These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1041 - 2014-01-16 09:44:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
The basic concept of 'Structure which reduces instant payout but allows potentially greater rewards overall creating a point of conflict' is not a bad one.
It's just not being implemented well in it's current form. So it doesn't need deleting, it needs modifying to make it actually work like it's concept says.

The basic concept fails at the word “structure”.

If they want to implement alliance LP, implement alliance LP. It will do the same thing, only infinitely more cleanly. Perhaps not for the devs — I'm sure they want to toy around with this new personal deployable code before it goes out of style — but definitely for everyone that matters.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1042 - 2014-01-16 09:45:02 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.


Your own economist says otherwise.

Quote:
The next graph showed the money supply. Overall, the money supply is evening out--changes to systems have reduced the ISK supply, so average ISK in active wallets is stable as of November 2012 and the maximum amount may even be peaking. While Mike points out that the leveling-out at the top of the graph is very short, Dr. EyjoG responded that it was the first plateau visible at all. Sinks and faucets are fairly balanced right now, with a bit more faucet than sink to allow for economic growth.


http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdf

This explanation doesn't hold water and you've published something to that effect.


You're comparing apples and oranges here. Eyjo is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. I'm talking about the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties.

I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1043 - 2014-01-16 09:48:25 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1044 - 2014-01-16 09:51:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:

The basic concept fails at the word “structure”.

If they want to implement alliance LP, implement alliance LP. It will do the same thing, only infinitely more cleanly. Perhaps not for the devs — I'm sure they want to toy around with this new personal deployable code before it goes out of style — but definitely for everyone that matters.

Other than the fact.... It doesn't fail at the word structure. Alliance LP is an entirely different matter than this structure, since the alliances themselves get to decide the value of it and have to provide all the stock for the LP store also.
Just because you don't like structures, doesn't mean they are bad. Alliance LP would serve none of the above roles, except perhaps working as an excuse to reduce bounties, but wouldn't actually remove any Isk from the game, since it would be paid to a player, not an NPC. And the players would need to buy everything for it. Alliance LP would also not create any risk element, nor anything to fight over and bother defending.

Does this also need to go along side an increase in how many people can make an income on ratting & anoms in a single system, so there are enough people present to actually form a defence fleet? I absolutely believe so. But again, none of this makes the concept bad, only the implementation.
Feka
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#1045 - 2014-01-16 09:56:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.


This is good news indeed.

Never not post.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1046 - 2014-01-16 09:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Other than the fact.... It doesn't fail at the word structure. Alliance LP is an entirely different matter than this structure, since the alliances themselves get to decide the value of it and have to provide all the stock for the LP store also.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, all of which pretty much disqualify it from being an actual LP store.

Quote:
Just because you don't like structures, doesn't mean they are bad.
They are if they just produce meaningless busywork for no good reason. If there is something this game is desperately not in need of right now, it's more structure HP to bash because it's in your way.

Alliance LP would allow them to reduce bounties and replace part of the bounties with LP, reclaimable at your local alliance outpost for the same terms as LP stores everywhere else. Less ISK enters the system; more ISK leaves the system; nullseccers gain access to the same (NPC) goods and services as highseccers, only with some of the pointlesss crud filtered out. Thus, part of the income would be subject to the same risk as all market activity and investments (just slap a hideous fee and/or timer on being able to replace the list of items the store carries).

Granted, if the economy-adjusting purpose was just a case of poor communication, then the income reduction is rendered needless as well, which only leaves the gambling risk — the market amply provides that already, again more neatly and more clearly.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1047 - 2014-01-16 09:59:21 UTC
Ah, so you want a magical NPC goods faucet instead that alliances can pick & choose what magical goods they don't have to bother producing? Yes.... That's a great idea instead of having a structure that can cause fights because it's worth defending but not so big that it needs a 250 man fleet to fight over.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1048 - 2014-01-16 10:01:04 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.


Your own economist says otherwise.

Quote:
The next graph showed the money supply. Overall, the money supply is evening out--changes to systems have reduced the ISK supply, so average ISK in active wallets is stable as of November 2012 and the maximum amount may even be peaking. While Mike points out that the leveling-out at the top of the graph is very short, Dr. EyjoG responded that it was the first plateau visible at all. Sinks and faucets are fairly balanced right now, with a bit more faucet than sink to allow for economic growth.


http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdf

This explanation doesn't hold water and you've published something to that effect.


You're comparing apples and oranges here. Eyjo is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. I'm talking about the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties.

I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.
How is that apples and oranges? He talks about ISK faucets and inflation, which includes bounties. Doesn't it?

But the question still remains, why is this needed to begin with? What was the rational behind this idea? Why does null sec ratting income need a nerf?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1049 - 2014-01-16 10:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ah, so you want a magical NPC goods faucet instead that alliances can pick & choose what magical goods they don't have to bother producing?
No more magic than what's already in the game. Unless you're suggesting that LP stores be removed from agent corps as well…?

The fact that it's a goods faucet means there will be conflict created by default. A simple structure won't, especially not at the return rates that they feel comfortable with.
Turelus
Utassi Security
#1050 - 2014-01-16 10:05:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.


Pretty much this, it would be a good start in making us happy with this feature overall.
Please don't penalise people not wanting to use this module in an attempt to balance the game for those that do.
Although if more ISK being made in NullSec is a worry why are you (CCP) developing features which increase the raw ISK coming in? If everyone in NullSec deploys an ESS even if the ratters are not the ones getting the money all it will do is increase ISK coming in.

Without ESS: 95% ISK from a system.
With ESS: 100-105% ISK from a system

The only thing that changes by deploying an ESS is who gets the ISK, the tags are just ISK which you have to travel to cash in, unless it's CCP's hope that this ISK will be destroyed on the way by suicide gankig.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#1051 - 2014-01-16 10:05:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.


It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure. The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1052 - 2014-01-16 10:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rek Seven wrote:
It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure.
If such an incentive is needed, and on such a ridiculously imprecise level, the structure needs to be re-thought from the ground up. Manufacturing a huge artificial problem to give your pet solution any reason to exist means it has no reason to exist to begin with. Unwarranted collective punishment is about as bad an incentive as they come.

Quote:
The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space.
It's not tied to any particular space or ownership of that space. In fact, the whole point of these deployables is that anyone can plunk them down anywhere. Thus, it has nothing to do with defending your space and everything to do with pointless busywork if you decide to rat anywhere in null.

If they want to create fights, I'm sure they can do that without making everyone having to grind more to be able to take part in those fights…
Turelus
Utassi Security
#1053 - 2014-01-16 10:18:08 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.


It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure. The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space.

The problem is it's not beneficial to use this structure so no one will and it wont cause fights or reward people who defend their space. Also it's really poor development from CCP to introduce a PITA penalty just to make something new they have developed worth using.
Also before ever trying to force a situation where ratters defend their income from roaming gangs maybe CCP should address the fact that players doing PVE in NullSec are at the disadvantage when an organised red gang comes in.

* PVE ships can't PVP.
* You need to dock to refit, warping to station can be death if the hostile fleet have bubbles.
* You need time to get a fleet of people together and make sure everyone has needed/workable ships ready in that location.
* You need to have a confident/competent FC online.

You can argue that the Sov holder has the home-field advantage but the issue is if you're doing PVE and an organised gang comes through you're caught with your pants down and need time to pull them up and get ready.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#1054 - 2014-01-16 10:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Tippia wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure.
If such an incentive is needed, and on such a ridiculously imprecise level, the structure needs to be re-thought from the ground up. Manufacturing a huge artificial problem to give your pet solution any reason to exist means it has no reason to exist to begin with.

Quote:
The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space.
It's not tied to any particular space or ownership of that space. In fact, the whole point of these deployables is that anyone can plunk them down anywhere. Thus, it has nothing to do with defending your space and everything to do with pointless busywork if you decide to rat anywhere in null.

If they want to create fights, I'm sure they can do that without making everyone having to grind more to be able to take part in those fights…


By create fights, i'm not talking about sov, I'm talking about the nullbears that stay in one system and never take part in pvp.

Sure, if i anchor one of these most nullbears will just stay docked or log off but some will come and attempt to destroy the structure, which will result in a fight.

Turelus wrote:

The problem is it's not beneficial to use this structure so no one will and it wont cause fights or reward people who defend their space. Also it's really poor development from CCP to introduce a PITA penalty just to make something new they have developed worth using.
Also before ever trying to force a situation where ratters defend their income from roaming gangs maybe CCP should address the fact that players doing PVE in NullSec are at the disadvantage when an organised red gang comes in.

* PVE ships can't PVP.
* You need to dock to refit, warping to station can be death if the hostile fleet have bubbles.
* You need time to get a fleet of people together and make sure everyone has needed/workable ships ready in that location.
* You need to have a confident/competent FC online.

You can argue that the Sov holder has the home-field advantage but the issue is if you're doing PVE and an organised gang comes through you're caught with your pants down and need time to pull them up and get ready.


Why isn't a 20% buff to income beneficial?

And don't kid yourself... the majority of people in null would never engage that roaming fleet, they would just stay docked and wait it out.

Maybe now that they stand to lose something, they might hope in a cheap T1 ship, defend their ESS and have a good fight.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1055 - 2014-01-16 10:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rek Seven wrote:
By create fights, i'm not talking about sov, I'm talking about the nullbears that stay in one system and never take part in pvp.
…which still won't fight, so nothing will be created there.

Quote:
Sure, if i anchor one of these most nullbears will just stay docked or log off but some will come and attempt to destroy the structure, which will result in a fight.
That's all good and well, but by doing so, you've already reduced their income. That's not even a remotely sane reason to collectively punish all null inhabitants. If you want to annoy the locals in a system with some honeypot structure, there's already the scan inhibitor — something that is a potential immediate threat that needs swift action, not something that might inconvenience a few who won't bother until you've left anyway — why do you need one that is only meant to counteract a nerf that affects all off null?

Again, they're only creating a problem to give this solution a reason to exist. That means it has no reason to exist.
Turelus
Utassi Security
#1056 - 2014-01-16 10:30:05 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
It's purpose is to incentive the use of the structure.
If such an incentive is needed, and on such a ridiculously imprecise level, the structure needs to be re-thought from the ground up. Manufacturing a huge artificial problem to give your pet solution any reason to exist means it has no reason to exist to begin with.

Quote:
The purpose of the structure is to creates fights and reward people who fight / defend their space.
It's not tied to any particular space or ownership of that space. In fact, the whole point of these deployables is that anyone can plunk them down anywhere. Thus, it has nothing to do with defending your space and everything to do with pointless busywork if you decide to rat anywhere in null.

If they want to create fights, I'm sure they can do that without making everyone having to grind more to be able to take part in those fights…


By create fights, i'm not talking about sov, I'm talking about the nullbears that stay in one system and never take part in pvp.

Sure, if i anchor one of these most nullbears will just stay docked or log off but some will come and attempt to destroy the structure, which will result in a fight.

They're only going to destroy it when you gang has grown bored and long since left, like everyone has been saying.
It's not an immediate threat to their Sov and if you're in system they're not going to be ratting any way so why would they undock and fight a group who obviously has the advantage of already being in a structures and organised fleet if the ESS has no effect on them.

Reds in system = PVE players stay docked.
Reds drop ESS and go "whahaha now they will undock because we have a fight starting module!" = PVE players stay docked and PVP players don't care because you're not doing anything.
Your gang gets bored waiting 20mins for something to happen and leaves, PVE and PVP players check intel, wait for you to be x number of jumps away, undock and blow up the ESS before switching back to PVE ships and going about their business.

We have a fight starting deployable module, it's called an SBU. Because you CAN'T let those sit there online without massive risks to your space, the ESS has nothing worth forming a fleet for.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#1057 - 2014-01-16 10:31:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Schmata Bastanold
Rek Seven wrote:

Sure, if i anchor one of these most nullbears will just stay docked or log off but some will come and attempt to destroy the structure, which will result in a fight.



Why would they undock with you in system? They will wait for you to leave and THEN they will attempt to destroy ESS. No more, no less fights than now.

Invalid signature format

seth Hendar
I love you miners
#1058 - 2014-01-16 10:32:46 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
seth Hendar wrote:

so you mean that we need to actually do another protest in jita and stuf, with mass unsub, leading to some of you guys being fired for you to finally listen to us?

seems we have a deal then.....

If you are going to unsub over a couple of percent (Unless you are drone lands it's not a full 5% income loss), assuming you accept the loss and don't take any gambles to make profit, you truly are a precious carebear, HTFU. Or get lost to WoW. Really, you are being more precious than the true highsec carebears were over the nerfs to armour incursions with marauder changes.

Stop being a drama queen, give more serious feedback, get the rest of the CSM also giving feedback as well as those who already have posted. Bring pressure to make it what it could be, rather than 'Waaaah, I hate it, just delete it all now'

i don't even live neither in null or high, so you better wtch your mouth, i'm not especially upset about this ESS, it's more about the attitude of CCP constantly ignoring players feedback, if you had an iq> 2 you would have understood

i gave serious feedback, many time since YEARS, including many bug reports and been in many mass test, only to see CCP just ignore the whole thing.

so keep your HTFU, some ppl really care about how bad he current path is, seriously get lost, you just are dumb if you don't understand this
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#1059 - 2014-01-16 10:36:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Schmata Bastanold wrote:

Why would they undock with you in system? They will wait for you to leave and THEN they will attempt to destroy ESS. No more, no less fights than now.



If there is a ESS already in system earning people 120% of the current bounty, a roaming fleet can warp to it and if you are unwilling to fight them off, they get to take any unclaimed tags. You deny them fights and they deny you isk... seems like a fair trade to me.

It's the equivalent of old time highway robbery.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#1060 - 2014-01-16 10:37:18 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
If there is a ESS already in system earning people 120% of the current bounty, a roaming fleet can warp to it and if you are unwilling to fight them off, they get to take any unclaimed tags. You deny them fights and they deny you isk... seems like a fair trade to me.

It's the equivalent of old time highway robbery.


That is exactly why nobody will use ESS as money boosting thing in the first place

Invalid signature format