Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ridvanson
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 11:33:24 -
[61] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Luft Reich wrote:Reasoning behind c6 space having more battleships spawn than c5 space? Biased much? Should really be even. funny enough the idea for that attually came from someone who lives in C5 space as at the moment there is literally no reason what so ever to live in c6 over c5 the iskis exactly the same, your safer in a c5 get more null sec exits for pew. there is literally no reason to be in a c6 wh over a c5. But playing devils advocate, why should they really be the same?
For one, C6 systems spawn more sites on average, at least that seems to be a widely accepted supposition. But you may have a point anyways in making C6 escalation a little bit harder/more valuable ...
Would you care to comment on my suggestion as well? :P Quoting myself for convenience ...
Ridvanson wrote:
I remember someone from CCP stating, that they didn't like how sites in C5/C6 space were run with regards to escalating them more than once. So any discussion about an overhaul must take into account that this feature is likely going to be removed.
Having that in mind, I imagine the following changes would accomplish the goal of encouraging people to run sites in there static without skewing the balance of escalation risk/reward.
- increase the value of the sites themselves by some 100m/150m isk for C5/C6 class wh (simply by adding 1 or 2 waves) - introduce a 14 day timer after which sites despawn automatically without being triggered - turn up the total number of combat sites (if necessary) - leave capital escalations alone! - introduce a sleeper capital that spawns on the warp-in of a third dread. To motivate people to actually finish the site, the sleeper capitals's wreck can only be accessed by way of hacking after ALL sleepers in the site are dead. I'm thinking the value of the sleeper capital should be around ~50m + the chance to drop some rare mods.
Also: how are you going to approach CCP about these things? I understand CCP asked you to compile a list of WH-PvE little things, is this part of that? Imho the participation of the wider wh-community on this topic has been too small to warrant making any changes to cap. escalations.
What are you going to recommend to CCP? Would be great to learn that beforehand in order to allow for some more discussion. |
Ziirn
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
39
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 12:00:00 -
[62] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Luft Reich wrote:Reasoning behind c6 space having more battleships spawn than c5 space? Biased much? Should really be even. funny enough the idea for that attually came from someone who lives in C5 space as at the moment there is literally no reason what so ever to live in c6 over c5 the iskis exactly the same, your safer in a c5 get more null sec exits for pew. there is literally no reason to be in a c6 wh over a c5. But playing devils advocate, why should they really be the same?
Will quote myself from earlier in post.
Ziirn wrote: For the first of things we allready run sites in our static since we don't get enough sites to run. C5 wh's don't get tons of new spawns everyday like C6 wh's do. There are less C6 wh's so more of them are farmed to completion/triggered so you can get fresh sites in your wh. I been told NOHO runs about 10 escalations a day. Thats numbers we could only dream about.
The numbers 6 and 9 its a huge differance between. Keep em at 8 in C5 space and let it be 9 in C6. But what really needs to be adressed is the respawn of sites in C6 space. How often do C6 inhabbitants not have sites to run? In C5 space we can have 0 for a long time and are lucky if we get 5+ active sites if we run sites/someone triggers them.
Am I misstaken about C6 residents always having sites to do? Can someone living in one please comment :) |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
920
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 12:08:21 -
[63] - Quote
Ridvanson wrote:Ridvanson wrote:
I remember someone from CCP stating, that they didn't like how sites in C5/C6 space were run with regards to escalating them more than once. So any discussion about an overhaul must take into account that this feature is likely going to be removed.
Having that in mind, I imagine the following changes would accomplish the goal of encouraging people to run sites in there static without skewing the balance of escalation risk/reward.
- increase the value of the sites themselves by some 100m/150m isk for C5/C6 class wh (simply by adding 1 or 2 waves) - introduce a 14 day timer after which sites despawn automatically without being triggered - turn up the total number of combat sites (if necessary) - leave capital escalations alone! - introduce a sleeper capital that spawns on the warp-in of a third dread. To motivate people to actually finish the site, the sleeper capitals's wreck can only be accessed by way of hacking after ALL sleepers in the site are dead. I'm thinking the value of the sleeper capital should be around ~50m + the chance to drop some rare mods.
Also: how are you going to approach CCP about these things? I understand CCP asked you to compile a list of WH-PvE little things, is this part of that? Imho the participation of the wider wh-community on this topic has been too small to warrant making any changes to cap. escalations. What are you going to recommend to CCP? Would be great to learn that beforehand in order to allow for some more discussion.
so increasing base site is ok depending on who you do it if its just more sleepers its just longer to do stuff. if its some can then it helps isk/hour.
sites are on a 7 day timer which CCP Affinity said at the last talk.(or should be its something i am chasing up).
turning up sites maybe this woudl depend on above and if it is working.
capital escalation i will be honest, I think will have to change in some way this issue is in a big group makes ok isk when its split between 10 people but min maxing gives really good isk. combined with teh fact you can do them 4 days in a row.
sleeper capitals and stuff are def interesting and something i like, its how easy that would be.
As for approaching ccp about this I've mentioned else where a bit about this. but the ideas are already up on ccp's confluenece and i'm chatting to alot of the developers about it, one of the off shoots of this is that they are coming to listen to us about issues and things (and hopefully we can get other things sorted).
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
920
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 12:12:35 -
[64] - Quote
Ziirn wrote:
The numbers 6 and 9 its a huge differance between. Keep em at 8 in C5 space and let it be 9 in C6. But what really needs to be adressed is the respawn of sites in C6 space. How often do C6 inhabbitants not have sites to run? In C5 space we can have 0 for a long time and are lucky if we get 5+ active sites if we run sites/someone triggers them.
Am I misstaken about C6 residents always having sites to do? Can someone living in one please comment :)
I'll attually try and get some proper numbers on this rather than it be very subjective with "ooh i think this" or "so and so says that"
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
|
Ridvanson
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 12:36:56 -
[65] - Quote
corbexx wrote:
sites are on a 7 day timer which CCP Affinity said at the last talk.(or should be its something i am chasing up).
turning up sites maybe this woudl depend on above and if it is working.
Awesome, didn't know that! Did that change recently? Would be cool to get confirmation on that
corbexx wrote: capital escalation i will be honest, I think will have to change in some way this issue is in a big group makes ok isk when its split between 10 people but min maxing gives really good isk. combined with teh fact you can do them 4 days in a row.
If you know what you're doing you can make very good isk, that's true. Yet, if CCP should actually removes the possibility to run them 4 days in a row, I don't think escalations should get an additional big nerf on top of that.
corbexx wrote: sleeper capitals and stuff are def interesting and something i like, its how easy that would be.
I'm not sure, though it shouldn't be too hard for CCP to create a single new NPC ship ... Make it look like a Revenant with sleeper skin for all I care |
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 13:37:24 -
[66] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Michal Jita wrote:corbexx as a side note in CSM minutes there is a lot said about new sov space, there are ideas about soveless type of structures for null, if that is introduced in null sec, surely same soveless mechanic could be implemented in WH. Now what this means for Bobs beloved space is that we could for example get 'pirate detection' upgrades and stuff like that and what this means for a large corp that can afford them and can keep them online they would no longer require cap escalations at all as there could be enough anomalies for all members to run at some point in 24h cycle. Just mentioning this here as if CCP takes this approach a lot of above ideas and discussion would become irrelevant.
What is your view on this and can we count on you pushing WH upgrades IF null gets to be claim it by using it soveless type of space. You can already find TCUs in WH space for people wanting to have their flag post in WH surely there would be people interested in that. One of the issues is your starting to turn everything in to the sort of thing. I cetainly dont want ever last anoms in wh space and people never leaving there home system i'm trying to encourage people to go out and do more stuff in there static
I agree with you in principle, but as soon as you take away ISK from capital anoms and generally push people into doing more anoms in statics, there wont be enough for everyone to go around and with a goal of more people in WH they will run dry very quickly. All I am saying is there needs to be a balance between number of available anoms and people wanting to run them. I am not saying there needs to be some silly amount like you get in sov null for example but you can't expect people fight over PVE content all the time, if there wont be enough ISK in WHs you will find yourself back at the beginning with people leaving WH, as with everything else there needs to be a balance and my suggestion might be one way of balancing things, not saying there aren't better ways of balancing it I will just hate to see people leaving AGAIN because someone has thought changes they are doing are great and not taking any feedback and looking at other ways of resolving things. Imagine for example ESS kind of structure that once deployed for more than 24h increases spawn of your anoms, given low ehp of that structure if you attack it in someone home system you will be asking for trouble, and trouble is what a lot of people are after in WHs, btw this is just one example and not a very good one at that, but I hope you get what I mean. We both want the same (more content) but my worry is that your way without any additional changes might push people out rather than bring in.
Wall of text, sorry for that, hope it makes sense.
Cheers |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
136
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 13:55:46 -
[67] - Quote
Ridvanson wrote:corbexx wrote:
sites are on a 7 day timer which CCP Affinity said at the last talk.(or should be its something i am chasing up).
turning up sites maybe this woudl depend on above and if it is working.
Awesome, didn't know that! Did that change recently? Would be cool to get confirmation on that
7 downtimes was the phrasing used. It is coded that way and has always been, for all sites in every kind of space. But you could hear everybodies jaw dropping and then a lot of disbelief. Now with sig-id being consistent over DT it should be really easy to track. Otherwise that would be a bugfix everybody would be happy over. |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
136
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 14:01:01 -
[68] - Quote
Michal Jita wrote:I agree with you in principle, but as soon as you take away ISK from capital anoms and generally push people into doing more anoms in statics, there wont be enough for everyone to go around and with a goal of more people in WH they will run dry very quickly. All I am saying is there needs to be a balance between number of available anoms and people wanting to run them. Cheers
There is pretty much an infinite number of anoms to run right now, it is called your w-spacestatic. Too few there, reroll. Pretty much like everyone does it who isn-Št living solo in a c3/4 or in a small group in a C5/6.
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
99
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 14:03:51 -
[69] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Ridvanson wrote:corbexx wrote:
sites are on a 7 day timer which CCP Affinity said at the last talk.(or should be its something i am chasing up).
turning up sites maybe this woudl depend on above and if it is working.
Awesome, didn't know that! Did that change recently? Would be cool to get confirmation on that 7 downtimes was the phrasing used. It is coded that way and has always been, for all sites in every kind of space. But you could hear everybodies jaw dropping and then a lot of disbelief. Now with sig-id being consistent over DT it should be really easy to track. Otherwise that would be a bugfix everybody would be happy over.
Uhm I'm pretty sure we had sites lasting longer than 7 downtimes. Can't say for sure for combat sites because we never tracked those but I'm 99,9% sure some relic and data sites that we scanned and bm'ed lasted for way longer ... |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
633
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 14:07:21 -
[70] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote:corbexx wrote: C5 and C6 Capital escalations.
I don't think messing with C5/C6 escalation in such a way is really helpful. Ultimately, your approach would significantly reduce the overall income that can be achieved in a system AND make it even more of a hassle to generate ISK. I am not saying that running C5/C6 isn't one of the most profitable ways of making ISK in EvE, it might very well be in for a nerf. But not like that. A couple days ago you mentioned something about reducing the value of escalations battleships to 15m and moving the money into the actual site. I liked that better ... It would reduce the amount of isk in your home system yes for idea 1 but would almost double the income from a c5 or c6 static, yes if your in a c5 - c2 you would lose out, if your in a c2 - c5 you would gain. The value of the battleships would be the same just less of them and the isk from that would be in the atual site (thats the can at the end). Yes the blue books could be lowered and that isk put in the can at the end (would be almost the same thing but would take just as long to do the site for less isk. so i think your getting a bit mixed up here. So here we go again. If you're a 100+ man wh corp it becomes easier to support your bloated numbers (and even increase them) by doubling your isk potential and if you're a smaller outfit that doesn't have 100 guys or doesn't have a C5 or C6 static then it's a kick in the junk.
This is pretty self serving, and I'll just ask everyone to look at alliance growth in null and the self serving changes that came about there and the mess it made. How about just Fooking back off on changes that kick smaller wh outfits in the junk. Hyperion did that already.
It's pretty clear to me that the motive for doubling isk potential for c5/c6 wh that have c5c6 statics is to allow more grazing by larger herds. I don't think that is in line with the fundamental premise of wh space. If you can't generate enough isk to feed your wh herd, then your wh herd is too big. Are you trying to get the wh entity list down to 4 corps of 200 pilots that grope around 2,500 systems complaining there is no one to fight?
|
|
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem TCC.
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 14:27:27 -
[71] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:corbexx wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote:corbexx wrote: C5 and C6 Capital escalations.
I don't think messing with C5/C6 escalation in such a way is really helpful. Ultimately, your approach would significantly reduce the overall income that can be achieved in a system AND make it even more of a hassle to generate ISK. I am not saying that running C5/C6 isn't one of the most profitable ways of making ISK in EvE, it might very well be in for a nerf. But not like that. A couple days ago you mentioned something about reducing the value of escalations battleships to 15m and moving the money into the actual site. I liked that better ... It would reduce the amount of isk in your home system yes for idea 1 but would almost double the income from a c5 or c6 static, yes if your in a c5 - c2 you would lose out, if your in a c2 - c5 you would gain. The value of the battleships would be the same just less of them and the isk from that would be in the atual site (thats the can at the end). Yes the blue books could be lowered and that isk put in the can at the end (would be almost the same thing but would take just as long to do the site for less isk. so i think your getting a bit mixed up here. So here we go again. If you're a 100+ man wh corp it becomes easier to support your bloated numbers (and even increase them) by doubling your isk potential and if you're a smaller outfit that doesn't have 100 guys or doesn't have a C5 or C6 static then it's a kick in the junk. This is pretty self serving, and I'll just ask everyone to look at alliance growth in null and the self serving changes that came about there and the mess it made. How about just Fooking back off on changes that kick smaller wh outfits in the junk. Hyperion did that already. It's pretty clear to me that the motive for doubling isk potential for c5/c6 wh that have c5c6 statics is to allow more grazing by larger herds. I don't think that is in line with the fundamental premise of wh space. If you can't generate enough isk to feed your wh herd, then your wh herd is too big. Are you trying to get the wh entity list down to 4 corps of 200 pilots that grope around 2,500 systems complaining there is no one to fight?
what does it even matter? if they can field the numbers and want to run sites then good for them. the larger groups also pvp alot. how does that affect a smaller corp? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
633
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 14:42:19 -
[72] - Quote
Here's my fear with your proposed change to escallations.
I'm in a small wh corp that covers only one TZ. It's the US tz, so the furthest away from down time. I'm at work right now. NOHO or any other larger group can come in my wh burn through any existing anoms and get the massive 350 mil isk loot fairy cans roll out and leave me an empty wh.
I get home from work a few hours later and it's just empty. So what the proposed escallation changes will do is empty my bucket every day while I'm at work AND it will allow NOHO to rage roll, pick systems clean and move on. Here's the biggest part of that fear. ISBoxer can vacuum up anoms and get 350 mil isk cans at an alarming rate. That's just bad for wh.
Instead of moon goo, the new mega isk meta will be large wh corps rage rolling c5s and ISBoxing sleeper sites. The only PLUS to your proposed changes would be that you vastly increase the income potential for large wh groups like NOHO that have c5 statics. So the new norm will be a few large wh corps vacuuming and even more smaller guys leaving.
Corbex has been cool enough to invite me on comms to give him my point of view, which I will do, but I'd prefer to get it down on pixels also for all to see. I do appreciate the comms invite. (read this as I like corbex, I like his work and enthusiasm, I do not like this idea) |
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem TCC.
6
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 15:20:04 -
[73] - Quote
no sympathy from me. i live in a c2 and there is not much for sites after the lower sp guys login in for a bit. if the team wants to run sites its thru the static. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
635
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 15:37:39 -
[74] - Quote
Teleil Zoomers wrote:no sympathy from me. i live in a c2 and there is not much for sites after the lower sp guys login in for a bit. if the team wants to run sites its thru the static.
I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm just pointing out that I don't like the idea of cutting the icome potential of one set of wh (c5 w/ c1 through c4 statics) and increasing the icome potential of another set a wh (c5 and c6 with c5 and c6 static).
I'm not asking for the game to be changed to fit my needs. I'm asking that you don't take a dump on my play style to buff yours.
A bit of background. I like being in a small wh corp. I don't have a desire to be in a 100 man wh corp. To that end we are in a c5 w/ a low class static. We chose it because we desire to run cap escallations, but we don't desire to rage roll into larger corps that we can't field enough to pvp with. We made distinct choices based on our desired play style. We didn't cry foul or try to change the game to fit our needs. We adapted to what is best for what we want to do.
The last wh changes w/ the mass/range thing put a decent size dent in our operations. Personally it sux, but we're making do. I can work around mass/range with scouting and just plain nutting up and rolling a risky wh. I accept that.
I can't work around my time zone and I can't quit my job. (OK, I can, but my wife is really hot AND sweet, so I'm not tossing her to the curb in favor of better wh living). So, when you potentially erase my income potential (which supports my ability to live in a wh) just to increase it for another style of play.... well, my fur is rubbed the wrong way on this one.
As far as c2 doing pve in your static - in the beginning of wh a C2 w/ a C4 static was the best isk/time (because you could roll it and farm new wh all day long). It out isked cap escallations over the course of a day (quad esc being a one shot willy based on downtime)
This proposed change will make anything w/ a C5 static and enough guys to strip sites quickly the BY FAR hands down winner over anything else in eve. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
859
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 15:44:13 -
[75] - Quote
Eloquent and well thought out. Plus one for the well written post.
Yaay!!!!
|
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
10
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 15:45:03 -
[76] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Michal Jita wrote:I agree with you in principle, but as soon as you take away ISK from capital anoms and generally push people into doing more anoms in statics, there wont be enough for everyone to go around and with a goal of more people in WH they will run dry very quickly. All I am saying is there needs to be a balance between number of available anoms and people wanting to run them. Cheers There is pretty much an infinite number of anoms to run right now, it is called your w-spacestatic. Too few there, reroll. Pretty much like everyone does it who isn-Št living solo in a c3/4 or in a small group in a C5/6.
You see the problem is the number of anomalies currently is far from being infinite, very often you will find systems with none or less then a handful and remember that its still before any changes are made with changes forcing people to farm statics and them still having same number of anomalies, you will run out of them, very, very quick. Might be wrong but for me it looks this way. |
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem TCC.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 16:09:19 -
[77] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Teleil Zoomers wrote:no sympathy from me. i live in a c2 and there is not much for sites after the lower sp guys login in for a bit. if the team wants to run sites its thru the static. I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm just pointing out that I don't like the idea of cutting the icome potential of one set of wh (c5 w/ c1 through c4 statics) and increasing the icome potential of another set a wh (c5 and c6 with c5 and c6 static). I'm not asking for the game to be changed to fit my needs. I'm asking that you don't take a dump on my play style to buff yours. A bit of background. I like being in a small wh corp. I don't have a desire to be in a 100 man wh corp. To that end we are in a c5 w/ a low class static. We chose it because we desire to run cap escallations, but we don't desire to rage roll into larger corps that we can't field enough to pvp with. We made distinct choices based on our desired play style. We didn't cry foul or try to change the game to fit our needs. We adapted to what is best for what we want to do. The last wh changes w/ the mass/range thing put a decent size dent in our operations. Personally it sux, but we're making do. I can work around mass/range with scouting and just plain nutting up and rolling a risky wh. I accept that. I can't work around my time zone and I can't quit my job. (OK, I can, but my wife is really hot AND sweet, so I'm not tossing her to the curb in favor of better wh living). So, when you potentially erase my income potential (which supports my ability to live in a wh) just to increase it for another style of play.... well, my fur is rubbed the wrong way on this one. As far as c2 doing pve in your static - in the beginning of wh a C2 w/ a C4 static was the best isk/time (because you could roll it and farm new wh all day long). It out isked cap escallations over the course of a day (quad esc being a one shot willy based on downtime) This proposed change will make anything w/ a C5 static and enough guys to strip sites quickly the BY FAR hands down winner over anything else in eve.
i see your point and it's not my playstyle either, but running statics also generates more risk which is good for pvp and conflict. As of right now, before these proposed changes, its the small corps that multibox escalations in their home with closed connections that make the best isk in eve atm. |
SwagYolo420
Vertical Rebirth
66
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 16:14:29 -
[78] - Quote
The amount of sites you can capitally escalate in a C6 can be averaged at around 10. And that is with running them everyday. With 650m average loot per site (lowballing). And running them everyday. That's some mad $$$.
On the other hand in a C5 if you run sites everyday the average you have is around 1 or 2 (so some days you have 4, then when you complete them next days you have nothing until something respawns).
Those rates were pre-hyperion though, so its probably even worse in C5 now. |
SwagYolo420
Vertical Rebirth
66
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 16:18:29 -
[79] - Quote
Teleil Zoomers wrote:i see your point and it's not my playstyle either, but running statics also generates more risk which is good for pvp and conflict. As of right now, before these proposed changes, its the small corps that multibox escalations in their home with closed connections that make the best isk in eve atm.
Not really, if you are in siege / triage with multiple caps the risk of dying may be smaller, but the when you do die you lose a lot more.
If you want to remove the 'total safety' of running capital escalations with all connections closed, reversing the API changes is all it takes. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
921
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 16:47:25 -
[80] - Quote
SwagYolo420 wrote: Those rates were pre-hyperion though, so its probably even worse in C5 now.
why would these rates have changed after hyperion?
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
|
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 16:50:13 -
[81] - Quote
I'm good with promoting more reasons to be in your static. I don't agree with cutting esc isk in half and dropping a can worth 350 mil isk at site completion to make that happen.
The more I look at it, the math is pretty bad. We'll use 600mil for quad escallation. Currently I can run them 4 times for 2.4 bil isk. If you cut the esc in half it comes out to 1.2 bil and you throw in a 350 mil isk can for completing the site. So 2.4 bil down to 1.55 bil.
That cost to home site runners is given (plus interest) to larger corps that roll for pve in their statics. A large wh corp can do a single escallation for 150 mil plus the completion can of 350 mil pulls in 500 mill per static site. (1 carrier and support)
This isn't so much about isk. For sure we don't do pve every day. It's about the ability of a larger corp being able to farm 23/7 (if they choose to) and their ability to erase the income potential (home systems sites) for a smaller corp. If small single time zone (US is the worst) keep logging in to no sites then they will leave. Keep in mind smaller corps aren't equipped to run sites at any time. It may be only Thursdays and Saturdays when Joe the Dread pilot can be online.
This is about taking from the little guy and giving to the big guys. It's about my desire to not see wh corps grow to 300 pilots. It's about not putting in a series of 'kind of bad changes' that add up to what null is trying to dig its way out of.
Keep in mind the craptastic sov BS wasn't just dumped on null in a single expansion, it was nudged into place over a series of changes. What guys want and what WH (or null) needs usually aren't the same thing.
(Pro hint: humans suck, are selfish and continually neglect the long term for short term gains)
I don't buy the pve in the static increases risk and pvp stuff. NOHO, Lazerhawks and so on can come into my wh and do whatever they want based soley on size difference. Once you get to a certain size most wh corps can't do much about you. The proposed change will (my estimate here... based on.... guessing) will allow large wh corps to push their numbers from 150ish to 300ish with this change. It will just make it too easy to feed larger numbers. A lot of folks came to wh space to get away from that sort of thing. |
Teleil Zoomers
Usque Ad Mortem TCC.
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 16:59:47 -
[82] - Quote
edit. removed text |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 17:01:41 -
[83] - Quote
corbexx wrote:SwagYolo420 wrote: Those rates were pre-hyperion though, so its probably even worse in C5 now.
why would these rates have changed after hyperion?
I don't know if it will be better or worse, but I can justify worse. A good number of folks moved out, so sites don't get activated and moved around as much due to lack of use. C6 have a lot of turnover because they get run a lot (and some other reasons). C5 anoms can stack up in certain wh and lounge there for a week at a time.
I don't think I need to draw an arrow to where this directly benifits your proposed change to how esc work. OK I will. You roll into 3 anoms set up and run them and back out of the system. The rolling, setup and backout take time. If you rolled into 20 or 30 anoms (which I have seen post hyperion in c5s) then your rolling/setup/backout time becomes much smaller compared to isk making time.
Speaking of that. You've been asked many many times and remained silent. Can we get some wh graphs to benchmark what the outcome of the hyperion change was.
I'll help you:
Time span is from today back 8 months. Graph the folloing -
POS forcefield (a different collor for each class of wh) NPC kills - (same thing w/ colors) Player kills - (same)
Not looking for anything tricky. Just 8 months of data for the 3 items listed. I think it would be cool if you did it using daily data in vertical bar form - it would draw some smooth and pretty curves. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 17:05:19 -
[84] - Quote
It won't prevent me from running sites in my static. My static isn't a c5, so it's a huge game changer. If you read up I gave some background and pointed out I didn't have a c5 static. The magic 350 mil isk site completion can is only for c5 and c6 sites. The short answer is No it won't prevent that, but the accurate answer is I take a 30% or so pay cut with this change (assuming someone doesn roll in and wonk my sites before I log in). |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
921
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 17:05:49 -
[85] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: Speaking of that. You've been asked many many times and remained silent. Can we get some wh graphs to benchmark what the outcome of the hyperion change was.
I'll help you:
Time span is from today back 8 months. Graph the folloing -
POS forcefield (a different collor for each class of wh) NPC kills - (same thing w/ colors) Player kills - (same)
Not looking for anything tricky. Just 8 months of data for the 3 items listed. I think it would be cool if you did it using daily data in vertical bar form - it would draw some smooth and pretty curves.
seriously if you think i havent been asking over and over for this stuff your sadly mistaken
I keep asking but I cant get the ******* numbers myself. and if ccp wont do what more do you ******* want me to do
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
751
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 17:09:18 -
[86] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: This is about taking from the little guy and giving to the big guys. It's about my desire to not see wh corps grow to 300 pilots. It's about not putting in a series of 'kind of bad changes' that add up to what null is trying to dig its way out of.
You are aware that part of the changes are exactly to change that. Currently farmer's log in, run sites, log out. No interaction between them and their surroundings unless you gank them, in which case an NPC alt appears in the wormhole-subsection and complains how it is impossible to roll holes since hyperion, to which several carebears agree and most people say *deal with it, it's different now*.
300 pilots in a group is not a consequence of wormhole design, it's just HK and LZHX recruiting everything that has brain activity coupled with some skillpoints.
"I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:23:16 -
[87] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote: Speaking of that. You've been asked many many times and remained silent. Can we get some wh graphs to benchmark what the outcome of the hyperion change was.
I'll help you:
Time span is from today back 8 months. Graph the folloing -
POS forcefield (a different collor for each class of wh) NPC kills - (same thing w/ colors) Player kills - (same)
Not looking for anything tricky. Just 8 months of data for the 3 items listed. I think it would be cool if you did it using daily data in vertical bar form - it would draw some smooth and pretty curves.
seriously if you think i havent been asking over and over for this stuff your sadly mistaken I keep asking but I cant get the ******* numbers myself. and if ccp wont do what more do you ******* want me to do
From what I have seen/heard - you're doing a pretty good job (for as far as my opinion matters). If you are open to suggestions as to what I want you to do..... perhaps you could sing 'careless whisper' to me when I get on comms w/ you. It's a comms classic and an all time favorite (I.... promise..... I won't .... record it for future use)
I'm just beating the "WHERE'S THE FOOKING GRAPHS???" drum. Tell them that I'm the one asking. Maybe the prestige of my pilots name will add some leverage (easy guys, I'm kidding around). It's interesting how they can pull off some truely amazing and (my opinion) worthless graphs about the economy in eve, but can't fork up 3 simple ones regarding activity levels. Maybe their graph guy was too busy making that tug ship w/ the 90% fatigue reduction that no one is going to abuse.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1362
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 22:27:47 -
[88] - Quote
Let me put on my sensible hat.
Question, since CCP are spending great efforts in improving wormhole space recently, improving our income, giving us lots of quality of life improvements, making the whole food chain more vibrant and alive and generally doing a damn good job, why do we need those figures?
They have them, are using them, and are doing all they can to make life better.
We can all surmise what they said, but they took note and are acting, and acting well, and Corbexx has been fantastic in showing the reality, passing on what is needed, and his own ideas too, turning what some saw as a disaster into an absolute triumph!
I hated some of Hyperion (I still hate the random mass spawn) , and was outspoken, but the reality is it was the best thing that ever could have happened to us, as it showed the truth of what we needed. And they have acted.
So with all that in mind, What would some do with those figures? Is the idea to use them to Beat them into not caring any more?
Let them drop, we do not care, we care about their actions since, and they are Good.
[u]_There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE _[/u]
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
639
|
Posted - 2014.11.15 12:45:20 -
[89] - Quote
I took Corbexx up on his invite to comms. We had a good discussion. I'll say this. His mind is in the right place as far as changes to wh space. He is looking to move forward and on several fronts to improve both game play and the long term vitality of wh space. We don't agree on one fundamental aspect, but I will say that on all but one of his ideas he really is looking out for all of wh space. (if he looks deep in his heart, he will eventually understand I am right and will come to his senses on the one issue)
Others have said it before, and now I'll say it one more time. He's on our side, understands the issues (of all the wh classes) and is working to move forward. 3 thumbs up for Corbexx (even though he didn't sing Careless Whisper - )
This is where I try to jam his inbox and his chat windows. Seriously, if you guys have something to say to him - he'll listen. He may not agree with you (and that's not his elected job), but he will listen and intelligently discuss issues with you. Give it a try if you feel strongly about something.
That being said - game changes are about making the game better for all, not pushing your personal agendas, so always keep that in mind (nudge nudge )
Thanks for your time Corbexx - useful and much appreciated! |
Lianara Eventy
W-Systems Hypercube alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 11:30:27 -
[90] - Quote
Spawn of "sleeper wreker/salvager" is an idea also. Some npc with convoy, that warp in after the final wave is done. It can haul some sleeper salvage. Just a Small bonus. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |