Find a way around it?

You might actually have to risk a PvP ship instead of an interceptor to grab the contents of ESS if you really want it.

What's the salvo damage of the fully-spawned anomaly compared to, say, the EHP of a battleship?

Raiding with an interceptor means the defenders just need to bring a small defense force.
Raiding with a PvP ship is fine too, of course, but what the point if all your defenses are going to be hit by the NPCs before the player's defenders even show up....

The point here is to commit defending "players" to the raiding threat, whatever the ships the raiders chose to use, and not let all the NPCs do the dirty work for the defending players. They are the ones unwilling to risk PvP ships when they set up the ESS that way...

No it doesnt, iv seen ceptor raid fleets run likes bitchs the instant a defence fleet shows up. Your just mad that you cant run around in a ceptor and get free isk.

From what I am told, outside of warping in a capital ship - nothing can survive the entire pocket on you at zero. If you are solo of course. Maybe a small RR gang or something, not sure.

Raiding with an interceptor means the defenders just need to bring a small defense force.

From what I am told, outside of warping in a capital ship - nothing can survive the entire pocket on you at zero. If you are solo of course. Maybe a small RR gang or something, not sure.

From what I understand is that you just want an easy and risk-free access to an unprotected ESS to steal stuff without getting scrammed by frigs and ganked by battleships for 3 minutes additionally scrammed inside the bubble. What about rats insta-lock your pod and kill it? Same logic. But it still doesn't happen. Placing the ESS in an anomaly is good because noone can protect it 24/7 and therefore it's a nice challange to steal. Isn't it?

I would totally agree to see access to ESS curved in such a way that interceptors for example can't access it, may be by having a special hacking module required on the ship to access it that would be beyond frig size ships capacity to fit.

My main point that you fail to see is anomaly deployment is simply making NPC doing the defending job for players, and thus the intended initial game design concept for ESS simply fails.

From what I am told, outside of warping in a capital ship - nothing can survive the entire pocket on you at zero. If you are solo of course. Maybe a small RR gang or something, not sure.

Please allow us to anchor ESS in highsec.

There's quite a lot of ships that can tank the anomaly damage long enough to steal it, but they're not uncatchable interceptors, so the people who would see themselves as ESS thieves don't try.

OK.. so it's one of those threads.
...
If you think fleets, counter-drops and CTAs are going to happen over a ESS you're a long way off from approaching a sensible discussion on the topic.

Do you even realize how you sound when you start a post this way? probably not...

while trying to put yourself on the "higher" ground, you seem to disregard that small scale PvPers could do hot drops... well, yes they can.

This said, I do agree that the inty buff and the simultaneous ESS release was unfortunate.. Still there are some solutions to this specific issue, one of them I suggested in previous posts, but placing ESS in anomalies should not remain the solution as this risk adds up to all the other risks already highlighted before, and prevents small scale engagement around them.

Please allow us to anchor ESS in highsec.

Yes. Let alone another feature where "this is the first iteration but we will release other versions later".

A highsec one would be great for mission runners. A lowsec one for FW farmers would be great too.

Do you even realize how you sound when you start a post this way? probably not...

while trying to put yourself on the "higher" ground, you seem to disregard that small scale PvPers could do hot drops... well, yes they can.

I would totally agree to see access to ESS curved in such a way that interceptors for example can't access it, may be by having a special hacking module required on the ship to access it that would be beyond frig size ships capacity to fit.

Give it up folks.
There is zero chance the cartels will allow CCP to alter the ESS mechanics, unless it is another buff.
The ISK is just too easy for the cartels to allow anyone to mess with it.

Though I am looking forward to when CCP introduces the ESS to the most intense high sec L4 missioning systems and Incursion systems, and then tell the high sec player base it is an improvement to their income and game content.

The higher ground to take here is "has actual experience of them", which I have, and you do not.

You'r wrong, I do. What kind of stuff do you take to gain this all-awareness powers? well, you should change your kool-aid, as it does not really work...

Plenty are trying to obfuscate my point, but my main issue is that the current anomaly NPC protection adds up to the already existing benefit of placing them in your home turf. With the risk of the ESS being in such anomaly, it makes sense that most of the steal attempts currently are done with interceptors, as you can warp out easily of the anomaly if the ESS has indeed been deployed there.

It does make sense the cartels want to keep that capability to cheaply defend them this way, but this is at the expense of the original game design described by CCP when they introduced the ESS, which is encouraging small gangs PvP action around them.

Now if CCP was to provide statistics to show that indeed, even in the anomalies, small gangs are taking on ESS and they serve their design purpose, then I'd be glad to back off. Until proven otherwise, though, I simply do not believe the ESS are filling their design purpose.

Whether or not CCP wanted the anomoly trick to occur, its a good brake on homogenous raiding interceptors - so its plain they aren't going to remove it.

[
Now if CCP was to provide statistics to show that indeed, even in the anomalies, small gangs are taking on ESS and they serve their design purpose, then I'd be glad to back off. Until proven otherwise, though, I simply do not believe the ESS are filling their design purpose.

I really liked the concept of the encounter surveillance system when it was added to the game, as it was designed to encourage more PvP interactions and fun raiding action, but because of some unforeseen uses (and the test of the players' minds) it kind of fell short of providing the extra interactions intended in most cases.

I believe a possible fix would be that an encounter surveillance system should be considered as an hostile object if installed inside an anomaly, and should be attacked and destroyed quickly by the red NPCs there, much like they destroy left behind drones.

The trick to hide it in an anomaly is a nice trick found by players, but it defeats the purpose of having players having to defend it. Kuddos to the players that have found this oversight, but it needs to be fixed so that it retains its original purpose and truly generates interactions.

Wah? Fly a ship that can handle it? Bring friends?

But then you can't be a brave solo space ronin who liberates isk from the corrupt goons~

Give it up folks.
There is zero chance the cartels will allow CCP to alter the ESS mechanics, unless it is another buff.
The ISK is just too easy for the cartels to allow anyone to mess with it.

Though I am looking forward to when CCP introduces the ESS to the most intense high sec L4 missioning systems and Incursion systems, and then tell the high sec player base it is an improvement to their income and game content.

You'r wrong, I do. What kind of stuff do you take to gain this all-awareness powers?

Plenty are trying to obfuscate my point, but my main issue is that the current anomaly NPC protection adds up to the already existing benefit of placing them in your home turf. With the risk of the ESS being in such anomaly, it makes sense that most of the steal attempts currently are done with interceptors, as you can warp out easily of the anomaly if the ESS has indeed been deployed there.

It does make sense the cartels want to keep that capability to cheaply defend them this way, but this is at the expense of the original game design described by CCP when they introduced the ESS, which is encouraging small gangs PvP action around them.

Now if CCP was to provide statistics to show that indeed, even in the anomalies, small gangs are taking on ESS and they serve their design purpose, then I'd be glad to back off. Until proven otherwise, though, I simply do not believe the ESS are filling their design purpose.

Your can be sarcastic toward those that play differently than you do, but much sarcasm can also be done toward those that hide behind their numbers, their ISK rents to their overlords, and as it is not enough obviously, their Npcs too..

This is why you guys defend the current status quo that reduces one of the game design that was encouraging solo or small gang raids... it is better to gain an extra 5% income +LP without having to do much to defend it...

Again, allowing ESS in anomalies is preventing the ESS to be what they were designed to be.

Your can be sarcastic toward those that play differently than you do, but much sarcasm can also be done toward those that hide behind their numbers, their ISK rents to their overlords, and as it is not enough obviously, their Npcs too..

This is why you guys defend the current status quo that reduces one of the game design that was encouraging solo or small gang raids... it is better to gain an extra 5% income +LP without having to do much to defend it...

The primary payout of mention is actually LP, which we take to highsec and bulk redeem, tanking your L4 mission rewards in effective value.
This is the best way of doing it, taking from highsec and giving straight to nullsec, and was pushed for by Mynnna. For all your ranting, the cartels just get more powerful every year.

I mean, look, I can admit it here in the open and nothing bad will happen.

The ESS was not designed to sit some where to only be defended by a fleet...

When the ESS was introduced, the goons collectively wailed like stuck pigs. Cries of "muh bounties!" echoed on the forums for weeks. It was actually quite entertaining. Eventually, CCP caved and changed the ESS.

I'm not saying they weren't right to complain about it or that the ESS was a particularly good idea in it's original form, but the above is precisely what happened, and the ESS isn't too likely to change at this point. vOv

Yup, you can, and nothing will indeed happen.
I agree with everything you said, because it has all played out precisely that way, and will continue to.

The only question is how long it will take to hammer high sec income generation so hard that high sec players can no longer support their gamestyle at all, and how many subs will be lost.

You guys have that roadmap, and given there are clearly zero repercussions anymore for revealing that, so why tell us all? Or is that something you leave for the dev's to do?

Stuck pigs don't usually constructively point out the flaws in the premise and offer a rational alternative that actually meets the stated designs of a thing, so your use of that analogy confuses me.
That said thank you for then winding back your comment to say we were right to suggest alternatives.

I think I missed the point of your post, though?

Stuck pigs don't usually constructively point out

"The ESS is shite and anybody who deploys them in our space will be purged for screwing friendlies, and every one of them will be shot on sight." is the same as "BAW my bounties! GRR CCP!" Okay, nice tinfoil hat there Dinsdale alt.

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.

Slow day at work, also calling the bulk of the ESS feedback from you guys at the time "constructive," well.....thanks for the laugh.

Also, I didn't wind my comment back. You guys did whine and moan. You guys did cry "muh bounties!", though not necessarily in those exact words. CCP did cave into your demands. You may or may not have been justified in your initial response. None of those statements are in conflict with each other.

As to the point of my post? To inform those that weren't there as to what occurred at the time of the ESS release and why it isn't terribly likely that we'll see a change in the ESS any time soon.

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.

Am I not allowed to play solo? As far as I know CCP made this game a sandbox for all types of play, not just the one you represent.

How about this:
CCP remove the ability to place an ESS inside an anom. To balance this, they remove the ability of any ship that has attempted to steal from one from:
- Cloaking for 5minutes
- Being immune to warp bubbles for 5 minutes

Would you support this, or are you going to continue stamping your feet and asking for a risk-free scenario?

I see the discussion that already lead to the dumbing down of the ESS from its original design presented by SonyClover as a fair amount of measures in favor of the defenders, in exchange for the benefit they get from it, and I will continue to claim that the anomaly "exploit", in fact, has changed the initial design concept: A defense force made of players scrambling to protect their extra income
The key point with the ESS was to force player driven action, even if it is only to scramble a ship to fend off a poorly equiped raider.

The thing you seem not willing to admit is that the advantages in that medium ground described by Fozzie is already in favor of the defense, without the NPCs anomalies added in the mix:

1/ alliance intel usualy allows fair warning of incoming threats. intel is also usally able to size up the threat and the ships types, even before the raiders start their warp to the ESS.
2/ Home turf advantage means ships than can be scrambled can be adapted to the existing intel. It also means that mobilizing bodies for reinforcements is easier, and jump bridges networks widen the range of bringing more bodies to defend.
3/ Sharing requires 30 seconds, where taking requires 3 minutes. With an alt posted at the ESS, sharing can be done even before the first raiders jump into system if they started from too far away.
4/ ... which leads to the fact that the ESS may be empty, the raiders still have to commit to check it out and deal with the bubble.
5/ sharing does not generates token, as it is immediately payed out, while taking require looting the wreck and escaping alive with this cargo, and all the way back to safe space.
6/ obviously the bubble and warp scramble effect and being stuck in place for 3mn to complete the looting.
7/ and I would put the fact that LP points are paid regardless of what happens to the ISK in the ESS as an extra benefit for the defenders

I would be curious to hear your version of the advantages of the raiders and see how they really compare to the defenders' advantages above. They must be overwhelmingly superior to justify this extra layer of NPCs protection you are defending so much.

I would support something similar:
- a ship with the ESS loot token can't activate a cloak, and it's align time is affected as if it was running a MWD
- To activate an ESS you need a specific high slot module installed, for sharing or taking alike.
- sharing takes 90 seconds instead of 30 seconds.

So some more dancing about the point you are trying to say: "I think it is nonsense that I can't run around in a solo interceptor and steal with no actual risk" - since my proposed solution leaves everything else equally viable whilst making interceptors not uniquely invulnerable to the theft process. Your idea is proposed entirely around leaving interceptors uniquely risk-free.

You are misrepresenting whati I am lobbying for for the sake of your own lobbying and justifications to keep a comfortable status quo.

One of the reasons I am mentioning a module to access ESS is that it can then be set with fitting requirements that prevents interceptors to access the ESS. I said it before in that thread, I would not be against preventing frigate size ships to access an ESS. My goal is simply to make ESS defense a player driven action.

I have yet to see from the goons that are so active in defending the current status quo a list of the overwhelming advantages raiders have that would justify this extra layer of NPCs protection, that was more an oversight of CCP than anything else (much like the WH watch thingy that got addressed...)

You can repeat your mantra as much as you want, I am still lobbying for seeing the ESS be what Game design intended it to be: a source of ISK that is not defended by NPCs but by players, in exchange for the extra benefits they provide.

I am not going to be cowed shut by scornful and/or baseless statements made to diminish my views

You can repeat your mantra as much as you want, I am still lobbying for seeing the ESS be what Game design intended it to be:

Where exactly does it say that an ESS had to be used a certain way? I'm asking for specific "you can't put it there" posts/statements.

In the attributes where it says:

May be anchored in Wormhole Space: 0

Ummm we aren't talking about worm hole space placement really.

Why not? It was the single most useful place for them outside of their intended use.

They were a great idea the way they operated before they were "fixed", but that way of using them was apparently too fabulous to allow.

Because that's not what the OP is talking about? If you have an alternate argument, and you haven't already, start a separate thread.

Yeah, but it is though. The very fundimental point of his argument is where the thing is allowed to be placed, and why it is or is not allowed to be placed somewhere and whether that generates content.

My comments are entirely within the OP's discussion parameters.

Please do not attempt dictate to me which threads I may or may not comment in, thank you.

Empty poast

Second, the OP is talking about his views on placing an ESS in an anomaly. He doesn't want that to be allowed. So, that is completely different from what you are talking about.

You really like to read anything you like and regurgitate it into troll food dont you?

Seriously.

You should try going to some of those seminars your guys hold on not being terrible

Because you seriously need to buck up your forum replies, me laddo, you are letting your side down

Except the two are related because CCP has come along and changed one of the two uses. This indicates that they're ok with the other use, or at least they're nowhere near as worried about it. Either way it has relevance to this conversation.

And there it is. The usual crutch for every witless oaf on forums that can't come up with anything.
So, are you going to say anything useful about my reply or just try to trash it some more. lol

I dont need to.

I made my comments on the OP, you said they were not relevant and I told you were wrong and why, at which point you had a shitfit.

So, as I said, do yourself a favour and try replying in a way worthy of that Alliance tag you carry, ok?

It's amazing what can be read in to with text these days.

Uh huh

You dont have anything, so you project your own inabilities and insecurties onto my poasts.

Bravo, at least you got past the whole "Basicas of Poasting 101" class.

So, you going to continue to derail or do you have something to actually add?

What are your opinions on placing ESS in an anomaly?
Do you also believe that people should not be allowed to place an ESS in an anomaly like the OP does?

I can see where it could be considered an exploit but as I am not against exploits that take advantage of a mechanical ability of an object I don't see what the problem is.

If the Devs think it is wrong to place it there, they should have the rats aggress on player structures. I cant see a reason why they aggress on abandoned drones and not deployables.

I agree in some respects. That would mean that rats would have to attack a lot more objects. Like Mobile Depots, anchored bubbles, Mobile Tractor Units, etc. That would take a profound amount of coding to get the rats to distinguish which object to attack and which not to I think. That could be quite an undertaking and probably not something that would be a priority if I were a programmer in CCP.

If PlayerOwned=1 and no aggro from any extrenal source then Attack, non?

But as it stands, I dont feel they should change the device itsself further

Otherwise we are back to the situation with the WH deployment: A useful effect of the device removed, and it now having no use for a sizable proportion of players.

I can honestly understand what you're saying about that. How exactly was it use as an "early warning system"? I'm not even sure if that's what was said.
You said sizable portion of players. How many are there? I really don't know.

Burglar alarm was what I said. Its easy enough to figure out how.

You want an actual figure on the amount of people who dont rat in null?

More than 0, less than n where n = all players

I'm sure at this point that we can agree on some points.
Placement, in of itself, is a broad issue.
Wormhole use is one issue and I just figured it out. Placing the ESS right on the worm hole so that when someone comes through it broadcasts in local chat that some one is there. That's brilliant. I suppose CCP could have just added something to the ESS saying that it can't be placed within 150km from a worm hole and still made it available to the population. I don't know how difficult that would be though.
The subject at hand was an ESS in an anomaly but we both agree to enough of a degree that it isn't a problem so that part is solved.

Funny.
I was just asking if there was a rough number or any published amounts. That's all. hehe

In the attributes where it says:

May be anchored in Wormhole Space: 0

See, its good to talk.

Even if they changed it so you could deploy it within 150km, there are still ways to "exploit" its capabilities.

By making it null only, this limits it to the very edge of worthlessness, and not allowing it in an anom would reduce it to as useless as the scan inhibitor

This is a great example, because players were using it do something that was unintended AND bad - CCP patched it very, very quickly.
If CCP were unhappy with their use in anoms, they could quick-fix by not allowing them anywhere near a large collidable object, which are in any anom.

You also better believe that this use has been petition-tested and is not an exploit.

From what I am told, outside of warping in a capital ship - nothing can survive the entire pocket on you at zero. If you are solo of course. Maybe a small RR gang or something, not sure.