EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-09-20 02:47
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-12-21 01:57
  • Number of Posts: 119
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

IrJosy

Security Status 5.0
  • Club 1621 Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Hyperion] Heavy Assault Cruiser tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Corey Lean wrote:
    captain foivos wrote:
    I mean, clearly, Fozzie and friends have missed the memo: it ain't just the Ishtar. It's sentry drones.

    Somebody over there coined the phrase: drones as a primary weapon system and they keep doubling down on it


    This is my fault. I skyped them and complained that drones weren't being used enough in Alliance Tournaments. :(

  • [Hyperion] Heavy Assault Cruiser tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Aw the Ishtar can only hit out to 170km instead of 180km with drones. It will only go 2700 instead of 2800m/s. What big nurfs.

    Still no Interceptor nerf? Does CCP even play EVE?

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Milton Middleson wrote:
    Quote:
    If these things cost 200mil and make 100mil an hour, all I have to do is run one for two hours and it's payed for itself. Why bother defending it after that point?


    In theory, because you'd save money on not needing to replace it. In practice, once you pass a certain threshold, you'll write off saving it as not worth the effort.

    @OP: how big do you imagine fights over one of these being?


    Perhaps the example cost isn't optimal. I'll let CCP figure that out.


    Typical roaming gangs are 5-10 ships. Solo roamers will target them. Larger fleets without strategic objectives could go mow down an entire region.

    So anywhere between 1v1 to 200v200.


    Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
    I'll shorten your post:

    I hate miners.

    I hate mining.

    Lots of gibber-jabber about some scenario where you and your kind benefit while you basically remove someone else's chosen profession from most of New Eden.


    I have a counter proposal: All of us miners (and for that matter anyone else that wants to) can flag ourselves as "not interested in pvp", this allows us to fly anywhere in the game and be invulnerable to any form of pvp.

    In short, stealing from some other profession because it doesnt suit your tastes is selfish and hopefully such a God awful idea that CCP wont even begin to consider it.



    I don't hate mining. It doesn't even have to mine ore or ice. Again, I'll let ccp figure that out.

    What is the difference between an afk mackinaw that docks up every 20 minutes or so and a dude in a pvp ship babysitting a deployable structure?

    One of these situations leads to pvp. The other leads to a dude docking up. Do you want an eve with more content or less?

    Danika Princip wrote:
    If these things cost 200mil and make 100mil an hour, all I have to do is run one for two hours and it's payed for itself. Why bother defending it after that point?


    Now, if it's got a 30 minute RF timer and there's, say, a 20 man gang roaming your space, they'll have killed several of them by the time anyone forms up to hit them. And if you do form up to fight them, they'll come back again and again and again, whereas if you ignore them and just go somewhere else like people do at the moment, they'll go find a more fun target to play with.



    And how do you have a better understanding of supply and demand? You are literally stating that a MASSIVE increase in supply will do nothing whatsoever to prices.



    If you don't defend it, you effectively make no money for 2 hours of work.

    If you ignore them they get km's and isk from killing your structures and looting them. They will want to come back. If you defend them, and win they will either decide it isn't worth attacking your space which is defended or come back with more friends.


    I understand supply/demand just fine. I'm not sure where you are getting this "massive" increase in supply from. I haven't even stated what these things produce. That's for ccp to decide. It could simply be isk tokens like the blue loot from wh npcs or ghost sites. Or, if they are worried about isk/material sinks/faucets it could be LP.

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ShahFluffers wrote:
    Do understand that...

    - few people would set these things up in areas prone to hostile incursions. They would be deep in 0.0 alliance territory running 24/7
    - if people do set these up in "hostile areas" it is because they feel they can earn enough ISK plus extra to cover their inevitable losses (see: ISK-tanking)
    - skills can be easily overcome. It just takes time. Once you have them though... hauling out the goods is easy... like, webbed freighter easy (with a good warp-in you can land, grab, web and warp in about about 30 to 40 seconds).
    - part of the reason people buy minerals (see: demand) is because almost no one wants to sit in one spot doing it. You are effectively removing that demand and giving everyone the capacity to earn their own minerals (which will also affect builders too as why buy from the market when you can build your own stuff with the "free" minerals you collected?).


    1) Then those people will not get the potential rewards from utilizing this new system. The roaming gangs will go "deep in alliane sov" to get fights/disrupt money making.

    2) If they set up in "hostile areas" then locals end up coming out and content is generated! Mission accomplished!

    3) It depends on the size of stuff these produce. Hopefully it isn't so big that it requires a freighter to haul. That would make little sense.

    4) Who said anything about minerals? I don't think you understand supply and demand. Demand for minerals will always exist so long as player wish to buy ships. Demand for minerals will increase as PVP increases which will cause ships to be lost and require more minerals to replace said ships.

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    ShahFluffers wrote:
    With everyone being able to use this and passively collect ore it means that there will be a massive increase in ore/mineral supply, less ore/mineral demand (because again, everyone can do it!) the prices for ores/minerals will fall and people will get less for mining and building stuff.



    Issue #1: 100m isk worth of ORE is a HUGE amount. Depending on the ore, your looking at 100-400 isk / m3. If you want 100m in an our, that's 250,000 - 750,000 m3 of ore every hour. In other words, only a freighter could collect an hours worth of material.

    Issue #2: While I believe the mechanics around the idea are viable, I think its implemented reward is flawed. The problem with miners, is they mine themselves into poverty. The value of minerals is completely based on the supply and demand for minerals. This would undoubtedly increase mineral supply, so what will balance its demand so minerals retain that 100m isk/hr you desire?


    Not everyone will use this. Limit it to null sec. Skill requirements. Etc.


    1) It doesn't have to be ore. It can be ore / Ice / PI goods / moon goo / LP / New item XXX. Also, there is that new iteron thing that can haul 60+ km of ore.

    2) Again doesn't have to be ore. Certain goods will increase in demand though as people buy things to build new "farm and field" items and lose ships attacking/defending/killing them.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Milton Middleson wrote:
    IrJosy wrote:
    Milton Middleson wrote:
    Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught".


    If you can't catch them on a gate with plenty of time to prepare and 8-9 ships hand picked for the task worth billions of isk, where and how exactly are you going to catch them?

    Chase them. If they ever plan to do anything except warp gate to gate, a decent pilot can catch an interceptor.


    Chase them in what? They are faster than anything other than a leopard.

    How do you catch them if they don't want to be caught?

    What does this mythical "decent pilot" have that those 8-9 guys on the gate camp didn't?

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dolorous Tremmens wrote:
    Would Rats agress such a deployable, and require routine patrols to clear them out?

    Instant pvp right there, just need to do a bit of stalking


    Rats would make things challenging for the solo person who wants to sit and guard his deployable field until it is full and then switch to a hauling ship to scoop his loot/deployable up.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    I don't insist a person PvE'ing attempt to engage us in PvE fit ships either. What I want to see is raid-able farms and fields where you get benefits for harvesting but only if you defend it from others harvesting it first.

    Let's take that stuff here:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4118365#post4118365

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Igor Nappi wrote:
    So you are basically suggesting a mechanism for highish AFK income that would be more or less invulnerable to harassment and easily defendable by the blob (due to timer) in deep bluesec?


    It's not afk. You have to haul stuff. If you go afk for the ore to build up in the deployable miner thing, you leave it and your ore/isk haul at risk with the upside of having a full hold to haul when you get back.

    Defendable by the blob is called content. Blob has to defend stuff or the blob suffers income and can't defend in the future.

    Batelle wrote:
    issue with isk-generating structures is scalability and that they don't have people out in the farms and fields.

    The problem with having "people out in the farms and fields" is that working the fields usually means not being in a PVP ship.



    If people aren't out working the fields, then someone can come burn them!

    ShahFluffers wrote:
    With everyone being able to use this and passively collect ore it means that there will be a massive increase in ore/mineral supply, less ore/mineral demand (because again, everyone can do it!) the prices for ores/minerals will fall and people will get less for mining and building stuff.


    Not everyone can use it. I'm sure there will be some skill requirements. This is Eve after all.

    It doesn't necessarily have to haul ore/minerals. I hear the empires want this new "covert technology" stuff. Mining is a great example, but if the CCP economists are worried about the mineral markets it can just as easily be "reasearch labs" or something else that can be traded for LP or used by players some other way.

    EDIT: Maybe it even pumps out stuff for DUST?

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Milton Middleson wrote:
    Jesus. Trying using something other than gate camps to deal with interceptors. "Can't be caught by gatecamps" is not equivalent to "can't be caught".


    If you can't catch them on a gate with plenty of time to prepare and 8-9 ships hand picked for the task worth billions of isk, where and how exactly are you going to catch them?

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Manssell wrote:
    IrJosy wrote:
    Omanth Bathana wrote:
    Manssell wrote:

    Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.


    It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work.


    No no no!

    If you have a HIC, two remote sensor boosting ships(because inty's are hard to lock fast), a 90% web ship (this is incase the inty crashes the gate), a keres, eos boosts for locktime and scram range, a dps ship (perferably with another remote sebo ship supporting), and a bumping/decloak ship. You can in fact catch one or two ceptors on a gate if the server ticks align perfectly. (With a 6k scan res keres)

    It only takes 8-9 ships and a bit of luck!


    Sorry if I gotta bolt after this for a while, but I was trying to has out the idea that if the time on station is made much longer (and no warp off and come back junk) to steal from the structure, then the ceptors end up not being a threat (to income) as long as you have some kind of fleet in the area to chase them off. That's where the newbie training fleets idea comes in.



    The newbie defense fleet can defend one structure.

    The inties can enter a region split up hitting multiple ess "take all" buttons.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Omanth Bathana wrote:
    Manssell wrote:

    Ceptors are not invincible or uncatchalbe. They just take different tactics to defend against.


    It has been shown multiple times in this thread that properly fit interceptors are literally uncatchable due to the way server ticks work.


    No no no!

    If you have a HIC, two remote sensor boosting ships(because inty's are hard to lock fast), a 90% web ship (this is incase the inty crashes the gate), a keres (hi scan res/long scram range), eos boosts for locktime and scram range, a dps ship (perferably with another remote sebo ship supporting), and a bumping/decloak ship. (You end up with a 6k scan res keres)

    You can in fact catch one or two ceptors on a gate if the server ticks align perfectly.

    It ONLY takes 8-9 ships, great coordination, and a bit of luck!

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dolorous Tremmens wrote:
    I like an auto mining bot that lets me mine a lot less and make a lot more, and have decent reasons to shoot people. Only problem (for ccp) is it means less accounts are needed for more mining.


    Limit them to one per account. Problem solved. Alternatively, 1+1 per skill level and reduce cost and mining output accordingly. That just clutters the server with more deployables though. Better to have one per account and a skill that increases its output.

    The idea requires you to mine less yourself, but you make more and risk more. Instead of risking a mining ship in a belt, now you would risk a mining deployable and a hauling/pvp ship.

  • [Idea] "Farms and Fields" in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Stolen from my post in the ESS thread:


    If there were deploy-able structures mining asteroids, moons, ice, or planets. What we have is a target for a gang to attack and an objective for the local inhabitants to defend. We can call these structures "farms and fields". They require pvp fit defense ships and haulers for small gangs to bubble and kill on either the station or the "farm and field". Give it a short 5-30 minute RF timer. Balance cost and ROI appropriately.

    For instance you can have the cost be greater than or equal to a common ratting ship today. Take for example an ishtar(200m isk). So we can make the structure cost 200-300m isk. Then for ROI we need the structure to be better income than ratting which is currently 50-60m isk/ hr or about the same as running l4 missions in hi sec. Therefore we need to make the income 75m-100m / hr to get people to use it.

    Now what we have is a ton of people in null sec putting deployable structures at risk that can't be scooped instantly (5-30min offline/unanchor time). Instead of docking/cloaking up ratters in null sec will defend their structures putting not only their structure at risk ,but their ships as well. Content is generated in fights had over income generating structures.

    I think the time should be closer to the 5min unanchor time than the 30 min unanchor time. So that someone can log on deploy their structure, make isk for 30 mins haul everything in and log off making a decent 30-50m isk in a brief hour long play session. The key is to not make it too short though to avoid the current situation of cloaking/docking up.

    To expand upon this.

    Imagine a new null sec after this change. Instead of a fleet of multiboxing miners what we now have is a bunch of deployable structures in a belt with a hauler shipping the contents to a station and maybe a few defenders. Now a roaming gang comes into the area and maybe RF's a structure or two in the first couple systems. The mining operation has the option to close up shop because they see the hostiles in intel or prepare for the fight. They can't simply cloak or dock up as before because their isk production is at risk. Null sec no longer seems vast an empty to the common roamer. There are now targets EVERYWHERE!

    The inhabitants decide to fight! This is their sovereign space afterall! Nearby miners must face the decision to abandon their deployable miners to go stop the incursion now or keep hauling isk made from their deployable miner, risking that their own deployable becomes the next target for the approaching horde!

    Jabber pings are sent out. Friends log on. Maybe an FC stops his morning commute to get onto mumble from his smart phone at a gas station.

    The roaming fleet makes short work of the 1 or 2 people making use of the higher true sec border system. They are coming.

    The scout for the roaming gang enters a new system. He D-scans and sees only a few scan inhibitors and an abnormal number of hostiles in system. He drops probes and sees a scan inhibitor at the ice anomaly(or new place to drop deployable miners or whatever). He warps landing on grid, he sees the last iteron taking what could be emptied from the deployable miners and a rag tag fleet of cruisers and battlecruisers surrounding the deployable miners.

    On comms the scout relays what he sees and the roaming fleet jumps into system warping to their cloaked scout immediately. Upon arriving the fight begins and the roaming gang drops a cyno for their buddies waiting on a blops battlehsip. The defenders are quickly routed and the structures are put into RF mode.

    More jabber pings. More numbers! Defenders form up in their nearby capital system.

    Meanwhile the hostiles realize that they have 10 or so deployable miners, the equivalent isk to a capital ship about to come out of RF in mere minutes. They batphone for help in case the defenders reform and come back to save their isk printing machines.

    The RF timer is up and the hostiles begin shooting the first structure. A covert ops cruiser decloaks and a cyno is lit. 3 carriers appear on grid and begin repping the deployables as the friendly gang jumps in to defend the now exposed carriers! What happens next is determined by pilot and FC skill.

    Does CCP want that kind of butterfly effect action in eve/null sec?

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Muffet McStrudel wrote:
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


    Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.

    I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.


    So you admit the inty's are a bit OP now, but admit to using them in hostile space for your fights many times. Why not roll in with blingy Tengu's or Loki's? Probably because the risk outweighs the reward, right?

    Now you know why alliances plainly will not deploy ESS and likely eject anyone found doing so.


    Why fly a 500m isk cloaky nullified ship that does 300 dps when you can fly a 20m isk nullified ship that does 300 dps and doesn't need to cloak because it goes 5km/s and aligns faster than a 6k scan res keres can lock if the server ticks are off?

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    IrJosy wrote:
    Weaselior wrote:
    greiton starfire wrote:
    why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size.

    there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight


    There's also a difference between those who want to inconvenience individuals in that sov, and those who want to actually get fights in that sov.

    The fact that a large percentage of gankers are using invincible interceptors now shows where most people who enter an alliances sov sit on that spectrum.


    Interceptors are hardly invincible. And for the record, I have been and still am VERY opposed to interceptors enjoying interdiction nullification. I vocally proclaimed this was a bad move, but c'est la vie.

    There are three reasons inties are very popular:
    1.) They are fast, meaning you can partake in a 60-system roam in the time it takes BC's to traverse 20 systems.
    2.) They have the best shot at catching ratters (mainly because they are fast).
    3.) They can disengage and gtfo (this is why nano-gangs are so popular).

    I've attacked many a Sov group with small inty gangs, sometimes ganking, sometimes getting good fights, sometimes winning, and sometimes losing.



    A gang of 5-10 interceptors is for all intensive purposes invincible. At best with perfect scenario (Which requires a equal sized 5-10 man fleet) you can conceivably kill 1 or 2 IF the server ticks magically align on a gate. If you bait them, they just orbit at 5km/s and warp off when you uncloak or warp to your bait to try to kill them.

    Best case scenario after a perfect gate camp you still have 3-8 (or more) interceptors in your region terrorizing ratters.

    Nano gangs can be bubbled and killed on gates relatively easily and risk 200m+ isk cruisers to do so. Not only are invincible nullified interceptors much MUCH harder to kill, they only risk 20m isk frigates.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Innominate wrote:
    [quote=Gizznitt Malikite]
    As a side note, the idea of roaming fleets looking for fights is basically mythological, the ones that are looking for fights sit near a hostile capital and get fights. The ones looking to terrorize ratters are looking for easy kills and will run from anyone trying to give them an actual fight.



    This!!!!!11

    What the game needs is less invincible interceptors. (Remove their interdictor nullification)

    In the grand scheme of things it achieves little to nothing against a big alliance. You spend 3-4 hours roaming through a region killing a few afk ratters. Meanwhile they have dozens or more active ratters in other systems still generating isk.

    If instead there were deploy-able structures mining asteroids, moons, ice, or planets. What we have is a target for a gang to attack and an objective for the local inhabitants to defend. We can call these structures "farms and fields". They require pvp fit defense ships and haulers for small gangs to bubble and kill on either the station or the "farm and field". Give it a short 5-30 minute RF timer. Balance cost and ROI appropriately.

    EDIT: For instance you can have the cost be greater than or equal to a common ratting ship today. Take for example an ishtar(200m isk). So we can make the structure cost 200-300m isk. Then for ROI we need the structure to be better income than ratting which is currently 50-60m isk/ hr or about the same as running l4 missions in hi sec. Therefore we need to make the income 75m-100m / hr to get people to use it.

    Now what we have is a ton of people in null sec putting deployable structures at risk that can't be scooped instantly (5-30min offline/unanchor time). Instead of docking/cloaking up ratters in null sec will defend their structures putting not only their structure at risk ,but their ships as well. Content is generated in fights had over income generating structures.

    EDIT2: I think the time should be closer to the 5min unanchor time than the 30 min unanchor time. So that someone can log on deploy their structure, make isk for 30 mins haul everything in and log off making a decent 30-50m isk in a brief hour long play session.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    Weaselior wrote:
    greiton starfire wrote:
    why do these small gangs think they should pose a serious non-ignorable threat to groups over 5000X their size.

    there's a difference between the people who think they should be able to affect sov through small-gang warfare and the people who think they should be able to inconvenience individuals in that sov enough to get a fight


    There's also a difference between those who want to inconvenience individuals in that sov, and those who want to actually get fights in that sov.

    The fact that a large percentage of gankers are using invincible interceptors now shows where most people who enter an alliances sov sit on that spectrum.

  • [Rubicon 1.1] Interceptor Agility Tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Now if you can just make it so ceptors are no loinger interdiction nullified they will be great!

    When a dev(rise) says that the best way to deal with inty gangs is to "ignore them and pray that they go away" you know they are broken.

  • Dev blog: More Deployables from Super Friends in EVE Information Center

    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.


    No, you specifically mentioned NULL bounties.

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

    I don't have access to the numbers ,but I would wager since a majority of players make isk in hi-sec space, only a small fraction comes from NULL bounties.