These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1501 - 2014-01-17 17:25:24 UTC
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
#1502 - 2014-01-17 17:28:03 UTC
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
#1503 - 2014-01-17 17:28:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Zircon Dasher
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
#1504 - 2014-01-17 17:30:58 UTC
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!Lol

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1505 - 2014-01-17 17:35:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadl
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.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1506 - 2014-01-17 17:38:04 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Actually, I feel compelled to respond to this:

Tahnil wrote:
Sorry to say so, but this argument is plainly ridiculous. You‘re 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
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1507 - 2014-01-17 17:42:32 UTC
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!Lol


I have no stuff, I RMT'd it all for fermented shark. Amonia based foods, best foods.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1508 - 2014-01-17 17:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Fix Sov
#1509 - 2014-01-17 17:48:21 UTC
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
#1510 - 2014-01-17 17:50:13 UTC
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
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1511 - 2014-01-17 17:51:50 UTC
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
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1512 - 2014-01-17 17:53:11 UTC
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Fix Sov
#1513 - 2014-01-17 17:53:51 UTC
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
#1514 - 2014-01-17 17:56:47 UTC
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
#1515 - 2014-01-17 17:59:15 UTC
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
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1516 - 2014-01-17 18:02:22 UTC
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Fix Sov
#1517 - 2014-01-17 18:13:31 UTC
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
#1518 - 2014-01-17 18:17:39 UTC
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
#1519 - 2014-01-17 18:21:31 UTC
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
#1520 - 2014-01-17 18:26:53 UTC
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.