These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1521 - 2014-01-17 18:30:35 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:


As has already been stated, there is an efficiency cap on systems. If you have more characters than the cap allows (or do not want to spend the effort of actively using a character OR have an OGB), putting that character on the button makes sense. If you have not reached the cap, then it does not make sense. Some people will find it useful and others not. This is ok.



the problem is that it is still no where's near profitable enough for nullsec to be "full". so while your alt may not be able to be in your system you can always move them a system over. not to mention just have them mine in highsec, cause they could probably make more than the 5% doing that. (i stick with 5% cause as others have pointed out you do not have 5 hours to upgrade it to the 10 without someone coming through)
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#1522 - 2014-01-17 18:34:25 UTC
Guys, large parts of this thread have descended into the popular highsec vs nullsec profitability row. Lets not do that and focus our energies on the fact that the ESS is an astonishingly bad idea. Let's get back to attacking the ESS for what it is. A highly contrived and stupid game mechanic that absolutely no one is happy with.

As it stands now we're divided and the core message that we're unhappy about the ESS is being diluted. Lets just continue to remind CCP that the ESS needs to go back to the drawing board and re-emerge in either a different form that is playable or not at all...

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
greiton starfire
Accidentally Hardcore
#1523 - 2014-01-17 18:44:18 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

"You might [read: very likely will] lose some bounties but you profit anyway."
Yeah no.


no what? not deploying one doesnt make sense at all, maybe even hostiles will put one up then you even have to shoot this ****** structure to loose bounties after then again.
Why not deploy? Its not that there are constantly hostiles around, you wouldnt rat anyways in this case, so what?
Why not deploy? vOv



because you are operating at a major loss for hours once it is deployed, with little hope of ever seeing gain. as others pointed out the moment you buy it you have to dig out of that hole, which will take a long time. if someone comes into system you have two choices, click share or scoop. since there is a cool down time on the share option they can be on you and killing it before you scoop. at this point it is probably dead. if you scoop it, they can place one and steal anyways since the system remembers. there is no reasonable way to defend the system, and no reasonable incentive alliance wide to go through the effort of defending the system.

as for the arguments saying that our real issue is with the isk disparity between high low and null. well yeah you are right. this compounds on an already present issue. if the rewards were far better and the disparity wasn't there, then maybe maybe someone would use it. but as is, after 2 weeks on tq those dumb enough to use it will have their crap pushed in so far by roaming inty gangs they will abandon it forever, remembering all the problems and isk loss that came from it. if you want it to ever work you would call for its delay until the pve disparity issue was resolved.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1524 - 2014-01-17 18:44:29 UTC
Fix Sov wrote:
Kadl wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:
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.


This is a better mechanic than incapacitating the system for a certain amount of time. I still think it is weaker than the ESS. My first objection is that the penalty is to move one system away. That is simply resolved by tweaking this to be a penalty which follows you from system to system.

Or alternatively, make it an ihub module, like the station modules, and enable people to hack it. To restore bounties, unhack it. Voila, problem solved, and nobody should care if it was hacked before they logged on. vOv


A simple reading is obviously bad. If you can just unhack the module when the gang has left then we are not encouraging small gang PvP. Unless you are thinking that the time to unhack will be long (in which case you are just going backwards to the time issue).

Lets look at a more complicated reading. Hacking the module gives people a coward's flag. So the solution is … log quicker than they can hack? Lets give the debuff to everyone who logged out when the hacking was started. An afk cloaker can give this debuff. So you have provided the structure with a bit more defender control (but not as much as the ESS). You have not eliminated the afk cloaker issues. You have added a number of potential corporate role issues, particularly for renters. This also eliminates the ability to try a variant of these in NPC null, or make the deployable available in low sec.

I am going to ignore your rewards arguments and insults. Either something can work (with enough rewards) or it can't.

Fix Sov wrote:
Farms and fields isn't hard to make work in nullsec


You have tried three times and still haven't come up with a method meeting the ESS.

Fix Sov wrote:
Or you could just realize that the problem with the module is that it's a schizophrenic mess.


Anything requiring balance is schizophrenic. In this case defenders and attackers need to be balanced. I don't think the ESS as written is well balanced, but I think the fundamental mechanic can be setup if various parts are tweaked.

I wonder if your real problem is with the gambling mechanic. You put something into the pot and gamble that you can get it back. If that is the case then perhaps one of the tweaks you would like is removing the initial 15% placed into the pot. The bonus income would still be in the pot. I don't have an opinion on that idea. It sounds like another tweak that could be suggested.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1525 - 2014-01-17 18:44:34 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


When we held Sov, we insisted players make isk in our home area, as it ensured we had enough members online and present that we could quickly form up a response gang to any hostiles that came in the area. I understand this takes time away from your precious isk making, but we generally considered the interruption a VERY good thing, as pew pew is more entertaining than shooting red crosses.


We try to not be any where near that authoritarian.
Quote:

In Today's EvE, I understand that many of your 5000 line members prefer to grind as efficiently as possible, be it nullsec anomaly blitzing, FW LP alts, Highsec Missions, HS Incurions, or WH farming. I understand that you then get your pewpew fix by CTA's to attack/defend sov at the large-warfare scale, and that you consider small gang combat a blight upon your territory. Yes, farms and fields are specifically designed to bring this blight to your front steps (adapt or die). We also understand you don't want to deal with it, especially since other income methods are better or easier. That's something worth addressing, and we aren't disagreeing that the income disparagy given risk:reward and effort:reward needs addressing.


As usual, your prejudiced view is blinding you to what's being said. This is exactly why you are one of maybe 5 people in 77 page (so far) thread defending the indefensible.

The pve players of null have always adapted. We adapted our asses to high and low sec and wormholes because CCP made null not as worth it. When they fixed it, we came back. They are threatening to break it again with mandatory "come get the fruits of my labor you crafty interceptor you" beacons.

You can talk theroy all you like, i'm talking practicalities. The outcome these things will have will be negative to all involved, fewer ratters to be targets for roaming gangs, more people squeezing isk out of high sec rather than ratting in null where they are subject to pvp.

The problem I (and I think others) have with you in this thread is that you're thinking like CCP and making the same mistake. The reason I think this is a bad idea is EVE is a freaking PVP game and creating a situation that encourages people to make isk in the safety of high sec rather than to do so in places where they are pvp targets is plain stupid. Lots of 'emergent gameplay' comes for people ratting in null (and low and WHs) and yet this 'brilliant' ESS idea (no matter how it's done) will do nothing to progress this pvp game.

that you don't understand that what you are advocating is anti-pvp is not surprising in the least.

Part of me hopes that CCP goes ahead with the ESS, so we can teach them (and you) the same lesson we taught after the anom nerf: trying to artificially drive conflict is dumb and anti-sandbox and will backfire. CCP should not be trying to spur/gerrymander behavior (like 'more conflict'), they should simply be providing tools and let the players figure it out.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1526 - 2014-01-17 18:49:29 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond.


Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"?

No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Fix Sov
#1527 - 2014-01-17 18:52:40 UTC
Kadl wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:
Farms and fields isn't hard to make work in nullsec


You have tried three times and still haven't come up with a method meeting the ESS.

Uh, yes, I have. My idea is infinitely more farms and field-compatible than the ESS will ever be.

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.
Wyn Pharoh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1528 - 2014-01-17 18:52:44 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:


So your issue here is with the 30mil cost of the ESS?

As has already been stated, there is an efficiency cap on systems. If you have more characters than the cap allows (or do not want to spend the effort of actively using a character OR have an OGB), putting that character on the button makes sense. If you have not reached the cap, then it does not make sense. Some people will find it useful and others not. This is ok.


TBH, my real issue is that like the MTU, the ESS DEVALUES the Drone Regions even more than it always has been in relative comparison to the rest of nullsec. My real point it that IF CPP dealt with the isk faucet issue they created when they fixed the mineral/alloy faucet that existed in Drones, there would be enough room for them to wipe the risk:reward issues off the map with an otherwise interesting conflict driver. Instead of nerfing ratting for all 0.0 space, they could drop that stick entirely, or keep the stick and give the ESS enough juice to make its deployment and defense something worthwhile.

The 30 million isk cost of the unit IS in addition to the 5% lost income for not having the unit. The 'reward' is paltry in relation to the risk. By not having the unit, I lose 5% of my personal real life freetime pre-ESS 'benefits' of sov holding. Should I accept the ESS, then I could possibly get back to where I was prior to this debate, but am always risking setting myself hours back, hours of real life time, just to cover the cost of the investment and then, maybe, see a trickle of benefit.

As far as system efficiency caps go, there is still no point in having an idle alt. There is LOTS of undeveloped space, and cramming more folks into smaller pockets, leaving larger emptiness than already exists CAN NOT BE GOOD. As it is now, if local space is crowded, I'd move on into a system that could support all the active accounts that my friends and I could handle. Now, we get to draw straws for babysitting a structure, separate from any alts already deployed as scouts.

What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1529 - 2014-01-17 19:00:15 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kadl wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me?


Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be more secure from small gang PvP (than other null sec spaces). That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here.

Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage.


Who said anything about more security.


I think you did. You want the current level of security from people screwing with you. Thus you want more security then the 'Fields and Farms' plan may offer, since it is designed to encourage small gangs to come.

Jenn aSide wrote:
If YOUR goal is making isk to do fun stuff, what would YOU do, make isk in some place where you are easily interrupted and where you have to fight against unknown or crazy odds? our would you simply supply yourself in a less irritating place and just take the isk and go have fun?


There are many ways to approach fun stuff and isk in a game. The 'Fields and Farms' plan is to encourage one of those paths (fight small gangs and get rewards because you win). It seems that you do not like that path. You seem to want 'do stuff in a place where once I fight the big fights I can make my good isk'. You also mention doing 'boring stuff in a safe environment'. One way I like is the travel around EVE and see fun stuff method while making some isk. I guess the 'Fields and Farms' idea of encouraging small gang fights is not good for you, and will reduce your fun in this game. Perhaps, most people in null sec like the 'big fights and then minimal small gangs'. That sounds boring to me.
Zircon Dasher
#1530 - 2014-01-17 19:00:29 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Because to get any decent return on the ESS you basically have to leave it out for as long as you can, which just leaves it open for anyone to take away that isk faster than you can possibly respond.


Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"?

No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down.


So no ROI is acceptable. Got it.

I <3 irrational people

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1531 - 2014-01-17 19:17:38 UTC
Wyn Pharoh wrote:

What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.


To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary.

There are several complaints which I agree with:

  • It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content.

  • The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS).

  • The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose.

  • I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me.

    • and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #1532 - 2014-01-17 19:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
    Zircon Dasher wrote:
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Zircon Dasher wrote:
    Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"?

    No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down.

    So no ROI is acceptable. Got it.

    Oh, 300-400% (on top of the base rewards) should do it. A system that holds 3 ratters can then pay for the 9–12 people required to protect the ESS. The problem is that it's still a moronic idea since it's a lot of faff to solve a problem that would be far more easily solve by not creating the problem to begin with. All it does is enforce indentured servitude and monotony on people who'd rather be doing more interesting things.

    Quote:
    I <3 irrational people
    It's not irrational to try to stop a problem from ever being implemented instead of fiddling with the details of a more or less useless solution to a problem that was only created to give the solution itself a reason to exist.

    Because that's what we have here: they're creating a problem so they can sell us a solution. You are suggesting that we alter the solution; everyone else is suggesting that we don't even create the problem.
    Jenn aSide
    Worthless Carebears
    The Initiative.
    #1533 - 2014-01-17 19:27:04 UTC
    Kadl wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Kadl wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    If my goal is to make isk to do something else, why would I light a "pvp here" cyno beacon begging for someone to come screw with me?


    Based on this you believe that the PvE places in null sec should be more secure from small gang PvP (than other null sec spaces). That seems counter to the 'Fields and Farms' plan as CCP initially suggested it. It also seems more like high sec 'I want my isk without being bothered', than null sec 'I fight for my isk'. It is certainly possible that I am not understanding some fine distinction you are making here.

    Perhaps CCP cannot make the 'Fields and Farms' work in null sec because no one (in either high or null sec) is willing to take risks while they get their isk. Somehow wormhole residents seem to manage.


    Who said anything about more security.


    I think you did. You want the current level of security from people screwing with you. Thus you want more security then the 'Fields and Farms' plan may offer, since it is designed to encourage small gangs to come.

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    If YOUR goal is making isk to do fun stuff, what would YOU do, make isk in some place where you are easily interrupted and where you have to fight against unknown or crazy odds? our would you simply supply yourself in a less irritating place and just take the isk and go have fun?


    There are many ways to approach fun stuff and isk in a game. The 'Fields and Farms' plan is to encourage one of those paths (fight small gangs and get rewards because you win). It seems that you do not like that path. You seem to want 'do stuff in a place where once I fight the big fights I can make my good isk'. You also mention doing 'boring stuff in a safe environment'. One way I like is the travel around EVE and see fun stuff method while making some isk. I guess the 'Fields and Farms' idea of encouraging small gang fights is not good for you, and will reduce your fun in this game. Perhaps, most people in null sec like the 'big fights and then minimal small gangs'. That sounds boring to me.


    One thing I notice is that the few people who are pro ESS tend to seem like "theory" people to me, they aren't looking at the realities, they are looking at some kind of "should be this way case" and it seems CCP is doing it that way to (which is why they think that this idea would lead to more fights when a more practical view would dictate less fights),

    Players always follow the path of least resistance. if the path of least resistance for making that last 200 mil for a plex for gametime or dual training is "run a couple hours of incursions" rather than "rat in null with an ESS active and HOPE you can defend 20-25% of you isk from hostiles or unscrupulous blues" people will end up in high sec. Null doesn't need to be safer or more profitable, it needs to be POSSIBLE and efficient.

    The way it is now it's barely just worth the hassle of dealing with the super-warping frig gangs to do anomalies , null doesn't need anything to tip the balance further into the "screw this I'll risk the incursions wait list" direction. The goal should be more ratters in null (because some of them will die and their ship deaths fuel the EVE economy) not less.
    Inspiration
    #1534 - 2014-01-17 19:27:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.


    Funny, that besides all other complains is just the thing...it doesn't make any sense at all.

    See, if you are concord and do not like some unknown actor also monitoring actions that you like and even reward. Will you punish the every actor that does the things you like them to do killing pirates) by paying out less?

    Of course not.

    And who is concord...It is not an entity that stands on its own! It is funded and authorized for certain activities by the main empires. Will concord delegate control of a certain percentage of payout to the empires? Which then hand over the ISK tags to whomever grabs them...because of some interference in the monitoring task concord has?

    Seriously...if you think this all makes even remotely sense you need as I told CCP......see a doctor!

    I am serious!

    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1535 - 2014-01-17 19:34:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    Wyn Pharoh wrote:

    What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.


    To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary.

    There are several complaints which I agree with:

  • It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content.

  • The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS).

  • The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose.

  • I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me.

    • and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.

    Yep. Again, this touches on the true value of this unit not necessarily being obvious. Don't forget it also has a built in proximity alarm that apparently can detect cloaked vessels. Blink

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Jenn aSide
    Worthless Carebears
    The Initiative.
    #1536 - 2014-01-17 19:38:59 UTC
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    Wyn Pharoh wrote:

    What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.


    To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary.

    There are several complaints which I agree with:

  • It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content.

  • The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS).

  • The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose.

  • I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me.

    • and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.


    You like the base concept but dislike EVERY feature of the unit meant to implement the concept? Ok yea.

    The problem with the base concept is the reality on the ground (I mean in space lol). The "concept" is to encourage people to fight to defend their 'farm'. The problem is that it's not the only place to earn a living. The farmer can fight, risk dying or loosing his crops, or he can just move to the city, be protected by the cops and get a job at Wal-mart making a little less than he would on his farm but without the back breaking labor, risk of bandits and risk of locusts......

    In other words, High sec is the city, wal-mart is incursions/missions.
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1537 - 2014-01-17 19:40:58 UTC
    Tippia wrote:
    Zircon Dasher wrote:
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Zircon Dasher wrote:
    Curious: Can you provide a quantitative ISK value and time-to-return that would be "decent"?

    No, because I'm not here to balance a ******** idea. I'm here to shut it down.

    So no ROI is acceptable. Got it.

    Oh, 300-400% (on top of the base rewards) should do it. A system that holds 3 ratters can then pay for the 9–12 people required to protect the ESS. The problem is that it's still a moronic idea since it's a lot of faff to solve a problem that would be far more easily solve by not creating the problem to begin with. All it does is enforce indentured servitude and monotony on people who'd rather be doing more interesting things.

    Quote:
    I <3 irrational people
    It's not irrational to try to stop a problem from ever being implemented instead of fiddling with the details of a more or less useless solution to a problem that was only created to give the solution itself a reason to exist.

    Because that's what we have here: they're creating a problem so they can sell us a solution. You are suggesting that we alter the solution; everyone else is suggesting that we don't even create the problem.

    The concept of introducing a potential weak link into a ratters ISK supply chain is not inherently bad, especially in a way that can potentially turn into a small conflict driver.

    The implementation could use some work however.

    Even if they didn't change a thing though, the module would still have considerable value... just not doing any of the things it's "supposed" to be doing.

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1538 - 2014-01-17 19:44:27 UTC
    Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. Big smile

    That pretty much puts a spot light on the real reason people don't like it. Smile

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Pinky Hops
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1539 - 2014-01-17 19:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Interestingly enough, despite the broad condemnation of the entire concept of the ground up, if the initial penalty didn't exist... only a potential bonus to your income... the concept as a whole would be wildly popular. Big smile


    I don't know how people get this idea.

    It's like they have no idea what constitutes good game design and bad game design.

    You realize the only reason this is getting implemented is because it's leftover code from Incarna, right?

    It's vending machine code.

    An excellent addition to any spaceship game...Ugh
    Wyn Pharoh
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #1540 - 2014-01-17 19:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Wyn Pharoh
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    Wyn Pharoh wrote:

    What puzzles me is how you and Gizznitt Malikite can possibly be supporting pushing this thing through as it is. If you want fights, thats cool. If you want CCP to develop conflict drivers, I too support more conflict drivers. This ESS will not help you. It will cause the fields and farms that you would like to play pillager in to become an even more barren wasteland than it already is. You will have farther to roam, as pockets tighten. There will be vacancies where you previously at least could get the odd comedy killmail, if not a real fight. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending against small gangs. Most of 0.0 is simply not worth defending at all. It has gotten to the point that it costs sov to hold sov, in most respects, for no other benefit than the ego gratification of being able to say 'we hold sov'. How can this be good for the game? This is certainly true from the bottom -> up income POV. Those on the bottom of the foodchain are the ones ratting. They are the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain from the current model being presented to us all. Good luck recruiting and developing under these conditions. Good luck with membership retention. Empire is looking just 5% more attractive than it did before, and that is exactly what Eve does not need.


    To be frank, we don't support the module as is. We see several potential problems, and requested they be addressed. At the same time, we also see potential value in this concept, and are fighting the "what a worthless use of dev time" commentary.

    There are several complaints which I agree with:

  • It is hard to defend: The access time & drop isk tag times are too short for anyone to truly form up and defend the unit. If there is no defense of the unit, it won't generate much content.

  • The 5% nerf to bounties: I too feel the income disparage between riskier ratting and highsec is imbalanced, and should be addressed (although I consider this a MUCH bigger issue than the ESS).

  • The reward isn't as high as I'd like: Risking 15 to get 20-25 is only good if you collect far more often than you lose.

  • I'm not a fan of the warp bubble (and believe we can deploy bubbles around it if we like). A 60s to deploy, 125k EHP, 15km radius warp bubble that can be instantly scooped will certainly be used in unintended manners. Furthermore, interdiction nullified inties also annoy the **** out of me.

    • and I could go on.... However, I think the base concept of the unit is very sound.


    We are actually risking 20 to get 5. As I've had to recalculate my own projections, lets make certain we keep it all together. Today, we are at 100%. In the ESS era we stand to just lose 5% or risk 20% of what we make now, if we are willing to grind for hours, to first break even with where we are today, and then perhaps be gifted with a 5% return. For something you are willing to concede to be '...hard to defend...'.

    Honestly...
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


    When we held Sov...

    Yes, I had forgotten that Agony Empire once held Sov.

    It hasn't gotten any better for those of us still out here, and I envy from time to time those that have thrown off their shackles to embrace the freedom of Empire, LowSec or W-hole space. Then I sober up, and get busy with helping my friends shore up whats left of the empire building we have of our own, and remember that I have never done this for the isk. Its just simply more fun. And I teach the younglings how to shoot red crosses far from the reaches of Concord, not because shooting red crosses is fun, but at a minimum it should afford the cost of far more fun than staying in Empire, shooting slightly different patterns of red crosses with no amount of potential fun allowed at all.

    We are on the same side, we actually want the same thing for New Eden. They have the technology. They CAN make the Sandbox better. And just like in Eve sometimes, we have to MAKE them do it.