These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#981 - 2014-01-16 03:33:59 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?


Insinuating that this isn't and hasn't been a thing in nullsec alliances already for years now.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#982 - 2014-01-16 03:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Xolve wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?


Insinuating that this isn't and hasn't been a thing in nullsec alliances already for years now.


I don't mean to insinuate that it isn't already happening. I'm just concerned that this suggested change could amplify the trend.
Luxotor
This Cyno Will Eventually Make Sense
#983 - 2014-01-16 03:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Luxotor
Actual man hours were spent trying to develop the ESS.

THE NIGHT IS DARK AND FULL OF TERRORS!

Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#984 - 2014-01-16 03:39:57 UTC
Von Reichenbach wrote:


Other than that, it is purely an extra griefing tool. But I guess that's what the Grrr Goonies want...

Let me know when the people Burn Jita over this... Ill be there.



Actually, in this thread I've seen N3/PL and Goons generally in agreement that it is a horrible idea, as well as many other random alliance members and Goons agreeing. When these groups that damn near never agree on anything can all agree that an idea is horrible you can bet your ass it's a horrible idea.


No amount of tweaking these things will ever see them used by locals because, as someone stated, it's like encouraging neuts/pirates to come to your ratting systems, steal your banked isk/LP/tags, and prevent you from making money. Use by roaming fleets is pointless as well because the PvP averse will dock up as usual and wait.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#985 - 2014-01-16 03:44:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
mynnna wrote:
[list]
  • Eliminate the 5% penalty. If we're able to make it attractive enough, you won't need this stick to beat players into eating their carrots, so to speak.
  • Rework the payout of this unit such that it reduces bounties to 80% of their value, but replaces them with LP at a reasonable exchange rate. This exchange rate would ideally be calibrated to the value of easy to buy and move items in the LP store, such as +3 or +4 implants. Given the extra supply we'd see here, something like 800 isk per LP would seem sensible. Thus, killing a million isk bounty rat would now reward 800,000 isk as well as 250 LP.
  • As inflation is no longer a concern, the bonus payout can now increase to an acceptable level as to balance the risk inherent to putting 20% of your income on the line, potentially putting your ratting ship on the line (if reshipping to defend the ESS isn't an option, as it will so often be), etc.

  • There are flaws inherent to this logic btw.

    By tying the payout to the market value LP, and the bonus being so crappy (20% is still crappy btw given the stakes) - you risk the value of the LP dropping.

    For instance, the value of the loyalty points could drop to a level where you actually get less net income by having an ESS in system. - because that "bonus income in LP" doesn't recoup the losses in ISK.

    What do you do then? Have CCP setup buy orders to artificially keep the value of the items high? That would just reverse the process of inflation to begin with - or basically just making the whole thing more complicated.

    And it's already way too complicated.

    Khanh'rhh wrote:
    It must suck to work at CCP. They've designed something that, if used, results in 100-105% of the current ISK faucet being in place. However, one stated design goal of the unit is to reduce ISK entering the system, meaning it needs to be designed such that more people rat without it, than with it.

    That's like trying to solve global warming, by going to a BMW engineer and saying "I want you to design a car that makes people drive fewer miles per year .... no I don't know how to do that, try to make it stall all the time or something and generally be annoying to use".

    There's 2 options:
    1) Soniclover is lying
    2) Soniclover is telling the truth. In this scenario, the intended design of this deployable has to make people not want to use it, and are being told to go and sell it as an exciting new feature.

    It must suck to work at CCP.


    Thanks a lot, this post made me spit beer out of my nose.

    It's true in a really twisted, sick way. It's literally designed to be bad. I would hate to get paid to do bad work on purpose.

    "You have to make this item be as crappy as possible. Make sure nobody uses it or the whole thing fails by design."
    Xolve
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #986 - 2014-01-16 03:44:55 UTC
    Andrea Keuvo wrote:
    No amount of tweaking these things will ever see them used by locals because, as someone stated, it's like encouraging neuts/pirates to come to your ratting systems, steal your banked isk/LP/tags, and prevent you from making money. Use by roaming fleets is pointless as well because the PvP averse will dock up as usual and wait.


    The only useful thing I can see for this structure, if it were to be implemented as it's currently proposed (because let's face it, it probably will be), is that it will effectively become the 'Cyno Trap, V2' and used offensively.

    Warp to hostile ratting system, anchor structure inside of an anchoring T2 Large Mobile Warp Disruptor and begin farming angry ratters. This is obviously the best case scenario, as most ratters will probably just wait you out and go back to business as usual once you're gone- but there's always those one or two special snowflakes in every constellation that actually feel like they have some divine right to whichever system they happen to be in, and will needless fling comedy fit ships at you.
    GeeShizzle MacCloud
    #987 - 2014-01-16 03:49:10 UTC
    i swear i remember reading that CCP are much less willing to adopt an idea that has been put forward by a player than by an original idea from one of their Devs. Something about Devs earning their wage or something. Is it possible that the playerbase has brainstormed all the good and semi-okayish ideas out of the possible implementable ideas pool that Devs can think up, and so have to resort to ridiculously idiotic ideas and solutions to problems like this ESS that CCP SoniClover and Team Super 'Friends' have announced?

    But seriously, did you have to go and insult our intelligence by dressing this up as a buff when its realistically a blanket nerf? literally adding insult to injury, and you wonder why subscription levels are dropping currently...


    ohh and any baseline PL member that approves with the implementation of the ESS as is currently, remember that they generate their isk in any way other than NPC rats in null, so they're not affected, just their enemies, and thats always a good thing in their terms.You can practically wipe their comments from this as they 'play' in nullsec but grind isk anywhere but.
    Andrea Keuvo
    Rusty Pricks
    #988 - 2014-01-16 04:00:28 UTC
    Xolve wrote:
    Andrea Keuvo wrote:
    No amount of tweaking these things will ever see them used by locals because, as someone stated, it's like encouraging neuts/pirates to come to your ratting systems, steal your banked isk/LP/tags, and prevent you from making money. Use by roaming fleets is pointless as well because the PvP averse will dock up as usual and wait.


    The only useful thing I can see for this structure, if it were to be implemented as it's currently proposed (because let's face it, it probably will be), is that it will effectively become the 'Cyno Trap, V2' and used offensively.

    Warp to hostile ratting system, anchor structure inside of an anchoring T2 Large Mobile Warp Disruptor and begin farming angry ratters. This is obviously the best case scenario, as most ratters will probably just wait you out and go back to business as usual once you're gone- but there's always those one or two special snowflakes in every constellation that actually feel like they have some divine right to whichever system they happen to be in, and will needless fling comedy fit ships at you.


    TBH, in my space the likely response to one of these onlining would be warp to 100 in cloaky nullified T3, burn another 50km off out of line with the bubble and then warp 10 spider tanking 150km range dominix to blap whoever is there and the structure. Does anyone really want this kind of PvP?
    Rekkr Nordgard
    Borderland Militia
    Zero Hedge Union
    #989 - 2014-01-16 04:01:24 UTC
    The fact that a CCP Dev would lie through his teeth and insult our intelligence rather than admit his pet project is a steaming pile of bullcrap is far more concerning than a measly 5% nerf to nullsec bounties or a broken deployable no one will ever use (as stupid and unnecessary as those are).
    Xolve
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #990 - 2014-01-16 04:03:46 UTC
    Andrea Keuvo wrote:
    TBH, in my space the likely response to one of these onlining would be warp to 100 in cloaky nullified T3, burn another 50km off out of line with the bubble and then warp 10 spider tanking 150km range dominix to blap whoever is there and the structure. Does anyone really want this kind of PvP?


    I too tackle things with hopes and dreams.
    Andrea Keuvo
    Rusty Pricks
    #991 - 2014-01-16 04:05:23 UTC
    Xolve wrote:
    Andrea Keuvo wrote:
    TBH, in my space the likely response to one of these onlining would be warp to 100 in cloaky nullified T3, burn another 50km off out of line with the bubble and then warp 10 spider tanking 150km range dominix to blap whoever is there and the structure. Does anyone really want this kind of PvP?


    I too tackle things with hopes and dreams.



    Yeah who am I kidding, everyone will just dock up.
    AIric Vitex
    Money Crew
    #992 - 2014-01-16 04:10:04 UTC
    Turelus wrote:
    CCP SoniClover wrote:
    Lady Naween wrote:

    maybe it is because I am blonde and a woman but where will the fight be?

    As I outlined in my post there wont be any new fights. There MIGHT be one short structure bash, and that is it. And for what reward? None that I can see, nor can those with more math then I.

    so.. can you please explain where the conflicts will be? Help us please understand your vision because I think a lot of us are missing it.

    please?


    If you use an ESS as a ratter your income will be higher than pre-1.1. If hostiles enter the system you have various choices in how to respond, some of them can lead to fights, it´s up to you. Don´t assume that anyone that stumbles into the system will automatically be able to steal everything, again, the likelihood of this is up to you. It´s only a nerf if you choose it to be.


    Can't we leave the bounties at the normal 100% and ignore the confusing and needless 95% aspect of the mechanics and instead have a module which lowers by 20% and builds up to 110-120% so it's purely an optional gamble and not something we feel forced to use because CCP suddenly decided we all deserve a 5% income nerf.






    ^^^^ THIS
    Nevyn Auscent
    Broke Sauce
    #993 - 2014-01-16 04:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
    Evelgrivion wrote:


    A couple of points and questions:

    The population of the game already tends to congregate where particular LP stores are more desirable than others; this would likely increase the value of living in Guristas rat territory over others, and may serve to reduce the population in some already sparse locales. Is this a desirable outcome?

    A stick may prove necessary to drive players to use the ESS if the LP payouts available to them are not desirable. What could be done in lieu of reducing bounty payouts?


    Since the LP would not be related to the space the player was ratting in, but the space to which the ESS was bought from, your first point is removed. Providing the Empires LP is considered equally valuable. Though this could also be balanced by making it Concord LP which is then fairly universal.

    The 5% initial bounty nerf could also remain. Call it pirate siphons in between 'here' and Yulai or whatever you want to do. And the ESS blocks those siphons however they do some LP payout instead of isk in return.

    The main thing is the potential reward needs to be at least 1.5 times the potential penalty. Since the structure itself has a built in cost any time you loose the LP, chances are the roaming gang will also blow the structure up to hurt you as well.
    So even if we assume 50% of the time you get the LP, you will only break even at that point.

    This also means that the structure needs a sensible access method. Free access to owners alliance, Hacking required by anyone else sounds fair, especially given Black Ops have a hacking bonus so easy enough to bring a hacker.
    And a better EHP method. Maybe a 10 min reinforcement timer. That gives time for a fleet to actually form to defend it. More EHP simply makes for a bigger grind but doesn't put a real timer on it.

    The concept itself isn't terrible, the numbers attached to it right now are.



    Edit. Also darn you Mynnna, normally I disagree with your posts, but that's fairly close to what I think. Much as I think the 5% base nerf can stay. Provided the potential gain from the ESS is large enough.
    Yazzinra
    Scorpion Ventures
    #994 - 2014-01-16 04:37:48 UTC
    I stopped reading at page 41. this is me trying to find silver linings.

    as far as a conflict driver goes, you have managed to unite virtually every corner of null sec with this brilliant idea of yours. Team Super Friends indeed!


    5% nerf to income across the board in null sec? did you learn nothing from the anom nerf years back and the mass exodus from null sec that took place afterwards?

    constructive criticism...

    ok, 3-5 minutes sounds decent before tags drop. this gives the defenders time to form up without giving them too much time. "dock, grab bombers/cruisers/whatevers" instead of organizing a proper fleet.

    do we need a 5% nerf? leave it as it is. dropping an ESS drops income by 20%, with a max 105%. don't use it? you loose nothing. wanna go for a bit more? drop an ESS. im not a gambler, but I know a lot of folks probably would.

    I know not much of null sec works like Provi does, but we have multiple entities living in our systems, and neutrals are welcome to come in at any time. I understand why you'd want anyone to be able to access them, but maybe the income benefit/debuff should only help/hinder the corp or alliance that actually anchors one? I really don't see roaming gangs using them to hurt ratters incomes by anchoring them for all the reasons previously mentioned.

    I do like the idea of racial ESS. I live close to amarr low sex, so obviously I'd use the amarr one as opposed to someone living on the other side of the map. however, these things need to come from BPOs or at the least BPCs. PLAYER driven economy, remember?

    given the servers seem to be fine with thousands of deployable structures now, can we have mines again? I missed that part of eve since I didn't start playing till apocrypha, would like to see what it was like :D
    Combat Wombatz
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #995 - 2014-01-16 04:43:45 UTC
    I don't often post, but when I do, it is to point out that this module is a terrible idea in its current form and needs severe reworking. The blanket null income nerf is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening. Is this what you guys were envisioning when you spoke about a desire to pursue bottom-up income for alliances?

    tl;dr - Either scrap this **** idea or rework it in such a way that it will actually be worthwhile without blanket-nerfing everyone who doesn't want to play tower defense in space.
    SmilingVagrant
    Doomheim
    #996 - 2014-01-16 04:48:15 UTC  |  Edited by: SmilingVagrant
    Pinky Hops wrote:
    mynnna wrote:
    Stuff


    To roughly quote somebody else in the thread...

    "Any deployable that takes more than seventeen bullet points and seven paragraphs to justify is probably a bad idea."

    I don't think your changes improve anything. If anything it might make it worse just because it's making it even more complicated.

    Should ratting REALLY involve interacting with the Holy Space ATM?

    Is that the kind of direction that is good for the game?

    Most of the deployables I really like are ones that are easy to understand, easy to use, and with a clear, defined purpose. Something new that is enabled.

    This thing is like "We're taking something away, and then making you anchor a stupid black box to give it back to you."

    That's not new. It's not even a feature. It's just spacetrash.


    Put LP agents in NPC nullsec stations. Make the LP agent line up with the station type. This would make it actually useful to have a crappy caldari kickout station in your space for a change.

    Combat Wombatz wrote:
    I don't often post, but when I do, it is to point out that this module is a terrible idea in its current form and needs severe reworking. The blanket null income nerf is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening. Is this what you guys were envisioning when you spoke about a desire to pursue bottom-up income for alliances?

    tl;dr - Either scrap this **** idea or rework it in such a way that it will actually be worthwhile without blanket-nerfing everyone who doesn't want to play tower defense in space.


    Yeah the fact that I'm + repping a Nulli post should really say something here.
    Wyn Pharoh
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #997 - 2014-01-16 04:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Wyn Pharoh
    It is important to remain constructive, so I'm going to be very deliberate...

    In post #696 SoniClover has suggested some tweeks to the ESS module due to some great observations of how to abuse the fundamental mechanics of the module itself.

    From posts #821, #835, #838 and #844 CCP SoniClover has gotten into some of the fundamentals behind the very existence of this module, i.e. the economic indicators driving the introduction of a new isk sink that will in theory off balance the introduction of turning down an ingame isk faucet. Frankly, all of this should have been upfront and direct from the very beginning. There aught to be graphs, charts and various other 8x9 color glossies included with the original devblog.

    I'm going to dive into an exception that I am taking with the end of post #838...

    CCP SoniClover wrote:
    ...We hate everyone equally.


    While it may be fair to say 'as we take from Hisec, so we shall also take from Null' in order to justify a blanket nerf to 0.0 bounty incomes (and the isk faucet these bounties represent), it is not true that you 'hate everyone equally'. From all postings read so far, the political implications of deploying these modules suggests a nerf to the entire Provibloc community. I got my 0.0 feet wet there, as have countless others, and it is no overstatement to suggest ESS mechanics will be a political nightmare for the Holders to manage.

    Beyond political considerations, the very real mechanics for the Drone Regions must not be understated. In fact, they are at the fundamental root of the problem. Virtually all income for ratting in Drones is derived directly from bounties. This will be a potential nerf greater in relative proportion to Drone inhabitants than it will be for all other players in null sec. No one else will face a real and true 5% diminishment of total potential income as a choice other than Drones residents. In every other region of space, its a 5% 'tax' on the 80% odd income that is directly added via the bounty system, while a considerable portion of the available potential income will remain untouched by ESS mechanics. I think that I'm being generous, considering that Officer loot drops, Exploration income and Moon mining tends to favor Pirate Nullsec space overall.

    On the subject of this isk faucet problem, part of the problem is directly of CCP's own creation. Once it was decided that the loot drops from the Drone Regions had created an imbalanced mineral faucet, the response to this was drastic. NPC alloy loot drops were removed from 99.9% of the Drone NPC's and were replaced with 8 regions worth of bounty only producing rats. 8 Regions that did not contribute at all to the bounty isk faucet, overnight, went from 0 to 100% part of the bounty isk faucet problem. This is the cost CCP accepted when the Drone Alloy problem was fixed.

    Now, all of null sec is being asked to accept an across the board 5% nerf to bounties or to accept the usage of a deployable that may potentially buff system bounties by 5%, if they are willing to risk the cost of maintaining said deployable. Because of bounty isk faucet issues. Isk faucet issues that cannot be disentangled from the fix for the Drone Alloy problem.

    Here is a modest proposal to CCP, fix the Drone Region bounty problem first. Nerf drone bounties back inline with Pirate bounties and insert loot drops. Any loot drops would be fine. Roleplay the heck out of drone NPC's being a patchwork of empire parts and get on with fixing this isk faucet in the simplest fashion from top to bottom. Then, and only then, lets have a real conversation about conflict drivers, fields and farms or whatever else may be viewed as added content to justify the introduction of the ESS into New Eden.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #998 - 2014-01-16 05:09:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
    CCP SoniClover wrote:
    I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.

    Yeah, see…

    When I posted it without the inflammatory phrasing, it didn't generate an answer. So, so much for that idea. The fundamental question is still the same, and my signature does not answer it: why do you feel it is necessary to create a blanket nerf on what the regular nullseccer uses for income?

    Quote:
    Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.
    That's interesting, since apparently there is no inflationary pressure at the moment. Also, in the bounty ISK fauceting department, what is the split between belt/anomaly bounties and, say, mission bounties?

    Quote:
    This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
    So when the shared subjective opinion in this thread — that i's not even remotely worth the minute gain — turns out to be true, what then? Will the numbers be adjusted to something that makes it popular?

    Or, given the previous statement that the goal is to minimise inflation, is it the objective design goal here to make the ESS less than desirable, on average. After all, if the intent is to reduce ISK influx, then surely the ESS must either not be deployed (leaving the bounties at 95%) or on average produce a <100% bounty payout, or it will end up doing the exact opposite of what you're aiming for. You can't in one sentence say that, no, its being worth-while is subjective and in another say that the intent is to reduce the bounty payouts on average to control inflation. To achieve the goal, it must objectively be a bad thing, even if some people choose to gamble on it and occasionally — rarely — get that above-100% payout.

    Now, to go back to the “inflammatory language” for a second…
    On the one hand, you're contradicting existing data. This is not a sound basis for game design.
    On the other hand, you're either contradicting your own goals or contradicting your defence of what others call a nerf (or, miraculously, both). This is not a sound basis for arguing the virtues of unsound game design.
    On the third hand, you're contradicting your reasons for not answering since you responded to the (supposedly) inflammatory post and skipped the same post without that language. This brings back the spectre of the shouting matches of yore, which is hardly a good thing either…
    Aliventi
    Southern Cross Silver Shields
    Flying Dangerous
    #999 - 2014-01-16 05:17:46 UTC
    mynnna wrote:

    Now the largest obstacle here would seem to be that LP is corp based rather than faction based - it's not "Caldari State" LP, it's "State Protectorate" or "Caldari Navy" or what have you. Technically speaking that should not be difficult to overcome, as mechanics to convert one form of LP (CONCORD) into another (almost anything else) already exist, though of course I know nothing about EVE's code. Conceptually speaking though, there are many solutions, perhaps the simplest of which is simply speaking to an agent of the appropriate faction, and trading either your faction LP or your tokens for an equal amount of that corp's LP. That also offers yet another chance for savvy players to increase their income further still, as even within a faction, not all corps are created equal. If access to certain LP stores in this manner is undesirable (FW stores and their special ship offers come to mind) they can simply be added to a restricted list.

    mynnna's idea plus:

    Make it so we can buy, sell, trade, manipulate, scam, send and receive (you can send isk to an from characters. Why not LP?), etc. on the market in either straight LP or a LP tag form. Let the free market take over. This Thread is the original idea. That way more NPC groups can get in on the LP for bounty gig and carebears can quickly calculate the isk payouts of their ratting.
    Ivory Kantenu
    Apotheosis.
    #1000 - 2014-01-16 05:19:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivory Kantenu
    Honestly, I think most of us would just be a bit happier to know where this faucet is coming from in Null that justifies this module even coming into existence. Give us some harder numbers then just saying 'Trust us', as most people will still argue that Incursions and L4s are skill the cash cows of the universe.

    After living in Nul for well over a year, I can honestly say that this module has no spot in my future what-so-ever, save using it as a Medium bubble replacement as some people are suggesting. I know this is not your goal with it, CCP, but at the moment, it looks like you don't realistically HAVE one for it other than a beacon of hopes and dreams.

    [i]Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread[/i]