Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Please keep your feedback constructive and in accordance with the forum rules. While you can of course just disagree with the proposed changes, it is much more helpful if you list the reasons and explain why you disagree. The post above by Traiori is a good example of constructive feedback. Thank you!
The problem is simple.
You think we roll connexions to close them to be safe to farm leading to less content for other player which is true in only one case : farming in cap.
But it is a BIG mistake.
90% of the time, we roll connexion to find new content (for HS acces, to farm our static, to find pvp target).
Not all the wh corp have cap to farm. Others roll their static to find something to farm because home is empty or not farmable.
This change, even with the new values will make small and mid size corp life harder. Perhaps too much. Leading to less wh entities in W-Space and so less pvp and less content. The exact opposite you wanna reach.
In addition, rolling a wh for small/mid sized corp is already a thing. It is not at all 100% safe.
This change especially is a really bad one. It impact small corps on their very existence, and large corp on a strategic plan. |
Muhamad Jihad
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:12:00 -
[32] - Quote
As a long time wormholer I think this is absurd... Many of the fights I go were because we were able to go "All In" per say and send our entire fleet to the other side with their dread on our side, thus creating an instant fight.
This change makes it SUPER easy to jump in 2 dreads be 15-30km apart form each other (optimals) and just blow up everything with very little support before enemies can even get their defense dreads on the field. Then all those pilots who were there are dead, poded and you can't actually fight, where as 2 dreads at 0 on a wh can be countered by getting under there guns - also the mass change puts all smartbombing BS off the hole far enough to smartbomb instantly
Next, i see everything on there including Orca except Freighters... Freighters are a HUGE part of both wormholes, nullsec and logistics for lowsec/nullsec pilots, its already super easy to catch one of the slowest ships in eve by just getting a bubble ahead of it. It completely eliminates low and null pilots from scanning wormholes for logistical reasons unless they are direct, which gets rid of an entire pvp side which has been seen.
Lastly, your "unclosable" frig wormholes aren't going to be used by anyone except people who live in wormholes, because all it will do is bring giant interceptor gangs (20-30) (which are nearly impossible to counter in low numbers in k-space) to null, never into a wormhole because 20 interceptors will do absolutely 0 in a wormhole, where as 20 interceptors in null can roam 30 jumps almost uninterrupted...
Please do give #s on freighters though... |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:13:00 -
[33] - Quote
I don't think the penalty this gives to larger ship use really brings much constructively to wormhole space while having a slight side effect of shifting the power balance more so towards the bigger established groups at the expense of smaller entities.
While it has some slight (but work "aroundable") implications for collapsing whs with orcas and jump mass, etc. I'd rather see something like for instance using a prop mod when jumping causing you to be thrown further out as this could be combined to make skirmish setups feasible in situations they currently aren't. (Stick a note in the wh information about how prop mods have an effect/advising turning them off). |
xpaulx
Codename-47
9
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:13:00 -
[34] - Quote
Time to shoot the monument |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
xpaulx wrote:Time to shoot the monument
There is a monument in wormhole space? |
Lapin Poilu
Burning Equilibrium Fallen Defiance
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP will need to make some new modules for the ships we use to roll holes.
There is already more then enough risk in rolling a hole with an Orca let alone adding this to the equation. |
WoAz
Dark Mason Society
10
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:20:00 -
[37] - Quote
If you want to balance PvP considerations on holes with caps against heightened risk, perhaps make it so caps spawn within range but have an immediate (and possibly shorter) polarization timer. Creates risk for all entities but saves the tedious time of pinging the cap to bring it back into the hole. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1678
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:20:00 -
[38] - Quote
I like the change but i do feel the range is too far for capitals and the orca. It's going to take them minutes to get into jump range while everything else takes seconds. +1 |
DirtyJob
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
Traiori wrote:20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community: 1) Rage rolling becomes much more annoying for large groups. This limits their ability to find content that they can take, whether it be site-runners to kill (which you *have* to rage-roll for, incidentally) or other large groups. The proposed change slows down chain-rolling, slowing down the speed at which content can be found. This also has the side effect of making farming safer, because the probability being rolled into whilst running sites comes down to how many holes can be opened whilst your caps are not in their POS. Less holes=less chance of dying to everyone else. 2) Rage rolling becomes essentially impossible for small groups. They also have to find content, and rolling the chain is often the only way to reliably find content of interest - whether that be PvP or PvE or anything else. The proposed changes stop you from being able to do this without fighting the larger groups... which you can't do because numbers are important in every case. Small groups can no longer rage-roll consistently, especially given that most larger groups will seed scouts into their chain. 3) Committing capitals to wormholes outside of home systems requires winning the fight or losing the cap... which in turn means that it won't be committed by anyone that hasn't already got the forces on-grid to win it. The proposed change ensures that capitals shoved into another wormhole can't get back into home system. Whereas we currently see Triage used to balance out fights against bigger entities, smaller entities can't afford to lose the triage carrier every time, so they'll just stop bringing them. Less fights is bad for everyone. 4) Using our capitals in nullsec (and arguably losec) means losing them. We're not stupid. The proposed change would strand our capitals 15-20km away from the hole. The fight would become a race against time: will they be able to form up capitals/supercapitals to kill our triage archon before we get it back into the hole? In most cases, the answer will be no. Power projection means that we can no longer commit capitals. It's bad enough at present, without increasing the scope of the problem. Once again, less fights is bad for everyone. 5) Sub-capital wormholes also suffer from the problem because orcas land far away too. The major difference between rolling C4 wormholes and C5 wormholes is that C4 wormholes use Orcas. If those orcas are guaranteed to be in danger, they're also guaranteed to die. We'll take orca kills any time of the day. So will other groups. This means that C4 groups also need to be fielding support fleets for their orca if they don't fancy losing them daily. Bad for small groups, which means they'll leave, which means we lose more groups and hence, lose content. The error here is the belief that all groups can afford to field support groups. We can't. We aren't 10000 man coalitions, because wormholes can't support that kind of lifestyle. There is a maximum limit to how many people can fit into a wormhole, and unless we're now expecting all pilots to be on all of the time, that means that this change will make smaller groups increasingly unfeasible. I originally made most of these points on a reddit post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2cro9k/where_are_the_devblogs/cjihkl9. Some inital discussion over it can also be found. EDIT: A better solution would be to invert the numbers: have distance landed be proportional to a function of mass and speed, making it so that lighter and faster ships landing further away from the hole. This would allow us to use kiting HACs as well as brawling T3s.
I think this man touched almost all issues concerning jump to mass correlation with capitals. To add little to 3). That also means no combat rolling to cut enemy forces in half. Especially usefull against larger enemy.
I also agree that making function proportional to momentum would add another tactical flavour to wh fights.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
4709
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
Traiori wrote:Nox Arnoux wrote:You push this change through, and no one will commit capitals into someone else's system ever again. The odds are already stacked heavily in favour of home defenders, why make it even more lopsided? In the interests of providing the devs with information that they don't appear to have, how often do you commit multiple capitals into a hostile system during a fight?
http://themittani.com/news/noho-versus-exit-post-downtime-brawling is a write up of a fight that happened recently where NOHO did exactly this.
I am also very concerned about the issues with jumping caps into a hostile system. I'm also concerned that this change doesn't actually add that much more risk. I also don't like the additional time it will take to roll holes, which is currently one of the only ways to catch farmers. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
|
Von Keigai
44
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:23:00 -
[41] - Quote
I'll reiterate the criticism I already posted in the other thread.
Currently, a significant part of the danger in moving many kinds of ships in wspace is that when you jump, you may not be able to immediately cloak. 2000m is the "decloak distance", the distance at which an object prevents cloaking. Wormholes are objects. Usually you land further from the wormhole than 2000m, but often (~20%?), you land closer. If you land closer, there is the opportunity for an enemy to lock you before you can get far enough to cloak.
The risk of not being able to cloak is particularly significant for ships with covert ops cloaks, because once cloaked they can warp. It is nearly impossible to stop one of them without a bubble. Even with a bubble, because they can move at full speed they will usually escape. (And of course T3 scouts will be interdiction nullified.)
Assuming I am correctly understanding the numbers in the dev blog, after Hyperion no ship that jumps a wormhole will ever land closer than 2000m from the wormhole. In fact, even the lightest ships always land at least 3500m from it. Thus, all covert ships will be essentially uncatchable by anything but a bubble. Indeed, all ships will be far enough from the wormhole that they no longer need to worry about the geometry when they warp, because their align cannot take them within decloak distance.
This will affect my play, because currently I do try to catch scouts on wormholes in a Manticore from time to time. I know the chance is not large; in fact I have not actually caught one yet who was paying attention. Still, the chance is there. And I did catch a blockade runner once who got screwed by the RNG. If I knew there was zero chance that covert ships would ever be within the decloak distance, I would not bother to hunt them.
This change would make hunting in a cloaky ship less risky, but I don't agree with that either. Every time I come out 1600m from the wormhole is a tiny scare, and each time I survive it is a tiny victory. vonkeigai.blogspot.com |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
Lapin Poilu wrote:CCP will need to make some new modules for the ships we use to roll holes.
There is already more then enough risk in rolling a hole with an Orca let alone adding this to the equation.
Personally don't think the risk side of it should be a factor aside from the slight implications of balance of power in regards to bigger entities v smaller ones - wormhole space should never be safe anyway.
That it potentially makes things quite messy for people going all in for a fight and makes hole collapsing much more of a drag without really bringing anything meaningful into the balance in doing so while some modifications of the way it works could bring more meaningful changes i.e. making skirmish setups more feasible are a bigger consideration IMO. |
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
150
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
WoAz wrote:If you want to balance PvP considerations on holes with caps against heightened risk, perhaps make it so caps spawn within range but have an immediate (and possibly shorter) polarization timer. Creates risk for all entities but saves the tedious time of pinging the cap to bring it back into the hole.
So you jump a cap in, its still in the current range, but then cant jump back for 2mins / 2 1/2 mins? Me likey twitter: @glasgowdunlop-á TDSIN Recruitment Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' Glasgow Meet Organiser
|
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
274
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
The biggest issue with this change I see is you are adding work/time to rolling a wormhole, which is something many of us do 10s, maybe even 100 times a day.
I completely understand that your intention is to make rolling the WH "riskier" and " require more support" But in reality 99% of the times we are rolling our wormholes is because its dead/empty/undesirable. Were getting rid of it because it doesn't have content, so we can go find content. All this change does is make it take longer and require more effort to go FIND content.
I hate my targets rolling the WH on them as much as the next guy, but this is honestly going to hamper hunters more than them. Hunters are the ones constantly churning through whs looking for targets. With the K162 appearance change theyll be rolling even fewer WHs than ever. The Wormhole Kid |
Traiori
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
63
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:27:00 -
[45] - Quote
DirtyJob wrote:
I also agree that making function proportional to momentum would add another tactical flavour to wh fights.
Not momentum.
Momentum would mean that slow-moving mass-heavy things (like dreads) would land as far away as fast-moving mass-light things (like ishtars).
Function should be inversely proportional to mass, but proportional to speed (probably to max speed, as to avoid the issues of trying to go through wormholes at maximum speed).
Bonus points if wormhole exit was also directional, as this could also help to solve problems regarding dread grouping. |
Tineoidea Asanari
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:29:00 -
[46] - Quote
I dont think that the basics of the idea are bad, as it will bring more diversity into fleet setups and those 1600mm HAC/T3/Guardians will be still viable but the same goes then for fast propelling shield fleets. I like that part, really.
But how you do that is a real No-Go CCP. You are basically destroying possibilities to create content and make alot of setups (like Triage Carrier) useless on a tactical scale. This might be not intended, but as many other people told you - you are doing it.
Here are 2 ideas i read somewhere which might should be considered valid options:
1.) Make people spawn the closer the more mass they have. Kitey shield fleets will be able to get away from the enemy, Caps are in refit + logistic range - everything perfect.
2.) Make ships spawn in a cone towards the sun. That way we could predict at least a bit where we spawn and decide if it's worth the risk, so we are in combat range and not scattered around a big sphere and easily shot down.
And Edit says: Maybe increase the refit range of carriers. This would help here alot. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
135
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
I noticed in the Dev Blog that you said you had talked to CSM members. Unless I miss-counted, only one CSM member was a dedicated wormhole guy, with maybe two others who knew what they were talking about. The rest were nullsec blocs with little interest in wormholes, and they probably would give you all the exact same threadnaut of cons at the idea of implementing the same mass change to nullsec cynos and jump bridges. |
Traiori
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
63
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:31:00 -
[48] - Quote
Von Keigai wrote: Assuming I am correctly understanding the numbers in the dev blog, after Hyperion no ship that jumps a wormhole will ever land closer than 2000m from the wormhole. In fact, even the lightest ships always land at least 3500m from it. Thus, all covert ships will be essentially uncatchable by anything but a bubble. Indeed, all ships will be far enough from the wormhole that they no longer need to worry about the geometry when they warp, because their align cannot take them within decloak distance.... This change would make hunting in a cloaky ship less risky, but I don't agree with that either. Every time I come out 1600m from the wormhole is a tiny scare, and each time I survive it is a tiny victory.
As I said in the other thread (or it might have been on reddit), this "small" chance is easily where I lose the most T3s. It makes nullified cloaky T3s essentially invulnerable save for unlucky server ticks in wormspace.
|
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
10
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:31:00 -
[49] - Quote
Gotta love this, 'we're listening to your concerns' = Yes we're doing it whether you like it or not.
If you want fights with Capitals in WH's, they are going to occur at the door. This change will strand Capitals too far apart to fight, and follow any plan effectively, so all you'll achieve is the removal of Capitals from Worm Hole fights, in other words you'll make fights more unlikely, not more likely. So either stop being so idiotic and changing stuff for the sake of it (A Change that the (almost) entire Wormhole community DOES NOT BLOODY WANT!.)
Wormholes, according to your own propaganda, actually work. So stop arsing about with stuff that actually works FFS, and exactly what does this address anyway? So far I've not heard any reasons/issues that this addresses, aside from the aforementioned - ooo lets change stuff...
Wormholes are already particularly dangerous, far far more so than Null-sec. The wormhole community does not want a 'fix' that is going to turn Wormholes into another stoopid stagfest. |
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
150
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:32:00 -
[50] - Quote
If your going to do this with wormholes, why not jumpbridges and cynos as well? twitter: @glasgowdunlop-á TDSIN Recruitment Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' Glasgow Meet Organiser
|
|
Dark Armata
Bookmark Both Sides Exit Strategy..
123
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:35:00 -
[51] - Quote
The dev blog has made me feel better about the general direction you are going for.
However this change completely negates a lot of the options small-med corps/alliances have for "modifying" the fight in their favor.
While this change may see a lot more unintended player interaction, i.e. ganks.
It will however see a lot less intended player interaction. As basically any action that requires jumping through a wormhole now carries soo much more risk. In fact in a lot of cases it will basically be suicide.
As soon as something becomes completely suicidal, a lot of people will just log off.
It will no longer be a case of risk v reward - could lose ships, will shut hole. Instead it will be a case of loss v nothing - will lose ships, hole will still not be shut (as they would have died on the other side after spawning so far away).
Please, at least put this particular change on the back burner for a while.
Implement all the others, watch the effects they have and then decide whether this is necessary.
W-Space WAS Best Space*
*Until CCP decided W-Space should be the next null.
|
Ann Markson
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:37:00 -
[52] - Quote
The main cause of "Danger" In wormholes is that they are well connected and those connections are unpredictable, while on the same time the reason they fit small groups so well is that they are extremely flexible, which is a very important niche in the time of Powerblocks and super escalations.
With the new way k162 appear people are a lot less safer when farming, as every dedicated fleet can then roll, form and jump into the hole in anticipation of some NPC farming to hop onto.
However noone will be interested in rolling anymore, as it keeps a high risk and makes you very vulnerable, especially when having a wh->low or wh->null connection.
With the propsed changes most wh groups will end up with waiting for their static to roll itself and either have luck and do something out of it, or log off for the next day, which should absolutely not be ccps intention.
Also when there is a big group->small group connection the small group has no chance of doing anything until that changes as the big group that has activity in all timezones will camp the wh for anyone trying to close it early, at worst getting bored and shooting towers to tickle some pvp they wont get. At the end of this process another group will have left W-Space, and W-Space will more or less fastly face the same issues of power blocks and projection like null faces as of know, which are a major concern to most of the playerbase.
If the target is to create a better pvp meta around kiting/long range, then having it reverse way, so basically smaller ships can spawn further away, while bigger will be closer to the wormhole they just went through. This will give leightwieght kiters a chance to get away, while keeping the overall wh pvp healthy.
This is written from a small WH groups perspective, not from the 500 character corps point of view, so i hope i defended the small groups point of view here.
|
Frothgar
V0LTA Triumvirate.
89
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:37:00 -
[53] - Quote
As a 4 year WH resident, I love these changes.
I see little to no risk involved in "Rage Rolling" as the responding party would have ~1-2minutes to respond to the presence of capitals cycling their WH. Which, unless they have a fleet actively PvPing, the chances of actually catching the caps is still quite low.
I see no issue with making "Rage rolling" take 3 minutes longer per hole, as warping the caps to the initial WH probably took longer than having them re-approach once they're in.
The Sky isn't falling, and its nice to see some of the absurd "Safety" measures we've come to rely on get messed with. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Triumvirate.
89
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:38:00 -
[54] - Quote
Glasgow Dunlop wrote:If your going to do this with wormholes, why not jumpbridges and cynos as well?
I'd like to see this as well ^_^ |
LT Alter
Ouroboros Research and Development
118
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:38:00 -
[55] - Quote
It seems the Developer's main concern is the speed at which rage rolling can occur, if this is the case why not simply affect the wormhole timers rather than the locations of ships landing, the same goal could be accomplished without adversely causing all the problems this change would constitute.
For instance, create a timer (like polarization) that is a coefficient of the mass of the ship in such a way that capitals would take longer to jump back each jump (unlike polarization that allows for an instant return jump). This would prevent the capital from being stranded off the wormhole and thus an easy target to tackle, allow people to jump their caps in and remain within refitting range of each other, and allow them to remain in jump back range. The change would have no effect on groups ability to pvp with their capitals, as siege dreads and triage capitals wouldn't be able to jump back for 5 minutes or more anyway. It also still increases danger of rolling holes, as your capital can potentially be bumped off the wormhole.
Overall I feel a change with likeness to what I suggested would achieve the same goal the devs are hoping to achieve without causing the long list of problems the current planned change does. |
Gallosek
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
From the article, the stated design drivers are:
Quote:This change is intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption. We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.
Meaning that CCP wants to stop the safety of collapsing yourself in. This mechanic does allow groups (especially small ones)to operate significantly more safely, and the proposed change does appear make it more dangerous for them. This sort of player is going to want to avoid combat regardless though, so they will probably choose to "make do with bubbles and scouts", which is only avoided as it is more annoying... however it is still fairly effective at the stated aim of "doing sites with minimal risk". In the very early days of wormholes this was a normal mode of operation, especially while pilots were mostly sub-capital and orcas were rare/expensive.
However I believe this underestimates the effect the "quick roll" mechanic has on another play style. Those who actively *seek* combat roll wormholes. This is an emergent mechanic which disrupts the above "mitigation" as well as any other defensive wormhole collapsing mechanic. Nothing about your own ability to collapse a wormhole can prepare you for an incoming connection with an interdictor (short of being bait with a fleet larger than any that may jump in).
I believe the proposed change to jump distance fails to meet the stated design goal whilst inadvertently making it SAFER for those who wish to avoid combat as it is less likely they will have a hostile gang appear from a previously uncharted wormhole connection.
The random "frigate" only wormholes are a far better counter to "complete safety" as it makes it easier to inject scouts into a system in which you can then stage a fleet in for later action. |
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
1115
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:39:00 -
[57] - Quote
My opinion is that where the respawn point is on the other side should be similar for all groups going through at the same time. I'll try to explain.
When a WH is jumped, a countdown timer for the next 10 seconds is fired. All ships going through that WH at that time will spawn on the other side in a fairly close proximity (under 5km) with the distance being determined by the sum of the masses of all ship that hit that window. This means that so long as everybody jumps in that 10 second window they will appear roughly together on the other side at a random point at a distance based on their total mass (or the mass of the largest ship). Note that the 10 second timer is based on a jump from either side. Travel time through the hole would be a minimum of 10 seconds. Note that the 10 second timer is invisible to players
This does a few things: -It keeps a fleet fairly close together for operations -It avoids ships popping out 40 km apart on the other side -If a chasing ship (or fleet) jumps at the same time, they land close as well. -Running away can be a challenge. Since the timer is picked off from either side, a fast ship could potentially trip of a fleet and break it up on a jump because they hit on a late part of a 10 second cycle
One last piece. A WH that closes due to mass should spit people back on on the side they tried to enter from for the last ten seconds of its life at the distances proposed on their mass.
This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD. |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy
67
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:39:00 -
[58] - Quote
My corporation will not be greatly affected by this change. We crush with BSs!
However, I do not think that this change is good for WHs as a hole for the reasons posted already.
Furthermore, I do not understand the logic behind making K162s spawn when you jump through and at the same time making it harder to collapse with capitals. The net effect will be a much higher delay in K162 then ever proposed in this other thread and at the same time crushing in subcaps becomes a lot safer. Maybe this is intended but i do not like it.
If you want to make crushing harder: make k162 spawn instantly. if you want to make hunting easier: increase siege cycles time (Edit: this would be realy dumb though) and/or add more scrambling and hard to kill NPCs (and have them split points).
At some point in the future i would like to pilot my archon in a fight like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbn0OS87Vw With the planed changes I do not see these fight ever happening. |
epicurus ataraxia
Lazerhawks
909
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:40:00 -
[59] - Quote
Fozzie, I have read through your other stickies and replied with my views of them and asked the odd question for clarity or added a comment for consideration.
However this change is unfortunately just beyond that point. Some things can be improved by tweaking the numbers or strength of the effect.
This however is mistaken, misplaced, and just a plain bad Idea, It is beyond rescue.
I know some have advised you that wormhole space needs "shaking up" but that does not mean actively destroying things in the hope something better might appear. That is bad advice of the worst kind, please disregard it.
All your other ideas have some merit, possibly you will take feedback on board and make them better.
This however as has been explained in depth, is just quite horrific, and if implemented will be a source of regret forever.
Do not even begin to think about polishing it to make it more appealing, we all know the saying, and you know some things just need to be flushed into the toilet and never spoken of again. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Orange Aideron
Blue-Fire
7
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
I only have one question: How far does our titian come out on the other side? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |