be fixed. Someone give this man a medal.
its like wrapping a peice of poop in a ribbon and putting colone on it...
sure it might look better and smell butter but under it all its still a pile of crap. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Omarosas
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:52:00 -
[1867] - Quote
So instead of fixing major issues in the game, big fleet engagements for example, you are adding more junk and nerfing null sec ratting income. Do you really think people will share with the ESS? if you do, then you don't know the average eve player. In the end, the ESS will be banned by alliances to avoid causing drama between their pilots. How can justify your paycheck when all you do is break the game little by little and almost never addressing the problems that already exist. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4425
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:53:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Combat Wombatz wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic. A thousand times this. The thought process behind the ESS seems dangerously close to Incarna-level foolishness.
I was initially cheered up when i read about the new changes to the ESS this morning, but as the day went on I realized that the flawed thinking behind the whole thing hasn't changed at all. The ESS (and its accompanying 5% bounty nerf) is still most likely to push PVErs away from null towards activities that are in safer space and pays as much (incursions, l4 missions for the right corps) or better (FW, not that low sec is safer, but when making a few hundred mil worth of LP an hour while losing only a caracal or 2, who gives a damn about safe lol).
I fear this will be just another opportunity to tell CCP "I told you so" after the fact.
|
Regan Rotineque
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober
200
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:54:00 -
[1869] - Quote
It is still overly complicated and adds zero to the overall gameplay. Now you are adding additional mechanics to this and making it even more complex. Adding more code to a broken mechanic does not make it better. I still say this should be shelved and other game mechanics in dire need of coding and reworking be worked on.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4426
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:59:00 -
[1870] - Quote
MeBiatch 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? that or make high end annom like incursions.
This is also why there needs to be a review of PVe stuff before adding crap like the ESS. If anomalies weren't so anti-cooperation, a deployable that encourages pvp and is directed at a PVE activity might not be such a bad idea.
As it is now with the way bounties work, sharing the same anom with someone else just means less isk all around. That screwed up system is at the heart of why null sec systems can barely support a few people ratting, unlike the incursion rewards system to encourages (demands) grouping up (and logistical support).
The current anom system encourages us to rat alone, then here comes the ESS (and it's accompanying 5% bounty nerf) to punish us for ratting alone lol. Yet CCP thinks this means more fights? |
|
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
728
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:01:00 -
[1871] - Quote
CCP Hilmar 05.10.2011 wrote:...In short, my zeal for pushing EVE to her true potential made me lose sight of doing the simple things right...
...Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated...
Captain's Quarters ...We underestimated our development time, set impractical or misleading expectations, and added insult to injury by removing something in which players were emotionally invested...
Virtual Goods ...It was another feature that we rushed out the door before it was ready...
...If we donGÇÖt evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just canGÇÖt allow that to happen to EVE or to our community...
...From all this self-reflection, a genesis of renewal has taken root, a personal and professional commitment to restore the partnership of trust upon which our success depends, and a plan that sets the foundation for us to sensibly guide EVE to her fullest potential...
...WeGÇÖve been trying to expand the EVE universe in several directions at once, and I need to do a better job of pursuing that vision without diluting or marginalizing the things that are greatGÇöor could be greatGÇöabout the game right now. Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be...
...The greatest lesson for me is the realization that EVE belongs to you, and we at CCP are just the hosts of your experience...
2 years and 3 months. What has changed? Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Eternity Mistseeker
Renegades of Eve Aureus Alae
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:15:00 -
[1872] - Quote
If all these LPs were exchanged for faction navy goodies then how much accompanying isk would be removed as well in those exchanges? 1000 isk per LP? So if my 1M isk bounty gives me 200 LP, i would need to give the NPC 200K isk to spend those LPs.
That's a lot of isk disappearing out of the system. Would that be enough to remove the need for a 5% nerf to base bounties?
How about another carrot, such as whilst an ESS is active in a system then one of its lowest class cosmic anomalies will instead respawn as one of the highest class allowed for that system and military index? |
theDisto
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:17:00 -
[1873] - Quote
After this mornings changes, seems like an interesting concept.
Just a side note- with align time and warp time, the share option is incredibly short unless you are risking warping to it in a ratting ship. In reality, taking into account time to load system, align and warp, even an Interceptor would have a hard time killing a <900k SP rookie ship parked on the beacon if they are on the ball. Simply landing on grid should make it contested until all parties choose the same choice. (or are killed)
For all the nerds complaining about highsec missions with competitive isk/hr with little risk, this would go a long way to devaluing highsec LP from the major factions. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1192
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:23:00 -
[1874] - Quote
can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:31:00 -
[1875] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you)
I approve of this idea. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:39:00 -
[1876] - Quote
Xaerael Endiel wrote:Gilbaron wrote:can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you) I approve of this idea.
Yes....
It is essential that accessing this device may be inhibited. Having the weapons timer inhibit someone from accessing it would go a long way making this device a viable small gang objective.
Also, 20s is an extremely short access time. Most ships in game couldn't even warp to the device before the loot gets shared! It should be long enough that an on-the-ball HAC can warp 40 au's, land on grid, and stop another pilot from hitting "share all" as soon as the "Player is at the ESS" message appears in local.
|
Liner Xiandra
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
267
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:43:00 -
[1877] - Quote
Yes, lets all earn Republic Fleet LP in Deklein, or Caldari Navy LP in Great Wildlands. That makes excellent sense. Lets keep Empire stuff in hisec/FW please. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:45:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Xaerael Endiel wrote:Gilbaron wrote:can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you) I approve of this idea.
This module shouldn't be added to the game. That said, I'm 99% sure CCP doesn't care about that customer feedback and will do it anyway so I'm pretty much resigned that the best we can do is try and get the best possible implementation of this garbage.
This 100% has to happen. Even with the 3 minutes timer if I start docking as soon as a neut enters system depending on distance from the station its going to take me 2+ minutes to dock my ratting BS/carrier, reship, and undock and then add another minute + to warp to the ESS if I go in anything but an interceptor. And since these are meant to generate PvP combat should reset the timer not just stop it.
Eternity Mistseeker wrote: How about another carrot, such as whilst an ESS is active in a system then one of its lowest class cosmic anomalies will instead respawn as one of the highest class allowed for that system and military index?
This is the kind of carrot that might get it used in the low quality ratting systems anyway. Or maybe spawns as highest class +1 (you get a haven in systems that don't normally get a haven).
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1196
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:51:00 -
[1879] - Quote
just to clarify: i want the timer to reset when combat happens :) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
Iece Quaan
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:58:00 -
[1880] - Quote
I think this is a poor implementation for a number of reasons.
1. No one will be able to steal anything from these modules if the system residents are on the ball. They park an alt on the ESS, and the instant reds get too close on intel, they hit Share and are done. Ratters dock up until reds are gone and reset. Oh no, we're back to 100%, guys..
2. Deploying these offensively will do nothing, attackers will have to camp and defend it. If they can do that, they can just take the space. When the attackers are forced off, the residents blap it and start over.
3. If you make it too easy to defend and claim the bonus, it's just a 5% bonus to ISK and free LP for the residents. If you make getting the payout hard enough that people will actually need to fight over it every time, no one will use it. If it is deployed offensively, it will be destroyed and people will suck up the 95%.
You will not be able to fix any of these problems by massaging the statistics on the module.
The implementation of a forced penalty in order to drive use is just bad game design. There should be no penalty at all for not using it, and it should give a big bonus for successful use.
You want farms and fields, then make the player farm worth the effort. Don't disturb the default PVE ( the 'hunter-gatherer' current baseline ). Make constructing the farm useful and rewarding for the player, and have it be an asset that they need to defend.
Imposing arbitrary penalties to drive use on your shiny new feature just indicates that you haven't made the feature attractive enough to use. Scrap this idea and rethink it. **** reminds me of 1st edition D&D. |
|
Inspiration
113
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:59:00 -
[1881] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:It is still overly complicated and adds zero to the overall gameplay. Now you are adding additional mechanics to this and making it even more complex. Adding more code to a broken mechanic does not make it better. I still say this should be shelved and other game mechanics in dire need of coding and reworking be worked on.
QFT
As posted by several, adding layer upon layer of complexity to fix problems at the base, just adds complexity without fixing anything. Why does CCP make their own job so hard, even impossible at times?
There are some that like the new design better then the old, just because of the expected personal outcomes due to tweaked risk vs reward. Some go even further and want more yet more twists to the concept in support towards their personal goals. Both groups are missing the problems and look at it too simple and short term IMO.
The problem is even with changes it still doesn't make sense as with many of ills that exist in this game. Nothing has to be real life like in a game, but it does has to make sense and be believable in the context of a game. In EVE that is spaceships and advanced civilizations technologically beyond our RL experience. That doesn't mean its might and magic in space, alright?
As soon as you deviate from the golden rule that it has to make sense without mind boggling twists, you get into trouble as a game designer and certainly as a programmer as you introduce escalating complexities. You might be able to come up with some weird explanation and/or code for this one new thing, but in doing so you make all future additions that connect to it even indirectly, that much harder! You have to keep escalating weirdness and re-balance and re-code more often without delivering as much entertainment as you otherwise could have.
A few simple weirdness examples as a frame of reference:
* Jump clones...why o why would in a world where this technology is common and facilities exist to store an unlimited amount of clones, is it not possible to store multiple clones of the same person in one station? Really, who came up this brilliant idea and how much fun has it delivered vs how much grief?
* Magic siphoning units that apparently overrule all logic and gain access to stuff inside active POS shields, hell even inside reactors. Are we creating a magic game in space here? This is totally unbelievable and a dangerous path to go on. Can't you see that such a unit complicates further work on the POS system that really needs an overhaul to begin with? The timing couldn't suck more!
* And the favorite of many, SOV mechanics, a completely artificial construct enforced in game by magic nothingness. It is an unbelievable system introduced it to aim for a desired result. How well did that work out?
People have to spam moons with POS, even if they do nothing, just to affect the SOV system....what a fun mechanic...yay! In what sort of insane universe would that connection make any sense...hell what does SOV really mean? Are there power-ups inside the moons hidden by an ancient civilization that can bent the rules of the universe to its will?
* Belt rats that are produced in staggering numbers all over EVE, seemingly on demand or based on a simple timer. Hey all of a sudden and with active farming taking place there seems to be a lot of ISK pumped into the game. Gosh...how surprising! If there would be a more economical rational and believable system in place this would never had happened in the first place!
It seems CCP tries, like governments if i might add, to introduce complex rules/mechanics to "fix" problems they introduced in the previous iterations them self, in an ever ballooning spiral of absurdity. Never looking back at to what real wend wrong with the last time they "fixed" anything.
I can go on about such things, there are many issues like these all over EVE, but I hope the simple message that things should be believable in the games setting resonates and sticks. If i want magic power ups for every moon i fly by, i would play another game...got it? I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:06:00 -
[1882] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:My take on the thing:
It costs 25m. Assume 1 LP = 1300 ISK. I think this is a favorable assumption for the ESS. Assume LP gain = .19 so isk from LP = .25. assume the flat isk gain from ess is .24.
The four outcomes I can see of using an ESS are:
1) Successful retrieve of ESS module with all bonus ISK.
Income without ESS = .95 in wallet
Income with ESS = .8 in wallet + .25 isk in lp in wallet + .24 isk in ESS = 1.29
1.29 / .95 = 1.36 income modifier vs no ESS.
2) Successful retrieve of ESS module but not the bonus ISK.
This is just the ratio of isk in your wallet. So 1.05 / .95 = 1.11x
3) ESS was destroyed but you received "almost all" bonus ISK (you managed to share recently before a gang came in to destroy the ESS)
This is more complicated since it is dependent on how much you have farmed. We can simply consider the difference in profit and look at the break even point to get a quick idea.
This would happen about when you would have farmed 70m ISK without an ESS, or 95m value with an ESS. When this would happen would depend on how quickly rats spawned in the system and what they were worth...
4) ESS was destroyed and all bonus ISK is stolen
So it is like 3) except there is no bonus ISK.
The break even point becomes astronomical, around 275m isk/lp farmed before it happens.
OK, the problem here is that with these LP's being injected into the system you won't be getting 1300 isk/LP with all of the increased supply. You're looking at closer to 800 isk/LP if you're lucky (it could be lower).
This means that fully upgraded, you're looking at a real value of that same 1,000,000 isk rat at 960,000 or only 10k isk more than if you had risked NOTHING at all and took the straight up 5% hit. This would further drive up the ROI threshold, making this something that is never used...ever...
CCPSonilover, what are you trying to accomplish here...this is a step in the right direction, but NOT a solution. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
776
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:07:00 -
[1883] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Neat. I like it!
Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS. For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout. Yes, please do this! It would help provoke fights with despicable farmers. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:11:00 -
[1884] - Quote
Zappity wrote:l0rd carlos wrote:Neat. I like it!
Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS. For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout. Yes, please do this! It would help provoke fights with despicable farmers.
This could be a great anti-FW-farming alts device:
Deploy in system and all FW payouts are reduced from 100% to 70% payouts. The extra 30% of the LP is stored in the ESS (+ a 10% bonus for good measure). Allow anyone to access it, but give it 5 minute access times and the option to share all or take all as well. The only downside is blue-on-blue violence is certain to increase!
|
Syna Anima
SYNDAX CORPORATION Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:11:00 -
[1885] - Quote
CCP please remove this piece of crap from the game I pay to play, you can't save bad design with band aid stats. Gÿà Join us today! Gÿà |
Leigh Akiga
My Highsec Backbone
504
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:13:00 -
[1886] - Quote
So if the LP is based upon which ESS is deployed (empire navies) how about some pirat ESS like Guristas and Angels etc. that give pirate LP |
Desmond Strickler
End-of-Line
247
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:14:00 -
[1887] - Quote
You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up The Black Prince of Wormholes-á
Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy
"My other dread is a Swaglafar" |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:17:00 -
[1888] - Quote
Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up
QFT |
Iece Quaan
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:23:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Just a few examples:
Nullsec empires have found a way to backtrace concord bounty payments and gently hack the automated systems into paying out more than was intended.
This will be a systemwide module that stores up an LP payout per pilot based on ISK bounty generated.
Make the percentage increase over time- so the more time you spend building up a bonus, the more bonus you get.
When you're ready to cash out, the 'payout time' is directly proportional to the bonus you built up. The higher the bonus, the more you get, but the longer it takes to pay out once you cash out. ( This is to prevent everyone from cashing out every 60s, which is what would happen with a fixed bonus over time ).
The catch is, the module is hackable. By anyone. The would-be hacker accesses the module ( bringing up a list of accounts which they can sort by payout, which pings local in the system that the module is being accessed ). The hacker chooses which account to access, and begins the hack with their ship's equipped hacking module. Again, the larger the bonus, the longer the hack. The isk/lp is divided among the hacker's fleet upon completion.
Thus, a single attacker might be able to quickly hack a few lowlevel accounts until he is forced off the module.
However, a gang might be able to control the space around the module to hack out all or most of the accounts, one by one, until they are driven off by a defense fleet.
This lets the individual residents gain a small benefit, but an attacker to gain a potentially large benefit, while encouraging attackers to keep their gang sizes small in order to not dilute the payout to the point of worthlessness.
It would be self-regulating as hitting the module too often would encourage the locals not to keep much on account- not hitting them too often would encourage them to get lax and increase the potential payout.
Blues hacking out accounts would be automatically identified by the local broadcast system and fall into their respective empire's 'ratting drama' resolution system.
The module captures all bounty payments as a bonus and is sov-neutral: Reds ratting in your space could also build up a bonus, hackable by the local residents.
The module is destructible, which is also a valid choice for attackers that choose merely to smash rather than make a profit. All bonuses are lost in this case.
That was pretty easy and took about 15 minutes of thought. |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:23:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up
OK except that you're misunderstanding that with the cost of the unit, and the pitiful increase in payout (using the fully upgraded value of 200 LP for a 1,000,000 isk mob) you'll end up with 800,000 in bounties, and 200 LP will mean that you have NO reason to use this. With any huge influx in LP like this represents, you'll really end up getting like 800 isk per LP or less, so around 160,000 isk worth of LP. Not the 260,000 that CCP is suggesting now.
This means that FULLY upgraded, you're going to get 960,000 isk worth of bounty for that single mob. If you instead choose to do nothing, you're getting 950,000 with no reward.
So...is 10k isk worth anything to you? CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.
|
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
349
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:26:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Allus Nova wrote:CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.
What?
"The value of the dollar is dropping...****! Print more dollars to compensate!!!" |
Eternity Mistseeker
Renegades of Eve Aureus Alae
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:31:00 -
[1892] - Quote
The LP is in addition to the 80% bounty and the "risked" isk in the ESS - else i am reading this badly wrong... |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:36:00 -
[1893] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Allus Nova wrote:CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.
What? "The value of the dollar is dropping...****! Print more dollars to compensate!!!"
What I'm saying is that Sonilover argued that he wanted to fight inflation, LP's act as an isk sink, not an isk faucet, so by adjusting up the LP faucet for some of the people earning them (assume what 30% increase in total LP in circulation for these guys?) they will not only further drive their isk sink, but make it so enough LP's are provided to actually give you a reason to use the thing.
If LP's fall to around 500 isk per LP for those given factions, then you would be getting LESS value in bounties by using the ESS compared to not using it.
I'm not saying that the unit is bad itself, I actually LIKE the concept of being able to get LP in null sec. I am saying that to accomplish the stated purpose, CCP needs to watch the isk value of the LP's which are being generated by the unit. If there is no reward for using this thing, then nobody will use it.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3418
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:37:00 -
[1894] - Quote
Allus Nova wrote:Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up OK except that you're misunderstanding that with the cost of the unit, and the pitiful increase in payout (using the fully upgraded value of 200 LP for a 1,000,000 isk mob) you'll end up with 800,000 in bounties, and 200 LP will mean that you have NO reason to use this. With any huge influx in LP like this represents, you'll really end up getting like 800 isk per LP or less, so around 160,000 isk worth of LP. Not the 260,000 that CCP is suggesting now. This means that FULLY upgraded, you're going to get 960,000 isk worth of bounty for that single mob. If you instead choose to do nothing, you're getting 950,000 with no reward. So...is 10k isk worth anything to you? CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.
Your math skills are awkward:
Go rat 500m isk in rat bounties.
Without the ESS, you will receive 475m isk.
With the ESS, you will be guaranteed 400m isk and 75-100k LP. At a 1000 isk/LP ratio, you break even (less the cost of the ESS). With the ESS, if you successfully cash out, you gain an additional 100-125m in isk.
So, worse case, you lose the ESS (25m) and have to convert LP to Isk but still have very similar total revenue. Best case, you gain 25-50m isk and 75-100k LP above and beyond the 475m you'd earn had you not bothered with the ESS.
That is you walking away with profit under most situations, and if you can't be asked to cope with the "complexity" you can simply not use it.
*edit* Your suggesting that as LP falls, the 75-100k LP isn't worth the 75m isk you RISKED to potentially receive 100-125m at the end of the day. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
350
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:48:00 -
[1895] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Go rat 500m isk in rat bounties.
How long would that take? |
Allus Nova
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:49:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Allus Nova wrote:Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up OK except that you're misunderstanding that with the cost of the unit, and the pitiful increase in payout (using the fully upgraded value of 200 LP for a 1,000,000 isk mob) you'll end up with 800,000 in bounties, and 200 LP will mean that you have NO reason to use this. With any huge influx in LP like this represents, you'll really end up getting like 800 isk per LP or less, so around 160,000 isk worth of LP. Not the 260,000 that CCP is suggesting now. This means that FULLY upgraded, you're going to get 960,000 isk worth of bounty for that single mob. If you instead choose to do nothing, you're getting 950,000 with no reward. So...is 10k isk worth anything to you? CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in. Your math skills are awkward: Go rat 500m isk in rat bounties. Without the ESS, you will receive 475m isk. With the ESS, you will be guaranteed 400m isk and 75-100k LP. At a 1000 isk/LP ratio, you break even (less the cost of the ESS). With the ESS, if you successfully cash out, you gain an additional 100-125m in isk. So, worse case, you lose the ESS (25m) and have to convert LP to Isk but still have very similar total revenue. Best case, you gain 25-50m isk and 75-100k LP above and beyond the 475m you'd earn had you not bothered with the ESS. That is you walking away with profit under most situations, and if you can't be asked to cope with the "complexity" you can simply not use it. *edit* Your suggesting that as LP falls, the 75-100k LP isn't worth the 75m isk you RISKED to potentially receive 100-125m at the end of the day.
OK, what I'm saying is that LP's won't be 1000 isk per LP if this thing is being used, it will be closer to 800, possibly 500 if supply of faction items greatly outstrips demand.
So yes, at 1000 isk/LP you break even. At 500-800 isk per LP you get shafted.
This doesn't count any loss of anything, the cost of the unit, or the risk involved.
Why would you risk losing so much for so little reward. |
Omarosas
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:51:00 -
[1897] - Quote
Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up
|
Desmond Strickler
End-of-Line
248
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:00:00 -
[1898] - Quote
Omarosas wrote:Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up ESS will be banned by alliances in null sec to avoid drama between it's pilots. Null sec is not the place for small gang, just ask anyone in the sea of blues. If you want small gang, then go to low sec enjoy some FW. This "Extra Stupid Structure" is just an excuse to nerf null sec ratting income AGAIN. The whole thing makes you wounder how much bull will CCP add for people to start giving up.
Alliances can ban them, doesn't mean they still can't use them. The Black Prince of Wormholes-á
Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy
"My other dread is a Swaglafar" |
Master Odysseus
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:02:00 -
[1899] - Quote
The new changes are welcome.
Now I can see the risk Vs reward factor being balanced to a point that this new unit could be usuable (even if personally I may decide not to use it cuz the whole go to empire, LP converting to mods/etc to sell them to get isk to go back to 0.0 is more of a hassle and I'd be better off keep on ratting anyways but w/e...)
And as per the prons and cons, I could say that what others can do to our ratting alts we can also do to their ratting alts and create some content (pew pew) on the way, so not bad. Example, the same way we all know the "locals" will never form a gang to hit the intruders of the ESS (cuz hey, even if they are all willing to fight (yeah right), there will be no willing FC), the same way "their" locals will not form a gang to fight us when we intrude their ESS. Anyways...
However, the only thing that I find negative is the "take all" option. We live scattered all over our sov place, with 3-4-7 other corps in our system, we barelly know these guys (who are alts in majority) except the occasional o/ or get off my anomaly and therefore the amount of blue on blue hassle / griefing that will be created from the possibility of players farming the "take all" option could be significant. What can we do Vs those? Blue KOS-ing? Escalating to corp Vs corp hassles within the alliance?
Not to mention what will happen if someone deploys ESS in a system that the majority didn't want to. What will happen then? Shoot a "blue" structure? KOS the "blue" who does that? His corp? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4974
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:02:00 -
[1900] - Quote
If you want a desirable carrot, make the ESS close the gap between crappy nullsec truesec and the good systems.
Make it *More* beneficial to use this item in these less desirable systems with greater payouts or better spawns or something.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
|
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:06:00 -
[1901] - Quote
Querns wrote: On another note, these calculations have a slight wrinkle in the Drone regions. Drone regions, for whatever reason, generate vastly larger numbers of combat sites. I don't have hard numbers in front of me, but anecdotal reference from my personal experience hunting ratters in these regions, along with the anecdotal evidence from my confederates in Goonswarm Federation doing similar things suggests that up to ten Drone Horde sites (the top tier combat site in these regions) can spawn at once, compared to a maximum of three Sanctums in other pirate faction regions. This incongruency may be worth visiting as well.
I was not aware of such a functional imbalance. Perhaps the bleak escalation rate and rewards, accentuated by no other drops of any kind, with zero Officer spawns/drops (though the rare escalation can produce Overseer's Effects?) has something to do with the perception that top ranked Drone Combat sites are somehow of the same value as other Combat sites. I have NO idea how escalations work in Pirate Nullsec space, its been several rewrites since I lived there, but I can say that you have to grind INNUMERABLE hordes to get any form of escalation, and it requires reasonably significant tanking and DPS to complete those escalations. I've only ran the last few I've gotten out of sheer boredom, as the ISK, ALLOY and Overseer Effects (without any other potential drops at all to consider) hardly pays out better (if at all) than the same 2-4 ships choosing not to take a roadtrip, ignoring the Escalation and just running more Hordes.
I don't know if stacking more top tier sites into low Truesec is marvelous, but raising the lower end may be a fair deal. As it is, so much space is empty, it's really terribly sad. Getting more space to a livable status would be good for all. Perhaps the ESS could interact directly with the Pirate Detection array, Generating a top tier site or two as it raises the LP reward? Cap it to add just a couple sites, making lower end systems scale a bit better, but making top end systems fully able to pack a small gang sized fleet worth of folks grinding the ISK needed to support their Nullsec lifestyle?
Drone regions are still scaling horrifically with the new mechanics. The MTU is useless and the ESS is an outright attack on an already stressed system. Roaming gangs will strike out to Drones first, realizing those residents have the most to lose with this added content. Finish balancing the 100% bounty rats there with generic loot drops and then the ESS will at least pressure all of Nullsec simultaneously, without one sector of space getting all the worst that recent added 'content' has to offer. |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:08:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Wow! So CCP actually messed with the reward system. I guess I was wrong to by cynical about that ever changing. Leaving in the 5% decrease in unenchanced isk generation from the current level is certain to keep a number of people angry. Nerfing the value of navy LP is likely to make others angry. I don't mind either of these changes.
At first glance the mechanics of the ESS are improving. Forcing people to stay in range of the ESS should considerably reduce the chance of theft via interceptor. The ESS's point makes it more dangerous. The 180 seconds might not be enough time to actually mount the defense desired. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
450
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:21:00 -
[1903] - Quote
Desmond Strickler wrote: Alliances can ban them, doesn't mean they still can't use them.
What do you mean you won't eat the poop? You asked for sweetcorn look there are a couple of bits in there. Ignore what your mother says I bet the sweetcorn is delicious. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
127
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:23:00 -
[1904] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
That sounds good. Actually, this is just a tiny bit away from something that could be REALLY fun and generate conflicts!
The 20 seconds to share are a bit short. I imagine I am the ratter. I will set this thing up as far as possible away from any gate - maybe that is 50 AU. Even an Interceptor will not reach the ESS in time. And i'll be sitting there in a disposable ship, heavy tanked, worthless alt. Local+ -> Alt+Tab -> Share. Problem solved.
1. A warp speed enhanced frigate or an interceptor should have 3-5 seconds time to check the system and still be able to reach the ESS in time. 2. The timer has to stop when more than 1 ship is within bubble range+5km. (like FW site timers) Otherwise it's pointless. The alt will just sit in a tanked ship that does not die instantly.
Then the 180 seconds timer is also a bit short. Assuming the ratters want to fight for their money, they have to form a response fleet. Even if they have the ships ready, they might need to get them from next system or just check the situation.
Suggestion: Give us the hacking game! Take all takes 300 seconds, a successful hack takes just 180 second. Failed hack yields a 10k dmg explosion and the option to try again. There might be meta versions of the ESS that have more difficult levels of hacking boards and do more dmg if they set off the explosion.
So now the aggressors have a reasonable time window to intercept, the ratters have time to react, what else?
How about a 2 hour reinforce timer on an ESS? ->benefit for ratters: their ESS does not get blown up by every lazy roaming gang (-25mil) ->benefit for the roaming gang: they can deploy these in ratting systems and come back later |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3418
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:27:00 -
[1905] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Go rat 500m isk in rat bounties. How long would that take?
Depends on a lot of factors. I've heard nullsec ratting earns anywhere from 30-150m isk an hour.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8722
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:31:00 -
[1906] - Quote
I'm going from "scrap the ESS" to "table it".
You need to review whether the 5% nerf to base bounties is necessary - every metric and your own economist tells you it isn't. You need to review whether a game mechanic that players are forced to use by way of carrot and stick is good for a sandbox game that thrives on emergent gameplay. You need to review whether nullsec systems have appropriate ratting capacities for the amount of time and effort it takes to upgrade them. You need to review the quality of cosmic anomalies and whether some of them need to be adjusted to be worth doing. My EVE Videos |
Omarosas
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:37:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Desmond Strickler wrote:Omarosas wrote:Desmond Strickler wrote:You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.
Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).
And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up ESS will be banned by alliances in null sec to avoid drama between it's pilots. Null sec is not the place for small gang, just ask anyone in the sea of blues. If you want small gang, then go to low sec enjoy some FW. This "Extra Stupid Structure" is just an excuse to nerf null sec ratting income AGAIN. The whole thing makes you wounder how much bull will CCP add for people to start giving up. Alliances can ban them, doesn't mean they still can't use them.
Sure, they will get to use it once before they get kicked out and blacklisted for breaking alliance rules/policy...yeah, that works out just fine. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4805
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:39:00 -
[1908] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Turelus wrote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Given what CCP has said in the past about the horrors involved in coding mission agents into outposts I assume this is technically infeasible especially for a point release.
At some point in time CCP will have to look at the scary old legacy code. They can't keep releasing new stuff forever without fixing the old stuff like mission agents being tied to NPC station offices, and POSes being written by C'thulu.
It's like at home, I can continue building new extensions to my house to provide a better living experience but at some point I have to empty out the fridge and deal with the rotting sludge in the bottom of the vegetable crisper.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:40:00 -
[1909] - Quote
Quote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false?
Nothing of the sort was demonstrated. The closest it came was a months-old statement that had no numbers and didn't account for changing circumstances.
Quote: Saying "we're going to take away 5% of your bounties to force you to use this new module" is not sandbox at all. It's not player-driven content. It's an artificially forced game mechanic.
"Phrases like 'you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox' have the same amount of meaning as 'If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot.' "
You aren't being forced to do anything. The game is full of possible actions and incentives to do them (or not). Sometimes the incentives get changed. --- Well, this module is in a state where it might be used willingly, but it still has a lot of issues. For one, it's not really worth fighting over. The cost of ESS itself makes it more or less disposable - a handful of ratters will cover its replacement cost in a few hours max. The money contained in it, while it would be inconvenient to lose, will probably not be inconvenient enough to justify actually risking ships more expensive than a destroyer. I think the best way to encourage people to save their ESS from theft/destruction is to make losing it or being ripped off have a major impact on future income, i.e. you lose some accrued multiplier to LP gains that takes time to get and can't be obtained by simply plonking down a new one. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3418
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:51:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Allus Nova wrote:
OK, what I'm saying is that LP's won't be 1000 isk per LP if this thing is being used, it will be closer to 800, possibly 500 if supply of faction items greatly outstrips demand.
So yes, at 1000 isk/LP you break even. At 500-800 isk per LP you get shafted.
This doesn't count any loss of anything, the cost of the unit, or the risk involved.
Why would you risk losing so much for so little reward.
This is EvE, people min/max all over the place, and this is simply a tool for people to min/max on. Besides, it is no different than officer fitting your Golem to get an extra 5% dps. The main difference though, this investment might actually pay for itself in a timely fashion!
|
|
Techpriest Arcterran
Alpha LLC
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:54:00 -
[1911] - Quote
This module does not create any incentive to move into 0.0. I'm a new player with my sights set on eventually moving to 0.0, explain how this should encourage me to do so?
LP generator? I can earn these in the safety of high sec. ISK nerf? I can earn ISK in the safety of high sec and given the tone of this thread, make more ISK in high sec. Overly complicated module with excess variables? I get it, this is EvE, but keep it simple once in a while.
Please enlighten the new players out there. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:01:00 -
[1912] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:If you want a desirable carrot, make the ESS close the gap between crappy nullsec truesec and the good systems.
Make it *More* beneficial to use this item in these less desirable systems with greater payouts or better spawns or something.
To be honest, this is the only thing that would even remotely make me think about using this module. If i can get an extra haven or a sanctum in my craptacular ratting system I might put myself through the hassle that is the rest of this module. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18988
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:05:00 -
[1913] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Quote:Why have you maintained the 5% nerf to bounties even when it was demonstrated that it was unnecessary and that your reasons for doing so were utterly false? Nothing of the sort was demonstrated. GǪother than the person saying it retracting it and the only other statement available being that it is not necessary GÇö now, or ever.
Quote:"Phrases like 'you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox' have the same amount of meaning as 'If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot.' " - Alara IonStorm GǪbut that's not what he's saying either. He's saying that using a nerf to give meaning to tools is not the sandbox way of introducing new tools. The sandbox way is to just toss out the tool and see how it's being used GÇö not create a problem that only the tool can solve. 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. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1196
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:27:00 -
[1914] - Quote
Great Idea from an alliance mate:
Pirate Faction LP for killing drones We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Banner was used for this Post |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
791
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:28:00 -
[1915] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. ISD Ezwal Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
452
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:28:00 -
[1916] - Quote
Quote:The sandbox way is to just toss out the tool and see how it's being used GÇö not create a problem that only the tool can solve. That's just really badly conceived game design. People finding creative uses for new additions is fine, but the devs need to have a clear and accurate idea of how something new fits into the present state of things, how the game may need to be changed to accommodate it, why it is being added, and how it may impact the game in the long term. Otherwise you get remote doomsdays.
James' premise is completely wrong. The 5% reduction isn't to give meaning to the ESS and in no way forces anyone to use it. There's no forced mechanic at all, and the flailing about the sandbox is nonsense. I mean, I suppose he is technically right: the ESS isn't player-driven content. But then, neither are any of the other mechanics in EVE, because player-driven content, oddly enough, comes from players and not mechanics. The underlying claim, that the ESS is not appropriate for a sandbox game, is crap.
Quote:GǪother than the person saying it retracting it and the only other statement available being that it is not necessary GÇö now, or ever. Can you provide an actual quote for any of this? Because the closest thing I can find is SoniClover saying the 5% is not to offset increased income from the ESS but to modulate inflation. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:37:00 -
[1917] - Quote
I have a related question. The ratting that it happening: Is this assumed to be a solo activity? I'm just curious if null ratting is done in cooperation with someone or if it's all solo?
If it's solo, maybe this is part of the intended effect? Maybe CCP wants to see more small groups working together? The other thing is the whole PvE vs PvP fitting on ships. Is this purely an 'efficiency' thing? As is, a PvE fit lets you kill the rat's faster, resulting in a more efficient income?
It would be nice if we could fit our ships for PvP and do PvE activity. Then again, if you are fighting in a group, a PvP ship shouldn't hinder you much against rats? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18990
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:04:00 -
[1918] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:[the devs need to have a clear and accurate idea of how something new fits into the present state of things, how the game may need to be changed to accommodate it, why it is being added, and how it may impact the game in the long term. GǪand the problem is that the ESS and bounty nerf doesn't offer any of that.
Instead, it's a single pair GÇö a problem and a solution to that problem GÇö airdropped into the middle of the game without any regard for or reasoning behind why or how either the problem or the solution will fit into the game. Each without the other is meaningless and pointless since its only purpose is to fit into that single duality.
That is something completely different than looking at the overall game and see gaps that some interesting tweak or addition could modify. It specifically doesn't fit into the present state of things, which is why a new state has to be set: so the ESS can fit in. Never mind that the new state itself might not fit at all.
Quote:The 5% reduction isn't to give meaning to the ESS and in no way forces anyone to use it. Sure it is and sure it does. The nerf serves no other purpose than to give the ESS a use; the ESS ultimately serves no other purpose than to nullify the nerf. If you want your income to remain the same, you are forced to used the ESS GÇö after all, that's it's entire purpose.
Quote:the flailing about the sandbox is nonsense. No, it really isn't. It's a CCP-manufactured solution solely there to solve a CCP-manufactured problem. Neither has anything to do with the players, other than create pointless and needless busywork for them. That is pretty much the exact opposite of giving players tools to alter their environment to suit their taste: it is CCP altering the environment in a single prescribed way, and demanding that players change it back GÇö also in a single prescribed way.
Quote:Can you provide an actual quote for any of this? Because the closest thing I can find is SoniClover saying the 5% is not to offset increased income from the ESS but to modulate inflation. Yes, that's the one, but that's not what he's actually saying. He's saying that the whole thing is not really there to alter inflation; that the ESS itself was being given useless rewards because they wanted to make sure it wasn't too much. The reason for the 5% nerf was left unmentioned other than to say that the only reason people could think of (since his own posts had pretty explicitly offered it as its only interpretation) and that they dismissed because it made no sense, was indeed not the reason for the nerf.
Specifically, when asked why on earth a 5% nerf was needed, he first said it was there to minimise inflation. When challenged on this point and offered numerous reasons and evidence to disprove it, he let slip that reducing inflation wasn't actually the reason, just like all the evidence was suggesting at that pointGǪ and no other reason was offered instead. This means the nerf current stands without any reason whatsoever to exist, which leaves only one option: to give the ESS meaning and use. 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. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
951
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:35:00 -
[1919] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance. * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Also, some of the stats have changed: * Price lowered from 30 million to 25 million * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k * Volume increased from 150 to 200 * Increased minimum range from stargates/stations to 3000 km, from 300. * Activation time increased to 120 seconds, up from 60 seconds
Some of these changes are already out on Sisi, the rest should be there soon. Thank you all for your feedback.
From dumb to dumber. Thanks for devaluing all 4 empire navy's LP. It's not like the people that grinded standings and missions for LP should be rewarded, naa screw that, make it so EVERY RAT IN NULL gives out navy LP!! Edit: running numbers, that's about 15k LP per hour @ BASE, more when it upgrades. (based on 30mil ticks) (based on 1000 isk per lp ratio, that's 15 mil extra per hour, or 16.6% of your ratting income) mileage may very. Tell me about how you want to avoid inflation again?
It does seem like the more they do to tweak the module the worse it gets. It's still a bad idea though and should be dropped. It still feels contrived. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
715
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 23:49:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Turelus wrote: More ideas on how to make the ESS great.
Is there any way CCP could allow NullSec entities to rent LP stores for their stations/outposts as well? maybe like a per month office fee to the Navy. It seems a shame that we need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in and it would be a damn amazing update if we could buy our implants in our space.
Given what CCP has said in the past about the horrors involved in coding mission agents into outposts I assume this is technically infeasible especially for a point release.
LP stores show up as a station service, so it shouldn't be too hard to add to outposts, given that services can currently be added or disabled.
Also, to all the people talking about how nullsec alliances are going to outright ban these things, these recent changes are making us think twice. I personally would have rather seen Concord LP, both from a lore sense in that Concord pays the bounties, and that it is often easier for nullsec players to go to null/lowsec LP stores to cash out.
Either way, these changes have moved the ESS from Kill on Sight to a definite maybe. |
|
FaulEnza N00bist
The Squad Yulai Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:12:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Let me try to get the picture right:
- Nullsec... no police, no CONCORD... player ruled land/space (like the early Wild West) - Interbus has left the scene, we build (well, until now still with f****** BPC from CONCORD LP-Store - where is the BPO?) and run our own POCOs - we fight pirates of our own wallet/safety/prosperity, not for a goddamn CONCORD-proofed NPC agent - we are loyal to our corp/ally/coalition at first, not to any Empire
So why should i give a **** to any highsec navy to gain their LPs? They are not present in Null. -> Pirate Faction Points can be gain by killing local rats (another topic) What rights does the Navy have to dictate and force me to launch that piece of crap (aka ESS - the mechanics are still ****)? -> Should i shoot me in the left or right foot? The market belongs to the players, particularly in nullsec... why then is this item build and seeded by NPC?
Nullsec has to be idependent from any CONCORD rules, it's player space. Kick SOV bills and burn the asses of CONCORD. They can stay and rot in 0.1 and above.
AND HELL YES, F*** THIS ****** ESS (and most of the other new deployables) |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1695
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:18:00 -
[1922] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Additions/edit * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance.
Better. Please consider tweaking the LP value to make it more rewarding to put one down for ratting purposes. Or removing isk from the equation completely and making it all about LP. Planting one of these down should be a thing that a ratter wants to do to increase their isk/hour because it's a smart idea, not necessarily because a solo roamer wants a piece of the pie.
Consider adding LP stores to NPC/player stations, because you shouldn't have to travel to low/high to cash in.
CCP SoniClover wrote: * There is now no timer to open the ESS window where the player gets to choose to Share or Take all, but both options now have separate timers on them. Share has 20 seconds, Take all has 180 seconds. Moving out of range while the timer is ongoing resets the timer. This is to reduce the feasibility of having an alt sit at the ESS and quickly empty the pool when someone shows up. * 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. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.
Better, but I still don't think 3 minutes is really enough time to respond. Some systems in nullsec are pretty far away from staging systems. I think that increasing this amount would generate more fights.
CCP SoniClover wrote: Also, some of the stats have changed: * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k
What I don't like about the current revision is that it has no reinforcement timer. If it can take a long time to get that extra 5%, someone shouldn't be able to erase that bonus while you and your corp members sleep, and 24/7 coverage should never be an expectation.
Not to mention that the EHP increase does not really change much, instead of taking approximately 5 minutes for a single bomber to take one out, it takes approximately 8 minutes. I would suggest around the 1 million ehp mark, high enough that one solo person isn't going to want to go around killing these but low enough that a small gang could easily take one out within a short amount of time while at the same time allowing the defender to form up (5 to 10 minutes), and have a lasting impact on the defenders (the grind to 5%) if they don't defend.
Overall the changes make the module better, but I believe there is still iteration to be done. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2577
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:20:00 -
[1923] - Quote
FaulEnza N00bist wrote:Let me try to get the picture right:
- Nullsec... no police, no CONCORD... player ruled land/space (like the early Wild West) - Interbus has left the scene, we build (well, until now still with f****** BPC from CONCORD LP-Store - where is the BPO?) and run our own POCOs - we fight pirates of our own wallet/safety/prosperity, not for a goddamn CONCORD-proofed NPC agent - we are loyal to our corp/ally/coalition at first, not to any Empire
So why should i give a **** to any highsec navy to gain their LPs? They are not present in Null. -> Pirate Faction Points can be gain by killing local rats (another topic) What rights does the Navy have to dictate and force me to launch that piece of crap (aka ESS - the mechanics are still ****)? -> Should i shoot me in the left or right foot? The market belongs to the players, particularly in nullsec... why then is this item build and seeded by NPC?
Nullsec has to be idependent from any CONCORD rules, it's player space. Kick SOV bills and burn the asses of CONCORD. They can stay and rot in 0.1 and above.
AND HELL YES, F*** THIS ****** ESS (and most of the other new deployables)
---
Yes, i am pissed off about that and CCPs current work.
So..... Who pays the bounties to you? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Avalon5
The Sith Syndicate REFORD
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:30:00 -
[1924] - Quote
I couldn't even imagine that update can be so bad.
The ESS in nonsense. If you want to cut bounties - do it directly, why you trying to walk 4 times around a soccer field before you get the point. |
Xaerael Endiel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:47:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Avalon5 wrote:I couldn't even imagine that update can be so bad.
The ESS in nonsense. If you want to cut bounties - do it directly, why you trying to walk 4 times around a soccer field before you get the point.
Because wrecking the value of nullsec will just make nullsec worthless to line members and see them all go and do something else like FW (already more valuable) Incursions (already more valuable) or missions (would be more valuable if they nerfed the bounties any more). |
Nytemaster
Wardec Us Please
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:57:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Kotori wrote:Bagehi wrote:Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be. 500k EHP really isnt a lot, and i would say is a valid Target. If you assume that as a baseline, your roaming gang has an average dps of 250 per ship 500,000 / 250 = 2000 Seconds of shooting for 1 ship. 2000 / 20 ships = 100 seconds of shooting for the gang (1min 40 seconds) 2000 / 10 ships = 200 seconds of shooting (3 mins 20 seconds). To me, that is still not enough HP! If it can be killed in less than 5 minutes, it cannot be defended! Three and a half minutes... in a bubble... in hostile space... not shooting a spaceship. For, what? A couple million isk, spread over 10 people? I repeat, no roaming gang would do that. Ratters wouldn't grind a structure with a quarter of that EHP for that kind of income, you can best bet a roaming gang (looking for a person to kill) wouldn't take the time to do it.
With all due respect, isk generated with the prospect of a fight is like gravy on mash potatoes. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
626
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:57:00 -
[1927] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I have a related question. The ratting that it happening: Is this assumed to be a solo activity? I'm just curious if null ratting is done in cooperation with someone or if it's all solo?
If it's solo, maybe this is part of the intended effect? Maybe CCP wants to see more small groups working together? The other thing is the whole PvE vs PvP fitting on ships. Is this purely an 'efficiency' thing? As is, a PvE fit lets you kill the rat's faster, resulting in a more efficient income?
It would be nice if we could fit our ships for PvP and do PvE activity. Then again, if you are fighting in a group, a PvP ship shouldn't hinder you much against rats? Nullsec PvE is almost always solo. There are viable ways to dualbox or 2 together, but mostly solo. The issue is that for most things, you don't have to be 2 characters and 2 characters won't do stuff twice as fast, so if you're dualboxing you can probably literally make twice as much by being in two sites, compared to maybe decreasing completion time with a fourth or a third by being two characters in one site. Multiboxing can add safety or ease, and sentry-droneboats with a specific trigger can sometimes become twice as efficient with twice the characters, but in general terms, nullsec PvE is solo. The larger issue than the sites themselves would be the systems, though.
Since most systems have a few of the better sites spawning at the same time, a good truesec system can be full at 2 ratters (Or two groups of ratters). There won't be efficient sites to do, so moving over to the next site will be better than staying and competing for the sites as they respawn. Same goes for belts, as it were. With 10 belts you can't warp in, shoot rats, warp to next, warp to next, shoot rats, etc., and expect the rats to really respawn. If you are two people doing the same belts, chances are you could be legitimately isk-doubling in Jita and earn the same hourly wage. So the issue is essentially that the system pop cap is between 0 and 5.
That's for any reasonable living in a nullsec system. When nullsec players moan about the isk/hour of highsec lvl4 missions, it's not necessarily because the isk/hour itself is out of balance, but because the scalability of lvl4 missions is a practical infinite (Okay, 100-200 people doing it out of the same system means lag and attracts gankers - still!) while the nullsec systems scale in a way so finite you never really need a whole hand for counting on your fingers. There are other things with highsec missions 'n stuff, but scalability isn't in nullsec. We can have a battle of four thousand players in a system where, if it was for ratting-sustained living under ideal circumstances, less than a thousandth of the battle-participants would be able to live.
Okay, PI, mining, moonmining, escalation, ice ... it's not all equally bad, but for the line nullsec member, for the 99% of those four thousand, the combination of effort, security, accessability, income per time interval and scalability puts actually living in the areas of nullsec for which they fought and won at a disadvantage to high sec missions. There are good and bad reasons to ignore that disadvantage, make no mistake. But mostly, such reasons are either sentimental or "I don't want a new account for HS missions". The reasons most likely won't be "with time devoted to war, defense and offense, logistics, planning and moving around according to population and gangs/campers, this new system will make me obscenely rich through ratting" - but it is very likely to be "damn, I can't be arsed to JC to HS in a wardec to get ISK for a new boat, so I'm gonna rat a little." With all the sticks in nullsec, to make it generally appealing, it should also have some carrots. Those carrots should be beyond comparison to the places where you get none of the sticks, and different to the places you get other kinds of sticks. There should be clear consequences to live in nullsec, both SOV. and NPC, in lowsec, in wormholes. And there should be clear perspectives to make the transition for both gameplay and social play, not just the social aspects.
The ESS, even if the new version is less horrible, is not such a carrot. It's a stick that hurts just as much as the promised carrot soothes. It's a problem and at the same time its own solution. |
Nytemaster
Wardec Us Please
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 01:36:00 -
[1928] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Has anybody pointed out that if ratting bounties were too high (from CCP's perception -- and they have all the numbers) that it would have been simpler to just straight nerf ratting bounties?
Instead it's like they packaged it with an anchorable design straight out of the Worst Ideas Ever thread.
I think most EVE players would just prefer the truth straight up.
"We are nerfing ratting bounties and here is why." (explanation follows)
Why reduce bounties by 5% when you can decrease the spawn chance by the same amount and do virtually the same thing without hardly anyone noticing? To do the later you can chock all speculation and cries of nerfing to the theory-crafters who may or may not even be able to prove there was any change. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 02:18:00 -
[1929] - Quote
If we lived in fantasy-land, the easiest way to show CCP that Null isn't really working is for everyone to abandon it. Move to a .5 system as close to Null as you can and simply head out there to get the moongoo or whatever you need as a corp every day. Or don't even do that.
Heck, since it's fantasy-land, what if CFC and Goon were to declare Null off-limits for all economic activity and finance 23/7 powerful roaming gangs that punish anyone using Null for anything. They don't make any T2 stuff (prolly have lots of stockpiles they can use exclusively for their Alliance members), don't mine any of the ore out there (and hunt down and destroy any groups who do try to mine), no more PI, etc...
It would kill the market, and CCP would have no choice but to pay attention. A boycott of Null. If it's so irritating, then vote with your afterburner and leave it. It's fantasy because we all know the Alliance leaders are quite happy with their 10 or 12 digit bank accounts and lavish lifestyles and would never shoot the hand that feeds them. They would never sacrifice their cushy offices and ships in an effort to demonstrate to CCP just how serious the issues in Null are.
Sad too, since I, a carebear, would love to see Null as an active, vibrant place. I'd actually go out and actually peeveepee from time to time. I'd run ore, modules, whatever to and from highsec. There's stuff out there I'd like to see.
I think the ESS has potential, but it should be shelved until SOV is fixed, POS coding, and the one huge blue doughnut broken up into a hundred small ones. |
Fix Lag
745
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 02:32:00 -
[1930] - Quote
Well, I put my money where my mouth is, and I've moved six characters into a wormhole. If I'm going to get shot at I might as well get paid for it instead of being pushed further into space poverty by the oppressive reactionaries working for CCP. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
176
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 03:29:00 -
[1931] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:Well, I put my money where my mouth is, and I've moved six characters into a wormhole. If I'm going to get shot at I might as well get paid for it instead of being pushed further into space poverty by the oppressive reactionaries working for CCP.
Wormhole income nerf is probably coming soon |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1691
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 03:52:00 -
[1932] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Fix Lag wrote:Well, I put my money where my mouth is, and I've moved six characters into a wormhole. If I'm going to get shot at I might as well get paid for it instead of being pushed further into space poverty by the oppressive reactionaries working for CCP. Wormhole income nerf is probably coming soon
my guess is no more npc buy orders for blue drops There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
118
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 05:19:00 -
[1933] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Fix Lag wrote:Well, I put my money where my mouth is, and I've moved six characters into a wormhole. If I'm going to get shot at I might as well get paid for it instead of being pushed further into space poverty by the oppressive reactionaries working for CCP. Wormhole income nerf is probably coming soon my guess is no more npc buy orders for blue drops Rubicon 1.2: - Sleepers no longer drop databases - New deployable. Has a chance to download databases from defeated sleepers in system. Has no effect if the wormhole does not have an active connection to K-space. Wormholes involved cannot be end of life or shrunk due to mass. They must have relay deployables anchored in every system along the path, including the first k-space system. The relays show globally on the overview, immediately alerting travelers that someone down the chain is ratting. Exciting Pvpve encounters are sure to follow.
|
Alundil
Sky Fighters
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 05:58:00 -
[1934] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kismeteer wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well. Referencing: 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¥ Why are null sec people the only people that have defend it? Why couldn't you do this module in high sec, where it could actually make for interesting game play? Or low sec, which this seems ideal for, if anyone ratted there. If you're avoiding posts with inflammatory phrasing, is that your excuse why you're avoiding most of the posts in this thead? You can-¦t expect everything we do to have equal affect on everyone. Yes, the ESS affects null sec more, just like the Hi Sec POCOs we did for Rubicon affected hi sec more. It evens out in the end. We hate everyone equally.
I haven't lived in null in many months so it isn't going to bother me from an income perspective. However, from a gameplay perspective I strongly doubt that this module, in null, will have the effect you seem to think it will. Basically thinking about this module and its implications makes me feel like your face.... and also your face.
As to your parting shot in the quote there clover, as a public representative for a company that's ridiculous and unprofessional.
But hey, stay classy. Clone mechanics enchancements Deep Space Probe Revival |
Alundil
Sky Fighters
381
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 06:18:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Eram Fidard wrote:What happens when an unstoppable force (team superfriends or more specifically SoniClover) meets an immovable object (eve playerbase)? The monument gets it. Clone mechanics enchancements Deep Space Probe Revival |
Alundil
Sky Fighters
383
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 07:28:00 -
[1936] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:How many pages does a thread have to reach before it becomes a 'threadnought'? "Ah one, ah twohoo, ah thrrrreee.... the world may never know" Clone mechanics enchancements Deep Space Probe Revival |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
354
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 09:16:00 -
[1937] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Rubicon 1.2: - Sleepers no longer drop databases - New deployable. Has a chance to download databases from defeated sleepers in system. Has no effect if the wormhole does not have an active connection to K-space. Wormholes involved cannot be end of life or shrunk due to mass. They must have relay deployables anchored in every system along the path, including the first k-space system. The relays show globally on the overview, immediately alerting travelers that someone down the chain is ratting. Exciting Pvpve encounters are sure to follow.
Let's try not to give the team that thought the ESS was an absolutely fantastic concept any more ideas please. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
320
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 09:25:00 -
[1938] - Quote
ESS - Bad idea. If CCP want to work on nullsec why not address issues that players are stating this for years ? HED proved that servers are unable to handle current nullsec state - i think that this is more important thing to work on rather than ESS?
Or fill the gaps in your rules - players still don't know WHAT is large - scale player fight 10 people on local, 20 , 300 , 2000?
Why ESS is bad idea? Because it will not change nothing - and can be abused as a tackling device.
If you think that ESS is good idea why it cannot be used at the same time in lowsec and higsec. Every where play the same players.
I want to put ESS in some higsec mission hub - and guard it with some friends. Any one can try to take it from us.
TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS Reactivation timers on : MJD and more. Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
176
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 10:06:00 -
[1939] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:ESS - Bad idea. If CCP want to work on nullsec why not address issues that players are stating this for years ? HED proved that servers are unable to handle current nullsec state - i think that this is more important thing to work on rather than ESS?
because the game(content)designer aren't responsible for the net code, or whatever part of the backround programming is causing the problems. it's like telling a bakery they should be a barber shop.
Anthar Thebess wrote: I want to put ESS in some higsec mission hub - and guard it with some friends. Any one can try to take it from us.
That would be most awesome :D should have been a high and low sec thing from the very beginning. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
4746
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 10:36:00 -
[1940] - Quote
posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Zappity
Kurved Space
776
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 10:41:00 -
[1941] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Hehe, and doing my part... And I still want one of these for highsec and FW low! Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
876
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 11:06:00 -
[1942] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Well... trying not to be an ass but if you wanted to see 100 pages you could go poke some CCP people to post more answers to questions and keep the back and forth going...
Also I added another post for you. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
955
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 11:07:00 -
[1943] - Quote
Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:40:00 -
[1944] - Quote
Other questions I have not seen answers for:
Can we have more than 1 ESS in system? If so, how do we know which one is being accessed/attacked?
If the ESS is destroyed, does all the ISK in the kitty just disappear? The original clarification suggested the ISK is credited to the 'system', not the actual ESS device.
Does the 'upgrade' reset if the ESS is destroyed? SO if my corp were to rat for a few hours and finally get the ESS to the top bonus payout, then have it popped by some big meanie, does the bonus reset?
Has there been any thought to this being used as a bubble between 2 warp points instead of a pve tool? Presumably, I could drop this mid-way between 2 gates and it would pull anyone crossing it out of warp, including ships that are currently immune to this. How does it compare to existing bubble devices?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4974
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:45:00 -
[1945] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Other questions I have not seen answers for:
Go read the description in the blog and the first few dev posts - it will answer most of those questions.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
180
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:45:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now.
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4974
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:48:00 -
[1947] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now. How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
Ummm...go to an appropriate station and dock up? There are stations in lowsec too so novices at -10 don't have to worry.
This getting to 100 pages plan is going to be easy...
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
879
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:50:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now. How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
955
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:13:00 -
[1949] - Quote
Pods? Shuttles? Anything that can beat the faction navies? Just like -10 people always have? -10 does not mean 'Concorded in a pod as soon as in high sec' |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
677
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:16:00 -
[1950] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/
Or you could drop the condescending attitude and post something constructive about the concerns people have over this pile of horseshit.
|
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
677
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:18:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:Well, I put my money where my mouth is, and I've moved six characters into a wormhole. If I'm going to get shot at I might as well get paid for it instead of being pushed further into space poverty by the oppressive reactionaries working for CCP.
Same here. I have moved 4 characters out of null sec to more lucrative areas. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:35:00 -
[1952] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Other questions I have not seen answers for: ...
Go read the description in the blog and the first few dev posts - it will answer most of those questions. ...and bubbles don't work like that. Okay....
CCP SoniClover wrote: 3) The warp disruption effect put on ships interacting with the ESS is in addition to the bubble.
Then I found this waaaaaaaaaaay back on page 3:
CCP SoniClover wrote:Telon Londan wrote:How long will it take to scoop the ESS? Will it be possible to sit at the ESS with an alt and scoop it immediately as soon as a hostile enters local? It-¦s quick, so this is possible. Note that this resets the payout value and allows anyone to place an ESS of their own somewhere in the system to access the pool.
This suggests that the ISK 'bonus' is not technically stored in the ESS device, and if it is destroyed or popped, a new one can be dropped and the payout retrieved. But this still leaves open the question of whether the bonus % resets if the ESS is destroyed.
That's all I could find. Still leaves some questions.
Can we have more than 1 ESS in system? If so, how do we know which one is being accessed/attacked?
Does the payout 'upgrade' reset if the ESS is destroyed (not scooped)? So if my corp were to rat for a few hours and finally get the ESS to the top bonus payout, then have it popped by some big meanie, does the bonus reset? If the ESS is never destroyed or scooped, when *does* the bonus reset?
Does having more than 1 ESS out double the payout effect or bounty nerf? Can he payout bank be accessed from either device?
Has there been any thought to this being used as a bubble between 2 warp points instead of a pve tool? Presumably, I could drop this mid-way between 2 gates and it would pull anyone crossing it out of warp, including ships that are currently immune to this. How does it compare to existing bubble devices? |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
177
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 14:20:00 -
[1953] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
This suggests that the ISK 'bonus' is not technically stored in the ESS device, and if it is destroyed or popped, a new one can be dropped and the payout retrieved. But this still leaves open the question of whether the bonus % resets if the ESS is destroyed.
That's all I could find. Still leaves some questions.
Can we have more than 1 ESS in system? If so, how do we know which one is being accessed/attacked?
Does the payout 'upgrade' reset if the ESS is destroyed (not scooped)? So if my corp were to rat for a few hours and finally get the ESS to the top bonus payout, then have it popped by some big meanie, does the bonus reset? If the ESS is never destroyed or scooped, when *does* the bonus reset?
Does having more than 1 ESS out double the payout effect or bounty nerf? Can he payout bank be accessed from either device?
Has there been any thought to this being used as a bubble between 2 warp points instead of a pve tool? Presumably, I could drop this mid-way between 2 gates and it would pull anyone crossing it out of warp, including ships that are currently immune to this. How does it compare to existing bubble devices?
description on first page says only one per system and one of the devs said the bonus resets everytime the honey pot is emptied or a new ESS is placed to replace a destroyed one (go through the blue posts it was in the first quarter of the thread).
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4974
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:12:00 -
[1954] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Has there been any thought to this being used as a bubble between 2 warp points instead of a pve tool? Presumably, I could drop this mid-way between 2 gates and it would pull anyone crossing it out of warp, including ships that are currently immune to this. How does it compare to existing bubble devices?
You presume wrong - bubbles don't work that way.
A bubble has to be on the grid you were landing on, in line with your warp. Putting one mid-way between 2 gates will not pull anyone out of warp onto that grid unless they were already trying to land on that grid for some reason.
The bubble effect on the ESS won't be any different, I'm quite sure.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
4974
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:13:00 -
[1955] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
That's all I could find. Still leaves some questions.
Look harder and read the devblog and blue posts again, again.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:14:00 -
[1956] - Quote
So then people could replace a normal bubble in the normal place with the ESS and be able to trap inty and covops (which are supposedly immune to bubbles?)? |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:18:00 -
[1957] - Quote
Why should this be possible?
ESS will have a regular bubble (nothing special about that!) PLUS an infinipoint (directed HIC point) for anybody who is currently interacting with the module. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
180
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:19:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now. How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP? LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way.
Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic.
Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea.
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
283
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:27:00 -
[1959] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. The beatings will continue until morale improves |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
85
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:39:00 -
[1960] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/
Yes, posting here in efforts of actully not reading the comments of said thread.
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
879
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 15:50:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea. Well if you go back and read my previous posts I was actually asking CCP if we can have the LP stores enabled in our own outposts so we can claim our goodies there. I think it's stupid needing to go back to Empire to redeem something we made in NullSec, but you were posting as it the -10 was crippling not that it was just annoying needing to head back to Empire to do something.
Initially when CCP SoniClover made the LP post I thought CCP had dropped all the stupid ISK games from this module and made it a gamble on LP, but the lP is just something to try and make it worth using, which it still isn't.
We have a 5% bounties nerf because NullSec is making too much ISK then a module which fixes that nerf entirely and even lets you bring in more ISK. The only way this module will have any effect on slowing the flow of ISK from NullSec is if it's so bad no one wants to use it, which... it exactly what its current state is.
This just means CCP might as well have nerfed all bounties in EVE by 5% announced they took steps to negate future inflation and spent all the Development time from this module working on some more positive.
I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this).
Predicting right here and now, the ESS will be a failed feature and not receive any updates or support post release (when Super Friends are moved to their next project) and I will go back and point to this very post on my phone when I speak to CCP Devs at fanfest about how the ESS was a failure.
I want to believe in CCP being a great company which understands what their game needs, and maybe I will eat my words after this five year plan is done but right now... five years is a long time to play in a sandbox full of dog poo.
/endrant.
Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16574
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:02:00 -
[1962] - Quote
It's still a very poorly thought out idea.
The new changes, are rather like spreading cream over a turd.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:03:00 -
[1963] - Quote
Turelus wrote:I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this).
You are wrong. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
180
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:09:00 -
[1964] - Quote
Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea. Well if you go back and read my previous posts I was actually asking CCP if we can have the LP stores enabled in our own outposts so we can claim our goodies there. I think it's stupid needing to go back to Empire to redeem something we made in NullSec, but you were posting as it the -10 was crippling not that it was just annoying needing to head back to Empire to do something. Initially when CCP SoniClover made the LP post I thought CCP had dropped all the stupid ISK games from this module and made it a gamble on LP, but the lP is just something to try and make it worth using, which it still isn't. We have a 5% bounties nerf because NullSec is making too much ISK then a module which fixes that nerf entirely and even lets you bring in more ISK. The only way this module will have any effect on slowing the flow of ISK from NullSec is if it's so bad no one wants to use it, which... it exactly what its current state is. This just means CCP might as well have nerfed all bounties in EVE by 5% announced they took steps to negate future inflation and spent all the Development time from this module working on some more positive. I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this). Predicting right here and now, the ESS will be a failed feature and not receive any updates or support post release (when Super Friends are moved to their next project) and I will go back and point to this very post on my phone when I speak to CCP Devs at fanfest about how the ESS was a failure. I want to believe in CCP being a great company which understands what their game needs, and maybe I will eat my words after this five year plan is done but right now... five years is a long time to play in a sandbox full of dog poo. /endrant.
Agreed. This module for some reason appears to be someone's pet project that they want jammed into Eve so badly that they are turning a blind eye to damn near 100 pages of posts telling them its a bad idea. I expect CCP to come up with bad ideas and then implement them horribly. But we have now had nearly 100 pages of player posts on this subject, and even the players cannot come up with a way to make this module viable and useable. The only thing I have seen suggested that comes close would be if deploying this module allowed your system to have +1 more of the next highest class of anomaly beyond what your system normally gets. And this is more a result of the fact that group PvE content in nullsec in non-existant and that CCP has refused to fix the joke that is sov null upgrades being able to support more than 4-5 ratters in even the best fully upgraded system.
I'm telling you now that forcing this unwanted piece of sh*t into Eve is every bit as bad as WiS was and I really hope the player reaction is exactly the same. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1694
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:11:00 -
[1965] - Quote
We really need the doctor to spread his inflation love all over us like cream cheese...
Though just because inflation was under control in the summer does not mean it's totally under control now. Apparently there was a huge influx of new characters which might have saturated the market with isk.
Example being plex prices at an all time high. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:35:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea. Well if you go back and read my previous posts I was actually asking CCP if we can have the LP stores enabled in our own outposts so we can claim our goodies there. I think it's stupid needing to go back to Empire to redeem something we made in NullSec, but you were posting as it the -10 was crippling not that it was just annoying needing to head back to Empire to do something. Initially when CCP SoniClover made the LP post I thought CCP had dropped all the stupid ISK games from this module and made it a gamble on LP, but the lP is just something to try and make it worth using, which it still isn't. We have a 5% bounties nerf because NullSec is making too much ISK then a module which fixes that nerf entirely and even lets you bring in more ISK. The only way this module will have any effect on slowing the flow of ISK from NullSec is if it's so bad no one wants to use it, which... it exactly what its current state is. This just means CCP might as well have nerfed all bounties in EVE by 5% announced they took steps to negate future inflation and spent all the Development time from this module working on some more positive. I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this). Predicting right here and now, the ESS will be a failed feature and not receive any updates or support post release (when Super Friends are moved to their next project) and I will go back and point to this very post on my phone when I speak to CCP Devs at fanfest about how the ESS was a failure. I want to believe in CCP being a great company which understands what their game needs, and maybe I will eat my words after this five year plan is done but right now... five years is a long time to play in a sandbox full of dog poo. /endrant.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3423
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:56:00 -
[1967] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote: Also, some of the stats have changed: * Hit points increased from 150k to 250k
What I don't like about the current revision is that it has no reinforcement timer. If it can take a long time to get that extra 5%, someone shouldn't be able to erase that bonus while you and your corp members sleep, and 24/7 coverage should never be an expectation. Not to mention that the EHP increase does not really change much, instead of taking approximately 5 minutes for a single bomber to take one out, it takes approximately 8 minutes. I would suggest around the 1 million ehp mark, high enough that one solo person isn't going to want to go around killing these but low enough that a small gang could easily take one out within a short amount of time while at the same time allowing the defender to form up (5 to 10 minutes), and have a lasting impact on the defenders (the grind to 5%) if they don't defend. Overall the changes make the module better, but I believe there is still iteration to be done.
You do realize you can scoop it back into your cargo hold when you are done for the night? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3423
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:11:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea. Well if you go back and read my previous posts I was actually asking CCP if we can have the LP stores enabled in our own outposts so we can claim our goodies there. I think it's stupid needing to go back to Empire to redeem something we made in NullSec, but you were posting as it the -10 was crippling not that it was just annoying needing to head back to Empire to do something. Initially when CCP SoniClover made the LP post I thought CCP had dropped all the stupid ISK games from this module and made it a gamble on LP, but the lP is just something to try and make it worth using, which it still isn't. We have a 5% bounties nerf because NullSec is making too much ISK then a module which fixes that nerf entirely and even lets you bring in more ISK. The only way this module will have any effect on slowing the flow of ISK from NullSec is if it's so bad no one wants to use it, which... it exactly what its current state is. This just means CCP might as well have nerfed all bounties in EVE by 5% announced they took steps to negate future inflation and spent all the Development time from this module working on some more positive. I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this). Predicting right here and now, the ESS will be a failed feature and not receive any updates or support post release (when Super Friends are moved to their next project) and I will go back and point to this very post on my phone when I speak to CCP Devs at fanfest about how the ESS was a failure. I want to believe in CCP being a great company which understands what their game needs, and maybe I will eat my words after this five year plan is done but right now... five years is a long time to play in a sandbox full of dog poo. /endrant.
Part of the issue in adding LP stores to Outposts, is which LP store goes in the outpost? NPC stations are affiliated with a single corp, and so are LP.
As for your "no one will use it"... several members of the CFC have already said the iterations to the module have increase the rewards to the point they are absolutely considering using it. You don't have to use it, but I'm fairly certain the latest iteration will be used.
I personally think the ESS access times need to be increased some: 1 Minute to get the share all option, 5 minutes to get the take all option. After that, the module is a great addition to the game!
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2581
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:22:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Turelus wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:
How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
LowSec stations and hauling alts, like most people with -10. Although I doubt you will be -10 long if you grind any meaningful amount of LP this way. Right, so additional hassle to get the benefit from this module. Fantastic. Because someone who lives in nullsec should have to go to lowsec and have a hauling alt to be able to receive their ratting income. Lets take all hisec mission bounties/payouts and make it so people have to go to lowsec to pick up 20% of their reward. It's just as absurd an idea. Well if you go back and read my previous posts I was actually asking CCP if we can have the LP stores enabled in our own outposts so we can claim our goodies there. I think it's stupid needing to go back to Empire to redeem something we made in NullSec, but you were posting as it the -10 was crippling not that it was just annoying needing to head back to Empire to do something. Initially when CCP SoniClover made the LP post I thought CCP had dropped all the stupid ISK games from this module and made it a gamble on LP, but the lP is just something to try and make it worth using, which it still isn't. We have a 5% bounties nerf because NullSec is making too much ISK then a module which fixes that nerf entirely and even lets you bring in more ISK. The only way this module will have any effect on slowing the flow of ISK from NullSec is if it's so bad no one wants to use it, which... it exactly what its current state is. This just means CCP might as well have nerfed all bounties in EVE by 5% announced they took steps to negate future inflation and spent all the Development time from this module working on some more positive. I have made more post in this thread than any other in EVE history, I have been polite and put forth questions and arguments and quite only the only impression I have had is CCP refuse to back down on their "awesome" idea which everyone is trying to point out very constructively wont achieve any of their goals (no one will fight over this). Predicting right here and now, the ESS will be a failed feature and not receive any updates or support post release (when Super Friends are moved to their next project) and I will go back and point to this very post on my phone when I speak to CCP Devs at fanfest about how the ESS was a failure. I want to believe in CCP being a great company which understands what their game needs, and maybe I will eat my words after this five year plan is done but right now... five years is a long time to play in a sandbox full of dog poo. /endrant. Part of the issue in adding LP stores to Outposts, is which LP store goes in the outpost? NPC stations are affiliated with a single corp, and so are LP. As for your "no one will use it"... several members of the CFC have already said the iterations to the module have increase the rewards to the point they are absolutely considering using it. You don't have to use it, but I'm fairly certain the latest iteration will be used. I personally think the ESS access times need to be increased some: 1 Minute to get the share all option, 5 minutes to get the take all option. After that, the module is a great addition to the game!
LP stores are new outpost upgrades. Pay a (small) franchise fee, have an LP store in your outpost. Perhaps with 'slightly' elevated isk costs, which go to the alliance that controls the station. Or you get a flat cut (1%?) with a flat fee.
:design:
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
183
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:24:00 -
[1970] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Part of the issue in adding LP stores to Outposts, is which LP store goes in the outpost? NPC stations are affiliated with a single corp, and so are LP.
As for your "no one will use it"... several members of the CFC have already said the iterations to the module have increase the rewards to the point they are absolutely considering using it. You don't have to use it, but I'm fairly certain the latest iteration will be used.
I personally think the ESS access times need to be increased some: 1 Minute to get the share all option, 5 minutes to get the take all option. After that, the module is a great addition to the game!
It's cute that you think that this module will generate small gang pvp opportunities and not just result in the locals griefing you by warping to the thing at range in a seboed ceptor once every N minutes to lock you up and stop the payout timer. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
882
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:28:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Part of the issue in adding LP stores to Outposts, is which LP store goes in the outpost? NPC stations are affiliated with a single corp, and so are LP.
As for your "no one will use it"... several members of the CFC have already said the iterations to the module have increase the rewards to the point they are absolutely considering using it. You don't have to use it, but I'm fairly certain the latest iteration will be used.
I personally think the ESS access times need to be increased some: 1 Minute to get the share all option, 5 minutes to get the take all option. After that, the module is a great addition to the game!
I made a post asking CCP how viable a new Corporation for each Empire would be, something like a "Caldari Navy Requisitions Corp." (I know it's a terrible name) that was CCP could hand pick the LP items and values which wouldn't mess too much with with NPC corps being used in Empire. It would also mean they could mix items from both the combat and industry LP stores.
We could then rent LP stores in outposts for those corporations.
I'm sure there will be some people which will use the ESS, but I don't think it's going to be a resounding success like the Deport or MTU, which just means most of NullSec is going to end up with their line members making less ISK. Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
189
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:54:00 -
[1972] - Quote
A lot of you who are decrying the ESS and saying it won't get used are missing a significant point. It's not that it won't get used -- quite the contrary, it HAS to be used. The ESS will soon be the fulcrum by which CCP is able to adjust nullsec ratting in a positive direction. If you own or rent space in nullsec and want your space to ever become more lucrative, I urge you to shoulder the risk and embrace the Encounter Surveillance System. Without it, any potential benefits that could be conceived will be hamstrung by the spectre of the "ISK FAUCET." This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
MrStock
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 19:13:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Just want to say, i dont want the ESS. |
Takada Ishikela
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 19:31:00 -
[1974] - Quote
FU CCP, and **** your ****** broken game, i canceled two 3 year old accounts, Star Citizen here i come. |
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 19:51:00 -
[1975] - Quote
If we really want to drive conflict and encourage small gangs we need something different. Sure, Null-bear ratters could anti up a bit of earnings for greater average payout. And Pirates could make a play to take that anty. The current proposal doesn't accomplish the goal well enough. It's too easy for a single player to make a pass at the earnings, meaning there's no small gang, just a cloaky/nulli thief instead of a small band of pirates. In short, hard set timers are dull and discourage creative play.
Here's an alternate approach:
ESS stats: 30m price tag HP set to ~150k (resistance holes based on faction used)
ESS is a beacon for empires to monitor activity and reward good behavior. - That reward comes automatically in 2 hour ticks. (use a cool counter and display the current pot as you like) - if the ESS is destroyed all payout is now loot in the form of tickets.
The EHP is high enough to require the thief risk something of value. (ships/time etc.) The ratters could interrupt the thief, remote rep the structure, or take it off line. to redeploy later and receive payout. The Cost is high enough that ratters don't want to be replacing these all the time, but would need them to stay deployed for at least 2 hours to get their payout. It engages the PVP timer. This is PVP and should be treated as such.
Notes: It requires everyone to risk something in order to gain. In all cases smart playing and decent skills are useful at improving chances.
It gives small gangs a reason to go to Sov Null space and harass ratters. It gives ratters a reason to undock in PVP fleets when reds come. It is simpler to use and won't require an extensive wiki page to describe. Numbers help both sides but large raiding fleets will be cumbersome to manage payouts and the risked asset is not so high that defense fleets need to be giant either (no sense risking billions in fleet assets to save millions in ratter income)
Please give us a simpler route to content creation. the current item does not encourage group play and makes ratting in Sov space too much like busy work. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6200
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 19:52:00 -
[1976] - Quote
Takada Ishikela wrote:FU CCP, and **** your ****** broken game, i canceled two 3 year old accounts, Star Citizen here i come. if you liked incarna you're sure to like star citizen! "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1216
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 20:16:00 -
[1977] - Quote
Epic thread.
So many tears, you guys better drink some water or you will all become severely dehydrated... The Tears Must Flow |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 20:23:00 -
[1978] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/
Has any idea from CCP (that wasn't Incarna) gotten 100 pages of such overwhelmingly negative feedback before? If so, did it turn out to be a success by the metrics of "customer satisfaction" or "making the game better" when implemented?
If not, why is no-one paying heed to the definition of insanity which is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting different results? ~ |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 20:48:00 -
[1979] - Quote
RDevz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Has any idea from CCP (that wasn't Incarna) gotten 100 pages of such overwhelmingly negative feedback before? If so, did it turn out to be a success by the metrics of "customer satisfaction" or "making the game better" when implemented? If not, why is no-one paying heed to the definition of insanity which is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting different results? Fortunately, most of the negative feedback isn't actually negative feedback, it's kneejerk reaction posting and "me too" posting and can be safely ignored. Most of the posts in this thread follow a format so rigidly that you could probably write a single regular expression* to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you've kept up with the thread you will notice that the actual feedback that wasn't a 3-5 paragraph thesis statement of the poster's inability to handle risk or think critically was actually considered and about half of that feedback was actually implemented.
* hurrr /GBS Logistics and Fives Support/ is a funny answer This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
392
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 20:56:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:You know there's a pretty huge issue when
Goonswarm Federation Mordus Angels Fatal Ascension Razor Alliance Li3 Federation Tactical Narcotics Team Space Monkey's Alliance Pandemic Legion Black Legion Nulli Secunda Against All Authorities Darkness of Despair D00M. Northern Coalition. The Initiative. Brothers of Tangra Fidelas Constans Gentleman's Agreement Solar Fleet Circle of Two The Kadeshi Legion of xXDEATHXx Curatores Veritatis Alliance Spaceship Samurai Executive Outcomes
all have managed to agree that the new ESS deployable is really ******* stupid.
RIOT, COUNT ME IN!
All accounts unsubbed. Minmatar artillery locked, loaded and ready to shoot the statue. #YOLO #420BLAZE_IT Banned from forums You have been banned from the EVE Gate forums, effective through 11/15/2013 12:33:03 PM. |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
883
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:07:00 -
[1981] - Quote
I can't unsub in protest, I paid for a years sub a week before this was announced... somehow CCP knew.
I wouldn't say this is worth cancelling subs over but I think it's getting near the old ways of CCP not really understanding what its player base wants. Hopefully the ESS will continue to be work on after release but I honestly do see this as another Rapid Missile case where people say "It wont work" and CCP say "Nah it's fine" then after a month and the initial rage/indifference no one uses it and it sits in the game doing nothing.
I love the LP options it brings, I think more work to add the LP stores and new upgrades to NullSec are great, but the whole gambling of ISK and 5% reduction under this supposed need to reduce ISK from NullSec is just meh.
Also I think it's like three more posts until 100 pages now? Make 100 something shiny, colours and lights! Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:09:00 -
[1982] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/
Yes, lets put more oil on the raging fire by 1. ignoring customers comments and 2. making fun of the threadnaught they create.
GG, I wonder what your marketing manager thinks about comments like these. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
424
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:14:00 -
[1983] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Much better indeed, but still not efficient as a potential harassment tool and it still feels and sounds forced being that it's a 0.0 tweak without a deeper rework of the system.
The reasons it's not efficient as a small gangs objective:
- Day to day 0.0 is hardly if at all worth defending against anything that doesn't threaten the sov level
- Ratters don't man up to defend a system when a system is roamed in, they're there to rat, not risk pvp assets
- With no RF timer, no attack notification and low HP on the thing, the best you'll achieve with this is the same as if you were AFK cloaking: everyone stops ratting until offenders go away.
- If the ratters themselves have deployed an ESS, they can hit the Share All option from an alt at the structure when they see a neutral come in - there will rarely be something to steal
Though I don't think there are concrete ways to positively change this though without a complete overhaul of 0.0 and sovspace particularly :( No sig. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3425
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:18:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Frankly, I don't believe people will unsub over the deployment of the ESS.
Several alliance leaders have already stated they are reconsidering the utilization of the ESS given their enhanced payouts. The ESS has a lot of good design inherent within it, although there are still some unanswered questions.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3425
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:23:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Much better indeed, but still not efficient as a potential harassment tool and it still feels and sounds forced being that it's a 0.0 tweak without a deeper rework of the system. The reasons it's not efficient as a small gangs objective:
- Day to day 0.0 is hardly if at all worth defending against anything that doesn't threaten the sov level
- Ratters don't man up to defend a system when a system is roamed in, they're there to rat, not risk pvp assets
- With no RF timer, no attack notification and low HP on the thing, the best you'll achieve with this is the same as if you were AFK cloaking: everyone stops ratting until offenders go away.
- If the ratters themselves have deployed an ESS, they can hit the Share All option from an alt at the structure when they see a neutral come in - there will rarely be something to steal
Though I don't think there are concrete ways to positively change this though without a complete overhaul of 0.0 and sovspace particularly :(
It isn't designed for the small gang to deploy. It is designed for the RATTER to deploy. Deploying it though has the inherent risk that a small gang might come mess with it and snag the "bonus payout" it gives for themselves.
Your final point: that a ratter's alt can hit the share-all button before any small gang can hinder that is the foremost issue with its current design! A 20 second access time isn't enough time for a cruiser to warp to it and inhibit that noobship alt from hitting "share all", which is a BIG PROBLEM that must be addressed!
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2074
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:41:00 -
[1986] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed.
So now you **** over every empire mission runner? Wow. you are some piece of work. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1695
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:41:00 -
[1987] - Quote
if i were trying to take from the ESS and i was a negative... i would just do share all as it would ensure i get some ISK and it only takes 20 seconds.
perhaps it should be standings based... if you have negative standings then you can only take all and not have the option to share There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Mackenzie Hawkwood
Event Horizon Expeditionaries Apocalypse Now.
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:42:00 -
[1988] - Quote
RDevz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Has any idea from CCP (that wasn't Incarna) gotten 100 pages of such overwhelmingly negative feedback before? If so, did it turn out to be a success by the metrics of "customer satisfaction" or "making the game better" when implemented? If not, why is no-one paying heed to the definition of insanity which is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting different results?
There were serveral threads for the derpified Inventory fail release, which went from ignoring the SISI feedback to the numerous locked duplicates on GD to the 'We dev's know what we are doing and you players don't' to 'we will release patches until its right' ie returning the original fuctionality.
The nausea inducing jump tunnel has a 80+ thread which the dev's have stated that 'to add a off button is a cop out' , people are still waiting a proper response to that issue, while an other background graphic's problem was fixed in 2 days.
It seems to be a common thread in these which a Dev cant see past their hubris and just accept that change for the sake of change isn't a good thing, CCP need to ask Microsoft about the take up rate of Windows 8. Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that. - Kina Ayami |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6201
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:46:00 -
[1989] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Much better indeed, but still not efficient as a potential harassment tool and it still feels and sounds forced being that it's a 0.0 tweak without a deeper rework of the system. The reasons it's not efficient as a small gangs objective:
- Day to day 0.0 is hardly if at all worth defending against anything that doesn't threaten the sov level
- Ratters don't man up to defend a system when a system is roamed in, they're there to rat, not risk pvp assets
- With no RF timer, no attack notification and low HP on the thing, the best you'll achieve with this is the same as if you were AFK cloaking: everyone stops ratting until offenders go away.
- If the ratters themselves have deployed an ESS, they can hit the Share All option from an alt at the structure when they see a neutral come in - there will rarely be something to steal
Though I don't think there are concrete ways to positively change this though without a complete overhaul of 0.0 and sovspace particularly :( It's intended to be deployed by ratters, not hostiles. The last point is fixed by the timer they added: they're tackled for 20 seconds if they hit share all, and I think they have to live that long. Plus any account is better off ratting making money instead of sitting on the ESS.
MeBiatch wrote:if i were trying to take from the ESS and i was a negative... i would just do share all as it would ensure i get some ISK and it only takes 20 seconds.
perhaps it should be standings based... if you have negative standings then you can only take all and not have the option to share
You'd have contributed nothing so you'd get nothing. Share all gives everyone what they contributed, not an equal share of the pot. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6201
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:51:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: So now you **** over every empire mission runner? Wow. you are some piece of work.
I think it's great CCP listened to our ideas and implemented the LP bonus. It was a great idea and dramatically improves the ESS, and offers a good way for CCP to bring the reward up in 0.0 where it needs to be in the future without worrying about isk inflation. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1695
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:52:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: You'd have contributed nothing so you'd get nothing. Share all gives everyone what they contributed, not an equal share of the pot.
well that would make a heck lot more sense then...
i figured it just shared with everyone in space... though upon reflection that was rather dumb of me.
cheers! There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
938
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 21:55:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: So now you **** over every empire mission runner? Wow. you are some piece of work.
Not really, it's just more competition on the production side of lp markets.
Consider what would happen if a portion of renters and nullbears moved to hisec after a null nerf. Yep, more people running missions/incursions = more competition in lp markets. Same result as before. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
718
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:03:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed. So now you **** over every empire mission runner? Wow. you are some piece of work.
If anything, this is more of a direct competition with Faction Warfare, being that it is only empire navy LP. And honestly, FW is already a bit on the 'too good' side. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:04:00 -
[1994] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It isn't designed for the small gang to deploy. It is designed for the RATTER to deploy. Deploying it though has the inherent risk that a small gang might come mess with it and snag the "bonus payout" it gives for themselves.
Your final point: that a ratter's alt can hit the share-all button before any small gang can hinder that is the foremost issue with its current design! A 20 second access time isn't enough time for a cruiser to warp to it and inhibit that noobship alt from hitting "share all", which is a BIG PROBLEM that must be addressed!
20 seconds can be an eternity. Any ship able to tank enough to pull off even a share all will likely die in a fire if its just a single ship, who's only purpose is to divvy up the ESS contents before getting pillaged by your small gang. You'll get a killmail, ratter will possibly not lose stored isk, just what was invested in the alt killmail and the very likely dead ESS. What you seem to be asking for is a strategic objective worth fighting for, but by white knighting CCP's push to add the content, the ESS just isn't going to give you what you keep saying that you want out of it. Keep making suggestions for it to be bad though.
Edit: Page 100 |
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:16:00 -
[1995] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:if i were trying to take from the ESS and i was a negative... i would just do share all as it would ensure i get some ISK and it only takes 20 seconds.
perhaps it should be standings based... if you have negative standings then you can only take all and not have the option to share
you misunderstand. Share All gives isk to the ratters who killed rats, not to people in local as some sort of egalitarian split. In fact, I could kill a rat, leave the system and hours later get payout when someone hit 'share all'
Wyn Pharoh wrote:20 seconds can be an eternity. Any ship able to tank enough to pull off even a share all will likely die in a fire if its just a single ship, who's only purpose is to divvy up the ESS contents before getting pillaged by your small gang. You'll get a killmail, ratter will possibly not lose stored isk, just what was invested in the alt killmail and the very likely dead ESS. What you seem to be asking for is a strategic objective worth fighting for, but by white knighting CCP's push to add the content, the ESS just isn't going to give you what you keep saying that you want out of it. Keep making suggestions for it to be bad though. Edit: Page 100
Nah, people wont put ESS on boarder systems. They'd put them deeper in their space and rely on scout networks. 1 report of a possible thief and all the ratters do a quick payout. The big buckets of isk would all go away and best the thief could hope for would be whatever was generated in the last 10-20 minutes (not much). |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3426
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:30:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Wyn Pharoh wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It isn't designed for the small gang to deploy. It is designed for the RATTER to deploy. Deploying it though has the inherent risk that a small gang might come mess with it and snag the "bonus payout" it gives for themselves.
Your final point: that a ratter's alt can hit the share-all button before any small gang can hinder that is the foremost issue with its current design! A 20 second access time isn't enough time for a cruiser to warp to it and inhibit that noobship alt from hitting "share all", which is a BIG PROBLEM that must be addressed!
20 seconds can be an eternity. Any ship able to tank enough to pull off even a share all will likely die in a fire if its just a single ship, who's only purpose is to divvy up the ESS contents before getting pillaged by your small gang. You'll get a killmail, ratter will possibly not lose stored isk, just what was invested in the alt killmail and the very likely dead ESS. What you seem to be asking for is a strategic objective worth fighting for, but by white knighting CCP's push to add the content, the ESS just isn't going to give you what you keep saying that you want out of it. Keep making suggestions for it to be bad though. Edit: Page 100
20 seconds is an eternity if you are ON GRID with hostiles. But 20 seconds isn't enough time for the hostiles to actually land on grid and stop you. That's what I'm trying to point out.
I come into system to hunt a ratter. He immediately warps to a POS as soon as he sees me in local. I pout to myself as I land on grid in the anomaly he just left, but accept it. At that point, he swaps to a stabbed inty and warps to the ESS. I see in local he has landed on the ESS, and initiate warp to catch him. He hits share all and warps off before I can even land! Alternatively, he immediately scoops the ESS upon landing and redploys it to collect his iskies after we leave.
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
647
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:34:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.
If not CONCORD, then who?
Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed. So now you **** over every empire mission runner? Wow. you are some piece of work.
Because this patch totally doesn't have a pirate quality faction battleship being added to a highsec LP store at the same time. Oh wait...
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3426
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:34:00 -
[1998] - Quote
1Robert McNamara1 wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote:20 seconds can be an eternity. Any ship able to tank enough to pull off even a share all will likely die in a fire if its just a single ship, who's only purpose is to divvy up the ESS contents before getting pillaged by your small gang. You'll get a killmail, ratter will possibly not lose stored isk, just what was invested in the alt killmail and the very likely dead ESS. What you seem to be asking for is a strategic objective worth fighting for, but by white knighting CCP's push to add the content, the ESS just isn't going to give you what you keep saying that you want out of it. Keep making suggestions for it to be bad though. Edit: Page 100 Nah, people wont put ESS on boarder systems. They'd put them deeper in their space and rely on scout networks. 1 report of a possible thief and all the ratters do a quick payout. The big buckets of isk would all go away and best the thief could hope for would be whatever was generated in the last 10-20 minutes (not much). Which is why I advocate for automatic payouts on a long timer. It's simpler for the ratter and actually gives the thieves a shot. It's too easy and 'dumb' to just click and wait for a timer. there should be some skills involved at some point. I think having the thieves kill the structure or do a hack would be better.
I'm not a fan of forcing the thieves to destroy the structure. One of the beauties of the ESS, is I really don't have a strong desire to blow it up (as a thief) because I'd hope to raid it again at a later date/time. Also, there are many ways of entering the heart of ratting territory from behind enemy lines. WH's are wonderful for this.
I think the be on grid for several minutes is a good thing.. It gives the locals time to form up, and it leaves the hostiles on grid in a semi-vulnerable state. I just hope it tells me how much is stored in the device so I can make a judgement call as to whether sticking around is worth it.
|
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 22:47:00 -
[1999] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:1Robert McNamara1 wrote: ...
I'm not a fan of forcing the thieves to destroy the structure. One of the beauties of the ESS, is I really don't have a strong desire to blow it up (as a thief) because I'd hope to raid it again at a later date/time. Also, there are many ways of entering the heart of ratting territory from behind enemy lines. WH's are wonderful for this. I think the be on grid for several minutes is a good thing.. It gives the locals time to form up, and it leaves the hostiles on grid in a semi-vulnerable state. I just hope it tells me how much is stored in the device so I can make a judgement call as to whether sticking around is worth it.
It's cheap enough that Ratters would replace the structure, you could raid it again later.
Even WH's are random and you'd likely have to jump a couple systems to find the good space. As soon as you're reported you have ~40 seconds to get to a nice plump ESS. Meaning you're in a fast ship, likely not able to tank whatever comes while you wait out the timer.
My approach supports WH's attackers even more so. WH groups love dumping fleets into Null before heading home.
Killing the Structure means being on grid for that time, vulnerable due to PVP timers. It's more in line with the way Eve works, where skills and numbers give an advantage or disadvantage.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:21:00 -
[2000] - Quote
So let's get this straight:
1) EVE is a game which requires one to earn isk to survive the wilds of PVP in null sec. 2) CCP wants to foster PVP by introducing the ESS which nerfs the major source of income new players can get in the game 3) as a builder, I don't accept LP as payment, so I don't care about them at all 4) These LP are predominately earned now by level 5 mission runners in safe empire which they trade for big isk - soon to be small isk. 5) The ESS still doesn't warrant deployment by alliances because most places in space have at least a few reds running around. Tell me again, what reason do I have to incentivize these reds to shoot at me? Oh LP that I didn't want - I forgot. 6) With reds/neuts running around, all ratting ceases anyway, because PVE fit ships cannot fight PVP fit ships. 7) I still wait for the reds to leave, then I get yet another structure to blow the hell out of.
So the net result is empire mission runners get screwed and forced further out in space, but since the payouts in space are decreasing it becomes more difficult for those new players to participate and understand PVP, which you want to foster with a module most, if any, will deploy, and that I probably will have to participate in a fleet to blow it up, which eats the limited time I have to play the game. Space rich players however, have no such issues and simply get more newbie targets to shoot at.
Got it. Makes complete sense.
And not one red cent is being spent on ways to reduce lag, one of the biggest issues in the entire game?
Really? This is what you spend your time on? |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:28:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:So let's get this straight:
1) EVE is a game which requires one to earn isk to survive the wilds of PVP in null sec. 2) CCP wants to foster PVP by introducing the ESS which nerfs the major source of income new players can get in the game 3) as a builder, I don't accept LP as payment, so I don't care about them at all 4) These LP are predominately earned now by level 5 mission runners in safe empire which they trade for big isk - soon to be small isk. 5) The ESS still doesn't warrant deployment by alliances because most places in space have at least a few reds running around. Tell me again, what reason do I have to incentivize these reds to shoot at me? Oh LP that I didn't want - I forgot. 6) With reds/neuts running around, all ratting ceases anyway, because PVE fit ships cannot fight PVP fit ships. 7) I still wait for the reds to leave, then I get yet another structure to blow the hell out of.
So the net result is empire mission runners get screwed and forced further out in space, but since the payouts in space are decreasing it becomes more difficult for those new players to participate and understand PVP, which you want to foster with a module most, if any, will deploy, and that I probably will have to participate in a fleet to blow it up, which eats the limited time I have to play the game. Space rich players however, have no such issues and simply get more newbie targets to shoot at.
Got it. Makes complete sense.
And not one red cent is being spent on ways to reduce lag, one of the biggest issues in the entire game?
Really? This is what you spend your time on? Are you, like, completely unaware that LP exists to be converted into ISK and is, in fact, non-transferable otherwise? I'm not exactly sure where you got these ideas about how nullsec exists, but it clearly wasn't by living in nullsec. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
533
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:28:00 -
[2002] - Quote
If you really are just after more cash - please just nerf rat income by 5% and be done with it. ESS is the most convoluted, stupid idea I've seen proposed.
Edit:
It came to mind last night that this is the first major firing across the bow to kick people out of New Eden. For some it will be to the "new" space accessible by the player built stargate(s) - to get away from the obnoxious Concord. For the rest of us it will be to a new game to get away from CCP. CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:47:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Querns wrote: Are you, like, completely unaware that LP exists to be converted into ISK and is, in fact, non-transferable otherwise? I'm not exactly sure where you got these ideas about how nullsec exists, but it clearly wasn't by living in nullsec.
Are you, like, completely unaware that I already have 2 mains continually getting lvl 4 R&D points, which oh, I can turn in for isk if I make the 20+ jumps to the area and screw around with selling them in empire - that I don't mess with anyway? Now why is that you think I want yet another game mechanic to take up my time?
What part of "my time is limited" did you somehow miss? And you think I want a game mechanic that forces me to use more of my limited time to haul some crap into empire or trade in, in empire, so I have to play the 0.01 isk game with 10k other swinging sacks?
For me its simple. I'll blow the crap out of every one of these stupid things blue or red.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3427
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 23:56:00 -
[2004] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:So let's get this straight:
You don't have it straight, as most of your statements are way out of whack:
1) EVE is a game which requires one to earn isk to survive the wilds of PVP in null sec. -- Isk is used for many purposes in this game, not just to survive in the wild.
2) CCP wants to foster PVP by introducing the ESS which nerfs the major source of income new players can get in the game -- It is a 5% nerf to income if you don't use the ESS. -- If you use the ESS, you have the potential to make even MORE income than you would now.
3) as a builder, I don't accept LP as payment, so I don't care about them at all -- LP is used to acquire Implants, skillbooks, Faction modules & ships, and for you builders: you can acquire BPC's of faction modules, ships, POCOs, and more. These are then sold for isk, where the average conversion rate is 1000 isk / LP.
4) These LP are predominately earned now by level 5 mission runners in safe empire which they trade for big isk - soon to be small isk. -- This is completely untrue. LP is earned by incrusion runners, by FW particpants, and by mission runners. Believe it or not, LP is a substantial part of the rewards players earn for participating in the above activities. Now they are bringing these rewards to nullsec ratters too!. Now, the Empire Navy LP are also earned by L5 Mission runners, which is a significant part of their rewards. And FYI, L5 missions are in lowsec, which is hardly "safe empire".
5) The ESS still doesn't warrant deployment by alliances because most places in space have at least a few reds running around. Tell me again, what reason do I have to incentivize these reds to shoot at me? Oh LP that I didn't want - I forgot. -- If you can't protect it, don't use it. Live with the 5% nerf until you can protect your space. (Don't you think there is something wrong with this game if you and your friends can protect your space from being taken from you, but you can't protect your system from being raided while you are actively ratting there?)
6) With reds/neuts running around, all ratting ceases anyway, because PVE fit ships cannot fight PVP fit ships. -- So swap ships.... this device doesn't force you to use your PvE ships to fight. Don't attack until/unless you are ready, and use intel channels to give you a heads up on when to form up.
7) I still wait for the reds to leave, then I get yet another structure to blow the hell out of. -- They won't deploy it on you because you can easily blow it up within 5 minutes using an ABC. If you don't deploy it, it "usually" won't get deployed in your system.
Muffet McStrudel wrote: So the net result is empire mission runners get screwed and forced further out in space, but since the payouts in space are decreasing it becomes more difficult for those new players to participate and understand PVP, which you want to foster with a module most, if any, will deploy, and that I probably will have to participate in a fleet to blow it up, which eats the limited time I have to play the game. Space rich players however, have no such issues and simply get more newbie targets to shoot at.
Got it. Makes complete sense.
No offense, but I don't see the logically flow within the above rant. It certainly doesn't make sense.
Muffet McStrudel wrote: And not one red cent is being spent on ways to reduce lag, one of the biggest issues in the entire game?
CCP has and is spending enormous amounts of time and money to improve lag. However, when you put 4000 players into a system, you're gonna get some massive lag. There are limitations, even given the military grade hardware they are currently using to run the servers on!!! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 00:04:00 -
[2005] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Querns wrote: Are you, like, completely unaware that LP exists to be converted into ISK and is, in fact, non-transferable otherwise? I'm not exactly sure where you got these ideas about how nullsec exists, but it clearly wasn't by living in nullsec.
Are you, like, completely unaware that I already have 2 mains continually getting lvl 4 R&D points, which oh, I can turn in for isk if I make the 20+ jumps to the area and screw around with selling them in empire - that I don't mess with anyway? Now why is that you think I want yet another game mechanic to take up my time? What part of "my time is limited" did you somehow miss? And you think I want a game mechanic that forces me to use more of my limited time to haul some crap into empire or trade in, in empire, so I have to play the 0.01 isk game with 10k other swinging sacks? For me its simple. I'll blow the crap out of every one of these stupid things blue or red. Given that no one who does PvE in this game values their time particularly well, and that the existence of jump clones and public couriers largely invalidate most of the alleged "time wasting" you cite, I find most of this argument spurious at best. Feel free to continue pontificating behind an NPC corporation alt, however. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3427
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 01:13:00 -
[2006] - Quote
Muffet McStrudel wrote:Querns wrote: Are you, like, completely unaware that LP exists to be converted into ISK and is, in fact, non-transferable otherwise? I'm not exactly sure where you got these ideas about how nullsec exists, but it clearly wasn't by living in nullsec.
Are you, like, completely unaware that I already have 2 mains continually getting lvl 4 R&D points, which oh, I can turn in for isk if I make the 20+ jumps to the area and screw around with selling them in empire - that I don't mess with anyway? Now why is that you think I want yet another game mechanic to take up my time? What part of "my time is limited" did you somehow miss? And you think I want a game mechanic that forces me to use more of my limited time to haul some crap into empire or trade in, in empire, so I have to play the 0.01 isk game with 10k other swinging sacks? For me its simple. I'll blow the crap out of every one of these stupid things blue or red.
Who doesn't have half a million RP these days? RP accrue pretty slowly (100 per day per agent), so you'll rarely make more than 500k isk a day per character, and that takes months to be worthwhile to cash out. In comparison, at 7.5k LP per hour, you'll hit a 100m worth of LP within 14 hours of playtime, making it much, much more likely you'll get off your lazy ass to turn that into isk. Furthermore, Navy LP stores are all over the place, unlike your R&D agents which are spread througout the verse at very specific locations.
Finally, you don't have to play the 0.01 isk war... Sell your **** to a corp mate or sell it to buy orders, but don't complain about the 0.01 isk game when your the one wasting time trying to maximize your isk/lp.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
958
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 02:01:00 -
[2007] - Quote
RDevz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/ Has any idea from CCP (that wasn't Incarna) gotten 100 pages of such overwhelmingly negative feedback before? If so, did it turn out to be a success by the metrics of "customer satisfaction" or "making the game better" when implemented? If not, why is no-one paying heed to the definition of insanity which is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting different results? Marauders. Which was something like about 200 pages of rage. Followed by some more critical thinking on their final implementation that managed to fix a lot of the issues. Still not 100% satisfied myself but the end result is workable and did give buffs in some area's which has resulted in significant increase in marauder use.
If you note, CCP made a significant update to the ESS on about page 96, meaning the first 96 pages of rage no longer apply really since nearly all of them are based on now out of date statistics. And the last few pages have a lot of people being positive about the ESS.
So..... CCP's second attempt at the ESS is in a fairly decent place. You take effectively zero risk, only the 30 Million initially for the ESS and the time to convert LP as well as having to deal with the LP market moving, but if the LP value increases you gain immediately. And you stand to gain 30% over no ESS if you manage to do everything right. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin. Black Legion.
425
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 02:38:00 -
[2008] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:It's intended to be deployed by ratters, not hostiles. The last point is fixed by the timer they added: they're tackled for 20 seconds if they hit share all, and I think they have to live that long. Plus any account is better off ratting making money instead of sitting on the ESS.
That is true, I hadn't considered that. Good point! No sig. |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 02:46:00 -
[2009] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Wyn Pharoh wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It isn't designed for the small gang to deploy. It is designed for the RATTER to deploy. Deploying it though has the inherent risk that a small gang might come mess with it and snag the "bonus payout" it gives for themselves.
Your final point: that a ratter's alt can hit the share-all button before any small gang can hinder that is the foremost issue with its current design! A 20 second access time isn't enough time for a cruiser to warp to it and inhibit that noobship alt from hitting "share all", which is a BIG PROBLEM that must be addressed!
20 seconds can be an eternity. Any ship able to tank enough to pull off even a share all will likely die in a fire if its just a single ship, who's only purpose is to divvy up the ESS contents before getting pillaged by your small gang. You'll get a killmail, ratter will possibly not lose stored isk, just what was invested in the alt killmail and the very likely dead ESS. What you seem to be asking for is a strategic objective worth fighting for, but by white knighting CCP's push to add the content, the ESS just isn't going to give you what you keep saying that you want out of it. Keep making suggestions for it to be bad though. Edit: Page 100 20 seconds is an eternity if you are ON GRID with hostiles. But 20 seconds isn't enough time for the hostiles to actually land on grid and stop you. That's what I'm trying to point out. I come into system to hunt a ratter. He immediately warps to a POS as soon as he sees me in local. I pout to myself as I land on grid in the anomaly he just left, but accept it. At that point, he swaps to a stabbed inty and warps to the ESS. I see in local he has landed on the ESS, and initiate warp to catch him. He hits share all and warps off before I can even land! Alternatively, he immediately scoops the ESS upon landing and redploys it to collect his iskies after we leave.
Or 'hostile' goes directly to ESS and collects, if you don't think you are up to speed to catch a ratting BS/Carrier. Even if you try direct tackle first, he's in a BS or Carrier, warping slow motion across the system and will likely be able to initiate warp towards the ESS, after swapping ships, while you are landing on top of the ESS yourself. His 'stabbed' inty is useless against the point that will be on him for 20 seconds, that timer doesn't begin till he has accessed the ESS. In all honesty, share didn't even have a timer when this was originally presented, afaik, and zomg CCP listened to the opinion that there being no share timer just wasn't fair for the small gang community seeking a shot at a payout. Sure, it can be scooped, and there's nothing stopping you from dropping your own ESS and punching taking all as soon as the locals in system grab theirs to "try and collect after you've left".
You want a real fight with a real timer, go get an SBU. If you want the ESS to give you better small gang fights, without hauling around an SBU, then help make the ESS better, considering all the added risk being attached to it. Encourage the rewards to be worthy of the extra risk and, like magic, people will be out there using them. Just pumping the LP output into it was enough to make some reconsider the 'never' position. Consider how much more fun YOU will have with a much better ESS than we have seen so far.
Or troll and bait post and be happy with what you get out of that. |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
1068
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 04:38:00 -
[2010] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Ali Aras wrote:Asking questions here so I don't have to assume the answers are NDA'd...
What happens if a small fleet warps in? Say three people-- does it announce three of them, or just one? Also, what's the radius of the announcement? There is a few second "cooldown" on the notification so it doesn-¦t get spammed when a bunch of people warp in. So in the case of three warping in, only one notification is sent out. People just have to use the intelligence tools at their disposal to discern the level of threat.
I personally would like to see CCP use some intelligence and work on the issues with the game, before providing more useless structures.
CCP: "We know what's best for the game, so you can't have any options....." |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4414
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:03:00 -
[2011] - Quote
I thought that nothing would ever trump the stupidity of "pretending to be your own alt is bannable", then came along CCP SoniClover with the ESS. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3429
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 09:06:00 -
[2012] - Quote
So I tested the ESS on Sisi tonight, and the largest issue I have with it is you cannot stop the "access timers".
If I get to the ESS and choose steal isk or share isk, the only way that the payout doesn't go through is if I power away from the ESS or get blown up. With the current 20s and/or 3 minute timers, this really doesn't leave adequate time for either party to defend the ESS.
Here is one suggestion I'd like to make:
1.) Make it so you must lock the ESS to interact with it. 2.) Make it so if more than one person locks the ESS, the timer for payouts slows and/or stops.
This way, there is a mechanic that either side can use to prolong the response window. |
Jori McKie
Friends Of Harassment
117
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 10:15:00 -
[2013] - Quote
Many of you guys does not see the strategic implications of the ESS. The ESS can be used as a strategic tool to interrupt income and force fights over it.
Alliance A vs Alliance B Alliance A is deploying ESS in all ratting system Alliance B has, let the games begin....... Alliance A isn't dumb and babysit all the ESS waiting for a reaction from Alliance B while Alliance B now has to stop PvE or form a fleet to get rid of all ESS in their systems.
|
Sonho
Kraven Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 10:17:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Jori McKie wrote:Many of you guys does not see the strategic implications of the ESS. The ESS can be used as a strategic tool to interrupt income and force fights over it.
Alliance A vs Alliance B Alliance A is deploying ESS in all ratting system Alliance B has, let the games begin....... Alliance A isn't dumb and babysit all the ESS waiting for a reaction from Alliance B while Alliance B now has to stop PvE or form a fleet to get rid of all ESS in their systems.
Good luck covering all of the biggest ratting spots an alliance and maintaining that, and who thw hell fights for "rats" ?People rat for moons or space to rent . |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
638
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 10:29:00 -
[2015] - Quote
Jori McKie wrote:Many of you guys does not see the strategic implications of the ESS. The ESS can be used as a strategic tool to interrupt income and force fights over it.
Alliance A vs Alliance B Alliance A is deploying ESS in all ratting system Alliance B has, let the games begin....... Alliance A isn't dumb and babysit all the ESS waiting for a reaction from Alliance B while Alliance B now has to stop PvE or form a fleet to get rid of all ESS in their systems. Just to make sure: You mean this babysitting will have what difference compared to just having a gang in their system?
I mean, no doubt there are people in nullsec with IQ comparable to rocks, but I very much doubt they'd be able to undock and rat at all, so you will have the same effect with or without the ESS: Either a defense fleet forms, or it doesn't. It's the same mistake Gizznitt makes all the time: How will this encourage fights? And furthermore: How should this encourage living in the space we've fought for?
I still haven't seen the reasoning for either. Some people manage to concoct all manners of ways the ESS will suddenly generate all the fights that small gangs currently don't get to their hearts desire when roaming in hostile space. I'm sorry, I don't believe in magic.
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
679
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 10:56:00 -
[2016] - Quote
Jori McKie wrote:Many of you guys does not see the strategic implications of the ESS. The ESS can be used as a strategic tool to interrupt income and force fights over it.
Alliance A vs Alliance B Alliance A is deploying ESS in all ratting system Alliance B has, let the games begin....... Alliance A isn't dumb and babysit all the ESS waiting for a reaction from Alliance B while Alliance B now has to stop PvE or form a fleet to get rid of all ESS in their systems.
If you really think that will ever happen, then you have less of a clue than the Devs who came up with this pile of horseshit, and that takes some doing. |
RoCCommander
Aurora Armaments Gentlemen's Agreement
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 11:14:00 -
[2017] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Posted: 2014.01.21 13:25
Where is our Dev Blog? =(
CCP Punkturis wrote:posting here in efforts of getting this thread to 100 pages \o/
Done |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
679
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 11:16:00 -
[2018] - Quote
RoCCommander wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Posted: 2014.01.21 13:25 Where is our Dev Blog? =(
Lol you didn't actually believe him? |
RoCCommander
Aurora Armaments Gentlemen's Agreement
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 11:37:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:RoCCommander wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Here's a quick update on the changes we've made to the ESS, based on testing and feedback. There is a dev blog coming out tomorrow detailing these (and other changes) to the deployables in 1.1, but here's a basic overview.
Posted: 2014.01.21 13:25 Where is our Dev Blog? =( Lol you didn't actually believe him?
I kinda did
But his is way is posted this, as kinda a "reminder" |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
9064
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 11:50:00 -
[2020] - Quote
The dev blog should be out later today. The one day delay is my fault, I overestimated how quickly I'd be able to get it done in between CSM summit prep. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
907
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 11:51:00 -
[2021] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The dev blog should be out later today. The one day delay is my fault, I overestimated how quickly I'd be able to get it done in between CSM summit prep.
Bah one day delay is nothing :D Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. |
Juliette Asanari
Saeder-Krupp Trading Division
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 12:02:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Altrue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The dev blog should be out later today. The one day delay is my fault, I overestimated how quickly I'd be able to get it done in between CSM summit prep. Bah one day delay is nothing :D
If the winter summit minutes will be out faster than the dev blog, we're in serious trouble :D |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 12:03:00 -
[2023] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:I mean, no doubt there are people in nullsec with IQ comparable to rocks, but I very much doubt they'd be able to undock and rat at all, so you will have the same effect with or without the ESS: Either a defense fleet forms, or it doesn't. It's the same mistake Gizznitt makes all the time: How will this encourage fights? And furthermore: How should this encourage living in the space we've fought for? I still haven't seen the reasoning for either. Some people manage to concoct all manners of ways the ESS will suddenly generate all the fights that small gangs currently don't get to their hearts desire when roaming in hostile space. I'm sorry, I don't believe in magic.
The main problems I still see with the ESS module are the timers. The module itself is quite fine. You can boost your nullsec PvE income by up to 25 percent compared to somebody who doesnGÇÿt use it. ThatGÇÿs a very nice buff for GÇPrank and file nullsec alliance membersGÇ£.
The access timers though, they are really giving me a headache. First of all itGÇÿs still a problem that you can GÇPshareGÇ£ the content with an untrained alt possibly before any attacker is able to warp to the structure. But also the three minute timer for the GÇPtake allGÇ£ option is a problem.
With these timers the module will in my opinion not generate a lot of fights. I hope IGÇÿm wrong. But on the other hand, it seems to be simple to tweak the module if it fails in itGÇÿs first iteration as a small gang conflict driver. At least nullbears can be happy about a considerable income buff. Maybe that will drag some alts people back from wormholes and hisec missions, and that would be a good thing already. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
640
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 12:21:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:With these timers the module will in my opinion not generate a lot of fights. I hope IGÇÿm wrong. But on the other hand, it seems to be simple to tweak the module if it fails in itGÇÿs first iteration as a small gang conflict driver.
If everything else goes wrong, at least nullbears can be happy about a considerable income buff. Maybe that will drag some alts back from wormholes and hisec missions, and that would be a good thing already. I'm not sure you came to the conclusion that it could be a conflict driver at all. Or how it should give "nullbears" an income buff, or "a considerable" one. Or how it should get alts back to nullsec.
It addresses none of those issues, and it is unable to. As said earlier, if you want fights, the ESS is useless, if you want hotdrops, it is most likely useless.
If you want serious fights in nullsec, you should advocate something like 10x the amount of sites per system. Going from 0-5 people to 0-50 people able to live in a system might change something, while the ESS will make the same 0-5 people dock up / safe up as before, incase they're even still there. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
913
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 12:35:00 -
[2025] - Quote
They main problem of the ESS if you consider that its aimed to be a conflict driver is indeed the fact that it will only be accessed by alts anyway.
The second main problem is the income buff from a null sec, already "generating tons of isks" from a CCP dev perspective.
The third main problem is the massive decrease in LP value. In itself, why not, but it nerfs lv5 missions that were already quite marginalized. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:06:00 -
[2026] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Tahnil wrote:With these timers the module will in my opinion not generate a lot of fights. I hope IGÇÿm wrong. But on the other hand, it seems to be simple to tweak the module if it fails in itGÇÿs first iteration as a small gang conflict driver.
If everything else goes wrong, at least nullbears can be happy about a considerable income buff. Maybe that will drag some alts back from wormholes and hisec missions, and that would be a good thing already. I'm not sure you came to the conclusion that it could be a conflict driver at all. Or how it should give "nullbears" an income buff, or "a considerable" one. Or how it should get alts back to nullsec. It addresses none of those issues, and it is unable to. As said earlier, if you want fights, the ESS is useless, if you want hotdrops, it is most likely useless. If you want serious fights in nullsec, you should advocate something like 10x the amount of sites per system. Going from 0-5 people to 0-50 people able to live in a system might change something, while the ESS will make the same 0-5 people dock up / safe up as before, incase they're even still there.
As I tried to point out in previous posts nullsec how it works today is not necesarily a GÇPgoodGÇ£ thing. It has developed over the years to the state it is in now:
GÇô nullsec people splitting their activity into a PvP main char (deployed far away from home) and a (ratting) PvE alt (staying in home space) GÇô large battles being the main PvP content in nullsec GÇô home regions being empty most of the time
ThatGÇÿs a neutral observation.
Modules like ESS are a small gang target. It gives a boost to ratting, but it can be raided and destroyed by small gangs, or even individual brigands. I know that most or all nullsec alliances currently arenGÇÿt prepared for this kind of challenge. There's nobody at home, willing and able to fight off pirates and intruders. ThatGÇÿs the main reason why most people say it wonGÇÿt work. I think modules like ESS are able to and will change everyday life in nullsec GÇô-áat least to some degree, but not over night.
If you want to GÇPre-viveGÇ£ activities in large portions of nullsec space, you need game additions like ESS. And alliances will adapt to the new challenges, some fast, some only over time. For example if ESS is used in more and more places, it might be necessary for an alliance to build up some kind of home defense force, specifically suited for fights against small gangs of intruders. Either PvE alts will train necessary skills and keep some PvP ships at home, or there might be squads for players of the alliance, who actually enjoy patrolling home space, and fighting intruders. Like an alliance police force.
I think thatGÇÿs a very nice idea |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2075
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:39:00 -
[2027] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The dev blog should be out later today. The one day delay is my fault, I overestimated how quickly I'd be able to get it done in between CSM summit prep.
Kind of like how you have underestimated the damage you are doing to drone users with the nerfs to the Omni's? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
679
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:40:00 -
[2028] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The dev blog should be out later today. The one day delay is my fault, I overestimated how quickly I'd be able to get it done in between CSM summit prep.
More CSM prep.... Awesome, I'm already looking forward to the next fantastic idea you guys come up with... I'm really excited about it. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2075
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:45:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just to spell out the maths.
Start point. No ESS. 95% today. ESS. Assuming 1k/lp. Lower than it is currently, lets not doom & gloom crazy, because as price of LP drops from supply, more people will buy the now cheaper items, keeping price partly modulated. So LP won't crash. 80% ISK + 15% LP. 95%. NO OVERALL LOSS EVEN IF YOU GET NOTHING FROM THE ESS.
Upgraded ESS. 80% ISK + 20% LP LP. 100%. GAIN ABOVE NO ESS ALREADY.
Upgraded ESS + Payout 80% ISK + 25% ISK + 20% LP. 125%. MASSIVE PAYOUT GAIN.
So, Deploying the ESS is actually very low risk now. You stand to loose the initial 30 Million if you don't get any upgrade ticks done before it gets stolen from & blown up. But unless LP crashes badly (Since it's actually above 1k for most LP anyway, so can drop a bit before making 1k an invalid number) you make the lost 15% isk back in LP, if not quite as convenient. And if you actually manage to upgrade it and get the payout from the ESS when hostiles come through or you are simply done ratting, you make a bucket load of profit.
It's looking good now. How will -10 sec status people cash in their LP?
Because the next step you whiners will get done is a campaign to exchange Empire LP to faction pirate LP, like you can exchange Concord LP for empire LP.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2583
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:54:00 -
[2030] - Quote
One thing to note.
The Faction Navies have stations with LP stores in Lowsec.
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/routeplanner/ Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2075
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:22:00 -
[2031] - Quote
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? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Jori McKie
Friends Of Harassment
117
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:49:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Quote:Sonho wrote:Jori McKie wrote:Many of you guys does not see the strategic implications of the ESS. The ESS can be used as a strategic tool to interrupt income and force fights over it.
Alliance A vs Alliance B Alliance A is deploying ESS in all ratting system Alliance B has, let the games begin....... Alliance A isn't dumb and babysit all the ESS waiting for a reaction from Alliance B while Alliance B now has to stop PvE or form a fleet to get rid of all ESS in their systems.
Good luck covering all of the biggest ratting spots an alliance and maintaining that, and who thw hell fights for "rats" ?People rat for moons or space to rent . Alphea Abbra wrote:just having a gang in their system? I mean, no doubt there are people in nullsec with IQ comparable to rocks, but I very much doubt they'd be able to undock and rat at all, so you will have the same effect with or without the ESS: Either a defense fleet forms, or it doesn't. It's the same mistake Gizznitt makes all the time: How will this encourage fights? And furthermore: How should this encourage living in the space we've fought for? I still haven't seen the reasoning for either. Some people manage to concoct all manners of ways the ESS will suddenly generate all the fights that small gangs currently don't get to their hearts desire when roaming in hostile space. I'm sorry, I don't believe in magic. Rommiee wrote: If you really think that will ever happen, then you have less of a clue than the Devs who came up with this pile of horseshit, and that takes some doing.
So i have to explain in detail how this works? Alliance B has 20 ratting/farming/ano systems whatever you call it where they kill NPCs for bounty. Alliance A has a fleet ready may it via cyno or Blops, whatever Alliance A wants to harass farming in the prime time of Alliance B for lets say 2h as strategic goal and with some luck getting a fight.
What does Alliance A do now without an ESS, put up 20 cloak alts in local, see whats going on. If you are smart enough who the **** cares about a cloak alt, sure your farming may be interrupted from time to time but the point is you can not shut down farming at all.
Now the ESS comes into play, same setup, 20 systems, 20 cloak alts in grid with the ESS. Still you can't shut down farming at all but you can annoy the hell out of those farming guys. Either way, you are getting the cash from the ESS or you kill an Interceptor/Frig trying to access the ESS via Blops or you kill XXXX. It does not matter, the ESS is the cherry on top to harass someone else. The farming guys have 3 options. - Stop farming partially or at all for 2h = mission accomplished (and if they chicken heads as long as there is a cloak alt in system) - Trying to steal from the ESS after farming and may or may not get caught = mission accomplished - Forming a fleet to kill alll 20 ESS = mission accomplished
Rinse and repeat that for 2 weeks and i bet Alliance B farming boys are pretty pissed and Alliance B has to deal with it one way or another. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
534
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:02:00 -
[2033] - Quote
yeah, it's called "enough is enough. unsub" CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:34:00 -
[2034] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:yeah, it's called "enough is enough. unsub"
RidiculousGǪ HowGÇÿs that different from hisec carebears rage quitting the game after realising for the first time that there are other players in the sandbox who like to ruin other peopleGÇÿs days? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6215
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:38:00 -
[2035] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Because the next step you whiners will get done is a campaign to exchange Empire LP to faction pirate LP, like you can exchange Concord LP for empire LP.
you realize nearly every post you make is whining over how a change will impact your isk/hour
do you see any irony in calling anyone else a whiner Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:38:00 -
[2036] - Quote
Is it considered griefing if you put an ESS in the middle of a star or any other object guaranteed to bounce you away before you can claim the ESS tags? WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:42:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Tag prices. More LP chasing the same supply of tags is going to be interesting.
Also, it looks like CCP is interested in faucets, sinks, and inflation. So if we're going to increase Navy LP, then why not make Navy faction items, i.e. weapons, better (comparable to T2 in certain circumstances) and cheaper (less tags) in order to encourage people to burn up that LP and sink their isk? WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 16:27:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Jori McKie wrote: So i have to explain in detail how this works? Alliance B has 20 ratting/farming/ano systems whatever you call it where they kill NPCs for bounty. Alliance A has a fleet ready may it via cyno or Blops, whatever Alliance A wants to harass farming in the prime time of Alliance B for lets say 2h as strategic goal and with some luck getting a fight.
What does Alliance A do now without an ESS, put up 20 cloak alts in local, see whats going on. If you are smart enough who the **** cares about a cloak alt, sure your farming may be interrupted from time to time but the point is you can not shut down farming at all.
Now the ESS comes into play, same setup, 20 systems, 20 cloak alts in grid with the ESS. Still you can't shut down farming at all but you can annoy the hell out of those farming guys. Either way, you are getting the cash from the ESS or you kill an Interceptor/Frig trying to access the ESS via Blops or you kill XXXX. It does not matter, the ESS is the cherry on top to harass someone else. The farming guys have 3 options. - Stop farming partially or at all for 2h = mission accomplished (and if they chicken heads as long as there is a cloak alt in system) - Trying to steal from the ESS after farming and may or may not get caught = mission accomplished - Forming a fleet to kill alll 20 ESS = mission accomplished
Rinse and repeat that for 2 weeks and i bet Alliance B farming boys are pretty pissed and Alliance B has to deal with it one way or another.
1. If alliance A comes and drops one of these in alliance B's farming system nobody will rat while it is there.
2. If alliance A leaves a cloaky alt in system to babysit the ESS no one will undock to rat
3. If alliance A leaves an ESS in alliance B's system unattended alliance B ratters will blow it up
4. if alliance A parks a cloaky alt in system with no ESS deployed no one will undock to rat
Please tell me again how the ESS has changed anything/added content/acted as a conflict driver beyond just parking a cloaky alt in a ratting system? You wont get the square peg into the round hole no matter how long and hard you try. |
Regan Rotineque
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober
208
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 16:43:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Jori McKie wrote: So i have to explain in detail how this works? Alliance B has 20 ratting/farming/ano systems whatever you call it where they kill NPCs for bounty. Alliance A has a fleet ready may it via cyno or Blops, whatever Alliance A wants to harass farming in the prime time of Alliance B for lets say 2h as strategic goal and with some luck getting a fight.
What does Alliance A do now without an ESS, put up 20 cloak alts in local, see whats going on. If you are smart enough who the **** cares about a cloak alt, sure your farming may be interrupted from time to time but the point is you can not shut down farming at all.
Now the ESS comes into play, same setup, 20 systems, 20 cloak alts in grid with the ESS. Still you can't shut down farming at all but you can annoy the hell out of those farming guys. Either way, you are getting the cash from the ESS or you kill an Interceptor/Frig trying to access the ESS via Blops or you kill XXXX. It does not matter, the ESS is the cherry on top to harass someone else. The farming guys have 3 options. - Stop farming partially or at all for 2h = mission accomplished (and if they chicken heads as long as there is a cloak alt in system) - Trying to steal from the ESS after farming and may or may not get caught = mission accomplished - Forming a fleet to kill alll 20 ESS = mission accomplished
Rinse and repeat that for 2 weeks and i bet Alliance B farming boys are pretty pissed and Alliance B has to deal with it one way or another.
1. If alliance A comes and drops one of these in alliance B's farming system nobody will rat while it is there. 2. If alliance A leaves a cloaky alt in system to babysit the ESS no one will undock to rat 3. If alliance A leaves an ESS in alliance B's system unattended alliance B ratters will blow it up 4. if alliance A parks a cloaky alt in system with no ESS deployed no one will undock to rat Please tell me again how the ESS has changed anything/added content/acted as a conflict driver beyond just parking a cloaky alt in a ratting system? You wont get the square peg into the round hole no matter how long and hard you try.
You are 100% correct
Adding a new module will not force players to adapt. If it's there and afk cloaker is there...some may shoot it. But it will be rare and far between . It is easier to cyno out to a new system than bother with afk cloakers.
Leave no guard and it is guaranteed dead in a few minutes.
I will log to sisi today to look at the recent changes. But I still don't see this as a good investment of time. Either from a player perspective ie: did this make EvE more fun or from a programming resource point ie: let's make stuff nobody asked for or wants |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 16:53:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Jori McKie wrote: So i have to explain in detail how this works? Alliance B has 20 ratting/farming/ano systems whatever you call it where they kill NPCs for bounty. Alliance A has a fleet ready may it via cyno or Blops, whatever Alliance A wants to harass farming in the prime time of Alliance B for lets say 2h as strategic goal and with some luck getting a fight.
What does Alliance A do now without an ESS, put up 20 cloak alts in local, see whats going on. If you are smart enough who the **** cares about a cloak alt, sure your farming may be interrupted from time to time but the point is you can not shut down farming at all.
Now the ESS comes into play, same setup, 20 systems, 20 cloak alts in grid with the ESS. Still you can't shut down farming at all but you can annoy the hell out of those farming guys. Either way, you are getting the cash from the ESS or you kill an Interceptor/Frig trying to access the ESS via Blops or you kill XXXX. It does not matter, the ESS is the cherry on top to harass someone else. The farming guys have 3 options. - Stop farming partially or at all for 2h = mission accomplished (and if they chicken heads as long as there is a cloak alt in system) - Trying to steal from the ESS after farming and may or may not get caught = mission accomplished - Forming a fleet to kill alll 20 ESS = mission accomplished
Rinse and repeat that for 2 weeks and i bet Alliance B farming boys are pretty pissed and Alliance B has to deal with it one way or another.
1. If alliance A comes and drops one of these in alliance B's farming system nobody will rat while it is there. 2. If alliance A leaves a cloaky alt in system to babysit the ESS no one will undock to rat 3. If alliance A leaves an ESS in alliance B's system unattended alliance B ratters will blow it up 4. if alliance A parks a cloaky alt in system with no ESS deployed no one will undock to rat Please tell me again how the ESS has changed anything/added content/acted as a conflict driver beyond just parking a cloaky alt in a ratting system? You wont get the square peg into the round hole no matter how long and hard you try.
Ratting Corp A drops an ESS in their own system (They're not really alliance level assets. As everything happens at character level). to improve their isk/hr for ratting.
Roaming Gang B comes along. Maybe they'll get some tags, maybe not. more chance of a fight, as there's actually a reason to go out. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Silivar Karkun
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:05:00 -
[2041] - Quote
with the new devblog i dont understand the function of the ESS now. let me get this right:
-null sec income nerfed by 5% for bounties
-ESS will still increase our bounty payments up to 105%
-ESS will also pay and aditional of up to 0.2 LP per 1000 isk on top of that
is this right? or am i missing something?
by that rule a pirate BS in the range of 1 million bounty would earn you 200k LP.....sweet :D |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1696
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:07:00 -
[2042] - Quote
They still have not explained why we need a blanket 5% nerf to income. I think as players we deserve a detailed explanation from a qualified economist There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Silivar Karkun
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:09:00 -
[2043] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:They still have not explained why we need a blanket 5% nerf to income. I think as players we deserve a detailed explanation from a qualified economist
5% of a bounty is nothing when you can gain even moar in LP items, this is not a nerf, its a buff actually.....unless someone points the contrary.... |
Silivar Karkun
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:13:00 -
[2044] - Quote
nevermind, my calculations were wrong. 0.2 per 1000 isk isnt a buff. a 1 million rat would earn you 200 LP....bad maths e.e |
Qalix
Long Jump.
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:19:00 -
[2045] - Quote
WTF?
LP for rats!? So all that work we did for standings was for nothing. All the compromises the FW people had to make regarding standings is out the window. All the work maintaining the correct faction standings, all the see sawing, all of it was pointless.
I rarely come right and out say it, but this is quite possibly the dumbest change I've ever seen. You're not reining in nullsec ratters, you're buffing them. ESS went from activity disruption to activity bonus.
Why don't you just give every member of every sov holding alliance a couple billion isk and cut out the middleman? Oh wait. That's exactly what you're doing. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
891
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:25:00 -
[2046] - Quote
So the final iteration added some more rewards and made the module more complex but doesn't really solve some issues. I'm almost there with openly accepting the ESS and I think I could even learn to like it, however it has a lot of really odd/bad mechanics tacked on just to make it work.
Issue: 95% reduction in bounties is to slow inflation, however if the is module used it automatically makes bounties 100% possibly 105% and doesn't solve the inflation issues. This whole 5% still feels like an attempt to push people into using the module rather than any serious work to lower ISK income from NullSec.
Issue: Lore behind CONCORD and their cutting bounties is unbelievable, CONCORD can instantly travel anywhere in Empire, obliterate even capital ships but can't just adjust the true value of bounties across EVE, instead opting to just not pay 5% of what they said they would.
Solution Idea: Personally it would feel more beneficial/believable to lower the true values of Deadspace NPC bounties by 5% across EVE. This would have the desired reduction in ISK income, remove a confusing mechanic for people moving to NullSec for the first time, makes belt rats a little more valuable (considering their worthless vs anomalies as it is). This makes the lore more believable and the mechanics easier for everyone to understand.
Issue: Navy Faction stores don't offer industry implants/modules and if the ESS is highly used it may devalue a lot of LP items.
Solution idea: Create a new NPC Corporation for each Empire which is established specifically to build relations with the NullSec Capsuleer Alliances in order to try and keep them loyal, or work to mitigate their loss of control. From these corporations CCP can set specific items and prices, this means if CCP want modules like Navy Hardeners to still be a HighSec only earned item they don't add them to the store. The stores could instread focus on the items to make NullSec players every day lives easier, faction ammo, learning and hardwiring implants for example. Then have the option to install an LP Store/Office in your outposts for a cost per month (ISK SINK!) meaning players no longer need to fly back to Empire to cash this LP in, they earn the LP in their space and get their rewards in their space.
Other ideas:
* Accessing the ESS without standings requires the hacking minigame, however the ESS would have no bubble/super-point. This gives roaming gangs two options, bring a skilled hacker/ship to steal from their targets or just shoot the thing and break it to "burn the fields" for a while. This also takes away some of the risk of instantly losing your money to roaming gangs but adds the annoyance that a roaming gang can come break your ISK printer. Reinforcement timers could be added to stop players repairing the module too soon meaning a burn does damage their income potential for a period of time. There could also be a chance/set % of ISK lost if your ESS is reinfoced this way. Gangs are more likely to fight if they see their ESS is being hit and they will lose that money if they don't stop the assault in time.
Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:25:00 -
[2047] - Quote
Qalix wrote:...all of it was pointless.
My autobiography is going to be titled
ALL OF IT WAS POINTLESS 7 Years in EVE Online The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal bring back images |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6215
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:27:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Qalix wrote:I rarely come right and out say it, but this is quite possibly the dumbest change I've ever seen. You're not reining in nullsec ratters, you're buffing them. ESS went from activity disruption to activity bonus. Just as it should be. Nullsec ratting has not had the level of reward it should have given the risk for some time. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3451
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:31:00 -
[2049] - Quote
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:
Option 1: Target the ESS. This would force those on grid to chase off anyone that's preventing the timer from counting down. Option 2: Damage the ESS, were every the damage delivered creates a proportional extension in the delivery times. (example, +60 seconds for every 6000 damage it receives). Option 3: Counter-access the ESS. Allow a pilot that lands next to the ESS to access it and choose "stop" to prevent the ESS from completing its timer. The means you and the other pilot would both be within 15 km's of the ESS.
Note: Ideally the ESS would name the pilot responsible for activating it. And ideally the ESS would name the pilot responsible for hindering the timer from counting down.
2.) As pointed out, if someone can successfully deploy this inside the Sun, where your ship will be ejected out upon landing, this might be considered an exploit. I'll try doing this on Sisi tonight (if I can find a system where I have the sun's center bookmarked). |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4460
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:36:00 -
[2050] - Quote
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?
Hard to bot anomalies in the Forge.... |
|
Crakachunky
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
20
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:45:00 -
[2051] - Quote
step 1: create procedurally generated fleet based PVE content that takes notes from actual PVP meta, and don't just guess, interview lots of the celebrity status small gang FC's. things they should have in common with incursions- split ISK payouts, different sites for different fleet sizes, cyno jammed, random locations, 2-3 spawn at a time in the same system, more ISK for bigger sites things they should not have in common- system beacons are a no, constellation clumped, showing up on the map
step 2: implement OPTIONAL ESS, set it to take ALL the ISK for a fleet, with 125% payout after tags are stupid forget tags options are good, take all or dish out (to fleet) cashout timer set to 5mins ship that cashes out is disabled (akin to lighting cyno) for the ESS to be applicable to the fleet it must be on grid, as in, in the site the fleet is currently running
what we have now is ISK making fleet activities for many sizes and shapes (can limit ship types for sites with activation gates) -PVP fit small fleets now roam alliance space chilling out and making ISK together, ESS enhances this BUT... -if used it allows rival PVP gangs to come in and FIGHT for the RIGHT to STEAL your ISK (hence the ESS disabling ship + keeping total ISK until payout), there is the risk for reward -roaming fleets are now varied because to use your space effectively more than one ship type or fleet composition will be needed -sites that you are not interested allow ninja fleets to roam your space and clear it up |
Liner Xiandra
Sparks Inc Zero Hour Alliance
268
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:47:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Sad to see this thing still being pushed out the door, with all its inconsistencies and tacked on mechanics to force "making it work", instead of being a nice and simple solution to a problem.
KISS-principle clearly not at work here.
|
Darth Kilth
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
164
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:50:00 -
[2053] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Qalix wrote:...all of it was pointless. My autobiography is going to be titled ALL OF IT WAS POINTLESS 7 Years in EVE Online I'd buy it. |
Combat Wombatz
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 17:58:00 -
[2054] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The dev blog should be out later today. The one day delay is my fault, I overestimated how quickly I'd be able to get it done in between CSM summit prep.
ESS is still terrible and implementing it in its current iteration would be CCP's biggest mistake since Incarna, news at 11. |
Trii Seo
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
495
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:03:00 -
[2055] - Quote
The ESS is now a bit less ********. Interesting choice to add another commodity-based revenue stream to null and reduce the hisec income at the same time. Is it Hotdrop O'Clock yet?
Covert pilots unite! Safer working conditions, less accidental limb loss due to unfortunate Cyno accidents! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=258986 |
Veng3ance
Origin. Black Legion.
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:06:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Thank you for the changes to the ESS. Looks a lot better now. |
Shutup Meg
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:09:00 -
[2057] - Quote
The ESS, even with the changes, is indeed terrible. Ratting is a painful process in Eve along with any PVE, and I do not understand why you would make it more tedious and uninteresting. Why after such successful mobile structures such as tractor unit or cyno inhibitor would you decide on a structure that punishes you for doing PVE in nullsec where players drive some of the most valuable content as it relates to publicity of Eve?
I hope you consider dropping the ESS prior to Tuesday. |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
175
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:23:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Anyone know how much less reward missions/complexes are in lowsec space vs. nullsec? |
Qalix
Long Jump.
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:27:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Qalix wrote:I rarely come right and out say it, but this is quite possibly the dumbest change I've ever seen. You're not reining in nullsec ratters, you're buffing them. ESS went from activity disruption to activity bonus. Just as it should be. Nullsec ratting has not had the level of reward it should have given the risk for some time. Then up the bounty buff. Bringing LP into the equation is just ******* stupid. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
494
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:35:00 -
[2060] - Quote
omg, CCP gives exactly what so many suggested (LP not get rid of ESS), and still crying how it sucks.
I don't usually come right out and burn people on forums. But seriously HTFU or go back to WoW.
And on your way out, remember to give me all your stuff. TEST-free needs mo' monies for siphons.
Review:
- LP bonus ia2 isk. More effort, more reward. gj
- More EHP = good.
- Bigger volume also good.
- Bit lower cost... ok. I can see that.
- 10x increase to minimum range from gates etc... yup. You really want it off grid from those things.
- Activation time increased by 2x. Don't see why. But doesn't seem to hurt anything.
- Removed open window timer. Good. That timer was redundant as all hell.
- Different longer timers (30/210s) on share and take all respectively that reset if you leave the ESS. Excellent. Can no longer warp in an inty, click take all, burn/warp off, then come back. You have to sit and fight for it.
- Infini-point seems redundant with the timers. Just get rid of inty bubble immunity.
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.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
|
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:49:00 -
[2061] - Quote
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. WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3451
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 18:57:00 -
[2062] - Quote
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????
|
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:12:00 -
[2063] - 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???? OMG, I can walk to the ATM at midnight through the dark back alley next to the crack house that's covered in gang-related graffiti and bullet holes, or I can use the ATM in the upper scale mall during daylight hours.
Just saying, some choices are choices. Some choices aren't.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:18:00 -
[2064] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: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???? OMG, I can walk to the ATM at midnight through the dark back alley next to the crack house that's covered in gang-related graffiti and bullet holes, or I can use the ATM in the upper scale mall during daylight hours. Just saying, some choices are choices. Some choices aren't.
For instance you could have chosen to give some useful feedback, instead you chose to whine like a little girl.
God forbid people actually have to think about how they use these things.
Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3451
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:22:00 -
[2065] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: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???? OMG, I can walk to the ATM at midnight through the dark back alley next to the crack house that's covered in gang-related graffiti and bullet holes, or I can use the ATM in the upper scale mall during daylight hours. Just saying, some choices are choices. Some choices aren't.
Perhaps, but that dark alley runs along your house's back yard, whereas the Mall is 30 minutes away. Not to mention you and your gangbanging buddies can walk to the back alley atm fully armed and legally able to shoot anyone and everyone.
|
Combat Wombatz
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:24:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:stoicfaux wrote: Just saying, some choices are choices. Some choices aren't.
For instance you could have chosen to give some useful feedback, instead you chose to whine like a little girl. God forbid people actually have to think about how they use these things.
And if they choose not to use them at all, they get slapped with a nerf painted by a mile-wide brush. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
195
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:24:00 -
[2067] - Quote
I like these changes. even with the 80% payout, the LP should make up for it even if the ISK gets stolen.
I like them a lot actually Baddest poster ever |
stoicfaux
3889
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:35:00 -
[2068] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote: For instance you could have chosen to give some useful feedback, instead you chose to whine like a little girl.
God forbid people actually have to think about how they use these things.
Okay, here's some thinking: * the ESS reduces your liquid isk, which is one of the main attractions to ratting, * the ESS pays out in tags that have to be collected and which can be stolen, * you have to transport the tags to redeem them, * you have to transport yourself to redeem LP, * transport is probably longer and riskier, * you need to sell your LP items, * LP navy stores are already the less lucrative LP stores for various reasons, * if null ratting is such a large faucet, then Navy LP value is most likely going to tank hard,
End result: Null Ratting is starting to look a lot like mission running, but with more inconvenience, more risk, less LP store choices, and less profit.
edit: And another thing, if Navy faction items (guns, ammo, ships) become super cheap and thus popular, then the *player* based economy/industrial base takes a hit from NPC "industry" which is probably bad for the sandbox. WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:51:00 -
[2069] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Darek Castigatus wrote: For instance you could have chosen to give some useful feedback, instead you chose to whine like a little girl.
God forbid people actually have to think about how they use these things.
Okay, here's some thinking: * the ESS reduces your liquid isk, which is one of the main attractions to ratting, * the ESS pays out in tags that have to be collected and which can be stolen, * you have to transport the tags to redeem them, * you have to transport yourself to redeem LP, * transport is probably longer and riskier, * you need to sell your LP items, * LP navy stores are already the less lucrative LP stores for various reasons, * if null ratting is such a large faucet, then Navy LP value is most likely going to tank hard, End result: Null Ratting is starting to look a lot like mission running, but with more inconvenience, more risk, less LP store choices, and less profit.
The ESS only pays out in tags if you choose the take all, ie steal option, otherwise with the share its all liquid isk as before so tag and associated problems is not really a ratters problem it is a problem for the thief/griefer. Far as LP goes, yup it will prolly tank a bit |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 19:53:00 -
[2070] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Darek Castigatus wrote: For instance you could have chosen to give some useful feedback, instead you chose to whine like a little girl.
God forbid people actually have to think about how they use these things.
Okay, here's some thinking: * the ESS reduces your liquid isk, which is one of the main attractions to ratting, * the ESS pays out in tags that have to be collected and which can be stolen, * you have to transport the tags to redeem them, * you have to transport yourself to redeem LP, * transport is probably longer and riskier, * you need to sell your LP items, * LP navy stores are already the less lucrative LP stores for various reasons, * if null ratting is such a large faucet, then Navy LP value is most likely going to tank hard, End result: Null Ratting is starting to look a lot like mission running, but with more inconvenience, more risk, less LP store choices, and less profit. edit: And another thing, if Navy faction items (guns, ammo, ships) become super cheap and thus popular, then the *player* based economy/industrial base takes a hit from NPC "industry" which is probably bad for the sandbox.
See, was that so hard? Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin
you're welcome |
|
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... |
|
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 17:02:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Don't want to do the real work and fix pos code so we'll just tinker with a bunch of stuff. Should I pass the weak sauce? Oh wait I see you already have plenty.
^^^ |
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 17:05:00 -
[2102] - Quote
I hope this release has some solution for the huge spike in TiDi (aka server side lag) that has been caused by the previous release of mobile deployables. |
Regan Rotineque
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd. Mildly Sober
209
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 18:10:00 -
[2103] - Quote
I did log into sisi again to try the latest build of this.
I'm sorry I still don't see how this adds to the game. This is going to be another item that is rarely used. Only those with high security and large roaming defence fleets will bother. ie: the rich get richer
Not only that but the game mechanic itself has zero fun value. This does not make me want to play more, in fact if deployed would make me play less. It is not interactive....provides zero group play fun...does zero to address POS or SOV issues.
If your going to spend time on these new modules CCP the I suggest you look at them from that point of view.
For example create a scanning enhancement module...it would give a boost to core scanner probes to find those ultra rare sites or special ghost sites. Make these sites super hard with tons of rats that require group play.
In addition it would boost combat scanners to find ships so people teamed up in these rare sites could be found quickly. As well as allowing combat probes to seek out cloaked ships. Make it easily destroyed and take some time to deploy and 'warm up. Make a couple versions with increasing cost to boost ratio. Easily destroyed and expensive. But put good loot in the rare sites. Risk....Reward.
That is something new....that is something that could bring small groups/teams together. ESS is simply changes to an existing mechanic that nobody asked for. I won't say ratting is fun...but it does help all sizes of corps and alliances afford the ships and resources to do the pvp fun things that we love.
Even with the recent changes to ESS ... It is better than it was but still is no fun...changes nothing and probably adds to your code maintenance issues.
On this I still vote no.
|
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
245
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:42:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Tahnil wrote: Especially with regards to Navy ships, demand is a variable. In fact I remember that in the past some large nullsec alliances used doctrines involving Navy battleships, and I think one problem was supply. Whenever a large fight went south, they needed to replace a large amount of ships fast. If there is not enough supply, prices rise. Or the doctrine dies.
Yes, the prices do rise. Temporarily. When TEST/PL introduced Foxcats during the Querious/Delve campaign against RA and -A-, Napoc prices went up. They went back down even before the conflict ended and the doctrine was put on ice. The same thing happened with more sporadic faction BS doctrines - Navy Domis and Fleet 'pests in particular. Their high ride on the sellers market was rather fleeting (pun intended.) To that end, I've never seen a large alliance discontinue a doctrine because hull supply was too low. The doctrines almost always die early because they just didn't pan out as hoped or something better came along. |
Ecoskii
Penal Servitude
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 23:14:00 -
[2105] - Quote
I don't get how CCP are so naive regarding human nature - this is a dumbass module that will always get blown up on sight particularly until they finally extract a digit and fix afk cloaking. |
Tahnil
Sirius Fleet
44
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 23:35:00 -
[2106] - Quote
...by removing local chat! I totally agree! |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
681
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 23:47:00 -
[2107] - 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.
You're an idiot. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4463
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 03:16:00 -
[2108] - Quote
Ecoskii wrote:I don't get how CCP are so naive regarding human nature - this is a dumbass module that will always get blown up on sight particularly until they finally extract a digit and fix afk cloaking.
In CCP's defense, they aren't the only one's naive about human nature, plenty of people think in terms of what they think people should do, rather than thinking about what people will really do. You can see that here with people who think the ESS is a good idea lol.
|
Monsieur Leon
Lopht Heavy Industries
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 10:20:00 -
[2109] - 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).
First off the idea of balancing is great if it is implemented correctly. But we are talking about CCP I dont think they know what a balance scale is much less what it looks like.
Some time ago CCP nerfed the drones lands rats by taking away the drone goo because people were bitching that if affected the market prices. So while all other sites in Null sec enjoy wrecks with loot and on occasion faction drops. The drone lands do not. It is quite an imbalance that they have yet to fix
HINT HINT
So if you wanted this module nerfed and all the null sec regions balanced you would not only need to drop the bounties, but also make all wrecks empty and remove any chance of faction drops.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
57
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 15:36:00 -
[2110] - Quote
CCP Soniclover announces the ESS, threadnaught ensues!
In unrelated news, bidding for CCP Soniclover's corpse hits 500b isk, with top bidder The Mittani. News at 11. |
|
L iriel
YA SQUAD Northern Associates.
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 16:03:00 -
[2111] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Qoi wrote:Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK? The empire fleets stations (Federation Navy stations, etc.).
I live in null.....there are no "faction" stations or agents around how is this a good thing again? I have no motivation to use this deployable. I automatically loose ratting isk because of the changes.
But on the plus side I get:
a deployable that any red in system can destroy a delay to access my lost isk a warp bubble to prevent me from snatch and grab if a red does jump in to system LP that I can't use....because I live in null...there are no LP stores out here isk tags that I can't redeem because there are no faction stations out here oh, and let's not forget, that you will automatically loose any portion of the isk that is below the smallest tag (10k i believe)
and can someone please explain these two statements from the dev blog
Destroying or scooping the ESS will not affect the system-wide pool. That is only affected by successfully accessing the ESS and choosing to Share or Take all. The system wide-pool stays intact and becomes available again when another ESS is deployed.
GÇó The payout level of an ESS is reset if it is destroyed, scooped or when it is accessed and the system-wide pool is distributed.
|
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 21:06:00 -
[2112] - Quote
L iriel wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Qoi wrote:Where will you be able to convert ISK tags into ISK? The empire fleets stations (Federation Navy stations, etc.). I live in null.....there are no "faction" stations or agents around how is this a good thing again? I have no motivation to use this deployable. I automatically loose ratting isk because of the changes. But on the plus side I get: a deployable that any red in system can destroy a delay to access my lost isk a warp bubble to prevent me from snatch and grab if a red does jump in to system LP that I can't use....because I live in null...there are no LP stores out here isk tags that I can't redeem because there are no faction stations out here oh, and let's not forget, that you will automatically loose any portion of the isk that is below the smallest tag (10k i believe) and can someone please explain these two statements from the dev blog Destroying or scooping the ESS will not affect the system-wide pool. That is only affected by successfully accessing the ESS and choosing to Share or Take all. The system wide-pool stays intact and becomes available again when another ESS is deployed. GÇó The payout level of an ESS is reset if it is destroyed, scooped or when it is accessed and the system-wide pool is distributed.
First, you only get tags if someone hits the share all option, so that is at least one les hassle for the ratter and more headache for the red trying to steal your isk.
As for those two statements an ESS will give increased payout/rat over time it is this time that is reset, ie if a 800k rat gives 200k payout just after deployment it will give(not sure but think it was in the ballpark of 5% more) after 2 hours which would come to 210k. so after being destroyed and redeployed it would be back down to 200k, but you could still retrieve the isk earnt during those two hours as long as noone used the share/take all optione before destroying it
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2597
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 21:48:00 -
[2113] - Quote
thowlimer wrote:
First, you only get tags if someone hits the share all option, so that is at least one les hassle for the ratter and more headache for the red trying to steal your isk.
I'm sure this is just a typo.
Take option, not share option, to get tags. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4470
|
Posted - 2014.01.25 21:53:00 -
[2114] - Quote
thowlimer wrote:
First, you only get tags if someone hits the share all option, so that is at least one les hassle for the ratter and more headache for the red trying to steal your isk.
As for those two statements an ESS will give increased payout/rat over time it is this time that is reset, ie if a 800k rat gives 200k payout just after deployment it will give(not sure but think it was in the ballpark of 5% more) after 2 hours which would come to 210k. so after being destroyed and redeployed it would be back down to 200k, but you could still retrieve the isk earnt during those two hours as long as noone used the share/take all optione before destroying it
A great example of why people won't use the thing, and how even though it will see little "freindly" use it constitutes a signifigant nerf to null sec.
If you do use it successfully and make a whopping 5% more than you can now (fat chance), it turns into a massive TIME sink. Either you have to fly (or jump) to empire to redeem the Lp or tags. That's time you don't rat. Or you could jump clone, which means 19 to 24 hours you aren't in null to rat, or it means death cloninig out and back, which means sinking isk into clone upgrades. Either way, you end up making less isk.
It's worse with hostiles because they can plant the thing forcing you to destroy it before you can rat (and that's if they leave, which they won't). The time taken to shoot it is time you aren't ratting.
What is most likely is that it won't get used much (like that awesomely useless cyno inhibitor) execpt to grief and null sec PVErs will jsut have to swallow that 5% reduction. That means that ratting mach that was making 105 mil per hour (35 mil per tick under ideal condictions) will make 99.75 mil an hour.
Meanwhile i'll be flying my mach in empire protected by CONCORD making 100 to 135 mil an hour doing sisters or trust partners missions(for now, CCP about to introduce yet another Sisters item that's going to fluff up the values of sisters probes and lanauchers and implants), 120 to 180 mil an hour flying in a shiney incursion fleet (not even having to shoot anything, a scimitar pilot ain't gonna make that kind of isk anywhere else lol) or joining FW to make the truly amazing isk with throwaway Drakes or Caracals.
Why there is no one at CCP who can understand why this is bad is beyond me. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
125
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 01:08:00 -
[2115] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: It's worse with hostiles because they can plant the thing forcing you to destroy it before you can rat (and that's if they leave, which they won't). The time taken to shoot it is time you aren't ratting.
The only reason I see to shoot it is : a) you want LP from a different faction b) you want to 'move' the ESS to a different grid to remove hostile perch bookmarks c) ability to scoop it and dock, hoping they didn't bring one of their own to try to steal the money stored in system.
You can just rat with an enemy one in space, hit share when done and log off leaving it there.
Jenn aSide wrote:Why there is no one at CCP who can understand why this is bad is beyond me. This this deployable is: - Rubicon lore of "capsuleers flip off concord" being shoved down our throat with unnecessarily complicated mechanics. - A forced isk faucet nerf that CCP is refusing to have any discussion on or provide feedback.
I dare say more people moving away from null ratting and going to high sec may have been an objective of this project, as a means of further reducing the amount of isk injected into the economy by null sec. Furthermore, that reduction is likely to be a high level metric to determine further iteration on the project. So more people going to run missions instead = null isk faucet down. ISK faucet down? Working as intended, leave it be.
If anything, as a form of protest we should start mass ratting as much as possible. You know what affects the market far more than +/-5% changes to overall null ratting bounties? Tripling the ratting population.
That's why CCP has no interest in bringing high sec income alts back to rat in null. It just can't happen without blowing inflation out of control with current mechanics. Which is why, as I proposed, the ESS should pool LP instead of ISK and pay out bonus LP instead of bonus ISK. It makes the flow of the ISK faucet more constant and easier to manage. It also makes it easier to iterate on null pve without having to revisit this module specifically for a full overhaul. If it proves successful, we can start talking about other options for the footmen of null to make non-raw ISK income. Because encouraging them to live in the space they own is going to be a far better conflict driver, than deployables with gimmicky mechanics.
But none of this is going to change at this point. There is no more time to iterate on this before launch. It's the weekend. They will probably spend the weekend on QA of the already locked in final build, as it will be released on Tuesday. Once it's live, there will be less room for major changes around the general concept. This thing should really be pushed back to Rubicon 1.2 so it can get at least one more iteration cycle. And get a F&I thread, as it should have had from the start. |
Gunner
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 02:42:00 -
[2116] - Quote
1. Spam ESS all over your enemies ratting systems, park a covert cyno alt next to each ESS 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
126
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 03:35:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Gunner wrote:1. Spam ESS all over your enemies ratting systems, park a covert cyno alt next to each ESS 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit. We've been over this
1. Park covert cyno alts all over your enemies ratting systems 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit.
The ESS doesn't enter the equation, because the neut in local means no one undocks in the first place. And hey, you don't have to spend 25 mil * systems to get blown up if they happen to form up more than you can chew. |
Falkor1984
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 09:23:00 -
[2118] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Gunner wrote:1. Spam ESS all over your enemies ratting systems, park a covert cyno alt next to each ESS 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit. We've been over this 1. Park covert cyno alts all over your enemies ratting systems 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit. The ESS doesn't enter the equation, because the neut in local means no one undocks in the first place. And hey, you don't have to spend 25 mil * systems to get blown up if they happen to form up more than you can chew.
Yup. It is funny how these people think ESS will acomplish anything. Sadly CCP seems to think it as well. Maybe they should play their own game more often (or at all). |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16595
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 10:31:00 -
[2119] - Quote
I have asked 2 simple questions in the comments thread, of the new blog on these. They have been ignored.
They have no intention on discussing these devices and it makes no difference what we say.
Quote:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 11:32:00 -
[2120] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I have asked 2 simple questions in the comments thread, of the new blog on these. They have been ignored.
They have no intention on discussing these devices and it makes no difference what we say.
Or possibly they answered the first of your questions in the Dev Blog already. And the second has been answered here repeatedly.
So.... Stupid/Useless questions don't receive answers, well done CCP.
Only risk to using ESS now. LP Market fluctuations & initial 30 mil cost. Potential gain. 25% profit overall.
If you are going to whine, at least do it on real facts. Not raging over out of date information. |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
961
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 11:51:00 -
[2121] - Quote
I was hoping that we would have had a statement from the power blocs of null, along the lines of 'all members are forbidden to purchase or deploy this device, the penalty for doing so is expulsion etc' until this horrible mechanic is significantly changed or removed from the game. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Gunner
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 13:07:00 -
[2122] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Gunner wrote:1. Spam ESS all over your enemies ratting systems, park a covert cyno alt next to each ESS 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit. We've been over this 1. Park covert cyno alts all over your enemies ratting systems 2. Make sure your BO team is in jump range. 3. Profit. The ESS doesn't enter the equation, because the neut in local means no one undocks in the first place. And hey, you don't have to spend 25 mil * systems to get blown up if they happen to form up more than you can chew.
I don't believe you. 8) |
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 13:23:00 -
[2123] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:thowlimer wrote:
First, you only get tags if someone hits the share all option, so that is at least one les hassle for the ratter and more headache for the red trying to steal your isk.
I'm sure this is just a typo. Take option, not share option, to get tags.
Quite right, got them turned around, the ratting(share) is isk, the grief/thief(take) is tags
|
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
425
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 18:17:00 -
[2124] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: It's worse with hostiles because they can plant the thing forcing you to destroy it before you can rat (and that's if they leave, which they won't). The time taken to shoot it is time you aren't ratting.
The only reason I see to shoot it is : a) you want LP from a different faction b) you want to 'move' the ESS to a different grid to remove hostile perch bookmarks c) ability to scoop it and dock, hoping they didn't bring one of their own to try to steal the money stored in system. You can just rat with an enemy one in space, hit share when done and log off leaving it there. Jenn aSide wrote:Why there is no one at CCP who can understand why this is bad is beyond me. This this deployable is: - Rubicon lore of "capsuleers flip off concord" being shoved down our throat with unnecessarily complicated mechanics. - A forced isk faucet nerf that CCP is refusing to have any discussion on or provide feedback. I dare say more people moving away from null ratting and going to high sec may have been an objective of this project, as a means of further reducing the amount of isk injected into the economy by null sec. Furthermore, that reduction is likely to be a high level metric to determine further iteration on the project. So more people going to run missions instead = null isk faucet down. ISK faucet down? Working as intended, leave it be. If anything, as a form of protest we should start mass ratting as much as possible. You know what affects the market far more than +/-5% changes to overall null ratting bounties? Tripling the ratting population. That's why CCP has no interest in bringing high sec income alts back to rat in null. It just can't happen without blowing inflation out of control with current mechanics. Which is why, as I proposed, the ESS should pool LP instead of ISK and pay out bonus LP instead of bonus ISK. It makes the flow of the ISK faucet more constant and easier to manage. It also makes it easier to iterate on null pve without having to revisit this module specifically for a full overhaul. If it proves successful, we can start talking about other options for the footmen of null to make non-raw ISK income. Because encouraging them to live in the space they own is going to be a far better conflict driver, than deployables with gimmicky mechanics. But none of this is going to change at this point. There is no more time to iterate on this before launch. It's the weekend. They will probably spend the weekend on QA of the already locked in final build, as it will be released on Tuesday. Once it's live, there will be less room for major changes around the general concept. This thing should really be pushed back to Rubicon 1.2 so it can get at least one more iteration cycle. And get a F&I thread, as it should have had from the start.
I just hope that everyone here realizes that this is a win for CCP either way that you look at it though its still terrible for the game
1. People move to hisec -> less nullsec isk added to game, working as intended
2. People protest rat without using module -> Increased player population in Nullsec and chances for pvp, working as intended
3. People do nothing different -> not enough information to say its a bad idea, who can really say its not working as intended
4. People rat with the module -> people like the new Module, Workign as intended Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Warmistress Severine
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 19:16:00 -
[2125] - Quote
Megacrap....
Now Ratters get Empire Navy LP. Because.... Ratters in 0.0 live in empire and they all have positive sec status... And it's megafun to do 30-40 jumps to collect this ****. And because we don't get mission-dogtags we can buy the cool stuff there... Like Ammo and implants....
Do you Dev's actually play this game?
This thing is crap. Now you "listened" to the 3 guys (2 of 'em prolly Dev alts) that actually liked this **** and "changed" it a little and made it even more crap then before.
And best of all.... No-one in 0.0 will ever use it.
So man up, cancel this crap and do something useful with your devtime. |
Marlin Kusoni
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 21:17:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Just adding my few thoughts, they might partially repeat other thoughts being already said here, but still:
- bounty payouts are valueable not just bcs they are huge or not, but bcs it's (almost) immediate ISK w/o needs to go somewhere and sell something and (probably) grind something else, like faction tags.
- LP itself doesn't have a fixed value, it is a variable.
- Inflation of Navy LPs wouldn't only hit hi-sec lvl 4 grinders who are so hated by most other players, but also it will affect significantly n00bs doing lvl 3s, bcs there are lvl 3 mission hubs in game which got 2 agents per station and 2-3 per system, all from Navy corps, and getting 2-3 missions before you actually fly to complete 'em, notably increases your performance and can be better than doing 1 mission per docking cycle for a Indi/R&D/SoE corp. Especially those who don't have yet a Noctis alt will feel it.
- Lvl 5s are already not worth doing besides you already got a setup more suitable for those than for multi-grinding lvl 4s. Ok, let's just burrow them under the hi-sec fence.
- Due to ESS offering higher ISK w/ higher risk involved (in theory), it is more likely to be used by large alliances who got plenty of connected systems under their control and thus, where there is much less risk to get it dropped by hostiles. Excuse me my language, but it appears like wiping arses of ultra-large coalitions once again, while making the situation for smaller ones more difficult.
- time needed to travel and/or cash the gained LPs doesn't bring you more ISK, it's the time you have to spend to get those you already grinded in hand. That time you have to spend, decreases your ISK/hr ratio.
- "Early null comers" will hate the system, bcs in most cases it's the straightforward nerf to their income. How do you imagine a lonely Caracal w/ skills @3 is going to fight a black-drop? Ok, 5 underskilled Caracals are not making much sense either.
The idea itself looks interesting - in theory, but it doesn't fit the current game at all. Pls, either postpone the introduction of it or deny it at all, bcs I smell a huge drama-lama coming if you ignore all the early feedback. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4475
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 23:00:00 -
[2127] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:
I just hope that everyone here realizes that this is a win for CCP either way that you look at it though its still terrible for the game
1. People move to hisec -> less nullsec isk added to game, working as intended
It means other things as well. More competiton in high sec missions and incursions. With missions is means less profit for the real high sec missions runners, for incursions in means worse. More people waiting to get in fleets, or making new communities (thus more competetions in sites or more drama ending up in incursions closed quickly). If this stuff starts happening, the real missions and incursion runners wil let CCP know (the same way they let CCP know after the 1st anom nerf).
Less ratters in null also means fewer ratting ships needing to be replaced, which everyone form ship builders to tech 2 mod makers to explorers (some of those ratting ships have deadspace mods on that sometimes need replacing) feeling it eventually.
Quote: 2. People protest rat without using module -> Increased player population in Nullsec and chances for pvp, working as intended
Don't see this happening. Not for long, people aren't going to choose to make less isk for long, especially when the PLEX clock starts ticking.
Quote: 3. People do nothing different -> not enough information to say its a bad idea, who can really say its not working as intended
IMO people doing nothing different is the only possible win for CCP and the game. Also not likely imo.
Quote: 4. People rat with the module -> people like the new Module, Workign as intended
Least likely of all. Most people don't read forums, come wednesday many many many pve players (ratters and high sec mission runners) are gonna know what has happened and suddenly discover the forums (like with any change. CCPs forum mod crews are going to get worked hard lol, and CCP is gonna learn (yet again.....) why making broad and seperate patches of their customers ticked off is bad business.
The double whammy is going to be the guy who rats in null sec with a domi when he discovers both his income has been nerfed and his omnidirectional links need cap LOL. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
961
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 23:04:00 -
[2128] - Quote
Don't forget the additional element of the guys in Highsec who grind Navy Missions for LP, they feel cheated that the players in null can now access their loyalty point stores without having to work at it like they do. This module might have been a fun idea in a dev's head once but absolutely no one outside of that one person's mind likes it.
Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
969
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 03:11:00 -
[2129] - Quote
Sorry, but you guys are delusional now screaming no-one likes it. Other than market fluctuations you loose no income using the ESS now no matter what happens, and you stand to gain 25% income. |
Monsieur Leon
Lopht Heavy Industries
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 22:25:00 -
[2130] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sorry, but you guys are delusional now screaming no-one likes it. Other than market fluctuations you loose no income using the ESS now no matter what happens, and you stand to gain 25% income.
First off I'm not making s**t. My Sov bill is 5 Billion a month, plus the cost of ships for ratting (over 1 bil) , the cost of jump fuel, POSes, etc etc.
Now I'm going to make 5% less because of some fictitious bullshit back story CCP dreamed up. Funny that is only effects null...
where the is no concord presence, where I literally pay for everything out of my own pocket. Where is my Concord SOV discount?
CCP doesn't care or have a clue what its like to live in null. They are sitting and writing code in a vacuum. Its just another way to screw with players who can generate enough isk to pay for their subscriptions thats it.
They want everyone to pay a subscription, that is their goal and also the reason that this crap module will be deployed no matter how much we complain or how valid the arguments. |
|
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
201
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 16:16:00 -
[2131] - Quote
You should be able to see these in the map like cynos Blue-Fire Best Fire |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 01:22:00 -
[2132] - Quote
Once again ESS is terrible because of the 5% reduction in overall income, if this were removed it would be alright as the benefits of using it would still involve risk. the static 5% reduction without using it is merely CCP spitting in the eye of everyone.
CCP knows its terrible as it never got a thread in Features and ideas which is pretty much standard practice for any new item being introduced.
This follows a common theme of null-sec nerfs over the past year In reverse order 1) Interceptor Changes 2) Forsaken hub nerf 3) Covert Cyno's for Tech 3s 4) Black Ops Range Increase
Going back further Probably not in order. 1) Jump Bridge Nerf; Removal of 2 JB's Per system, also the inability to take anything with a jump drive through a JB / TItan, While this change for titans not being able to bridge other capitals was well needed the inability to move jump freighters through jump bridges is still a bit wrong, as the reasoning behind it is anything that has a jump drive can't go through it, this was purposely made to include jump freighters as it could been anything that can't use a stargate.
2) True Sec Addition to Pirate Detection Arrays; This one was kinda needed but the way it was implemented removed many of the better sites from low end true-sec which made low true-sec systems once again the slums. This can be noted by CVA loosing providence directly after dominion then basically being it given back after the this change.
As for this being some lore tie in then what is the lore behind the isk being stored in a structure, since you know wallets are structures, then allowed to be stolen and awarded by the empires for stealing from someone who's apparently helping them by killing the pirates, to stick with this theme shouldn't someone stealing the loot also loose standings with that faction for betraying those that were helping them?
Anyway CCP, Message received you don't like nullsec.
|
Texty
State War Academy Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 01:30:00 -
[2133] - Quote
Patch Notes says that LP payout is initially "0.1 %". Does this mean it has been significantly increased from the original plan (0.15 LP per 1000 ISK) ? |
Uthgood Furfoot
Plan-It Xpress Reverberation Project
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 01:57:00 -
[2134] - Quote
This is my take on the ESS situation
there is one deployed here in null (non-sov) space where i currently reside (it was deployed by the friendly gang of pirates who live near the area (check my killboard for whom))
im out ratting since i really just wanted the LP trickle
i get paid the reduced bounties i get corp taxed on the reduced bounties i gain LP
i decieded to go collect the remainder of my share from their ESS
i collect the isk (hitting share and since im the only one ratting i get the rest of my bounty payout) i get taxed on this amt as well i gain LP
imho the entire second part of that is not even worth my effort to go get....
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
216
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 02:50:00 -
[2135] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:because the neut in local means no one undocks in the first place
Use corp cyno spy. Profit!
|
Marlin Kusoni
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 09:57:00 -
[2136] - Quote
And the S hit live. Hopefully, will generate enough negative reaction for them to listen us more attentively when they decide to introduce another Extremely Stupid Structure or whatever. |
Cyrek Ohaya
Perkone Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 11:44:00 -
[2137] - Quote
People... it's only a 5% reduction in bounties to generally reduce the easy isk fire hose on null that CCP wanted to find a solution to, if you don't like it, DON'T use it!
In the event your personas big ego is inconvenienced by one of these, use an alt to share the profits of it, IT will pay EVERYONE involved no matter where they are, or logged off.
Yes the pvp risk has been raised and that is what null should be about, also no one is going to put their ship at risk for 10m-20m worth of bounties. Closing statements: The goondrone tears in this thread are delicious, understand that there a lot more players with no voice on this board that supports CCP's idea. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8868
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 06:38:00 -
[2138] - Quote
So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with. My EVE Videos 59-15 |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
687
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 22:37:00 -
[2139] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with.
Perfectly correct, they have been doing it for years, but seem to be getting more God-like as time passes. |
stoicfaux
3979
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 08:09:00 -
[2140] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with. Don't forget to blame the CSM for approving these ideas. Or blaming the CSM for not speaking out publicly about "bad" ideas.
/due_to_the_NDA_we'll_never_know_which_it_is
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
|
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 10:47:00 -
[2141] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with. Don't forget to blame the CSM for approving these ideas. Or blaming the CSM for not speaking out publicly about "bad" ideas. /due_to_the_NDA_we'll_never_know_which_it_is
I'm assuming the ess is the reason the CSM minutes delay. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16628
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 15:55:00 -
[2142] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with. Indeed.
The funniest part is the tumble-weed type silence from them, in this and the other thread.
They have never truly explained why this thing require a 5% nerf to begin with. If you don't wish to use it, then you don't gain a thing. If you do, then sure, let there be some risk. But to out right nerf income simply to introduce the thing, is quite frankly, ridiculous.
One thing I would like to know and do not see why it as information, wasn't divulged. Just how may siphons have been used since deployment? I cannot see why this info should be kept secret, unless the figures are pretty dire and pride is once again, running the show.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
49
|
Posted - 2014.02.01 09:45:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Mag's wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with. Indeed. The funniest part is the tumble-weed type silence from them, in this and the other thread. They have never truly explained why this thing require a 5% nerf to begin with. If you don't wish to use it, then you don't gain a thing. If you do, then sure, let there be some risk. But to out right nerf income simply to introduce the thing, is quite frankly, ridiculous. One thing I would like to know and do not see why it as information, wasn't divulged. Just how may siphons have been used since deployment? I cannot see why this info should be kept secret, unless the figures are pretty dire and pride is once again, running the show.
They posted something like 200B+ siphoned off as if it was a huge amount of isk, but if you compare it to the amount of moongoo produced everyday its a laughable amount. Also the amount included the "hey lets try this" period. Now ppl hardly use the thing anymore. The same thing will happen to the ESS. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
16633
|
Posted - 2014.02.01 16:48:00 -
[2144] - Quote
Falkor1984 wrote:Mag's wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So I guess we've demonstrated that once a dev blog is made about a feature, no matter how bad it is and how much players argue that it's a really bad idea, it's going to show up anyway in some form or other and there's nothing that can be done about it.
CCP is too prideful to admit that sometimes its ideas are ******* ******** and should never make it into the game to begin with. Indeed. The funniest part is the tumble-weed type silence from them, in this and the other thread. They have never truly explained why this thing require a 5% nerf to begin with. If you don't wish to use it, then you don't gain a thing. If you do, then sure, let there be some risk. But to out right nerf income simply to introduce the thing, is quite frankly, ridiculous. One thing I would like to know and do not see why it as information, wasn't divulged. Just how may siphons have been used since deployment? I cannot see why this info should be kept secret, unless the figures are pretty dire and pride is once again, running the show. They posted something like 200B+ siphoned off as if it was a huge amount of isk, but if you compare it to the amount of moongoo produced everyday its a laughable amount. Also the amount included the "hey lets try this" period. Now ppl hardly use the thing anymore. The same thing will happen to the ESS. I agree. When I saw the figures they actually gave out, I found it laughable for two reasons.
1. It was such a small amounts as you have said yourself, when looking at the whole picture. 2. Thinking that we'd marvel at such amounts, simply because they said the word billion and mentioned it could produce 20K or interceptors.
Oh please, give us some credit.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 05:33:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Tahnil wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like how people keep mentioning these mythical Defense Fleets of good fights. Please do go on, continue to make it known you have no idea how nullsec works. To be honest, YOU (and others) seem not to understand, that CCP is trying to CHANGE the way how nullsec works. And actually they are even trying to improve it, for the welfare of the game. And I support that.
Interestingly enough, why is it in a PVP game all about improving the realism and welfare of the game, CCP does not want to encourage players to have to gather their own intelligence? Isn't that a role that should be filled by a live pilot?
I'm not sure why they would want to hand this information to players on a silver platter when players are perfectly capable to travel into hostile space and take the risk of gathering it on their own.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 05:48:00 -
[2146] - 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.
Gankers already have hotdrops, map intel (without even having to risk travel!) and invincible interceptors. I must have missed where they take any actual risks in shooting ratters?
Lord knows they actually do nothing but run when challenged.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 05:58:00 -
[2147] - Quote
thowlimer wrote:
As for those two statements an ESS will give increased payout/rat over time it is this time that is reset, ie if a 800k rat gives 200k payout just after deployment it will give(not sure but think it was in the ballpark of 5% more) after 2 hours which would come to 210k. so after being destroyed and redeployed it would be back down to 200k, but you could still retrieve the isk earnt during those two hours as long as noone used the share/take all optione before destroying it
I would like to know how one will get two hours of uninterrupted ratting in a system when any fool can look at the in-game map and detect how many NPC rats were killed and where they were killed.
Heck, why don't they just give them the enemy ship types and automatic location while we're at it? I wouldn't want anyone PvPing, to actually have to use fleet tactics or actually do some PvP to gain this information. Especially in the infinite vastness of space, where apparently, it is impossible to eek out a quiet existence.
|
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 06:05:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
OMG... you'll have some risk to get the full reward... How will you ever cope????
I wouldn't know. I'm not a ganker of non-combatants. I usually find pvp a bit more challenging and entertaining when the target can shoot back.
I can't imagine its really that rewarding to hotdrop 16 people to gank one Dominix PVE setup.
|
JTK Fotheringham
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
71
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 11:00:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Can't be bothered trawling through 107 pages, but what's the deal here:
Quote:A bit more on the batch sizes. WeGÇÖre increasing the batch size for the smallest ones, so they all have a batch size of at least 100. WeGÇÖre adjusting volume and blueprint material requirements accordingly so that the end result remains the same (i.e. each batch takes the same size as before and building requirements require the same amount of polymers proportionally).
I've been away for the last week, but note that the Hybrid Polymer reaction output has chanced (doubled or trebled) but the input quantities have stayed the same.
Working as intended? |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
688
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 12:36:00 -
[2150] - Quote
CCP --- How is the ESS thing working out then ?
Any stats on how many of these pieces of crap very useful deployable units have been used since the patch ?
|
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
371
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 21:45:00 -
[2151] - Quote
Well it appears that, quite predictability, CCP and all the "elite PvPers" were completely wrong about this piece of crap and everyone calling it broken garbage were right. Most nullsec entities are simply taking the unnecessary arbitrary 5% nerf and not using a ESS. Those few that are using a ESS have found several ways of doing so with very little risk either by sitting an alt right next to the ESS and hitting share the moment there's danger, putting the ESS in an anom with scrambling frigates, or even putting the ESS inside a low value DED complex.
Awesome conflict driver, CCP, mission accomplished. You absolutely did not add unnecessary layers of complexity to the game for zero purpose, nope, not at all. |
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard Renegade Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2014.02.04 22:16:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Making a post in an epic thread with over 100 pages now...
Seriously, the ESS should just be removed, and you owe us an apology. And don't forget to reimburse everyone that bought it. Pff! |
Marwa
Mine Your 0wn Business The Kadeshi
15
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 14:14:00 -
[2153] - Quote
i agree that ESS was not a thing that brought a new challenge or fun to the null sec. It is seen largely a nerf for nullsec ratters. So maybe we need different structures for different purposes. -¦ havent read all the responses here but i read some of them and there were some good ideas there like people gathering intel themselves. So why not a structure to gain intel for that system for example? Or something new that can bring some more fun and/or pvp activities. Decreasing the value of holding sov space in fact can decrease the will and enthusiasm of the people and why would they fight for a space that dont bring them some advantage? I personally would like some more different aspect for eve; some more jobs maybe. I am not too old in eve but even i can see and feel that, we need some real changes not some kind of nerfing some ship/space/module. People like me aim for something ingame and when they reach a point they can do what they like to do for a long time; they just see some nerfs. Some may think it is necessary but what is the point of building wall before a new player for his fun etc |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 13:07:00 -
[2154] - Quote
If isk sinks are so needed in the game, then why not nerf the ability to pay for accounts with isk?
WTF do you think is creating all this inflated isk in the first place? People with multiple non-cash accounts farming the crap out of null and high sec with 3+ simultaneous accounts. Do you honestly think either inflation or lag would be an issue if people actually had to pay for their accounts with cash? I'm betting you'd see a return to reasonable server numbers, like 11k-14k on at any one time.
Que the poor people crying right now that they cannot afford $15 a month per account ... |
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 13:10:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:People... it's only a 5% reduction in bounties to generally reduce the easy isk fire hose on null that CCP wanted to find a solution to, if you don't like it, DON'T use it!
In the event your personas big ego is inconvenienced by one of these, use an alt to share the profits of it, IT will pay EVERYONE involved no matter where they are, or logged off.
Yes the pvp risk has been raised and that is what null should be about, also no one is going to put their ship at risk for 10m-20m worth of bounties. Closing statements: The goondrone tears in this thread are delicious, understand that there a lot more players with no voice on this board that supports CCP's idea.
If you want to increase the pvp risk in null, let's start with nerfing cloaky campers and hotdrops. Or do they not have the nutsacks to uncloak or fight unless they outnumber their opponents 8:1?
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 13:08:00 -
[2156] - Quote
My Alliance has against considered objections now been forced to allow these abominations on an experimental basis for a period to asses there impact on PvE in the area,
Those that forced a CeO vote on the issue which has rumbled on since CCP first announced there prospective introduction have in the view of those more experienced in the working of EVE made a grave error of judgement, seeing only the 'Possibility of personal gain at the expense of there Alliance members rather than the rewards for all idea that was first moted in the DeV blogs.
It has been argued loud and long to the point of hysteria by some that in banning these structures across the Alliance our leadership was in some way 'Robbing' it's members of income, again seeing only the chance to get there hands on amounts of ISK they believe is rightfully there's to take at will when ever they so choose and are utterly unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the design of the structures operation is fundamentally flawed.
In this we have already seen when these have been deployed large numbers of PvE players depart the system believing that there income is rightly under threat by those that deployed the structure, the obvious potential for internal conflict in any Alliance allowing these structures is greatly eased by this behavior yet should it be this way, were one ignorant individual can clear a system for there own benefit by simply deploying an ESS, on the one hand they gain in that there is no longer competition for resources, on the other they loose the chance to steal other peoples ISK, had CCP considered this point maybe they wold have taken the time to compartmentalize the retained ISK/LP and made it unobtainable others or was the original intention not only to reduce PvE income but also to cause internal conflicts in Alliances by these methods.
Again another good idea poorly thought through by CCP in favor of the rabid PvP few. |
|
|
|
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] |