These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1341 - 2014-01-16 22:57:27 UTC
Kadl wrote:
If you can accept the basic idea that ratters should gather to defend against roaming gangs (in return for extra rewards) then the ESS needs improvement not elimination. The form of that improvement is certainly a topic for debate. Increasing timers and reducing interceptor effectiveness are being considered. I have my doubts about CCP's willingness to change the rewards, but there have been some useful suggestions there.
The ESS can't be improved. That's the sad fact. The premise and CCP is flawed.
You have already been explained exactly why (And if you read through the thread, you would know) from a mechanical point of view, here's why from a CCP point of view:
It encourages CCP to repeat these mistakes. It encourages CCP to to insert their heads in their rectums when developing. If their worst and most idiotic ideas are merely "challenges to be improved upon" then they will continue to act in ways detrimental to the game.
I used the example of a dog that you allow to take anything from the dinner table, but when it does so, it only gets half of what it takes. CCP is that dog. It needs to be taught manners, it needs to learn respect, and each time we allow it to take from the dinner table, we will make it harder and at some point impossible for it to learn anything.

It's not the name, or the art assets, or neat phrases like "farms & fields" that we are opposed to. It's the mechanic on which it is based.
Summed up, it is*:
- Nerfing bottom-up income in nullsec.
- Creating a module that will not generate fights or increased income.
- Setting up a system-wide bank account that logs who rats there (until the log is reset).
- Arbitrary or hardly explainable mechanics by which it works.
And multiplicative factors that sadly often defines pet projects in CCP:
- No explanation on why it's needed or what it's thought to do.
- Directly lying, misrepresenting feedback, ignoring feedback, trolling, etc. by DEV.s.

*Did I forget any overall grievance? I know that "bottom-up income in null"-trouble is magnified by other things, but with this particular ESS?

CCP are known for dropping the ball every so often, and then disregard player feedback and implement their crappy excrements anyway, because they know best and because AWESOME and EXCELLENCE and because "it will be magnificent in 18 months!".
There have been a few examples of ideas that, if summed up to a single line, 7-12 words, could look like the ESS, but the fundamental principles and mechanics would be so much different, it would not be the same.
So the question isn't "can we improve the ESS?" - not just because we can't, but also because we shouldn't - but rather "let's scrap it, learn from this horrible mistake, and then what can we do better in the future?".
Would nullsec players like farms & fields? Yes please, since forever.
Does this fit the bill? Only if you grossly misrepresent it or reduce it to a 10-sec-soundbite.

There is no reason for any ratter to set this up. There is no reason for any gang to set it up. There aren't any way to redeem it while still keeping any of the fundamental ideas (And especially not with the "enlightenment" that CCP SoniClover has provided: That it should reduce nullsec bounties overall). The ESS needs to be scrapped. The art assets can be reused.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1342 - 2014-01-16 22:57:59 UTC
Quote:
During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.


That's actually staggeringly huge Shocked

And I think with that figure alone most players would be OK with nerfing the amount of /ISK/ coming in from nullsec....but not income.

Also, this in no way justifies the ESS.
Wyn Pharoh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1343 - 2014-01-16 23:00:08 UTC
Muffet McStrudel wrote:
So now the thread degenerates into pvper's complaining that people (ratters) that dock up in 0.0 aren't playing in the "spirit of null sec".

Really? What a joke. What exactly is "the spirit of null sec"? ...I assure you I will shoot them every time I see them, regardless of who does the deployment. All they are is a beacon to the enemy which says "here's where these guys rat".
...Like I said, I will shoot every one of these regardless of who deploys them.


The existence of an ESS isn't going to be a 'beacon' in itself, better than other tools that exist right now for hunting ratters. I'm panning the whole slew of mechanics pushing this added content, but there are already better ways to ID a good system for hunting. For example, you can look ingame on the Map Browser and quickly check Military Levels in any given system, suggesting quickly where people regularly kill NPC's. Just as simply, you can open up Dotlan and see at a glance the number of NPC kills in any system over either the last hour, or over the last 24 hours for an entire region. Small gang FC's will have already done both of the above before flying out to any particular system hunting for ESS's.

If ESS's were worth installing in the first place, and worth defending secondly, there might be an entirely different conversation to be had. People that earn their isk by ratting will not get traction having this project shelved or reexamined if the arguments against its deployment just heighten a perception that nullbear = risk adverse. CCP SoniClover made it clear that we will have to fight for what we want to have, but we simply haven't been given something exactly worth fighting for in the first place.
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1344 - 2014-01-16 23:01:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Muffet McStrudel
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Muffet McStrudel wrote:


The butt-hurt golden tears I give pvper's gives me great pleasure.


What is your point? That you are butthurt about the 5% nerf to ratting income? I don't care if you cloak up when I enter system. Good for you. And I don't support nerfing nullsec income directly (at least, not without highsec income nerfs too).

The point of this device, is that you can deploy it and risk a small portion of your income with the hope you get even more isk at the end of your ratting session. The risk is that someone might roam into system and harvest that risked income before you cash out. Your not forced to deploy it, your not forced to risk your income and/or your ships to defend it. But if balanced, it is something the more entrepreneurial members of EvE will gladly utilize.



I don't care about the 5% isk nerf. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept it as a penalty rather than to defend some asinine structure that at best adds a minor amount to the ratting income, while making the space an attractive beacon to enemies.

So you really don't care that I'll cloak up when you come into system? Oh my, but how will that promote small gang pvp?

Honestly, you're simply talking out of both sides of your behind.

You want pvp, start flying something other than ships designed to avoid it. The ESS isn't the panacea deployable to make it happen, being visible to your enemies, however, IS. You start with that, then maaaaaaybe you have a reason to moan about how difficult 0.0 small gang pvp is to get.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1345 - 2014-01-16 23:03:29 UTC
Omanth Bathana wrote:
Jowen Datloran wrote:

Meh, it has passed CSM review so it is pretty much good to go.


Did you miss the part in the minutes from the last CSM meeting where SoniClover proposed something that the CSM shouted down and got shelved, but then SoniClover announced this deployable completely skipping the Features and Ideas section? The (pretty :tinfoil:, I admit) implication is that this deployable was roundly rejected by the CSM but shoved down our throats anyway.

No need to go on crazy rumormongering when the CSM members can speak for themselves. I do not see them making a fuzz.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1346 - 2014-01-16 23:06:30 UTC
Jowen Datloran wrote:
I do not see them making a fuzz.

I don't see them defending it either.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1347 - 2014-01-16 23:08:52 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:

It's not the name, or the art assets, or neat phrases like "farms & fields" that we are opposed to. It's the mechanic on which it is based.
Summed up, it is*:
- Nerfing bottom-up income in nullsec.
- Creating a module that will not generate fights or increased income.
- Setting up a system-wide bank account that logs who rats there (until the log is reset).
- Arbitrary or hardly explainable mechanics by which it works.
And multiplicative factors that sadly often defines pet projects in CCP:
- No explanation on why it's needed or what it's thought to do.
- Directly lying, misrepresenting feedback, ignoring feedback, trolling, etc. by DEV.s.

*Did I forget any overall grievance? I know that "bottom-up income in null"-trouble is magnified by other things, but with this particular ESS?


Your list is full of fallacies:
1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS.

2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded!

3.) What is problematic about a system wide bank account?

4.) You set it up, it takes 15% of your income, and stores that income in the bank. It will pay out 25 for every 15 you put in. Hardly convoluted.

5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani)

6.) Direct lying? How, where? Misrepresenting feedback? Hardly.

Do you have any other unfounded accusations you wish to sling?


Alphea Abbra wrote:

There is no reason for any ratter to set this up. There is no reason for any gang to set it up. There aren't any way to redeem it while still keeping any of the fundamental ideas (And especially not with the "enlightenment" that CCP SoniClover has provided: That it should reduce nullsec bounties overall). The ESS needs to be scrapped. The art assets can be reused.


Are the risks wroth the rewards? I admit I find them unfavorable given the first implementation, but believe it could easily be balanced. And you dont' even need to deploy it, so why are you butthurt?


Omanth Bathana
Doomheim
#1348 - 2014-01-16 23:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Omanth Bathana
Jowen Datloran wrote:

No need to go on crazy rumormongering when the CSM members can speak for themselves. I do not see them making a fuzz.


Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one.
Muffet McStrudel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1349 - 2014-01-16 23:12:59 UTC
Wyn Pharoh wrote:


If ESS's were worth installing in the first place, and worth defending secondly, there might be an entirely different conversation to be had. People that earn their isk by ratting will not get traction having this project shelved or reexamined if the arguments against its deployment just heighten a perception that nullbear = risk adverse. CCP SoniClover made it clear that we will have to fight for what we want to have, but we simply haven't been given something exactly worth fighting for in the first place.


Yes, I will give you that. They will not be worth installing at all.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1350 - 2014-01-16 23:14:57 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Quote:
During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.


That's actually staggeringly huge Shocked

And I think with that figure alone most players would be OK with nerfing the amount of /ISK/ coming in from nullsec....but not income.

Also, this in no way justifies the ESS.
If, say, nullsec bounties were halved but you got either concord or an opposing pirate factions LP?
No problem. My concern isn't really the amount of ISK - and actually I would probably support moving nullsec ratting value from ISK to something less prone to devaluation through inflation - but the amount of value that any amount of time spent ratting will net me. ISK is easiest because it's directly usable. LP or items (Salvage e.g.) would also be fine.
I'm not adverse to discussing the merits of changing the specific rewards to living in nullsec, but contrary to the ESS it should be clear that the purpose was to either have no impact upon or improve living-in-nullsec-quality-of-life.
And, just to make it absolutely clear: I'd still rat in nullsec and I'd eat the 5% nerf.
Since the alternative would be a third subscription to run HS missions - and I'm not a masochist!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1351 - 2014-01-16 23:16:17 UTC
Omanth Bathana wrote:
Jowen Datloran wrote:

No need to go on crazy rumormongering when the CSM members can speak for themselves. I do not see them making a fuzz.


Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one.

Well you missed (and so did I for that matter) Chitsa Jason, who lent their support. That's hardly surprising for a w-space CSM member though.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1352 - 2014-01-16 23:19:38 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Quote:
During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.

That's actually staggeringly huge Shocked
Not particularly, since it's the only significant ISK faucet in null. Last we got any numbers on it, the system coughed up about 900bn ISK daily in the form of bounties — that would mean ~650bn came from null.

Compare this to the total injection of roughly 2 trillion ISK daily. A third of that is null bounties; nearly two thirds come from highsec ventures (the only other large separate post was ~250bn from w-space).
Omanth Bathana
Doomheim
#1353 - 2014-01-16 23:20:15 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Well you missed (and so did I for that matter) Chitsa Jason, who lent their support. That's hardly surprising for a w-space CSM member though.


Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out.
Wyn Pharoh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1354 - 2014-01-16 23:22:20 UTC
Verskon Qaual wrote:
Background information with actual numbers, justifying, to them, the changes:
Quote:
...During the last 90 days 72% of the generated by NPC kills ISK came from the nullsec area.


This is indeed staggering. A breakdown of these numbers would be really helpful. A public examination of exactly this type of data would make it a lot easier to digest some part of this poison pill. I wonder how Drone Regions compare against Faction NPC space? I wonder if that 72% figure could be brought rapidly into (whatever acceptable) line by dealing with the 100% Bounty rats spread across those odd 8 regions of New Eden?
Jin So
Goonswarm Federation
#1355 - 2014-01-16 23:24:22 UTC
I like how there has not been much said from ccp about this since it was posted.
Fix Sov
#1356 - 2014-01-16 23:25:09 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Your list is full of fallacies:
1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS.

Debatable, but it would be preferable if CCP had just gone out and said "we're reducing bounties by 5%" and been done with it.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded!

I would ban it, not because of the "potential for generating fights", but for the "potential for generating ****** inter-alliance/intra-blues **** drama".

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
3.) What is problematic about a system wide bank account?

The fact it's raidable by everyone, including blues, which means its use is nothing but a recipe for bullshit drama with very little reward.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
4.) You set it up, it takes 15% of your income, and stores that income in the bank. It will pay out 25 for every 15 you put in. Hardly convoluted.

And it opens up the potential for bullshit drama for what, 2m/tick/person, which means what, 200-250k/tick/person in alliance income?

Yep, definitely worth it.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani)

Are the risks wroth the rewards? I admit I find them unfavorable given the first implementation, but believe it could easily be balanced. And you dont' even need to deploy it, so why are you butthurt?

How does it "meet the farms and fields criteria"? Why should I bother to deploy it? How would it "generate fights", when it would either be undefended while attacked, or the guy who dropped it would have to still be in the system and keep an eye on things, which means the people ratting would treat him as another hotdropper?

Where
Are
The
Incentives?

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.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1357 - 2014-01-16 23:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Alphea Abbra
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Your list is full of fallacies:
1.) The ESS doesn't nerf bottom up income. The 5% reduction in bounties is independent of the ESS.
So it's purely and absolutely by accident that they're presented as one and the same?

Quote:
2.) The module has the potential for increasing your income and generating fights. You statement to the contrary is unfounded. The mere fact that alliances want to ban it outright, because they are afraid of the conflict it may generate, is proof you're unfounded!
... They're not afraid of the conflict (That potential conflict is already there) - we'd ban it because it could provide a lot of blue-on-blue drama and because it's worthless to us.
You gotta be pretty daft to think this will increase income (As already shown), and it won't generate additional fights.

Quote:
4.) You set it up, it takes 15% of your income, and stores that income in the bank. It will pay out 25 for every 15 you put in. Hardly convoluted.

5.) While I admit it could have been presented in better light, it meets the farms and fields criteria that many nullsec leaders have advocated for (including the mittani)
Did you see the amount of bullet points in the summary?
It doesn't meet the farms & fields criteria unless you reduce it to a 10-sec-soundbite. That's my point.

Quote:
6.) Direct lying? How, where? Misrepresenting feedback? Hardly.
You should check the SoniClover post where he "sums up" the feedback they got.
You can find it by going through the dev. posts in this thread.
SoniClover has also been lying about whether this will increase nullsec income or reduce it (Either or).

In general, I'd say you have roughly zero idea about the subject, and if you're willing to give CCP leniency on this one, there's only Incarna+NeX-grade stuff to be angry about.
I'm sorry because I think CCP SoniClover will "listen" to "feedback" like yours...
... but at least I'll have those precious words: "told you so".
Vahl Ahashion
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1358 - 2014-01-16 23:28:01 UTC
Omanth Bathana wrote:

Any CSM discussion not mentioned in the CSM Meeting minutes would have been NDA-ed (like this discussion over this module if it existed), so they wouldn't be able to talk about it even if they wanted to. I accept that the proposition I made is entirely speculative and is not to be treated with any seriousness. However, it has not gone unnoticed by me that the only posts in this thread are Ali Aras, who specifically mentioned that portions of this module and its operation are under an NDA; Mangala Solaris, who answered a clarification question; and Mynnna who posted an alternative option to the deployable. Usually CSM members are very active in a thread as controversial as this one.


Marlona Sky rather than Mynnna.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1359 - 2014-01-16 23:28:23 UTC
After review of this thread and it's intended statement in regards to the ESS of being an inflation counter measure... I'm afraid I have to wave the bullshit flag. Yes, if it's not used, it's a 5% decrease in isk flowing from null, but only in regards to rat bounties... (which says nothing of all the other sources of isk flow from null such as mining which only helps point out the fallacy of this claim), which is rather blatantly abit of 'crying wolf' since if used, it's potentially actually generating an extra 5% isk... I see this, rather, as a blatant attempt by CCP Devs who enjoy null sec pvp roams on the null bears as a chance to now not only farm them for kills but also for easy isk.

Please, oh mighty Devs, tell me how I'm wrong.
Fix Sov
#1360 - 2014-01-16 23:30:13 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
(which says nothing of all the other sources of isk flow from null such as mining which only helps point out the fallacy of this claim)

Imma let you finish, but mining doesn't inject isk into the economy.

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.