These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1441 - 2013-11-02 13:22:56 UTC
Some good changes to siphons on SISI now. Effectively a price increase for those that want to use them in large amounts to destroy or greatly inhibit supply.

They are bigger now though still tiny. However, after seeing the requirements we are quite pleased.

Some dev deserves a big sloppy kiss.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1442 - 2013-11-02 14:01:33 UTC
:devswarm:

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Celia Therone
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1443 - 2013-11-02 15:59:02 UTC
Malcanis Law.

In order to defend against siphons I create an overview that shows only siphons on the cyno alt that I must have at the pos in order to service it. Any time anything appears in that overview it is a siphon and I destroy it with two clicks using a POS gun.

It's breathtakingly tedious game play, possibly the worst I have ever seen in a game, especially as you have to do it 23.5/7.

However it's also so amazingly simple and lacking in skill, or really any thought whatsoever, that it is the ideal candidate for botting.

You think that the empires that were renowned for their legions of bot ratters and moon goo duping will not be able to figure this out? They can afford to dedicate an alt to a pos (train another alt on the account and periodically sell the character so the net cost is pretty much zero.) Isbox so one guy can afk preside simultaneously over a dozen or more pos per computer with no effort whatsoever.

It's two button clicks and completely passive watching of the overview. CCP apparently can't reliably detect mining or ratting bots operating actively all day every day, they're not going to find a bot that clicks twice only when someone drops a siphon maybe a couple of times/month after the initial rush.

So who will be hurt? Small groups, time zone limited groups, younger players, players that play by CCP's rules, players with real lives who don't want to be beholden 23.5/7. Those are the people that siphons will hurt because they don't cheat, they don't have armies of alts and they don't want to be online outside of their designated play time.

Seriously, someone on the CSM needs to make it their job to demand to know in what way a new feature is fun whenever they are told about one. Endlessly repeating this question might, just might, have resulted in more thought being given to the actual game play of things like PI, Captain's closet and POS siphons.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1444 - 2013-11-02 23:27:11 UTC
Confirming that all cyno alts have anchoring level 5 trained.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1445 - 2013-11-03 02:03:20 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Some good changes to siphons on SISI now. Effectively a price increase for those that want to use them in large amounts to destroy or greatly inhibit supply.

They are bigger now though still tiny. However, after seeing the requirements we are quite pleased.

Some dev deserves a big sloppy kiss.


What was the materials needed before the increase?

And who is 'we'?
Opaque Intent
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1446 - 2013-11-03 04:30:05 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:

And who is 'we'?

Oh, I think you know who 'we' is.
Celia Therone
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1447 - 2013-11-03 06:26:08 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Confirming that all cyno alts have anchoring level 5 trained.

Confirming that the cost of Anchoring (75,000 isk) and Starbase Defense Management (1,000,000 isk) are within the budget of entities that do moon mining. And day old noobs that have complete d the tutorial missions.

Also confirming the existence of regular supply runs to mining/reaction POS that can carry skill books with them.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#1448 - 2013-11-03 06:59:45 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Meh, pushing the price and volume up, you may as well not bother releasing it at all. Consider that all it takes to kill the thing is a single character taking control of a single pos gun. Its just not worth it to use these if you push the break even point back significantly.

Welp, my compliments to the goons and their CSM advocate(s). This one's dead on arrival.
Sir Prometeus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1449 - 2013-11-03 12:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir Prometeus
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Meh, pushing the price and volume up, you may as well not bother releasing it at all. Consider that all it takes to kill the thing is a single character taking control of a single pos gun. Its just not worth it to use these if you push the break even point back significantly.

Welp, my compliments to the goons and their CSM advocate(s). This one's dead on arrival.


The rest of us still want to know about these "changes"

Not that I wasn't expecting the nerf. The illusion that all players are listened equally by CCP is just that, an illusion.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1450 - 2013-11-03 14:43:28 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Meh, pushing the price and volume up, you may as well not bother releasing it at all. Consider that all it takes to kill the thing is a single character taking control of a single pos gun. Its just not worth it to use these if you push the break even point back significantly.

Welp, my compliments to the goons and their CSM advocate(s). This one's dead on arrival.


I'm neither a goon nor CSM advocate. I'm the "mythological" small POS owner you referred to a few posts back. If your aim is to weaken the power bloc alliances you were not going to accomplish this by obliterating the smaller competition, which is essentially what this grief tool would have done.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1451 - 2013-11-03 15:15:59 UTC
The whole idea was dead on arrival when it wasn't about fleet combat and timers. All this "nerf" does is change its pointlessness from malignant to benign (or less malignant really).

If you had to roll up, defang the pos, anchor and guard the siphon(s) while they onlined, and then come back the next day to haul away all the target PoS mod's moon, reaction, or alchemy goo, then you'd have a feature that generates actual fun conflict and content.

This structure spam and grind bullshit was dead before it started, all you can do with this framework is make it more or less awful.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1452 - 2013-11-03 15:36:45 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
The whole idea was dead on arrival when it wasn't about fleet combat and timers. All this "nerf" does is change its pointlessness from malignant to benign (or less malignant really).

If you had to roll up, defang the pos, anchor and guard the siphon(s) while they onlined, and then come back the next day to haul away all the target PoS mod's moon, reaction, or alchemy goo, then you'd have a feature that generates actual fun conflict and content.

This structure spam and grind bullshit was dead before it started, all you can do with this framework is make it more or less awful.

You are lying.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#1453 - 2013-11-03 15:52:55 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
You are lying.


Well I believe every word I said. I may be mistaken, but that's an important distinction.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#1454 - 2013-11-03 16:24:07 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
This one's dead on arrival.


I'm glad we could come to an agreement.
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1455 - 2013-11-04 02:41:48 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
The whole idea was dead on arrival when it wasn't about fleet combat and timers. All this "nerf" does is change its pointlessness from malignant to benign (or less malignant really).

If you had to roll up, defang the pos, anchor and guard the siphon(s) while they onlined, and then come back the next day to haul away all the target PoS mod's moon, reaction, or alchemy goo, then you'd have a feature that generates actual fun conflict and content.

This structure spam and grind bullshit was dead before it started, all you can do with this framework is make it more or less awful.


I like this idea. A way to encourage interaction. Fascinating to see who dislikes.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1456 - 2013-11-04 04:38:43 UTC
So the goons have pointed out that a cheap and disposable option could have been used against an expensive mining operation as a grief tool when the player is inattentive? The dev response is to immediately make the disposable option not cheap.

Based on this goon logic, destroyers against exhumers should also require some re-balance?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1457 - 2013-11-04 08:08:35 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
So the goons have pointed out that a cheap and disposable option could have been used against an expensive mining operation as a grief tool when the player is inattentive? The dev response is to immediately make the disposable option not cheap.

Based on this goon logic, destroyers against exhumers should also require some re-balance?

Lmao. Yeah wtf happened to "cost is not a balancing factor". Friggin hypocrites.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1458 - 2013-11-04 08:23:51 UTC
How little did I realize this entire argument against this siphon unit was nothing more than a Stereogram.

I see the picture inside the picture now... Blink

Findings to be revealed soon.
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#1459 - 2013-11-04 11:34:37 UTC
Lol The idea behind the siphon is generally theoretically good idea, but in practise this module will not function as intended. CCP knows people hate the current gameplay in aquiering moongoo. Now they implement an module that makes it possible to greif people already doing a gameplay they dont like. This will end up with only hurting the smaller entities that does moonmining, and **** off the larger entites that does moon mining. In other words, ccp is making gamebreaking gameplay emerge, instead of fixing their legazy issues and giving the players what they want.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1460 - 2013-11-04 16:23:12 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
Lol The idea behind the siphon is generally theoretically good idea, but in practise this module will not function as intended. CCP knows people hate the current gameplay in aquiering moongoo. Now they implement an module that makes it possible to greif people already doing a gameplay they dont like. This will end up with only hurting the smaller entities that does moonmining, and **** off the larger entites that does moon mining. In other words, ccp is making gamebreaking gameplay emerge, instead of fixing their legazy issues and giving the players what they want.

Nope.