These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kotori
DeFianT Logistics
Sugar.
#261 - 2014-01-14 18:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kotori
Please note: My Calculations here are no where near 100% accurate, so dont hold me to them.

If we were to assume that a null sec anomaly were to pay 30 Million isk (its been a while since ive done an anomaly.) To pay back the initial 30 million isk (of a very destructible structure), you would need to run 20 anomalies, without anyone stealing your isk tags, (or blowing it up), before it becomes even remotely useful. Depending on what percentage it has built up to, you effectively need to make between 300-600million in bounties, which isnt actually that quick to do in 0.0 (as much as some people will tell you otherwise).

These would have to be permanently guarded, as 40 seconds is such a tiny amount of time, anyone ratting in anything bigger than a cruiser (if even that big), is not going to get there in anywhere close to enough time (due to the warp speed changes) to prevent it being stolen by a roaming Interceptor.

As a side note, i feel it would be far more useful in its current form, with a larger potential bonus to the bounties, for 5%, it would never be worth it for alliance users. But if it was say 10-20%, then it would be a risk worth considering.

On the other hand, this would be a great module, as a system upgrade, that allows a system to become much more valuable, to the holder, providing an alliance/corp with additional income on a system. Take the effective HP closer to the a million, and it becomes a valid small gang target, whilst still providing a worthwhile income to the corp/alliance. Without being destroyed in 30 seconds by a cruiser gang, giving time to react to it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2014-01-14 18:39:30 UTC
Angry Mustache wrote:
If CSM 8 let an idea as terrible as this and the Dscan inhibitor get to the point of Devblogs, then they obviously aren't doing their jobs.

Alternatively, they either objected, and CCP didn't listen, or CCP went right over them. In either case, why keep them around?


Chitsa Jason wrote:
This is definatelly going to give some goals for small gangs. For one I am happy how this feature turned out. Thank you CCP for listening in to CSM feedback.


In true w-space "**** everyone else" fashion.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#263 - 2014-01-14 18:39:37 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Maybe I'm confused here. This is how I see the structure being used:

- Ratters deploy it somewhere
- Enemy warp to it
- They land 15km off the structure, notification goes up
- Alt sitting at the ESS clicks share bounties

This is then followed by forum complaints from inty pilots that they should be able to warp to zero so the can steal the money.


This is a good point....
Put an alt in a noobship sitting at zero on the ESS:
--- They will already have it "activated" (which means no one else can activate it),
--- They can simply hit "share bounties" before anyone can blap them.

This seems rather.... broken.
Arindel Heideran
Ad Perpetuam Memoriam Heideran VII
Silent Infinity
#264 - 2014-01-14 18:39:37 UTC
In the current iteration, the risk vs. reward is not there for it to be deployed by the system residents. Between the low tag mass and the fact that the looting ship doesn't have to stay on grid while it's printing tags, its much more friendly to roamers than the ratters. As such, it basically just becomes another attacking tool, but a less effective one because smart ratters don't rat with hostiles in system (so roaming, dropping these in system, and trying to collect loot won't work since the residents won't rat with you there and will pop it as soon as you leave), and roaming gangs already killed dumb ratters and got their loot anyway.

Making it so that the printer deactivates if the person who started it leaves the bubble could be interesting. Making an interceptor stay in a bubble for a minute or lose his prize will give defenders a chance to do something about it. If the goal of this is to promote fights, I would also make the required windows longer. This would both make it so that people are less able to empty the ESS based on intel before the gang arrives, and have more time to field a defense. Changing the timer from 20+40 seconds to 2+3 minutes would be better. If the system ratters don't have anyone willing to fight though, the attacking force gets to keep the prize. Increasing the potential reward might make it more likely not to get popped as soon as is convenient. (Instead of 95% becoming 80% + 20-25%, make it 80% becomes 75% + 25-50%).
Marsan
#265 - 2014-01-14 18:39:52 UTC
Really I think you need to make one or 2 changes to the things.

1) Make it so only the owner can access it unless the it is hacked (use the new hacking minigame) or destroyed.

2) Make it only deployable 100 from a beacon in a dead space pocket in the system.


This makes it something a small gang can do if they can hold off the defenders a few minutes, but not easy isk for anyone in an inty. Also the single owner means that a corp can deploy one to tax renters and thus encourage them to have renters...

PS- At min please insure that some one looting the structure is logged some where, and that the owner get a kill mail when someone kills one.

Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.

Major Templar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#266 - 2014-01-14 18:40:46 UTC
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:
This affects literally everyone in nullsec. You're seeing a lot of angry goons because surprise surprise, we tend to keep our fingers on the pulse of game development, and plenty of us understand the implications of what's happening here. We're also actually allowed to post on our mains which, with the exception of the chosen few in N3 mouthpieces, is not how our enemies operate. If you think Vince Draken or someone who matters on the other side of the Goon Curtain is going, "damn this is sweet, I want these all over my space." or if you think any renter, in any renter alliance is happy at all about this, you're full of it.

It hurts goons, but it also hurts Northern Assosciates. It hurts anyone in Northern Coalition. or Nulli Secunda that spends any time ratting. It hurts every blue and non blue in nullsec for no real reason. Do you think anybody will be deploying these modules to maybe recoup some lost isk when the fact is you probably won't be able to recoup it, whether you deploy this dumb thing or not.

It's an across the board nerf to everyone who makes money in nullsec that isn't importing, doing reaction chains, or is pulling out moongoo.

In the south, this is known as horse-****.

Not to mention that we pay taxes to our respective groups as well.

If CCP wants to take isk out of the game, there are better ways to do it. If CCP wants to generate more conflicts, there are way, way better ways to do it, starting with overhauling the sov system without using gimmick deployables.


One, not all your enemies are not allowed to post on their mains. For example, hi! OK, now with the silliness out of the way. I would say that it's mostly the Goons complaining about this right now mostly because lets be honest, the CFC are the more likely to sit there with one of these in system if anyone were to use them. The CFC will sit back in their cyno jammed systems and complain when someone messes with their income and then say that they want CCP to stop the sink or make it easier to protect their faucet by adding a way to blob their targets. You and I both know that the CFC will blob timers when they can and usually won't fight without a 3 to 1 in their favor. Now, I do however agree that if CCP wants to take out ISK they should just do it and overhaul a lot of the stuff in game that will assist with that instead of adding a new sink. We want that sink we currently have to be repaired instead of the owner throwing in a new one next to it and calling it good.
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#267 - 2014-01-14 18:42:29 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
The only people who seem to be complaining about this structure are from bloated 10,000 player alliances that apparently don't have the organization to setup a simple intel channel or defense fleet. How hard is it to find 5 people out of that 10,000 to fly around in their own interceptors to catch invaders and have some fun?


I wish I was in a 10,000 player alliance.

What's wrong with the ESS concept is more than juat about "waa waa no safe ratting muh iskies 4 muh t00nies".

It's an added layer of hassle for alliances that live in and use their space that works in a "high risk low reward" way, contrary to the spirit of the game that historically supported (or has claimed to support) high risk high reward situations. In a world where would-be aggressors (read, the small gangs and roamers who are squealing at the thoughts of stealing from the bad ratters) decry the fact that nullsec is too empty, this is just going to further support an exodus towards more rewarding and/or less risky/complicated isk making activities that mostly are outside of nullsec. I mean, to even eke out a profit from these, from a ratter's perspective, the stars pretty much have to align.

Moving a portion of the bounty isk to a form of tags might be a cool thing for you if you're one of those people afraid of inflation, but considering these are going to be sold to NPC orders there is still ISK generated in equal amounts. However, moving up to 25% of bounties to tags that have to be told and aren't subject to corp taxes goes against the ideal model of corporation and alliance funding of "from the ground up".

Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down.

No sig.

Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#268 - 2014-01-14 18:42:50 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Maybe I'm confused here. This is how I see the structure being used:

- Ratters deploy it somewhere
- Enemy warp to it
- They land 15km off the structure, notification goes up
- Alt sitting at the ESS clicks share bounties

This is then followed by forum complaints from inty pilots that they should be able to warp to zero so the can steal the money.

The warp bubble from the structure does not stop an interceptor pilot. Thanks for playing.

Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#269 - 2014-01-14 18:44:18 UTC
I mean the basic thing I think about this is it's a neat idea, but I think the risk/reward balance is skewed, I think that you're sort of asking for trouble just slapping a flat nerf onto null instead of balancing this so people would want to risk it instead of what you've got here (trying to force them), and didn't really balance it with interceptors in mind.

I don't think you've given people a compelling case for deploying these themselves. I think hostiles will love deploying them (and their EHP will make that a hilarious griefing tactic) but I don't think that's what you intended and I think that's a sign you didn't hit the balance right. It's a neat idea though and well-balanced could be fun.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#270 - 2014-01-14 18:45:28 UTC
Major Templar wrote:

One, not all your enemies are not allowed to post on their mains. For example, hi! OK, now with the silliness out of the way. I would say that it's mostly the Goons complaining about this right now mostly because lets be honest, the CFC are the more likely to sit there with one of these in system if anyone were to use them.

It's because we have jabber and people are passing around the link, instead of meandering over to the devblog page and noticing it like in less jabber-based alliances.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#271 - 2014-01-14 18:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
Start with an ESS-like module, you get 90% of bounties without it, 110% with. This module has 500k EHP, a one hour reinforcement timer, and a global corporation notification. It requires starbase config to use.

It collects 25% of all ratting bounties which, if it's not reinforced, are automatically paid out to the ratter an hour(possibly longer edit: six hours seems more appropriate) later. If destroyed it drops the ESS isk-tags of the value of bounties it's holding.

You could even add a taxation option where a configurable percentage of that 25% goes to the corp that owns the module, in effect creating an opportunity to shift taxation from corp to system based and providing strong incentives to care about the modules.
Anariasis
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#272 - 2014-01-14 18:46:07 UTC
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:
.... to keep posting shorter...


I agree on the fact that the 60 secs timer between accessing and getting the stuff is maybe a bit too short, which makes it hard to defend if you aren't really quick (+ placed the thing with some brains) or have s.o. waiting there defending it.

From my time in 0.0 allys I know about the state of intel-channels. You know if that guy is alone or if his friends are waiting next door.

Like I said, ISK/h should be 0.0 Ratting >>> FW > HS Incursions. That would also get more players back to ratting in 0.0 and help defending. Also, that EES needs a bit more balancing towards risk/reward. 95% without, 90% with and 120-130% with tags maybe. But as we know from the other deployables, ship rebalancing etc. CCP reads this and will consider moving the numbers around a bit.

Don't condemn the deployable now just because some of the numbers are not 100% right yet. That'll change. HS Incurison and FW isk/h isnt ESS's fault.

Still think that thing can add a lot good action to 0.0. :)

Nicen Jehr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2014-01-14 18:47:55 UTC
I would prefer if the ESS payout level did NOT reset to 20% when the ISK is disbursed - only when it's destroyed or scooped.

The only way for a ratter to make more money than pre-1.1 will be to drop the ESS and leave it up for a long time to make 105%, with 25% stored in the ESS. If they lose the tags they make 80%, if they frequently pull tags out they get 100% (minus transportation and risk costs.) So the only way to see a benefit as a ratters is high risk, especially compared to pre-1.1.

Meanwhile this is a clear win for pirates who have a new near-guranteed conflict zone and the new possibility of taking others' bounty loot.

If ratters can disburse the ESS bounties frequently and maintain the 105% payout they have a slightly better risk profile while doing their chosen activity. I think a 5% increase in ratting output is justified given the new hassles and risks ratters must go through to attain it, even if the ESS doesn't reset when disbursed.
Major Templar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#274 - 2014-01-14 18:49:32 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
[quote=iskflakes]I wish I was in a 10,000 player alliance.

What's wrong with the ESS concept is more than juat about "waa waa no safe ratting muh iskies 4 muh t00nies".

It's an added layer of hassle for alliances that live in and use their space that works in a "high risk low reward" way, contrary to the spirit of the game that historically supported (or has claimed to support) high risk high reward situations. In a world where would-be aggressors (read, the small gangs and roamers who are squealing at the thoughts of stealing from the bad ratters) decry the fact that nullsec is too empty, this is just going to further support an exodus towards more rewarding and/or less risky/complicated isk making activities that mostly are outside of nullsec. I mean, to even eke out a profit from these, from a ratter's perspective, the stars pretty much have to align.

Moving a portion of the bounty isk to a form of tags might be a cool thing for you if you're one of those people afraid of inflation, but considering these are going to be sold to NPC orders there is still ISK generated in equal amounts. However, moving up to 25% of bounties to tags that have to be told and aren't subject to corp taxes goes against the ideal model of corporation and alliance funding of "from the ground up".

Then there's the obvious elephant in the room. Why is this even needed? What's the intention behind the ESS? Sovereign space is already in a shaky enough position, I truly hope this new deployable isn't introduced merely to shake things up because without meaning to be a doomsayer, if there aren't worthy compensations coming with it things may just crash down.


This ^

Lets get it all out there. I keep saying that I don't want to hear complaints and don't want timers and what not that has been proposed. I also keep saying though that this should not be introduced in it's current idea AT ALL! This is a horrible idea in every way that will ruin it for both PvP and PvE players. Both the attackers and the defenders. Now, there are people who keep going on about introducing it but making it less risk and to them I say go away, it shouldn't be in the game at all.
Callic Veratar
#275 - 2014-01-14 18:50:33 UTC
Starting to think that, in all cases, there needs to be an activation timer for an pilot to perform the transfer, and the pilot must remain near the ESS.

And a suggestion for the bounties:

- Increase all bounties by ~5.25% in nullsec
- Implement 5% tax on new bounties
- Income is the same as it was, but you can risk 18.75% to gain up to 10% more than present

That is, unless there's a legitimate isk supply reason to decrease only nullsec bounties by 5%, which is possible, but would never be disclosed. That being said 5% for everybody or 5% for nobody.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#276 - 2014-01-14 18:51:53 UTC
MrBawkbagawk wrote:
oh look, a left handed nerf for drone space.
can we expect to see a set of faction items for rogue drones? no, of course not, that would be adding content. everything about drone space sucks compared to any other region including high sec and you make it even harder to earn a living?

who's friends are you, exactly?


Is there ANYONE from your alliance that isn't completely ********? You can use these in drone space.

This does beg the question though, a DESTROYED ESS will "remember" the distribution when a new one is dropped. But if a new one is dropped of a different faction, how exactly is it supposed to "remember?"

Also, just to confirm, it seems like tags are ONLY generated if the person clicks 'take all.'

Lastly, and just my own impression, this seems like a juicy target for a low-level spy who can monitor when the ESS gets emptied, and when its not guarded, and then call in a hostile gang (of ceptors) at the right moment.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#277 - 2014-01-14 18:52:39 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
With the coming point release EVE Online: Rubicon 1.1 we will add more deployable structures:

  • Two new siphon variants, one to more efficiently stealing refined components and one to steal polymers
  • One unit to be deployable in nullsec called Encounter Surveillance System (ESS)


The bounties are lowered by 5%. An active ESS lowers the bounty payout even more down to a total of -20%. Interacting then with the ESS gives you back between 20% and 25% so that you end up with 100% to 105% bounty of the current bounty value. Interacting with the ESS will allow you then to cash in the collected bounties in form of tags which can be sold to the Empires. You can choose to take all the bounties for yourself or share the bounties amongst every contributor.

Please read the latest blog by CCP SoniClover which contains all the details about those new structures!


Many good suggestions on improving the unit but one I haven't seen yet that I think could make it a true game changer:

Have it the one per constellation, not one per system, and it collects from the entire constellation

Many complaints are "Why would I deploy this?" If it is one per constellation and it collects from that constellation, then it not only becomes a useful tool for ratters (they, in many cases, could be collecting from other ratters in addition to their own bounties, possibly from hostile neighbors), it also makes the defense more targeted as well as the effort to steal from it.
Sulior
Rondac's Reasearch and Testing Inc.
#278 - 2014-01-14 18:55:16 UTC
OK, if you want to reduce ISK output, GET RID OF INCURSIONS. I am a highsec carebear and would be glad to see that ISK waterfall go away or be reduced to a reasonable level. (Or just make them difficult. Maybe have a sliding scale that ups the difficulty in response to the time it takes to run the sites)
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#279 - 2014-01-14 18:56:53 UTC
Innominate wrote:
Start with an ESS-like module, you get 90% of bounties without it, 110% with. This module has 500k EHP, a one hour reinforcement timer, and a global corporation notification. It requires starbase config to use.

It collects 25% of all ratting bounties which, if it's not reinforced, are automatically paid out to the ratter an hour(possibly longer) later. If destroyed it drops the ESS isk-tags of the value of bounties it's holding.

You could even add a taxation option where a configurable percentage of that 25% goes to the corp that owns the module, in effect creating an opportunity to shift taxation from corp to system based and providing strong incentives to care about the modules.

Please explain who would drop on and destroy a structure like that. 500k EHP is far more than a roaming gang would be able to burn through. That would be a flat buff to null income. Might as well just boost ratting income and save the extra step. I do agree that the benefit from deploying one of these is a bit underwhelming. So, I'm not sure how widely used they will be.
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
#280 - 2014-01-14 18:57:12 UTC
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:
Anariasis wrote:
Love how this thread turned into "helpless" Goons with their massive numbers, space and organisation crying that the actually a lot less powerful solo roamer or small gang roamer (that usually gets blobbed and camped in by said goons) will destroy everything :D


This affects literally everyone in nullsec. You're seeing a lot of angry goons because surprise surprise, we tend to keep our fingers on the pulse of game development, and plenty of us understand the implications of what's happening here. We're also actually allowed to post on our mains which, with the exception of the chosen few in N3 mouthpieces, is not how our enemies operate. If you think Vince Draken or someone who matters on the other side of the Goon Curtain is going, "damn this is sweet, I want these all over my space." or if you think any renter, in any renter alliance is happy at all about this, you're full of it.

It hurts goons, but it also hurts Northern Assosciates. It hurts anyone in Northern Coalition. or Nulli Secunda that spends any time ratting. It hurts every blue and non blue in nullsec for no real reason. Do you think anybody will be deploying these modules to maybe recoup some lost isk when the fact is you probably won't be able to recoup it, whether you deploy this dumb thing or not.

It's an across the board nerf to everyone who makes money in nullsec that isn't importing, doing reaction chains, or is pulling out moongoo.

In the south, this is known as horse-****.

Not to mention that we pay taxes to our respective groups as well.

If CCP wants to take isk out of the game, there are better ways to do it. If CCP wants to generate more conflicts, there are way, way better ways to do it, starting with overhauling the sov system without using gimmick deployables.


With respect, you are pinning a lot of negativity on one node that is part of a larger web we have not yet seen.
I do understand your concerns, I get that the margins hurt and that you have a strong feel for how your own alliance feels about the subject. But please let the rest off null speak for itself.
Maybe you can influence the math a little initially for a less profound impact, but really, why not just continue steamrollering all the POCOs as per current plan.