EVE Information Portal

The problem is that the part where some of the bounty can be stolen by blue, neut or red (or even inadvertently by the guy using the structure hitting the wrong button) is a bullshit mechanic which will not help in making the "small gang objective" initiative or "farms and fields" initiative reach its goal, because overall it'll be a lot better to just not erect the ESS in soniclover's current form.

I.e. the problem is a fundamental flaw in the entire reasoning behind deployable's creation.

I have thought of other mechanics like the one you are suggesting here, and the mechanics CCP suggested are superior to yours. The x hour mechanic forces people to suffer for something they could not control. The scenario: raiders come through and lock ratting in a region a half hour before you log on. Now you suffer even though you would have fought them off. The ESS gives you control. Start the ESS when you start ratting. Fight people while you are logged in. Stop the ESS when you are done. You controlled your fate.

Your example shows that you don't like the risks to rewards for this structure, not that you are opposed to structures like this. If you can get CCP to move on the rewards balance then great. My focus is on the making the device more defensible because I am cynical about a rewards argument swaying CCP at this point. I think the 5% nerf is unnecessary, because with the current boost suggested it will be used by a very small percent of people (highly defended areas, or random dead ends no one goes anyway). I think that CCP is scared that the bonuses will be used in many more places and that will increase their null sec isk faucet.

The drama issue is important, and a good one that you raised. Much earlier someone suggested adding hacking to steal. Thus to make a mistake you would have to activate a module and actively hack the system instead of push button for everyone to receive their money. Given this issue it might make sense to at least require a confirmation dialog to steal.

Notice how I said help reach its goal, and not actually would reach its goal?


Solution attempt: if you're online and in a system that's having its ratting bounty thingy incapped/hacked, regardless of whether you leave or go offline between the time they start and the time they actually incap/hack it, you're marked with the coward flag and given a bounty penalty in that system. You can go to a different system and still receive full bounty, but in that system you didn't defend, you're not going to get full bounty for x period.

Even we're not going to use it.

Okay im not going to make a wall of text and if CCP is not reading the 72 pages of people saying this is a bad idea then we are all screwed BUT i feel i have to say something just the same.

THIS IS A VERY VERY VERY BAD IDEA CCP.

http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/icelandic-police-raid-ccps-headquarters.html

Also i think the EVE Onion guys got it right for a change.

In theory it already is.
In practice, however, it won't be.

If what we stood to gain was significantly greater than the potential loss, and if we actually had a decent chance of that gain, then yeah it would.

It's not my math that's wrong, it's your disagreement over the word "significantly" and the fact that you ignored the rest of my post.

Edit: Wait, what are you talking about? You're essentially agreeing with me but you're saying I need a maths check?

I'm agreeing it's not worth it currently yes, However you said (possibly not what you meant to say?) that the rewards exceed what is at risk. Where as the reverse is true.

If someone steals from you, you loose 15% of your income below not using it. If you get perfect payout, you gain an extra 10% income above not using it at all.
So currently assuming 50/50 return, you loose money. Not even counting the cost of the ESS.

So to make it worth it assuming a mechanic that gives a reasonable chance of 50/50 getting your payout/having it stolen, you need to about triple the potential rewards.
Which given Null Bounties already are the largest isk faucet, means you have to go in the direction of Mynnna's proposal and have that extra payout as LP or some non isk faucet method. Or risk causing isk inflation.


----Edit----
To Alphea. Null Bounties are 42% (Or higher) of the total Isk Faucets in EVE. So, it may be that a 5% nerf on Null & only Null Bounties is actually needed to ease pressure on the system. That, I don't know, they haven't released enough figures for that recently to really have a clue. But, I'm ignoring that 5% because it's irrelevant in terms of risk/reward of the ESS. It happens before you apply the ESS. So the ESS actually becomes a 15% penalty, 5-10% bonus item.

How many times can it be said. It is just not worth deploying. Currently ceptors have made no system in space unreachable or safe. Ratters by nature want to fly below the radar, they are not going to deploy something that screams isk rich ratters here come and kill us.
For F-sakes it even give the names to whoever wants to look of exactly which pilots are ratters in a system. The intel the ESS gives out is mindboggling.
This is an offensive doctrine tool pure and simple. By that I mean only enemy fleets will deploy them.
Because if I was a ratter the last thing I would want is for a roaming captor fleet to think I was a juicy target. Screw the money the intel is priceless
New spai career selling ESS data to the highest bidder