These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#401 - 2014-01-14 21:43:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kismeteer
Why couldn't someone do these in an empire level 4 mission hub? That would actually be somewhat exciting because someone would always drop one. And you immediately get a suspect tag when firing or entering the bubble?

I think it's dumb from a 0.0 space perspective though. People just won't deploy them to collect the extra 5%. It will just be another griefing tool that will get dropped, some interceptor warps at range to get a warp in bookmark, comes back in a sniping BC, and boom boom bye bye.

The ratter is only paid off when 600 mil in bounties are passed (30 mil / 0.05 lost income).
The griefer is only paid fof when 150mil in bounties are passed (30 mil / 0.20 stolen income), and that assumes he has someone ratting there after he's dropped one of these. The targets most likely won't keep ratting if he stays, or it's still up. They'd kill it or dock up.

I am disappointed that time and effort is spent on this rather than fixing any one of the MANY issues we have with the game. It's not quite walking-in-stations-level bad, but stop doing new things, fix broken **** already.

Things like Interceptor changes == good, more broken game play modes == bad.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#402 - 2014-01-14 21:44:55 UTC
This smacks of old ccp thinking.

The original system's upgrades (anomalies) nerf had the stated goal of "driving conflict" ie people would fight for better space. But for some reason CCP didn't understand that no one fights for ratting space, and rather than deal with systems with no good anoms, individual pilots just shipped isk making alts to high sec to run incursions and such. That means that rather then being a juicy battleship or carrier killmail waiting to happen, those guys were now isking up under the protection of CONCORD. A plan to boost conflict ended up dampening it lol.

Same thing here. Alliances will develop a "no ESS policy" for members because those ESS will be beacons encouraging raiders to come to ratting grounds. the 5% nerf to bounties isn't that bad till you consider the fact that high sec pve is already too competative with null sec anom farming. The only way this change ends up driving new conflict is when ratters realize that npc 0.0 missions are better isk than anoms now and they move in there, driving down even further the prices of some popular pirate ships.

On the plus side, 400 mil macharieal and nightmares y'all!

I aslo predicted even longer lines/wait lists for high sec incursion fleets, plus even more contesting and multiple fleet fight ove

I really hope you guys at CCP rethink this. While it won't put a dent in my sisters missioning/incursioning, I think it's a bad idea.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#403 - 2014-01-14 21:45:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Pinky Hops wrote:


Maybe it was NDA'd?

I have a hard time believing even our current CSMs would let something this horrible go through - but you never know.

Maybe they argued against it but got shot down by CCP?


Quote:
Soniclover moved on to discuss an additional disruption feature. This feature was shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns expressed during the summit, until a more satisfactory solution could be found.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdf

Page 42 of the minutes. I'm pretty sure this was the EPP that was being discussed, given the description of the feature.

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

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#404 - 2014-01-14 21:52:30 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:


Maybe it was NDA'd?

I have a hard time believing even our current CSMs would let something this horrible go through - but you never know.

Maybe they argued against it but got shot down by CCP?


Quote:
Soniclover moved on to discuss an additional disruption feature. This feature was shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns expressed during the summit, until a more satisfactory solution could be found.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdf

Page 42 of the minutes. I'm pretty sure this was the EPP that was being discussed, given the description of the feature.


I can't find any description of the idea that was shelved.

The one in the paragraph after that seems to be discussing an earlier iteration of siphons.
Alcorak
The Syndicate.
#405 - 2014-01-14 21:53:38 UTC
I changed my mind. Stilletto now has best isk/hr at almost no risk and i get to screw over bot-ratting carriers. And I'll never need to run another anom! Bring on the ESS!
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#406 - 2014-01-14 21:55:02 UTC
On the other hand.... dropping a few of these in all of the particular systems given to a particular renter would force them to either come and destroy it (creating a fight) or ceding 20% of all income made by everyone in that system.

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#407 - 2014-01-14 21:55:43 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Quote:
Soniclover moved on to discuss an additional disruption feature. This feature was shelved due to CCP and CSM concerns expressed during the summit, until a more satisfactory solution could be found.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM8_August_Summit_Minutes.pdf

Page 42 of the minutes. I'm pretty sure this was the EPP that was being discussed, given the description of the feature.


CCP always consults the CSM on their changes, especially on ones on a scale like this, correct?
JR Morgan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#408 - 2014-01-14 22:02:10 UTC
I would have to say that this along with the anom nerf are the two worst ideas since I have played the game. C'MON CCP
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#409 - 2014-01-14 22:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Pinky Hops wrote:

I can't find any description of the idea that was shelved.

The one in the paragraph after that seems to be discussing an earlier iteration of siphons.

That's because there wasn't one. They deliberately did not include information on what was reworked (which is how they treated every other discussion of a potential feature that hadn't been announced as of the minutes being released). I am inferring what this was.

Kismeteer wrote:

CCP always consults the CSM on their changes, especially on ones on a scale like this, correct?


One hopes!

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

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#410 - 2014-01-14 22:05:13 UTC
There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Josef Djugashvilis
#411 - 2014-01-14 22:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
You're supposed to make people want to live in nullsec more, not less.


As much as I consider some null-sec posters to be irritating professional whingers, ^^^ this really.

This is not a signature.

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#412 - 2014-01-14 22:13:55 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
Anything that reduces the amount of ISK introduced into the economy via faucets meets with my approval. So yay ESS.

mynnna wrote:
The two options either return the bounties to their owners or result in tags that get sold to NPCs. No reduction unless absolutely no one uses them, sorry.

I disagree. ESS introduction in Rubicon 1.1 has a 5% reduction in nullsec bounty payouts. So unless enough ESS units are allowed to get into the bonus range ( >100% to 105%) to make up that "5% across all nullsec bounties" reduction, then Kaeda is correct: introduction of ESS constitutes a global ISK faucet reduction.

MDD
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#413 - 2014-01-14 22:26:56 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
So unless enough ESS units are allowed to get into the bonus range ( >100% to 105%) to make up that "5% across all nullsec bounties" reduction

Honestly, why not just do this? Will keep people from whining and moaning about their 5%.

Keep all bounties as they currently are with no ESS deployed. With ESS deployed gain 5% bounty but potentially loose 20% of income generated if someone else loots the ESS.

If locals don't want to risk it, they don't anchor one, and everything stays as is. If neutrals come in and put one up, you either form up to fight the neuts/kill the ESS or pay the 20% tithe for being risk averse.

Seems like a win/win to me.
IrJosy
Club 1621
#414 - 2014-01-14 22:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: IrJosy
Soldarius wrote:
There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse.



Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced.

The ESS couples with that bad idea by making ratters bubble themselves as they desperately try to remove an ess while a nullified inty webs them in their own ess bubble to kil them.
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#415 - 2014-01-14 22:29:44 UTC
IrJosy wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse.



Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced.

Did that actually happen? Got a link where rise said that?
IrJosy
Club 1621
#416 - 2014-01-14 22:30:26 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
IrJosy wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
There is a much easier and more appropriate way to fix the issue: remove interdiction bubble immunity from interceptors. It was a terrible idea from the start. Now it is only getting worse.



Ya when a dev's answer (kil2) on how to deal with nullified ceptors is "hide from them and hope they get bored and go away" you know something is stupid and unbalanced.

Did that actually happen? Got a link where rise said that?


It was in person at eve vegas.
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
#417 - 2014-01-14 22:37:45 UTC
Re-read all the posts and get the negative vibe.
Disruptive, noisy and in your face blatant sponging.
No benefit to destroying the irritant.
No way to curtail it's deployment.
No way to restrict is production unless it is seeded very cleverly.

Needs a tap or two with nerf bat.


DeadDuck
Gladiators of Rage
Goonswarm Federation
#418 - 2014-01-14 22:38:46 UTC
TBH this ESS deployable unit it's a crappy idea.

Confusing concept, adding almost no content at all. You are losing the north again CCP... Ugh.

Take a god damn good look at the sov system in 0.0. Thats what you need to do. Passing 7 days to conquer a single system shooting Defender SBU's, IHUB's, TCU's, Stations (at least) to be able to claim a single system is ********.

In Rubicon 1.0 you added 3 more structures and now you are preparing 3 more... Straight
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#419 - 2014-01-14 22:41:47 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:

In Rubicon 1.0 you added 3 more structures and now you are preparing 3 more... Straight

The CSM minutes said there were a total of 12 planned. Dunno if that includes siphon variants.

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

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#420 - 2014-01-14 22:47:44 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
TBH this ESS deployable unit it's a crappy idea.

Confusing concept, adding almost no content at all. You are losing the north again CCP... Ugh.

Take a god damn good look at the sov system in 0.0. Thats what you need to do. Passing 7 days to conquer a single system shooting Defender SBU's, IHUB's, TCU's, Stations (at least) to be able to claim a single system is ********.

In Rubicon 1.0 you added 3 more structures and now you are preparing 3 more... Straight


In fairness, I think the mobile siphon unit, the mobile depot, and the mobile cyno inhibitor are excellent additions to the game.

I also thing the Mobile Micro Jump Drive is reasonable (although they actually asked and are working on feedback there).
I think the ESS could be an excellent addition to the game, but it needs some serious tweaking! (i.e. increase the access time + drop time to 6-10 minutes, so the locals can actually form up and defend it! Additionally, increase its payout so its truly beneficial to utilize!).