Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2053
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 13:51:00 -
[91] - Quote
Wormswarm, the kings of wormholes, support Two Step. Wormswarm's votes are called for, but Wormswarm encourages all other wormhole dwellers to vote for Two Step. yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
139
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 13:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
Sure, it is vital that we have a Wormhole representative on the CSM but i won't vote for anyone unless i know their goal and opinions. I know it's not the job of the CSM to design the game but it would help my voting process if you could answer the following:
1. Why do you prefer wormhole space to known space? 2. Why do you feel it's important that residence of C1 wormholes are more easily evicted given the relatively low value of a c1 hole? 3. What's you opinion on a ship/mod that has the ability to hold a WH open past its life or mas allowance (not jumpable mass)? 4. How would you like to see T3 ships expand on? i.e. new ship types t3 mods etc. 5. What UI (D-scan. overview stats) improvements would you make? 6. Where do you stand on WIS/CQ? do you think it should be expanded on or left to die? if the former, how could it be implemented in WH space? 7. Finally, PVP aside, if you could make one change/addition to WH space content or mechanics, what would it be?
Rek |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1088
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 14:18:00 -
[93] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Sure, it is vital that we have a Wormhole representative on the CSM but i won't vote for anyone unless i know their goal and opinions. I know it's not the job of the CSM to design the game but it would help my voting process if you could answer the following:
1. Why do you prefer wormhole space to known space? 2. Why do you feel it's important that residence of C1 wormholes are more easily evicted given the relatively low value of a c1 hole? 3. What's you opinion on a ship/mod that has the ability to hold a WH open past its life or mas allowance (not jumpable mass)? 4. How would you like to see T3 ships expand on? i.e. new ship types t3 mods etc. 5. What UI (D-scan. overview stats) improvements would you make? 6. Where do you stand on WIS/CQ? do you think it should be expanded on or left to die? if the former, how could it be implemented in WH space? 7. Finally, PVP aside, if you could make one change/addition to WH space content or mechanics, what would it be?
Rek
Many of these are answered on my blog - http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com
I will answer them here again though.
1. I am in w-space to get the sort of small-medium size PVP that you can no longer get anywhere else in EVE. I also love the dynamic nature of wormholes, and the lack of instant intel from local chat. 2. Because not all C1 wormholes are low value. Some have good PI, some have lots of moons that are being used as T2 component reaction farms, etc. This is not as big an issue now that we have the Tier 3 BCs though. 3. I address this in a lot of detail on my blog, but I am not a fan of mass modifications. Extending the time of a wormhole would potentially be OK, though it would make some invasions a lot easier. I'd have to see exact details to know how I would feel. 4. To start with, I would like to see the bad subsystems balanced. For nearly every subsystem slot, there are one or more subsystems that are basically never used. I'd like to see that fixed. Past that, I would be OK with T3 Battleships, though perhaps with fewer available subsystem slots. I don't think there is room for T3 frigates, given the great number of existing frigate types and the lack of roles for them. 5. I'd like to see the existing overview bugs fixed before the UI is improved. After that is done, improvements to the watch list and broadcast system are pretty high up on my personal list. I think the ability to display which ships are in optimal range of your weapons would be a nice improvement to the overview, especially for newer players. 6. In general, I am not a fan of WiS. I haven't seen any actual *game play* ideas presented for why I would want to wander around. Until I see those, I don't see a reason for CCP to spend any time or effort on it. Of course, if it did have fun and compelling game content, I would want to see it extended to w-space, perhaps via a POS that you were able to dock in. 7. A small change I would make is to randomize the triggers for new spawns in wormhole sites. Doing PVE in w-space is far too easy and predictable right now, and that is a bad thing. Larger change would be either Class 7 wormholes with harder PVE content or more statics in C4 or C5 wormholes. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
tewkz
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 14:43:00 -
[94] - Quote
I approve of this product and/or service. I can't think of 6 candidates better than you, you obviously deserve a seat.
E: the fact that you put in so much tireless effort for non wh related things as a K162 candidate is astounding. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
140
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 14:56:00 -
[95] - Quote
Thanks for the swift reply, i will give your blog a read.
For the most we seem to hold the save views on WH and i like your idea of randomising sleeper triggers. This coupled with the idea that sleepers could start to roam WH space (camp WH's attack POS's) would make things more exiting.
However i'm surprised that you haven't given much thought to new T3 ships and their roles... personally i think a T3 industrial ship would be an awesome addition and help to get more industrialists out of HS.
It saddens me that we don't appear to have anyone on the CSM who is pro WiS because it was the thing that got me interested in EVE and if you look back on its development, you'll note that we were told about gameplay features but sadly CCP didn't deliver. IMO, we need to have some new features instead of just polishing and nerfing/buffing existing things.
That said, you have my vote(s) and i'll tell my friends to do the same.
Good luck |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1090
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 15:32:00 -
[96] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Thanks for the swift reply, i will give your blog a read.
For the most we seem to hold the save views on WH and i like your idea of randomising sleeper triggers. This coupled with the idea that sleepers could start to roam WH space (camp WH's attack POS's) would make things more exiting.
However i'm surprised that you haven't given much thought to new T3 ships and their roles... personally i think a T3 industrial ship would be an awesome addition and help to get more industrialists out of HS.
It saddens me that we don't appear to have anyone on the CSM who is pro WiS because it was the thing that got me interested in EVE and if you look back on its development, you'll note that we were told about gameplay features but sadly CCP didn't deliver. IMO, we need to have some new features instead of just polishing and nerfing/buffing existing things.
That said, you have my vote(s) and i'll tell my friends to do the same.
Good luck
I disagree about WiS. The only game play features we were told about was the minigame (Slay), and possibly some sort of thing related to boosters. Those aren't compelling reasons to want to devote so much time and effort into WiS. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 16:43:00 -
[97] - Quote
confirming i will use all my accounts to vote for Two step, as will my corp. If you live in wormhole space, there are no other options to vote for
how about SD jam modules? usually you know in what kinda fight people will attempt an SD. and i can see some ships that would have a mid slot free'd easily for such a module |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1097
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
Hathrul wrote:confirming i will use all my accounts to vote for Two step, as will my corp. If you live in wormhole space, there are no other options to vote for
how about SD jam modules? usually you know in what kinda fight people will attempt an SD. and i can see some ships that would have a mid slot free'd easily for such a module
I'd rather just see SD fixed (give killmails, no SD in POS shields, longer SD times for capitals). Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 18:18:00 -
[99] - Quote
A definite vote from me, we need permanent wormhole representation. |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
47
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 18:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
Two step wrote:Hathrul wrote:confirming i will use all my accounts to vote for Two step, as will my corp. If you live in wormhole space, there are no other options to vote for
how about SD jam modules? usually you know in what kinda fight people will attempt an SD. and i can see some ships that would have a mid slot free'd easily for such a module I'd rather just see SD fixed (give killmails, no SD in POS shields, longer SD times for capitals).
yea, was just a wild idea. making more modules isnt a good idea really
|
|
Elen A'kram
Aperture Harmonics K162
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 21:17:00 -
[101] - Quote
Two step is the only sensible option to ensure your wormhole improvements happen...
And if he gets elected I'll see if I can poke him enough to get the 5th subsystem for t3 strategic cruisers (finally!).
|
Tahna Rouspel
BWE Special Forces
70
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 21:23:00 -
[102] - Quote
I have a few Industrial issues related to wormholes. I know it's not you're expertise, but I'd like to know your opinion.
-POS refineries; these are horrible. They take too much POS grid and cpu and have a bad output (and they also take forever to reprocess minerals). My corporation lives in a C2 wormhole and we like to do different things depending on the day. Mining might not be the most appealing occupation, but it's relaxing and it helps us provide minerals for our assembly arrays. The problem is that we have to haul everything outside and then back in. Would you change the Refinery arrays?
-Transport ships; Transport Ships and Iteron V are the optimal option for transporting goods in and out of wormholes (the orca tends to collapse wormhole) - the size of regular ship is somewhat limited though. Would you be opposed to the creation of a Transport ship that has more cargo?
-Ice Gravimetrics; You've answered this to me before by stating CCP's opinion on this, but I'd like to know if you'd like to see Ice Gravimetrics inside wormholes - or do you agree with CCP that Ice is necessary to make us leave our wormholes now and then? |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1110
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 21:32:00 -
[103] - Quote
Tahna Rouspel wrote:I have a few Industrial issues related to wormholes. I know it's not you're expertise, but I'd like to know your opinion.
-POS refineries; these are horrible. They take too much POS grid and cpu and have a bad output (and they also take forever to reprocess minerals). My corporation lives in a C2 wormhole and we like to do different things depending on the day. Mining might not be the most appealing occupation, but it's relaxing and it helps us provide minerals for our assembly arrays. The problem is that we have to haul everything outside and then back in. Would you change the Refinery arrays?
-Transport ships; Transport Ships and Iteron V are the optimal option for transporting goods in and out of wormholes (the orca tends to collapse wormhole) - the size of regular ship is somewhat limited though. Would you be opposed to the creation of a Transport ship that has more cargo?
-Ice Gravimetrics; You've answered this to me before by stating CCP's opinion on this, but I'd like to know if you'd like to see Ice Gravimetrics inside wormholes - or do you agree with CCP that Ice is necessary to make us leave our wormholes now and then?
Refineries are tough, because you don't want to make them better than outposts in nullsec. I would be behind lowering their cycle time, and perhaps CPU and grid (though this seems like less of an issue with the fuel blocks now), but I think making them more efficient would probably be a bad idea. One solution might be to make wormhole-only refineries that are better, but that might be a lot of dev effort.
Transport ships - I don't see a problem with their current sizes. My impel can haul 38K m3, that seems like a rather lot. There is perhaps some room between transport ships and Orcas for something that is maybe just below battleship mass but can haul 100K m3 or so. Given that CCP is now making new ships and stuff, I will suggest something like this.
Ice in wormholes - I do think it is important that wormholes are not self sufficient. People hauling stuff is often the start of some good fights, and I wouldn't want to see that removed. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
RectumRanger
Sparkly Rectums Chained Reactions
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 03:14:00 -
[104] - Quote
Good luck Two Step, you have my vote.
I would also like the see a change to refineries because of the problems mentioned above. |
Bei ArtJay
The Galactic Collective Sovereign Technologies
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 10:44:00 -
[105] - Quote
+ 1 like for someone who clearly cares about the game for all and not their own interests. Not enough of you around.
Quick couple of questions that spring to mind that I would like your opinion on:
With regards to your discussion on wh-stabilisers on your blog. I agree with you that wormhole systems are entirely possible to invade and are by no means safe, particularly with pre-inserting dreadnoughts into C5&6 wormholes. However for C4 and under, the only realistic method of taking out well defended systems is to bring in a huge blob of battleships. As with all w-space combat, keeping fleets under the number of around 20-30 pilots is ideal. Do you have any proposals to make things less safe for corps who have good populations, numerous POS and capitals in lower class systems? I heard somewhere the idea of having T3 battleships that are able to use siege mods, or removing the ability to anchor capital building arrays in C1-4?
I really like your idea of C4+C5 wh's having dual statics, and would like to expand on that by asking if you think C1's and C3's should also? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
146
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 11:26:00 -
[106] - Quote
Please get CCP to allow us to change clones in WH space. If you have a rorqual in system you should be able to fly up to it and swap to a different clone. |
Eveess
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 11:35:00 -
[107] - Quote
Rahkashi wrote:Chitsa Jason wrote:Two step wrote:Oxandrolone wrote:Considering voteing for you, we do need a wormhole candidate of some kind. Are you going to push for a change in the self distruct mechanic?
Not being able to s/d within a pos shield would cause alot more fights. Also i think when you self distruct it should turn off all your active mods, its incredibly anoying to watch cap ships self distruct over and over again because you cant drain them of cap and dps them down within 2 minutes. I agree that SDing within a POS shield should not be allowed. I would love to see longer SD timers for cap ships. I have also proposed to CCP that activating SD locks all your racks on overheating, which would burn out the mods before you go down. My alliance feels very strongly about this as we are not only wspace residents but mercs as well. No SD in POS shields would make system invasions way more fun. No SD'ing in POS shields, and SD'ing still generates a killmail if aggressed pehaps?
+1 for this statement we need to sort sding caps in wh it makes it to easy for these bears to save face 3 votes from me two step keep up the good work |
corbexx
Aperture Harmonics K162
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 12:18:00 -
[108] - Quote
i like the idea of sd giving kill mails and who ever the pilot is shoudl appear on the mail with the remaining about of damge left on the ship.
i'd love sd in pos's shopped but alteast wiith idea above you could see just how much people lost |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1143
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 13:23:00 -
[109] - Quote
Bei ArtJay wrote:+ 1 like for someone who clearly cares about the game for all and not their own interests. Not enough of you around.
Quick couple of questions that spring to mind that I would like your opinion on:
With regards to your discussion on wh-stabilisers on your blog. I agree with you that wormhole systems are entirely possible to invade and are by no means safe, particularly with pre-inserting dreadnoughts into C5&6 wormholes. However for C4 and under, the only realistic method of taking out well defended systems is to bring in a huge blob of battleships or drakes. As with all w-space combat, keeping fleets under the number of around 20-30 pilots is ideal. Do you have any proposals to make things less safe for corps who have good populations, numerous POS and capitals in lower class systems? I heard somewhere the idea of having T3 battleships that are able to use siege mods, or removing the ability to anchor capital building arrays in C1-4?
I really like your idea of C4+C5 wh's having dual statics, and would like to expand on that by asking if you think C1's and C3's should also?
Thanks for your support.
My original request was for Tech 2, Tier 2 Battlecruisers that could fit a single XL gun/launcher, plus a siege mod. That way, you have an anti-supercap ship as well as a good POS shooter. I would still like to see this.
I don't think everything should have dual statics, just one more class of wormhole, otherwise the wormhole map would grow way too large. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1143
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 13:25:00 -
[110] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Please get CCP to allow us to change clones in WH space. If you have a rorqual in system you should be able to fly up to it and swap to a different clone.
If you read the December minutes, you will see that it was requested to make a new POS mod that would let you store and swap clones (not jumpclone to it, but store clones in it). If that happens, I would imagine that Rorqs should allow the same thing. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
149
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:11:00 -
[111] - Quote
That's good to hear. I read you blog btw... Good stuff. i agree with everything you said. The last thing we need is big alliances controlling WH's. I would have quit this game a long time ago if it wasn't for WH space |
naed21
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
As a resident of WH space, I'm putting all of my hopes and dreams into you Two Step. You have my vote, and I'm sure most of my corp feel the same as I do. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1155
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 17:17:00 -
[113] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:That's good to hear. I read you blog btw... Good stuff. i agree with everything you said. The last thing we need is big alliances controlling WH's. I would have quit this game a long time ago if it wasn't for WH space
I probably would have quit as well, so I will do my very best to defend the wormhole way of life. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:37:00 -
[114] - Quote
Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1167
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 21:39:00 -
[115] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting
I spent a few hours discussing this exact proposal with CCP and other CSMs on Skype. I support it, and I urged CCP to implement similar mechanics. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 21:42:00 -
[116] - Quote
Two step wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting I spent a few hours discussing this exact proposal with CCP and other CSMs on Skype. I support it, and I urged CCP to implement similar mechanics.
ty Two Step, quoted in linked thread
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
Psihius
Anarchist Dawn U N K N O W N
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:44:00 -
[117] - Quote
I agree with the pilot, who posted about the refineries. The difference in my opinion is that they do not have to be better - I'm personally quite fine with 75% (maybe it can get a little boost - if the pilot has all affecting skills at level 5 - it gives an additional boost of +5-7-10%. But that's just maybe). What is really messing up attempts to refine any useful amount of ore is the cycle time and the amount of resources it takes - you have to seriously compromise your defence buy switching off not only ship bays and resists, but even turrets. You can't leave your pos in that state and go to sleep. And it's frustrating that you have to reload it every two hours. If you don't have people from different timezones - max what you can get out is 2 runs of ore refining per day (i'm talking about the guys and girls that actually have a work and a real life. In my alliance that is the case and people can't devote to EVE more that 2-3 hours at a time and not every day. Such schedule is seriously screwing any plans on using refineries - we had to dump them at this moment). |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 23:03:00 -
[118] - Quote
Bei ArtJay wrote:However for C4 and under, the only realistic method of taking out well defended systems is to bring in a huge blob of battleships or drakes. As with all w-space combat, keeping fleets under the number of around 20-30 pilots is ideal.
youre wrong
a well defended c4 or lower:
take a t3 fleet, this can be any size since those ships are tiny. get in, get wh control. bring 1 or 2 battleships, or even an orca to collapse the static, find new one, get control, bring in tower. bring in the battleships. job done |
Jaiimez Skor
Exanimo Inc Psychotic Tendencies.
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 23:40:00 -
[119] - Quote
This is something that concerns me, and please correct me if I have got this wrong, given what I know of the AHARM story in Nova with Rook's and King's has come from friends within RnK and the Clarion Call video's the facts I have may be totally wrong or biased, but your alliance knowingly took advantage of an exploit in the game mechanics to make yourselves virtually untouchable.
As I said, assuming the information I have been given is correct and the story is as i've been told, why should I vote for you, you as well as the other members of AHARM stood by and actively exploited a flaw in the game mechanics, my issue is why would I want to vote for a candidate that actively stands by and encourages exploiting bugs, instead of owning up and telling CCP of these issues.
As I said if any of the information I have about the story is false and I have misunderstood AHARM's side of the story then please feel free to correct me and show me proof that I have misunderstood, as a newbie to wormholes and yet loving it on my alts, I would love to see a representative on the CSM to ensure wormholes receive love, I just don't want that person to be someone who knowingly partakes in exploiting the game.
note: I do not intend to start any kind of argument nor any kind of fighting on this thread, it is a valid concern of mine I would like answered so please do not take it as attempting to provoke a fight. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1172
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 23:46:00 -
[120] - Quote
Jaiimez Skor wrote:This is something that concerns me, and please correct me if I have got this wrong, given what I know of the AHARM story in Nova with Rook's and King's has come from friends within RnK and the Clarion Call video's the facts I have may be totally wrong or biased, but your alliance knowingly took advantage of an exploit in the game mechanics to make yourselves virtually untouchable.
As I said, assuming the information I have been given is correct and the story is as i've been told, why should I vote for you, you as well as the other members of AHARM stood by and actively exploited a flaw in the game mechanics, my issue is why would I want to vote for a candidate that actively stands by and encourages exploiting bugs, instead of owning up and telling CCP of these issues.
As I said if any of the information I have about the story is false and I have misunderstood AHARM's side of the story then please feel free to correct me and show me proof that I have misunderstood, as a newbie to wormholes and yet loving it on my alts, I would love to see a representative on the CSM to ensure wormholes receive love, I just don't want that person to be someone who knowingly partakes in exploiting the game.
note: I do not intend to start any kind of argument nor any kind of fighting on this thread, it is a valid concern of mine I would like answered so please do not take it as attempting to provoke a fight.
It is certainly a legitimate question, and one that I was asked a lot last year when I ran. I actually wrote a blog post explaining my side of the story, which you can read at http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2011/03/infinite-tracking-wtf.html
Basically, the story is a little more complicated than what R&K says in Clarion Call. I certainly bear some responsibility for AHARM's use of the exploit, but I think CCP (and some other current and former AHARM members) bear some as well.
If you still have questions or concerns after reading the blog post, feel free to ask them here, or to eve mail or convo me directly. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |