If you die to some pitiful k-space rats, how do you expect to fight a defense fleet with your small gang?

Nowhere in that design brief do I see "1 pilot in 1 frigate to steal from every ESS in Deklein"

you use the 1 pilot/1 frigate thingy as a leitmotiv to justify your precious layer of NPC protection, but with three minutes plus intel time, defenders can easily fend off a one player/one ship raid. Right now, the NPCs do that for them without them having to move a finger.

in the same article I mentioned earlier, Fozzie mentioned: ... It was too easy for fast ships to steal ISK from the ESS before the local residents would be able to scramble their defenses ... and he goes on implying that this issue had been addressed with the released design. That did not incorporate the NPCs, and painting this as emergent gameplay is just a ploy to make sure this comfortable extra 5% income remains locked in, at the expense of those that have a different play style than yours.

you use the 1 pilot/1 frigate thingy as a leitmotiv to justify your precious layer of NPC protection, but with three minutes plus intel time, defenders can easily fend off a one player/one ship raid. Right now, the NPCs do that for them without them having to move a finger.

in the same article I mentioned earlier, Fozzie mentioned: ... It was too easy for fast ships to steal ISK from the ESS before the local residents would be able to scramble their defenses ... and he goes on implying that this issue had been addressed with the released design. That did not incorporate the NPCs, and painting this as emergent gameplay is just a ploy to make sure this comfortable extra 5% income remains locked in, at the expense of those that have a different play style than yours.

Help me CCP I can't fight emergent gameplay. Please NERF!!!

in the same article I mentioned earlier, Fozzie mentioned: ... It was too easy for fast ships to steal ISK from the ESS before the local residents would be able to scramble their defenses ... and he goes on implying that this issue had been addressed with the released design. That did not incorporate the NPCs, and painting this as emergent gameplay is just a ploy to make sure this comfortable extra 5% income remains locked in, at the expense of those that have a different play style than yours.

Wrong...
from here

The Encounter Surveillance System is a structure that allows nullsec pirate hunters to optionally increase the rewards of their efforts in exchange for increased risk. This has the effect of giving players more control over their risks and rewards they encounter, as well as providing engaging player interaction as small groups of players can roam through hostile space and attempt to steal riches from the ESS modules deployed throughout nullsec space.

When we announced the last iteration of the ESS structure, many players indicated to us that they believed that the risk/reward balance of the structure was out of whack. It was too easy for fast ships to steal ISK from the ESS before the local residents would be able to scramble their defenses, and the potential benefits would not be worth the increased risk to playerGÇÖs wealth generation.

The game design was really clear about these goals, and the anomaly issue has just replaced "scrambling the defense fleets" with "let the NPCs do the defense job, and may be we can finish of the remaining of the raiders, after they have been under NPC fire for 3mn...".

This is not what was intended.

It was too easy for fast ships to steal ISK from the ESS before the local residents would be able to scramble their defenses, and the potential benefits would not be worth the increased risk to playerGÇÖs wealth generation.

you use the 1 pilot/1 frigate thingy as a leitmotiv to justify your precious layer of NPC protection, but with three minutes plus intel time, defenders can easily fend off a one player/one ship raid. Right now, the NPCs do that for them without them having to move a finger.

in the same article I mentioned earlier, Fozzie mentioned: ... It was too easy for fast ships to steal ISK from the ESS before the local residents would be able to scramble their defenses ... and he goes on implying that this issue had been addressed with the released design. That did not incorporate the NPCs, and painting this as emergent gameplay is just a ploy to make sure this comfortable extra 5% income remains locked in, at the expense of those that have a different play style than yours.

It is not about dying or not to the rats, it is about the rats being used to help a defense that was initially designed to be exclusively player driven.

It's very much "emergent gameplay" that we have found a way of making interceptors vulnerable to an ESS. Anything else is still able to deal with the rats and steal the loot.

Rats don't aggress pods so you're 100% safe to steal the ESS in one.

You are clearly attempting to make thing easier for the visitors to steal.

.. in the same way that you are clearly attempting to make your extra 5% income more easy to protect.

Isn't that the nature of debating about an issue? You may not perceive it as such but others like me do.

CCP should trust that the changes that they did to the ESS were reasonabley balanced, this anomaly thing is putting this advantage too far into the defenders' corner.

In fact, most of the time I attempted a raid on an ESS that ended up being in an anomaly, there was already a pod belonging to the defenders ready to click the share button, and it could say there all day long without being attacked. This is another issue with the ESS in anomalies, and I did not really want to focus my point on that, but thanks for pointing it out too.

Interceptors are already vulnerable at the ESS if defenders scramble one or two ships on their own. The rats just allows defenders to be lazy about protecting their extra 5% income.

Please allow us to anchor ESS in highsec.

You realize that even the defenders get aggressed by the rats right?

I'm starting to think your trolling everyone.

I am defending a point of view that you do not share. If that makes me a troll in your eyes, so be it... it's reciprocal then.

In fact, most of the time I attempted a raid on an ESS that ended up being in an anomaly, there was already a pod belonging to the defenders ready to click the share button, and it could say there all day long without being attacked. This is another issue with the ESS in anomalies, and I did not really want to focus my point on that, but thanks for pointing it out too.

So thanks for confirming, absolutely, that the problem here is you want to run around solo and have no trouble stealing from them.

Oh, sure, you're trying to dress it up as some top level "unintentional" design elements, but Eve is all about things being used in unintended ways. It's only a problem if there's a balance issue, which there isn't.

First example that comes to mind: Hilmar gave a presentation at fanfest about his early experiences with Eve. He talks about can mining and how it surprised him. See, jet cans were only put in the game because items can't just sit in space within Eve's database, they need to be inside something. They were never intended for mining into, as a consequence to this, his intended progression of mining in eve went out the window, because the players were using completely unrelated tools/the environment to rapidly speed up how quick they could obtain minerals by working in teams using jetcans.

Another example: the design intent of carriers never really considered using them in a spider-tanking formation, leaving them open to be both defensive and offensive. The triage module specifically disables a carriers combat ability when it chooses to be in 'logistics mode.'

Another example: many ships intended to be armour brawlers are used as kiting shield setups in small gang, because the meta favours mobility more than ever.

Another example: Incursions weren't designed to be farmable for days, they were meant to be fought off in a short timeframe. Players choose to keep them around for as long as possible to min/max their income.

Should CCP force incursions to follow their design aims, eliminating 80% of their income? Should CCP force carriers to choose a role? Should CCP re-name jetcans to "OMG no ore in these what are you guys doing"? Should CCP disallow shield extenders on a Brutix?

CCP are making a sandbox game. Their goal is to give people sand and see what they do with it. For as much as possible, they don't then run around going "no no no I wanted you to build a castle what is this a windmill god you players are the worst".
No, and neither should they.

To setup an ESS in an anom takes several minutes of buggering around every day, and can be undone by a single person in much less time. To work around it as a defensive measure, requires only a very small amount of ingenuity/creative thinking.

I think basically the tl;dr of this thread, is that you have failed the only test an Eve player needs to pass: the ability to adapt.

OP about now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlUx60oVEAI

I really don't see what you could possibly be lobbying for here aside from trying to make it easier to steal from them and thicken your own wallet.

What you are proposing is that the unquenchable interceptors be allowed to steal from them with no risk.

...and you are lobbying to make it easier for you to fatten your own wallet with a juicy 5% income increase and LP points. Fine, we are both lobbyists for a cause, just not the same.

I see the use of the anomalies AS a defensive measure that should put the advantage with the defenders. A defenders job is to find the best way possible to defend. The placing of the ESS in an anomaly is an excellent way to utilize a part of the game as a defensive measure.

So thanks for confirming, absolutely, that the problem here is you want to run around solo and have no trouble stealing from them.

OP about now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlUx60oVEAI

Actually bounties were nerfed so its our income back to normal.