These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: No Honor Among Thieves - Siphon Units in Rubicon

First post First post First post
Author
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2013-10-17 17:43:33 UTC
June Ting wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
When the siphon is dead does our api go back to being useful, or is there going to be ghost minerals in there forever?

How about just removing the record of what moon minerals are in the POS silos entirely from the API to avoid this problem? It's far less complicated and forces people to actually pay attention to their POSes instead of running 100+ of them and having an API tool ping them to tell them what to fuel/plat next.

That's a stupid idea that creates more busywork for no reason whatsoever.

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

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#202 - 2013-10-17 17:43:38 UTC
I feel like multiple siphons per moon is probably completely unnecessary, internally. If you're going to allow a lowly two siphons to completely burgle a moon miner's output, you could probably save some processing time and database rows by just bumping a single siphon up to 100% theft (and corresponding waste as appropriate.) As it stands currently, there's no reason to drop any fewer than two siphons on a moon, given their cost and ease of onlining. Then, only allow one siphon per chain and you get the exact same operating behavior.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2013-10-17 17:44:08 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
If goons siphon all of your moon income. How do you pay for your alliance? With renters!



well yes it seems this will shift the paragim from passive income to active... which i like... more targets is a good thing...

like 2006 all over again before jump frighters.

renters are way more passive than moons

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

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#204 - 2013-10-17 17:44:40 UTC
Vatek wrote:

Renters will pay us x amount of isk per month to mine specific R64 moons in their rented space, they are then responsible for dealing with siphons on their towers. If they end up losing money because their moons are being siphoned heavily, that's their problem.



so you are saying that 0.0 will have to be populated to be profitable? and this is somehow a bad thing?

i think its great...

you guys can be like the mob providing protection against actual pos attacks for a montly fee.

its a win win for everyone involved...

space gets filled people make isk and i get to kill people ratting.

dont see the problem really.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Esteban Dragonovic
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#205 - 2013-10-17 17:44:59 UTC
Might I ask at the very least that these siphons require the deployer to hack into the POS first to begin pulling goo from it? If they fail the hack then the siphon would at least explode and provide some offset to the cheap cost of these deployables.
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#206 - 2013-10-17 17:45:05 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
If goons siphon all of your moon income. How do you pay for your alliance? With renters!



well yes it seems this will shift the paragim from passive income to active... which i like... more targets is a good thing...

like 2006 all over again before jump frighters.

I question whether this meaningfully improves target selection.

Said renters will just blap the siphons using POS guns, and since those alts won't actually be in PVP ships but will just be pos gunning in noobships directly from inside their forcefields...

This certainly improves the harassment potential of small gangs, for sure. But it doesn't directly increase the likelihood of small fleet combat since almost nobody will bring an actual fleet of pvp ships to contest an objective of that type.

I fight for the freedom of my people.

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#207 - 2013-10-17 17:45:35 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
If goons siphon all of your moon income. How do you pay for your alliance? With renters!



well yes it seems this will shift the paragim from passive income to active... which i like... more targets is a good thing...

like 2006 all over again before jump frighters.

No, it's a shift from income based on PvP to income based on grinding and wasting time.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#208 - 2013-10-17 17:45:39 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
If goons siphon all of your moon income. How do you pay for your alliance? With renters!



well yes it seems this will shift the paragim from passive income to active... which i like... more targets is a good thing...

like 2006 all over again before jump frighters.

renters are way more passive than moons


i have shot poses and shot renters...

renters are more active and provide good tears in local.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#209 - 2013-10-17 17:46:38 UTC
June Ting wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
If goons siphon all of your moon income. How do you pay for your alliance? With renters!



well yes it seems this will shift the paragim from passive income to active... which i like... more targets is a good thing...

like 2006 all over again before jump frighters.

I question whether this meaningfully improves target selection.

Said renters will just blap the siphons using POS guns, and since those alts won't actually be in PVP ships but will just be pos gunning in noobships directly from inside their forcefields...

This certainly improves the harassment potential of small gangs, for sure. But it doesn't directly increase the likelihood of small fleet combat since almost nobody will bring an actual fleet of pvp ships to contest an objective of that type.


they should fix that... you should not be able to man a pos gun inside of the shield.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Razzishi
Trash Reclamation Experts
#210 - 2013-10-17 17:47:42 UTC
Just make sure every mining POS has a complex reactor running. It will make logistics even worse, but I think that's part of the point. Right now top end moons are so profitable that you don't need to worry about wasting CPU on potential reactions when mining them. I do have first-hand knowledge of POS and moon-mining management, and think it would be sorta ok if we're all forced to plan a full production line and do more hauling to avoid being syphoned.

Presumably the devices that can siphon advanced materials will be much more expensive and require fuel to operate.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#211 - 2013-10-17 17:47:45 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
If goons siphon all of your moon income. How do you pay for your alliance? With renters!



well yes it seems this will shift the paragim from passive income to active... which i like... more targets is a good thing...

like 2006 all over again before jump frighters.

No, it's a shift from income based on PvP to income based on grinding and wasting time.


i see it as as a shift to more pvp... for small gangs and roaming gangs...

unless you see shooting renters as grinding?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#212 - 2013-10-17 17:48:26 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:

With so many thousands of people, don't you have people flying through the space in which you have POS'es?

Oh... right...

Yes. We do. Those thousands of people are never on grid with a mining pos because they have no reason to be. That's my point. Those thousands of people, using our space, do not actually provide any meaningful advantage over an alt left logged out in the tower.

I guess it's a good thing that they are so easy to detect and destroy by anybody that happens to be in system.Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

IrJosy
Club 1621
#213 - 2013-10-17 17:48:30 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Vatek wrote:

Renters will pay us x amount of isk per month to mine specific R64 moons in their rented space, they are then responsible for dealing with siphons on their towers. If they end up losing money because their moons are being siphoned heavily, that's their problem.



so you are saying that 0.0 will have to be populated to be profitable? and this is somehow a bad thing?

i think its great...

you guys can be like the mob providing protection against actual pos attacks for a montly fee.

its a win win for everyone involved...

space gets filled people make isk and i get to kill people ratting.

dont see the problem really.


How many New York Times articles have brought new players to the game with the headline: "Eve Online: An online spaceship game where you pay space protection money to live in a world completely devoid of conflict" ?
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-10-17 17:50:09 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
i see it as as a shift to more pvp... for small gangs and roaming gangs...

unless you see shooting renters as grinding?


...explain which part of the process is meaningful PvP?

POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
Cloaky hauler enters system, drops siphon, cloaks.
POS alt logs in, sees siphon, blaps it with POS guns, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2013-10-17 17:51:18 UTC
I know how to fix the problems with siphons as proposed. But, it's gonna take a little game design work. Let's focus on this line from the dev blog:
Quote:

Finally, it allows us to strengthen asynchronous gameplay, where players can be interacting without having to necessarily be at the same place at the same time.


CCP wants async gameplay. Ok, great. The problem is that their mechanic for it is essentially "most recent player to act wins". That leads to all the problems discussed in thread. How do you have good async gameplay without forcing ingame confrontation at a reinforcement timer (not async), or not being "most recent player to act wins"?

A minigame. Look at games like Civ4/5 pitboss multiplayer, or many other turn-based games. Turn-based games are inherently async. If siphons had a "minigame" element -- perhaps vaguely similar to the hacking minigame -- they could have async gameplay. This minigame could be a competitive 2-player game. The winner gets to somehow affect siphon goo-stealing-rate or health as he desires. Dropping a siphon initiates the minigame via notification to each player. Each player gets 1 turn per X hours, and if you skip your turn you forfeit it. You could even introduce ingame skills to benefit players in the minigame.

This solves all sorts of problems. AFK cloaker -- who cares? They gotta play the minigame. Drive-by-inty-griefer who doesn't want to pick up goo anyway? He has to play the minigame to actually hurt your goo.

If you want async gameplay, create an async mechanic for interaction. Boom. Siphons serve their purpose and are also FUN gameplay.

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#216 - 2013-10-17 17:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
In the meanwhile, can we drop something outside of a station that adds an additional 60% to all market taxes and transfers those taxes to the owner of the structure?

And another similar object that takes 60 of the products of a manufacturing job and places it inside your hanger.

And make them cost 10 million each.

do those ideas sound dumb? This is just as dumb.

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#217 - 2013-10-17 17:55:38 UTC
Dagda Morr wrote:
Something that has been missed - the best organised large groups in 0.0 are the very groups that are able to mass spam regions on the hour with these. This isn't a tool to help the small guy take a poke at the big guys - it's not going to generate content, it's just going to make the dullest thing in eve even duller.....


You are wrong. Small entities will have now a chance to get some moon goo, by stealing it. As it is now, small entities can't have any goo at all.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.

Hank Magnusson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2013-10-17 17:56:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Hank Magnusson
So it's strange that the siphon is 20m^3, and then can hold large quantities.

Maybe, rather than instant deployment, it should take time to construct/deploy siphon units: anywhere from 30 seconds to 10 minutes.

If people are around or manning the guns, cloaky ships wouldn't be able to deploy.
Sven Viko VIkolander
Tang Ping
#219 - 2013-10-17 17:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
Kismeteer wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
this one mod is the single greatest anti-blue donut mechanic i have ever seen.

the fact that the large pos alliances are extreamly upset that they will actually have to monitor thier isk faucet makes me very happy.


Sadly, we're also the ones that will benefit the most on the 'free isk' faucet of the increased cost of goo. And the reactions that will go up in price too. You'll just get higher t2 costs down the road. So sure, if you want to pay more for t2 stuff with no benefit, it's awesome for you.


The argument that it really isn't in my/your interest to steal moon goo because "T2 Prices will go up, and you don't want that, do you?" sounds a lot like what high sec miners have said when they've become easier to gank with various changes--prices will go up, they'll go up!!11

Sadly, no rise in T2 prices can off-set the precious, precious value of the tears of null-bears.

______

The one change I suggest (perhaps for future Siphons) is that the siphon cycle time be adjustable and the amount siphoned increase with the siphon cycle time. That way, having a siphon out for longer periods of time generates more isk ultimately, but puts the siphon at a much greater risk
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2013-10-17 17:57:52 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
i see it as as a shift to more pvp... for small gangs and roaming gangs...

unless you see shooting renters as grinding?


...explain which part of the process is meaningful PvP?

POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
Cloaky hauler enters system, drops siphon, cloaks.
POS alt logs in, sees siphon, blaps it with POS guns, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.
POS alt logs in, sees nothing, logs off.


you forgot

POS alt flys to siphon, picks up stuff and flys back to POS

he at least has to leave the POS shields, one could call this a PVP opportunity