These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Siphon Units getting buffed or just more unfinished content?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#41 - 2014-04-23 20:35:42 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I'm saying it provides risk averse people with a risk free way of making passive income with nearly no effort,

Yes, flying into a 50,000 character coalitions space, bypassing gatecamps, defense fleets, lighting up intel channels, etc., flying up to a gunned tower with defense modules that have a random (between 1 and 30 second) lock delay time (god help you if you lag a bit), anchoring a module, and looting said anchored modules at a precisely predictable location EACH F****** TIME is RISK FREE.

Definitely less risky then being faceless member #47239 of huge coalition X and following orders like a good little munchkin. Roll

While coalitions may deserve credit for securing their space, of the two (the siphoner versus random faceless coalition member #47239), the siphoner takes a far greater risk in his day to day operations. Risk averse my a**.
Which is great, except ALL of that requires thousands of people working together, working to provide our level of safety. That is a completely different thing to the risk aversion of people who want the game to naturally provide them ways to avoid all risk. You want to be able to run around, on your own with absolutely no risk dragging in heaps of income without having to risk a damn thing and without having to interact with anyone else. Well guess what buddy, it's a multiplayer game. If you just want to play a solo game, you wont't get all the rewards.

And no, the siphoner risks absolutely nothing in a covops hauler dumping a structure that is cheap enough to effectively be called free for passive income.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#42 - 2014-04-23 20:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell wrote:
Which is great, except ALL of that requires thousands of people working together, working to provide our level of safety.

Doesn't matter how it was generated, defense fleets, intel channels, gatecamps, all are a risk. This point does nothing to support the assertion that siphoners are risk averse. Sure, you worked to make your space risky, no debate. Good job. Next.

Lucas Kell wrote:
That is a completely different thing to the risk aversion of people who want the game to naturally provide them ways to avoid all risk.

Straw man, no one said that anywhere, you're misrepresenting my position. Next.

Lucas Kell wrote:

You want to be able to run around, on your own with absolutely no risk dragging in heaps of income without having to risk a damn thing and without having to interact with anyone else.

Straw man again. I never said that anywhere. Also: Heaps of income = the 30 mil isk of profit from prom I stuff in my cloaky hauler after a good siphon run. Without having to risk a damn = The 130 mil isk fully fit viator used to do so that will, at some point, get caught in a trap or gatecamp.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Well guess what buddy, it's a multiplayer game. If you just want to play a solo game, you wont't get all the rewards.

Straw man. A solo game was never implied. Quite the opposite, siphons benefit massively from an organized team effort.

Lucas Kell wrote:

And no, the siphoner risks absolutely nothing in a covops hauler dumping a structure that is cheap enough to effectively be called free for passive income.

Covops Hauler = 130 mil fully fit. = No risk
"Passive" income = running 60 mil of goo out of hostile space, 30 mil of which goes to cover expenses.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#43 - 2014-04-23 21:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Which is great, except ALL of that requires thousands of people working together, working to provide our level of safety.

Doesn't matter how it was generated, defense fleets, intel channels, gatecamps, all are a risk. This point does nothing to support the assertion that siphoners are risk averse. Sure, you worked to make your space risky, no debate. Good job. Next.
lol, whatever buddy. A gate camp is such a huge task to break through in a covops, right?

Honestly, I'm not gonna sit here all evening pyramid quoting with you. I get it. Thousands of people working together, you think they should be punished for being organised, while you, running solo think you should be showered with riches for running and hiding. Please continue to cry below about how much hassle it is to chuck down structures that are effectively free to make scalable, risk free passive income, and tell us how that's a solution for the passive income problem you are complaining about with these "cartels".

*Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#44 - 2014-04-23 22:29:14 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#45 - 2014-04-23 22:35:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
while you, running solo think you should be showered with riches for running and hiding.

So, still sticking with that straw man argument to completely misrepresent my position then....

That is a good choice and contributes to a healthy discussion. You should be commended for the effort .
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2014-04-23 23:04:15 UTC
The questions everyone should be asking is:

Why was the siphon changed from targeting just moon goo to include reactions as well? What was the motive behind this change?
Solecist Project
#47 - 2014-04-23 23:13:19 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
The questions everyone should be asking is:

Why was the siphon changed from targeting just moon goo to include reactions as well? What was the motive behind this change?

POS in highsec everywhere, removal of standing requirements?

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2014-04-23 23:36:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Solecist Project wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
The questions everyone should be asking is:

Why was the siphon changed from targeting just moon goo to include reactions as well? What was the motive behind this change?

POS in highsec everywhere, removal of standing requirements?

All high sec moons are barren. Even if they are not, you can't anchor mining arrays in 0.4 space and higher. So it has nothing to do with high sec.

*Snip* Please refrain from spreading baseless rumors. ISD Ezwal.
I Accidentally YourShip
Ronin ONE
Ronin Reloaded
#49 - 2014-04-24 01:10:32 UTC
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2014-04-24 01:51:19 UTC
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.

I don't like any aspect of 'destroy' for siphons because then it just becomes an AFK griefing tool.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#51 - 2014-04-24 01:56:03 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
Siphons should have two modes. One that siphons at its current rate, and a simply destroy rate. As in you park it on a POS, and just neuter the income. Nobody gets the moongoo. Gives large alliances a reason to go out and use these things rather than just individuals.


You can stop a POS from mining. It's called reinforcing it

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dlareme
Space Ants
Brave Collective
#52 - 2014-04-24 03:42:40 UTC
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.


Interesting idea, but I don't really think its a good idea to give the siphoning units that much flexibility. Maybe if it was a different deployable that was much more expensive it could work. Since you wouldn't care if you make a profit or not, then spending quite a bit on the unit only seems fair.

Anyways, back on topic to the OP, I still think it's important that siphoning units steal the most valuable resource. Whether we get to choose which resource, or if it automatically does it doesn't really matter to me. Though I think us choosing would be easier since prices fluctuate.
I Accidentally YourShip
Ronin ONE
Ronin Reloaded
#53 - 2014-04-24 05:33:43 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.

I don't like any aspect of 'destroy' for siphons because then it just becomes an AFK griefing tool.


I don't think CCP has a problem with afk griefing. Cloaked alts in system are a valid thing.
I Accidentally YourShip
Ronin ONE
Ronin Reloaded
#54 - 2014-04-24 05:34:50 UTC
Dlareme wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.


Interesting idea, but I don't really think its a good idea to give the siphoning units that much flexibility. Maybe if it was a different deployable that was much more expensive it could work. Since you wouldn't care if you make a profit or not, then spending quite a bit on the unit only seems fair.

Anyways, back on topic to the OP, I still think it's important that siphoning units steal the most valuable resource. Whether we get to choose which resource, or if it automatically does it doesn't really matter to me. Though I think us choosing would be easier since prices fluctuate.


You can just blow them up, they aren't hard to counter. You have to actually go to that space more often than once a week to maintain maximum profit, oh no! Say it isn't so!
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#55 - 2014-04-24 05:48:14 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
The questions everyone should be asking is:

Why was the siphon changed from targeting just moon goo to include reactions as well? What was the motive behind this change?


Whether or not it was motivated by someone it was a good change. I know a system that used to have 30 reaction poses and 1 goo tower. Why should only the goo tower be vulnerable to siphons ?

As it turned out, i did the majority of siphon slaying in that system so I got to find out what some of the towers were reacting. Part of any residents job description is make interlopers uncomfortable and I found blapping a whole system of siphons before they paid out to be quite an amusing task - especially as I'd seen the siphons owner afking about, and nothing motivates a renter more than killing an afkers stuff.
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#56 - 2014-04-24 11:37:36 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
The questions everyone should be asking is:

Why was the siphon changed from targeting just moon goo to include reactions as well? What was the motive behind this change?



That is one of my points, people are saying that POS owners are clever for the work around. The siphon unit was released with this work around in mind which is a very poor show from the dev behind it and in collaboration with a CSM member. CCP's mission of late has been to clear up broken game play and then they drop this more broken gameplay....

They did state that they were going to let it play out and see what happened. We have seen what has happened siphons are broken and redundant and we need a moon goo only siphon alongside other dedicated siphons. I want a time frame on when this will be added. Why have we not had any dev clarification on this matter after 1 week?
Salvos Rhoska
#57 - 2014-04-24 12:09:57 UTC
It is clever for players to find exploit holes.
It is not however good design for the Devs to not plug them up.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#58 - 2014-04-24 16:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Brewlar Kuvakei
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
It is clever for players to find exploit holes.
It is not however good design for the Devs to not plug them up.


its not good for a hole that was pre discussed and pre planned to be implemented into development, that's getting into the area of Dev bias/corruption in co-operation with a certain CSM member. They had their POS guarded with the exploit before the siphon units even hit tranquillity that's just wrong.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-04-24 16:21:11 UTC
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.

I don't like any aspect of 'destroy' for siphons because then it just becomes an AFK griefing tool.


I don't think CCP has a problem with afk griefing. Cloaked alts in system are a valid thing.

I get that, but I just don't think it lends to compelling game play. An AFK cloaker never hurt anyone. A siphon that destroys stuff while no one is there obviously is doing damage.

I want to see things added and changed to the game that makes players want to be there, not have to to be there.
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#60 - 2014-04-24 18:38:18 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
You should be able to configure the siphon units to both target specific materials and destroy instead of just siphon.

If the purpose of the unit is to cause fights and destabilize the region, destroying the materials will definitely get the attention of the sov holders.

I don't like any aspect of 'destroy' for siphons because then it just becomes an AFK griefing tool.


I don't think CCP has a problem with afk griefing. Cloaked alts in system are a valid thing.

I get that, but I just don't think it lends to compelling game play. An AFK cloaker never hurt anyone. A siphon that destroys stuff while no one is there obviously is doing damage.

I want to see things added and changed to the game that makes players want to be there, not have to to be there.


I think upwards of 1bn isk profit per moon passive is a good enough reason to want to be there. Siphons were brought in to deter massive alliances hogging moons and just relying on blobs and timers to keep them. The siphon gives little guys a chance and will encourage large holding alliances to better manage swathes of moon territory or lose it to siphons.

Its clear CCP have gotten cold feet or at least one Dev has about this because of the bitching some people have done behind closed doors. Null is stagnent and Siphons will change that if you allow them to work.