These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shvak
Shvak Corporation
#801 - 2014-01-15 22:01:53 UTC
Turelus wrote:


The key point you should pick up on and work to fix however is this: Everyone living in NullSec would rather eat the 5% loss than ever use one of these modules. That's a pretty big flaw in the module which fixing timers, bubbles and interceptors wont address.


I think that sums up the general concensus...

Also whoever came up with the idea (suggestion to management at CCP) please introduce mandatory drug screening

Rekkr Nordgard
Borderland Militia
Zero Hedge Union
#802 - 2014-01-15 22:07:48 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
It´s not going to happen in 1.1, but might in the future. Possibly also if we do meta-versions later that change security level restrictions and/or payout values.


CCP SoniClover wrote:
They're seeded on market same as the first version.



Oh yes, the market question is THE MOST important point in regards to this deployable, thanks for staying on top of that.

Do know how awful this deployable is? You had to punish an entire portion of the game to try to FORCE them to use this deployable. That's just horrible game design. Scrap this entire thing.
scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#803 - 2014-01-15 22:15:20 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.

also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft?


Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable

Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.



So you all are not looking at not nerfing null sec ratting by another 5%? You (ccp) turned the anom scanner from 30 seconds, to 10, now instantaneous. You (ccp) made interceptors be able to warp to any site in 5 seconds. So much for that bottom up income stream that is talked about but nothing gets done.
Celeste DeAgama
Doomheim
#804 - 2014-01-15 22:15:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Celeste DeAgama wrote:


Dropping them to impact enemy alliance income


Ah, so your going to drop them in the high sec incursions and Sisters or Thukker (or Republic Fleet, RF 100mn ABs are selling well right now) that people will do rather than screw around in null with people like you?

I call hacker if you find a way to do this.
.
LOL. Really? Forums are almost as fun as the game. ROFLMAO.
Ka Vin
MinRep Orbital Dockyards and Enterprises
#805 - 2014-01-15 22:21:48 UTC
Yay!! Black Market iski finally!
I can't wait to see Jita local when you can trade isk cards for items instead of a tracable market or contract transactions.
I gotta go work up a good scam.
Wanna buy some drugs?
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#806 - 2014-01-15 22:22:58 UTC
Conflict driver?

How?

I see several posters saying this will create pvp.. it wont.

I been down to 0.0 several times now (I live in lowsec myself.. yes people do live there) and most of the time the ratters pos up as fast as they can and wont come out to fight no matter what.

If we drop this piece of junk, they will still stay docked until we leave and then go out, nuke it and return to ratting/anoming... so.. no new pvp.

Or. they form up a fleet and we have epic pew pew.. but.. they would do that regardless of this module or not. (see above).

no ratter in their right mind will go out to shoot this thing while we are still in their system and they sure as HELL wont keep ratting when we are there. not for long anyway.

THIS WONT CREATE PVP!!

it just adds a boring structure grind if the agressors drop one, and considering how short time it takes them to melt it. why would we leave one in space and waste the isk?

and it has been proven several times how stupid it is for the ratter to use one, since most of the time us roaming in 0.0 will be in ceptors. and just go.. trololol to steal the isk. what.. they will undock to defend their module? nope, not unless they are numerous to take us on, and if they where and wanted to pew.. they would pew us anyway!!!

the only ones i see going, "this is a good idea" are highsec carebears, and i dont use the term negatively. i used to be one for ages :) but the ones saying this is good, are the ones that will NEVER use or interact with one. so it is pure Schadenfreude, and seriously that isn't a good basis for feedback.. haha sucks to be you.. is a childish reaction. most of us care about EVE even areas we don't visit.

CCP, your feedback on this thread so far has made it quite clear you are feebly trying to defend your idea in the face of overwhelming negative feedback. It is ok to say, ok.. we will scrap this idea. It wont make you the weaker person, it takes a strong person to admit they are wrong. Being told your idea is bad hurts, of course it does. But lashing out with irrational .. we will fix this later.. that is just silly. we all know you dont. you even make.. arrogant little jokes about how you dont. Can't you see how that makes us, the playerbase feel?

Linda
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#807 - 2014-01-15 22:39:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Lady Naween wrote:
Conflict driver?

How?


it just adds a boring structure grind if the agressors drop one, and considering how short time it takes them to melt it. why would we leave one in space and waste the isk?

and it has been proven several times how stupid it is for the ratter to use one, since most of the time us roaming in 0.0 will be in ceptors. and just go.. trololol to steal the isk. what.. they will undock to defend their module? nope, not unless they are numerous to take us on, and if they where and wanted to pew.. they would pew us anyway!!!

Linda


The rewards need to be tweaked so it is worthwhile for the nullbears to deploy. Additionally, the access times need to be tweaked so the nullbears can defend it (if they think they can). Tweak these aspects, and it can be a conflict driver.

Alternatively, give it a 10 minute online time, and a 48 hour RF timer (where it collects bounties even after it is RF'd, but only the owning corp can "cash out" the bounties it collects). Then it is an offensive tool that allows the aggressors to deploy it and nerf income in a system.
Raminather
Blood Ravens.
#808 - 2014-01-15 22:42:16 UTC
How about instead of further screwing with stuff that is working you finish the station walking that was supposed to be done already.....

Priorities in the dev department are flawed. Fix the current content and finish the stuff promised before adding new stuff to further screw people.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#809 - 2014-01-15 22:45:52 UTC
Raminather wrote:
How about instead of further screwing with stuff that is working you finish the station walking that was supposed to be done already.....

Priorities in the dev department are flawed. Fix the current content and finish the stuff promised before adding new stuff to further screw people.


W.i.S is not a priority... and hasn't been for quite some time.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#810 - 2014-01-15 22:46:50 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


The rewards need to be tweaked so it is worthwhile for the nullbears to deploy. Additionally, the access times need to be tweaked so the nullbears can defend it (if they think they can). Tweak these aspects, and it can be a conflict driver.

Alternatively, give it a 10 minute online time, and a 48 hour RF timer (where it collects bounties even after it is RF'd, but only the owning corp can "cash out" the bounties it collects). Then it is an offensive tool that allows the aggressors to deploy it and nerf income in a system.



Tbh i dont think the access timers matter, if they are strong enough to come pew they will do so anyway. I can only speak for the roams I been in in 0.0 but when we reach a larger system we often ask if they want to pew. most of the times they will play stationgames for a few before it is obvious they dont want to. so they will just wait until we are gone to go pew it if we leave it behind.

your second point could work yes, but.. do we want more timers?
Eternity Mistseeker
Renegades of Eve
Aureus Alae
#811 - 2014-01-15 22:54:43 UTC
This got past the dev team and the CSM?

Is anyone actually awake...
Pic'n dor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#812 - 2014-01-15 23:04:26 UTC
ESS :

Concord bounty so why empire tags ? shouldn't we get concord tags ?

Why isk ? Could these tags be converted into LP ?

COUCOU TOUCHE TOUCHE

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#813 - 2014-01-15 23:04:57 UTC
CCP SoniClover:

What in the absolute **** do you think you're doing?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#814 - 2014-01-15 23:11:33 UTC
Lady Naween wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


The rewards need to be tweaked so it is worthwhile for the nullbears to deploy. Additionally, the access times need to be tweaked so the nullbears can defend it (if they think they can). Tweak these aspects, and it can be a conflict driver.

Alternatively, give it a 10 minute online time, and a 48 hour RF timer (where it collects bounties even after it is RF'd, but only the owning corp can "cash out" the bounties it collects). Then it is an offensive tool that allows the aggressors to deploy it and nerf income in a system.



Tbh i dont think the access timers matter, if they are strong enough to come pew they will do so anyway. I can only speak for the roams I been in in 0.0 but when we reach a larger system we often ask if they want to pew. most of the times they will play stationgames for a few before it is obvious they dont want to. so they will just wait until we are gone to go pew it if we leave it behind.

your second point could work yes, but.. do we want more timers?


I think the offensive version of this is not the optimal path to follow, but think it is a viable concept.

In my opinion this should be part of the nullsec farms and fields paradigm. This was concept brought front and center by the Mittani back in 2011.

The basic idea, is that players can setup "farms" to cultivate income, but these would be potentially vulnerable to attack by raiders. The value within the farm would motivate locals to potentially defend their assets, creating content for both the raiders and nullbears alike. Valuable Moongoo POS's are an example of this, but the scale is wrong, as a casual gang cannot attack even a small POS and achieve anything timely. This item has the potential to meet this design criteria by boosting income for those that utilize it, and potentially accruing enough value to make "defending it" worthwhile. However, there are several things that need to be taken into account: Defenders need time to assess the situation and form up an adequate response. The appropriate timeframe is not simple though, as too long and the defenders easily blob and/or the attackers will get bored. There is also the "is it worth it to deploy such an item" discussion. At the end of the day, these things need to be profitable to deploy 70+% of the time. If not, the risk of loss simply supersedes the value gained, and they won't be used.

The potential is there, we just need honest discussion on how to refine it.
Kais Fiddler
Perkone
Caldari State
#815 - 2014-01-15 23:12:02 UTC
Thanks for the quixotic module and the ratting nerf ccp, good to know you're still useless as always. If you insist on actually putting this on the market might I suggest dramatically increasing the time to give out the isk/items, easier capability to sell the damn things asides from high sec only (which is an awful idea as it lowers the true value of an item due to travel time and risk), make the warp bubble actually affect interceptors, and shift the risk/reward values significantly. I wouldn't rat with one of those in system as is, and I can't imagine anyone else would either. This is besides fixing the bugs already laid out by Kismeter.

While you're at it why not make it hackable - doing so reduces or eliminates the time required to make it dispense the isk/items.

Actually if you wanted to help immersion why not have pirates buy the items for slightly less than full market value to simulate some form of black market. At least that way people trying to hunt in hostile space would be able to dispose of the goods relatively easily instead of the vaguely higher risk of having to export them to high sec.
Kais Fiddler
Perkone
Caldari State
#816 - 2014-01-15 23:13:48 UTC
Pic'n dor wrote:
ESS :

Concord bounty so why empire tags ? shouldn't we get concord tags ?

Why isk ? Could these tags be converted into LP ?

Concord tags which have set values in isk?
LP that everyone can cash in regardless of standings?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#817 - 2014-01-15 23:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)…
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique?

The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands.

Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish?
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#818 - 2014-01-15 23:38:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)…
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique?

The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands.

Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish?


I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.
Kais Fiddler
Perkone
Caldari State
#819 - 2014-01-15 23:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kais Fiddler
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tippia wrote:
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)…
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique?

The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands.

Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish?


I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.

“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”

So basically if we aren't willing to sacrifice by forming up to kill a structure other people drop we should lose isk? Nice troll.

For clarity: there's not enough gain to consider using this module with the given bonuses/negatives. Thanks for the minor nerf to ratting income, try to make a better game mechanic later SoniClover.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#820 - 2014-01-15 23:41:46 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tippia wrote:
So, I'm just going to have to ask (again)…
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable
Have you looked at the reasoning for a blanket income nerf for rank-and-file null inhabitants? If you have, could you please present it for general scorn and derision critique?

The entire idea behind this addition hinges on such a nerf being at all sensible, and you have so far not managed to explain why it is. This makes the entire addition senseless as it currently stands.

Put another way: what is the underlying design goal here? What are you trying to accomplish?


I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.


Tippia wrote:
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”


lol...