EVE Information Portal

This smacks of old ccp thinking.

The original system's upgrades (anomalies) nerf had the stated goal of "driving conflict" ie people would fight for better space. But for some reason CCP didn't understand that no one fights for ratting space, and rather than deal with systems with no good anoms, individual pilots just shipped isk making alts to high sec to run incursions and such. That means that rather then being a juicy battleship or carrier killmail waiting to happen, those guys were now isking up under the protection of CONCORD. A plan to boost conflict ended up dampening it lol.

Same thing here. Alliances will develop a "no ESS policy" for members because those ESS will be beacons encouraging raiders to come to ratting grounds. the 5% nerf to bounties isn't that bad till you consider the fact that high sec pve is already too competative with null sec anom farming. The only way this change ends up driving new conflict is when ratters realize that npc 0.0 missions are better isk than anoms now and they move in there, driving down even further the prices of some popular pirate ships.

On the plus side, 400 mil macharieal and nightmares y'all!

I aslo predicted even longer lines/wait lists for high sec incursion fleets, plus even more contesting and multiple fleet fight ove

I really hope you guys at CCP rethink this. While it won't put a dent in my sisters missioning/incursioning, I think it's a bad idea.

I can't find any description of the idea that was shelved.

The one in the paragraph after that seems to be discussing an earlier iteration of siphons.

On the other hand.... dropping a few of these in all of the particular systems given to a particular renter would force them to either come and destroy it (creating a fight) or ceding 20% of all income made by everyone in that system.

I would have to say that this along with the anom nerf are the two worst ideas since I have played the game. C'MON CCP

There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse.

I disagree. ESS introduction in Rubicon 1.1 has a 5% reduction in nullsec bounty payouts. So unless enough ESS units are allowed to get into the bonus range ( >100% to 105%) to make up that "5% across all nullsec bounties" reduction, then Kaeda is correct: introduction of ESS constitutes a global ISK faucet reduction.

MDD

Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced.

The ESS couples with that bad idea by making ratters bubble themselves as they desperately try to remove an ess while a nullified inty webs them in their own ess bubble to kil them.

It was in person at eve vegas.

TBH this ESS deployable unit it's a crappy idea.

Confusing concept, adding almost no content at all. You are losing the north again CCP... .

Take a god damn good look at the sov system in 0.0. Thats what you need to do. Passing 7 days to conquer a single system shooting Defender SBU's, IHUB's, TCU's, Stations (at least) to be able to claim a single system is ********.

In Rubicon 1.0 you added 3 more structures and now you are preparing 3 more...

In fairness, I think the mobile siphon unit, the mobile depot, and the mobile cyno inhibitor are excellent additions to the game.

I also thing the Mobile Micro Jump Drive is reasonable (although they actually asked and are working on feedback there).
I think the ESS could be an excellent addition to the game, but it needs some serious tweaking! (i.e. increase the access time + drop time to 6-10 minutes, so the locals can actually form up and defend it! Additionally, increase its payout so its truly beneficial to utilize!).