These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1261 - 2014-01-16 18:56:07 UTC
IrJosy wrote:
Innominate wrote:
[quote=Gizznitt Malikite]
As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight.



This!!!!!11

What the game needs is less invincible interceptors. (Remove their interdictor nullification)

In the grand scheme of things it achieves little to nothing against a big alliance. You spend 3-4 hours roaming through a region killing a few afk ratters. Meanwhile they have dozens or more active ratters in other systems still generating isk.

If instead there were deploy-able structures mining asteroids, moons, ice, or planets. What we have is a target for a gang to attack and an objective for the local inhabitants to defend. We can call these structures "farms and fields". They require pvp fit defense ships and haulers for small gangs to bubble and kill on either the station or the "farm and field". Give it a short 5-30 minute RF timer. Balance cost and ROI appropriately.


I'm moreless completely down with everything you just suggested...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1262 - 2014-01-16 18:57:38 UTC
Innominate wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
greiton starfire wrote:
why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size.

there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight


What amuses me about this is that siphons were specifically designed so that they couldn't be used by small groups to generate fights.


POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid).
Fix Sov
#1263 - 2014-01-16 18:57:50 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region?

More than the ESS would provide, since it only encourages bullshit drama for little to no return on investment.

So, again, I'm still not seeing any real incentives as to why I should deploy an ESS, anywhere.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1264 - 2014-01-16 18:58:22 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.

I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.


So you admit the inty's are a bit OP now, but admit to using them in hostile space for your fights many times. Why not roll in with blingy Tengu's or Loki's? Probably because the risk outweighs the reward, right?

Now you know why alliances plainly will not deploy ESS and likely eject anyone found doing so.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#1265 - 2014-01-16 18:58:38 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Re-posting.
This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?"

Because the ESS is just the interface & token printer, the actual data is stored on Empire servers.
That is, stored in CCPs database linked to the solar system not the ESS.
Like: SystemID (PK); PlayerID (PK); ISK or something like that


I was asking from a lore perspective, given that the dev blog saw fit to justify their existence with lore stuff.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
IrJosy
Club 1621
#1266 - 2014-01-16 18:59:51 UTC
Muffet McStrudel wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.

I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.


So you admit the inty's are a bit OP now, but admit to using them in hostile space for your fights many times. Why not roll in with blingy Tengu's or Loki's? Probably because the risk outweighs the reward, right?

Now you know why alliances plainly will not deploy ESS and likely eject anyone found doing so.


Why fly a 500m isk cloaky nullified ship that does 300 dps when you can fly a 20m isk nullified ship that does 300 dps and doesn't need to cloak because it goes 5km/s and aligns faster than a 6k scan res keres can lock if the server ticks are off?
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#1267 - 2014-01-16 19:03:35 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Re-posting.
This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?"

Because the ESS is just the interface & token printer, the actual data is stored on Empire servers.
That is, stored in CCPs database linked to the solar system not the ESS.
Like: SystemID (PK); PlayerID (PK); ISK or something like that


I was asking from a lore perspective, given that the dev blog saw fit to justify their existence with lore stuff.


The lore for this thing is about as horrible as the lore for the Nestor. Whoever writes that stuff is really stretching.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#1268 - 2014-01-16 19:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: handige harrie
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region?
How much enjoyment would your home-defense group gain out of additional small gangs entering the area?


1. 300% atleast, So you can replace your ratting battleship every hour, since you'll be camped every other half hour, you'll be caught while mid warp far more often.

2. Home Defense group? Do you believe in Santa too? or do you think people only do one thing in eve?

Baddest poster ever
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1269 - 2014-01-16 19:09:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region?
How much enjoyment would your home-defense group gain out of additional small gangs entering the area?

And as a side note: We can QQ inty gangs all we want, but we reap what we sow. Last time I took an 8 man cruiser gang into VFK looking for some fun, yall j-bridged around to pin our group in a pipe with two 30man helldeath gate camps. That's completely ok, but it forces our hand to bring inties instead. On the otherhand, I think nullified inties are a terribly broken thing.


In the current mechanics, it's difficult to say as it would have to be an unreasonable increase. The balance between roaming fleets and defense fleets is currently so far in the favor of the roamers that the best defense is to create circumstances where the roamers don't bother coming to your space.

You also seem to have the idea that everyone in this equation has the same motivation of getting fights, when in reality that is nobody's motivation.

Your motivation is easy kills of people who can't really fight back. (This is not disparagement, ganking is fun as hell.) But let's call it what it is. The motivation of ratters is to make isk. That includes both staying alive as ratting ships are expensive, and minimizing disruptions as pauses in ratting are one of the biggest sources of income loss.

What seems to be most misunderstood is the motivation of the defense fleets. Sometimes a hostile fleet will show up and mill about without causing any real damage and some intrepid FC will decide to have a fun fight, but this is an uncommon case. Most of the time the defenders are not looking for good fights, or even easy kills. They are looking to defend their space, to get rid of you and make sure you come back, they're going to to their best to not present you with a good fight. They're out to utterly crush you and make damn sure you don't want to come back anytime soon.

Nullsec is so porous and travel so easy that the only real way to keep people out of your space is to make sure they'd rather go somewhere else.

To bring this around to the topic at hand, ESS are entirely contrary to this principle which is the root reason why nobody will use them. Making the ESS workable requires addressing this side of it.


Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid).


That(or perhaps even off-grid) and they'd also need notifications rather than being stealthy.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1270 - 2014-01-16 19:12:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Tahnil wrote:
As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. […]
CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has it‘s flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS.

Really? Why?

If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
…except for the wasted dev time and the pointless blanket nerf to nullsec bounties.


I'm under the impression the dev time has already been invested (since there is a semi-functional version on sisi).
As for the blanket nerf to nullsec bounties... argue against that! I don't particularly see a need to reduce nullsec bounties. Also, by moving much of the ESS rewards to LP, much of the isk faucet issues can be addressed.

If the benefits of using an ESS is are enough, then the ratters will use them, and they can be a viable small gang objective. You are right, if the benefits are poor compared to its risks of use, few will utilize them and they will add very little utility to the sandbox.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1271 - 2014-01-16 19:18:11 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Tahnil wrote:
As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. […]
CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has it‘s flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS.

Really? Why?

If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
…except for the wasted dev time and the pointless blanket nerf to nullsec bounties.


I'm under the impression the dev time has already been invested (since there is a semi-functional version on sisi).
As for the blanket nerf to nullsec bounties... argue against that! I don't particularly see a need to reduce nullsec bounties. Also, by moving much of the ESS rewards to LP, much of the isk faucet issues can be addressed.

If the benefits of using an ESS is are enough, then the ratters will use them, and they can be a viable small gang objective. You are right, if the benefits are poor compared to its risks of use, few will utilize them and they will add very little utility to the sandbox.



CCP will probably try to change some of this stuff to keep the ESS going ahead.

Let me ask you this. When none of this stuff works, the bad things we predict (based on the history of null sec pve gameplay we've observed over the years) happen, will you come back to this very thread and admit you wer wrong?
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1272 - 2014-01-16 19:21:27 UTC
When CCP decides to address the AFK cloaker issue, then I'll think a little harder about supporting this ESS idea.

Otherwise, it's simply another mechanic to screw with existing alliances.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1273 - 2014-01-16 19:27:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Tahnil wrote:
As I see it game mechanics like (not exactly AS) ESS are needed. […]
CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has it‘s flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS.

Really? Why?

If all you want is some kind of small-gang objective, why would you ever need something even remotely like the ESS, which does nothing for small gangs? If anything, it drives small-gang targets away.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If the ESS is NOT deployed by the local inhabitants, it won't change anything in game. No harm, no foul.
…except for the wasted dev time and the pointless blanket nerf to nullsec bounties.


I'm under the impression the dev time has already been invested (since there is a semi-functional version on sisi).
As for the blanket nerf to nullsec bounties... argue against that! I don't particularly see a need to reduce nullsec bounties. Also, by moving much of the ESS rewards to LP, much of the isk faucet issues can be addressed.

If the benefits of using an ESS is are enough, then the ratters will use them, and they can be a viable small gang objective. You are right, if the benefits are poor compared to its risks of use, few will utilize them and they will add very little utility to the sandbox.



CCP will probably try to change some of this stuff to keep the ESS going ahead.

Let me ask you this. When none of this stuff works, the bad things we predict (based on the history of null sec pve gameplay we've observed over the years) happen, will you come back to this very thread and admit you wer wrong?


I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong.
If CCP implements the changes I request:
-- Better Rewards
-- 10 Minute response window.

and then it doesn't get used regularly I'll be shocked. And if less than 20% of the locals don't bother to defend it in the systems it is deployed in, I'll be very sad. I'm trying to think of an appropriate barometer to monitor its success, so I can also put my money where my mouth is.
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1274 - 2014-01-16 19:39:24 UTC
Also CCP if you are still reading, the argument is now this should not exist(majority) against it needs massive retooling and base premise changes. no one i've seen thinks it should have gotten this far looking like this.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1275 - 2014-01-16 19:52:50 UTC
Innominate wrote:


How much of an income boost would be worth the hassle of additional roaming gangs traversing your region?

In the current mechanics, it's difficult to say as it would have to be an unreasonable increase. The balance between roaming fleets and defense fleets is currently so far in the favor of the roamers that the best defense is to create circumstances where the roamers don't bother coming to your space.


I won't lie, I find this a very sad state of affairs. The locals should have bookmarks around system, POS & stations presetup with combat ships meeting some quick-response doctrines, with enough inhabitants in system to take on a small gang (5-10 pilots) roaming through. There is something very wrong when this isn't the case during your alliances peak hours.

Innominate wrote:

You also seem to have the idea that everyone in this equation has the same motivation of getting fights, when in reality that is nobody's motivation. Your motivation is easy kills of people who can't really fight back. (This is not disparagement, ganking is fun as hell.) But let's call it what it is.


While I like to come out victorious in the end, my motivation is to get fights, not to engage in easy kills. My favorite activities in EvE are knock-out brutal fights where victory isn't pre-determined and all sides take losses. Even when we held Sov, as soon as an enemy gang is spotted we'd drop all normal PvE to form up and attack, because that's why we play.


Innominate wrote:

The motivation of ratters is to make isk. That includes both staying alive as ratting ships are expensive, and minimizing disruptions as pauses in ratting are one of the biggest sources of income loss.

What seems to be most misunderstood is the motivation of the defense fleets. Sometimes a hostile fleet will show up and mill about without causing any real damage and some intrepid FC will decide to have a fun fight, but this is an uncommon case. Most of the time the defenders are not looking for good fights, or even easy kills. They are looking to defend their space, to get rid of you and make sure you come back, they're going to to their best to not present you with a good fight. They're out to utterly crush you and make damn sure you don't want to come back anytime soon.

Nullsec is so porous and travel so easy that the only real way to keep people out of your space is to make sure they'd rather go somewhere else.

To bring this around to the topic at hand, ESS are entirely contrary to this principle which is the root reason why nobody will use them. Making the ESS workable requires addressing this side of it.


You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.

Innominate wrote:

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid).


That(or perhaps even off-grid) and they'd also need notifications rather than being stealthy.


Believe it or not, I suggested the moongoo siphon well before it was deployed (2012 thread). I suggested back then it give out notifications and create Killmails too.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1276 - 2014-01-16 19:59:59 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

POS and small fights don't work so well. For siphons to generate small-scale fights, they needed to be deployable at 500+ km's from the POS (i.e. outside of POS weapon range, but still on grid).

They can't really ever generate fights, they're just not designed in a way that lets fights happen. Even if you have to bring a ship to blap them instead of using pos guns, there's nothing that would ever get both parties on grid at the same time except sheer luck.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1277 - 2014-01-16 20:01:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.


You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it?

Ratting ships are very specialized PvE ships not cut out for PvP, expecting a ratter to openly engage in PvP means they are either stupid, suicidal, bait fit, or earning terrible isk. Non-bait ratters are ALWAYS going to run from PvP ships as both parties know who is going to win the encounter, while the people looking to kill the ratters rarely hang around for the ratters to switch into PvP setups anyways.

Not that any of that is particularly important because when these ratters are looking for fights, they go and do it away from their money making systems. The phrase "Don't **** where you eat." comes to mind. You speak of "nullbears" as people who will do nothing to defend their space, when in reality denying kills and fights to hostiles is exactly what is best for defending their space. If you get fights, you come back. If you face nothing but boredom and ratting ships watching you from the safety of a pos shield, you go somewhere else.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1278 - 2014-01-16 20:03:30 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.


You misunderstand (evidenced by your perjorative use of the word nullbear). Lots of those characters doing pve in null are alts. PVP players supplying themselves for pvp. They are going to do that in the least irratating way as possible. The ESS (under almost any interation) is just going to repeat the old anom nerf and fuel pvp players using those alts somewhere in empire.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1279 - 2014-01-16 20:04:37 UTC
Innominate wrote:


You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it?


You see it too, his prejudice won't allow him to see another perspective.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1280 - 2014-01-16 20:09:47 UTC
Innominate wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

You have a point here... I play this game for PvP. I carebear some, indy some, but when I log in I do so to pew pew. So when I'm out ratting, I like being interrupted by hostiles. This is a very different mindframe from the nullbear that simply wants to make isk, and loathes the distractions I create. From their perspective, I can see why they would vehemently oppose any game-objective that forces them to fight to keep it.


You keep using this word "nullbear" I am curious if you would be willing to define it?

Ratting ships are very specialized PvE ships not cut out for PvP, expecting a ratter to openly engage in PvP means they are either stupid, suicidal, bait fit, or earning terrible isk. Non-bait ratters are ALWAYS going to run from PvP ships as both parties know who is going to win the encounter, while the people looking to kill the ratters rarely hang around for the ratters to switch into PvP setups anyways.

Not that any of that is particularly important because when these ratters are looking for fights, they go and do it away from their money making systems. The phrase "Don't **** where you eat." comes to mind. You speak of "nullbears" as people who will do nothing to defend their space, when in reality denying kills and fights to hostiles is exactly what is best for defending their space. If you get fights, you come back. If you face nothing but boredom and ratting ships watching you from the safety of a pos shield, you go somewhere else.


Presumably there will be no more calls by lo-sec and null-sec folks to move all level 4 missions out of hi-sec for the very reasons you have so clearly elucidated.

Your support in this matter is greatly appreciated.

This is not a signature.