These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#381 - 2014-01-14 21:11:06 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I have to agree with the general sentiment expressed in here; this deployable suggests either a deep lack of understanding of null security space, a poorly disguised nerf to ratting, or the deliberate conception of a new hot-dropping magnet.

I don't even rat anymore and I'm absolutely disgusted with CCP over this change.
Instead of allocating developer resources to things that matter and need to be fixed or improved (POS mechanics, corp mechanics, nullsec income, nullsec industry, sovereignty warfare, devaluation of exploration) instead we have the most idiotic ideas being put forth by the brains at CCP.

Nerfing nullsec bounties by 5% and introducing an absolutely imbalanced and pointless module to further discourage people from trying to make an income. Income which fuels PVP. Why the hell are you trying so hard to distract and obfuscate those things that are actually important?
+1. "I don't always agree with Goons, but when I do... !!!"
Weaselior wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:

This was talked about to the CSM. are not a majority of them from Null? Do they have a poor understanding of Null?

As for why not do L4 missions: Because that means being in high sec with all the self entitled whiners. The reason to be in Null is because you like Null.

I assume that this means the initial draft was that much worse. There was, after all, that thing that the minutes showed the CSM shouted down.
Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?

Seriously CCP, when CFC, N3, Provi and NPC 0.0 people tell you it's bad, rethink it.
When Dinsdale agrees with Goons, the freaking end is nigh.

Seriously CCP, don't do drugs.
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#382 - 2014-01-14 21:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Fix Lag
THIS IDEA SUCKS ASS

(That's constructive criticism. I am encouraging you, CCP, to completely get rid of this fucking stupid idea.)

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#383 - 2014-01-14 21:16:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Danikov
Oh, come on, I don't understand what the fuss is about. The roots of the ESS are fairly obvious:

What if being aligned and warping out the first sign of danger was inhibited in some way? Maybe some of the worth you're generating is stored separately.

Well, what's the incentive in doing that optionally? Make it worth a little less without, worth more with- classic risk/reward mechanic.

What's to stop you parking an alt on it and cashing out when danger comes along? Have a timeout on the payout.

Honestly, the only people who'll be hit hard by this are solo ratters- those who work in groups can fight off a solo roaming player, while groups vs. groups is where it's interesting.

How could you make it better? Maybe go full-hog with the CONCORD features. Disable cynos on grid (regular and covert, just like hisec), make it impossible to hotdrop- might get more interesting ships (faction fitted faction BS, perhaps) risking the ESS vicinity and a fight for the loot if a solo hunter can't tackle & cyno in help all by themselves.

Also, maybe trickle the payouts- should be an incentive not only to get on the ESS as early as possible but to also stick around. Some kind of trickle mechanic would encourage that.

Making the payout take up m3 is also important, otherwise interceptors will be mercilessly abused.

Apart from that, a little balancing can ensure that most nullsec dwellers are inclined to use it (and expose themselves to the risk that incurs), while there's also room for hostile ESS deployment to try and force the issue.
Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#384 - 2014-01-14 21:18:59 UTC
There's a lot of potential in a thing like this, what about an alteration.

Price : 500 million, decent EHP (500k to 1M)

Can be anchored anywhere, takes LP as well as Isk

Projects a 300km sphere where concord jurisdiction is disabled. inner 50km warp disruption field. Access is limited to the anchoring party, and can by standing, by corp, etc.

Bam, instant conflict driver.

Who gets to control the one in Osmon? who gets to control the ones in an incursion system?

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
#385 - 2014-01-14 21:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Snowflake Tem
Pinky Hops wrote:
Snowflake Tem wrote:
1) It's complex because it's has got handles for jigsaw pieces we've not seen yet.


It doesn't matter the reason that it is overly complex, I'm just pointing out that it is bad for these types of things to become complex.

Contrast it to an MTU or a Mobile Depot or even a siphon. This ESS thing is just *facepalm*.

Snowflake Tem wrote:
It does NOT need scrapping, it needs placing in context.


It does need scrapping.

This concept of a "booster" anchorable is horrific slippery slope, as you could invent endless different varieties of them, giving players the incentive to run around and anchor random crap if they want their "full reward."

Hauling around a black box, placing it where you rat, anchoring it, interacting with it, all so that it can give you a bit extra income...but store it in the middle of the system for some bizarre reason. Just awful.

Anchorables should be generic sandbox tools (theft/storage/utility), not passive boosters with some artificial risk mechanic built-in.


Do we agree that infrastructure hubs do not deliver all that was hoped for? Could this not be an alternate structure on a similar theme that interfaces with real players, and not weekend administrators? Isn't understanding the complexity of any system in EVE part of it's allure?

I think you are mistaking the slippery slope for more star systems slipping through the fingers of certain alliances grip. It's meant to shake things up a bit.

Having said that, from a entirely abstract perspective. I don't understand the gathered data being kept on record for everybody benefit if the blighter is destroyed. If it is a telecommunications tower to Empire data centres it should be viewed negatively by null denizens anyway.

The ownership of the data is obscure. Were the ISK is coming from is not entirely clear. The margins seem arbitrary. The triggers for ramping up of rewards is downright baffling, I assume deliberately so.

I do like that CCP will be able to track what happens to the isk chits, but don't feel that the dev teams hard work has been successfully set in the game world context.

I'm not sure about system wide nanny alarms. That is going to get irritating pretty quickly. They are probably the most in-your-face objects in New Eden.

Don't abort this baby yet, I want to see what it grows into.
Turelus
Utassi Security
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#386 - 2014-01-14 21:21:29 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Seriously CCP, when CFC, N3, Provi and NPC 0.0 people tell you it's bad, rethink it.

This. Big smile

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Dolph Carebear
Adohivatal
#387 - 2014-01-14 21:22:24 UTC
Why, oh why are you spending time designing and implementing useless junk like this Rubicon 1.1 deployable line?

I don't care about the 5% bounty nerf, I don't care about moon income implications... What I do care about is the fact that the team behind the game has apparently lost it.

These things are gimmicks that nobody will use.
Nassus Ryn
Dystopian Industries
#388 - 2014-01-14 21:22:24 UTC
How dare you nerf Nullsec ratting income by 5% while implementing a mechanism in which they can actively regain the lost ISK and then some in exchange for a higher percentage risked and the necessity to defend their own space, CCP! And to compound the insult, to even DARE add new mechanics that can be used by both carebears and pvpers for their respective playstyles, whether it be making as much ISK as possible, or baiting Sov holders into a confrontation to protect their profit margins.

And last but not least, how DARE you add broadcasted, high profile locations desirable to both defenders and attackers to be used as flashpoints for spontaneous pvp in nullsec!?


I don't know you anymore, CCP. This is the last straw.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#389 - 2014-01-14 21:23:38 UTC
Angry Mustache wrote:
There's a lot of potential in a thing like this, what about an alteration.

Price : 500 million, decent EHP (500k to 1M)

Can be anchored anywhere, takes LP as well as Isk

Projects a 300km sphere where concord jurisdiction is disabled. inner 50km warp disruption field. Access is limited to the anchoring party, and can by standing, by corp, etc.

Bam, instant conflict driver.

Who gets to control the one in Osmon? who gets to control the ones in an incursion system?
This idea is kinda dumb, yet it's still a better love story than Twilight...
... and Twilight is still a better experience than reading that dev. blog was!
Rekkr Nordgard
Steelforge Heavy Industries
#390 - 2014-01-14 21:24:06 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Instead of allocating developer resources to things that matter and need to be fixed or improved (POS mechanics....

Playing devils advocate for CCP....maybe they are doing just that. Consider 2 things, if you will.

1) The main hurdle to improving POS is the legacy code which CCP apparently can't touch, particularly as it applies to the Pos bubble.

2) We get a new bubble (the MSI) which projects a new effect (dscan jamming) over a bubble. This is linked to some new capabilities they've been developing.

Seems to me that these "new capabilities" could be used for removing OGB and a new POS system. Just saying...



If this were the case, then CCP would do well to straight out tell us what they're doing. This would help reduce criticism and focus feedback. Simply handing us crap like this deployable and expecting us to accept it because it MIGHT someday somewhere down the line result in fixing POSes is ridiculous. Also, they should stick with deployables that actually replace functions POSes currently perform instead of trying to introduce garbage nobody asked for or wants, at least until POSes have been completely replaced.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#391 - 2014-01-14 21:25:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?

The minutes stated that one CCP proposal was shelved for reworking because the CSM said it sucked, but did not identify it. There were a few other things they said were presented to the CSM but NDAed the sections.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Andy Koraka
State War Academy
Caldari State
#392 - 2014-01-14 21:25:38 UTC
Conceptually I like the ESS but with it's current tuning noone will use it since it's a risk with essentially no reward. I currently picture most people eating the 5% income nerf rather than risking an extra 15% of their income. If they did plop one down I picture someone's salvage alt sitting on the ESS spamming the share buttan so that the payout is the normal 100%.

As it is most of my corp finds their income outside of Nullsec because you can get the same or better income from other places, most of which end up actually being much better since running an incursion you'll never have your fleet interrupted by a hot-drop.

It would be MUCH more interesting if for example the ESS collected a large portion of system bounties (50%?), but in return gave a significant scaling bonus to incentivize their usage, something along the lines 5% per 100m so that when the ESS pool hits 1b all the ratters are making 50% more isk. The "risk" of a random interceptor running off with your tags would be balanced by the "reward" of higher income when you successfully defend your space.

That setup would give roamers a juicy target to seek out, while also giving ratters a compelling reason to e rather than safe up when neutrals pass by. Plus it would actually balance the risk/reward aspect of null income to sit between Highsec L4s (100m/hour) and Solo WH stuff (200m/hour).
Cori Fera
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#393 - 2014-01-14 21:25:49 UTC
Quote:

This concept of a "booster" anchorable is horrific slippery slope, as you could invent endless different varieties of them, giving players the incentive to run around and anchor random crap if they want their "full reward."



What do you think the Pirate Detection Array and Entrapment Array do currently? This is a "Farms and Fields" counter to those types of arrays.
Dave Stark
#394 - 2014-01-14 21:26:21 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?

The minutes stated that one CCP proposal was shelved for reworking because the CSM said it sucked, but did not identify it.

can't be this one, something that has been reworked can't come out this bad.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#395 - 2014-01-14 21:27:52 UTC
On another note: for the new named siphons, are there bpos for these or do they drop some other way.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2014-01-14 21:29:58 UTC
Would everyone be opposed to this if it meant both an increase in ratter income and additional fights?

Probably not. But that's not what's happening here. It's a bullshit nerf that AT BEST reduces someone's income by 5%, because if you do the math you have to rat for like 20+ hours without getting fucked over by an enemy gang AND THEN have to hope that whoever presses the button on the stupid structure doesn't take everything for himself. Neither of those things are realistic in the slightest, which if CCP had even the least grasp of their own game they'd understand. Oh, and the payout for not getting your shit stolen is something like 1m/tick.

What a great idea, CCP. What a great idea.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#397 - 2014-01-14 21:30:22 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?

The minutes stated that one CCP proposal was shelved for reworking because the CSM said it sucked, but did not identify it.

can't be this one, something that has been reworked can't come out this bad.

dominion sov and dominion supercaps were reworked

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Batolemaeus
Mahlstrom
Northern Associates.
#398 - 2014-01-14 21:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Batolemaeus
Alphea Abbra wrote:

Seriously CCP, when CFC, N3, Provi and NPC 0.0 people tell you it's bad, rethink it.
When Dinsdale agrees with Goons, the freaking end is nigh.


A good point. I-N did feel a little chilly today. Perhaps 0.0 is freezing over?

Come to think of it, this consensus seems to be a first in many years. If you put coalitions into the same jabber channel you'll usually end up with at least n^3 opinions and the same number of wars within a very short timespan. Hell, I can rarely reach a consensus with myself of many game issues.

Weaselior wrote:

dominion sov and dominion supercaps were reworked


[Expletives]
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#399 - 2014-01-14 21:35:23 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?

The minutes stated that one CCP proposal was shelved for reworking because the CSM said it sucked, but did not identify it.

can't be this one, something that has been reworked can't come out this bad.


Maybe it was NDA'd?

I have a hard time believing even our current CSMs would let something this horrible go through - but you never know.

Maybe they argued against it but got shot down by CCP?
Dave Stark
#400 - 2014-01-14 21:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Weaselior wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Where? Did CCP really present this to the CSM? I read the Deployables through, no mention?

The minutes stated that one CCP proposal was shelved for reworking because the CSM said it sucked, but did not identify it.

can't be this one, something that has been reworked can't come out this bad.

dominion sov and dominion supercaps were reworked

yes, but those things are mildly interesting.

the ESS doesn't even have that going for it. it's dull, uninteresting, and a really bad excuse to nerf nullsec rat bounties by 5%.

edit: **** this forum for eating half of my post.