These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Psychotic Monk for CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2013-03-11 18:18:50 UTC
Well, that used to be the case with POSs before fuel blocks. CCP decided they preferred a more flat way of doing it, and undoing a decision is extremely rare here in space. But that's not the only problem. If you're being hit and you happen to be online it's fairly trivial to offline mods and simply online hardeners and EWAR mods. If the mods are already anchored transforming a POS into a dickstar can be quite trivial. The fuel cost would only go up for the time it was being shot at and go back down as soon as the danger had passed.

I'm not satisfied with that solution at all, honestly.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#82 - 2013-03-11 18:24:22 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I'm still open to other solutions, though. Anyone else have kickass thoughts on how to solve this?

I think in large part this may be solved by the future POS rework. On the last (large) industrial tower I had access to, the owner anchored a ton of defensive modules but kept them offline unless they were needed. With a POS rework using "power cores" we might end up without the ability to preemptively anchor for all eventualities (AFAIK you could theoretically anchor for a deathstar, dickstar, and industrial base all in one go right now, and just activate what you needed).

Of course, you then you run into problems of how long it should take to activate/deactivate modules, unanchor (or detach) them, etc... Timers are balls.

Anyway, I want to commend you on an articulate candidacy announcement thread. You have one of my votes.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2013-03-11 18:29:24 UTC
Thanks, Karl. I'll need all the votes I can get. Tell your friends.

I would love to see this sorted out in the form of a POS rework. That's one of the reasons I was stoked to hear about modular POSs and extremely sad to hear them delayed (which often means scrapped). I think Two Step was absolutely right to raise a stink about it and I hope they get put back on the schedual very soon.

But, unfortunately, that's not how we've seen CCP work. The reality tends to be that once it's out of sight it's out of mind. :(

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#84 - 2013-03-11 18:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Tell your friends.

Sig updated, I'll add one in-game and EVEmail the corp as well.

Psychotic Monk wrote:
But, unfortunately, that's not how we've seen CCP work. The reality tends to be that once it's out of sight it's out of mind. :(

I started right before Incarna so, aside from that prime example of uselessness, my experience may be a bit different than yours. I think Two Step's threadnought may have been a wake-up call for CCP to keep a rework in mind and I suspect they'll end up iterating on POSes in smaller steps to begin with before ramping up to a full-blown new system. Maybe two or three expansions?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#85 - 2013-03-11 18:46:22 UTC
June Ting wrote:
From the discussion I'm seeing here so far, it sounds like people want it to be easier to hit industry POSes in W-space or highsec, but want to preserve the current difficulty of hitting main staging towers in W-space to avoid the little guys getting stomped on. I can definitely see how it'd be frustrating to be unable to destroy someone's no-risk reaction farms in a C1 (especially a C1/high where there are zero risks associated with getting moongoo and fuel in).

I generally would agree with this train of thought; as a little guy (we dabble in a C2 on the side), it's a useful property that we can't easily be evicted outright from our C2 unless we make a serious enemy, and I'd be okay with it being easier to hit our industry under the farms and fields doctrine (we happen to put our reaction POSes in sov null though because we're better able to protect that).

I'm pretty sure though that increasing the CPU requirements of hardeners/ECM modules would be sufficient to make it an either or of "have useful CPU for running reactions" or "have enough useful CPU to harden"; CHA's don't require *that* much CPU, and SMA's require none, so staging towers can be dickstarred without issues.


Well speaking for myself, I don't want to make it easier to hit towers in W-space at all. Dreads are already a thing in W-space, and they're more than efficient enough to clear out any towers.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#86 - 2013-03-11 18:52:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well speaking for myself, I don't want to make it easier to hit towers in W-space at all. Dreads are already a thing in W-space, and they're more than efficient enough to clear out any towers.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you have no objection to me setting up a risk-free moongoo reaction farm on dickstarred towers in C1 W-space where there is ~0 risk of someone bothering to set up a large tower of their own, put up (and risk during build process) multiple billions of isk into building a dread in that hole, and then blapping my towers? (and then SDing the dread because it is not reusable for any other purpose)?

The point of reactions only being usable on towers in lowsec/nullsec/w-space is to make it feasible for people to disrupt them. In practice, it seems like it's impossible to disrupt a C1 reaction farm and that therefore there is zero risk involved.

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#87 - 2013-03-11 21:29:45 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Well, that used to be the case with POSs before fuel blocks. CCP decided they preferred a more flat way of doing it, and undoing a decision is extremely rare here in space. But that's not the only problem. If you're being hit and you happen to be online it's fairly trivial to offline mods and simply online hardeners and EWAR mods. If the mods are already anchored transforming a POS into a dickstar can be quite trivial. The fuel cost would only go up for the time it was being shot at and go back down as soon as the danger had passed.

I'm not satisfied with that solution at all, honestly.

Fair enough, was just tossing it out. I'm glad to hear someone thought of it before, disappointed it didn't work out. In that case, not sure I have anything other than increasing the cost of the mods themselves, which has the consequence of making smalls harder to toughen up, but maybe that's not such a bad thing.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#88 - 2013-03-12 12:45:04 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ P0N-3
Psychotic Monk wrote:
Malc:

Let's follow this line of logic for a second. Let's assume these things came to exist and large towers started getting hit in any wormhole where people thought they weren't liable to get murdered by ten thousand t3's and a Bhaalgorn. Two solutions to that present themselves immediately. 1) Wormhole corps have to start covering more TZs. This would mean larger grouping of wormhole players. 2) Wormhole corps would have to start splitting their operations into more towers, increasing the pain to siege a relevant amount of that WHs assets.

Both of these increase the barrier to entry and the workload on wormhole corps. From the couple of monthes I lived in a wormhole I can tell you that the amount of effort wormholers go through for their lifestyle is significant and I don't see any advantage for anyone should more get heaped on to them. So, yeah, that's a strike against the mini-dread. More and more the solution seems to lie in a POS rebalance or a fuel cost rebalance.

I'm still open to other solutions, though. Anyone else have kickass thoughts on how to solve this?


Perhaps not the most kickass of ideas, but it occurs to me that refining arrays and so on are already painful to online with any sort of defenses or anything else in the tower. If refining arrays were more worth using, people might leave them online more, thereby cutting into their defenses. A canny group would of course leave extra defenses to online, but that's going to be true of all POSes everywhere. It's a little fix, but given how awful it is to juggle defenses and industry already (and how many roles it requires you to give to your industry people), it might have some trickle-down effects towards weakening of industry defenses.

Or, building off your idea of a POS "rebalance" like a ship rebalance, an ORE POS structure with industry bonuses that has less base HP or worse resists (and, of course, moving parts)?
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#89 - 2013-03-12 15:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
If the issue is an impedance mismatch between POSes in high sec and POSes in WH space (and, having access to both, I agree that there is), then how about some ideas that depend on space:

1) High sec towers require starbase charters. Instead of lasting for a fixed amount of time, have them last four times longer for small towers and twice as long for medium towers, modified additionally by the corp's current faction standing. This would incidentally help close one of the more obnoxious loopholes involved in setting up a high sec tower.

2) Buff small and medium towers so that they're easier to work from in high sec and easier to live in in WH space.

3) Use faction standings to make smaller towers more attractive (again) along the lines that most high sec people care about so that there's more of an incentive to use them. Maybe along the lines of 1., there would be a refining and manufacturing [edit: durrrr, and BP research] efficiency bonus related to faction standing that was best for small towers and worst for large ones. (This, incidentally, would dovetail neatly with a nullsec implementation where refining and manufacturing efficiency would increase with whatever measures are used to determine system usage in a farms & fields system. The problem is, what to do with WHs?)

4) Accept that, in a game where loss has real consequences, there are always going to be people willing to pay a steep price to put up a sufficiently daunting fortification to convince 99.9% of would-be attackers to leave them alone, and this is fine, as long as there's a price to pay for enjoying it. This, in particular, is what what makes wormholes and high sec both friendly to small corps.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
c 3 po
League 0f Shad0ws
#90 - 2013-03-12 20:49:51 UTC
Perhaps a more elegant and far easier to implement answer to the high sec pos problem is to ban the use of shield hardeners on them in systems 0.5 and above. and as always i must stress the importance of them not to be able to be taken down during a wardec.

no hardeners and no unanchoring during a dec would

1) would make them more vulnerable to battleship fleets
2) keeps wormhole poses similarly tough
3)doesn't require the implementation of a new mod or ship class that may take years to roll out

ಠ_ರೃ
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2013-03-12 21:09:19 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
If the issue is an impedance mismatch between POSes in high sec and POSes in WH space (and, having access to both, I agree that there is), then how about some ideas that depend on space:

1) High sec towers require starbase charters. Instead of lasting for a fixed amount of time, have them last four times longer for small towers and twice as long for medium towers, modified additionally by the corp's current faction standing. This would incidentally help close one of the more obnoxious loopholes involved in setting up a high sec tower.

2) Buff small and medium towers so that they're easier to work from in high sec and easier to live in in WH space.

3) Use faction standings to make smaller towers more attractive (again) along the lines that most high sec people care about so that there's more of an incentive to use them. Maybe along the lines of 1., there would be a refining and manufacturing [edit: durrrr, and BP research] efficiency bonus related to faction standing that was best for small towers and worst for large ones. (This, incidentally, would dovetail neatly with a nullsec implementation where refining and manufacturing efficiency would increase with whatever measures are used to determine system usage in a farms & fields system. The problem is, what to do with WHs?)

4) Accept that, in a game where loss has real consequences, there are always going to be people willing to pay a steep price to put up a sufficiently daunting fortification to convince 99.9% of would-be attackers to leave them alone, and this is fine, as long as there's a price to pay for enjoying it. This, in particular, is what what makes wormholes and high sec both friendly to small corps.


What I'm seeing in your proposal is an advantage to highsec industry when it's already much better than nullsec industry. You mention that these bonuses would carry over based on the metrics of a new Farms & Fields sov system, but as we have absolutely no indication what that would entail, specifically, we seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Further, that doesn't actually help the problem of taking down large towers in these situations. I don't feel this is the solution we're looking for at all.

Yes, we could accept that people are willing to pay a steep price for highly decreased risk, but the cost of a large tower and hardeners/ECM is not significant. When put in the light of the profit obtained from a well-run large POS, the cost of the POS and mods are really quite cheap. Additionally, it's very strongly my feeling that safety should be something you do, rather than something you buy or something you have.

C 3 PO:

Limiting hardeners in highsec seems like a decent response. A limit on taking down towers during wars limits the ability to mess with people taking down POS towers (by killing/bumping the dude taking the stuff down and stealing it, for instance). Besides that, if your goal is to free up a moon, then having your opponent take down the POS is exactly what you want.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#92 - 2013-03-12 21:30:29 UTC
June Ting wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well speaking for myself, I don't want to make it easier to hit towers in W-space at all. Dreads are already a thing in W-space, and they're more than efficient enough to clear out any towers.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you have no objection to me setting up a risk-free moongoo reaction farm on dickstarred towers in C1 W-space where there is ~0 risk of someone bothering to set up a large tower of their own, put up (and risk during build process) multiple billions of isk into building a dread in that hole, and then blapping my towers? (and then SDing the dread because it is not reusable for any other purpose)?

The point of reactions only being usable on towers in lowsec/nullsec/w-space is to make it feasible for people to disrupt them. In practice, it seems like it's impossible to disrupt a C1 reaction farm and that therefore there is zero risk involved.


Are people using C1s for reaction farms in practice? The logistics seem like they would be annoying.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#93 - 2013-03-12 21:38:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Are people using C1s for reaction farms in practice? The logistics seem like they would be annoying.

I've never personally set one up, but the logistics would be super easy with a C1 with a high static, and far easier than any logistics involving lowsec or nullsec -- you wouldn't even need a cloaky hauler or a jump freighter, just a itty V, a prober, and a pair of eyes to watch your static.

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#94 - 2013-03-12 21:41:43 UTC
You'll excuse me being the tiniest bit sceptical about people who say things are "super easy" when they've never actually attempted them

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#95 - 2013-03-12 21:50:34 UTC  |  Edited by: June Ting
I can tell you that my C2 with highsec static is stupidly easy to manage. At least twice a week, we get a static within 4 jumps of a trade hub, and I leave my prober cloaked off the hole, load up a Badger Mark II with the supplies we need, and bring it straight in and warp to 0 at my tower. There is no challenge involved in it whatsoever, and no need to invest in expensive hulls or high-skilled characters to get that bit of logistics done.

I choose to do my reactions in sov null because of the fuel bonus and suck up having to pay jump freight or paying alliancemates to make cloaky hauler runs, but if I didn't have sov null I assure you that a C1 or C2 with a highsec static would be my very next choice of place to put reactions because of the fact that no caps can be moved into the hole and because it opens directly into highsec; therefore, there is zero risk involved whatsoever of having dreads dropped on my towers or of having my haulers ganked.

Just because I don't personally do a cheesy thing doesn't mean it's not cheesy or that other people don't do it.

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#96 - 2013-03-12 22:18:53 UTC
June Ting wrote:
I can tell you that my C2 with highsec static is stupidly easy to manage.

Confirming this. About the only thing you have to worry about is the random roaming gang or occasional cloaky bastard. A C1 makes things even easier.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
None ofthe Above
#97 - 2013-03-13 00:54:12 UTC
Mr. Monk,

Nice entry into the race. Actually quite surprised. You represent your play-style quite well.

If you had asked me even a few months ago about you on CSM I would have been quite appalled.

"That a-hole? Never."

But it seems you may just be the a-hole we need on CSM 8.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2013-03-13 01:11:34 UTC
Thanks. I hope I win. Our play style hasn't had an effective CSM representative... possibly ever.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
anthie
Stars in No Sky
Backward Time in a Strange Land
#99 - 2013-03-13 04:52:12 UTC
I'm considering throwing my 5 votes on you since no Noir is running this time from talking with Alexander ingame

But just briefly and short to the point, why should i vote for you, what benefits would i get

are we talking sexual favors in a deep corner og low sec somewhere or ?
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2013-03-13 16:05:30 UTC
Besides a handie behind the bleachers, there are two thing I offer that no other candidate seems to be doing at the moment.

Firstly, I am the only candidate that seems to be advocating that players in highsec be able to get further involved in each others business. As a merc, this means more business and more interesting gameplay for you.

Secondly, I am the only candidate that has extensive and recent experience in the interactive parts of highsec. This means wardecs, mission invasion, awoxing, suspect baiting and so on. James has experience suicide ganking, but that's about it. And not only do none of the other CSM candidates have that experience, but CCP thinks so little of us that they don't allow their employees to play in our part of space. That means that all the knowledge they possess that's relevant is somewhere between second-hand and a distant memory. They need someone on hand that can actually speak from experience about these things.

But yeah, beyond that, my exchange of sexual favours scales depending on number of votes. Email me about that.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity