These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shvak
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1021 - 2014-01-16 08:37:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Shvak
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%?
Sorry ignore this post, you are right I am wrong. Thanks for the maths lesson Lol
Brad314
Perkone
Caldari State
#1022 - 2014-01-16 08:38:46 UTC
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
Perkone
Caldari State
#1023 - 2014-01-16 08:39:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
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
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#1024 - 2014-01-16 08:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cor Six
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#post4108628

Elements 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 cant do mutch more then agree here. I feel this to be a good way to redo it aswell and get it to work in a good way
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1025 - 2014-01-16 08:44:23 UTC
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 and nullsec.
IrJosy
Club 1621
#1026 - 2014-01-16 08:44:38 UTC  |  Edited by: IrJosy
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
Perkone
Caldari State
#1027 - 2014-01-16 08:50:13 UTC
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.
…except 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
#1028 - 2014-01-16 08:52:41 UTC
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#post4108628

Elements 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
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1029 - 2014-01-16 08:56:29 UTC
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
The Dysfunctionals
#1030 - 2014-01-16 08:59:42 UTC
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
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#1031 - 2014-01-16 09:05:48 UTC
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
#1032 - 2014-01-16 09:07:04 UTC
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
#1033 - 2014-01-16 09:08:18 UTC
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
#1034 - 2014-01-16 09:09:12 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tippia wrote:
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)…
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
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#1035 - 2014-01-16 09:18:42 UTC
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#post4108628

Elements 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!"

Never not post.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#1036 - 2014-01-16 09:23:49 UTC
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?

Invalid signature format
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1037 - 2014-01-16 09:28:05 UTC
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
#1038 - 2014-01-16 09:28:13 UTC
seth Hendar wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tippia wrote:
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)…
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
#1039 - 2014-01-16 09:35:17 UTC
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 “just delete it” is actually the right outcome…
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1040 - 2014-01-16 09:39:54 UTC
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 “just delete it” is actually the right outcome…

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.