These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1861 - 2014-01-21 18:59:18 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
And when are you going to significantly increase the number of anomalies per system which desperately needs to be done?


that or make high end annom like incursions.



This is also why there needs to be a review of PVe stuff before adding crap like the ESS. If anomalies weren't so anti-cooperation, a deployable that encourages pvp and is directed at a PVE activity might not be such a bad idea.

As it is now with the way bounties work, sharing the same anom with someone else just means less isk all around. That screwed up system is at the heart of why null sec systems can barely support a few people ratting, unlike the incursion rewards system to encourages (demands) grouping up (and logistical support).

The current anom system encourages us to rat alone, then here comes the ESS (and it's accompanying 5% bounty nerf) to punish us for ratting alone lol. Yet CCP thinks this means more fights?
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#1862 - 2014-01-21 19:01:28 UTC
CCP Hilmar 05.10.2011 wrote:
...In short, my zeal for pushing EVE to her true potential made me lose sight of doing the simple things right...

...Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated...

Captain's Quarters ...We underestimated our development time, set impractical or misleading expectations, and added insult to injury by removing something in which players were emotionally invested...

Virtual Goods ...It was another feature that we rushed out the door before it was ready...

...If we don’t evolve our technology, our game design and our revenue model, then we risk obsolescence, and we just can’t allow that to happen to EVE or to our community...

...From all this self-reflection, a genesis of renewal has taken root, a personal and professional commitment to restore the partnership of trust upon which our success depends, and a plan that sets the foundation for us to sensibly guide EVE to her fullest potential...

...We’ve been trying to expand the EVE universe in several directions at once, and I need to do a better job of pursuing that vision without diluting or marginalizing the things that are great—or could be great—about the game right now. Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be...

...The greatest lesson for me is the realization that EVE belongs to you, and we at CCP are just the hosts of your experience...


2 years and 3 months. What has changed?

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Eternity Mistseeker
Renegades of Eve
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1863 - 2014-01-21 19:15:40 UTC
If all these LPs were exchanged for faction navy goodies then how much accompanying isk would be removed as well in those exchanges? 1000 isk per LP? So if my 1M isk bounty gives me 200 LP, i would need to give the NPC 200K isk to spend those LPs.

That's a lot of isk disappearing out of the system. Would that be enough to remove the need for a 5% nerf to base bounties?

How about another carrot, such as whilst an ESS is active in a system then one of its lowest class cosmic anomalies will instead respawn as one of the highest class allowed for that system and military index?
theDisto
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1864 - 2014-01-21 19:17:52 UTC  |  Edited by: theDisto
After this mornings changes, seems like an interesting concept.

Just a side note- with align time and warp time, the share option is incredibly short unless you are risking warping to it in a ratting ship. In reality, taking into account time to load system, align and warp, even an Interceptor would have a hard time killing a <900k SP rookie ship parked on the beacon if they are on the ball. Simply landing on grid should make it contested until all parties choose the same choice. (or are killed)

For all the nerds complaining about highsec missions with competitive isk/hr with little risk, this would go a long way to devaluing highsec LP from the major factions.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1865 - 2014-01-21 19:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you, just like you did with cloaking)
Xaerael Endiel
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1866 - 2014-01-21 19:31:26 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you)


I approve of this idea.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1867 - 2014-01-21 19:39:11 UTC
Xaerael Endiel wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you)


I approve of this idea.


Yes....

It is essential that accessing this device may be inhibited. Having the weapons timer inhibit someone from accessing it would go a long way making this device a viable small gang objective.

Also, 20s is an extremely short access time. Most ships in game couldn't even warp to the device before the loot gets shared! It should be long enough that an on-the-ball HAC can warp 40 au's, land on grid, and stop another pilot from hitting "share all" as soon as the "Player is at the ESS" message appears in local.
Liner Xiandra
Sparks Inc
#1868 - 2014-01-21 19:43:27 UTC
Yes, lets all earn Republic Fleet LP in Deklein, or Caldari Navy LP in Great Wildlands. That makes excellent sense.
Lets keep Empire stuff in hisec/FW please.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#1869 - 2014-01-21 19:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Keuvo
Xaerael Endiel wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
can you please make it so that combat within the bubble stops the timer ? (aggression timer active -> module won't talk to you)


I approve of this idea.


This module shouldn't be added to the game. That said, I'm 99% sure CCP doesn't care about that customer feedback and will do it anyway so I'm pretty much resigned that the best we can do is try and get the best possible implementation of this garbage.

This 100% has to happen. Even with the 3 minutes timer if I start docking as soon as a neut enters system depending on distance from the station its going to take me 2+ minutes to dock my ratting BS/carrier (love those warp speed changes, NOT), reship, and undock and then add another minute + to warp to the ESS if I go in anything but an interceptor. And since these are meant to generate PvP combat should reset the timer not just stop it.

Eternity Mistseeker wrote:

How about another carrot, such as whilst an ESS is active in a system then one of its lowest class cosmic anomalies will instead respawn as one of the highest class allowed for that system and military index?


This is the kind of carrot that might get it used in the low quality ratting systems anyway. Or maybe spawns as highest class +1 (you get a haven in systems that don't normally get a haven).
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1870 - 2014-01-21 19:51:03 UTC
just to clarify: i want the timer to reset when combat happens :)
Iece Quaan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1871 - 2014-01-21 19:58:55 UTC
I think this is a poor implementation for a number of reasons.

1. No one will be able to steal anything from these modules if the system residents are on the ball. They park an alt on the ESS, and the instant reds get too close on intel, they hit Share and are done. Ratters dock up until reds are gone and reset. Oh no, we're back to 100%, guys..

2. Deploying these offensively will do nothing, attackers will have to camp and defend it. If they can do that, they can just take the space. When the attackers are forced off, the residents blap it and start over.

3. If you make it too easy to defend and claim the bonus, it's just a 5% bonus to ISK and free LP for the residents. If you make getting the payout hard enough that people will actually need to fight over it every time, no one will use it. If it is deployed offensively, it will be destroyed and people will suck up the 95%.

You will not be able to fix any of these problems by massaging the statistics on the module.

The implementation of a forced penalty in order to drive use is just bad game design. There should be no penalty at all for not using it, and it should give a big bonus for successful use.

You want farms and fields, then make the player farm worth the effort. Don't disturb the default PVE ( the 'hunter-gatherer' current baseline ). Make constructing the farm useful and rewarding for the player, and have it be an asset that they need to defend.

Imposing arbitrary penalties to drive use on your shiny new feature just indicates that you haven't made the feature attractive enough to use. Scrap this idea and rethink it. **** reminds me of 1st edition D&D.
Inspiration
#1872 - 2014-01-21 19:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Regan Rotineque wrote:
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.



QFT

As posted by several, adding layer upon layer of complexity to fix problems at the base, just adds complexity without fixing anything. Why does CCP make their own job so hard, even impossible at times?

There are some that like the new design better then the old, just because of the expected personal outcomes due to tweaked risk vs reward. Some go even further and want more yet more twists to the concept in support towards their personal goals. Both groups are missing the problems and look at it too simple and short term IMO.

The problem is even with changes it still doesn't make sense as with many of ills that exist in this game. Nothing has to be real life like in a game, but it does has to make sense and be believable in the context of a game. In EVE that is spaceships and advanced civilizations technologically beyond our RL experience. That doesn't mean its might and magic in space, alright?

As soon as you deviate from the golden rule that it has to make sense without mind boggling twists, you get into trouble as a game designer and certainly as a programmer as you introduce escalating complexities. You might be able to come up with some weird explanation and/or code for this one new thing, but in doing so you make all future additions that connect to it even indirectly, that much harder! You have to keep escalating weirdness and re-balance and re-code more often without delivering as much entertainment as you otherwise could have.

A few simple weirdness examples as a frame of reference:

* Jump clones...why o why in a world where this technology is common and facilities exist to store an unlimited amount of clones, is it not possible to store multiple clones of the same person in one station? Really, who came up this brilliant limitation and how much fun has it delivered vs how much grief?

* Magic siphoning units that apparently overrule all logic and gain access to stuff inside active POS shields, hell even inside reactors. Are we creating a magic game in space here? This is totally unbelievable and a dangerous path to go on. Can't you see that such a unit complicates further work on the POS system that really needs an overhaul to begin with? The timing couldn't suck more as the POS system needs to be redone!

* And the favorite of many, SOV mechanics, a completely artificial construct enforced in game by magic nothingness. It is an unbelievable system introduced to aim for a desired result. Now how well did that work out?

People have to spam moons with POS, even if they do nothing, just to affect the SOV system....what a fun mechanic...yay! In what sort of insane universe would that connection make any sense...hell what does SOV here really mean? Are there power-ups inside the moons hidden by an ancient civilization that can bend the rules of the universe to its will?

* Belt rats that are produced in staggering numbers all over EVE, seemingly on demand or based on a simple timer. Hey all of a sudden and with active farming taking place there seems to be a lot of ISK pumped into the game. Gosh...how surprising! If there would be a more economical rational and believable system in place this would never had happened in the first place!

It seems CCP tries, like governments if i might add, to introduce complex rules/mechanics to "fix" problems they introduced in the previous iterations them-self, in an ever ballooning spiral of absurdity. Never looking back at to what wend wrong with the last time they "fixed" something.

I can go on about such things, there are many issues like these all over EVE, but I hope the simple message that things should be believable in the games setting resonates and sticks. If i want magic power ups for every moon i fly by, i would play another game...got it?

I am serious!

Allus Nova
#1873 - 2014-01-21 20:06:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Allus Nova
Pinky Hops wrote:
My take on the thing:

It costs 25m. Assume 1 LP = 1300 ISK. I think this is a favorable assumption for the ESS. Assume LP gain = .19 so isk from LP = .25. assume the flat isk gain from ess is .24.

The four outcomes I can see of using an ESS are:

1) Successful retrieve of ESS module with all bonus ISK.

Income without ESS = .95 in wallet

Income with ESS = .8 in wallet + .25 isk in lp in wallet + .24 isk in ESS = 1.29

1.29 / .95 = 1.36 income modifier vs no ESS.

2) Successful retrieve of ESS module but not the bonus ISK.

This is just the ratio of isk in your wallet. So 1.05 / .95 = 1.11x

3) ESS was destroyed but you received "almost all" bonus ISK (you managed to share recently before a gang came in to destroy the ESS)

This is more complicated since it is dependent on how much you have farmed. We can simply consider the difference in profit and look at the break even point to get a quick idea.

This would happen about when you would have farmed 70m ISK without an ESS, or 95m value with an ESS. When this would happen would depend on how quickly rats spawned in the system and what they were worth...

4) ESS was destroyed and all bonus ISK is stolen

So it is like 3) except there is no bonus ISK.

The break even point becomes astronomical, around 275m isk/lp farmed before it happens.


OK, the problem here is that with these LP's being injected into the system you won't be getting 1300 isk/LP with all of the increased supply. You're looking at closer to 800 isk/LP if you're lucky (it could be lower).

This means that fully upgraded, you're looking at a real value of that same 1,000,000 isk rat at 960,000 or only 10k isk more than if you had risked NOTHING at all and took the straight up 5% hit. This would further drive up the ROI threshold, making this something that is never used...ever...

CCPSonilover, what are you trying to accomplish here...this is a step in the right direction, but NOT a solution.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1874 - 2014-01-21 20:07:12 UTC
l0rd carlos wrote:
Neat. I like it!

Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS.
For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout.

Yes, please do this! It would help provoke fights with despicable farmers.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1875 - 2014-01-21 20:11:45 UTC
Zappity wrote:
l0rd carlos wrote:
Neat. I like it!

Please think about a lowsec or Faction warfare ESS.
For example it could take some of the LP form the FW farmers. If they are stepped and don't want to fight, they only get 80% of the original payout. But if they show up and fight they get 110% of the normal payout.

Yes, please do this! It would help provoke fights with despicable farmers.


This could be a great anti-FW-farming alts device:

Deploy in system and all FW payouts are reduced from 100% to 70% payouts. The extra 30% of the LP is stored in the ESS (+ a 10% bonus for good measure). Allow anyone to access it, but give it 5 minute access times and the option to share all or take all as well. The only downside is blue-on-blue violence is certain to increase!
Leigh Akiga
Kuhri Innovations
#1876 - 2014-01-21 20:13:55 UTC
So if the LP is based upon which ESS is deployed (empire navies) how about some pirat ESS like Guristas and Angels etc. that give pirate LP SmileCool
Desmond Strickler
#1877 - 2014-01-21 20:14:24 UTC
You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.

Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).

And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up

[b]Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy

"My other dread is a Swaglafar"[/b]
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1878 - 2014-01-21 20:17:16 UTC
Desmond Strickler wrote:
You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.

Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).

And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up


QFT
Iece Quaan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1879 - 2014-01-21 20:23:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Iece Quaan
Just a few examples:

Nullsec empires have found a way to backtrace concord bounty payments and gently hack the automated systems into paying out more than was intended.

This will be a systemwide module that stores up an LP payout per pilot based on ISK bounty generated.

Make the percentage increase over time- so the more time you spend building up a bonus, the more bonus you get.

When you're ready to cash out, the 'payout time' is directly proportional to the bonus you built up. The higher the bonus, the more you get, but the longer it takes to pay out once you cash out. ( This is to prevent everyone from cashing out every 60s, which is what would happen with a fixed bonus over time ).

The catch is, the module is hackable. By anyone. The would-be hacker accesses the module ( bringing up a list of accounts which they can sort by payout, which pings local in the system that the module is being accessed ). The hacker chooses which account to access, and begins the hack with their ship's equipped hacking module. Again, the larger the bonus, the longer the hack. The isk/lp is divided among the hacker's fleet upon completion.

Thus, a single attacker might be able to quickly hack a few lowlevel accounts until he is forced off the module.

However, a gang might be able to control the space around the module to hack out all or most of the accounts, one by one, until they are driven off by a defense fleet.

This lets the individual residents gain a small benefit, but an attacker to gain a potentially large benefit, while encouraging attackers to keep their gang sizes small in order to not dilute the payout to the point of worthlessness.

It would be self-regulating as hitting the module too often would encourage the locals not to keep much on account- not hitting them too often would encourage them to get lax and increase the potential payout.

Blues hacking out accounts would be automatically identified by the local broadcast system and fall into their respective empire's 'ratting drama' resolution system.

The module captures all bounty payments as a bonus and is sov-neutral: Reds ratting in your space could also build up a bonus, hackable by the local residents.

The module is destructible, which is also a valid choice for attackers that choose merely to smash rather than make a profit. All bonuses are lost in this case.

EDIT: The module can be opt-in. If you don't wish to try for a bonus and/or potentially reward attackers, you don't have to.

That was pretty easy and took about 15 minutes of thought.
Allus Nova
#1880 - 2014-01-21 20:23:41 UTC
Desmond Strickler wrote:
You nullbears aren't giving this a chance. I think this is a great way to get more people involved in null sec in the form of small-gang combat. Now instead of docking up each time a small gang of pirates come through your system, maybe you could actually fight them over something small, but valuable.

Sure you don't have to fight the pirates and it wouldn't be much of a deal if they did loot your ESS, but it does give you an incentive to fight and I can see the ESS as a wonderful content creator for a lot of small raiding gangs in null sec. This doesn't limit null sec to blob v. blob action anymore, or limit small gang fighting to certain regions of null sec (i.e Syndicate).

And if you don't want pirates raiding you and such, then you don't have to put up



OK except that you're misunderstanding that with the cost of the unit, and the pitiful increase in payout (using the fully upgraded value of 200 LP for a 1,000,000 isk mob) you'll end up with 800,000 in bounties, and 200 LP will mean that you have NO reason to use this. With any huge influx in LP like this represents, you'll really end up getting like 800 isk per LP or less, so around 160,000 isk worth of LP. Not the 260,000 that CCP is suggesting now.

This means that FULLY upgraded, you're going to get 960,000 isk worth of bounty for that single mob.
If you instead choose to do nothing, you're getting 950,000 with no reward.

So...is 10k isk worth anything to you?
CCP needs to adjust the LP reward upwards to compensate for the drop in LP value which this will result in.