EVE Information Portal

 
^ Back to top
 

Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends

Jump to first DEV post
Author
C C P Alliance
#841 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:09  |  Edited by: CCP SoniClover
Edit: Based on frequent misinterpretations, I want to clarify the statement regarding the amount of ISK entering the game through NPC bounties a bit. This is NOT saying that the amount of ISK is too much and we're using the ESS as a weird nerfing tool of some sort. What is being said is that because the amount of ISK is so high, slight changes up or down makes a huge difference - there are many activities in EVE where the income could be affected by dozens of % and it would just be a blip in the ocean for the economy as a whole, but NPC bounties are not one of them - even a few % points up or down will have ripple effect everywhere in the game. So the point being made is that we have to be careful about altering these amounts.

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.

Turelus wrote:

* Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?


That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they´re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.


Turelus wrote:

* Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?


This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.
Nulli Secunda
#842 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:10
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.

I think you're over-estimating the eagerness with which people will anchor a structure that will be used as a gun to their head later on.

"Dear Snake Jailbird, for your convenience and mine, the key is under the doormat, the money is in the till please remember to lock up when you leave thank you come again!"
White Mountain Coalition
#843 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:11
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.


Man, you are defending the indefensible. Give it up now, admit it's a bad idea, take it back to the drawing board. There's no shame in a rethink.
Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Goonswarm Federation
#844 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:12  |  Edited by: Razzor Death
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.



ahahahahahahahahahahahaha


have you been to highsec lately ? do you even play this game ?

( let me help you out, if you did something to deal with the botting empires some no name alliances establish just to run RMT bot farms that number might go down by about 70% )
Goonswarm Federation
#845 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:12
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Kismeteer wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
I tend to avoid answering posts using inflammatory phrasing, but I actually think your signature answers your question pretty well.


Referencing: “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”

Why are null sec people the only people that have defend it? Why couldn't you do this module in high sec, where it could actually make for interesting game play? Or low sec, which this seems ideal for, if anyone ratted there.

If you're avoiding posts with inflammatory phrasing, is that your excuse why you're avoiding most of the posts in this thead?


You can´t expect everything we do to have equal affect on everyone. Yes, the ESS affects null sec more, just like the Hi Sec POCOs we did for Rubicon affected hi sec more. It evens out in the end. We hate everyone equally.

That's ok, I hate everyone too. The module as-is doesn't do what you think it does. It doesn't create conflict because no one will even bother with the minimal reward it potentially offers. This is due to the large reduction in current income, with a high risk of getting no reward and a small reward if the gambit succeeds.

Are you familiar with the concept of a risk/benefit analysis?
Pandemic Legion
#846 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:12  |  Edited by: EI Digin
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.

Why don't you minimize inflation some other way?
Goonswarm Federation
#847 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:14
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Turelus wrote:

* Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?


That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they´re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.

This is going to succeed. Well done, empires, you're going to achieve your goals.
#848 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:14  |  Edited by: Fix Sov
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Because the ISK coming into the game from Null Sec bounties every day is insane and we want to minimize inflation.

Alternatively, you could do things like modify the sales tax rate etc to respond to the inflation, and have an even bigger pot of gold to skim off of. vOv
The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Goonswarm Federation
#849 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:14
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Lady Naween wrote:
snip


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.


It's not a nerf if we chose to be, it is a definite nerf because of the way CCP has designed Nullsec ratting.

Here are the facts.

Income is completely dependent on DPS of a ratting ship. If a fit does less than 600 DPS, you will receive less Isk/hour than L4 missions (Faction Navy est 60 Mil/hour. SOE missions can hit 150+) . Ratting ships generally fit as much pure damage as possible over damage application and projection, never mind mobility and tackle.

Ratting Means tanking a decent amount of incoming damage for prolonged periods of time. This means ratting fits are optimized for endurance, and fare poorly against high burst ratter ganking fits. Not to mention the ratting ship will have rat damage from the start. In practice, this means a ratting ship will always lose to a ratter ganker, unless the ganker is extraordinarily inept.

Due to the way anomalies are designed, ratting is largely a solo/multiboxed activity. Rats have very low HP, and the frequent target switching from having multiple people ratting the same site reduces efficiency. Even if ratting ships could fight the gankers, that would be dependent on ratter gankers being honorable space samurai who always work alone and never have a gang behind them.

From these attributes, the only reasonable action when ratter gankers enter system is to dock.

I'm curious, what do CCP devs envision as " various choices in how to respond". Do you expect certain player behavior when implementing new features? a certain way they be used? they ways they impact EVE at large?

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

vote Angry Mustache for CSM9 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326509&find=unread
Goonswarm Federation
#850 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:15
Razzor Death 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.



ahahahahahahahahahahahaha


have you been to highsec lately ? do you even play this game ?

Your definition of income and CCP's definition differ, FYI.

You consider any increase in your wallet to be income. CCP defines income as "activities which increase the total amount of isk in the game." Highsec missions and incursions derive a nontrivial amount of their reward in LP, which is designed to reduce total isk in the game. Nullsec combat anomalies directly create isk. CCP is right to be wary of the total number of "isk faucets" which exist in the game, and while I don't necessarily know if tuning nullsec combat anomaly bounties in such a way is the right decision, it's certainly one effective way of going about it.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
The Fourth District
#851 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:15
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.

Turelus wrote:

* Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?


That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they´re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.


Turelus wrote:

* Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?


This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.


With respect many have stated that if inflation was the reason we would rather just have CCP rework the bounties and be open and honest about it.
Also it seems a little backwards to be fixing an inflation issue by adding a module which can potentially bring more money into the game. This goes back to my earlier posts that if CCP is looking for a way to sink some ISK out of the game have these modules pay out LP instead of ISK that way we will be dumping the money into LP stores which are one of the games larger ISK sinks.

LP would also work nicely with the lore you're trying to establish here and gives the racial variants of the modules more meaning as you will be choosing which LP you would like to be earning via the choice.

In the current state of the item it's really not worth it to most NullSec entities because it offers far too little gain for far to high a risk.
Lieutenant Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District

I post on my main... shocking I know!
Goonswarm Federation
#852 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:16
CCP SoniClover wrote:

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



Can you provide a breakdown of the magnitudes of isk faucets and sinks so the players that are interested can verify this? I'm not opposed to an across-the-board null-sec bounty nerf if this is true, but let's call a spade and spade. We're all adults.

CCP SoniClover wrote:

That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they´re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.


There are better ways, both in lore and in game mechanics, for empires to draw us back into the fold. Use empire LP, rather than straight isk, as the incentive, it fits far better with the tropes you've established so far (LP for missions and faction warfare).

CCP SoniClover wrote:


This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.


A very large contingent of the null-sec power bases have demonstrated (relatively) objectively that the gain is not worth the risk.
Goonswarm Federation
#853 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:16
EI Digin 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.

Why don't you minimize inflation some other way?

Between you, us, and N3's rental programs, we are generating trillions of isk a month in rent. Renters, in a large amount, generate that isk from ratting.
This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Goonswarm Federation
#854 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:17
CCP SoniClover wrote:

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.

The ESS as implemented is garbage and you will probably not be getting what you'd get pre-1.1 because word will quickly get out about the morons who actually are dumb enough to use an ESS and you'll get camped and robbed left and right because you're the only ones dumb enough in five regions to do it.
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
White Mountain Coalition
#855 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:18
EI Digin 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.

Why don't you minimize inflation some other way?


Yet if you use the ESS properly you get 105% of the bounty. So much for worrying about inflation.
Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Goonswarm Federation
#856 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:20
Do not put this module in game as is currently thought to function. This will not cause conflict like you think. Listen to the null player base it is telling you.
White Mountain Coalition
#857 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:20
You know an idea is bad when everyone agrees its bad. CCP have succeeded in uniting both Empire and null sec players into agreeing that the ESS is bad.
Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Goonswarm Federation
#858 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:21
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.
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Goonswarm Federation
#859 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:21
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.

Turelus wrote:

* Why isn't it a seeded BPO/BPC instead of buy it now item?


That is mostly for lore reasons - the empires are coughing up money themselves because they´re hoping to draw null sec pilots back into the fold.


Turelus wrote:

* Why should we risk 20% of our members income for such a small gain?


This is subjective. Some will feel the risk is not worth the gain, some will feel the gain is worth the risk.


One of CCP's stated goals in the past was to get rid of all possible NPC items. This item should not reverse that trend and should be player made.

If by subjective, you mean lotteries are also subjective because they are played by people really bad at math. Then yes, this is subjective too.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
#860 Posted: 2014.01.16 00:22
not sure why this topic is unlocked. CCP won't care or change anything, but just reply to some posts about how you're all wrong.
Forum Jump