These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1121 - 2014-01-16 13:55:32 UTC
L'ouris
Have Naught Subsidiaries
#1122 - 2014-01-16 13:56:21 UTC
The biggest shortfall of this idea and its fixes so far for me is the lack of motivating ratters for defense.

Sure we talked about the timing being adjusted to make it even possible to defend, but what do we have at stake that would encourage us to grab a home defense fleet and go defend these things?

I represent a decent target for these modules. I rat for ISK in 0.0, badly, like 10 mil per tick bad. I keep PVP ships in system or nearby and often have a PVP fit on my ratting boat. The current state today is that going to interdict a roaming gang just isn't worth my time at the moment unless they hang around long enough and I can either organize a group, join a group being organized or stand a chance in hell of fighting the group solo with what I have at my disposal. There just isnt enough at stake for me to risk a ratting BS charging in to intercept baddies in my ratting ship. Currently I have no gain to defend and only stand to lose a ship.


We are talking about a bonus delivering device that is worth 30 mil. If its destroyed or scooped what ISK or LP or whatever is cooked up is still held in the ether of the system unless someone specifically clicks a loot all button. So, from my perspective, what advantage to defending the device itself? if it goes pop, nothing is lost until we deploy a new one.

even with the terrible ISK per hour I get ratting, defending a 30 mil deployable is kinda meh. I can easily see just having a few spare in a nearby station or POS. We need to have something real at risk with these devices. Having something real at risk means I should have a real reason to take that risk. It needs to be worth deploying in the first place.

In my shoes, I look at risking my meager assets and the return. I would be expected to at least put about 40 mil on the line to defend this module ( PVP fit T1 cruiser or AF ballpark numbers? ) That means that my stake in the defense of the module should be in the ballpark of 40 mil. I rat at 10m/tick. In the current proposed forms, I would have to be ratting non-stop all day or two on a weekend to even get that kind of stake loaded into the device.

It needs to be worth defending in addition to being possible to defend. I firmly believe that meaningful conflict drivers should exist in 0.0 without the billion hit points of SOV structures. We need small gang equivalent goals that SBU's and POS's provide for larger forces. Even if the proposed changes to this module are made, we must have a reason to defend it that gets us out of POS shields or station and onto the grid with the bad guys.

My number is about 40 mil per ratter on the line, stolen or blown up. What would be the number that gets you out of the POS? What would be the minimum bonus before you would risk something like that?
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1123 - 2014-01-16 13:59:34 UTC
I can’t believe I am writing this. I had hoped that CCP SoniClover had any idea of how to design features, or how to communicate, or indeed any ability to read and comprehend criticism. It’s appalling that players have to lecture CCP on how to do stuff like this.
This post will be written from some common sense and from my almost 10 years experience as storyteller and game master in various forms of role playing games and LARP. I’m not a game designer by profession, but I do political science for a living (And study). When I ran for office, my ability to respond to other candidates criticism in debates wouldn’t really change their minds, but the audience might be swayed – but only if I actually answered the questions, comprehensively, clearly, with some kind of relevance to the election, the office and my party’s politics.

First, when designing features in a game, you should set a goal. That goal might be “we want to increase/decrease activity X”, or maybe “we want to introduce activity Y”, or perhaps even “we want to promote social interaction Z”. Setting a goal, and being open about it, will not just help yourself keep on track and your internal evaluation; it will also help constructive criticism from your customers to reach that goal. If your goal is to “increase activity X”, and those with great experience in that particular activity can explain how your proposed feature will decrease activity X, you are in a much better position to make positive changes than if your feedback is on how this will decrease social interaction Z.
This also means that if you have two central goals, you need to be sure they are compatible. “Increasing activity X” and “promote social interaction anti-X” may be compatible, but chances are it isn’t. Then either drop one of the goals, or only increase or promote one to keep it in balance.

Now, with a goal, you can see if there are already incentives to do or avoid activity X, a basis for activity Y or if social interaction Z is already happening. If yes, you should see to those first. Sometimes you can improve an activity simply by making it easier to get into, get an overview, manage... Something as “simple” as an interface improvement can incentivise activity X or enable activity Y.
The rest of the time you have to do something new. If it’s an activity that currently provides rewards, you can up the rewards, and if it doesn’t, you can introduce them. If it is associated with risks or costs, you can decrease those. If you want to decrease an activity, you can decrease rewards or increase risks or costs.

If you don’t have these “buttons to push, screws to tighten/loosen” you need to get creative. Can activity X use a new tool? What kind of tool, what kind of effects will it have? Can activity Y be enabled by a new skill or (If it already happens on a small, free-form basis) a demand for that activity elsewhere? What other implications would that have, and would to enable activity Y mean an effective decrease in incentive to activity X? If you promote social interaction Z, will that make activity X easier or maybe harder? Will enabling activity Y make social interaction Z redundant?

When you have your rough outline of the feature or changes to features you are introducing, you need to take a good look at it. Essentially, what you need to identify is 1) if the feature is in accordance with your goal, 2) if it impacts on or is impacted by any other part of the game and 3) if there are more than one possible way to achieve your goal.
It’s important because you should never design blind. It’s not just a quick way to waste resources and customer goodwill, but it is also very likely to be an overall detrimental thing to the game.

About half a year ago, CSM member Malcanis made a list of 8 things that would help the CSM promote ideas to CCP. I think you would gain something from reading that list, since your idea would not have passed muster:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3178202#post3178202

Now, that was some ground rules for how to design. It’s a lot of common sense and some experiences I have had from designing role playing games, both tabletop campaigns that have endured for years and weekend live action role plays for up to 250 participants. I haven’t had to sell my ideas to customers the way you must, but I still had to show why a thing or a change was necessary, how it would work, what it would effect, if the participants overall would find it enjoyable – if nothing else then to myself: “Will A amount of effort translate into adequate amount of enjoyment for my players?” is a central question.

With these helpful pointers I hope you get the gist of designing new stuff in a game. Introducing new content needs a justification, and needs to live up to that justification.

Moving on to your communication, I am not sure where to start.
Some parts of it scream of avoidance of tough questions. You seem to ignore all but the most accepting and innocent questions, and to many of the participants in the tread, it’s clearly because you don’t want to be told what we think of the ESS.
There are a good amount of problems with that, some in general and some specific to CCP.
A general theme is that any complainer that feels ignored will either increase attempts to be heard, or will become apathetic to the issue as a whole. To CCP, that will either mean massive thread noughts and Player Versus Structure in Jita, or it will mean fewer participants in tests, less feedback, less activity – in specific areas or in general – and if it’s bad enough, falling subscription numbers. Adding to this is the justified and reasonable expectation of CCP to drop the ball, sooner or later, and this has all the signs of being ball-drop worthy.
Honestly, I don’t think any of your communication through this thread has been done properly.
(to be continued)
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1124 - 2014-01-16 14:00:25 UTC
(continued from before)

But I’m not just one to criticise. As above, I want to enable you to understand communication so that the game I love can be improved. But first, a little disclaimer:
I’m not in marketing. If a company sells a product based on a lie, they are liable. If a politician lies, that’s somewhat par for the course. You should attempt to be perceived as more honest and better to deliver than politicians.

What should you have done?
Be honest and upfront. If what you had said “CCP has determined that inflow of ISK in 0.0 is too high, and we are going to decrease all 0.0 bounties with 5%. We also want to give small gangs a target, so we’re giving ratters the option of recouping that loss by a dropping a structure which small gangs can disrupt...” – which might not have made responses positive, but they would have been responses to your specific intentions, and it would have been honest of you.
In this case, you weren’t honest. At best you were deceived yourself, at worst you were lying and relied on the community not realising. That you weren’t deceived yourself got pretty clear when you summed up what you felt was the community’s response to the ESS, a summary that nobody who had read the thread would have guessed.
If you misattribute people’s responses or complaints, you can’t claim to have their best interest at heart. You won’t win over anyone by so openly using fallacies and/or disregarding hundreds of posts. The same goes when you answer questions about the market parts of the ESS, and not even acknowledging the points made about the core of the complaint.
Your 3 points you said you were looking at based on the feedback, and the actual feedback you got, is nicely summed up in a post by Scatim Helicon here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4113295#post4113295


It’s a problem when you blatantly assume the community will accept your own contradictions, or when your posts contradict the actual professional (The economist), but the problems only increase when you refuse to read and comprehend the nature of the complaints. If you really want to continue the development course you’re on right now, by all means do, but don’t expect any sensible member of the community to agree or like it, and when you screw it up expect us to say “told you so”.

Your three flaws (Design, communication, reaction to feedback) are all symptomatic for the CCP way of handling things. You promise the moon, deliver the ditch, but in 18 months just wait ‘n see, it will be AWESOME. All the while your players all the way through grow disenfranchised and lethargic because you refuse to listen to those who know better.

I think the best lesson that can be learnt from this is that you don’t respect the players. I had hoped it was a really poor troll, but now I know better.
In all honesty, your style is bad for the game.
Learn to do better.
Vahl Ahashion
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1125 - 2014-01-16 14:21:17 UTC
The whole concept should be scrapped, take the art and go make something else with it. In low or particularly high sec this could be interesting, in null it just wont be used. Even the suggestions of Marlona sky and other about how to make this work are still excessively complicated and flawed with things like the requirement that null dwellers cash in tags in empire. The whole idea is badly thought out and poorly implemented. Probably one of the worst examples of game design i've seen in several years: appalling understanding of risk/reward, excessively complicated and terrible understanding of existing game mechanics.

Null sec income needs a major rethink and a major buff, it costs more in effort and isk to live there than any other section of space (possibly barring WH space) and the rewards are lower. You could start resolving this using deployables, this is so far from the way to do it that its like a bad joke.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1126 - 2014-01-16 14:24:34 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:

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.

That is very far from apples and oranges. You're talking about a faucet (and suggesting it is disturbing the overall balance of faucets and sinks) and EyjoG is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. That's the exact same thing and when you're making decisions based on theories about the overall balance of faucets and sinks why on earth are you not looping in the guy who looks at that and saying it's not even relevant?

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.


It will decrease. You've guaranteed it will decrease. If you're worried about too much of an increase (a) talk to ErjoG about what increases are and are not a problem and (b) use the LP idea instead that doesn't just flatly nerf 0.0 on the theory that SOON(tm) the ESS will make up for it.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1127 - 2014-01-16 14:54:43 UTC
Trolling post removed.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#1128 - 2014-01-16 14:56:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
Hm. Generally I like the idea of this Bounty monitor, because it is (or should be) designed to overcome the "hiding in the darkest spot and grinding rats, but warp safe instantly if anything happens" pattern.
All this negative feedback here is certainly exaggerated (remember the carebears in the Marauder thread? WH00T?!?!?? Removing the web bonus KILLS them totally - glad it did still happen).

However... certain things about this monitor seem wrong. Why the bubble around it?
OK, anyone taking money should be vulnerable for a moment, but a bubble is maybe not the right thing.
Would be exploited as insta-down-bubble or 1min-up-bubble as some have pointed out.

I'd say: remove the bubble, put a hacking game in - but only to "take all". That will keep the moneytaker busy and vulnerable. Maybe with the funny explosion from GHOST sites... that should keep the Inties at bay unless they really concentrate and pay less attention.

Oh, and I don't know whether someone already posted, because I did not read all 60 pages...
There was talk about nullsec empires BANNING these devices.
What if the notorious afk-or-not-cloaker comes to the busy ratting systems and drops this thing on his safespot?
He might not care about bonus 5%, but just scoop the thing up when disturbed and drop it again when it's more quiet.
Either someone has to deal with him within 1 minute or he'll be able to leech 20% of the ratting efforts...

Or is that what the bubble is for? Wouldn't an unanchoring/scooping up delay be more appropriate?
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1129 - 2014-01-16 15:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
Edward Olmops wrote:
Hm. Generally I like the idea of this Bounty monitor, because it is (or should be) designed to overcome the "hiding in the darkest spot and grinding rats, but warp safe instantly if anything happens" pattern.
All this negative feedback here is certainly exaggerated (remember the carebears in the Marauder thread? WH00T?!?!?? Removing the web bonus KILLS them totally - glad it did still happen).

However... certain things about this monitor seem wrong. Why the bubble around it?
OK, anyone taking money should be vulnerable for a moment, but a bubble is maybe not the right thing.
Would be exploited as insta-down-bubble or 1min-up-bubble as some have pointed out.

I'd say: remove the bubble, put a hacking game in - but only to "take all". That will keep the moneytaker busy and vulnerable. Maybe with the funny explosion from GHOST sites... that should keep the Inties at bay unless they really concentrate and pay less attention.

Oh, and I don't know whether someone already posted, because I did not read all 60 pages...
There was talk about nullsec empires BANNING these devices.
What if the notorious afk-or-not-cloaker comes to the busy ratting systems and drops this thing on his safespot?
He might not care about bonus 5%, but just scoop the thing up when disturbed and drop it again when it's more quiet.
Either someone has to deal with him within 1 minute or he'll be able to leech 20% of the ratting efforts...

Or is that what the bubble is for? Wouldn't an unanchoring/scooping up delay be more appropriate?


How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)

When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.

Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Tahnil
Gunboat Commando
#1130 - 2014-01-16 15:13:31 UTC
Eram Fidard wrote:
How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)

When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.

Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).


Don‘t worry, people actually DO get this. For example I‘ve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs.

ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: „Nullbears don‘t fight, they dock up“, CCPs answer is: „We give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentive“. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1131 - 2014-01-16 15:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
Something that I am still quite curious about (and has not been answered yet):

Was the ESS the feature referred to in the CSM8 Summer Summit Minutes?

Soniclover moved on to discuss an additional disruption feature. This feature was
shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns expressed during the summit, until a more
satisfactory solution could be found.


If yes, what changes were made that are considered to be "a more satisfactory solution"? What concerns were expressed? How and why did this feature make it to singularity (and a dev blog) without further review?

If no, (I am trying really, really hard to write this post so it cannot possibly be construed as "inflammatory") did you discuss the ESS at the CSM8 Summer Summit? What feature was "shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns"? If the feature shelved was not the ESS, just how bad of an idea was it, to get shelved, while such a fundamentally flawed concept (the ESS) managed to "pass muster"?

Thank you in advance for answering any of these questions you can, SoniClover. I look forward to seeing if any other DEVs chime in, as well. This thread has turned into "SoniClover vs. EVE".

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1132 - 2014-01-16 15:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Tahnil wrote:
Eram Fidard wrote:
How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)

When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.

Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).


Don‘t worry, people actually DO get this. For example I‘ve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs.

ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: „Nullbears don‘t fight, they dock up“, CCPs answer is: „We give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentive“. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.


It doesn't sound like you understand this game very well, despite your "years" of experience.

Ratters don't dock up to be risk averse pansies -- they dock up because they don't want to fight a PvP fit in their ratting PvE fit - because that would be stupidity.

Also if you are coming in with an entire gang, as you say, it would be even more stupidity for them not to dock up.

There's nothing "manly" or "tough guy" about fighting a PvP fit in a PvE fit - and ratting isn't inherently a "carebear" activity, it's just a way to make ISK....And if you stop making ISK, you stop being able to PvP -- so pretty much everybody has to make ISK in some way or another.
Foo Chan
Sparks Inc
#1133 - 2014-01-16 15:22:19 UTC
Meanwhile, in my dreams:


CCP - Hey guys, we need to balance our sheets so we decided to nerf rat bounties in null sec to 95% hoping we can get a few more sales in the future.

Community: Well, **** happens.. if CCP has no cash we can't play anyway, so thats fair. Game on.

CCP - Thanks for your understanding guys, meanwhile we're going to make use of our time by fixing the POS legacy code.

.. but then I woke up





Yes, I can build that.

Funless Saisima
Hole Punchers
I Could Do Better
#1134 - 2014-01-16 15:23:09 UTC
Tahnil wrote:
Eram Fidard wrote:
How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)

When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.

Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).


Don‘t worry, people actually DO get this. For example I‘ve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs.

ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: „Nullbears don‘t fight, they dock up“, CCPs answer is: „We give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentive“. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.



Except that you don't PVP in PVE ships. If you try to dock up (instead of POSing up and waiting) to switch ships, there might be a bubble there from that random neut.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1135 - 2014-01-16 15:24:04 UTC
Tahnil wrote:
, CCPs answer is: „We give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentive“.


Except for, as stated dozens of times in this thread, by people with backgrounds and experience in all areas of eve, this does not do that. The idea is so fundamentally flawed that it would never do that.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#1136 - 2014-01-16 15:24:11 UTC
Tahnil wrote:
Eram Fidard wrote:
How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)

When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.

Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).


Don‘t worry, people actually DO get this. For example I‘ve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs.

ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: „Nullbears don‘t fight, they dock up“, CCPs answer is: „We give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentive“. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.



Facepalm. There is no incentive for nullbears to fight. Look, the deployment of these will be banned by all major alliances and even if they aren't, ratters wont deploy them. Putting this in your system is an open invite for hostiles to disrupt your ratting activities. People don't want hostiles in their ratting system, they want to rat. People don't want to do emergency PvP in their ratting system, they want to PvP in a properly organized fleet and on a roam. There is no chance that these will be deployed by any locals in a ratting system.

If a hostile comes to deploy this, ratters will remain docked as always until the gang moves on and gets bored. They either scoop their ESS and take it with them or it will get blown up in 30 seconds after they are gone and before any ratting starts.

If a forced fight is what you are looking for a module already exists for this, its called an SBU.
MasterAsher
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1137 - 2014-01-16 15:24:14 UTC
Tahnil wrote:
Eram Fidard wrote:
How do people STILL not get this. (oh, I know, you admitted to not even reading the thread you are commenting in, THAT's how you have no clue what you are talking about)

When there is a hostile in system, you don't rat. If the hostile stays in system you either form up or don't. If the hostile leaves system, you go back to your regular scheduled activities.

Literally ZERO change from how things are now, with the one exception of a 3-minute structure shoot for the 'carebears' (hint: the majority of people ratting in nullsec don't do it for enjoyment but to cover their pvp expenses).


Don‘t worry, people actually DO get this. For example I‘ve been around in nullsec for years, and I know exactly how nullbears behave when confronted with roaming gangs.

ESS is meant to be an incentive to actually fight. Your argument goes: „Nullbears don‘t fight, they dock up“, CCPs answer is: „We give nullbears a better reason to fight, there will be an incentive“. So the only question that remains is: how large should this incentive be? And how does the mechanic work exactly.


I dont think there is anyway to mitigate the large amount of risk of this item the way interceptors work now.

If they nerf bounties to lets say 60% or lower without ess all you will do is completely drive people from 0.0 because it wont be worth it. ( a lot of people have high sec alts already this will just cause all pve to move out of 0.0 into highsec or low sec fw alts)

On the other had lets say you make the carrot bigger and you get like 50-60% more isk for deploying this. Whats to stop awoxers from stealing all your isk or random douchbags from doing it? This will cause way too much drama for any isk gain that's worth it.

I read the writing on the wall a long time ago...CCP will nerf 0.0 to the ground before they fix any real issue we care about in fixing sov. I have made myself a new account for fw site running.

I just hope they never release this for other areas of space because this item is a done deal. CCP never backs down from any idea they have, sure they tweak them a little but never fix the major glaring flaws in them.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1138 - 2014-01-16 15:29:22 UTC
MasterAsher wrote:
I have made myself a new account for fw site running.


CCP: "Mission Accomplished!"

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.

greiton starfire
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1139 - 2014-01-16 15:31:41 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
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.

They would never put it up in the first place, it requires far too much reward to ever offset the cost of having it around while you pve.
Xaerael Endiel
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1140 - 2014-01-16 15:33:54 UTC
Right, a few cups of coffee and a nice chocolate flapjack, and I think I've finally designed a finished better idea (tm). Here we go!

ESS (improved)

1) As so many people have already said, remove the current planned reward system and employ an LP reward system converting minimum (I actually think the reward should be higher since Sov space should be worth more) every 800 isk soaked by the ESS into 1 concord LP. This will do wonders for controlling the very real inflation that currently exists in the game.

2) The warp bubble isn't effective as a defensive thing due to bubble nullification and silly fast warp outs. Here's a better solution: Give the ESS instalocking turrets that cause a concord-like infinite point, long range warp disruption, possibly also add a web. The ESS MUST NOT be an object that can be risk-free accessed by hostiles. Smash and grab tactics should not be allowed.

3) The access times and method are terrible, and require no special equipment (seriously, what sane organisation would make an object that any berk could stumble up to and empty. That's like an ATM made of paper and glue). There should be significant risks and penalties taken by attackers as well as defenders. Therefore, a new module should be needed to access an ESS, with cyno like drawbacks (ship is locked in place until the module has cycled). Like a cyno, this module should have it's cycle time reduced by it's skill (I like the idea of making this a hacking skill module) by 1 min per level from a base of 10 mins. The MINIMUM time should be no less than 5 minutes, and even that is pushing it to the point of undefendable.

4) Add some real benefits to an ESS in the system. Systems with an ESS have double anomaly spawns to draw more players to them, meaning more people to defend them.

5) Add standings increase. There's an intangible value to missioning in high sec, and that's standings increases.