These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1401 - 2014-01-17 01:38:11 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:

1.) the bubble it forms around itself

The buble that it forms around itself was originally intended to have ships in a semi-trapped while accessing it. It has been pointed out that inties bypass the bubble, and one top of their great agility and speed, wouldn't be hindered by this at all. This was directly addressed as something CCP is looking into:

CCP SoniClover wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It would be nice to get some dev &/or CSM feedback on the issues brought up.

also: Why wasn't this first released in the F&I forum for feedback. Does CCP consider the proposed version a final draft?


Based on feedback, we're looking at three things:
- Time to get loot - lot of good points that the time needs to be increased
- Interceptors too good - we're looking at ways to decrease the efficiency of using an interceptor to steal
- Too effective as warp bubble - we're looking at making it less viable

Thanks for the feedback so far. Any test feedback from Sisi would also be much appreciated.


Pelea Ming wrote:

2.) that it takes time to farm the rats to generate the bounty payouts for the module to work off of. sure, some rats will give a 1m payout, but overall, it still takes time to farm them over and over again, and even in that case, it's only a 100k isk 'bonus' you can get for it...


I'm not sure I understand you. According to the dev blog, the ESS immediately starts giving a 5% increase in bounties (assuming you hit the share all option). Then, over time, this benefit increases to a 10% increase in bounties.

Pelea Ming wrote:

3.) finally, the fact that the 5% bounty nerf is in essence part of this module, since it is intended to be CCP's 'stick' to provide us more reason to go for this presumed 'carrot'.


Again, and I have acknowledge this, the 5% bounty nerf sucks. But that isn't a function of the module. CCP mentioned it here, but according to the post in the german thread, 72% of all bounty income generates from nullsec ratting, and they wish to knock down the nullsec isk faucet. This can be viewed as a completely separate issue from the ESS.

Rarnak Ki
Twilight Hour Industries
Barely-Legal
#1402 - 2014-01-17 01:49:07 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:



Rarnak Ki wrote:

5% nerf aside, there is a potential to increase ratting income by 5% from current levels. This happens after ratting for an hour or more at not 95%, but 80% of normal income. To balance out, a ratter will need to rat for 5 hours just to break even. 1 hour at 80% and 4 hours at 105%. This means that not only will the ratter have to rat for five hours before a profit is made, but the ESS has to both survive and not be emptied out during that time.

Even then, the ratter now has to empty the tags from the ESS and haul them back to empire without dying just to get the isk that otherwise would be instantly added to his wallet. What happened to the idea that null sec should be sustainable on its own? Sustainability aside, this hauling takes more time and adds more risk, further taking away from any extra income this ESS might produce for him.


This is incorrect. At anytime, you can hit "share bounties" to cash out and scoop up the module, thereby leaving you with an immediately profit. The isk is transfered DIRECTLY to the ratters who contributed, meaning there is no tag you have to return to highsec. In other words, you make a profit as long as someone else doesn't access it and hit "Take All".

Rarnak Ki wrote:

Conclusion: No ratter in the right mind would use this as a "benefit" to their ratting. What they get instead is an across the board 5% nerf in ratting income and then on top of that, pirates using this to steal more of their income and wantonly dropping these to further reduce their payouts to 80%.

Given your misunderstanding of the payout mechanics, I feel your conclusion if fallacious. The 5% nerf inratting income on top of it is sad, but that is a separate issue.



Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I was wrong on the way the payout works. What happens if the ESS is destroyed before anyone takes a payout? It seems to me that risk is still increasing over time while the benefit is not.

Zircon Dasher
#1403 - 2014-01-17 01:53:55 UTC
Destruction resets the payout level but leaves the pool untouched

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1404 - 2014-01-17 01:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Rarnak Ki wrote:


Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I was wrong on the way the payout works. What happens if the ESS is destroyed before anyone takes a payout? It seems to me that risk is still increasing over time while the benefit is not.



I'm not certain what is intended, but last reported (from sisi testing) was that you could deploy another ESS, and the unbaid bounties would be retained and available for distribution.

Generally speaking, people would steal the isk-tag before destroying it if they were going that route. To be honest though, as a small gang PvPer, I wouldn't destroy one of these. I'd leave it standing with the hope I could steal the bounties at a later date. I know some people prefer salting the land, but I'm not one of them.

*edit*

Zircon Dasher wrote:
Destruction resets the payout level but leaves the pool untouched


A reset payout is still an immediate 5% increase in bounties.
Fix Sov
#1405 - 2014-01-17 01:58:27 UTC
I guess Giznitt Malikite didn't like my idea, since he's ignoring it.

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.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1406 - 2014-01-17 02:02:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Fix Sov wrote:

If it had been turned into something which was easily reinforcable by a small gang, and payouts would be something like 25% (or whatever) of today's payouts, and the module being online would turn it back into 100% payouts, but incapping it would offline it (and reduce payouts to 25%), then it would be a valuable "small gangs target". The current edition, where everyone, including blues or even the same people you're ratting with can **** you over, be it on purpose or by accident, all for a ludicrously small ROI, is ****. It's stupid, it's ****, and it should never have been thought of or developed in this fashion, and it cannot be salvaged into a good mechanic without scrapping more or less in its entirety.

And all of this has been mentioned repeatedly, and SoniClover has ignored it fully.


I'm trying to understand this statement:

You want bounties in system reduced to 25% of their current levels.
Then, deploying one of these will increase it back to 100%.
But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%.
*edit* You mean someone simply incaps it, and then has to repair it (no RF timers).

And how long and how easily is this RF'd for? How much HP are we talking to rep it up here, and is it easier to finish it off or rep it up? Frankly, this is extremely harsh compared to the current version of the module, and essentially forces every nullsec ratter out there to deploy an ESS if they want to rat in a system.

Either I misunderstand what you are suggesting, or ... wow... that's a brutal and mean mechanic. I much prefer the current version to yours, as I value the fact that it is optional, but beneficial if you risk using it.

*edit* my response was slow, because I was honestly having trouble understanding it. It was radical enough I just didn't comprehend it right away.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1407 - 2014-01-17 02:02:50 UTC
hamfisted changes like this are why my income depends on the gullibility of random eve players

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1408 - 2014-01-17 02:06:46 UTC
just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included?
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
#1409 - 2014-01-17 02:08:20 UTC
Wow, I'm all for new goodies, but honestly... These 3 new deployables will probably only get used by maybe 1 - 3% of the Eve population. The ESS could be a good cause for conflict if it wasn't just limited to Null. And yeah, Interceptors having bubble nullification kinda makes them OP, and the ESS just only highlights that more... Cause it wasn't good enough that Inty's are easily the fastest ship in the game, they had to be nigh uncatchable. Honeslty, don't you guys see obvious flaws by now? Listen to the testers/ read feedback before moving forward?

Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1410 - 2014-01-17 02:09:37 UTC
everybody we need to thank CCP SoniClover for comming out with the most hair brained idea and posting it as a dev blog... he has now edged CCP Zulu's carrier nerf from 2007 http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/capital-ships-in-eve-whats-up-doc/

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Fix Sov
#1411 - 2014-01-17 02:09:45 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:

If it had been turned into something which was easily reinforcable by a small gang, and payouts would be something like 25% (or whatever) of today's payouts, and the module being online would turn it back into 100% payouts, but incapping it would offline it (and reduce payouts to 25%), then it would be a valuable "small gangs target". The current edition, where everyone, including blues or even the same people you're ratting with can **** you over, be it on purpose or by accident, all for a ludicrously small ROI, is ****. It's stupid, it's ****, and it should never have been thought of or developed in this fashion, and it cannot be salvaged into a good mechanic without scrapping more or less in its entirety.

And all of this has been mentioned repeatedly, and SoniClover has ignored it fully.


I'm trying to understand this statement:

You want bounties in system reduced to 25% of their current levels.
Then, deploying one of these will increase it back to 100%.
But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%.

And how long and how easily is this RF'd for? Frankly, this is extremely harsh compared to the current version of the module, and essentially forces every nullsec ratter out there to deploy an ESS if they want to rat in a system.

Either I misunderstand what you are suggesting, or ... wow... that's a brutal and mean mechanic. I much prefer the current version to yours, as I value the fact that it is optional, but beneficial if you risk using it.

*edit* my response was slow, because I was honestly having trouble understanding it. It was radical enough I just didn't comprehend it right away.

I said "25% (or whatever)", meaning it was a placeholder figure, but yes, it would be harsh to give an incentive to actually keep the module online and un-reinforced (i.e. there would have to be an actual reason to defend it). The absolute **** increase in rewards the ESS would bring, combined with the ease with which that increase is turned into a loss, means that the ESS would most likely be a detrimental thing to deploy for someone living in a system.

And I didn't talk about how to reinforce it, because there are multiple ways of doing it, either through hacking or shooting or whatever other idea someone might come up with, the actual minute details of that doesn't really matter at this point.

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.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1412 - 2014-01-17 02:10:30 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included?

CCP considers low sec a separate area of space.
Though if it is linked to anything it is linked to high Sec, as both are 'Empire Space' rather than 'Lawless'.

PvP Bounties aren't included in any of this as they aren't created isk. but simply paid from one player to another.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1413 - 2014-01-17 02:11:02 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
just a side note here, Gizz, but doesn't CCP consider 'lowsec' as part and parcel with null, not hs? and perhaps this next is simply a misunderstanding on my part due to using the same word, but are PvP claimed 'bounties' included?


Lowsec is considered Empire space, as concord still has a role there. This is why there are gate guns, sec status hits, and the like. Furthermore, the dev blog specifically states it can only be deployed in nullsec.

I have no idea if PvP claimed bounties are included. This is a question CCP should answer, or we could test it out on the test server.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1414 - 2014-01-17 02:12:53 UTC
sorry, Gizz, I wasn't aware inty's are immune to bubbles now... wtf, CCP, that was a ~really~ ****** move to make on those hulls!
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1415 - 2014-01-17 02:14:21 UTC
anyways, I do appreciate the clarification on this all, and I now find myself saying this... do whatever you want with the module, but I think the 5% nerf was a very sad 'stick' to go and beat us with (again, saying this as someone who farms most of his isk these days in HS, so not directly impacted by it)
Zircon Dasher
#1416 - 2014-01-17 02:18:57 UTC
Rumor is that you can park on the structure. Meaning that scary bubble immune inty will have to burn something down before it can touch the bacon button.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1417 - 2014-01-17 02:19:56 UTC
Also, I still say this thing is going to only be mostly used by the 'big boys' who can hold systems secure from outside interference to successfully use it (like goons, and etc).
Fix Sov
#1418 - 2014-01-17 02:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Fix Sov
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
But, anyone that RF's it reduces system bounties back to 25%.
*edit* You mean someone simply incaps it, and then has to repair it (no RF timers).

Or it can be hacked, and be offline for x hours or whatever, I don't care.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
And how long and how easily is this RF'd for? How much HP are we talking to rep it up here, and is it easier to finish it off or rep it up?

I see no point in talking raw HP figures, since it's much more pertinent to talk about how long a response time someone should have, and if we're talking hacking then it's easy, if we're talking shooting it to incap it then we have to discuss how many people we should assume should be called "a small gang", which is a moving target.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Frankly, this is extremely harsh compared to the current version of the module, and essentially forces every nullsec ratter out there to deploy an ESS if they want to rat in a system.

That's the point.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I much prefer the current version to yours, as I value the fact that it is optional, but beneficial if you risk using it.

The level of benefits are questionable, at best.

Zircon Dasher wrote:
Rumor is that you can park on the structure. Meaning that scary bubble immune inty will have to burn something down before it can touch the bacon button.

Which means spending an account sitting on the structure, instead of either not paying for a second (or whatever) account, or having that account help the first account in making the ticks roll in quicker, thus earning more than if you deployed the structure and had to babysit it all the time.

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.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1419 - 2014-01-17 02:33:40 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
hmm that hacking game might be an interesting way to make it so anyone can steel from the ess. basically the ess has the standings of the persons corp who lauched it. think of how a wreak works when you kill something is it white or yellow?

based on the standing if they are blue they can access it and if they are nuet or red they have to hack it.

the thing about hacking is you need to fill midslots to be effective and be in a specialized ship.

which would give the owner of the ess time to reship and kill the hacker if he is unescorted.

i think that couppled with mynnna's idea for lp instead of extra isk would make the ess a really fun addition and actually generate some of that mad old school solo pvp i remember back in 2007

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Zircon Dasher
#1420 - 2014-01-17 02:34:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zircon Dasher
Fix Sov wrote:

Which means spending an account sitting on the structure, instead of either not paying for a second (or whatever) account, or having that account help the first account in making the ticks roll in quicker, thus earning more than if you deployed the structure and had to babysit it all the time.


Yup.

Given the efficiency caps on systems some people will find having that alt better employed shooting and whatnot. Other people can field more alts than the system really allows in which case that alt is best suited camping the structure. I am not sure what the problem is.

EDIT: additionally, since the alt takes no attention until the red/neut show up in system some people would rather slap the alt on the structure just because they do not want the effort of actively using it/ can give the off-grid booster something to do.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.