Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Foedus Latro
Isogen 5
25
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 13:42:00 -
[301] - Quote
ExookiZ wrote:Foedus Latro wrote:ExookiZ wrote:I think Wh relic/data site cans should explode after failing twice. you know, like everything else in eve. Why does WH space have to be the same as everywhere else in Eve? You also currently don't have to fight through "hordes" of NPCs in order to hack Kspace sites while in WHs you do. In their current state the sites do not reward you for being "good" at hacking/analyzing. Since there is no penalty for failure its easier and quicker to just spam click till you lose and restart than actually take your time breaking through the defenses. Plus this would decrease the supply, thus making the loot more valuable, as it stands relic/data sites are almost worthless, the market is oversaturated with all of it from the loot spew fiasco. The "hordes" of sleepers dont really do much, anyone with a good fit ship can solo them. They add to the loot value if anything. knowing that the minigame matters, makes them much more fun/interesting in my opinion. It feels like less of a chore if when i dont do a good job my loot explodes rather than "damn, i didnt find the system core int he first 10 clicks, better close it and open again"
^Which is why I said hordes in quotations. It's easy to solo the sites when the sites' DPS and neut potential are known ahead of time.
Although I see what you're getting at in decreasing the supply of data/relic loot from WH space, the loot currently is just superfluous income from the sleepers themselves in most cases. There are niche cases where a pilot can partially complete and ninja the Talocan hull, but otherwise there's usually more profit in the sleepers themselves.
In my experience with them the data/relic sites in c2 all the way to c6 space have been completed, kept open with a ship on grid, and then left open for anyone with any interest of hacking the cans. I've seen both newer and older pilots complete them whether it's for the experience or they're just bored. This is where my signature would go. http://i.imgur.com/plB7zCR.jpg |
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
259
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 13:50:00 -
[302] - Quote
Aye, I just want to see the actual cans themselves be returned to being worth doing, the sleepers are worth more than the cans theyre guarding. The Wormhole Kid |
Zara Arran
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
92
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 14:35:00 -
[303] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Zara Arran wrote:Ya Huei wrote:I think C3's should be changed so that they also have a w-space static. While ISK/HR in these systems is adequate, the absence of a w-space wh makes it hard for corps living there to grow and make money in w-space without relocating.
A consequence of this is that most people living in systems with a C3 static have a hard time finding people to shoot at (This is from personal experience after living in a c5-c3 EUTZ for about a year)
I understand where you are coming from, and would agree if I was living in a C3. However, perhaps if this (having a w-space static) is what you want, you should consider moving to a different class permanently. I do like the fact that the different classes all have different pro's and cons. I would prefer to have more variety between the class rather than less (just a personal opinion). Thats exactly what we did. My motivation however is to improve w-space to support active corps in all parts of w-space. Right now C3's seem to be inhabited by corps that are inactive most of the time. Sure the people living there might be happy to just leave to k-space once they are done farming in their home, but that doesn't really contribute much to w-space as a whole. at least from my pov.
There are also people that choose to live in a C3 (or a WH with a static C3) because of the K-space static however. a C3 is a great WH for K-space diving or for starting corporations to grow. I like that there is a natural progression, making people want to move to higher classes WHs.. Not sure what the activity level of C3s is compared to the other classes, so can't comment on this.
(sorry for the derail corbexx). |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1631
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 14:51:00 -
[304] - Quote
^ Maybe it would be more of a natural progression if C4 wormholes had 1 k space and one WH static...
Corbex, after we get the 5 or so legitimate "little things" implemented from this thread, how likely do you think we are to see some new developer created content for wormhole space in the next 12 months? +1 |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
123
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 15:10:00 -
[305] - Quote
ExookiZ wrote: It feels like less of a chore if when i dont do a good job my loot explodes rather than "damn, i didnt find the system core int he first 10 clicks, better close it and open again"
Perhaps it would feel like less of a chore if there weren't 20 of the cans to dig through. Twenty cans is a lot more of the mini game than I want to do in one sitting. 5 or so would better fit my pain threshold. |
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
259
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 15:14:00 -
[306] - Quote
Kynric wrote:ExookiZ wrote: It feels like less of a chore if when i dont do a good job my loot explodes rather than "damn, i didnt find the system core int he first 10 clicks, better close it and open again"
Perhaps it would feel like less of a chore if there weren't 20 of the cans to dig through. Twenty cans is a lot more of the mini game than I want to do in one sitting. 5 or so would better fit my pain threshold.
I agree with that sentiment The Wormhole Kid |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
123
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 15:16:00 -
[307] - Quote
Here is another little thing. Can we get the default permissions of a newly anchored module which contains storage changed from fuel tech (look) / config (take) to corp / corp. It would be easier for my pilots to maintain their own towers if I didn't need to manually adjust each module that they lay down. |
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
511
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 15:46:00 -
[308] - Quote
Kynric wrote:Here is another little thing. Can we get the default permissions of a newly anchored module which contains storage changed from fuel tech (look) / config (take) to corp / corp. Or perhaps make it track with whatever the associated towers anchor/online (but not offline/unanchor) permissions are at the time that the module is anchored. It would be easier for my pilots to maintain their own towers if I didn't need to manually adjust each module that they lay down.
I could see corp/corp becoming a little dangerous if there's a bit of oversight If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
478
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 16:57:00 -
[309] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:^ Maybe it would be more of a natural progression if C4 wormholes had 1 k space and one WH static...
Corbex, after we get the 5 or so legitimate "little things" implemented from this thread, how likely do you think we are to see some new developer created content for wormhole space in the next 12 months?
thats totally NDA. And yeah that sucks cos as i've said before its much easier letting people know than them worrying over stuff thats doesn't need worrying about.
I can say I will be at the summit in september, so hoping I can get some stuff sorted and as soon as I can say stuff, you guys will know.
I'm also still keeping a eye on this thread and updating my sheet as it goes.
I'll probably sort something so people can see what's on it.
one thing that was suggested has already been implemented making pos mods in a pos. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
478
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 17:00:00 -
[310] - Quote
Infact you could ask CCP Seagull on
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2bp2cp/i_am_andie_nordgren_ccp_seagull_the_new_executive/
She's now the new executive producer. She may say something. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
511
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 17:57:00 -
[311] - Quote
It's over now, but try asking questions anyways since she may revisit it over the weekend. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
124
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 02:52:00 -
[312] - Quote
Please move boosters (drugs) to the charged items category. It is anoying to have to clean the cargo holds before storing the ships. |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3540
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 04:05:00 -
[313] - Quote
Kynric wrote:Please move boosters (drugs) to the charged items category. It is anoying to have to clean the cargo holds before storing the ships. ^this. also would making drugs contractable be so bad? every time i need to move a dread between chars i need to fly to whatever arse end LS **** hole i left it in, gets old.
PS: yeah i know it's not a WH issue Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
HerrBert
V0LTA Triumvirate.
465
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 10:34:00 -
[314] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Kynric wrote:Please move boosters (drugs) to the charged items category. It is anoying to have to clean the cargo holds before storing the ships. ^this. also would making drugs contractable be so bad? every time i need to move a dread between chars i need to fly to whatever arse end LS **** hole i left it in, gets old. PS: yeah i know it's not a WH issue
Would you like to by a Blue Pill? Community-Challenge: Make Jack Miton sing a Duett with me. http://www.youtube.com/user/HerrBertism Jibbychiggawooooow - CSM 9 Corbexx
|
muhadin
Hard Knocks Inc.
178
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 14:08:00 -
[315] - Quote
Small Things:
-Give c4's 2-4 statics and/or: -Higher chance of spawning wandering holes that can open to c1-c6.
-Black Holes are terrible, too much downside not enough upside. Add missile bonuses? -Larger fluctuation in mass for c4-c6 whs.
Medium/Big things:
-NPC Kill total in last 24-48 hours for the wormhole system you're in. (Its on the global kspace map, why can't we have it in whs?) -Wormhole Depoyable Structures. This could be many things, but things like wh duration/total mass. "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
677
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 14:26:00 -
[316] - Quote
muhadin wrote: -Black Holes are terrible, too much downside not enough upside. Add missile bonuses?
I kind of wouldn't want to see Black Holes balanced out, some quirks give character, but as a trade off it wouldn't go amiss to add some other feature to black holes to make them more interesting even if its something like site spawns that only exist in those systems or a unique wormhole spawning setup of some kind. |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 15:29:00 -
[317] - Quote
POD express The pod express to HS makes many people risk averse. You cannot afford not to have key players in your WH if **** hits the fan! Introducing a structure (something as bulky as a XL SMA) or ship (roqual) that allows you to activate a new clone if it died in the same system (J-number) would mitigate this. In case of an eviction this would give the defender an advantage.
Capital escalations is twofold bad game design 1. Capital escalations hamper meaningful player interaction by promoting a GÇ£closed doors modeGÇ¥ with only a small risk of interacting with others. Remove/modify them and give groups more incentive to steal their neighbors sites. This has so many advantages I have no clue anyone interested in PvP wants these capital escalations except farmers:
- play the game of mass with hard knox while they run sites in their static. Yea get to fight a group you could not touch on their home turf. - Farmers GǪ well they stay farmers but they wont be that space rich anymore. - Tiericide of w-space: WHs are much more defined by their statics. That is where you make your living! - Double the chance of K162s. Neighbors logs in and do silly stuff. - More ppl involved. You want to have scouts in home and neighboring system.
2. Also capital escalations allows groups to grow in quantity and quality of players that forbids meaningful interaction with many groups that donGÇÖt exploit the same mechanic.
Very simple calculation: 1 site spawning per day (more if you have alts despawning them in your region) *4 (you run em on 4 days)*7 (for a week)*800 mil (that is what you get for a full cap escalation) = 22 bil/week GǪ this is why we cannot have good fights with c3 guys that run their home sites.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
483
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 16:19:00 -
[318] - Quote
Bleedingthrough wrote:POD express The pod express to HS makes many people risk averse. You cannot afford not to have key players in your WH if **** hits the fan! Introducing a structure (something as bulky as a XL SMA) or ship (roqual) that allows you to activate a new clone if it died in the same system (J-number) would mitigate this. In case of an eviction this would give the defender an advantage.
NO NO NO maybe a pos mod to swap clones but not for coming back in to your wh.
One of the main things of a invasion is to pod people out, Defender already has a huge advantage of loads of ships and capitals and more pos's etc etc.
Bleedingthrough wrote:POD express Capital escalations is twofold bad game design 1. Capital escalations hamper meaningful player interaction by promoting a GÇ£closed doors modeGÇ¥ with only a small risk of interacting with others. Remove/modify them and give groups more incentive to steal their neighbors sites. This has so many advantages I have no clue anyone interested in PvP wants these capital escalations except farmers:
- play the game of mass with hard knox while they run sites in their static. Yea get to fight a group you could not touch on their home turf. - Farmers GǪ well they stay farmers but they wont be that space rich anymore. - Tiericide of w-space: WHs are much more defined by their statics. That is where you make your living! - Double the chance of K162s. Neighbors logs in and do silly stuff. - More ppl involved. You want to have scouts in home and neighboring system.
2. Also capital escalations allows groups to grow in quantity and quality of players that forbids meaningful interaction with many groups that donGÇÖt exploit the same mechanic.
Very simple calculation: 1 site spawning per day (more if you have alts despawning them in your region) *4 (you run em on 4 days)*7 (for a week)*800 mil (that is what you get for a full cap escalation) = 22 bil/week GǪ this is why we cannot have good fights with c3 guys that run their home sites.
apart from this being terrible as well.
I dont get your maths Bleedingthrough wrote:
Very simple calculation: 1 site spawning per day (more if you have alts despawning them in your region) *4 (you run em on 4 days)*7 (for a week)*800 mil (that is what you get for a full cap escalation) = 22 bil/week GǪ this is why we cannot have good fights with c3 guys that run their home sites.
1 site a day that you run for 4 days * a week. cos if you run it for 4 days then why are you * by a week. cos if you mean 1 site that you can run for a week thats 5.6b using your number of 800m
please clarify that bit for me as the 22b you have is 27.5 sites worth of isk which is running 4 sites a day for a week. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Hatshepsut IV
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
168
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:33:00 -
[319] - Quote
How about the ability to flag certain bookmarks/folders undeletable? You too can start failing today! Reddit-áad | Cascading Failure Public Channel | Aspiring Failure
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
528
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:35:00 -
[320] - Quote
Hatshepsut IV wrote:How about the ability to flag certain bookmarks/folders undeletable?
Truly a small thing because it's easily avoidable if you're not dumb, but it would be really nice to just be able to ctrl+a delete everything instead of having to be selective. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
|
Hatshepsut IV
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:37:00 -
[321] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Hatshepsut IV wrote:How about the ability to flag certain bookmarks/folders undeletable? Truly a small thing because it's easily avoidable if you're not dumb, but it would be really nice to just be able to ctrl+a delete everything instead of having to be selective.
Exactly my thinking, would make it nice for newbros to just have them nuke the BMs when a chain gets rolled and not worry bout other stuff getting the axe. You too can start failing today! Reddit-áad | Cascading Failure Public Channel | Aspiring Failure
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
528
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:39:00 -
[322] - Quote
Hatshepsut IV wrote:Andrew Jester wrote:Hatshepsut IV wrote:How about the ability to flag certain bookmarks/folders undeletable? Truly a small thing because it's easily avoidable if you're not dumb, but it would be really nice to just be able to ctrl+a delete everything instead of having to be selective. Exactly my thinking, would make it nice for newbros to just have them nuke the BMs when a chain gets rolled and not worry bout other stuff getting the axe.
Giving newbros comm officer is frightening. You could make a "Chain" folder and then just nuke that. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:44:00 -
[323] - Quote
The PoD express is something our prophet came up with. TBH escalations as conflict drivers makes not much sense to me. Enough free w-space. Boring for everyone involved. Rather fight over sites and expose a ratting fleet outside home fortress.
corbexx wrote: please clarify that bit for me as the 22b you have is 27.5 sites worth of isk which is running 4 sites a day for a week.
Been a while since i have been in C6 space:
You get roughly 1 new site spawn per day. You run all sites (including the newly spawned) for 4 days Each time you run a site it pays you something like 800 mil So all these factors stack multiplicative:
1*7*4*800mil = 28 capital escalations per week = 22.4 bil/week
Not sure if 800 mil is right but then you clear em on your 4th day for a slightly better payout.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
483
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:49:00 -
[324] - Quote
Bleedingthrough wrote:The PoD express is something our prophet came up with. TBH escalations as conflict drivers makes not much sense to me. Enough free w-space. Boring for everyone involved. Rather fight over sites and expose a ratting fleet outside home fortress. corbexx wrote: please clarify that bit for me as the 22b you have is 27.5 sites worth of isk which is running 4 sites a day for a week.
Been a while since i have been in C6 space: You get roughly 1 new site spawn per day. You run all sites (including the newly spawned) for 4 days Each time you run a site it pays you something like 800 mil So all these factors stack multiplicative: 1*7*4*800mil = 28 capital escalations per week = 22.4 bil/week Not sure if 800 mil is right but then you clear em on your 4th day for a slightly better payout.
its probably closer to 700m, but its much easier to say you run 4 sites on average a day
22b isnt much at all for a fire sized allaince espeically when the fleet to run the sites cost more than that. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Hatshepsut IV
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:09:00 -
[325] - Quote
Nullsec gets moongoo income. We get escal income. Which doesn't even come close but it works we like it. Anyone suggesting to remove the escals for multiple days that benefits 2-3 farming corps more. They still get their payouts while alliances get their ability to fund fuel and srp and such slashed. You too can start failing today! Reddit-áad | Cascading Failure Public Channel | Aspiring Failure
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
610
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:25:00 -
[326] - Quote
Bleedingthrough wrote:The PoD express is something our prophet came up with.
AS much as I would like to say that "Bob" created the Pod Express - I am relatively certain that 0.0 has been utilizing that long before apocrypha
I'm right behind you |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
131
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:27:00 -
[327] - Quote
corbexx wrote:One of the main things of a invasion is to pod people out, Defender already has a huge advantage of loads of ships and capitals and more pos's etc etc.
I am not advocating the OP position, however, the statement that the defender is in general advantaged is not correct either. When thinking back through the history of system assaults which I have been involved with I can not think of a single one where the defender had the advantage. The nature of New Eden is that the attacker withholds pressing forward with the operation until he believes that he has not just a superior position but a vastly superior one.
I do think that the difficulty of getting forces back in contributes to the unwillingness to fly ships that are already likely lost. As such when given the choice of logging valuables off or of fighting most pick logging their stuff out. Allowing the defenders or attackers re - entry via a clone jump might not be the best answer but that inability is central to why invasions are the way they are. Perhaps running the other side out of ships would be more interesting than the current lack of engagements. Instead of dismissing it based on the idea that it eliminates the current tactic of victory via the other side not having any pilots, perhaps we should look at the bigger picture of what would be more interesting gameplay. |
HerrBert
V0LTA Triumvirate.
474
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:39:00 -
[328] - Quote
Kynric wrote:corbexx wrote:One of the main things of a invasion is to pod people out, Defender already has a huge advantage of loads of ships and capitals and more pos's etc etc. I am not advocating the OP position, however, the statement that the defender is in general advantaged is not correct either. When thinking back through the history of system assaults which I have been involved with I can not think of a single one where the defender had the advantage. The nature of New Eden is that the attacker withholds pressing forward with the operation until he believes that he has not just a superior position but a vastly superior one. I do think that the difficulty of getting forces back in contributes to the unwillingness to fly ships that are already likely lost. As such when given the choice of logging valuables off or of fighting most pick logging their stuff out. Allowing the defenders or attackers re - entry via a clone jump might not be the best answer but that inability is central to why invasions are the way they are. Perhaps running the other side out of ships would be more interesting than the current lack of engagements. Instead of dismissing it based on the idea that it eliminates the current tactic of victory via the other side not having any pilots, perhaps we should look at the bigger picture of what would be more interesting gameplay.
You Sir
And people think i m random...
But corbexx so you understand Kynrics point:
Wormhole Sieges 2012 to 2014
Almost 2 years and i only got better at editing xD Community-Challenge: Make Jack Miton sing a Duett with me. http://www.youtube.com/user/HerrBertism Jibbychiggawooooow - CSM 9 Corbexx
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
677
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 19:04:00 -
[329] - Quote
Kynric wrote: I am not advocating the OP position, however, the statement that the defender is in general advantaged is not correct either. When thinking back through the history of system assaults which I have been involved with I can not think of a single one where the defender had the advantage. The nature of New Eden is that the attacker withholds pressing forward with the operation until he believes that he has not just a superior position but a vastly superior one.
I do think that the difficulty of getting forces back in contributes to the unwillingness to fly ships that are already likely lost. As such when given the choice of logging valuables off or of fighting most pick logging their stuff out. Allowing the defenders or attackers re - entry via a clone jump might not be the best answer but that inability is central to why invasions are the way they are. Perhaps running the other side out of ships would be more interesting than the current lack of engagements. Instead of dismissing it based on the idea that it eliminates the current tactic of victory via the other side not having any pilots, perhaps we should look at the bigger picture of what would be more interesting gameplay.
As much as anything I've generally seen people lose systems due to being unprepared, whether its naivety, hubris, a lack of foresight or just being sloppy - maybe with the mentality of "it happens to other people not me" then when someone does siege their system they are on the back foot even though they should have had the advantage.
Do agree though that most people don't attack unless they have a significant advantage when sieging a system - not always the case though. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1318
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 20:14:00 -
[330] - Quote
BayneNothos wrote:Return Ore sites to Red Signature: Mining in W-Space is one of the most dangerous activities you can do. Back when they were Red Signatures you at least had protection in seeing probes on Dscan. As Green Anomalies that safety is gone and the miner is at the mercy of it's natural predators. Moving these back to Red Signatures would return the degree of safety back to miners, as well as making things interesting for those who hunt them as it used to be. This only needs to be a W-Space change, K Space can stay as it is. As an addition, making the Signature harder to scan down would also be nice.
I disagree. More ships exploding is better than less ships exploding. It's the risk you take if you want to reap the ABCM reward of mining in a WH. You can already mitigate the risk by a) not being afk b) watching dscan c) mining in cheap throwaway ships. Epic Space Cat |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |