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) |
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:44:00 -
[121] - Quote
Quincy Thibaud wrote:Nox Arnoux wrote:A key element of overcoming someone else's home system advantage is to be able to reliably refit the capitals we commit (i.e. dreads next to carriers). When capitals have the potential of spawning >30 km from each other, that advantage is nullified. To add insult to injury, the home defenders can still decide where their capitals land, while the attackers are at the mercy of the RNG Gods.
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? The defender in a wormhole should have all of the advantages as stated above. This makes attacking even more risky and gives the defender even more advantages. It will lead to more LOL-RNG kills of people trying to roll holes, but it's not going to generate large scale fights. Rolling holes for the most part in C6/C5 space is about finding fights and possibly ganks. You are again making this harder to do. Would Rooks And Kings have bothered trying to roll for AHARM in Clarion Call 3 if it was going to take them 10 times as long? Lets say there was no risk, just the wasted time in rolling holes in motoring back to the hole is a red flag. Right now null sec is stuck in stagnation because epic structure grinding is totally boring. Now you want to throw a similar mechanic in wormhole space - wasting more and more game time. How about for a change CCP carefully think this change through? CCP, your thinking is flawed. If the idea is to induce more risk to a certain behavior you will get what Eve players will always do, make that risk/reward calculation. The result of that calculation will precipitate a decision that it is less worth the risk. The other changes on cursory review seem fine, this one is flawed.
This a thousand times THIS....
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:46:00 -
[122] - Quote
This change is terrible. The extra effort to rage-roll will reduce connectivity, and the drastically increased dangers committing caps will mean nobody will bother.
Just drop the change already, nobody wants it. |
Kadm
Catfish Gumbo Try Rerolling
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:47:00 -
[123] - Quote
So let me ask: Is it really a bad thing if people stop using capitals to roll wormholes? How is forcing people to use battleships a big negative? Maybe you can't field ten players or ten battleships? Well, use five. You may get caught while waiting for the second pass, but a few minutes is acceptable. You should not be able to instantly and safely roll holes with them. It doesn't matter why you're rolling. You could be NOHO wanting a cap fight, or you could be a group of VOC alts running a three man expo system. Neither group should get risk free rolling. If you can't live without risk free rolling, you don't belong in WH space. |
Endo Riftbreaker
Antioch Brotherhood
21
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:48:00 -
[124] - Quote
As the operator of a small WH corp, I have to say I like all the changes except this one. If you're going to add significantly more wandering holes, and non-closable frigate holes, we need to have some way to control our risk.
I have no issue putting assets at stake in PvE and PvP as long as it's a reasonable risk/reward profile. With the addition of so many new avenues of attack, and the reduction in capabilities to respond to that risk, you've significantly shifted the risk profile of lower class wormholes (typically inhabited by lower capability corps/solo players) but not done anything on the reward side.
Please note that I'm not advocating for a buff in loot buy orders or anything, just noting something that by its very nature will lead to more risk averse behavior, which doesn't seem like the intended consequence of these changes.
I would also like to add strong support for a clone swapping POS module - I'd love to get down and dirty rolling around in a T1 frigate with newbros and taking the high sec express back home, but not with a fancy pod. |
Dark Armata
Bookmark Both Sides Exit Strategy..
126
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:50:00 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.
Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure. Posting this here as well for visibility.
So despite pages of replies across 2 threads.
This comment only proves you are not listening at all to the player feedback you requested as you are still spending more development time on this.
Honestly, as someone said earlier;
Pull this one part of Hyperion and wormholers will hail this the best update ever.
Some amazing stuff in the dev blog, please don't ruin it. Please. W-Space WAS Best Space*
*Until CCP decided W-Space should be the next null.
|
Witchway
Hard Knocks Inc.
108
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:50:00 -
[126] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Reve Uhad wrote:Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.
RNG ganks != goodfights. a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt that doesn't seem like a good argument to me
You mean like being able to control nullsec systems by preventing cynos and bubbling gates out to 100km? |
na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:52:00 -
[127] - Quote
hm.. funny -- i dont see anything about allowing clone swaps in wormholes -- did that get missed? why do we have this garbage change instead? Can we trade in this proposed change for the clone pods in POS? |
Xaldafax Caerleon
Veritas Theory Fidelas Constans
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:52:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP.... What really is this trying to solve?
Are you trying to solve ragerolling? Then solve it in a way that makes sense. Make it harder for people that just pop holes quickly. Distance away from hole will not help that.
If you are trying to solve something else does it need large ships to be farther away? Then restate why you are doing so all these people stop bitching about possibly loosing a large ship.
And I wouldn't think about switching the numbers around because if smaller ships are farther away, then again... what are you trying to solve? You are just making me risk a smaller ship.
Remember when people jump into a WH they have NO protection from whoever is in that WH space. We have no station, no other gates, nothing else to get away from those people that might be camping. At least in HS, LS, Null you have options minus being at a dead end system. |
Admiral Douros
aWc Heavy Industries GoonSwarm
50
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:52:00 -
[129] - Quote
As a wormhole resident, I don't like this idea at all. Rolling our c5 static is already a nail-biting process when we know that someone is active on the other side. Forcing a carrier to slowboat potentially 16km means that it's sitting there basically defenseless until it gets back, since we've already reduced the hole mass by more than half (assuming we jump a few battleships through with it). You're also welcoming hostiles to close the hole before you can make it back through by jumping their own battleships through and back. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
758
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:54:00 -
[130] - Quote
This change is well-appreciated. It adds risk for attacking, as caps and other slow moving assets no longer have a get out of jail free card by spawning within range of the wormhole they just jumped through. It also slows down the rapacity at which established parties can cycle their wormholes and limits their ability to consume resources far afield of what they are able to control, allowing for more parties to enter wormhole space in general. All in all, a good change for the health of the game. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Kadm
Catfish Gumbo Try Rerolling
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:55:00 -
[131] - Quote
Admiral Douros wrote:As a wormhole resident, I don't like this idea at all. Rolling our c5 static is already a nail-biting process when we know that someone is active on the other side. Forcing a carrier to slowboat potentially 16km means that it's sitting there basically defenseless until it gets back, since we've already reduced the hole mass by more than half (assuming we jump a few battleships through with it). You're also welcoming hostiles to close the hole before you can make it back through by jumping their own battleships through and back.
Your solution is to use battleships instead, and get through and back quicker? I dunno. Seems pretty simple. |
Fireflynine
Wormhole Exploration And Production
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:55:00 -
[132] - Quote
Mass-Based Spawn Distance after Wormhole Jumps---- rejected by Fireflythegreat |
Dark Armata
Bookmark Both Sides Exit Strategy..
126
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:55:00 -
[133] - Quote
Kadm wrote:So let me ask: Is it really a bad thing if people stop using capitals to roll wormholes? How is forcing people to use battleships a big negative? Maybe you can't field ten players or ten battleships? Well, use five. You may get caught while waiting for the second pass, but a few minutes is acceptable. You should not be able to instantly and safely roll holes with them. It doesn't matter why you're rolling. You could be NOHO wanting a cap fight, or you could be a group of VOC alts running a three man expo system. Neither group should get risk free rolling. If you can't live without risk free rolling, you don't belong in WH space.
Because this means rage rolling will take SOO much longer. If you can't field the requisite number of battleships.
Also means all those battleship pilots will have to reship if something is found in the next wormhole. W-Space WAS Best Space*
*Until CCP decided W-Space should be the next null.
|
biz Antollare
Merchants Trade Consortium Disavowed.
17
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:56:00 -
[134] - Quote
Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.
I love all the other changes being proposed.
However this one needs to be scratched.
Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
164
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:58:00 -
[135] - Quote
Dark Armata wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.
Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure. Posting this here as well for visibility. So despite pages of replies across 2 threads. This comment only proves you are not listening at all to the player feedback you requested as you are still spending more development time on this. Honestly, as someone said earlier; Pull this one part of Hyperion and wormholers will hail this the best update ever. Some amazing stuff in the dev blog, please don't ruin it. Please. As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release. CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/ccp_lebowski |
|
Kadm
Catfish Gumbo Try Rerolling
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:00:00 -
[136] - Quote
Dark Armata wrote:Kadm wrote:So let me ask: Is it really a bad thing if people stop using capitals to roll wormholes? How is forcing people to use battleships a big negative? Maybe you can't field ten players or ten battleships? Well, use five. You may get caught while waiting for the second pass, but a few minutes is acceptable. You should not be able to instantly and safely roll holes with them. It doesn't matter why you're rolling. You could be NOHO wanting a cap fight, or you could be a group of VOC alts running a three man expo system. Neither group should get risk free rolling. If you can't live without risk free rolling, you don't belong in WH space. Because this means rage rolling will take SOO much longer. If you can't field the requisite number of battleships. Also means all those battleship pilots will have to reship if something is found in the next wormhole.
If you can't field 10 battleships, it will infact take longer. Infact, if you can only field 5 battleships, it may take an entire polarization cycle! And yes, those people will need to re-ship (or, you know, fight in battleships).
What you don't seem to understand is that increasing the time and difficulty of ragerolling appears to be CCP's goal. Much like people are crying for nerfs to the ability to move through known space, CCP seems to believe that being able to cycle your static 50+ times in an evening may be excessive. |
Connall Tara
Conquering Darkness
126
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:00:00 -
[137] - Quote
First off, the majority of changes for hyperion? AWESOME
this change? I have some significant concerns.
on face value I can see the intention behind this change. the increase of risk related to activities is always to be encourages in my mind and that CCP is persuing this concept is most gratifying.
however there are issues here I feel i need to bring up into how this change could potentially seriously affect the nonlinear strategies which are part of what gives wormhole space it's charm.
firstly: wormhole space represents a unique area in eve where thanks to existing wormhole mechanics it's possible for smaller entities to successfully combat and defend against larger entities. a lot of this is due to the nature of wormholes and their mass and time mechanics. this additional "victory condition" creates a scenario where gurilla tactics are entirely viable and small well equipped strikes can engage a numerically superior force and thanks to the "choke-point" of a wormhole engineer a situation where they can emerge victorious. one of the reasons for this situation is that wormholes almost create a "point buy" mechanism within eve. where a smaller number of players can make use of larger ships (in this case battleships and capitals) in order to overcome the lack of individual player numbers. conversely, larger groups have to decide if they want to deploy the larger, more powerful ships, or leverage their numerical superiority with a bigger group of smaller vessels.
now the big issue I worry about here is that this change would punish the players who choose to deploy the smaller force. while the ships are individually more powerful (and as a result more expensive) they suffer from the tactical limitations of having less players behind each ship. capitals for example are very vulnerable to a dedicated T3 force within wormhole space and due to mass restrictions and mass amounts will often only be lightly escorted within the target wormhole for fear of being counter jumped and trapped within. is this a risk? most certainly and it's one that many wormhole corporations ALREADY take extremely seriously.
so how do i see this change as potentially negative? primarily my worry is that this change heavily favors the force which can deploy more pilots. larger entities can field significantly more "expendable" hulls for the task (plated battleships would be the obvious option) and would, no doubt, overcome this change by the simple application of more pilots to negate the wormhole polarization mechanic.
much in the same way that null-sec suffers from disproportionately large groups and alliances I would fear that this change would force serious wormhole entities to follow the same methodology lest they find them selves at a significant disadvantage. quite simply larger groups will negate this change through the application of numbers leaving only the smaller entities to actually be affected.
secondly: I am also somewhat concerned in regards to how this change somewhat conflicts with the overall theme of the rest of hyperion. most of the changes have quite clearly been designed in such a way to encourage movement between wormholes. the introductions of secondary statics for C4's being an excellent example. similarly the new frigate microholes are an excellent way to encourage people to move quickly and more often between spaces.
this change however, with the intention of slowing down "rage rolling" seems contradictory in my mind. on one hand the majority of changes encourage activity and connectivity within wormhole space. while this second change would necessitate players expending significantly more effort in creating new connections. slowing down exploration for the higher end wormhole entities without the numbers to reliably chain collapse (something I don't Believe larger groups won't have an issue with as previously mentioned).
more thoughts later on as the conversation develops :) Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
|
Aender Wiggin
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:00:00 -
[138] - Quote
Kim Briggs wrote:I realy like the change, that higher mass ships spawn further away from the wh.
In the current state it is nearly impossible to get a fight with wh residence, if they are active and don't want to fight. I face this situation on a nearly daily base, that i scan a wh, scout it, form a fleet, suddenly caps appear on my side and 5 sec later the wh is gone. That is a risk free method to avoid any unwanted contact and should be gone
Good change CCP!
And you are under the impression that if it becomes too risky people will still do it? I sugest you put yourself in their shoes and think again. Players adapt in may different ways and becoming totally passive (possing up, logging in an empire alt and mining etc.) is one such way. Verry bad for the future of WH space. |
na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:03:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release.
Can you tell the dudes sitting in your building that this is a bad change and we don't want it. or better yet -- as him/her to start reading this thread to understand the public sentiment behind this. |
Arestris
Aurora Armaments The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.
I love all the other changes being proposed.
However this one needs to be scratched.
Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there.
Your'e wrong! I think it's more like 99% of all people who read the devblog agree to the change und see absolutly no reason to post here. Such a reason have mostly the people who doesn't like the change. Thats the mainreason Topics like this looks like nearly everyone doesn't like the change. |
|
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
Arestris wrote:biz Antollare wrote:Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.
I love all the other changes being proposed.
However this one needs to be scratched.
Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there. Your'e wrong! I think it's more like 99% of all people who read the devblog agree to the change und see absolutly no reason to post here. Such a reason have mostly the people who doesn't like the change. Thats the mainreason Topics like this looks like nearly everyone doesn't like the change. Nice spin. |
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:07:00 -
[142] - Quote
Aender Wiggin wrote:
And you are under the impression that if it becomes too risky people will still do it? I sugest you put yourself in their shoes and think again. Players adapt in may different ways and becoming totally passive (possing up, logging in an empire alt and mining etc.) is one such way. Verry bad for the future of WH space.
but it would make Wormholes just like Null sec, which is after all the eve endgame....
/sarcasm off/
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2115
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:08:00 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, you wrote in your post that you support emergent gameplay. well, rolling is emergent gameplay and is here to stay. therefore, i propose that making it harder and more annoying is not in your interest. i understand that you want to make shutting oneself in harder, but making the 'door' waste more time and effort is not a good way to do it.
i'm sure this has been proposed over and over already, but why don't we try going the opposite route: create a relatively cheap, quick and reliable way to close a wormhole (such as a deployable or a specialized drone etc.). you could control rage-rolling by progressively increasing the respawn time on statics and you could reduce the safety of 'locked in' people by favoring systems that have been closed off with a higher chance of incoming wandering connections.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:09:00 -
[144] - Quote
Arestris wrote:biz Antollare wrote:Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.
I love all the other changes being proposed.
However this one needs to be scratched.
Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there. Your'e wrong! I think it's more like 99% of all people who read the devblog agree to the change und see absolutly no reason to post here. Such a reason have mostly the people who doesn't like the change. Thats the mainreason Topics like this looks like nearly everyone doesn't like the change.
jeez mate I want what your smoking :) |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
164
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:11:00 -
[145] - Quote
na'Vi Ronuken wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release. Can you tell the dudes sitting in your building that this is a bad change and we don't want it. or better yet -- as him/her to start reading this thread to understand the public sentiment behind this. Don't worry, everything posted in this thread is being read by the relevant designers (I sit right next to Fozzie so can confirm this first hand!). CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/ccp_lebowski |
|
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
270
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:11:00 -
[146] - Quote
Everything Traiori already said.
Furthermore:
We have had many excellent fights with other corps where one side gets a pretty sound beating and the survivors return to the POS to lick their wounds. One side or the other then generally rolls away to find more trouble. However, if neither side feels that they can safely roll away, and neither side feels confident in their ability to win the second round of the fight, you end up with both sides staring each other down but not wanting to engage.
It also introduces an option for a type of "fun denial" warfare that nobody is going to like. As the goons and other nullseccers will just camp people into stations, a gigantic group could simply leave open a wormhole because a smaller group doesn't have the means to crash it without losing AT LEAST one very expensive ship. The nullseccers themselves could easily do this. We periodically connect to staging systems and the like, and frequently have a little skirmish, but if we see the 200-man blob coming, we have to slam the door. There's just a limit to how many people we can have in a wormhole. If we can't slam the door, then what? We just have to sit around and wait for the hole to crash? That's not gameplay, or fun, or something that anyone in w-space is looking forward to.
It's not a good idea. I recognize that slamming the door to avoid PvP is an annoyance, but this solution introduces more problems and unfun gameplay than it fixes. |
Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
57
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:11:00 -
[147] - Quote
Surely the way to increase the chance of conflict in w-space is to make it easier to roll a wormhole rather than harder. Yes this means farmers can roll away their own static but they have no control over other groups rage rolling a K162 in their direction. Assuming farming groups don't outnumber combat-ready groups then a greater churn of K162s means more possibility of conflict.
Unless CCPs actual, unstated, goal is to reduce rage-rolling for fights... |
Dama Arishe
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:12:00 -
[148] - Quote
I can get on board with most of the changes, but the mass-based spawn just isn't a good idea. This isn't the kind of attention wspace needs. It doesn't provide any new content and adds frustration to an already annoying process. Cue pos-spinning instead of ninja-rolling for small corps.
Also not a fan of the K162 change. I'd love to know what % of wormholes actually get jumped through (from the spawn system). Would that make this change make sense? I dunno. It's going to make kspace to wspace K162s a lot rarer. |
Reve Uhad
Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:12:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:na'Vi Ronuken wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release. Can you tell the dudes sitting in your building that this is a bad change and we don't want it. or better yet -- as him/her to start reading this thread to understand the public sentiment behind this. Don't worry, everything posted in this thread is being read by the relevant designers (I sit right next to Fozzie so can confirm this first hand!).
Is he sweating/swearing/pacing/facepalming?
Cause if so I demand a picture of this. |
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
9
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:13:00 -
[150] - Quote
I do not approve this wh breaking mechanics. |
|
|
|
|
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 |