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) |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:04:00 -
[691] - Quote
Newt BlackCompany wrote:There's already a delay of a minute or so. You have to actively spam the 'show anomalies' button to see new sigs immediately. This is as it should be.
The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms. It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward. WH life is already risky enough.
This will force all smaller wh corps to join the big alliances to be able to stay in the wh, and they often came here because they didn't want to deal with the politics and pressure and required ops in the nullsec alliances.
I don't think this is a change that's either desirable or needed.
It'd be very similar to removing, or delaying, local chat updating in Nullsec, and I'm guessing that would be an unpopular move.
Show me your history of losses of PVE ships in W-Space! according to the info i can find your total PVE losses in W-Space amounts to 1 noctice. Now please tell me how long you have been in W-Space and how much ISK you have made here, confirm this information then resubmit your premise that W-Space is risky enough.
|
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
52
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:08:00 -
[692] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:Bjurn Akely wrote: What problem is it you are trying to fix? Too little PvP? In what class of holes (any, C5-6)? Should mining be culled specifically? Do you want some parts to be saver for PvE runners? Or is it a brainstorm thing with no clear objectives and no clear problem statement?
Giving us a little more clear info, preferably without words open of interpretation would really help the cause.
The problem being addressed is that there are meant to be areas of space that are graded in terms of your safety, High sec > Low sec > Null sec > WH's. All of eve operates on a risk reward system currently with the mechanics in place this scaling of safety is off. This is what the changes are here to address. CCP Fozzie wrote:mainly in the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing
Although I appreciate your answer - and the quote does clear it up a wee bit - I would like to get the official CCP opinion. Because you, and this is said with respect, do not have the power to make that interpretation. Neither do I.
But lets for arguments sake say that the safety ladder you mention is correct. Then it clearly means that there should be no class difference between holes. Any delay should be the same for all the holes, since that ladder do not state classes of holes...
And before anyone argues why I'm wrong... me asking CCP Fozzie was just trying to help us not fall into interpretations like that. |
mkint
1119
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:11:00 -
[693] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.
One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest). Except meaningful discussion requires context. This is no more meaningful discussion than kicking a beehive is apiculture. There is no dev feedback, no justification, no goals to the proposal, no problems to try to fix. This is one of the least productive threadnaughts, and one of the dumbest OP trolling I've seen on these forums. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:17:00 -
[694] - Quote
mkint wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.
One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest). Except meaningful discussion requires context. This is no more meaningful discussion than kicking a beehive is apiculture. There is no dev feedback, no justification, no goals to the proposal, no problems to try to fix. This is one of the least productive threadnaughts, and one of the dumbest OP trolling I've seen on these forums.
If you haven't got the context from the OP and the resulting conversation, if you don't understand the goals of the purposed changes by now then i'm afraid there is nothing anyone can do for you at CCP or in life. I could recommend some adult learning centers in your area though if you wan't to join the rest of us with basic comprehension. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
13219
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:20:00 -
[695] - Quote
you know that communication array that wormhole space will never have connection to? make that a sov upgrade. npc sov has it, and tying it to sov provides some continuity in the spectrum from high sec to wormhole space.
and fozzie, yesthankyou i take comfort in knowing there is development time that prevents this from being released by the summer. President of the-áCommissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Rainfleet Mk III |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
52
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:34:00 -
[696] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:Newt BlackCompany wrote:There's already a delay of a minute or so. You have to actively spam the 'show anomalies' button to see new sigs immediately. This is as it should be.
The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms. It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward. WH life is already risky enough.
This will force all smaller wh corps to join the big alliances to be able to stay in the wh, and they often came here because they didn't want to deal with the politics and pressure and required ops in the nullsec alliances.
I don't think this is a change that's either desirable or needed.
It'd be very similar to removing, or delaying, local chat updating in Nullsec, and I'm guessing that would be an unpopular move.
Show me your history of losses of PVE ships in W-Space! according to the info i can find your total PVE losses in W-Space amounts to 1 noctice. Now please tell me how long you have been in W-Space and how much ISK you have made here, confirm this information then resubmit your premise that W-Space is risky enough. In fact i make that challenge to every PVE entity that has voiced an opinion in this thread, how often do you indeed loose ships to ganks in sites! remove all losses where you get caught on WH's running away. Purely your looses with sleepers on the kill mail, iv lived in W-Space from almost day 1 and i have never lost a ship inside a site to a gank not once.
Go to eve-census.com and see for yourself. I deem it unfair that there should be some sort of entry bar for peoples opinions to matter. How long, how much etc. |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:39:00 -
[697] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:
Go to eve-census.com and see for yourself. I deem it unfair that there should be some sort of entry bar for peoples opinions to matter. How long, how much etc.
I'm not saying his opinion isn't valid or worth less than my own. The point im trying to make is his statement is incorrect, he says that it is already dangerous enough with current mechanics.
I'm saying that is safety is measured by how often you loose ships something i think is a fair statistic to draw a conclusion on the safety from. Then show me the losses, because i cant find any. If there are no losses or the losses are so small and rare then that means the current state of things are safe not dangerous as he proposed.
I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear, but can we all agree that the loss of ships to PVP is an accurate determining factor in judging if an area is safe or unsafe? |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
52
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:49:00 -
[698] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:Bjurn Akely wrote:
Go to eve-census.com and see for yourself. I deem it unfair that there should be some sort of entry bar for peoples opinions to matter. How long, how much etc.
I'm not saying his opinion isn't valid or worth less than my own. The point im trying to make is his statement is incorrect, he says that it is already dangerous enough with current mechanics. I'm saying that is safety is measured by how often you loose ships something i think is a fair statistic to draw a conclusion on the safety from. Then show me the losses, because i cant find any. If there are no losses or the losses are so small and rare then that means the current state of things are safe not dangerous as he proposed. I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear, but can we all agree that the loss of ships to PVP is an accurate determining factor in judging if an area is safe or unsafe?
No we can't agree on that. Apart from numbers 'safety' might also a feeling and therefore open to opinion. My opinion is that W-space is to safe and the sigs popping up without any effort is a major reason for this. Others might go with their feeling that they want to PvE in peace... ( Curse them! )
It's small interpretations like that that really requires CCP Fozzie to state what the goal the change should reach. And again, is that the goal of all Classes, some classes, some type of activity, ships etc... |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:55:00 -
[699] - Quote
Safety is not an opinion, you may think your safe but that dose not mean you are that is called ignorance or denial depending. Safety is a very real and measurable construct and can be defined as such. America even have a colour coding system for there safety .
There are whole areas of work that revolve around grading such things, its called health and safety. |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
53
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 17:35:00 -
[700] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:Safety is not an opinion, you may think your safe but that dose not mean you are that is called ignorance or denial depending. Safety is a very real and measurable construct and can be defined as such. America even have a colour coding system for there safety .
There are whole areas of work that revolve around grading such things, its called health and safety and they are assessed daily by people gathering statistics and hard facts. The formula is always the same but applied differently in different environments but there is usual a constant underlying formula.
Ah, an expert. Well then, define 'safety' in regards to all classes of w-space and all different activities that can be done therein. Please do it in terms that that can not be interpreted for us.
|
|
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 17:49:00 -
[701] - Quote
All classes of WH have the same Dangers the only thing that changes from a C1 to a C6 is the scale, i see you spend allot of time in Low Sec. An apt comparison therefor may be the lowsec DED sites with the acceleration gate functioning as a WH, they will only allow frigates say to use it.
The danger inside the site therefor is the same as all Low sec the only thing that changes is the scale of ships involved, you couldn't therefor accurately distinguishes the LVL of danger between the whole of that system and specifically the site.
Its also maybe true to say that the smaller entities populate the lower classes and therefor the danger is smaller in actuality, but in the OP then did suggest a scaling system to address this. But as all of W-space tends to flow down the classes the people involved will usually be the same. Its just that the danger is diluted by more and more holes.
Say i start in a C5 > C5 then that C5 leads to a C4 that leads to a C2 I still have access to you although with every connection the danger ill find you in the C2 is diluted the more jumps. But once we connect to you the Class of the WH doesn't change the LVL of danger from the high class holes.
I feel i may have explained myself poorly but i can't think of a better way to describe it, simply put if i find you the Class of WH has no affect on the danger i present to you. |
Von Keigai
35
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:02:00 -
[702] - Quote
Newt BlackCompany wrote:The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms. I see people running sites every week. And that is just me, roaming solo in a Manticore, using K162s if I can but mostly opening wormholes myself. Either way, many people's opsec is lousy. So, if they wanted to, those "big wh alliances" could be rolling holes and slaughtering people right now. That they are not any more than they are suggests that they want more incentive to do so. Fozzie is proposing to create more incentive.
Quote:It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward. Wrong. Risk and reward are mediated via the market. (This is not true of blue loot, which sells to unquenchable NPC orders, but it is true of sleeper salvage, gas, and to a slight extent minerals.) You wonder why melted nanoribbons have dropped in price? Because it is so easy to zip up your system and farm anoms in perfect safety.
If PVE fleets start getting ganked, then the supply of melted nanos declines. Price therefore rises and those who take adequate precautions gain. If the ganked fleets contains T3s that are replaced, then demand rises as well, again increasing price. This is bad, of course, for the gankees, who lose far more in their ganked fleet than they make up in the increased price of wormhole stuff. But it is good for the rest of us.
Quote:WH life is already risky enough. No. It isn't. That's what I believe, and that is evidently what Fozzie believes too. And what I think most wormholers believe. Most parts of WH life are plenty risky: that is basically anything that requires moving between systems. Transporting stuff, scouting, hunting. What is not risky enough is the PVE. (At least not in C1-C4.) You seal off a system and it is almost perfectly safe. vonkeigai.blogspot.com |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
53
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:19:00 -
[703] - Quote
MadbaM wrote: I feel i may have explained myself poorly but i can't think of a better way to describe it, simply put if i find you the Class of WH has no affect on the danger i present to you.
You're intel is flawed. I've been living in W-space since early 2011. But that is neither here or there.
The reason you feel you may have explained yourself poorly is that there is no clear and concise definition of 'safety'. Look for instance at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/safety where even they struggle. Hence we are back to square 1. It would really help me and I suspect others if CCO Fozzie elaborated quite a bit. More charts! |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1308
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:21:00 -
[704] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:
Show me your history of losses of PVE ships in W-Space! according to the info i can find your total PVE losses in W-Space amounts to 1 noctice. Now please tell me how long you have been in W-Space and how much ISK you have made here, confirm this information then resubmit your premise that W-Space is risky enough.
In fact i make that challenge to every PVE entity that has voiced an opinion in this thread, how often do you indeed loose ships to ganks in sites! remove all losses where you get caught on WH's running away. Purely your looses with sleepers on the kill mail, iv lived in W-Space from almost day 1 and i have never lost a ship inside a site to a gank not once.
This change doesn't just effect pve though. People can essentially seed into your system without a wormhole ever appearing. Three dreads in and poof. Hell, an invasion can be in full swing and the defenders roll into you. You have no chance of stopping them from entering the system on the wormhole, as they can warp off before you even know what happened.
Balance is my issue with this. No trolling please |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
78
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:26:00 -
[705] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:MadbaM wrote: I feel i may have explained myself poorly but i can't think of a better way to describe it, simply put if i find you the Class of WH has no affect on the danger i present to you.
You're intel is flawed. I've been living in W-space since early 2011. But that is neither here or there. The reason you feel you may have explained yourself poorly is that there is no clear and concise definition of 'safety'. Look for instance at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/safety where even they struggle. Hence we are back to square 1. It would really help me and I suspect others if CCO Fozzie elaborated quite a bit. More charts!
1. The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury. (from your link)
Seems clear to me. and there you go again asking Fozzy to clarify something you have just argued cant be clarified WTF do you want? |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
78
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:29:00 -
[706] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote:MadbaM wrote:
Show me your history of losses of PVE ships in W-Space! according to the info i can find your total PVE losses in W-Space amounts to 1 noctice. Now please tell me how long you have been in W-Space and how much ISK you have made here, confirm this information then resubmit your premise that W-Space is risky enough.
In fact i make that challenge to every PVE entity that has voiced an opinion in this thread, how often do you indeed loose ships to ganks in sites! remove all losses where you get caught on WH's running away. Purely your looses with sleepers on the kill mail, iv lived in W-Space from almost day 1 and i have never lost a ship inside a site to a gank not once.
This change doesn't just effect pve though. People can essentially seed into your system without a wormhole ever appearing. Three dreads in and poof. Hell, an invasion can be in full swing and the defenders roll into you. You have no chance of stopping them from entering the system on the wormhole, as they can warp off before you even know what happened. Balance is my issue with this.
The defenders already have the advantage of living in that system for how long? and with a prepared defense in place they need more advantage of a few seconds? but regardless i have already stated in this thread that the K162 being un scanable is probably not balanced and should show and be scanable on the K162 side when you jump from the spawning side (changed from spawning when warp initiated) |
Ian Praetorius
Tenacious Tendencies The Amalgamation Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:08:00 -
[707] - Quote
Read the first 5 pages--have neither the time nor the inclination to read the remaining 30 pages, but as a wormhole resident, I'll briefly add my voice to the chorus.
As was stated several times in the first few pages (and I'm sure ad nauseam throughout this topic), wormhole residents who are being vigilant should have a way of knowing what's coming--a flat delay on the appearance of K162s is a lazy "solution" that doesn't actually fix anything and makes no logical sense. It's already "delayed" due to whatever esoteric method is used to update the scanner. I've gone several minutes unable to see a signature on one character that I could see with the other.
CCP has stated in the past that it was "never our intention for w-space to have permanent residents" (or something extremely close to that). This proposal indicates a complete lack of awareness that pilots do, in fact, live in w-space, a complete lack of caring about the same, or the first steps in an effort to make your initial intentions a reality--I'm not sure which option Mr. Occam would choose.
tl;dr: All of my no. This is an incomprehensibly stupid idea, Mr. Fozzie. You were rather entertaining during NEO II, why you gotta go and be like this? Just tell us you were trolling us this whole time and all will be forgiven.
EDIT: Oh, and give wormholes more than one 30 second clip for a soundtrack. At least give us two--then all will be forgiven. |
MD74
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:16:00 -
[708] - Quote
No more ******** ideas, please. |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
53
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:16:00 -
[709] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:Bjurn Akely wrote:MadbaM wrote: I feel i may have explained myself poorly but i can't think of a better way to describe it, simply put if i find you the Class of WH has no affect on the danger i present to you.
You're intel is flawed. I've been living in W-space since early 2011. But that is neither here or there. The reason you feel you may have explained yourself poorly is that there is no clear and concise definition of 'safety'. Look for instance at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/safety where even they struggle. Hence we are back to square 1. It would really help me and I suspect others if CCO Fozzie elaborated quite a bit. More charts! 1. The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury. (from your link) Seems clear to me. and there you go again asking Fozzy to clarify something you have just argued cant be clarified WTF do you want?
There is no need for cursing. Calm down. I initially made it clear what I wanted. I would like to get answers to the following questions. I'll separate them and even add one. And remember, these questions are NOT FOR YOU. They are for Fozzie. As I said before, with all respect I do not think you or I know enough to really make good suggestions.
What problem is it you are trying to fix? Too little PvP? In what class of holes (any, C5-6)? Should mining be culled specifically? Do you want some parts to be saver for PvE runners? Or is it a brainstorm thing with no clear objectives and no clear problem statement? The timers: If there are different timers, are they based on where the hole come from or lead to, or type (ie A239)?
|
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
78
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:47:00 -
[710] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:
What problem is it you are trying to fix? Too little PvP? In what class of holes (any, C5-6)? Should mining be culled specifically? Do you want some parts to be saver for PvE runners? Or is it a brainstorm thing with no clear objectives and no clear problem statement? The timers: If there are different timers, are they based on where the hole come from or lead to, or type (ie A239)?
Every question has been answered in the OP if you care to look, another person i have to point **** out to.......
CCP Fozzie wrote:the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing
CCP Fozzie wrote:actively hunting for pvp in wormholes should present more targets
CCP Fozzie wrote:very good opportunity to shake up wormhole life and further encourage the best parts of the wormhole experience.
CCP Fozzie wrote:signature beacon when K162 dungeons spawn. The change is to K162 that spawn EVERYWHERE
|
|
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1308
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:53:00 -
[711] - Quote
I am stealing your list MadbaM
CCP Fozzie wrote:the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing
Correct, which is why it should go back to pre Odyssey settings
CCP Fozzie wrote:actively hunting for pvp in wormholes should present more targets
The only corps that don't find active targets are inactive corps. Speaking only for myself and my corp, we have seen no shortage of targets, whether they are PVEing or PvPing.
CCP Fozzie wrote:very good opportunity to shake up wormhole life and further encourage the best parts of the wormhole experience.
Ganking is a big part of wormhole life, but I think it's easy enough already
No trolling please |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
53
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:04:00 -
[712] - Quote
MadbaM wrote:Every question has been answered in the OP if you care to look, another person i have to point **** out to....... CCP Fozzie wrote:the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing CCP Fozzie wrote:actively hunting for pvp in wormholes should present more targets CCP Fozzie wrote:very good opportunity to shake up wormhole life and further encourage the best parts of the wormhole experience. CCP Fozzie wrote:signature beacon when K162 dungeons spawn. The change is to K162 that spawn EVERYWHERE
Sigh. You don't get it do you? The questions are not for you. But since you think you know the answer to them: Answer them one by one, without cutting and pasting what others have written. As specifically as possible please.
Who knows, perhaps you have it all together and I will feel really dumb. Don't worry, I have no problem admitting it when I'm wrong. |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
78
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:12:00 -
[713] - Quote
Your addressing your questions to Fozzie and i quoted Fozzie from his OP, your asking question to which Fozzie has already given you answers.
I'm seriously starting to question my own sanity here, honestly not sure who the crazy one is but im fairly sure its not me. |
Ian Praetorius
Tenacious Tendencies The Amalgamation Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:26:00 -
[714] - Quote
I just remembered that I can apply spraypaint to my hull so I retract my previous statements in their entirety. Do whatever you want to w-space, I'll be content just spinning my ship inside the POS force field.
Speaking of which, when I say do whatever you want, I mean anything besides revamping POS code--that would just ruin everything. |
Min Mar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:28:00 -
[715] - Quote
As others have already asked, I would like to ask what you are trying to fix exactly?
1) If you are trying to make it more risky to run PVE in WHs, I understand. You're trying to limit the ISK faucet, especially in C5/6 situations. Fair enough but please label it as such. In higher class WHs, the advantage already lies with the attackers since they will usually catch you with your dreads in siege. A quick stroll to Quantum Explosion's KB shows they are doing quite well without this "delay". 2) If you're trying to encourage more PvP in WHs, I don't think this is going to get you there. You're telling us an unknown number of ships may have jumped into our WH and we need to fight them off. How many people are going to take that on? It's like jumping into a gate camp without a scout, not a very smart move. 3) If you're trying to move more people to null space where any visitors are immediately visible, this is an impetus. I don't know anything about population distributions in WHs and null, I'll let others speak to that but I'm guessing if you drive people away from WHs, then you will not address the lack of PvP in WHs, you're going to make it worse. 4) Finally, I have to agree with some of my fellow posters: you dumbed down exploration by making sigs/anoms visible upon entry and making scanning so much easier for noobs. You are now getting complaints from folks about the lack of good fights. Being able to gank a PvE running fleet imho is not a good fight and if you think this will force folks to prepare defense fleets to guard against a "delayed" attack, I think you're mistaken.
My suggestion is to put things back to how they were before: Make WHs a battle of the scanners: If I can scan your K162 before you can get your own scanner in and find my ship, I should have a chance to get out. I may not see you in local like I can in null but I should know you could be there, the same time you know I'm here
|
Jack Miton
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
3184
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:35:00 -
[716] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.
One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest). no one is complaining about WHEN you implement this change, theyre complaining about you implementing it at all, ever.
to reiterate, sigs should not auto pop up on scanner but they should always be probable. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
Winthorp
1409
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:48:00 -
[717] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.
One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest).
Thanks for posting to ensure this thread gets another 30 pages of the same argument. /rolls eyes
Perhaps it could have been better if you could provide some feedback on your design goals for your idea. Do your statistics indicate there isn't enough PVP going on or is there too much PVE going on, more then CCP would like?
Any chance you could give us some statistics as to what your going on with your idea flipping the board game to a side of a very dangerous WH space? Please don't stick the hard line that releasing statistics breaks immersion of gameplay, we would like to argue against your current iteration of your ideas with the figures you are working on that lead you to your idea.
Also you mentioned in your OP that the design team is looking at several ideas, if the only one idea you have mentioned is this bad (And its no longer just my opinion it is bad anymore, its 30 pages of whats looking like 90% of people agree its a bad idea) can we please hear your other ideas or concepts you are looking into?
If you want to get our community involvement please do it with us in a more meaningful way and less token piece please.
(Insert witty signature here) |
Ian Praetorius
Tenacious Tendencies The Amalgamation Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:55:00 -
[718] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.
One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest). Thanks for posting to ensure this thread gets another 30 pages of the same argument. /rolls eyes Perhaps it could have been better if you could provide some feedback on your design goals for your idea. Do your statistics indicate there isn't enough PVP going on or is there too much PVE going on, more then CCP would like? Any chance you could give us some statistics as to what your going on with your idea flipping the board game to a side of a very dangerous WH space? Please don't stick the hard line that releasing statistics breaks immersion of gameplay, we would like to argue against your current iteration of your ideas with the figures you are working on that lead you to your idea. Also you mentioned in your OP that the design team is looking at several ideas, if the only one idea you have mentioned is this bad (And its no longer just my opinion it is bad anymore, its 30 pages of whats looking like 90% of people agree its a bad idea) can we please hear your other ideas or concepts you are looking into? If you want to get our community involvement please do it with us in a more meaningful way and less token piece please.
QFT.
Also, if the first 5 pages were any indication, many of the people in that 10% (by their own admission) don't even live in friggin' w-space and thus their opinions should be taken with a 2-3 tablespoons of salt. |
Winthorp
1410
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:58:00 -
[719] - Quote
Ian Praetorius wrote: QFT.
Also, if the first 5 pages were any indication, many of the people in that 10% (by their own admission) don't even live in friggin' w-space and thus their opinions should be taken with 2-3 tablespoons of salt.
You should go on to read a few more pages after the people that came in the first few pages most likely came into this from a reddit link. And i agree those 10% that do like Fozzies idea prob don't live in Wh space to understand how bad this would be.
And i wasn't trolling at all, was a legit post. (Insert witty signature here) |
Karen Galeo
Sin Factory Infinite Anarchy
21
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:04:00 -
[720] - Quote
Mea culpa. I have had a few things brought to my attention, and I need to admit that cloaking the K162 for even 30 seconds after it spawns would be too long.
Author of the Karen 162 blog. Karen Galeo is running for CSM9! |
|
|
|
|
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 |