These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#2061 - 2014-01-23 20:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Keuvo
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
A few points I want to bring up that weren't addressed in the blog:

1.) The ESS needs a means to inhibit it's distribution timer. I tested this last night, and this is what I found:
I can land next to the ESS and immediately hit access and choose take all, starting the 3.5 minute timer to grab the loot or I share all, starting the 30 s timer to share the loot. There are only two ways to stop me: a.) destroy my ship. b.) get me to leave the proximity of the ESS (15 km radius). It would be very nice if a mechanic existed where a player could stop this count-down. I can think of several ways to do it:



In before small gang tears when ratters use cheap bumping Stabbers to force their ships outside the 15km radius
stoicfaux
#2062 - 2014-01-23 20:33:14 UTC
With a build cost of 25 million isk, at 105% bounties, ratters will need to earn 500 million in bounties to break even on the ESS purely in isk. (Not counting the bounties needed to building the ESS up to 105%, and not counting the LP.)

If we include LP, at 0.2 lp earned per 1000 isk in bounties, and a 700 isk/lp conversion (which will probably drop,) then
(700isk / LP) * (0.2 LP / 1,000 isk) * b + b = b + 25,000,000 isk
0.14b = 25,000,000
b = 178.5M

So ~179M in bounties to break even on the ESS via isk and LP. If the isk/lp conversion rate drops to 500, then you're looking at 250M isk to break even on the ESS.

Several questions,
a) how long does it take to earn 179M to 250M isk in null-sec ratting?
b) what's the expected life span of an ESS in null-sec?
c) given the previous questions, who (or what) will using ESS deployables?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#2063 - 2014-01-23 20:33:57 UTC
Any reason why the ESS doesn't have a reinforcement timer? It would in my opinion be really neat if we could force ratters to use it, leave local and return later to either get a fight or ISK.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#2064 - 2014-01-23 21:03:05 UTC
Genoa Al Salam wrote:
Darek Castigatus wrote:

See, was that so hard?


Because smugging is so much better than whining...


Since this is having precisely zero effect on my game either way, yes.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#2065 - 2014-01-23 21:05:06 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
With a build cost of 25 million isk, at 105% bounties, ratters will need to earn 500 million in bounties to break even on the ESS purely in isk. (Not counting the bounties needed to building the ESS up to 105%, and not counting the LP.)

If we include LP, at 0.2 lp earned per 1000 isk in bounties, and a 700 isk/lp conversion (which will probably drop,) then
(700isk / LP) * (0.2 LP / 1,000 isk) * b + b = b + 25,000,000 isk
0.14b = 25,000,000
b = 178.5M

So ~179M in bounties to break even on the ESS via isk and LP. If the isk/lp conversion rate drops to 500, then you're looking at 250M isk to break even on the ESS.

Several questions,
a) how long does it take to earn 179M to 250M isk in null-sec ratting?
b) what's the expected life span of an ESS in null-sec?
c) given the previous questions, who (or what) will using ESS deployables?


a) A single pilot can pull in around 60m/hour. So, 3 hours for a single pilot.
b) I can't see people actively blowing these up as they come across them, so they will likely last until someone comes after their space, or to diminish their income. So, how long it would last depends on where it is put and who puts it up. Right now, an ESS in the north might last months, while an ESS in HED-GP might only last a couple minutes.
c) Anyone who feels relatively safe in their control of the space they are ratting in.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2066 - 2014-01-23 21:11:22 UTC
CCP Soniclovers update post

You keep referencing when one is deployed. What happens when its multiple units?
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#2067 - 2014-01-23 21:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Silivar Karkun
im gonna feel flamed for this but, how about getting rid of the isk increase thing and just make the thing earn LP to capsuleers?. people would still get their bounties nerfed, but they would earn LP for grinding rats. maybe increase the thing from 0,15 at the start to 0,4 or 0,5 per 1000 isk, i would even say to increase it to 1 LP per 1000 isk.

for example:

-ESS active in system reduces the bounty payments to 90%, at full deployment players earn 1 LP per 1000 isk.

killing a pirate BS rated at 1 million would earn you 1000 LPs.

these LPs are taken as concord LPs and can be redeemable to any corporation in the game, except of course, pirate corporations

the other would be:

-ESS active reduces bounty payments to 90%, that remaining 10% is paid to players in CONCORD LPs......the ratio of conversion i dont know......
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#2068 - 2014-01-23 21:27:32 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
CCP Soniclovers update post

You keep referencing when one is deployed. What happens when its multiple units?


there should be a limit of how many can be deployed, if the module is personal then it only should afect that specific player, if its a corporate/alliance stuff, it should be a limit of 1 per system.
stoicfaux
#2069 - 2014-01-23 22:18:40 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
CCP Soniclovers update post

You keep referencing when one is deployed. What happens when its multiple units?

"Only one ESS can be active in a system at any given time." From the original dev blog.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#2070 - 2014-01-23 22:20:09 UTC
Gotta love the outright refusal of anyone at CCP to discuss the 5% bounty nerf or provide any justification that it is necessary. Great customer service guys.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2071 - 2014-01-23 22:23:14 UTC
I am a bit concerned that you are willing to potentially influence the market so heavily so close to feature release.

Not saying that anything will happen, as I have not done the analysis in deep. But, with such a short time frame, neither have you.

I am not certain the concept of the ESS is worth the damage it can do to the market.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2072 - 2014-01-23 22:26:07 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:

Ratters don't man up to defend a system when a system is roamed in, they're there to rat, not risk pvp assets

Please tell me more about this "risking PvP assets" engaging a roaming gang.

What I risk when doing so:
- Later having to Alt tab to a browser window while in warp / ship spinning / ratting to fill out a reimbursement form
- Jumping on a Jita alt for a couple of minutes the next time I log in, to buy replacement parts and create a courier contract
- Not having that particular fit available for a day or two while waiting for the corp's JF service to deliver. Unless I stocked a spare in station ahead of time, or it's a doctrine ship seeded on alliance contract.
- Killboard efficiency (lol)

What I risk not undocking the pvp asset:
- Platinum insurance expiring and having to be re-purchased, actually costing me isk out of my personal wallet

These "pvp assets" are covered by top down alliance income and fear of losing money is not the determining factor in not forming/taking a fight. Things that are determining factors: Intruders flying 2s align interceptors / a covert cyno with a pile of bombers / 20+ man gang when we have 3 guys online and active in the pipe.

This deployable will not change any of that. The pvp it can hope to add is likely to be solo interceptor on interceptor shoots from someone trying to steal/cash out off timezone in a dead end pocket. I don't expect that to be much different from stabbed cloaky plexers in faction warfare.

Dinsdale Pirannha 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?


What, so someone who is botting in a system with 2 accounts can now bot with 4?

We can start with me not having to pick which of my two characters gets to chain hubs and which one goes next door / takes a pay cut, when the crap truesec system I live in happens to be empty.

Then we can start talking about high sec income alts moving to actually live in null and banning those that bot.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2073 - 2014-01-23 22:34:07 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Soldarius wrote:

Now, the question is if these changes are enough to make ratters actually want to use it? It seems much less abusable.

In Period Basis I had no problem getting 10-14m isk ticks in a ratting Raven. Other people did better or worse. So .2LP/1k isk would be 2000-2800LP per tick. 6k-8400LP per hour. Could buy yourself a CN Raven in 100 hours.


Or you could just make more by running level 3s in high-sec.

edit: 14m * 3 ticks + 8400lp * 700 lp/isk = 48 million.

And that's assuming the 700 lp/isk doesn't go down. The Navy LP store isn't great. And the 10-14 M per tick could be reduced to 8 to 11 M if someone steals from your ESS.


OMG... you'll have some risk to get the full reward... How will you ever cope????



By staying in high sec, as most people will do with their alts. Or did you miss the consequences of the 1st anom nerf?
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#2074 - 2014-01-23 23:42:24 UTC
It seems to me that most of the problems stem from there being 2 kinds of fitting: PvE and PvP. If they were one and the same, wouldn't people feel less need to run away when a neut enters a system? If your PvE fit was also your PvP fit, how would that change the equation in Null?
Turelus
Utassi Security
#2075 - 2014-01-23 23:57:54 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
It seems to me that most of the problems stem from there being 2 kinds of fitting: PvE and PvP. If they were one and the same, wouldn't people feel less need to run away when a neut enters a system? If your PvE fit was also your PvP fit, how would that change the equation in Null?

Pretty much, I'm still dreaming of the days CCP do a PVE overhaul where we would see it closer to PVP. Very hard to manage though.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#2076 - 2014-01-24 00:42:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Silivar Karkun
Turelus wrote:
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
It seems to me that most of the problems stem from there being 2 kinds of fitting: PvE and PvP. If they were one and the same, wouldn't people feel less need to run away when a neut enters a system? If your PvE fit was also your PvP fit, how would that change the equation in Null?

Pretty much, I'm still dreaming of the days CCP do a PVE overhaul where we would see it closer to PVP. Very hard to manage though.


suddenly, all the rats in null sec are like incursion/sleepers.......same omnitank, same EWAR, same combat tactics......but no change in bounty income or loot drops....

out of the joke it would be cool, as long as it gives good rewards, no point in grinding harder than before for the same income.
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2077 - 2014-01-24 01:25:03 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
It seems to me that most of the problems stem from there being 2 kinds of fitting: PvE and PvP. If they were one and the same, wouldn't people feel less need to run away when a neut enters a system? If your PvE fit was also your PvP fit, how would that change the equation in Null?

That's a very good question.

You would still basically never sit in the anom and take the fight against a player, while tanking him and the rats. Anoms are solo oriented content, not a fleet thing. This makes it extremely hard to attempt to re-balance in any way.

Speed of completion will always determine the amount of reward per time spent. Which will always mean the thinnest tank possible, to maximize applied damage. This means 4 damage mods, which you will not generally see on a pvp ship - especially one meant to engage multiple hostiles at a time. This also means shield tank / application mods, not tackle and ewar in mids. Logistics mean a large group activity with 2+ players dealing no damage at all.

Basically, the payout would need to be completion based and completion time somehow become dps independent, without being doable by a cloaky warp stabbed frigate like FW plexes.
Anomaly One
Doomheim
#2078 - 2014-01-24 01:54:59 UTC
You pretty much killed navy LP, like it needed it..

Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#2079 - 2014-01-24 03:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Vald Tegor wrote:
[Speed of completion will always determine the amount of reward per time spent. Which will always mean the thinnest tank possible, to maximize applied damage. This means 4 damage mods, which you will not generally see on a pvp ship - especially one meant to engage multiple hostiles at a time. This also means shield tank / application mods, not tackle and ewar in mids. Logistics mean a large group activity with 2+ players dealing no damage at all.

Basically, the payout would need to be completion based and completion time somehow become dps independent, without being doable by a cloaky warp stabbed frigate like FW plexes.


This seems to me to be the easier part: A few high-DPS ships accompanied by sensible support and tackle, with non-ridiculous lock ranges and real ship attributes. That would make EWAR both effective and useful, and it would advantage non-trivial buffer and burst tanks. Make especially valuable or prominent rats warp out when things turn against them, unless tackled. Bring back the change that made rats regard all intruders as hostile. Then they're a wild card instead of a guaranteed disadvantage for the person running the anom (or vice versa). Adjust rewards so that the vastly lower quantity of rat ships doesn't result in a vastly reduced payout. You could have small anoms with just a few rats that can be run solo or in tandem and larger sites that more or less require fleets of varying sizes, and which have a roughly Incursion-style payout system to encourage fleets--but if someone wants to try storming them solo in a shiny battleship, sure.

The tricky part is getting anyone in an anom to fight, because you can generally assume that anyone coming after you is looking for a gank, not Honorable Space Combat, and if they've warped to your anom it's because they're reasonably sure they can take you handily. This is where I think the rat-as-wildcard mechanic would make things more interesting, but it's also where large numbers of anoms of various sizes per system would be useful: if there were enough ratters in system to respond to one ratter's distress call in the ships they're currently flying, without generating a long stream of comedy killmails for the marauders, then they could credibly protect each other. Ratters could agree on shield or armor doctrines, and the fleets in the larger anoms would likely have logis. In that case, however, I'm not sure how many roaming gangs would bother, unless they had clearly superior numbers. That's not a problem that any mechanic is going to be able to solve.

For extra credit, teach the rats how to use the new deployables. Twisted

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
#2080 - 2014-01-24 04:00:08 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Interacting with the ESS now puts a warp disruption effect on the ship interacting with it. Ships immune to bubbles are not immune to this effect.


I don't live in nullsec, so I can't speak on the impact the ESS will have on the people who do. I will ask, though, that instead of characterizing the warp disruption as an exception to a rule that is itself already an exception to a rule (warp bubbles stop all ships, except those who are immune, except for this one specific kind of warp bubble which stops even the ones immune to all the others). Just call it an infinite-point scramble effect. That's something already in the game, and already stops all warp drive operation. No need to compound things with more exceptions.