Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed.
99
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:27:00 -
[421] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote: Hate to break it to you, but this wasn't possible before the overlay scanner either unless the farmers were being lazy/stupid.
I know, but the point was the with the current instant spawn of the sigs in overview and probe scanner view without probing you don't have any people in eve so lazy/stupid any more. They are gone extinct and so is a lot of player interaction. |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed.
99
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:29:00 -
[422] - Quote
Einar Matveinen wrote:Zukan wrote: Surely the same should apply to nullsec too? Delayed entry in the local chat channel. Botters and Ratters hiding is even more annoying and more frequently an issue than missing a wh fight.
+1 to this post, you're right, delayed beacons in w-space, delayed local in null-space, why null sec ratters may rat in a relatively safe environment and w-space players not. Exactly a good example why local should be removed from null sec! |
Faxanadu Phantasm
Decimus Corp
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:31:00 -
[423] - Quote
Something else I'd like to comment on
To the folks who would like to open up options to increase the ease of ganking other WH bros' PVE activity...
We're all out in WH space for the same reasons... we're willing to accept the risk, and invest the required effort and vigilance to make living there viable. That means watching Dscan and probing.
If you want to add more eggs for us to juggle to make living in WH harder, thats fine but at least give us the option to exert that added vigilance. The point i think is to be able to prey on people who leave themselves open to it.
Thats why i think the nullbears should be the real targets, because theyre traditionally complacent deep in their cozy null regions buffered by all their intel channels so they can fap and mine/rat in peace right? Theyre the targets who are most likely to forgo exerting vigilance because theyre not as hardened as us WH bros who are accustom to putting in that extra effort.
On the same note, I think youll find that thats why WH pilots may be slightly more difficult to gank because they're used to having to pay attention.
|
Anhenka
Daktaklakpak. Red Coat Conspiracy
459
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:32:00 -
[424] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:Einar Matveinen wrote:Zukan wrote: Surely the same should apply to nullsec too? Delayed entry in the local chat channel. Botters and Ratters hiding is even more annoying and more frequently an issue than missing a wh fight.
+1 to this post, you're right, delayed beacons in w-space, delayed local in null-space, why null sec ratters may rat in a relatively safe environment and w-space players not. Exactly a good example why local should be removed from null sec!
Please don't turn this into a no local in null threadnaught. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2093
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:36:00 -
[425] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote: Hate to break it to you, but this wasn't possible before the overlay scanner either unless the farmers were being lazy/stupid.
I know, but the point was the with the current instant spawn of the sigs in overview and probe scanner view without probing you don't have any people in eve so lazy/stupid any more. They are gone extinct and so is a lot of player interaction.
I agree. And I agree the discovery scanner should just be scrapped. Honestly it serves little useful purpose beyond being a new player "look exploration!" tool.
But the thing I will keep harping on is that I think it is a bad idea to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. CCP should have a very good understanding at this point of the law of unintended consequences, which I believe would read its ugly head with some of the changes proposed. |
SambaSol
Veritas Theory
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:38:00 -
[426] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:unimatrix0030 wrote:Einar Matveinen wrote:Zukan wrote: Surely the same should apply to nullsec too? Delayed entry in the local chat channel. Botters and Ratters hiding is even more annoying and more frequently an issue than missing a wh fight.
+1 to this post, you're right, delayed beacons in w-space, delayed local in null-space, why null sec ratters may rat in a relatively safe environment and w-space players not. Exactly a good example why local should be removed from null sec! Please don't turn this into a no local in null threadnaught. WH's have suffered from the nerfs leveled against k-space, why should the reverse not also be true? |
Jack Miton
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
3136
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:39:00 -
[427] - Quote
No I don't like this. If someone takes the effort of dropping probes and actively watching them, there's zero reason why they should not be able to detect new sigs immediately. This change would swing it too fart the other way.
Probes should detect the sigs immediately, overlay needs a delay. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
49
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:39:00 -
[428] - Quote
If it doesn't pop up on overlay & probes for a few minutes I'd love this change.
You guys could set it up as: 0-1:30 minute nothing. 1:30 & <10% mass = probe able 1:30 & >10% mass = sensor overlay & probe able. 2hrs = system wide overlay you warp too. No probing required. Only in wormholes, not k-space. |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
290
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:45:00 -
[429] - Quote
Alundil wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Hedge Fox wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Hedge Fox wrote:CCP Development Plan: Focus on ISK-sink creation. We need to blow up more ISK so we can sell more PLEX. How is this an isk sink? When ships blow up, ISK vanishes in varying quantities. Some may get looted or salvaged, but a percentage of it is removed from circulation entirely. Thus, ISK Sink. Enabling more mechanics making defensive strategies less effective, would in affect, indirectly consequent in more ships lost, thus adding to the ISK sinks. Much like making interceptors immune to bubbles and increasing warp speeds for them, makes them prime hunters in 0.0 to catch ratters. More death, more money for CCP. Ships being blown up are not an isk sink. They are isk faucets, because of insurance payouts. I don't know what the breakdown is (CCP would though) on the percentage of ships that asplode with insurance or sans insurance. But I am willing to go out on a ledge and estimate that the number of T2 & T3 hulls that go pop is probably within 15% or so of the number of T1 ships that go pop. Why is this relevant....because T2 and T3 hulls get nearly nothing from insurance. Furthermore, from an ISK efficiency standpoint, it doesn't make any financial sense at all for a pilot to pay for insurance on a hull unless he/she knows it'll asplode in the 3 months the policy is active. Therefore most of the hulls that are in wh space never receive insurance past the initial purchase (if even that). This doesn't even take into account the 50% (avg) module loss on every destroyed hull, regardless of insurance. Furthermore, with the mineral re-balance that took place a few months back, the insurance rates (that are based on mineral values, I'll remind you) are badly out of whack even if one wanted to purchase insurance. Case in point: Dominix InsuranceSo....still an ISK sink..... It doesn't really matter what percentage gets paid out. Insurance is still a faucet. Insurance fees are an isk sink, and if you pay enough in fees the net effect can work out to be a sink. I doubt that the system works out to a net sink, though. It was a faucet in 2010. ( http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf - p. 20 )
It may have changed since then. I don't think it has, but I'll freely admit that's me making a guesstimate. That's why I said ships getting blown up is an isk faucet. It was a little bit sloppy of me to say so because technically it's the insurance system but because of default payouts there's no way of getting around the isk injection.
However, ships getting blown up is not an isk sink, even if we get rid of insurance all together. It's a mineral sink. But not an isk sink.
If you keep arguing that it is I'd like you to tell me exactly which isk it is that gets disappeared, and from which wallet, when my ship goes pop. |
advii
Kossu and Keppana Inc.
35
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:48:00 -
[430] - Quote
What if the new signature showed up only after the 1st ship that has gone through it decloaks? Probably a pain in the ass to implement though. Maybe too little reaction time? I dunno. |
|
arabella blood
Revenant Tactical
197
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 20:50:00 -
[431] - Quote
So odyssey is dying right in front of our eyes:
1. exploration looting cans will be removed. 2. Scanner will be reversed.
whats left from this expansion?? nothing. and you know why? because that is what happens when expansions have 0% content and 100% bug fixes+convenience changes. Troll for hire. Cheap prices. |
Jess Tanner
Hard Knocks Inc.
105
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:00:00 -
[432] - Quote
I'm all for forcing people to actually do something to gain intel, even its just having a dedicated person clicking a button or something, near-instant intel (since the disco scanner sometimes doesn't seem to update right off the bat, even though its quick enough) is bad mmmkay... But this makes no sense, hole control during larger rights (invasions, eviction etc) now becomes all weird since even if your fleet is standing by someone can rage roll a fleet into the hole before you can get on a new k162 to fight them, and those who are risk averse doing wormhole escalations are only going to become more risk averse. Yes the k612 instant intel needs some love, but I don't think this is they way to do it. Go with Bob, keep Him always in your heart. He is your Sword, Shield, and the Knife in your back. |
Dawin4e
Merchant Union Wormhole Holders
122
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:05:00 -
[433] - Quote
This proposal think purely one-sided. It is beneficial only for the striker. And severely infringes upon the inhabitants of the wormhole. Now there is another decline of the population of the wormhole and most of them are empty. If you want to make the game more dangerous - remove exulted in zeros. |
Nightingale Actault
The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:07:00 -
[434] - Quote
I'm convinced no thought went into how this would affect the area of the game that this is proposed for. Unless this is a deliberate bait and switch I am worried, and can see why many wormholers are very adamant that no changes be made. |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:09:00 -
[435] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote: A mass/time delay would resolve the following issues a time-only delay leaves unsolved:
C1-4 residents can no longer be ganked by a fleet without being able to see the fleet or their incoming signature. In C1-4 space, a cloaky t3 gang can cause serious issues for a farming fleet, particularly on the lower side of that range. Should a K162 spawn off d-scan from where the fleet is, the defenders would have literally no warning. Even on d-scan, the available time to detect a cloaky fleet's existence is short, and spamming d-scan is no more fun than spamming probes.
Carebears can't roll their holes in perfect safety. If a hole is time-limited only, some carebears good with rolling ships can hop in and out inside the timer, and the hungry PvPers they've inadvertently rolled into have no opportunity to attempt a gank or slip a scanning alt through. .
Ermm, nope. b) you can get almost all holes (not c1s and those with 3B mass) critted with 2-3 jumps. That takes about 30 secs even if you do it one after another and with ejecting on the hole. That-¦s not enough time to launch probes on the other side, scan it down and bookmark/give warpin there. And if you jump anything through chances are good you will be stuck. The rollers can even put the capitals on the hole before jumping a scanner, because they are 100% safe there too.
a)The sig will appear the moment the fleet aligns towards you and the T3, covertops, bomber or SOE ship uncloaks next to you and points. So at exactly the same time they show up on dscan or combatprobes. Throwing a purely cloaky T3 fleet at any serious farminggroup will just lead to lots of lossmails. So the only change will be people not using heavytackle but mass-light tackle to maximise the delay.
So overall there is almost no difference between timedalayed and time/mass delayed. Pretty much as already said here, but I finished typing before reading further... Also there seems to be a missconception about this change being good for PvP. It-¦s not. It is good for ganking but actually horrible for forcing actual fights (most of those happen for holecontrol or on the roll).
Any change based on dscanrange makes the detection a diceroll if you hit a <14 AU or a huge system. Is that a good gamemechanic?
It-¦s really nice to see CCP looking at least a small bit at j-space, but there are way better suggestions and discussions about the issues here on the forums. Pretty much starting at day 1. I really hope this suggestion wasn-¦t discussed with the CSM (esp the Wh guys) before posting it here, if they seconded it as it is dickpunching might be appropriate. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4505
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:14:00 -
[436] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Gnaw LF wrote:No one said 5 minutes, there is no mention of 5 minutes anywhere. Right now we are talking about the delay in general, the details of the duration are not even being addressed. I think 2 minutes or less is still good enough of a change.
If by "no one," you mean "Two Step," then yes.
and if by "5 minutes", you mean "I didn't read the whole post", then yes.
All the worries about rolling holes before someone notices are kinda silly. Very few people sit around waiting for a K162 to open into them to gank the hole closing ships. Nealy all deaths are from people trying to close holes minutes or hours after they open. I wouldn't worry about being unable to gank people that are trying to close their hole, I worry about being unable to gank those people when they think they are "safe" CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Faxanadu Phantasm
Decimus Corp
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:18:00 -
[437] - Quote
Desimus Maximus wrote:I'm sure this came about from 'leet' pvpers whining about not having enough targets that won't/can't fight back.
W-space has no local. This is it's inherent danger. Don't punish players for being efficient at game mechanics such as scanning down signatures quickly and keeping d-scan up. Stop rewarding whiny pvpers who only have the balls to attack soft targets with easier and easier mechanics.
If a w-space corp is lazy then they will be punished appropriately by losing many many assets.
If you want to fight go to low or nullsec you pussies. Or just live with the perfectly fine scanning mechanics as is. You will find all the pvp you want... Problem is, you are AFRAID. You are the REAL carebears of Eve.
Quoted for truth
If you're finding it unrewarding to chainroll for pew, please consider that nullsec has plenty of targets that are very vulnerable to hit and run
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4505
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:24:00 -
[438] - Quote
Tyrant Scorn wrote: I am sorry Ali but I don't know who you talked to but I seriously doubt you've seriously considered all options. The change is going to be terrible and only favors PvP. if CCP only wants to favor PvP, they should never have introduced PvE in wormholes in the first place but the fact is that it's there in large bulks.
I am sorely disappointed by the post you just made...
Oh dearie me, god forbid w-space has any of that evil PVP in it. I know when I think "Where can I go to PVE in safety?" the first thing that comes to mind is in w-space. Come on. The whole point of w-space is that the PVE is supposed to be tough enough that even if you get jumped you at least have a reasonable shot at fighting back. People fail to gank site runners all the time. I've been on both sides of a failed site gank more than 20 times.
Perhaps if people are getting ganked more they might have to think outside the box and set traps of their own? Perhaps they might have to have more than the bare minimum number of people to run the site? Does that sound like a bad thing? CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Tyrant Scorn
122
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:28:00 -
[439] - Quote
Two step wrote:Tyrant Scorn wrote: I am sorry Ali but I don't know who you talked to but I seriously doubt you've seriously considered all options. The change is going to be terrible and only favors PvP. if CCP only wants to favor PvP, they should never have introduced PvE in wormholes in the first place but the fact is that it's there in large bulks.
I am sorely disappointed by the post you just made...
Oh dearie me, god forbid w-space has any of that evil PVP in it. I know when I think "Where can I go to PVE in safety?" the first thing that comes to mind is in w-space. Come on. The whole point of w-space is that the PVE is supposed to be tough enough that even if you get jumped you at least have a reasonable shot at fighting back. People fail to gank site runners all the time. I've been on both sides of a failed site gank more than 20 times. Perhaps if people are getting ganked more they might have to think outside the box and set traps of their own? Perhaps they might have to have more than the bare minimum number of people to run the site? Does that sound like a bad thing?
No Two Step, that is not what I am saying. I am not against PvP and I don't mind PvP motivating features... But if you have PvE content, you should address both forms of play and not only favor 1 above the other.
The way wormholes work right now is fair for the people who are on the ball and pay attention. It's fine, it's been fine in the past and people should learn to adept to small changes. I had no problems adjusting to the changes when they introduced the Overlay. Host at Legacy Of A Capsuleer Podcast www.legacyofacapsuleer.com |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
150
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:32:00 -
[440] - Quote
When people first started going into wormholes, there was tons of comparisons to Null Sec.
WHs don't have local Intel. WHs don't have Sov. WHs have a lot more logistics to worry about.
But the nice part was, while you may not know straight away if there was a lurking boogeyman cloaked out there somewhere, he didn't know where you were either, unless he used some Combat probes which you could notice right away.
So then... CCCP decided to make all the sites stick out like sore thumbs. Now intruders can find you in a heartbeat, b/c the site you're in is broadcasting to the cosmos.
And then this? Make the backdoor those intruders snuck in through, hidden away until well after their gang has crawled up your ass already?
WHO DOES THIS BENEFIT? OTHER THAN ROAMING GANKS? THIS SURE AS HELL DOESN'T BENEFIT WORMHOLES. |
|
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
150
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:33:00 -
[441] - Quote
Two step wrote: Oh dearie me, god forbid w-space has any of that evil PVP in it. I know when I think "Where can I go to PVE in safety?" the first thing that comes to mind is in w-space. Come on. The whole point of w-space is that the PVE is supposed to be tough enough that even if you get jumped you at least have a reasonable shot at fighting back. People fail to gank site runners all the time. I've been on both sides of a failed site gank more than 20 times.
Perhaps if people are getting ganked more they might have to think outside the box and set traps of their own? Perhaps they might have to have more than the bare minimum number of people to run the site? Does that sound like a bad thing?
Spoken like a true Null Sec'er.
The same ones who whine and cry daily about how Cloaks should burn fuel or something. All because they get worried when a scary face appears in Local chat. |
Winthorp
1395
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:35:00 -
[442] - Quote
Two step wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Gnaw LF wrote:No one said 5 minutes, there is no mention of 5 minutes anywhere. Right now we are talking about the delay in general, the details of the duration are not even being addressed. I think 2 minutes or less is still good enough of a change.
If by "no one," you mean "Two Step," then yes. and if by "5 minutes", you mean "I didn't read the whole post", then yes. All the worries about rolling holes before someone notices are kinda silly. Very few people sit around waiting for a K162 to open into them to gank the hole closing ships. Nealy all deaths are from people trying to close holes minutes or hours after they open. I wouldn't worry about being unable to gank people that are trying to close their hole, I worry about being unable to gank those people when they think they are "safe"
So while sieging a system and maintaining hole control you never watch for new sigs? I know everyone else does...
(Insert witty signature here) |
Tyrant Scorn
122
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:40:00 -
[443] - Quote
Oeps... misread... Host at Legacy Of A Capsuleer Podcast www.legacyofacapsuleer.com |
White Bear Maricadie
Downloaded Bears Dominatus Atrum Mortis
19
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:41:00 -
[444] - Quote
i would be very dis appointed to see a change like this implemented, since the only people who would benefit from a change like this would be the very large PVP groups in W-space. please dont allow Wh space to become like null sec, that only caters to 1 group. please keep balance in the game, attackers and defenders should have equal ground to fight on.
|
Deeone
Deadspace Zombie Factory
5
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:43:00 -
[445] - Quote
Two step wrote:Tyrant Scorn wrote: I am sorry Ali but I don't know who you talked to but I seriously doubt you've seriously considered all options. The change is going to be terrible and only favors PvP. if CCP only wants to favor PvP, they should never have introduced PvE in wormholes in the first place but the fact is that it's there in large bulks.
I am sorely disappointed by the post you just made...
Oh dearie me, god forbid w-space has any of that evil PVP in it. I know when I think "Where can I go to PVE in safety?" the first thing that comes to mind is in w-space. Come on. The whole point of w-space is that the PVE is supposed to be tough enough that even if you get jumped you at least have a reasonable shot at fighting back. People fail to gank site runners all the time. I've been on both sides of a failed site gank more than 20 times. Perhaps if people are getting ganked more they might have to think outside the box and set traps of their own? Perhaps they might have to have more than the bare minimum number of people to run the site? Does that sound like a bad thing?
yeah because ccp broke discovery b4 that we had no problem ganking ppl. like I said b4 at least 70% of ppl farming didn't spam probes b4 and I seriously doubt they will start now........your right tho instead of dropping probes I should have to set drag bubbles and decloaking cans in every site I want to run(totally balanced to your just being able to roll a static and warp in on people b4 anyone even knows there is a new connection I mean that takes the same effort as setting 100s of bubbles and moving them all the time right?).......ppl complaining that spamming dscan and probes isn't fun......that's why it dont get done.....that's why its vigilance. you can have all the fun u want ignorance is bliss just dont cry when the cloaky t3s get u. there is no way that a site that ppl can come thru from a different system should not show up on probe scans. that's just crazy. all that needs to be done is to rollback discovery scan and most wh residents are back to happy and waiting for the pos changes......there is plenty of pvp in wh. we have a whole community that tells ppl they will evict you if you dont give good fights........I find it more disturbing however that you seem to think that larger entities need to be taking wh......this is like the last place u can get 0.0 style small gang warfare(20v20ish and smaller) and tbh most of us would like to keep it that way. its why we dont live in null. and one last point about "god forbid there be pvp in wh"......im gonna go out on a limb and say that PER CAPITIA WH has the most pvp in eve. If probes are nerfed like this ganks will spike then the pvp will fall off as everyone just moves out cuz the only profitable thing Is rolling your static looking for suckers. I guess that's how u get a big blue doughnut in wh space as well.......well played ccp well played |
Alundil
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
438
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:45:00 -
[446] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:It doesn't really matter what percentage gets paid out. Insurance is still a faucet. Insurance fees are an isk sink, and if you pay enough in fees the net effect can work out to be a sink. I doubt that the system works out to a net sink, though. It was a faucet in 2010. ( http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2010.pdf - p. 20 ) It may have changed since then. I don't think it has, but I'll freely admit that's me making a guesstimate. That's why I said ships getting blown up is an isk faucet. It was a little bit sloppy of me to say so because technically it's the insurance system but because of default payouts there's no way of getting around the isk injection. However, ships getting blown up is not an isk sink, even if we get rid of insurance all together. It's a mineral sink. But not an isk sink. If you keep arguing that it is I'd like you to tell me exactly which isk it is that gets disappeared, and from which wallet, when my ship goes pop.
So, in complete T1 concerns, perhaps more of a mineral sink than an ISK sink. So I stand corrected. This is exacerbated by the fact that build volumes take far more materials than are considered in regards to the insurance though.
As for ISK sinks and ships/modules - this comes into play in the faction/LP item market as that is a very definite sink and a not insubstantial one at that when you consider that it's not uncommon to fly with LP modules that might be worth a good percentage of the hull value. LP based ships and implants are also ISK sinks.
So while the hull exploding, alone, is not necessarily a sink, the fact that many (if not the majority - speculation on my part) of explosions including modules and possibly implants represents a sink in the somewhere in the system. This is under the assumption that people realize ins is a bad deal (currently) even on T1 stuff. Clone mechanics enchancements Deep Space Probe Revival |
White Bear Maricadie
Downloaded Bears Dominatus Atrum Mortis
19
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:46:00 -
[447] - Quote
if you feel that defenders have it too easy take 1 simple step.
Step 1 = Disable the sensor overlay in WH space altogether, make it so the only way a wh dweller knows what sigs are there is by scanning. |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1280
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:46:00 -
[448] - Quote
Tyrant Scorn wrote: The way wormholes work right now is fair for the people who are on the ball and pay attention. It's fine, it's been fine in the past and people should learn to adept to small changes. I had no problems adjusting to the changes when they introduced the Overlay.
I find the changes made with Odyssey to be against what wormholes are all about. Free intel is NOT what most people want. They believe it should be worked for. Making sigs automatically show up on scan and making ore sites auto warp to's is NOT the way to go.
Please CCP, let wormholers work for intel. No freebies. No hand holding. This benefits both attackers and defenders. No trolling please |
Phoenix Jones
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
425
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:49:00 -
[449] - Quote
Two step wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Gnaw LF wrote:No one said 5 minutes, there is no mention of 5 minutes anywhere. Right now we are talking about the delay in general, the details of the duration are not even being addressed. I think 2 minutes or less is still good enough of a change.
If by "no one," you mean "Two Step," then yes. and if by "5 minutes", you mean "I didn't read the whole post", then yes. All the worries about rolling holes before someone notices are kinda silly. Very few people sit around waiting for a K162 to open into them to gank the hole closing ships. Nealy all deaths are from people trying to close holes minutes or hours after they open. I wouldn't worry about being unable to gank people that are trying to close their hole, I worry about being unable to gank those people when they think they are "safe"
You are trying to fix an issue by creating another issue. Its like trying to fix a broken leg by breaking the other leg. Hey least you are in so much pain the other one does not hurt anymore.
We know what you want to address. It is wormhole carebears. We know what you want... is to get into fights without having people run to their POS's and logging off.
How the heck does this address that? Instilling more "fear" does not fix the issue. All this does is remove the concept of "the roam" and replace it with "the role".
Address the heart of the matter, which is giving people a reason to defend their wormhole, and giving attackers a reason to really attack a wormhole. You put a definitive value on saving a wormhole system when you are a defender, and attacking a wormhole system when you are an attacker and I guarantee you will have your fights. You will have your fights beyond fights.
We want to cause a defender to second guess exploding their ships and moving their stuff out of a hole, leaving just a husk of pos's and nothing of value inside. We want a defender to commit the ships to the fight. We want both the big fights and the small fights to happen. We need the viability of PVP to increase, not just create a method of randomly ganking people via some backwards undetectable supercloak. Before you even think about going down this road, you have to really know what the problems are with wormhole space, or what you come up with won't fix anything.
A lack of a gank mechanism is NOT the problem with wormhole space.
The lack of value of wormholes themselves... The lack of value of defending a wormhole.. The lack of value in attacking and sieging a wormhole The lack of ways of getting people to attack.. The lack of results once a siege is complete.. No ways of getting people to bring the fight Greater impact of small gangs.
There has to be ways to get attackers to HURT defenders and commit them to the fight, not gank random pve carebears.
You call these "dungeons", well then make it so the dungeon has enough value to get people to want to take it, and to get others who want to fight for it.
NONE of this has EVER been addressed. Wormholes were a frontier type of system, that has been all but domesticated. People want it to be more of a frontier again, but they want it to matter at the same time. We tried the meet at sun with 10 ships crap.. it got boring.
Methods to commit the fight. Methods for making the space have value, a worth, that causes people to make it their home and to defend it to the last man, and then some. A reason to fight for a piece of wormhole space.
You do that, people will start the eviction train like nobody's business. People will want your stuff, and you will have to commit to fight for it, or die in a ball of fire.
And once you have your stuff, you will fight to keep it, but it has to have more value than just some pi goods and nano-ribbons.
If your concern is PVE carebears in wormholes, create a way to wipe out their PVE content, through PVP activities which would require them to PVP you to protect their PVE, vs just staying in their pos and watching you orbit it for an hour. Replace inactivity with activity, give the attackers a target that will get people out to fight (besides a POS reinforce mechanic which creates no content and does not hurt their PVE activities). Stabbers are totally broken
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
|
Kirin Xaxos
Downloaded Bears Dominatus Atrum Mortis
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 21:51:00 -
[450] - Quote
What is motivating this change? Since Odyssey has the activity in W-space gone down my a recordable amount? has there been less kills in w-space because of the change? can we see some kind of data? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |