These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1221 - 2013-10-21 20:21:26 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Also, if you're covert cynoing POS fuel around you really aren't likely to be in a position to pick up materials from a siphon you have deployed in hostile space very often.Smile

So basically what you are saying is that you leave your moo goo systems undefended at all times.

Good to know. Blink


I didn't say it was POS fuel, friend.

Fair point. Smile

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

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1222 - 2013-10-21 20:23:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Ganthrithor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I don't really consider it an unreasonable game mechanic to make it desirable to inhabit the space that is a strong revenue stream for your corp. Whether that by yourself, or with renters that monitor your towers for siphons as part of the arrangement, or by giving control of that moon to the renters and taking that into consideration in their rental payment.

Any way you slice it, it's an incentive to live in the space that generates the revenue.


Well then for consistency's sake they should probably make it so that I can steal / destroy a portion of your PI goods whenever you're not looking at the PI screen. Wait, no, that wouldn't be equivalent since you can open the PI screen and check it from anywhere. How about we make it so that I can take a portion of your assets from your Jita alt whenever you're not docked in 4-4 instead. Clearly it's justified, because I had to go to all the effort of moving my covert/nullified T3 to Jita, and you couldn't even be bothered to log in your Jita alt to watch your hangar door, so you had it coming to you.

Oh wait, we can't implement that yet: we haven't figured out a way to make the API pretend that your frozen corpse collection is still there...

Well, I certainly hope that the plan to be able to fight over PI resources continues to be developed. Until that time we will have to be content with people being able to leach your resources by harvesting the area's you are harvesting (directly reducing your yield) and being able to place your own POCO there and tax them how you see fit.

As to being able to tap into the goods I produce, not counting market games and scams, removing product from inattentive players is a long standing tradition for us all... whenever they try to move them in an AFK (or not so AFK) hauler.

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

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1223 - 2013-10-21 20:29:19 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Compared to what you propose the siphon mechanic is a relatively minor incentive, but it is an incentive none-the-less. They are not mutually exclusive.

The person sticking around in some backwater lowsec system gains absolutely nothing from it. They in fact lose a lot of money they could have made in a decent truesec system.
The corporation gains absolutely nothing from having an actual living active person in the system, compared to just sticking a trial alt there.

Tell me again, who is incentivized and by what?
Icesail
Mostly Sober
NullSechnaya Sholupen
#1224 - 2013-10-21 20:37:08 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Thank you for the clairification.

Now I can lean back and enjoy POS owner tears as they now have to do more than stop by once a week to spend 3 minutes interacting with their ISK printing press. Cool

The issue here is that there are only two real forms of alliance income: moons, and renters. Renters have lead to a terribly boring 0.0 where every few months we relentlessly sodomize N3, who then retreats back to their bad space that's all rented out. All this does is make renters even more necessary, which makes it even more necessary to own all the bad regions to rent them out instead of those serving as alliance incubators.



Whoa.. Easy there.. This thread is supposed to be about the siphoning.. Not extolling us with your imaginary epeen..

CCP has made lots of changes over the years that have pissed off loads of people for different reasons.. This is a welcome change for us folks that choose not to ride the sheeple bandwagon..

Thumbs up for once CCP. Looking forward to the progression of the moon siphoning..

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1225 - 2013-10-21 20:42:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Compared to what you propose the siphon mechanic is a relatively minor incentive, but it is an incentive none-the-less. They are not mutually exclusive.

The person sticking around in some backwater lowsec system gains absolutely nothing from it. They in fact lose a lot of money they could have made in a decent truesec system.
The corporation gains absolutely nothing from having an actual living active person in the system, compared to just sticking a trial alt there.

Tell me again, who is incentivized and by what?

They why are you not renting out the system to those that would be thrilled to live there?

Not only does it cost you nothing, brings you in rent, and puts people in place to protect your assets.

Or install a pet alliance to train up your noobs, or house your industrialists if you choose to go that route.

Of course, that's in Null. In low sec it's another story.

I will freely admit that low sec has needed some mechanics (other than factional warfare) unique to low sec to provide more reasons to live there (although it's a heck of a lot more populated than it used to be).

I have always hoped that much of low sec would turn into a sort of Barbary Coast, where empire control is feeble at best but still exists. Where crime and piracy are even more prevalent than they are now, but thrive because (mostly) honest folk are drawn there for it's unique natural resources and opportunities to exploit them in ways not allowed in empire.

Sounds like an area where the siphon mechanic would fit right in.

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

S8nt
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1226 - 2013-10-21 21:06:58 UTC
With CCP hinting that they are looking at doing moon mining through moon belts how is this new feature actually going to apply to the game then?

Kinda redundant?
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1227 - 2013-10-21 21:22:58 UTC
S8nt wrote:
With CCP hinting that they are looking at doing moon mining through moon belts how is this new feature actually going to apply to the game then?

Kinda redundant?


Linky please?

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1228 - 2013-10-21 21:38:08 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
S8nt wrote:
With CCP hinting that they are looking at doing moon mining through moon belts how is this new feature actually going to apply to the game then?

Kinda redundant?


Linky please?

i believe it was mentioned at fanfest, should be on one of those youtube videos.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1229 - 2013-10-21 21:42:46 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
S8nt wrote:
With CCP hinting that they are looking at doing moon mining through moon belts how is this new feature actually going to apply to the game then?

Kinda redundant?


Linky please?


It was an idea thrown around at the last couple of fanfests. It was more of a "we might do this" rather than "we will do this".

And I'm pretty sure the developers involved with the idea are no longer working on Eve, so heh.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1230 - 2013-10-21 21:50:53 UTC
xttz wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
S8nt wrote:
With CCP hinting that they are looking at doing moon mining through moon belts how is this new feature actually going to apply to the game then?

Kinda redundant?


Linky please?


It was an idea thrown around at the last couple of fanfests. It was more of a "we might do this" rather than "we will do this".

And I'm pretty sure the developers involved with the idea are no longer working on Eve, so heh.

Yeah, wasn't that a Soundwave thing?

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

Icesail
Mostly Sober
NullSechnaya Sholupen
#1231 - 2013-10-21 21:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Icesail
Ganthrithor wrote:


Look, here's the deal. Based on your own assumptions, it seems like you are the kind of player you keep talking about when you refer to "little guys" practicing "economic warfare." It seems like you don't have much experience playing with sizable groups of other players, and you may or may not have experience in nullsec at all. If you did have experience in nullsec, you'd know that:


  • There's already room for small gangs to conduct economic warfare in hostile space. This is done by hunting and killing ratters, industrialists, random travelers, and basically anything else that floats through space alone or in small numbers. It can also be accomplished by doing nasty things like relisting: buying up in-demand commodities in nullsec stations (in their entirety where possible) and re-listing them at higher prices, forcing people to overpay for their ships and gear and funneling that profit into your own wallet.

  • Nobody is going to hang around for days at a time in hopes of possibly catching some hostile in a blockade runner that's come to loot a siphon: it's absolutely not worth doing, since you can easily retrieve your stuff from the siphon and then destroy it rather than spending ~48 hours in a Sabre poopsocking a structure, hoping that you'll be watching the screen at the exact moment some fool decloaks their hauler for 3 seconds to do a drive-by pickup. It's seriously not going to happen. The spergiest of spergs can sometimes be motivated to camp things for days at a time in hopes of a cap or supercap kill, but nobody is going to bother to do so over a possible Prowler kill.

  • Have you ever even been to nullsec? Let me give you a clue: your average nullsec resident is not very situationally aware. Someone running around planting siphons is just one more hostile drifting through a region: ratters will safe up momentarily until you leave, then go back to ratting. I've moved supercaps through null without being noticed, to think this won't be possible with a blockade runner dropping modules that leave no overt traces is ridiculous.

  • This siphon proposal doesn't involve any "gameplay" at all: your use of that term in this discussion is overly-generous to CCP. Pushing a module out of your ship isn't gameplay any more than anchoring a drag bubble is. It's the stuff that happens as a result of anchoring a drag bubble that constitutes gameplay: siphons make no such promises.


1. There's always room for more economic warfare opportunities for the small gangs.. Get over it.
2. Nobody expects you to 'hang' around for days.. So it goes.. You lose some of your passive income. Find another revenue stream if you don't like it.
3. Don't pretend you're the Encyclopedia of nullsec.. The moon syphoning is another game mechanic you will need to accept and deal with instead of bitching about it.
4. your drag bubble analogy isn't accurate either. I shouldn't have to explain it for you further.

EDIT: My apologies. My response was not meant as an attack on you. Let me rephrase it this way. All of your points are silly.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1232 - 2013-10-21 22:07:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Ranger 1 wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Do you want an example of an incentive to live in all of your alliance's space? Tie the IHUB upgrade anomalies/complexes to an entire constellation or even a region (obviously constrained by your sovereignty). That way, instead of in the system, a completed anomaly respawns in a random system within the constellation. Systems which are not populated will accumulate many anomalies (and high-quality anomalies, regardless of their individual truesec) over time, giving an incentive for people to go there and rat. Since individual systems will eventually run out of sites, ratters have to move from one system to another. This gives an opportunity for an enemy fleet to catch them on gates, which in turn incentivizes home defense fleet to chase them out.

This is providing an incentive. The siphon, as it currently stands, is just a slap across the face if you dare to play the game "wrong".

What you propose is an excellent incentive, one (among others) that I hope to see as Null is systematically revamped.

Compared to what you propose the siphon mechanic is a relatively minor incentive, but it is an incentive none-the-less. They are not mutually exclusive.

The overall goal is to see people living in, fighting over, stealing from, and trying to travel through area's of space that provide revenue, as opposed to controlling vast tracts of virtually uninhabited space.


We can all agree on the necessity of making people actually inhabit space. I don't like rolling through swathes of empty nullsec space any more than the next guy; I just don't think that letting people covertly leech stuff off moons is the way to do it. I'd much rather see something that one could bring in and deploy in a system to de-spawn resources or otherwise inhibit useful activity in a very high-profile manner that would draw out / encourage fights... something where usage works more like this:

  • Enter system, deploy or contest some kind of structure (for this example, l;et's say you push something out next to someone's Ihub that disrupts one of its functions by-- say-- disabling an upgrade)

  • Module pops up like a beacon for everyone in system (just like a sov structure) when it starts onlining

  • After a while (let's say 10 to 20 minutes, for example's sake), the module onlines and whatever upgrade you wanted to disable stops working (if you jammed the JB thing, JBs go offline; if you jammed the cyno nav thing, no more cynogens; if you disabled the pirate upgrades, the system's anomalies pop back to its baseline; etc)

  • These services remain disabled until the locals come through and destroy the structure

  • The structure should probably have maybe a million EHP-- enough that it allows an outnumbered group of marauding players some time to skirmish with a much larger defense fleet that comes to clear the structure, but not enough that a couple of guys in DPS battleships couldn't clear it within a couple of minutes if it's not defended.


Something like this would cause the "right" amount of disruption in a helpful way. First of all, the disruption is public-- everyone in the system (or trying to use the beacon or connected JB) will know about it immediately. Second, the Thing would allow various degrees of disruption to suit the size of the gang that's deploying it: if you only have a couple of people then disabling a key jump bridge system would probably result in you being dogpiled by half an alliance fairly quickly, but if you disrupt someone's anomaly spawns then maybe only the ratters in that particular system will be motivated enough to form a gang.

It also doesn't penalize people for not being logged in-- a major flaw of the siphon. If there's nobody online (even in a major ratting hub) because of timezone effects, then there's no reason to drop a disruptor, and even if you did nobody would be penalized. There would also be no motivation for the attackers to leave a disruptor in a system while they aren't available to fight, so it doesn't encourage AFK griefing (like the siphon does).

This is just an example, but this is the kind of strategy CCP should be adopting for these kinds of "small gang content." Anything covert isn't going to generate fights; anything really major will just cause blobbing. Solutions need to be scalable to suit an attacker's capabilities. A solo attacker may choose to just roam about in a HAC trying to kill ratters. A gang of ten may choose to try and force a small fight by disrupting people's ability to rat. A gang of one hundred might disable a JB link during a hostile alliance's fleet operations, cutting off reinforcements and forcing that alliance to either divert people to restore the link or send their reinforcements through lengthy, dangerous gate routes. This idea is already way better than the siphon idea and I've only spent twenty minutes thinking about it: just think what CCP's full-time game designers should be able to come up with in a similar vein!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1233 - 2013-10-21 22:58:25 UTC
Icesail wrote:


Thumbs up for once CCP. Looking forward to the progression of the moon siphoning..

I take it you are also looking forward to the spin offs of syphoning, eg; increased prices, lower supply levels??

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1234 - 2013-10-21 23:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
Ranger 1 wrote:
I will freely admit that low sec has needed some mechanics (other than factional warfare) unique to low sec to provide more reasons to live there (although it's a heck of a lot more populated than it used to be).

I have always hoped that much of low sec would turn into a sort of Barbary Coast, where empire control is feeble at best but still exists. Where crime and piracy are even more prevalent than they are now, but thrive because (mostly) honest folk are drawn there for it's unique natural resources and opportunities to exploit them in ways not allowed in empire.

Sounds like an area where the siphon mechanic would fit right in.

Alright, I had to think about this for a while.

As it stands now, if we ignore FW for a while, lowsec is basically vast areas of pretty much useless space. This space is sprinkled with a couple of high quality and a bunch of moderate moons. Anything but these moons is for most purposes useless.

Traditionally, control over moons revolves around fighting fleet battles on timers. Therefore nullsec alliances come to lowsec to claim these valuable moons, as smaller lowsec groups in general don't have the power to win these fights. But along with the major alliances, the smaller nullsec groups and corporations also commonly profit from lowsec moons. Even if you're a small corp, it's easy to leverage your contacts in the alliance to get a fleet together to claim (and later defend) a couple of R16 - R32 moons. These moons provide much needed income to smaller individual entities, who might not get a proper share of nullsec riches.

One possible reason behind introducing a siphon mechanic could be the transfer of ownership of these lowsec moons from nullsec entities to groups occupying lowsec space. I would like to point out that this was not one of the reasons stated in the devblog. To accomplish this, one could seek to change moon income to depend not on timer fleet fights, but on continued presence in the system the moon is in.

If this was the design goal, then a moongoo stealing mechanic could very well be a way to accomplish it. However, in its current implementation, it does anything but that. Instead of encouraging active presence around the moon, it only pushes for alt proliferation - both from the attacker's and the defender's side. There is no point in bringing a fleet to deploy a siphon when you have to do so under POS guns. There is no point in bringing a fleet to destroy a siphon when it can be blown up by POS guns. Without bubbles, cloaky haulers in lowsec are virtually unstoppable, so there is nothing you can do to stop your tower from being siphoned, other than keep an alt on watch at all times.



However, going off on a tangent, let us examine the consequences of such a design change: what if moongoo income in lowsec was really changed to be controlled by active presence in the system, no matter the actual game mechanics behind it? Who would it benefit? Who would it harm?

First of all, entities living in lowsec would enjoy a new income stream, as they could take away the income from small-scale nullsec residents occupying the moons. They would definitely benefit from this, and overall the corporation/alliance income curve from highsec -> lowsec -> nullsec would be greatly straightened.

Large nullsec alliances mostly lay claims to R64s in lowsec. Depending on the new mechanic used to control moons, they could most likely still more or less easily project sufficient power to either claim the moons, or at least disrupt the moon operation to the level that nobody can profit from it. (Example, with a siphon-like mechanic, stick a tower on a moon and don't mine anything from it. You won't get any money, but neither will anyone trying to steal from you.)

However, such a change would really hurt the small individual corporations in nullsec. These corps often rely on lowsec moon income to sponsor internal corp programs, such as SRP, tournaments, training new members, etc. - things that usually aren't handled (and financed) on an alliance level. As individual small corps lose income, people would be more and more attracted to the big alliances who control the R64 moons and moons in nullsec. This would lead to a loss of individuality for these corps, and even further homogenization of 0.0.

I think that in the long-term, without introducing additional sources of corporation-level income in nullsec, such a change would lead to further poisoning of the nullsec metagame. We would see even larger clusters of nameless grunts rallied under a single flag, instead of a diverse political landscape with all sizes of corps and alliances working together or against each other.

There is not enough wealth to be had in nullsec to support all levels - alliance, corporation, and individual income. Lowsec currently plays a big role in filling the gaps, and entities with significant assets in lowsec will fight hard against mechanics implemented to take it away from them. As Greyscale said, making profiting off lowsec towers tedious will not stop us from doing it. We will do it, and we will hate it.



I don't know whether this shift of moon income from being dependent on a PvP fleet fight to continuous activity in the system is the intent of the POS siphons as envisioned by CCP. But I believe that a) the current implementation of siphons doesn't accomplish that, and b) the idea itself is flawed and without additional supplementary changes will have negative long-term results.

If you want nullsec corporations to free up lowsec moons, first introduce an adequate income source that can be used on a corporation level in nullsec. Spare us terrible clockwork check-in mechanics.
Gogela
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#1235 - 2013-10-21 23:18:05 UTC
Oh man this is a rad feature! Awesome job CCP! Really looking forward to this expansion... Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1236 - 2013-10-21 23:32:37 UTC
Icesail wrote:


1. There's always room for more economic warfare opportunities for the small gangs.. Get over it.
2. Nobody expects you to 'hang' around for days.. So it goes.. You lose some of your passive income. Find another revenue stream if you don't like it.
3. Don't pretend you're the Encyclopedia of nullsec.. The moon syphoning is another game mechanic you will need to accept and deal with instead of bitching about it.
4. your drag bubble analogy isn't accurate either. I shouldn't have to explain it for you further.


1. Yes there is but syphons aren't going to effect nulsec so much as lowsec operators. When you hear of mining pos's being reinforced where are they?? The majority are in lowsec due to their proximity, ease of access, nulsec moons are often difficult to access and guarded better.
2. Passive income?? you have never managed a pos have you? People keep saying moon mining is passive income, it is far from passive.
3. Actually he was pretty close to my own experiences in nul, I'm no pro as far as nul goes but it in reality is nothing like most would think.
4.The drag bubble analogy is exactly right. It is not dropping the bubble that creates the content it is what happens after the bubble is dropped. Dropping a syphon is not creating anything more than passive isk for the person who drops it, at such minimal risk and low cost it is stupid. A 10mil isk module which requires virtually no upkeep can shut down a 400 mil pos??

If CCP really wants syphons to create "game play" - other than giving those who drop them free isk, make it so the syphon needs to be anchored and monitored. If the owner of the syphon cloaks, logs off or leaves system, the syphon turns off. You don't have to sit with the syphon but do need to be uncloaked and logged into the system of you syphon. That would give pos owners the opportunity to actually engage the person trying to steal from them.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Icesail
Mostly Sober
NullSechnaya Sholupen
#1237 - 2013-10-21 23:36:04 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Icesail wrote:


Thumbs up for once CCP. Looking forward to the progression of the moon siphoning..

I take it you are also looking forward to the spin offs of syphoning, eg; increased prices, lower supply levels??


It will all level out, just like every other expansion that we've seen. No need to scream "the sky is falling" .. The game needs a shake up.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1238 - 2013-10-21 23:40:06 UTC
Icesail wrote:
It will all level out, just like every other expansion that we've seen. No need to scream "the sky is falling" .. The game needs a shake up.

Let's hope the "leveling out" won't require rolling back trillions out of people's wallets this time.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1239 - 2013-10-22 00:06:00 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1240 - 2013-10-22 00:23:31 UTC
Icesail wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:


Look, here's the deal. Based on your own assumptions, it seems like you are the kind of player you keep talking about when you refer to "little guys" practicing "economic warfare." It seems like you don't have much experience playing with sizable groups of other players, and you may or may not have experience in nullsec at all. If you did have experience in nullsec, you'd know that:


  • There's already room for small gangs to conduct economic warfare in hostile space. This is done by hunting and killing ratters, industrialists, random travelers, and basically anything else that floats through space alone or in small numbers. It can also be accomplished by doing nasty things like relisting: buying up in-demand commodities in nullsec stations (in their entirety where possible) and re-listing them at higher prices, forcing people to overpay for their ships and gear and funneling that profit into your own wallet.

  • Nobody is going to hang around for days at a time in hopes of possibly catching some hostile in a blockade runner that's come to loot a siphon: it's absolutely not worth doing, since you can easily retrieve your stuff from the siphon and then destroy it rather than spending ~48 hours in a Sabre poopsocking a structure, hoping that you'll be watching the screen at the exact moment some fool decloaks their hauler for 3 seconds to do a drive-by pickup. It's seriously not going to happen. The spergiest of spergs can sometimes be motivated to camp things for days at a time in hopes of a cap or supercap kill, but nobody is going to bother to do so over a possible Prowler kill.

  • Have you ever even been to nullsec? Let me give you a clue: your average nullsec resident is not very situationally aware. Someone running around planting siphons is just one more hostile drifting through a region: ratters will safe up momentarily until you leave, then go back to ratting. I've moved supercaps through null without being noticed, to think this won't be possible with a blockade runner dropping modules that leave no overt traces is ridiculous.

  • This siphon proposal doesn't involve any "gameplay" at all: your use of that term in this discussion is overly-generous to CCP. Pushing a module out of your ship isn't gameplay any more than anchoring a drag bubble is. It's the stuff that happens as a result of anchoring a drag bubble that constitutes gameplay: siphons make no such promises.


1. There's always room for more economic warfare opportunities for the small gangs.. Get over it.
2. Nobody expects you to 'hang' around for days.. So it goes.. You lose some of your passive income. Find another revenue stream if you don't like it.
3. Don't pretend you're the Encyclopedia of nullsec.. The moon syphoning is another game mechanic you will need to accept and deal with instead of bitching about it.
4. your drag bubble analogy isn't accurate either. I shouldn't have to explain it for you further.

EDIT: My apologies. My response was not meant as an attack on you. Let me rephrase it this way. All of your points are silly.


2. Passive income.... until one manages a moon or a reaction farm, one is not permitted to state if moon income is passive or not.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.