These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: No Honor Among Thieves - Siphon Units in Rubicon

First post First post First post
Author
Sariton Xavian
Mercado Mercator Partners and Associates
#1161 - 2013-10-21 06:36:09 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:

the mere fact there is something stealing from our pos will be enough to drive the pos owners online...ccp is wanting some sort of useful theft device thou and that demands that the pos owners dont find out about the siphons so there will be something to actually steal in the siphon. basically this kind of mechanic will never hurt the major null alliances as much as it will hurt the small low sec corps, its very nature is broken.


The way I look at it, the entire framework that causes null alliances and coalitions to form is broken, and is unlikely to be fixed by any single bandaid. Most things that take a stab at it will hurt small lowsec corps more, and addressing that problem is a much bigger question than a little feature like this one. However, I think a feature along these lines could add overall interest to the entire POS mining equilibrium without needing to poke lowsec punitively in the eye. In particular if the investment into the siphon is tuned at the right level (which might include a fuel cost rather than an increase in the ticket price of its materials), it will make the value equation of hitting lower value moons shakier and drive attention towards the higher value moons which are routinely held by the larger alliances. For it to work, there needs to be enough room in the financial value of the moon mining stream to motivate individuals (or corps) to risk X to try and siphon Y from it so with the right numbers it could be deliberately tuned to be undesirable in lowsec.

As for the simple fact of someone stealing from a POS being enough to drive the owner online, yes I agree it will. But they will resent it because it is a lose/lose scenario for them where the most positive outcome is for nobody to ever drop a siphon on them in the first place - something the POS owner can't even realistically control. When a major stakeholder's ideal situation is for other people to simply not choose to use a new feature, that seems like a fundamentally poor addition to the game. The justification of needing to break an unhealthy status quo isn’t sufficient excuse for such a design choice imo.

Change the spin of the feature a bit so that there is potentially something in it for the stakeholder (the POS owner) that can be positive, something that gives them a sense of agency and involvement, and that substantially changes the value of the feature.

Obviously there still needs to be enough incentive of potential profit for people to be motivated to drop siphons, but I think there's enough value in moon mining streams to make that work.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1162 - 2013-10-21 07:37:39 UTC
Sariton Xavian wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

the mere fact there is something stealing from our pos will be enough to drive the pos owners online...ccp is wanting some sort of useful theft device thou and that demands that the pos owners dont find out about the siphons so there will be something to actually steal in the siphon. basically this kind of mechanic will never hurt the major null alliances as much as it will hurt the small low sec corps, its very nature is broken.


The way I look at it, the entire framework that causes null alliances and coalitions to form is broken, and is unlikely to be fixed by any single bandaid. Most things that take a stab at it will hurt small lowsec corps more, and addressing that problem is a much bigger question than a little feature like this one. However, I think a feature along these lines could add overall interest to the entire POS mining equilibrium without needing to poke lowsec punitively in the eye. In particular if the investment into the siphon is tuned at the right level (which might include a fuel cost rather than an increase in the ticket price of its materials), it will make the value equation of hitting lower value moons shakier and drive attention towards the higher value moons which are routinely held by the larger alliances. For it to work, there needs to be enough room in the financial value of the moon mining stream to motivate individuals (or corps) to risk X to try and siphon Y from it so with the right numbers it could be deliberately tuned to be undesirable in lowsec.

As for the simple fact of someone stealing from a POS being enough to drive the owner online, yes I agree it will. But they will resent it because it is a lose/lose scenario for them where the most positive outcome is for nobody to ever drop a siphon on them in the first place - something the POS owner can't even realistically control. When a major stakeholder's ideal situation is for other people to simply not choose to use a new feature, that seems like a fundamentally poor addition to the game. The justification of needing to break an unhealthy status quo isn’t sufficient excuse for such a design choice imo.

Change the spin of the feature a bit so that there is potentially something in it for the stakeholder (the POS owner) that can be positive, something that gives them a sense of agency and involvement, and that substantially changes the value of the feature.

Obviously there still needs to be enough incentive of potential profit for people to be motivated to drop siphons, but I think there's enough value in moon mining streams to make that work.
2 siphons shuts down a pos and even if the pos owner is online and destroys them is still going to suffer losses. With no way to recoup those losses what incentive is there for small operators to continue moon mining? It will be cheaper and involve less risk to keep dropping siphons than to reinforce a pos, the attacker gets to put the pos out of business with little to no risk, while the owner of the pos has little to no way of fighting back. Employing people to guard my pos's is not an option as there simply isn't enough profit in it.
The simple proximity of lowsec moons is a really good indicator as to where the majority of these will be tested out (initially at least) Who's going to travel to nul and look for moons when there is such an abundance in lowsec. Nulsec involves running the gauntlet of SOV space to 1st get to where the moon mining operations are carried out, then you need to scan down the pos's, putting you at risk of being found by sov holders. Imo lowsec will be the primary target of these and the nul empires can sit back and laugh as their stake in moon mining grows more valuable due to lack of competition.

Could someone come up with some projected figures as to how much a siphon on an R64 moon would pay?? Are they a viable source of income or simply a griefing tool?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sariton Xavian
Mercado Mercator Partners and Associates
#1163 - 2013-10-21 08:13:50 UTC
If the siphon is scoopable after incapacitation, and/or requires fuel to run that the POS owner can claim as their prize when they respond to being siphoned (and which also reduces the profitability of a siphoner when targeting lower value moons), then the POS owner can achieve a net profit from responding effectively to being siphoned at the expense of fire and forget siphoners. On average across the world of Eve some profit will be diverted away from POS owners, that is after all one of the goals. But by altering the risks taken by the siphoner and the accessibility of those outlays to the POS owner on response it creates a dynamic where the diligant of either side have a chance to be better off. A running cost for the siphoner also makes the otherwise more vulnerable moons less desirable to help direct the attention where its needed - high value moons. The logistics of going deep into nullsec are another piece of the puzzle - but at least its the right puzzle to be trying to solve.

The feature as published is busted. I'm saying the idea can be made to work in a useful way with some changes.

I'd also like to see some numbers. I don't have time atm to theorycraft a comparison of the different moon goos up and I'm sure there are many people in this thread with more experience than me at running moon mining operations who could do it more quickly and accurately.
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1164 - 2013-10-21 10:01:38 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
It's critical that the moment you set up the siphon, resources begin to be irrecoverably lost.

In fact, when t fills up, it should just jetcan the stuff and start filling up. Of course after 2 hours the jetcan goes poof. Remember the siphon could be emptied by anyone anyway.

I don't like this. Unlimited unattended destruction is no better than unlimited unattended production.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1165 - 2013-10-21 10:42:38 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
[Could someone come up with some projected figures as to how much a siphon on an R64 moon would pay?? Are they a viable source of income or simply a griefing tool?
a dyspro moon makes 4,602,103.00 min or 4,989,997.00 max per hour at jita prices (thats before fuel costs as the siphon doesnt care how much isk we have to spend on blocks) so 1 siphon would steal 60/100 units and with a 20% loss thats 48 units per hour into the siphon (2,209,009.44 min or 2,395,198.56 max per hour). assuming a cost of 10 mil isk it would take 4.52 at min price or 4.17 at max price hours to turn a profit. so if the siphon went undetected for 25 hours (the time needed to fill the siphon with 1200 m3 of dyspro) it would make 55,225,236 min or 59,879,964 max (before the cost of the siphon) however it would cost the pos owner 69,031,545 min or 74,849,955 max (before the cost of fuel). a min of 45 mil or max of 49 mil isk in the first day of the siphon stealing aint too bad a haul for "afk" work (and yes that siphon is afk work). if the siphon was abandoned and its mats collected by the pos owner after 25 hours then the pos owner still lost 14 mil min or 15 mil max from the siphon. it takes only 18.1 at min price or 16.7 at max price hours to cost the pos owner as much in moon goo due to the 20% loss as it cost to deploy the siphon. so you only need a 17-18 hour window for the pos to go unchecked and you have for sure cost the pos owner just as much isk as the siphon is worth if you never went back to collect the stolen moon goo.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1166 - 2013-10-21 10:56:45 UTC
Kropotkin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
It's critical that the moment you set up the siphon, resources begin to be irrecoverably lost.

In fact, when t fills up, it should just jetcan the stuff and start filling up. Of course after 2 hours the jetcan goes poof. Remember the siphon could be emptied by anyone anyway.

I don't like this. Unlimited unattended destruction is no better than unlimited unattended production.

except "unlimited unattended production" does NOT exist in eve at all. A pos must be kept fuel'd, silo's emptied/refilled, and out of reinforced to make moon goo production. Some of the really tight moon reaction setups have to be attended to at least every 36 hours already to maintain the pos's. Most reaction pos's don't just run for a month in between maintenance, we already have to get on alot to handle our pos's however a random griefer isnt going to know how often we have to login to know whether or not its worth while to put up a siphon but we would now have to login multiple times a day to prevent massive %'s of revenue being lost.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1167 - 2013-10-21 11:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Quote:
Lessons learned

•Shooting at stationary structures is boring

•Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring

◦See: station ping-pong pre-sov, repairing station services. Having to do something tedious every day before you can actually play the game is not cool

•Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it

◦See: everything involving starbases
Prester Tom
Death By Design
#1168 - 2013-10-21 11:23:05 UTC
Anyone else seeing an exciting new use for these SoE ships?
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1169 - 2013-10-21 11:32:41 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Kropotkin wrote:


I don't like this. Unlimited unattended destruction is no better than unlimited unattended production.


except "unlimited unattended production" does NOT exist in eve at all. A pos must be kept fuel'd, silo's emptied/refilled, and out of reinforced to make moon goo production. Some of the really tight moon reaction setups have to be attended to at least every 36 hours already to maintain the pos's...


Unfortunately this is the cognitive dissonance we're seeing among the loudest supporters of this change.

There's a disturbing number who seem to believe that starbases are some magical ISK-generating tool that run without needing any time, risk and effort, teleporting cash straight into the owner's wallet each day. Somehow that justifies being countered a new mechanic that requires far less time, risk, and effort.

To realistically balance things out, siphons should cost several hundred million ISK and take a few hours to setup. They should require fuel topped up every few weeks, and their stolen materials should be emptied regularly to prevent overflow.

Of course this would be still be a terrible game mechanic, but at least both sides would be putting in the same effort.
Sverre Haakonson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1170 - 2013-10-21 11:34:10 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Lessons learned


Nice joke.
Prester Tom
Death By Design
#1171 - 2013-10-21 11:44:10 UTC
Syphons that are left too long should generate rogue drones. Like a mouldy infestation.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1172 - 2013-10-21 11:44:14 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Lessons learned

•Shooting at stationary structures is boring

•Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring

◦See: station ping-pong pre-sov, repairing station services. Having to do something tedious every day before you can actually play the game is not cool

•Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it

◦See: everything involving starbases

In this case I don't think that quote is quite right.. If an operator is at risk to lose 50% to 75% of his income every day he won't keep doing it. Reactions require X + X amount to run, if that amount isn't there (because a pos syphon has taken part of it) you only get 1 reaction every 3 hours, at that rate the pos ceases to maintain a profit and is eventually offlined for a time or permanently.
The owners of the R64's don't have a lot to worry about, most of them have the man power to protect their assets. (not that I believe for 1 second they will even be targeted)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1173 - 2013-10-21 11:46:59 UTC
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:
.... How does a waste of 20% would be considered griefing and not a loss of 100%? If I want really to grief, I will take the goo in my cargohold, jetisson it and shoot the can so the loss is 100% instead of 20, so you face the same problem you try to denounce, with or without waste.

Interesting!

Instead of automatic, passive griefing, after dropping siphon, makes griefing require activity i.e. visiting.

I wonder: in original proposal of CCP, griefer can enforce 100% loss with visit by cloaky interceptor with small cargohold by sucking small portion from siphon into cargohold, jettisoning, then transferring remainder from siphon directly to jetcan, then blowing up jetcan? So visit-for-griefing is much easier than visit-for-profitable-harvesting? Is this what CCP intend?
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1174 - 2013-10-21 12:06:37 UTC
Prester Tom wrote:
Anyone else seeing an exciting new use for these SoE ships?


Yes! But nothing to do with this, since anything cloaky will do.
Von Keigai
#1175 - 2013-10-21 12:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Von Keigai
Kropotkin wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
... man i hate timers... all they lead to is blob fights... please ccp do every thing you can to get rid of timers

But how else to synchronize attacker and defender in real-world-time?


It is easy. You send both of them a message about a fight location. And you give them an incentive to arrive.

You can increase the odds that they will both be there by sending them the message in advance, and preventing the fight from happening in advance of the scheduled time. This is, in effect, how stront timers work.

If you want to skew the results, then let one side or the other dictate the time and/or location of the fight. If you want fair fights, then don't. Thus, for example, POCO fights are slanted to the defense because they dictate the timezone after reinforcement ends.

The above is about as good as you can do given the constraints of a worldwide playerbase that has lives and jobs. You will not usually get a fight, except from very large alliances, unless there is a lot at stake. This is because people play when they play, and both parties have to be online at the same time.

The answer for siphons, though, is what I've been pushing. They should steal a large lump rarely, not small sips every hour. (The lump needs to be large enough to be worth risking a ship over.) And when they do steal, both the POS owner and the siphon "owner" get notification mails. Note that while this will usually not get a fight, occasionally it will (especially weekends). And that is much better than CCP's current design, which won't ever create a fight.

One improvement I can see on my original idea is to build in a waiting period. We might explain that by, i.e., the siphon takes a short while to process the results. Anyway, the idea is that at time T, the siphon removes stuff from the POS and mails both parties. But neither party can actually get anything from the siphon until after an interval, perhaps half an hour. This gives them both the time to notice the email, and get to the site.

vonkeigai.blogspot.com

Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1176 - 2013-10-21 12:57:26 UTC
Kropotkin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1177 - 2013-10-21 13:03:54 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
... Actually, to be quite honest, there was no related broadcast. It was just us discussing this thing on our evil out-of-game communication software that somehow led us all to come a-postin'

Ah! GoonHiveMind!
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1178 - 2013-10-21 13:45:06 UTC
Kropotkin wrote:
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:
.... How does a waste of 20% would be considered griefing and not a loss of 100%? If I want really to grief, I will take the goo in my cargohold, jetisson it and shoot the can so the loss is 100% instead of 20, so you face the same problem you try to denounce, with or without waste.

Interesting!

Instead of automatic, passive griefing, after dropping siphon, makes griefing require activity i.e. visiting.

I wonder: in original proposal of CCP, griefer can enforce 100% loss with visit by cloaky interceptor with small cargohold by sucking small portion from siphon into cargohold, jettisoning, then transferring remainder from siphon directly to jetcan, then blowing up jetcan? So visit-for-griefing is much easier than visit-for-profitable-harvesting? Is this what CCP intend?

I was thinking about that...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1179 - 2013-10-21 13:45:41 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Lessons learned

•Shooting at stationary structures is boring

•Waking up every morning and having to clean up the mess made while you were asleep is boring

◦See: station ping-pong pre-sov, repairing station services. Having to do something tedious every day before you can actually play the game is not cool

•Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it

◦See: everything involving starbases

In this case I don't think that quote is quite right.. If an operator is at risk to lose 50% to 75% of his income every day he won't keep doing it. Reactions require X + X amount to run, if that amount isn't there (because a pos syphon has taken part of it) you only get 1 reaction every 3 hours, at that rate the pos ceases to maintain a profit and is eventually offlined for a time or permanently.
The owners of the R64's don't have a lot to worry about, most of them have the man power to protect their assets. (not that I believe for 1 second they will even be targeted)

Harry forever will fight the goons

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Elric Darkmoor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1180 - 2013-10-21 14:04:36 UTC
I think maybe i don't know enough about POS and Moon mining operations, and although i have been looking to see this mention in the thread, i have not noticed it.

But would the POS Guns not blow up the ship trying to deploy the syphon before the pilot gets to deploy it?