These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#501 - 2014-01-15 00:33:27 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Guns'N'Ammo wrote:

So we can forget that with the mobile depot a ratting tengu can refit for cloaky nullification and has no problem jumping out. Got ya.

But what about tne smaller groups trying to get started in null with newer players that dont have the options a large alliance has? GSF seem to be a reason some people as want these but that bias neglects the fact that they are the best equiped to handle these with numbers, jump bridges etc etc. So damn the little guy I guess.


True, I forgot depots.

The little guy will be screwed in nullsec as long as winning a fight is an N+1 equation.

So we need Jamyl Sarum's weapon reverse engineered?
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#502 - 2014-01-15 00:36:58 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

Well, I hope you continue to bring great posting such as

- ad hominem those words, don't mean what you think they mean...but I'm not even sure what you think they mean, since your meaning is clearly meaning something else entirely
- posting off topic I am proud to say, this is the first post I have made in this thread that had nothing to do with the issue at hand
- being a condecending forum alt although I am often (rightfully) accused of being condescending, there is a certain...greatness inherent in that word, but enough silliness. Forum alts are made/used for a specific reason, to divorce one's opinions from one's ingame affiliations, and given your attitude, I can hardly see why anyone would post on their main. People such as yourself would instantly dismiss their every word based on whatever affiliation they might have.

Cya around Big smile
Now can we let this thread be productive?


As long as it doesn't produce a functioning ESS module on tranquility, YES!

oh damn, I guess that makes this post on-topic too!

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#503 - 2014-01-15 00:39:49 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:

The point is that adding a deployable that doesn't harm them won't effect their behavior. Duh.

I think a neut deploying a deployable that reduces a group of carrier ratters' income by 20% will have a very distinct effect on their behavior.

I think if said ratters are renters and limited to a small number of systems, covering their handful of allowed ratting systems will have a very profound effect on their behavior.

As you so eloquently put: "Duh."


The very distinct effect of them doing exactly the same thing they do when a roaming gang shows up now, except with an added 3-minute structure shoot at the end. How do people still think this is a good idea?

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Guns'N'Ammo
The Dark Resistance
#504 - 2014-01-15 00:41:30 UTC
Im having a hard time understanding why the ESS wasnt just made the way it seems to be intended. Just make it a bounty reduction deployable where it blocks a portion of the bounty. Forget the tags, bubble, notification and just make it more like an sbu or cyno visible on the overview. That will create more fights than this complex system with a really bad reasoning behind it.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#505 - 2014-01-15 00:41:53 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

Well, I hope you continue to bring great posting such as

- ad hominem those words, don't mean what you think they mean...but I'm not even sure what you think they mean, since your meaning is clearly meaning something else entirely
- posting off topic I am proud to say, this is the first post I have made in this thread that had nothing to do with the issue at hand
- being a condecending forum alt although I am often (rightfully) accused of being condescending, there is a certain...greatness inherent in that word, but enough silliness. Forum alts are made/used for a specific reason, to divorce one's opinions from one's ingame affiliations, and given your attitude, I can hardly see why anyone would post on their main. People such as yourself would instantly dismiss their every word based on whatever affiliation they might have.

Cya around Big smile
Now can we let this thread be productive?


As long as it doesn't produce a functioning ESS module on tranquility, YES!

oh damn, I guess that makes this post on-topic too!



...or we could talk about how to make it NOT suck? As in increase the potential reward to a max bounty collection of 125%?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.
Clever Use of Neutral Toons
#506 - 2014-01-15 00:41:59 UTC
Really.. this is what you come up with?

Have you guys completely lost it? This is terrible.

Wyn Pharoh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2014-01-15 00:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Wyn Pharoh
PotatoOverdose wrote:

I think a neut deploying a deployable that reduces a group of carrier ratters' income by 20% will have a very distinct effect on their behavior.

I think if said ratters are renters and limited to a small number of systems, covering their handful of allowed ratting systems will have a very profound effect on their behavior.

As you so eloquently put: "Duh."


How is this different from the way the game works right now?

* Intel reports neuts, bears Pos-up, Home Def fleet maybe forms, maybe not.
* You drop deployables.
* Home Def fleet still maybe forms, maybe not, or just waits till you are safely gone and blaps hostile EES if you left any behind.

I'm not lost on the potential this has to get fights that may not have happened before, but I am really concerned about the lack of balance the mechanics driving the module will have on 8 odd regions of 0.0 that already are a struggle to get by in.

If the point is 'hey, fights...' is worth nerfing 0.0 income, then at the very least, the nerfing needs to be evenhanded and balanced across all of New Eden.

Sadly, I don't think this will get any more fights than can already be had by dropping an existing deployable; the SBU

Edit: After reviewing the concerns posted by Provi Holders, I'd like to add them to the list of 0.0 inhabitants negatively effected by the mechanics of this new 'content.' Their political situation is unique; even though they can still harvest the loot from rats and aren't going to be as deeply directly effected as Drone residents, the presence of these deployables will be pretty intolerable for them, with no easy upside in sight.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#508 - 2014-01-15 00:45:07 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
...or we could talk about how to make it NOT suck? As in increase the potential reward to a max bounty collection of 125%?


When an idea is fundamentally flawed, no amount of tweaking the numbers will make it not so. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read the thread so that you can have a proper understanding of the subject. Many points have been brought up as to why this is plain bad for eve.

No, I will not pick through 24 pages for you to quote them all.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Lady Tatanka
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2014-01-15 00:47:25 UTC
This is dumb.

Also if you actually implement this horrible idea please actually just decrease bounties by 5% instead of doing whatever the hell with "concord taxes", it just looks sloppy. "Team Super Friends" spent 8 months working on this, it should at least be implemented in a proper fashion regardless of whether or not it is a good idea.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#510 - 2014-01-15 00:50:00 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:

The point is that adding a deployable that doesn't harm them won't effect their behavior. Duh.

I think a neut deploying a deployable that reduces a group of carrier ratters' income by 20% will have a very distinct effect on their behavior.

I think if said ratters are renters and limited to a small number of systems, covering their handful of allowed ratting systems will have a very profound effect on their behavior.


One hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour is likely to be negligible: at present if neutrals enter a system (or are heading down an intel-monitored pipe to a system) the ratters will dock up or head to a POS. If neutrals enter a system and deploy an ESS, the existing behaviour will not change. (this is a hypothesis, it can be tested but is not yet proven).

Another hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour will be noticeable: the thinking is that by deploying a structure that needs to be shot (or at least guarded), someone will come to shoot it at which point you can spring a logon trap or otherwise cause a fight to happen. This hypothesis correlates roughly with the existing behaviour of "deploy mobile warp disruptor, log off, wait for bot to warp back to belt". The difference is that in this case if the bot continues to rat in other belts, the invader still gets rewarded and the bot still gets punished.

A third hypothesis is that deploying an ESS will simply prompt an "overwhelming power" style response from whatever standing fleet happens to be in operation in that space. Thus bringing a fight (if not necessarily the fight that the deployer was expecting).

In answer to the first hypothesis (i.e.: that ESS changes nothing): you have nothing to complain about except that developer time was spent on this frippery instead of refactoring POS code and untangling the spaghetti.

So which of the three will turn out to be correct? Will offensively deploying ESS bring any kind of reaction from the locals? Will entrepreneurs deploying ESS to increase their ratting income bring any kind of reaction from roaming gangs?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Xanos Xellos
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#511 - 2014-01-15 00:52:17 UTC
This has got to be the most ******** crap i've ever seen.

If you arn't going to get rid of it, at least limit access to the corporation that anchored and associate it with a role.
TD746
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#512 - 2014-01-15 00:55:33 UTC
I dont know what you guys are thinking, but you need to realize, you are essentially telling us:

Oh you're NRDS? you live in Providence? we're going to nerf 5% of your bounties (in a space that is already one of the poorest in null)

Noone will allow one of these to exist in our systems due to our engagement rules.


If you just want to punish US *US* of all effing people....people who live and die by smallgang warfare and trying to pull more people into null. Then go ahead with the ESS as designed. We are the good guys for christssake!!!




I respect the thinking that you could deploy an ESS in some backwater system at the edge of the galaxy, and maybe it would create more risk/reward and some smallgang skirmishes. Its just going to gimp us in Providence...

Maybe thats your intention...who knows.

Yeah this is whining, and its valid whining. I dont say otherwise and Im not the least bit ashamed.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#513 - 2014-01-15 00:57:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
Mara Rinn wrote:

One hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour is likely to be negligible: at present if neutrals enter a system (or are heading down an intel-monitored pipe to a system) the ratters will dock up or head to a POS. If neutrals enter a system and deploy an ESS, the existing behaviour will not change. (this is a hypothesis, it can be tested but is not yet proven).

Another hypothesis is that the impact on behaviour will be noticeable: the thinking is that by deploying a structure that needs to be shot (or at least guarded), someone will come to shoot it at which point you can spring a logon trap or otherwise cause a fight to happen. This hypothesis correlates roughly with the existing behaviour of "deploy mobile warp disruptor, log off, wait for bot to warp back to belt". The difference is that in this case if the bot continues to rat in other belts, the invader still gets rewarded and the bot still gets punished.

A third hypothesis is that deploying an ESS will simply prompt an "overwhelming power" style response from whatever standing fleet happens to be in operation in that space. Thus bringing a fight (if not necessarily the fight that the deployer was expecting).

In answer to the first hypothesis (i.e.: that ESS changes nothing): you have nothing to complain about except that developer time was spent on this frippery instead of refactoring POS code and untangling the spaghetti.

So which of the three will turn out to be correct? Will offensively deploying ESS bring any kind of reaction from the locals? Will entrepreneurs deploying ESS to increase their ratting income bring any kind of reaction from roaming gangs?


Good post. I think the likely answer is that players will follow the 'path of least resistance', as they always have; Inevitably escalating to ratters keeping an interceptor or battlecruiser sniper in the hangar to dispose of the extra space trash most efficiently before heading back to their (further nerfed) nullsec space jobs.

I forgot the people that would use these in their own systems. These are the same types of people who officer-fit ships for level 4s, or sell produced goods under cost "because minerals are free". In other words, idiots. They will always exist, yep.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Vela
The PAIN Syndicate
#514 - 2014-01-15 01:07:14 UTC
Can we put up an ESS in the CCP office,
would like to see how many employess offer 20% of there income up for gambling

i know Eve != RL but behind these ideas are real person(serious Spaceship games !!)
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures
#515 - 2014-01-15 01:10:56 UTC
MasterAsher wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Oh and the ESS should be deployable in all space. Go suspect if you get within 20 km of one. Twisted



I AGREE WITH THIS!

please F*** everyone equally please.


not empty quoting
Omanth Bathana
Doomheim
#516 - 2014-01-15 01:14:53 UTC
ahahahahaha, this is an excellent gag deployable to post to your dev blog. Too bad you got the timestamp on the blog post wrong. 1/4/2014 is far more appropriate.
TD746
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#517 - 2014-01-15 01:18:09 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
[quote=Mara Rinn]
Good post. I think the likely answer is that players will follow the 'path of least resistance', as they always have; Inevitably escalating to ratters keeping an interceptor or battlecruiser sniper in the hangar to dispose of the extra space trash most efficiently before heading back to their (further nerfed) nullsec space jobs.

I forgot the people that would use these in their own systems. These are the same types of people who officer-fit ships for level 4s, or sell produced goods under cost "because minerals are free". In other words, idiots. They will always exist, yep.


Thats great when youre 30 jumps from highsec and you're NBSI...


when youre 2 jumps from highsec and encouraging new players to taste null for the first time because youre NRDS...all it is is a nerf for us.
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#518 - 2014-01-15 01:19:03 UTC
Omanth Bathana wrote:
ahahahahaha, this is an excellent gag deployable to post to your dev blog. Too bad you got the timestamp on the blog post wrong. 1/4/2014 is far more appropriate.


I don't see what'd be so different about posting it ten days ago Cool

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Turelus
Utassi Security
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#519 - 2014-01-15 01:21:14 UTC
Something else that really bothers me about the 5% loss in bounties.

It's not so much the ISK being lost (5% really isn't a great hit) but more the feeling that the only reason this has been added into the feature is to try and push us to use an ESS.
Shouldn't the ESS be built to be worth using on its merits alone? creating a 5% reduction on income across NullSec then making only a single item to fix it which comes with more risks than rewards seems backwards to idea idea of content.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE CREATING NEGATIVE CONDITIONS IN SYSTEMS JUST TO GIVE A MODULE POSITIVE ABILITIES!
That's not fair on the players or the Sandbox! Please make the ESS worth using for its own merits and not change the current NullSec system just because of it.

Also do we really need MORE complex things to explain to newbies? When they start ratting and are getting 5% less on their bounties than in HighSec/LowSec we have to explain how in NullSec you only get 95% of the value of you kills by default.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#520 - 2014-01-15 01:21:16 UTC
So this ESS thing is serious and not some troll?

1. If you need 9 paragraphs and 16 bullet points to explain a deployable and at the end of all that I still say "WTF?" then you did something wrong. If this thing ends up on TQ it's a crime against your customers.

2. You seriously think nullsec rewards need an overall 5% nerf, and the only way to get that back is to jump through a bunch of hoops with a horribly designed deployable? If this thing ends up on TQ it should be able to be used anywhere, including hisec incursion systems.

3. With all of the things that need to be fixed in this game (sov, POS, drone interface, etc) it is completely unbelievable that 1 second of dev time was spent on a new feature as absurd and horribly designed as this. Yes, the car doesn't run right, but we put a fake chrome hubcap on the front wheel. Seriously, how did this even make it past an initial concept discussion?

4. Would someone please explain to me how you think this will create PvP content? When a neut comes into system, everyone who docks up now will still dock up. Then they will stay docked up till the neut leaves, and then will have to go blow this useless heap of crap up. Yes CCP, we need one more pointless tedious mechanic in this game to deal with.