These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

ESS Discussion Thread

First post First post
Author
Logical 101
PowerCow Farm
#161 - 2014-01-16 08:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Logical 101
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Not really. The general consensus amongst most null dwellers (Even ones that I technically hate) is that something got a wee bit over buffed again. It happens. Your constant insistence that me stating that something is broken and providing arguments to support my claims is somehow breaking my mind down with rage and unquiet thoughts is kind of amusing, it's like an overdone "u mad bro?"

I think you fail to see the truth of it.

A strongly player supported concept is suggested by CSM and is implemented. Most people have a lot of fun with it (well, the ones who don't have their heads shoved firmly up their asses). Fail PvPers unable to either utilize interceptors properly by being creative and embracing target selection in order to inflict pain and weepy nullbears unable to cope with this new threat claim "imbalance" and, as you have done, declare the concept to be failed and unpopular.

Same goes for the ESS. Yeah, it's probably an inconvenience to many people, but those who either benefit from it by using it correctly... in their vast amounts of space (*cough*)... or otherwise ignore it (and take the microscopic hit) will be the ones who don't experience selective memory problems and, eventually, aneurisms over well-intentioned modifications to the game. It's like watching a politician flip-flop on a suddenly relevant topic.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#162 - 2014-01-16 08:47:49 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:

Just like the catalyst is the bane of afk miners, so shall ceptors be for the semi-afk ratters.

Null tears, tasty.


What do I give a damn about ratters? I'd just like to add some risk back into their lives.
Logical 101
PowerCow Farm
#163 - 2014-01-16 08:49:51 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
What do I give a damn about ratters? I'd just like to add some risk back into their lives

Then fly a ****ing interceptor!

Lol

Christ man, you crack me up.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#164 - 2014-01-16 08:51:42 UTC
Rastafarian God wrote:


Although I agree this ratting thing sound like something I would come up with drunk, Im not buying that you cant protect it if you really want to. Alone? maybe not, buy your in null, you wouldnt live out there if you didn't have decent numbers.



Most systems cannot support more than ten people running anoms and with them only needing a minute and intercepters being immune to warp bubbles its a very easy task for most small gangs to steal from these things. By the time you dock up, get into the correct ships to counter them and warp to the structure they will likely be gone.

The only realistic chance to defend these things is to have an alt baby sitting the structure but that means sacrificing an account which would be earning a lot more just ratting.

There is nothing positive with this plan.
Rastafarian God
#165 - 2014-01-16 08:53:32 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:


Tanked bomber with a scram and a web sitting next to it would do the trick. Mainly because it's a unique situation that requires an interceptor stay still.You'd rely on backup for the kill. But again you'd be better off just not deploying one and dumping that SB pilot into another ratting ship.


So there is your counter. Wich means it is not broken, just an overall stupid idea.

If your just better off not using the thing instead of using one and protecting it, then just don't use it. If no one uses them, then its essentially just a 5% flat cut like people would prefer (although granted with a way around it if you want to do the work).

I personally wonder if CCP would bother keeping them in the game if literally no one ever used them.


Dave Stark
#166 - 2014-01-16 08:56:24 UTC
Rastafarian God wrote:
So there is your counter.


it's not a counter if a better solution is to not use an ESS and put the "counter" in another ratting ship. that just illustrates how bad the idea is.

the counter is to not use an ESS at all.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#167 - 2014-01-16 09:00:20 UTC
Logical 101 wrote:

I think you fail to see the truth of it.

A strongly player supported concept is suggested by CSM and is implemented. Most people have a lot of fun with it (well, the ones who don't have their heads shoved firmly up their asses). Fail PvPers unable to either utilize interceptors properly by being creative and embracing target selection in order to inflict pain and weepy nullbears unable to cope with this new threat claim "imbalance" and, as you have done, declare the concept to be failed and unpopular.


Once again you are arguing against a straw man. You assume because I think something is broken means I either can't use it, or don't know how to use it effectively. I call it imbalance because they can't be killed without gross pilot error. I get to that conclusion by saying "How would I fly a Malediction given this particular subset of skills/hull bonuses etc". Now I don't fly a malediction due to atrophied missile skills and way too much invested in gunnery but I've been flying my stiletto in laps from curse to vale, passing through syndicate for giggles, and you know what? I'm impossible to kill in this thing. Oh sure one day I'll make a mistake due to alcohol and tackle a curse or something dumb like that, but barring stupidity? I'm going to bring it home every time. Every other hull I have has a little "Oh **** competent people are going to kill me no matter what I do" built in. But not this one.

I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that.
illirdor
Upper Class Goat
#168 - 2014-01-16 09:02:43 UTC
im soooooo gonna fly around and dropping this baby just to **** ppl off XD

Soooo this is my sig.... 

SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#169 - 2014-01-16 09:03:42 UTC  |  Edited by: SmilingVagrant
Logical 101 wrote:
SmilingVagrant wrote:
What do I give a damn about ratters? I'd just like to add some risk back into their lives

Then fly a ****ing interceptor!

Lol

Christ man, you crack me up.


I do! and I meant risk into the interceptors life. A ship immune to being killed while just traveling from gate to gate annoys the hell out of me. I ***** about nullified T3's too, though they derp a bit more than a ceptor with nanos do thanks to align times.

illirdor wrote:
im soooooo gonna fly around and dropping this baby just to **** ppl off XD


Admittedly so am I.
Dave Stark
#170 - 2014-01-16 09:04:44 UTC
illirdor wrote:
im soooooo gonna fly around and dropping this baby just to **** ppl off XD


but you can't deploy them in high sec...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#171 - 2014-01-16 09:05:03 UTC
Rastafarian God wrote:
SmilingVagrant wrote:


Tanked bomber with a scram and a web sitting next to it would do the trick. Mainly because it's a unique situation that requires an interceptor stay still.You'd rely on backup for the kill. But again you'd be better off just not deploying one and dumping that SB pilot into another ratting ship.


So there is your counter. Wich means it is not broken, just an overall stupid idea.

If your just better off not using the thing instead of using one and protecting it, then just don't use it. If no one uses them, then its essentially just a 5% flat cut like people would prefer (although granted with a way around it if you want to do the work).

I personally wonder if CCP would bother keeping them in the game if literally no one ever used them.




That leaves us with a 5% nerf to an activity that is already paying out less than you can make in high sec level 4s.

Will high sec income also be getting nerfed to compensate this loss in income?
Logical 101
PowerCow Farm
#172 - 2014-01-16 09:07:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Logical 101
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Once again you are arguing against a straw man.

Repetition reinforcement goes both ways.

SmilingVagrant wrote:
I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that.

Not really. In this case it's an opportunity to attack the seemingly committed mindset put forth with a concrete implication; that the inability to exploit that which is presented to you is, in essence, intellectually bankrupt.

a falsis principiis proficisci
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#173 - 2014-01-16 09:14:16 UTC
I think a lot of people are actually missing the point in this thread, too. Null people ("nullbears" how they're called nowadays) aren't concerned about "ermagawdmyiskies". 5% is a nerf but hey, we still have moons and the hilarious top-down income that means you buy a ship once and then get reimbursed when you lose it. You literally ride on the same ISK investment if you want to do just fleets, and that's not mentioning peacetime reimbursements for random gangs.

With cash like this you can afford to buy stupid ships an die in them or have surplus cash as a reserve.

The first point, I guess, would be the fact that CCP is offering a raidable structure that offers a staggering, mindblowing... 5%! bonus to bounty payouts. At the risk of 20-25% overall income. Given individual bounties are so low they force people to AFK rat in drone ships for hours or build overly expensive faction/t3 ships designed to burn through anomalies before even bounties tick, it doesn't seem it's going to be worth it.

In short, CCP managed to come up with something uniquely idiotic, useless and tries to do something with broken PvE instead of, I don't know, fixing the damn broken PvE.

Second point is - it's yet another nerf to null grunt-level income. There's even less incentive to get out there and poke some rats in hostile space because "omg bounties so high let's go belt rat". The case of "why bother risking your ship?" is already up there because of incursions/l4's being a safer and more profitable way of earning money. The words "nullsec income" should cause people to drool and try to cut themselves a nice slice, not say "cool, I make more in hisec incursions/farming LP in fw anyway".

I somehow fail to see how a "Guys! Guys! let's go travel a region of gatecamps and baddies to raid a structure for 20m ISK split between our 10 man fleet!" scenario will happen - it should be more like "Hey guys, let's form a fleet to nab a DED Complex and get the 1bn BPC inside. 2 dudes run it in Tengus, rest gets into assfrigs and holds on the gate"

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph

SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#174 - 2014-01-16 09:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: SmilingVagrant
Logical 101 wrote:
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Once again you are arguing against a straw man.

Repetition reinforcement goes both ways.

SmilingVagrant wrote:
I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that.

Not really. In this case it's an opportunity to attack the seemingly apathetic mindset put forth with a concrete implication; that the inability to exploit that which is presented to you is, in essence, intellectually bankrupt.

a falsis principiis proficisci


Repetition reinforcement isn't applicable because your major point in this entire affair is "There's something you don't like boohoo". That's really not a chunk of data you can talk about. It's literally a "U mad bro". If there was any intellectual honesty in your argument you'd be posting counters, maybe those not obvious to the issues being discussed. But instead you hide behind a "You simply aren't creative enough" shield which is right up there with the ~puppetmasta defense~ in silly "I win forum rules"

On to the second point:

Are you really arguing that I shouldn't think something is broken because I'm refusing to exploit something (That I am exploiting in reality)? Don't get me wrong I have no problem utilizing inherently broken mechanics to my advantage, but that doesn't stop me from objectively arguing that they are broken as well. That's not intellectually bankrupt at all.

God I love arguing.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Northern Coalition.
#175 - 2014-01-16 09:16:22 UTC
OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.

its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.

if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.

Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!

get a god damn grip

posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand

personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it.

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#176 - 2014-01-16 09:17:52 UTC
Logical 101 wrote:
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Once again you are arguing against a straw man.

Repetition reinforcement goes both ways.

SmilingVagrant wrote:
I dislike that. It's weird that you dislike me disliking that.

Not really. In this case it's an opportunity to attack the seemingly committed mindset put forth with a concrete implication; that the inability to exploit that which is presented to you is, in essence, intellectually bankrupt.

a falsis principiis proficisci


Would you post some facts, or debate the posts addressed to you that have facts, instead of ****Ing up the thread with your terrible pontificating.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#177 - 2014-01-16 09:21:45 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.

its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.

if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.

Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!

get a god damn grip

posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand

personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it.


Its the fact that over the last decade null has seen nerf after nerf to its income and we are now at the point where high sec offers much better income. This latest nerf is simply making the problem even worse. There is no reason at all to run anoms over high sec level 4s.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2014-01-16 09:21:54 UTC
WASPY69 wrote:
+1
The most useless, irrelevant addition to EVE in a long time. Not only that, but it spams local worse than Jita isk doublers...

"EVE System > *Person1* is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System"
"EVE System > *Person2* is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System"
"EVE System > None is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System"
"EVE System > *Person1* is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System"
"EVE System > None is now in proximity of the Encounter Surveilance System"

And it goes on and on and on and on... make it stahp!



The Idea is not stupid. THe implementation is short of what is needed altouhg. Such concept can create small scale warfare. Can create space for raidign parties disrupt economy.

It woudl be an important step into FIXING 0.0


But 5% reward ove 5% risk is not ok. Should be 10% investment.. 15% bonus.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2014-01-16 09:23:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.

its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.

if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.

Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!

get a god damn grip

posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand

personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it.


Its the fact that over the last decade null has seen nerf after nerf to its income and we are now at the point where high sec offers much better income. This latest nerf is simply making the problem even worse. There is no reason at all to run anoms over high sec level 4s.



You know that this is a LIE. You know very well thatyou can make far far more isk per hour in 0.0. THe only place in high sec where you do near that level of isk per our is incursions. but those you cannot just get home and spend 30 mintues doing it. You need to get on wait list and wait for 2 hours before you start doing money.


If 0.0 is so much less productive than high sec? Why you guys fich so many wars for the income resources of 0.0?


SImplyu, this is a #!@#!@ excuse. 0.0 income is still 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than high sec (except commerce of course)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#180 - 2014-01-16 09:24:01 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
OMG you whining tw@ts. Big alliances trying to control eve again.

its ONLY 5% jesus christ! what is up with you. Dont use the ESS you ARE NOT FORCED to.

if you ratted for an hour and made 80mill you would be ONLY losing 4 million isk from what you would get now. big deal! and if you live in nullsec if losing 4 million isk is a problem for you, your doing it wrong.

Sorry if your botters will now lose a little more income!

get a god damn grip

posting with my main-main because i dont give a feck, this is getting out of hand

personally if ccp wanted to nerf nullsec they should of gone further and dropped it to 50% then the ESS would go up in scale the longer its there to 110%. this would of made it a far far better and interesting concept. At the moment the 5% is so small i wouldnt even bother deploying a ESS, so ignore it.


Dude like 95% of the botting in eve comes from the terrible highsec hellhole, and with the number of small alliance signatories on that thing posted I'd say this isn't "Big Goon" holding you down.

Not to mention I bet a bot would clock the ESS more efficiently than any goofy player would.