That’s my fault. I published the dev blog but forgot to create the accompanying discussion thread. Since the discussion has begun here I’ve added a link to this thread on the dev blog.
16 Likes
Given the abysmal state of the ratting meta where the only ratting ships that make sense are disposable AFK droneboats that barely make any ISK anyway, all I can do is quote Jayne Cobb: “What’s my share of this job? Let’s see: ten percent of nothing, carry the nothing…”
I appreciate the thought, I guess? But this seems like the kind of thing that might have made a difference years ago, when people were turbo-krabbing in supercapitals left and right. Now the only people it’s gonna affect are the botters in the drone regions-- I’m pretty sure they’re the only people who still rat at scale. Unless your multiplier numbers are a lot more interesting the ones screenshotted for the devblog, this isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference to anybody. Nobody is going to seek out a PvP hotzone so they can get an extra ten percent on their miserable 45m/hr Myrmidon ratting bounties.
Don’t get me wrong: I really do like the idea. I just feel like those multiplier numbers are going to need to be waaayyyy more aggressive than what you’ve screenshotted in the devblog to make any kind of difference for player behavior.
4 Likes
So after the recent mining changes, now the ratters are the target.
i am sorry ccp but are you actually trying to kill the game, or turn it into a different variant of P2P then omega.
in the end it this all just results in less stuff to be mined available and less insentive to go ratting.
so it just feels honestly like a push towards missions or even worse forced trig content to find something worthwile to go play
9 Likes
There are not just one anom on these systems. Lots of abandoned systems keep piling up anoms and signatures like crazy if left alone just for a while.
4 Likes
Nah, think about the implications of this change for CCP’s setting. Let’s look at say, Fountain.
No player combat, just ratting: players are blowing up Serpentis ships, so the Serpentis are held in check and activity drops.
No activity at all, capsuleers completely ignore that space… the Serpentis, one of the greatest criminal organizations in existence… don’t actually move to take advantage of this or fill the power vacuum at all.
Lots of player combat, the Serpentis… uhm… make more of their stuff vulnerable by ramping up their activity in a place where wars are being fought by other people, rather than waiting for the war to exhaust both sides and then making their move?
Uhm… wat?
EVE’s lore isn’t a perfect thing, and it’s certainly not what drives the majority of the players in nullsec, but you know, Once Upon A Time, CCP actually did try to make their coded systems make sense.
That’s why @Caleb_Ayrania has suggested, more than once, directly to devs when they were on-stream together, making a flexible system where player industrial activity reduces NPC pirate activity and/or bounty values. Build up the system to be ‘safe’, there’s less criminal scum to shoot. And thus, groups get forced to spread out a bit more without making coded systems that, when you think about them, work exactly the way they shouldn’t.
Pfft. Pirate groups ignoring a complete power vacuum in favor of sticking their noses between two warring navies… gotta be the dumbest pirates in fictional history.
21 Likes
This is indeed the case, although I am a highsec player these systems are my bread and butter.
1 Like
Im not sure some of you read it all correctly, or maybe i didn’t.
System is at 100%
Bots/ Players farm it down to 70-80% then move
System empty Starts moving back to 100%
Miners move in - get hunted (PVP) System goes above 100%
Bots/ Players come back Cycle repeats
3 Likes
Seems dynamic for sure but looks more like a huge nerf to ratting as a whole in disguise. Seems that the Multiplier will rarely go above the normal 100% and mostly just dip below. While it does promote spreading out instead of “ratting hubs.” It also seems to be a HUGE nerf to any alliance with only a few null systems. Alliances with entire regions will most likely be much better off, and will encourage them to wipe out smaller alliances for more territory. That would be all good for a while until all of null is a blue doughnut caused by these changes. I do remember you guys saying we would be getting some carrot soon. Still waiting for that, seems they just gave more stick in a carrot costume. While I get these changes have major upsides, maybe CCP should also consider possible downsides before changing major aspects of the game, not after. I do like the concept overall, and I think it promotes very healthy game play, but I do think it could have MAJOR downsides if implemented wrong. So I recommend treading very carefully when changing something major.
7 Likes
That’s a funny way of saying “renters”.
5 Likes
Ok, first, let’s stick a giant caveat on this:
The players/bots have to push the system so low that it’s no longer worth their time. Which, for bots, is pretty damned low. Otherwise, they’re losing time moving. They’re losing time dodging pvpers. They’re losing time moving again, etc etc.
Considering how much ratting is done completely afk… yeah, 80 more hours in a cheap-ass Myrmidon that gets blown up once a month, maybe, is a far more likely choice than ‘I’m gonna waste a lot of time and effort chasing max return’. Especially for the bots.
6 Likes
‘Conclusion’ here is being used as ‘In closing’, not as ‘we have drawn these conclusions’.
That’s a funny way of generalizing all small alliances. Also good job liking your own comment.
2 Likes
Renters aren’t even people, so it’s okay.
1 Like
I wonder about one thing: Will NPC that do not have bounties impact the multiplier for bounties? Doesn’t really make sense if if did but we are talking about CCP here.
1 Like
I know how it’s being used. And even using it that way, presenting your premises there without preamble is bad and should not be done.
1 Like
To everyone talking about ‘where does the PvP element come in?’ - the subsequent Dev Blog covering the ESS rework will address that. Basically, a portion of all bounties will be skimmed into an object in each system that must be defended. There was a dev talk about this months ago.
Encounter Surveillance System projected to be a “Permanent thing”
2 Likes
Players killing their alts in noob ships to raise the multiplier was one of the first pieces of feedback I (and others) provided - if this thing ships without taking that into account in a meaningful way and dealing with it, I will be extremely unhappy.
14 Likes
Comparing the value of ships destroyed to bounties collected in a system shouldn’t be hard. I’d weigh ship value higher I don’t think negative growth should be the long-term goal here.
collected_npc_bounties (isk) - pvp_destruction (isk) * pvp_padding_modifer > bounty_threshold (isk) then the modifier drops
That’d solve the let’s blow up some noob ships issue.
1 Like
Oh, and just because I didn’t think to mention this in the initial bit…
That doesn’t even account for ADMs.
If you hold sov, you need to keep the ADMs in your space up. All of it. All the time. So again, there’s more strategic value in staying put, because if you’re always chasing max bounty return… you’re leaving yourself vulnerable to getting the IHUB blown up, at which point all the ratting upgrades disappear, and you’re down to 1-2 anomalies with crappy bounty values anyway.
So which makes more sense? Taking 50% of a 100,000 ISK bounty, 500 times a day [750,000,000 per month], or taking 100% of 60,000 ISK bounty, 300 times a day (because you have to move around) [540,000,000 per month before any jump fuel expenses], chasing max yield while people blow up your IHUBs?
10 Likes
Abundance breeds complacency and scarcity breeds war.
Abundance breeds yeets, and scarcity brings blueball and excessive stockpiling.
Trust CCP to get even the basics dead wrong…
Predictable inputs lead to stagnant outputs.
Unpredictable inputs lead to “f this random bs I cancel my sub” outputs.
The DBS will begin impacting the playing field between small entities and large entities when it comes to the efficiency with which they can exploit their territory.
I bet 100mil ISK CCP fuks this up. Don’t need to be a prophet to say that if you approach on premises that are opposite of correct, the result that is opposite of correct will follow - large entities will get a massive boost, and small entities will get screwed by mandatory ESS that is unprotectable without supercap umbrella.
So we’re looking at another “blackout effect” change here, it seems: a strong message “join the bloc, get a super, krab under the umbrella… or die, because all other playstyles are null and void”.
Gee, I hope I’m wrong. But this is CCP of the madness era we’re talking about. Say one thing and do the exact opposite seems to be the motto, and odds are I’m right… again.
25 Likes