These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#1061 - 2014-01-16 10:38:45 UTC
ESS should have a long (~20-30 minute) anchoring time.

After anchored, it should have a 1-2 day reinforcement timer, where it continues to function. Reinforcement notifies the person who placed it as to when it comes out of rf.


NOW it can start fights. You get 30 minutes to respond, or your system has an ESS reducing bounties for the next 1-2 days. When the ESS comes out of RF, you get another fight over claiming anything in it.
Infiltrator2112
Untitled Goose Corporation
#1062 - 2014-01-16 10:39:02 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Turelus wrote:


* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?


Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.


As a fulltime 0.0 player, the only thing I do not do in nullsec is making ISK. Give me a reason to move my incursion- and manufacturing-alts from empire to 0.0, not the other way around, please.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1063 - 2014-01-16 10:40:23 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
If there is a ESS already in system earning people 120% of the current bounty, a roaming fleet can warp to it and if you are unwilling to fight them off, they get to take any unclaimed tags. You deny them fights and they deny you isk... seems like a fair trade to me.

It's the equivalent of old time highway robbery.


That is exactly why nobody will use ESS as money boosting thing in the first place



If you are unwilling to use it because of the risk involved, the 5% nerf is justified.

People cry about how high sec is risk free game play but nullbears are are the worst for it.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#1064 - 2014-01-16 10:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Wulfy Johnson
Good to hear that a blanket nerf is not needed.. Why tie this structure up to isk at all, why not make it generate lp?

Edit: to expand on that, make this things availible from all factions, so players focusing on delivering faction items needed in the particular region to be alle to produce the lp needed there..
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1065 - 2014-01-16 10:47:27 UTC
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Good to hear that a blanket nerf is not needed.. Why tie this structure up to isk at all, why not make it generate lp?

Tags... I bet there will be a function attached to them eventually.

btw this badly needs to be in empire as well as null.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#1066 - 2014-01-16 10:48:43 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
If you are unwilling to use it because of the risk involved, the 5% nerf is justified.

People cry about how high sec is risk free game play but nullbears are are the worst for it.


So basically you better enjoy this carrot or god help me I will beat living sh!t out of you with this stick.

Invalid signature format
Turelus
Utassi Security
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1067 - 2014-01-16 10:49:14 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
If there is a ESS already in system earning people 120% of the current bounty, a roaming fleet can warp to it and if you are unwilling to fight them off, they get to take any unclaimed tags. You deny them fights and they deny you isk... seems like a fair trade to me.

It's the equivalent of old time highway robbery.


That is exactly why nobody will use ESS as money boosting thing in the first place



If you are unwilling to use it because of the risk involved, the 5% nerf is justified.

People cry about how high sec is risk free game play but nullbears are are the worst for it.

No the 5% isn't justified. NullSec has enough bloody risks in regards to ratting for ISK.
I explained in my last post how even if a PVP player is ratting he's at a huge disadvantage when a red gang enters because he's not able to fight right away.

The ESS should be used for those who want to gamble with what they have to gain more, not because they lost money to start with. If CCP wants to reduce the level of pure ISK coming into the game just lower all bounties across the game by 5% instead of this NullSec only nerf which seems is only to push a feature no one wants to be using.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#1068 - 2014-01-16 10:56:07 UTC
Infiltrator2112 wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Turelus wrote:


* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?


Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.


As a fulltime 0.0 player, the only thing I do not do in nullsec is making ISK. Give me a reason to move my incursion- and manufacturing-alts from empire to 0.0, not the other way around, please.


Exactly

Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1069 - 2014-01-16 10:58:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Whatever. I'm looking forward to the possibility of having more fights in null and if a measly 5% reduction causes some people to move to high sec, who cares? It's not like these people are adding anything to the game anyway.

Alliances will probably have to group together a bit more instead of being spread too thin and then maybe they will be more willing to use these things and fight for them.

Hopefully after all these deployables are done, CCP will improve sov and add more risky but beneficial forms of PVE like we have in wormhole space.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1070 - 2014-01-16 11:00:15 UTC
Infiltrator2112 wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Turelus wrote:


* Why the 5% loss in bounties instead of just making the module appealing on its own?


Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.


As a fulltime 0.0 player, the only thing I do not do in nullsec is making ISK. Give me a reason to move my incursion- and manufacturing-alts from empire to 0.0, not the other way around, please.


IMO they should move all the top tier Incursion sites to null/low sec and just have the low tier ones in HS.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#1071 - 2014-01-16 11:01:32 UTC
if it's an extra isk sink you want, why not let the ESS print LP tags which you can exchange for LP in a specific factions corp of your Choosing? (must have an LP store offcourse)

so having an ESS in system gives you 80% bounty payout, but provides LP tags which you can ship to empire and use as your hearts desire. Creating an Extra isk sink and some additional flexibility for people in nullsec on where to get the best conversion ratio, since they can just exchange their tags for LP in the store of their choosing.

Baddest poster ever
ORLICZ
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1072 - 2014-01-16 11:07:50 UTC
i very like ESS but...



-give 110% gain from ess,

-make imposible to Take out tags with stabed ceptors ( Tag volume 3 m3,

-nerf incrusions and FW 
Tahnil
Gunboat Commando
#1073 - 2014-01-16 11:09:23 UTC
Make it so that the „take all“ option doesn‘t have a fixed timer, after which all tags are ejected at once. Rather than that, payment should be over time. That means you get one tag or transaction for every 10 seconds.

This would solve the problem of finding the right timer for the defenders to form a response fleet. If payment is over time, not at once, attackers can choose how long they are willing to wait and bait, and defenders are able to choose a good timing for their response as well.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1074 - 2014-01-16 11:10:42 UTC
How many pages does a thread have to reach before it becomes a 'threadnought'?

This is not a signature.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#1075 - 2014-01-16 11:10:44 UTC
handige harrie wrote:
if it's an extra isk sink you want, why not let the ESS print LP tags which you can exchange for LP in a specific factions corp of your Choosing? (must have an LP store offcourse)

so having an ESS in system gives you 80% bounty payout, but provides LP tags which you can ship to empire and use as your hearts desire. Creating an Extra isk sink and some additional flexibility for people in nullsec on where to get the best conversion ratio, since they can just exchange their tags for LP in the store of their choosing.


Concord LPs ?
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#1076 - 2014-01-16 11:14:08 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Wulfy Johnson wrote:
Good to hear that a blanket nerf is not needed.. Why tie this structure up to isk at all, why not make it generate lp?

Tags... I bet there will be a function attached to them eventually.

btw this badly needs to be in empire as well as null.



Tags could still be produced, but using another metric calculating its worth..

But anyway you see it at the moment, ccp needs to pull the plug on this one and put it back on the drawing board.. as it is now it`s shortsighted, badly introduced, and not a very clever mechanic and a hole lot of other shortcomings due to game mechanic..

Is it true what i hear that it spams the living crap out of you as well?
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#1077 - 2014-01-16 11:14:22 UTC
gascanu wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
if it's an extra isk sink you want, why not let the ESS print LP tags which you can exchange for LP in a specific factions corp of your Choosing? (must have an LP store offcourse)

so having an ESS in system gives you 80% bounty payout, but provides LP tags which you can ship to empire and use as your hearts desire. Creating an Extra isk sink and some additional flexibility for people in nullsec on where to get the best conversion ratio, since they can just exchange their tags for LP in the store of their choosing.


Concord LPs ?


LP of the faction the ESS is, so Caldari get Caldari LP (exchangable in any Caldari Corp LP store), Minmatar get Minmater LP. Concord LP for a concord ESS would be nice, since it's were all the meta capital stuff is, which incidently is used in Nullsec <3

Baddest poster ever
i hatechosingnames
Insert Corporation Name Here
#1078 - 2014-01-16 11:18:20 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.


Your own economist says otherwise.

Quote:
The next graph showed the money supply. Overall, the money supply is evening out--changes to systems have reduced the ISK supply, so average ISK in active wallets is stable as of November 2012 and the maximum amount may even be peaking. While Mike points out that the leveling-out at the top of the graph is very short, Dr. EyjoG responded that it was the first plateau visible at all. Sinks and faucets are fairly balanced right now, with a bit more faucet than sink to allow for economic growth.


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

This explanation doesn't hold water and you've published something to that effect.


You're comparing apples and oranges here. Eyjo is talking about the overall balance of faucets and sinks. I'm talking about the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties.

I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.



At what point do you objectively stand back, look at all this negativity about this badly thought out, conceptualised and communicated structure and be big enough to say, "You know what - this needs to go back to the drawing board"

Don't be big headed about you little baby - if it needs work, it needs work. Don't force through another half assed change that is not going to do what you want it to.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1079 - 2014-01-16 11:22:04 UTC
Just nerf bounties by 5% and leave it at that.

Because this abomination of a module neither generates fights nor fun in any way, shape or form. It's just over-complicated and unwanted hassle for everyone.


Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#1080 - 2014-01-16 11:22:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I feel I need to clarify what I said, as it seems some people are misunderstanding it, I'm not saying that the ESS is intended to reduce inflation. I'm saying we want to be careful about how much higher than the current 100% we can go. So it's not about trying to reduce the ISK entering the game through NPC bounties, it is making sure it doesn't increase too much.

Great. That means the 5% blanket nerf to incomes can be outright removed since it doesn't really serve any purpose.


Agreed, remove the 5% nerf and I'll no longer object to the inclusion of this deployable as it can then just become yet another unused module. At that point the only thing still offensive about it is that any dev time was wasted on it at all. I'd like to suggest maybe posting these ideas in the F&I forum early in the process so they can be vetted prior to spending significant time/resources on them.