These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

First post First post First post
Author
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#721 - 2014-01-15 17:58:16 UTC
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% – 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
#722 - 2014-01-15 18:00:22 UTC
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
#723 - 2014-01-15 18:00:34 UTC
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
#724 - 2014-01-15 18:01:25 UTC
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 then…

…and all we'd be left with is the discussion of whether or not one is needed to begin with.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#725 - 2014-01-15 18:03:35 UTC
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
Doomheim
#726 - 2014-01-15 18:06:13 UTC
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. Roll

Is there a way to open a portal to Bizarro World and get the CCP dev team from there?
Zerb Arus
WormSpaceWormS
#727 - 2014-01-15 18:06:33 UTC
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.
 ➩ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages.
 ➩ It has been suggested many times in this thread
 ➩ It just feels logical

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#728 - 2014-01-15 18:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
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
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#729 - 2014-01-15 18:07:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Keuvo
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.
 ➩ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages.
 ➩ It has been suggested many times in this thread
 ➩ 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 Roll
Hi O
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#730 - 2014-01-15 18:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Hi O
Hi O wrote:


1. Shockingly stupid.



Seconds before the ship explodes
Shvak
Shvak Corporation
#731 - 2014-01-15 18:12:55 UTC
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
#732 - 2014-01-15 18:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
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 then…

…and 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
Utassi Security
#733 - 2014-01-15 18:14:49 UTC
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.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

IrJosy
Club 1621
#734 - 2014-01-15 18:15:19 UTC
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
#735 - 2014-01-15 18:16:22 UTC
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.
 ➩ People have been longing to use hacking devices on non-NPC structures for ages.
 ➩ It has been suggested many times in this thread
 ➩ 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
#736 - 2014-01-15 18:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP SoniClover
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
Utassi Security
#737 - 2014-01-15 18:19:19 UTC
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.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#738 - 2014-01-15 18:20:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
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.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#739 - 2014-01-15 18:20:51 UTC
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

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#740 - 2014-01-15 18:22:05 UTC
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.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.