EVE Information Portal

Biggest flaw is how this empowers hot-droppers. With an ESS, you no longer have to jump into a system and race to catch them in their sites- just sit on the ESS and threaten to take all their cash.

If they do nothing, you milk them dry.

If they try to fight you, you bridge in an overwhelming blops force and nuke them.

Cyno + ESS is not a good combination- I'll reiterate what I said pages ago, it needs a cyno-jamming field (and to be balanced against the existing cyno jammer deployable so it doesn't compete)

TL;DR: Delay the ESS from 1.1 and make it something worthy of EVE Online, not another failed feature.

I would also say that CCP might want to think about not placing the ESS in 1.1

There are some really great ideas coming from the community and a better back and forth with CCP about this module now, with some more time, testing and feedback it could actually be a fantastic module.
I worry that if rushed out in 1.1 before people are happy with it we will just see it abandoned (like many features) while Super Friends are moved onto their next project for the summer expansion.

I understand things will never be perfect before they're deployed but a few more revisions and work on changes besides the base ESS module to help support it would make for a far better released feature (NullSec LP stores, Specific LP/Store Lists, Hacking games).

Make a thread in Features and Ideas and work with the community to create something worthy of EVE Online, not another feature which we're told will be finished/tweaked/fixed later and sits in a worthless state for over a year.

Once this thread turns from "still not worth using" to "OMG GOT TO HAVE" you know you're looking at something ready for release, you only have to look at the Hype for the Nestor vs the dread of this module and the changes it brings to see how one feature (which has had a thread up for a couple of months) is what players want vs the one which us only a couple of weeks old and people still don't want any where near TQ.

e: someone on jabber pointed out that my query included wormhole space. Re-running the query to eliminate that space, it ends up actually being more on the order of 42% of nullsec being barren!


This dovetails into something I'd been wanting to talk about -- the old change to anomaly distribution based on truesec. Now that the ESS exists as a way to arbitrarily tune the isk faucet being emitted from nullsec, I'd highly recommend that CCP revisit the changes to the Pirate Detection Array that choked off the top combat sites from vast swathes of nullsec.

Some background: in the Incursion 1.4 patch, Pirate Detection Arrays were changed so that a system's truesec affected how many combat sites would spawn. The net of this change was to choke off roughly 40% of conquerable nullsec from having any viable combat sites. Here are the raw numbers:

sqlite> select count(*) FROM mapSolarSystems a left join mapRegions b ON (a.regionID = b.regionID) WHERE a.security < 0.00 AND a.security > -0.25 AND b.factionID IS NULL AND b.regionName NOT LIKE "%-R%" AND b.regionName <> "UUA-F4";
1156
sqlite> select count(*) FROM mapSolarSystems a left join mapRegions b ON (a.regionID = b.regionID) WHERE a.security < 0.00 and b.factionID IS NULL AND b.regionName NOT LIKE "%-R%" AND b.regionName <> "UUA-F4";
2751

For those that don't grok sql: 1156 systems in conquerable nullsec have a security status between 0.00 and -0.25, compared to 2751 total. Systems in this band are unable to generate any Forsaken Hubs, which are the lowest tier site that generates a livable income in nullsec. This change, either intentionally or unintentionally, made 40% of nullsec a barren wasteland for line member income generation. Regions like Pure Blind, Providence, and Cloud Ring were hit disproportionately by these changes; in Pure Blind in particular there are only seven systems that can generate a Forsaken Hub at all and only one that can generate a Sanctum at all (and that system is EC-P8R; a system which is notoriously untenable for any sort of PvE on account of having a direct highsec connection, with all the pvp attention carried by such a distinction.)

Part of the effect of this change was a net reduction in the "isk faucet" coming from nullsec; not only was 40% of the space in the game no longer eligible for combat sites, but the total number of combat sites was drastically reduced. I think that now is a great time to revisit the scaling done by Pirate Detection Arrays to make lower-quality space a little more livable for its residents. I suspect a minor adjustment to allow these systems to generate at least one combat site would suffice. Any isk faucet concerns can be allayed by adjusting the scaling on the ESS such that it generates more LP than isk than the current desired balance.

I'm not suggesting that these changes be incorporated for Rubicon 1.1 or in fact any particular release at all, but I'd like to plant the bug in the relevant ears, at the very least, while we are on the topic of such an important change to nullsec profitability.

On another note, these calculations have a slight wrinkle in the Drone regions. Drone regions, for whatever reason, generate vastly larger numbers of combat sites. I don't have hard numbers in front of me, but anecdotal reference from my personal experience hunting ratters in these regions, along with the anecdotal evidence from my confederates in Goonswarm Federation doing similar things suggests that up to ten Drone Horde sites (the top tier combat site in these regions) can spawn at once, compared to a maximum of three Sanctums in other pirate faction regions. This incongruency may be worth visiting as well.

LOL the fleet application of this would be ********. bad idea.

There has to be a more elegant solution for this. I'm not sure where it is but there has to be. The concept (meaning the device itself and how it runs is fine, anchor, creates a warp bubble, prizes inside), how it calculates its pot of gold is bizarre.

Is it the bounty and LP thats the problem? Or the loot drops/salvage?

What I mean is if you are going to create a device like this, make it more extreme. If this is meant for null, you might as well just go all out and force people to deal with it.

Right now its a deadspace early detection system, (incase you wound up missing the combat scanner probes), or a temporary griefing tool (which is fine but it should probably grief more).

Honestly, this is probably two different devices.

One being a Detection system, the second deployable a system isk/lp sucking system. Its odd being both but hell we can try it for now.

Deadspace detection system? You mean you deploy it at a deadspace plex so anyone entering it is reported in local? That's a unique use of the device!

To limit inflaction, CCP needs to be careful with their isk faucets. This is why they are conservative with the isk payouts. LP is honestly an isk sink, so that can be a reward that isn't isk (and helps offset it).

Forcing people to deal with it is a pretty heavy handed approach that is likely to upset the balance of players in nullsec. By keeping it optional, and small gang oriented, it has utility without being overly harsh.

“Another”? What other buffs are you referring to, and how was it expected that they decided to nerf income even more (because that's still what they're doing)? Also, when was highsec nerfed in such a way that it now needs “un-nerfing”?



…and the question remains the same as before: why are you introducing this nerf to all of null when every statement from your side says that no such nerf is needed? Again, if it's there to give the ESS a reason to exist — to make it worth-while — all that means is that the ESS has no reason to exist and isn't worth-while to begin with, which means you should adjust the ESS, not arbitrarily punish every rank-and-file nullseccer. Even the previous miscommunication about it being risky to increase nullsec bounties is now completely nullified: the ESS is already self-compensating through the use of LP.

If you have to use such heavy-handed tactics to incentivise the use of your new design, it means your design is wrong.

that is my question too...

is not the 20% risk enough?

perhaps a base increase in meta drops could help offset a drop in isk drops? i.e. if you want more isk you have to work for it

that or make high end annom like incursions.

It is still overly complicated and adds zero to the overall gameplay. Now you are adding additional mechanics to this and making it even more complex. Adding more code to a broken mechanic does not make it better. I still say this should be shelved and other game mechanics in dire need of coding and reworking be worked on.