EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2005-01-13 23:08
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-12 13:10
  • Number of Posts: 359
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Yeep

Security Status 4.8
  • The Scope Member since
  • Gallente Federation Faction

Last 20 Posts

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

    CCP SoniClover wrote:

    * With an active ESS in system, bounties pay out LP in addition to normal ISK reward. LP reward starts at 0.15 LP per 1000 ISK and can increase to 0.2 LP per 1000 ISK as the bonus payout increases. As an example, a bounty worth 1 million ISK (total) gives between 150 and 200 LPs, based on payout level. This is to address the risk vs. reward concerns. Thanks to those that suggested using LPs instead of ISK for balance.


    Is this "normal ISK reward" 100% of current bounties or still 95%? Is the 20% ISK payout still stored in the ESS? If so is it ISK or LP that is stolen?

    CCP SoniClover wrote:

    * Interacting with the ESS now puts a warp disruption effect on the ship interacting with it. Ships immune to bubbles are not immune to this effect. This is to reduce the feasibility of using ships immune to bubbles for stealing purposes.


    Is this instead of or in addition to the disruption bubble?

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

    Mah Boobz wrote:
    Juliette Asanari wrote:
    Yeep wrote:
    At least with tags you could outsource the shipping for a cut of your profit but with LP you have to fly that exact character all the way into empire and back to claim your reward.


    You have heard of Jumpclones?


    or pod express.


    Cool, so my options are blow my jumpclone timer and not do any ratting or pvp tomorrow or spend 30m+ in clone costs. Sounds reasonable.

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

    CCP SoniClover wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:


    An actual good start. The most obvious question is "LP from who"? CONCORD is the most obvious answer, if so prepare you self for HUGE cries of foul from the only other people who get CONCORD LP (Incursion Runners). You should fluff up the CONCORD LP store with some more stuff if you're gonna do this.

    If not CONCORD, then who?


    Sorry for not mentioning this above. The LP is from the empire navies, so it's based on what ESS was deployed.


    Have you factored the time required to convert LP into ISK into your reward calculations? At least with tags you could outsource the shipping for a cut of your profit but with LP you have to fly that exact character all the way into empire and back to claim your reward.

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

    Tahnil wrote:

    As has been pointed out before: even if I accept it as a fact that any given system may only support four to six ratters at the same time, this is not the problem. Because (a) not all people are ratting at once and (b) given that inhabitants have some intel and some more time to react than the suggested 60 seconds, you will be able to have some support from other systems as well.


    Those people who aren't ratting are AFK, or doing industry, or doing research, or managing a POS, or logged in from work just to chat. If they are idly defending your ESS then they could be ratting (or doing any of the other things I mentioned) so you need to budget them into your costs. And those costs currently don't break even until there are 10 people ratting in a system.

    I'll say it again. CCP need to drop the idea this is ever something a spaceholding alliance would want to deploy themselves and re-work it to be a purely offensive module.

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

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    If CCP had not mentioned the 5% nerf to nullsec income in the same dev blog, this module would be a fairly solid success.


    No, it wouldn't. Because there would still be no reason for a spaceholder to deploy it themselves. A 5% increase in ratting income is not worth the time, effort and isk required to defend it.

    Zircon Dasher wrote:

    Sounds like a Farm&Fields concept is doomed unless people don't have to defend the Farm.


    Defending the farm is fine so long as you can still make more money farming than people still sucking on the teat of highsec missions.

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

    Zircon Dasher wrote:
    Wyn Pharoh wrote:

    It will take 3 HOURS of uninterrupted ratting, according to the new mechanics, to reach break even with where we are at today.


    That is false.

    Assume current RatBounty = 100k

    Without ESS:
    95k goes into your wallet.
    TOTAL BOUNTY: 95k

    Immediately
    upon ESS activating:
    80k goes to wallet
    20k goes into ESS
    TOTAL BOUNTY: 100k

    Current rat bounty - Activated ESS bounty = 0
    SO after the 60sec activation time you break even by comparison to the current system.



    No you don't. You have to factor in the cost of the deployable and the time spent flying to and from it to retrieve your bounty.

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

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    Scenario 1: You are part of a big alliance ratting. Hostiles enter the area and are reported on intel channels. Warp to it and hit share all bounties, and suddenly there isn't very much left in the thing for hostiles to confiscate.

    So every time someone reports hostiles in intel I spend 5 minutes warping to my ESS and slowboating through the bubble then slowboating back and warping out again? Sounds like a great way to lose my ratting ship (and waste the 6 minutes of ratting time the 10% bounty bonus has bought me).

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
    Scenario 2: You are are ratting solo in the system. A hostile enters system, one of you warps to the POS, swaps to an inty, warps to the thing and the hostile has 20 seconds to stop you from hitting share all and reclaiming your bounties. Sure, they may be in an inty that can warp to it too, but they will often fail to hold you as your "button pushing" inty is certainly stabbed.


    Again, considering warp time I'm losing 2-3 minutes (or 50% of my bonus for deploying the module) and risking losing my button pushing interceptor.

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    Scenario 3: A random solo neut routinely attempts to steal the loot. Next time they come into system, you surprise them with a direct counter to their ship. If they turn out to be a hotdropper, you can setup to hotdrop them back....

    And this involves how many accounts not ratting? Sat waiting around for a returning hostile who may never come? Sounds like a great fun thing to do in a computer game.

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    Scenario 4: You and 3 others are ratting in a system. One of you puts a noobship alt at zero on the beacon. If a hostile comes into system, he can instantly hit share all if anything lands on grid with the beacon.


    Cool, so this account I'm dedicating to sitting on the beacon 100% of the time, theres no way I could use that same account to make more than the 10% extra bounties the 4 of us are hauling?

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

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    I understand you feel that way, but disagree with you. It is an object anyone can deploy to increase their income. To benefit from it, you must harvest it after ratting for a while. It can be harvested by hostiles, too. So you must defend it or risk losing the isk you invested in it. How is this not a farms and field concept? Just because you won't risk it (because your allies will take advantage of you if you do?) doesn't make change its fundamental nature: A farms and field device that qualifies as a small gang objective.


    But it doesn't increase your income. Right now it requires someone to be guarding it 100% of the time for 10% extra bounty. For it to increase anyone's income would require 9 people ratting for every 1 person defending. There isn't a single system in the game that can support 9 people ratting profitably.

    And thats assuming only one single attacker who can be beaten off by a single defender. The defensive effort increases with the number of attackers but the time to loot does not. While a single defender could concievably prevent a single interceptor from looting the ESS if you bring 2 or more attackers the defenders now have to have 20+ people ratting in a system to make it worthwhile to deploy (or 4-5 times the number even the best 0.0 system can support).

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

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    If presented with an ESS region and a non-ESS region, I'd probably go to the region with ESS's deployed. At the same time, that means the region with ESS's deployed will have more content defending their space. While many alliances are too nullbear to desire the increased activity, there are plenty of groups out there that would welcome the action. Frankly, I thought goons would be one of those alliances!


    Disregarding the fact you aren't going to get this choice (nobody is going to ESS an entire region) you'd still be a moron. If you spend more than 6 minutes an hour dealing with the ESS you might as well have not deployed it, and thats disregarding the cost of the deployable itself.

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

    Tahnil wrote:

    CCP has to get it right, but they also have to tackle it. The current iteration of ESS has it‘s flaws, but there has to be some kind of ESS.


    CCP need to drop the idea that an ESS is ever going to be something a spaceholder would deploy themselves. You'd need a 50% or more difference in income between a system with and without one in order to make it viable in the vast majority of 0.0 space which means either reducing bounties by 50% across the board or giving the ESS the potential to increase them way too much.

    Its also never going to work as purely offensive module if it only affects one system. People don't rat with hostiles in system. An undefended ESS is a dead ESS.

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

    Tahnil wrote:
    The ratters with the best network would have the best income, because they would get the 5% income buff provided by ESS more often than ratters without this network and good friends, helping each other out.


    No, they wouldn't. Because a 5% income buff means you need to have 20 people ratting per ESS in order to make it worthwhile over just not deploying one. Putting that many people in one system drops all of their income way below highsec level 4s. At that point they just won't be there.

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

    Tahnil wrote:

    They shouldn‘t. They should do whatever they are doing. But IF somebody shows up, there should be some chance for small scale PvP. Currently there is nearly none at all. There might be a gank, and very rarely some locals decide to fight. But this is only once every five or more small gang roamings.


    Ratting is almost purely a money making exercise. If dropping an ESS gives you 10% more income over not dropping an ESS then you need 10 people ratting in a system for every 1 person defending. Space in EVE is almost completely porous so you can't reliably defend borders. This means you need at least 1 defender for every ESS you have so any system unable to support 10 or more ratters at the same time is better off without an ESS (hint: this is all of them).

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

    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    The other is policing your space. Most nullsec alliances don't bother, as there is nothing out & about that can't get safe quickly, and there is nothing the "small gang raiders" can do to harm your infrastructure. This NEEDs to change! There really should be some **** vulnerable enough for you to police your borders!


    Why?

    Why should people spend their time in game waiting around for you to arrive? Or more accurately, waiting around for you to jump a scout in, change your mind and run away?

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

    How about this:


    • Drop the 5% global decrease in bounties and any ability to increase bounties above 100%
    • Make the deployable siphon 20% of all bounties across the whole constellation its deployed in (perhaps even make a hauler sized one that does a whole region)
    • Have anyone in range able to take all siphoned ISK directly into their wallet


    People not watching intel channels might continue to rat. People stuck in anoms or escalations will probably continue to rat. Attackers get some ISK and a fight if they stick around. Defenders have to go fight you or lose multiple systems of ratting space.

  • SOV tearing down the old. in EVE Communication Center

    Onictus wrote:
    Destructable stations are still a bad idea.


    I'd be ok with destructible stations if all your assets appeared in the closest NPC station after a delay of say a week. You could even have NPC haulers people could attack to slow the moving process down.

  • EVE ONLINE RESET - NEW SHARD in EVE Communication Center

    I take it you're volunteering to port 10 years of security and bugfixes (and any future ones) to an old codebase, modify the parts of code that were designed to run on 10 year old hardware to use modern hardware, pay for a second set of servers and the second ops team needed to run them.

    Oh, and you'd have to randomize a bunch of game mechanics too obviously. Otherwise people would know exactly what to do to get ahead but you're fine with that right?

  • SOV tearing down the old. in EVE Communication Center

    Marlona Sky wrote:
    Yeep wrote:
    Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them

    I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I was wondering if you would go more in depth on why timers and maybe other things should be subject to human error? The pros and cons as you see it.


    Sure, although I thought this was the least controversial of the suggestions.

    Right now a defender always gets to choose the time of engagement. One of the nice parts of the old POS system was you could force them to defend outside of their comfort zone using a number of methods. You could attack at a time or place they weren't expecting and get a badly stronted tower. You could repeatedly reinforce lots of towers to make the defender either burn out their current logistics people or recruit new ones (who might be incompetent or untrustworthy) and you could kite a tower, choosing to leave your capital fleet at risk for longer in exchange for a more favourable timer. Smart, bold or persistent attackers should be able to get an engagement time more to their liking and that can't happen while setting a defending timer is almost infallible. Hence the need for the possibility of human error.

  • SOV tearing down the old. in EVE Communication Center

    Marlona Sky wrote:
    We spend so much time arguing over how to get there and no one really asks themselves, "What exactly is there?"

    Obviously this will vary from person to person, but I am really interested in what 'there' means to each of you.


    Yeep wrote:

    People should want to live in the space they own but shouldn't be forced to
    The default level of defense for sovereignty should be low (much lower than it is now)
    Alliances should be able to increase the defenses of their systems if they want but at an ISK and human cost
    Alliances should be free to decide how important a system is to them
    Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them

  • Dev Blog: No Honor Among Thieves - Siphon Units in Rubicon in EVE Information Center

    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    In eve as in RL the big guy gets to keep the ball, until someone bigger comes along to take it from him.


    You could be smaller and smarter but in reality the smarter people are either also quite big or are content with their status in game. They certainly aren't whining about how it isn't fair they're small.

  • SOV tearing down the old. in EVE Communication Center

    Dracvlad wrote:

    EDIT: Do you seriously think you would have beaten BOB with the current Sov system, because I seriously don't think you would have!


    I actually wasn't around for most of the BoB war. My experience lies mostly in the D2/LV era. One thing that might be quite hard to understand now is that Battleships and anything T2 used to be pretty expensive and a nightmare to fight with T1 kit. On top of that a POS hit way for way more of your HP than it does now and it was possible to win a system by quite literally outspending your opponent. While the challenges faced by an alliance now might be different I'm not convinced they're harder.

    I'm not happy with the way Sov works right now and I posted a bit in the thread on The Mittani about how I think things should change (you can go read it here if you want) but the gist of it is:
    People should want to live in the space they own but shouldn't be forced to
    The default level of defense for sovereignty should be low (much lower than it is now)
    Alliances should be able to increase the defenses of their systems if they want but at an ISK and human cost
    Alliances should be free to decide how important a system is to them
    Where timers are necessary (and they are necessary) there should be room for human error in setting them

    The most important thing to realise is there is no magic set of game mechanics that will stop a larger alliance from destroying a smaller neighbour if that neighbour persists in attacking them. You either need to be friends, pretend to be friends (something a young Goonfleet did a lot of, don't be above lying) or have the threat of your own, bigger friends. The small, lone wolf, spaceholding alliance has never existed and never will.