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) |
Hatshepsut IV
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
190
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:33:00 -
[241] - Quote
Traiori wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:from the null sec point as fc i hate when fights end with the jumping of caps and the level of security they do it with. If i go through a gate in null i risk everything at spawn distance, in the case of regional gates a ***** on logi with a damp on em. The difference now is that fights will end before you normally saw the caps at all. Triage archons let our smaller fleets engage your larger ones. I've been in a fair few scraps where there's been 70-100 nullsec people lying around trying to get at things, and we simply can't fight you without bringing the triage archon with us. We now can't bring that triage archon. This might differ for groups that can field 40-50 pilots (like Hard Knocks), but certainly you'll see less engagements from the smaller groups.
This is a perfect summation of this.
You too can start failing today! Reddit-áad | Cascading Failure Public Channel | Aspiring Failure
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:35:00 -
[242] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:Querns wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Querns wrote: Sure it is -- assuming, of course, that the "lore" behind WH anoms is true; namely, that completing a site causes it to immediately respawn in another wormhole of the same class or "region" (I've heard multiple versions.) Consider C6s -- most of these systems are populated and C6 dwellers typically report a high rate of respawn for anomalies. Compare this to C5s, which are more numerous, and often require intentional mass exhaustion to locate sites. This is a classic example of one behavior affecting the other; exhausting the wormhole mass allows you to consume the resources that are being concentrated in fallow systems by this overconsumption in the first place.
fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible. Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion. Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion. Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V
(contrivance ahoy) This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
SpacePhenix
KnownUnknown
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:37:00 -
[243] - Quote
Soo CCP ******* up the sience and industry wasnt inugh??????
Do not toutch WH space... its bad inugh as it is... and honestly i dont trust you to improve the game anymore.... course your have only ****** eve up the last 3-4-5 patches so i beg u .... DO NOT F TOUCH WH SPACE....
Note to self spurges ... Do you see the who this post is adressed to... |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
653
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:37:00 -
[244] - Quote
Querns wrote: Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V
(contrivance ahoy)
long ago Wormfleet planned to do this, but that was back in the 200k dyspro days
sure as hell wouldn't do it now
edit: fun fact I can use gazes solely because I trained them for what we thought would be the initial rush to find dyspro in the wormholes, and you can imagine how pleased i was at that month of training once they didn't seed moon mins |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
210
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:37:00 -
[245] - Quote
Just further food for thought on the suggestion of movement speed when jumping being proportional to distance you spawn from the WH. That'd be great fun imo. Small mobile skirmish fleets could burn at the hole and jump, to try and get past brawlers on the other side with bubbles. Yes some might argue that means they'll just run away - but atleast they're jumping right?! |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:39:00 -
[246] - Quote
Bleedingthrough wrote:Rolling our 3bil C2-C5 static will be so much fun. Up to 6.3 km away from jump range in BS. And every time we connect to a major PvP group we will lose ships or have to log for the night. Give C2s the income to feed 100 ppl and we will be able to defend our collapsing BS and give a fight.
Try nano - typhoons or panthers. Boating a short distance in either is not a big deal. One could argue this change is an improvement for black ops as further out will frequently be better. |
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:39:00 -
[247] - Quote
Querns wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:Querns wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Querns wrote: Sure it is -- assuming, of course, that the "lore" behind WH anoms is true; namely, that completing a site causes it to immediately respawn in another wormhole of the same class or "region" (I've heard multiple versions.) Consider C6s -- most of these systems are populated and C6 dwellers typically report a high rate of respawn for anomalies. Compare this to C5s, which are more numerous, and often require intentional mass exhaustion to locate sites. This is a classic example of one behavior affecting the other; exhausting the wormhole mass allows you to consume the resources that are being concentrated in fallow systems by this overconsumption in the first place.
fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible. Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion. Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion. Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V (contrivance ahoy) So we do want mass exhaustion? |
Thom Mangum
Blue-Fire
17
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:40:00 -
[248] - Quote
Terrible idea.
1. Small groups simply won't be able to roll very often. Orcas dying every week will get old for low-class residents. Even spawning 8k away, this gives plenty Capitals dying is even worse. With these changes you'll want to warp off your capital and back to roll the wormhole. For smaller groups this just won't be worth the risk. If there is anybody ~relevant~ in the chain, this hole just isn't going to close and that whole corp will have to log off for the day. Even for larger groups, there are times when I am rolling the hole by myself at off-hours to try and get some solo pvp down the chain. I'll have to log off until later because it's not worth the risk of a dread to close bad connections.
2. Rage Rolling This will over triple the time required to rage roll. capitals have to warp off hole and back to close the connection.
3. Capitals won't be used for skirmishes in other systems Capitals are often used to balance out numbers in enemy systems (being the only logi allows other pilots to get combat ships), knowing that you can retreat easily if the fight starts going south. Capitals often still die on wormholes like this, but if these changes are implemented nobody will be willing to put that carrier in at 20km away from the fight, knowing they have to win or surrender the capital. On top of this, capitals spawning up to 40km away from each other doesn't allow for refitting, an essential capital ship combat technique.
With these changes, CCP seems like it is promoting blobfests in wormholes like they already have done in nullsec. Large groups already are capable of fielding 50 man t3 gangs, I'd really rather that number go down. These changes only make life easier as a wormblobber, and harder on the small man. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
152
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:40:00 -
[249] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Just further food for thought on the suggestion of movement speed when jumping being proportional to distance you spawn from the WH. That'd be great fun imo. Small mobile skirmish fleets could burn at the hole and jump, to try and get past brawlers on the other side with bubbles. Yes some might argue that means they'll just run away - but atleast they're jumping right?!
I like this idea. It would be more fun and interesting if movement were more significant. |
Tvashnar Crendraven
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:40:00 -
[250] - Quote
"I want to remind people that unannounced changes appearing on test servers are not a reliable guide for what might reach Tranquility."
Unless it's a bug. |
|
Undermine Dahl
Revenant Tactical Ineluctable.
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:41:00 -
[251] - Quote
I really think this is gona hurt small gang big time. I fly in 10-20 man fleets and we just moved into a c5 > c3. If say a large wh corp comes alonge I want to fight them. This would recruire some tactics like seperating their fleet and such or putting mass on the wormhole to limit their ships. I am not going to order my carrier pilot to round trip if there is any chance the residance just say oh there is a carrier on scan> he will be out of jump range > Ill warp my saber to the hole so as the carrier bounces I can get it stuck even farther away.
I think all the other changes are really and will make it very interesting but this one feel in a way like making whs gates.
I feel that it is part of wormhole space to say "whats going on in this system" then jump through and there is a very large t3 fleet with carrier support and dreads on dscan and then to just jump back out of that hole and bounce to escape. Its also part of it that you are in a scan frig or other cloaky and there is a chance you are gona get caught inside decloak range and you may be killed. I just feel this is not going to make any one very happy. even the large groups (who it favors unlike what I feel wormholes is all about (small gangs being very effective)) say its not a good change.
Just think about it for you self and take feedback from people that play the game almost every day.
this much negative feedback when most people are on out doing stuff for summer. its not going to be good. dont force stuff that everyone who lives in this area say its a bad idea. |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
21
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:42:00 -
[252] - Quote
Querns wrote: Have you considered that the very act of intentionally exhausting wormholes is causing this observed desertion? Being able to consume the anomalies and sites of multiple wormholes in series allows one group to consume the "living wage" of many other potential groups.
How would that even happen? Even if there were a large number of groups in C5s/C6s consuming every site - the respawn mechanism would mean that there exactly as many sites at the end as there were at the beginning of the process. The fact that you can roll into C5 after unoccupied C5 with large numbers of sites (and which prior to the NPC kill information being removed you could tell hadn't been touched in weeks) indicates clearly that the mechanism you describe is not in effect. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2060
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:42:00 -
[253] - Quote
A+ change.
ty for trying to bring some actual risk to wormholes. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:43:00 -
[254] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:Querns wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion. Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V (contrivance ahoy) So we do want mass exhaustion? No, I was replying in jest to your assertion that adding moon minerals to wormholes would somehow decrease the use of mass exhaustion. It would cause it to increase; it's not like anyone would be sated solely from moon mining income, and it increases the amount of hauling that has to go in and out of the wormhole. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
653
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:44:00 -
[255] - Quote
SpacePhenix wrote:Soo CCP ******* up the sience and industry wasnt inugh??????
Do not toutch WH space... its bad inugh as it is... and honestly i dont trust you to improve the game anymore.... course your have only ****** eve up the last 3-4-5 patches so i beg u .... DO NOT F TOUCH WH SPACE....
Note to self spurges ... Do you see the who this post is adressed to... This is a friendly suggestion but your input would probably be taken more seriously if you tried spelling words correctly as that indicates you took the time to think about what you were saying and put some serious effort into it.
It would also help if you spelled your name correctly. |
Dominus Alterai
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
106
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:44:00 -
[256] - Quote
Thom Mangum wrote:Terrible idea.
1. Small groups simply won't be able to roll very often. Orcas dying every week will get old for low-class residents. Even spawning 8k away, this gives plenty Capitals dying is even worse. With these changes you'll want to warp off your capital and back to roll the wormhole. For smaller groups this just won't be worth the risk. If there is anybody ~relevant~ in the chain, this hole just isn't going to close and that whole corp will have to log off for the day. Even for larger groups, there are times when I am rolling the hole by myself at off-hours to try and get some solo pvp down the chain. I'll have to log off until later because it's not worth the risk of a dread to close bad connections.
2. Rage Rolling This will over triple the time required to rage roll. capitals have to warp off hole and back to close the connection.
3. Capitals won't be used for skirmishes in other systems Capitals are often used to balance out numbers in enemy systems (being the only logi allows other pilots to get combat ships), knowing that you can retreat easily if the fight starts going south. Capitals often still die on wormholes like this, but if these changes are implemented nobody will be willing to put that carrier in at 20km away from the fight, knowing they have to win or surrender the capital. On top of this, capitals spawning up to 40km away from each other doesn't allow for refitting, an essential capital ship combat technique.
With these changes, CCP seems like it is promoting blobfests in wormholes like they already have done in nullsec. Large groups already are capable of fielding 50 man t3 gangs, I'd really rather that number go down. These changes only make life easier as a wormblobber, and harder on the small man.
And this, my friends, is the reason people live in w-space: to avoid the blob fest and chances of hot drops.
Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009. |
Jess Tanner
Bangworks Systems Inc.
114
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:44:00 -
[257] - Quote
20km is effectively the same as 40km when your talking about rolling a hole, you still have to warp off. The suggestion about tying the extended jump range to one side of the jump equation has some merit though, if not the k162->spawnhole jump, perhaps if you jump a wormhole and it would result in either polarization or the collapse of a wormhole (ie the 2nd jump in 4.5 minutes, usually the return on a collapsing jump), your spawn is possibly further away, that wouldn't kill rage rolling for content, would not effect wormhole logistics, and would input an interesting dynamic to cap fights on a wormhole. Go with Bob, keep Him always in your heart. He is your Sword, Shield, and the Knife in your back. |
Edgar Strangelove
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
9
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:45:00 -
[258] - Quote
I ask that you consider the first part of the devblog. Our peculiar little civilization sprung up around the ability to manipulate wormholes the way we do. The fact that we can go looking for fights, looking for PvE, or looking for good connections to k-space to do logistics has informed how we have built our entire infrastructure. The fact that we can let people be trapped in hostile systems and chainroll to get them back influences how we interact with other corporations. The fact that everyone gets dumped on top of each other within jump range is what makes the polarization timer so relevant. The ability to drastically change the environment mid-fight, either to split up a fleet or cut off reinforcements, means that everyone involved has to try to be watching everywhere all at once.
Another thing to consider is that wormhole space uses capitals differently. They're the biggest and baddest asset we can take to a fight, and they get blinged out like supercaps in k-space. Capitals jump into a fight and slam triage/siege. They can't jump in triage or siege anyway. Their support fleet will be mostly cruiser sized. This scattering spreads people out and means that whoever your fleet is jumping into has the positioning advantage from the start. Sure, it's interesting to think of calling a fight where you space people out by distance and have them tackle whoever spawns right next to them, but thinking of being the fleet jumping into that snare over and over again is much less appealing. There's a reason that you don't always jump on contact: because you don't always want to send people in piecemeal and let them get spread out without having all the information.
The change you want to make to K162 spawning will do plenty to alter the environment in favor of giving hunting players more time undetected by their prey. You can't crash a wormhole that you can't detect yet. If a K162 signature doesn't spawn until someone has transited it, then whoever is on the hunt has a lot more lead time. If nothing else, they'll always beat the occupants of the destination system to the hole.
Wormhole collapsing and spawning mechanics are what we live around. Dead time bouncing capitals off of planets to chainroll faster is boring. Doing the things we chainroll to find or enable is fun. Hiding in a POS because there's a 50 person fleet at your door and you only have 10 is boring. Slamming the door in their faces and finding something fun to do with those 10 people -- like, say, hunting for a fleet closer to our own size -- is a much better use of our time. We might risk committing capitals to speed crash even if there is a hostile fleet on the other side, or even to tempt them into jumpin. We won't do that if the capital lands 20k off the hole on the far side. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:46:00 -
[259] - Quote
Necharo Rackham wrote:Querns wrote: Have you considered that the very act of intentionally exhausting wormholes is causing this observed desertion? Being able to consume the anomalies and sites of multiple wormholes in series allows one group to consume the "living wage" of many other potential groups.
How would that even happen? Even if there were a large number of groups in C5s/C6s consuming every site - the respawn mechanism would mean that there exactly as many sites at the end as there were at the beginning of the process. The fact that you can roll into C5 after unoccupied C5 with large numbers of sites (and which prior to the NPC kill information being removed you could tell hadn't been touched in weeks) indicates clearly that the mechanism you describe is not in effect. The general idea is that the act of using mass exhaustion to cycle your wormhole connections causes all of the anoms to, statistically speaking, concentrate in very small areas, rather than spreading around for more casual wormhole dwellers to find and consume. It's not a black or white thing, but rather how the anoms cluster and trend, causing a smaller number of more skilled dwellers to dominate the space, since they are able to track down and consume the content more efficiently. Putting soft barriers to mass exhaustion encourages these sites to spread out more generally, and allows for more players to consume the content. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Triumvirate.
94
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:48:00 -
[260] - Quote
If people hate the "Spawn distance" so much, what would people think of having "Warp distance" be substituted?
EG, to collapse a WH you would have a default "Warp To" range based on Mass and a factor of sensor strength unless.... you controlled your side of the WH. Meaning if you warped to an uncloaked gang-mate at 0 on the WH you would warp at 0, but if you warped to the WH itself at 0 you would end up the set distance off the WH.
I definitely want to address cycling a WH with entirely unsupported capitals (Which IMO is lazy and holds no risk), and the default changes do this to a degree I'm happy with, but others might not like.
If you're actually present and providing opportunities for PvP, then go for it, but being safe in jumping caps into and out of a hostile fleet in a WH where you had no intention of controlling either side always seemed a bit silly to me, and probably should get its teeth knocked out. |
|
Dominus Alterai
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
106
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:53:00 -
[261] - Quote
Frothgar wrote:If people hate the "Spawn distance" so much, what would people think of having "Warp distance" be substituted?
EG, to collapse a WH you would have a default "Warp To" range based on Mass and a factor of sensor strength unless.... you controlled your side of the WH. Meaning if you warped to an uncloaked gang-mate at 0 on the WH you would warp at 0, but if you warped to the WH itself at 0 you would end up the set distance off the WH.
I definitely want to address cycling a WH with entirely unsupported capitals (Which IMO is lazy and holds no risk), and the default changes do this to a degree I'm happy with, but others might not like.
If you're actually present and providing opportunities for PvP, then go for it, but being safe in jumping caps into and out of a hostile fleet in a WH where you had no intention of controlling either side always seemed a bit silly to me, and probably should get its teeth knocked out.
You do realize the point of rage rolling is, 99% of the time, for pvp? Having it rolled with three guys while the rest of the fleet is ready in combat ships is how it's usually done...
Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009. |
Cirillith
Bean-shidh The Nameless Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:53:00 -
[262] - 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. EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be inversely proportional to mass (higher mass=close) and directly proportional to maximum speed (higher maximum speed = further away).
This would be mainly my feedback to you. I totally agree with all above. I would maybe add that new mechanic denies you many tactics including collapsing hole during fight and cutting off your opponent from his reinforcements etc.
This is simple most controversial change from all posted in DEVBlog. I also think that despite what CCP Fozzie posted there: Link to threadnought
CCP Fozzie wrote:We've now released the dev blog that goes over the changes we are proposing for Hyperion in detail. Please take a look and then feel free to direct your feedback on wormhole jump spawn distance changes in this thread.
Since this thread is based on incorrect numbers I'm going to lock it and direct people to the new thread now that we have released the blog. I think ALL feedback from that threadnought should and must be taken under consideration, since numbers change is kinda irrevelant - what is the difference 30 between 20 km for capital ship... |
biz Antollare
Merchants Trade Consortium Disavowed.
19
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:54:00 -
[263] - Quote
This thread isn't for suggestions ... Its for feedback on the current proposed change. |
ChaseTheLasers
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
73
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:54:00 -
[264] - Quote
I'd like to know the average number of pilots in an active WH system. I know a lot of corps are the 'smaller' guys who got sick of nullsec. I'd bet the number of average pilots is quite small in a system.
The throwing distance is going to hit some of these I think then it comes to using caps. I'm interested to see how the change pans out, but it's quite a few of them together. You need to keep in mind that rolling is done because people *want* PvP most of the time.
I'd much rather see a cap jump through, be like it is now, but have a 'destabilising' factor which means it can't jump for another minute or so if anything. Smaller ships, like frigs, should be able to jump back right away like the mechanics allow now. This encourages the 'send a scout' mentality before committing larger ships. Scale it with ship size, if needed.
Heck, there are entirely different methods you could use. What about WH jumping eating into cap? Again, scale it with ship size. A frig only gets hit for 10% cap use. A capital uses 80% (or whatever) of its cap jumping. All of a sudden the capital has to replenish cap before jumping back again. If it gets attacked it's not in a great situation and could quickly give the rollers a serious issue, even with a limited number of people attacking it. A Bhaalgorn is really going to ruin a rollers day if it landed on grid while it's charging its cap. Now the rollers need to commit a fleet to save it or it dies.
Not that I'm a fan of the idea overall currently, I'm just trying to think of less bad alternatives (and probably failing). I'll see how it plays out. |
a51 himself
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exit Strategy..
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:55:00 -
[265] - Quote
gues, just a NO will be sufficient after all the coments |
MyrddinBishop
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
22
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:57:00 -
[266] - Quote
I originally took interest to this topic when the EVE-O and Reddit posts went up following the discovery on SISI. I decided that there would be no point to attempt to provide feedback until CCP rolled out the DEV Blog and the appropriate thread was started. After reading the DEV Blog and taking a look at the communities response I figured now would be as good of a time as any to weigh in.
At first glance this seems like it would be a good change. If current rolling behavior remained the same post-patch then it would result in more capital ganks and farmers removed from their carebear dreads and carrier in glorious violence. However, this is unlikely to be the case.
Farmers by their very nature are risk adverse. They would rather log off than risk handing over any killmails to potential hostiles. So in attempting to increase the risk of capital rolling, in fact this change is decreasing our chances of catching rolling forces closer to zero than it already is, as the targets would opt to log off. As it is, we do have options at our disposal to catch rolling capitals, it just requires some advance preparation.
I think capital brawls on the wormhole also need to be looked at. This is the bread and butter of high class wormhole life. This is why I as well as many of the other notable entities that live in C5 and C6 space choose to live in a hostile environment. Now dealing with the dynamic of spreading capitals upon spawning on the far side of the Wormhole sounds interesting and I am generally in support of a shakeup. The problem is the new dynamic puts the advantage square on those on the defending side of the wormhole. Currently, it is really quite difficult to take the upper hand in a brawl in another entities home. One method is close proximity Carrier placement to allow combat refitting that extends the survivability of the aggressing capitals. With long range spawns this is no longer viable and in fact a potential of spawning capitals 40km away from each other makes them so much more vulnerable. While the defending force is free to place their capitals in a manor that is completely favorable to a winning outcome. So really it shifts the advantage even more so than it already is to an entrenched Wormhole entity.
I feel like that the proposed change may become more viable if a more subtle approach was taken. One that doesn't necessarily eliminate some of the major current metas in use in Wormhole space and adds the more dynamic interaction that CCP is looking for out of this change. Personally I would be more in support of this change if the maximum Capital spawn distance is reduced from the current proposal. Really all that is needed is for the capital to spawn just out of jump range. Somewhere on the order of 7.5km would be fine with me. This would be just far enough away that under webs and bumping the capital could be held away from the wormhole until a backup gank force could arrive. It would also give the tackled Capital a short window of time to counter the tackle by giving them a chance to make the Wormhole and jump back. It would be a much more even playing field for both Attacker and Defender. It would also be close enough that the farmers would feel safe enough to attempt rolling possibly even in hostile situations. This would also put the spawns of capitals close enough together that there would actually be a chance of slowboating closer together in the middle of combat. It would still decrease the incidence of triage carriers jumping straight back after exiting a single cycle as they won't be able to move closer to the wormhole while in triage.
Reading some of the feedback of this thread I have heard a couple times of the proposal that velocity should influence spawn distance on the other side. I would be in support of a change like this. It would increase the viability of kiting fleet in Wormhole space. As it is currently the only meta is Armor Brawling fleets as nearly every fight occurs at zero on the Wormhole. With a change like this a nano fleet could MWD into a Wormhole, jump and spawn at a range that would support kiting. A change like this would add a much needed dynamic to Wormhole space. Much more so than changing the spawn distance that is currently proposed.
So in the end, this change seems to favor the bigger entities and hurt the little guy even more and decrease the likelihood of engagements with other entities in Wormhole space rather than increase them. Please review this specific change, CCP, and tweak it until it achieves the desired outcome, not move us further away from it. Thanks. |
Missy Bunnz
Team Pizza The Hole Next Door
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:57:00 -
[267] - Quote
a51 himself wrote:gues, just a NO will be sufficient after all the coments
How often does a "No" ever work?
Be realistic. They want to decrease the safety of rolling wormholes. Its going to happen. Make it have as few unintended side effects as possible. Spawn distance is not the way. Time to re-jump is. |
Sanuki Sukuuvestaa
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:58:00 -
[268] - Quote
Dont think this is going to change much tbh.. So everyone that jumps in first with a covert ops to scout the new connection have that scout mwd 200 above and act as a ping for the capitals coming in, followed by a webloki to nullify the intentions of forcing the cap to "be on grid" long enough for the attacker to respond. This is basically a "Im forcing you to warp twice"-mechanic, and doubtful to be someone stupid enough to slowboat back to the hole for 3,5-4,5 minutes in a dread :P
If the idea is to have the caps be vurnerable for a response, then i think a better option would be that once a cap enters a hole, the amount of mass passing throught it makes it "unstable" for a short amount of time, denying the first or any other capital to jump the hole.. Much like a global but shorter polarized-timer that is shared both ways of the jump. Maybe even make it so nobody can jump for 30 sec or whatever, denying a reinforcement-jump if said capital does get in trouble. I dont know, just a random idea, but just saying i don't think the distance will really effect anything since its so easily avoided by pings+web+warp. |
Alundil
Isogen 5
627
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:59:00 -
[269] - Quote
Querns wrote: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.
Oh my - this IS rich coming from where it does. Let's remove some of the NIMBY double-speak
Limiting the rapacity (good vocab by the way - I approve) that established parties (hmmmm who might these be) can consume resources far afield of what they are able to control, allowing more parties to enter space in general. All in all a good change for the health of the game.....
You don't say. Limiting established parties. More parties in space in general.
Huh, that's a novel concept you've got there. You might be on to something.
I'm right behind you |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2060
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 19:00:00 -
[270] - Quote
Dominus Alterai wrote: You do realize the point of rage rolling is, 99% of the time, for pvp? Having it rolled with three guys while the rest of the fleet is ready in combat ships is how it's usually done...
I thought the point was to look for weaker targets that you can face-roll or make log out. But yeah, I guess you can call that pvp.
Heavens forbid if there was any actual risk to it. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
|
|
|
|
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 |