IIRC, at 100% index you get 50% as payout and 30% more as blue steal, thus 80%, reduced accordingly with lower index.
Won’t help against bloc gangs bigger than our entire alliance anyway, takes way too long to complete.
1 Like
I like the way that Eve seems to be changing a lot lately in ways that seem strange to me. I like this because I believe that it makes Eve much more interesting. I totally welcome even more change. If the changes are unpredicted or even crazy, so much the better. I hope that CCP tosses more grenades into the Eve Universe sandbox and please let’s see what gets blown up.
If I hear a whole lot of pilots complaining about some sort of recent game change, then this is what I like to hear. I keep playing Eve Online because I haven’t got bored with it yet. I keep returning to Eve because it’s fun. Dodge the chaos and be rewarded. Get hit by the grenades and die. Evolution and learning is a challenge to me and challenge is fun.
I like the new Dynamic Bounty System. I can’t wait to see what happens next. Thanks CCP.
3 Likes
Errr … ever took a skiff along with an orca with mining drones?
If you have at least half way proper skills your skiff is around 30m3/sec with 2 strips and the orca runs at around 15m3/sec with it´s drones.
Skiff s ores hold has to be cleaned around every 10mins and all you have to do is to tab around and do drag and drop.
Zero risk as you will most likely never be ganked in this combination unless Code is VERY bored.
Besides you mine with hulks? Where if i may ask 
Just going to highlight this excellent demonstration of the perma-victim mindset. The enemy has a fast ship, I point out that the perma-victim can bring a fast ship of their own to counter it, and instead of learning how to do what other players have already demonstrated is possible the perma-victim comes up with more excuses for why success is impossible and the only option is to quit. And that is why perma-victims tend to be stuck in bottom-tier renter alliances until they finally ragequit.
However, to be engaged in a pve ship, which is a helpless victim of a shitty pve design, is not an option, and this will not be happening, under no circumstances.
Great. Then you can sit in station forever because you refuse to be vulnerable. That’s your right. But you do not have the right to undock and do PvE without any threat of attack.
(and ■■■■ off with 13000th round of “you can rat in pvp ship” (NO) or “pver ship can fight back” (NO) - any of those points have been already discussed till everyone’s been sick of it, and will not be repeated)
Yes, we understand that you are a perma-victim and reject any solution that does not involve CCP giving you effortless participation trophies and making all of the bad people go away.
Edit: good job perma-victims, you know how to abuse the flag system.
When I quoted you, I did use the words you used. That’s how the Quote feature worths.
But, if you prefer the exact wording: there’s no set of rules comprehensive and specific enough to be impactful that isn’t ‘abusable’, and massively so. The more you work to prevent that, the more the rules just become cumbersome and difficult to even keep track of, and usually end up contradicting themselves.
In fact, the more you try to make your rules cover everything, the more they lend themselves to abuse, usually against the people who are trying to preserve the intention behind the rules. And if you don’t give a ■■■■, then why’d you friggin’ ask for that?
Anything that affects us is going to hit you harder, simply because we can optimize how we adapt to it, and you have to do all your adaptation yourself. That’s not brag, that’s just the realities of groups v. individuals. Groups can specialize.
I’d easier believe their agenda is to make me unhappy. 
3 Likes
I totally agree with you. Before the BO debacle, it was totally worth having sov as a small corp/alliance. Following the BO and now this ESS system, not sure how that will work out for small entities
One possible counter to this regardless of whether it is a small entity or part of a bloc, is to rat in a PVP fit ship, exactly you mentioned
2 Likes
We’ve been into this discussion quite a number of times too. There are ways to target dense groups more than sparse individuals. For example, system bounty index achieves that to a certain degree.
MESS, whoever, is a mess that gives a tremendous advantage to dense groups, and should just be scrapped, and whoever came up with this idea banned from the brainstorm pool for 6 months (provided it’s his first offense, if he was also the blackout lobbyist, then ban should be permanent).
1 Like
Except there aren’t, because nothing prevents the ‘dense group’ from acting like sparse individuals. 500 Goons spread out doing their own thing is still 500 people, even if they temporarily each act on their own.
That I absolutely agree with @Orca_Platypus on banning whoever came up with those ideas
…and then one Phoebe patch fixed the spreadout issue so damn well that after an incessant whine it got basically rolled back completely.
I dunno if you noticed, but CCP’s entire agenda for the last 18 months has been to basically undo the things they did from 2013-2015. Apparently, they don’t remember why they did those things.
So, here, lemme spell this out for @CCP_Rattati, since I guess our discussion about ‘go talk to your institutional memory on the CSM’ when I told him why industry teams got removed… just didn’t take.
Self-sufficiency was added as a means to generate conflict. Yeah, that’s right, that was the goal. And the reasoning was because CCP-at-the-time was taking a look at what was going on and seeing not conflicts, but cartels. Most notably, OTEC, the Organization of Technetium Exporting Coalitions.
That’s what regional availability and scarcity wrought: the biggest and most powerful groups in the game got together and discussed ‘how do we make sure whatever fighting goes on doesn’t totally screw over our ability to make money?’ And at the time, the decision was made to say ‘ok, this revenue stream is sacrosanct. NOBODY SHOOT THE DAMNED TECH MOONS’. And that worked, until someone decided to pre-emptively start a war objecting to their completely imaginary impending expulsion from OTEC.
Paranoia, not competition, caused that war.
And today? Hey, lookit that, effort-free income at the bloc level continues with… a cartel, the TTC. Huh. I wonder if that’s just going to continue to funnel ISK out to nullsec as all of the major blocs agree not to shoot TTC structures. HRM.
Then you had ‘spread people out and make them use more space’, ie: Dominion Sov. That led to the complete division of the nullsec map into 2 sides, where literally all of sov null was owned by one coalition or the other. New groups trying to break into sov? Good luck. At best, if you could attract absolutely massive numbers like Brave Newbies did, you’d get farmed by Pandemic Legion until you broke, and moved to a different region… and then get farmed by Pandemic Legion…
Phoebe, and Aegis sov, pushed groups to reduce their footprint, and made population density critical for defense. Space opened up for small groups, and then we had 5 major coalitions in null for a while (Imperium, PanFam, Legacy, DeadCo, WinterCo), with the actions among them a little fluid. Legacy fought FRT, PanFam fought Imperium, or fought Legacy, or fought DeadCo, DeadCo fought Legacy, or the Imperium, hell, the Imperium and Legacy fought from time to time, too.
But hey, push us back toward the ‘everyone spreads out as much as possible’ model. See how fast PanFam and FRT turn to crushing Legacy, if we lose this war, so they can widen their renter empires even further. See how fast this whole push to force expansion results in Serenity 2.0.
You need more groups in null. More groups, more agendas, more leadership groups interacting, means more conflicts. Forcing the groups that are already there to expand just means choking the life out of anyone trying to get a foothold.
EDIT: And for anyone who wants to argue that expanding more will mean having a harder time defending against a new group trying to move in, get a clue. The new group has to establish itself someplace, an initial invasion point, someplace where it starts trying to claim space. Maybe it takes 1-2 systems and tries to move in to fortify them. As soon as it has that single ‘this is where they are’, the much larger group already controlling that part of null can concentrate their response there, and just drop overwhelming force, over and over again. They don’t even have to retake the space right away, they just have to make the invaders decide ‘this sucks, I don’t want to do this’.
8 Likes
Again, when you quote me, use the terms I used not other ones that may be relevant in a different case : I wrote “quote me”, not “use the quote function”. That means every case where you attribute me words ; and there you attributed me the “gamed” term which is out of topic.
And that is false. Gaming the mechanics is encouraged in most competitive/multiplayer games, while abusing them is not.
In Eve online alts are omnipresent, easy to create and abuse for PVP. So yes making a mechanics rely on PVP makes it prone to abuses. I did not think that would be something I’d need to teach you.
Yes, and that’s the only time I quoted you. Referring back to your point by using similar, but not identical language is not quoting you. It is addressing the point.
A) That’s a subjective distinction you’re choosing to make.
B) The fact that abuse is not desired by the people making the rules is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the statement that all sets of comprehensive rules that strive for specificity, rather than simply laying out general principles like ‘don’t be a dick’, can, in fact, be abused. They can, and my statement is not false. For someone who gets bent out of shape when they think they’re being quoted (even when they’re not), you really do seem to like to twist words around to make other people say things they didn’t say.
Again, irrelevant to the point being made, and addresses a claim that nobody made, ie: that reliance on PvP mechanics might be prone to abuse, or that you might need to inform anyone of that.
do the Dziara really exist?.. i need a trees… thank you CCP Convict
Merin Ryskin is a monster
1 Like
No, you are addressing a strawman. You made a quote and then decided to change the terms I used and affirmed they had the same meaning. You are a liar when you pretend you are addressing my point. My point is not against PVP-relying mechanisms being gamed. My point is about PVP-relying mechanisms being abused. Learn the difference, then you may have the ability to understand what I am actually saying without making a retard of yourself.
No that’s not. That’s the definition of a game : you play within the mechanisms.
If you can’t prove it, then it’s BS. And what is asserted without a proof, is dismissed without a proof. I don’t even try to argue that : your point is just useless BS. You claim a general rule out of your arse.
Then learn to read : that’s exactly, no more no less, the point I made. Seriously STFU you are ridiculous. You are attacking a strawman, then claim that the point I made is irrelevant to the point I made.
So you want me to present a literally infinite proof in finite space? Because the proof you’re demanding would have to include all possible rules sets, and I don’t think the EVE-O forums allow me enough space to even type up 1% of the infinite set of all possible rules sets.
Wouldn’t it be easier to disprove it? All you’d need to do is come up with one set of rules that’s both comprehensive enough to cover all situations and specific enough to go beyond general pinciples.
As for the rest… projection, much?
2 Likes
No, I want you to realize that just because you claim BS, does not make that BS true.
That’s the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
okay I just block you, lost already too much time with your stupidity.
better go scream at wiejska
Heimatar has plenty hulks in RU tz, but they stick to 0.8 and 0.9.
Over thought out, overly complicated, dumb mechanic, that will have absolutely no impact once things settle down, apart from really annoying actual players…