EVE Search - New Dev Blog: The Darkness at the End of the Tunnel

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: The Darkness at the End of the Tunnel

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 19 post(s)
Zackalwe Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:05:00 - [61] Edited by: Zackalwe on 05/03/2009 17:06:55 Well it looks like you guys have stuck to your no local intel guns. Depending on roamability in W-space. I tentatively predict the cov-ops probing scout, with a HAC gang waiting a system behind, to be classed as an overpowered mechanic now. But we will see. It depends on how roamable and inter-connected W-space is really. It will be interesting to watch this play out.
Ki Tarra Caldari Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:07:00 - [62] Originally by: Trzzbk The logistics of running one would be just as hard. I think it's stupid to not have moon minerals in w-space but I guess that's just the way it is. There was much discussion about this in the previous thread. Logistics for running one is much simpler as you have a permanent presense there. Laying seige would require a quick build up of logistics, and places greater risk on the part of those laying seige.
Zamolxiss Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:10:00 - [63] Originally by: Trzzbk Edited by: Trzzbk on 05/03/2009 16:49:09 Originally by: Gamer4liff Regardless, you're probably right about wormhole space moon minerals potentially raking in big dough safely, would be a logistical nightmare to find and seige the POSes there. The logistics of running one would be just as hard. I think it's stupid to not have moon minerals in w-space but I guess that's just the way it is. I disagree, you don't need caps or a 30+ men battleship fleet, to carry pos fuel or remove moon materials.. an anchored large POS in W-Space will never be removed threw sieging, and that is ok, as long as it's not a 10 bil/month, 0 risk, isk printing press..
TimGascoigne The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:13:00 - [64] It is going to be very interesting to see these wormholes temporarily think 0.0 to 0.0 systems from within the sovereign space of two rival alliances. Thus negating camp in the pips
Mors Magne M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:21:00 - [65] Sounds really exciting The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out!
SpiderWebMayhem	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:26:00 - [66] Would CCP devs mind explaining the reasoning behind not allowing moon mining? This was essentially CCP's "get out of jail free" card to fix the dyspro prices post-reaction-exploit, as well as spreading the wealth around a little more. It would have given smaller alliances the opportunity to access better moons that they would otherwise be unable to mine due to large power blocs holding space. In a nutshell, this was going to be a godsend for the market. And now? Welp.
Cailais Amarr Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:29:00 - [67] Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem Would CCP devs mind explaining the reasoning behind not allowing moon mining? This was essentially CCP's "get out of jail free" card to fix the dyspro prices post-reaction-exploit, as well as spreading the wealth around a little more. It would have given smaller alliances the opportunity to access better moons that they would otherwise be unable to mine due to large power blocs holding space. In a nutshell, this was going to be a godsend for the market. And now? Welp. If you could mine moons in w-space - why bother with 0.0? C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Dav Varan	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:32:00 - [68] Please re-instate moon mining in w-space , I wanna read all the crying posts when the wormholes close and peops cant find there pos's again Seriously its looking awesome, how definate is the march 10 launch date I need to book my holidays
SpiderWebMayhem	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:34:00 - [69] Originally by: Cailais Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem Would CCP devs mind explaining the reasoning behind not allowing moon mining? This was essentially CCP's "get out of jail free" card to fix the dyspro prices post-reaction-exploit, as well as spreading the wealth around a little more. It would have given smaller alliances the opportunity to access better moons that they would otherwise be unable to mine due to large power blocs holding space. In a nutshell, this was going to be a godsend for the market. And now? Welp. If you could mine moons in w-space - why bother with 0.0? C. Moon mining is a soul-crushing operation regularly, requiring constant maintenance and supervision. If you add on top of that w-space refueling logistics, chaining between multiple w-spaces that aren't connected, transport of reaction products out of w-space, not getting your **** blown up by sleepers, not getting your POS seiged by a remote-repping BS gang kiting, etc etc etc. 0.0 moon mining inside sovereign space is labor intensive but relatively safe and straight forward. W-space is not, but it is also open to far more people.
Xor tacnell	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:36:00 - [70] Originally by: CCP Prism X Then you know something I don't. As the person responsible for seeding moon materials I can tell you that the status of that question was always ''Unknown'' until we decided on ''No'' and my pants increased in happy. I'm glad to know that this particular development decision was based on your desire to slack off and be lazy.
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:38:00 - [71] Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem It would have given smaller alliances the opportunity to access better moons that they would otherwise be unable to mine due to large power blocs holding space. Spider, there was a wide variation in opinion -- some people thought like you, others thought that if there were dyspro moons, they'd end up in the hands of the large power blocks in the long run, despite the difficulties of force projection into W-space. Moon seeding would be good if it resulted in a lot of small-scale w-space settlement and dynamic conflict, but it would suck if it became "yet another locked-down advantage" for a powerful few. The decision not to seed the moons strikes me as reflecting a likely judgment by CCP that the latter scenario would prevail -- or, at least, fear of that outcome. Of course, it's important to remember that if sleeper/T3 stuff proves insufficient to get people into W-space, they can always seed the moons at a (much) later date. In hindsight, this decision would then look like a pre-nerf. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:43:00 - [72] Originally by: Zamolxiss Originally by: Trzzbk Edited by: Trzzbk on 05/03/2009 16:49:09 Originally by: Gamer4liff Regardless, you're probably right about wormhole space moon minerals potentially raking in big dough safely, would be a logistical nightmare to find and seige the POSes there. The logistics of running one would be just as hard. I think it's stupid to not have moon minerals in w-space but I guess that's just the way it is. I disagree, you don't need caps or a 30+ men battleship fleet, to carry pos fuel or remove moon materials.. an anchored large POS in W-Space will never be removed threw sieging, and that is ok, as long as it's not a 10 bil/month, 0 risk, isk printing press.. You would be right if: 1) not having extra moon minerals and having an increase in the number of players will only make the existing dyspo moons 20 billions isk printing machines in a few months; 2) the entry/exit point of the oh so secure WH system would not shift from system to system every time it reopen, with a passable chance of a good number of hostiles entering the system every time it reopen; 3) moving the moon mineral out of the WH pocket would not require to move them through systems that could be very hostile with no guarantee of ever finding a safe exit point. To sum it up, piling some month of moon minerals production in a WH system will not help at all until you move them to a market or a factory. My personal opinion is that allowing moon mining in WH space would decreased the value of moon minerals and incentive player to try WH space. Not allowing it is more a gift to the big alliances that currently control the good moons that allowing all people, medium corporations included, a shot to do it.
Dav Varan	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:45:00 - [73] How does exiting from the wormhole work ? Is it a stargate like mechanic where a group of ships going through will all end up at the same location in system ? Is it possible to anchor large bubbles at the exit point effectivelly making w-space a gank-fest party ? Did you at any point consider ejecting ships at random points in the system to prevent worm-hole camping ? Are wormholes 2 way till they collapse ? If there 1 way can the exit point be scanned out like the entrance ?
SpiderWebMayhem	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:46:00 - [74] Originally by: Marlenus Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem It would have given smaller alliances the opportunity to access better moons that they would otherwise be unable to mine due to large power blocs holding space. Spider, there was a wide variation in opinion -- some people thought like you, others thought that if there were dyspro moons, they'd end up in the hands of the large power blocks in the long run, despite the difficulties of force projection into W-space. Moon seeding would be good if it resulted in a lot of small-scale w-space settlement and dynamic conflict, but it would suck if it became "yet another locked-down advantage" for a powerful few. The decision not to seed the moons strikes me as reflecting a likely judgment by CCP that the latter scenario would prevail -- or, at least, fear of that outcome. Of course, it's important to remember that if sleeper/T3 stuff proves insufficient to get people into W-space, they can always seed the moons at a (much) later date. In hindsight, this decision would then look like a pre-nerf. I understand the concern, but even the worst case scenario would have been better than this. Consider if all the major power blocs snatched them up, and even assume once they are established they can't be removed (which I find unlikely). You would still have an additional X high end moons pumping product onto the market, drastically reducing the cost of moon-related products (ie. all t2). This is advantageous for everyone. CCP is missing a golden opportunity to fix the economy.
Caiman Graystock Caldari Comrades in Construction	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:47:00 - [75] Very Very Very pleased there will be no minable moons in W-Space, I feared that within a few months to a year most of the major alliances would be using the much discussed 'just keep a scout in W-Space so you can always know where the entrance and exits are' to build death stars around moons and own these systems where cyno doesnt work without much resistance... removing this draw will keep the main focus on harvesting from the sleepers and any other scale of pvp that brings along the way... less blob and pos warfare is never a bad thing, I can't wait to get going in w-space. Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking... Boo hoo. Cry some more.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.05 17:56:00 - [76] Originally by: Dav Varan Is it a stargate like mechanic where a group of ships going through will all end up at the same location in system ? Is it possible to anchor large bubbles at the exit point effectivelly making w-space a gank-fest party ? Did you at any point consider ejecting ships at random points in the system to prevent worm-hole camping ? Are wormholes 2 way till they collapse ? Yes. All w-space is 0.0 space. However, that wormhole location is not static, nor may it be the only wormhole in system. Probably, but then they realized that was a stupid idea. Wormhole are two way but you can only go one round trip every X minutes. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:09:00 - [77] Rorquals' clone vatbay : too bad, CCP, it could be an argument of what cost a Rorqual. If a Rorqual could clonevat and bring ships, then, what's the point I hear you say, since you can't mine minerals. i don't really understand, this clonevatbay is suposed to be of some use... No? Ever used it ? Fetchez la vache ! moar(tm) > soon(tm) \o/
Drenmarr Acharynn	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:15:00 - [78] Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Rorquals' clone vatbay : too bad, CCP, it could be an argument of what cost a Rorqual. If a Rorqual could clonevat and bring ships, then, what's the point I hear you say, since you can't mine minerals. i don't really understand, this clonevatbay is suposed to be of some use... No? Ever used it ? The clone vat bay would be used to have jumpclones in W-space.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:20:00 - [79] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: MrZany Hello, There has been a nasty rumor floating around that the Drone regions will not see any W-space accessible from that area. Is this true? Thanks, Zan This is not true. to bad
Kyoko Sakoda Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:28:00 - [80] Amazing what CCP can throw together in five-six months! As for the last picture in the blog, any chance of telling us which phenomena that might be, just so I can taste it? It looks like a black hole but it could also be a pulsar or a number of other things. Eve Radio - Playing Music To The Masses!
Aethrwolf Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:38:00 - [81] No supercaps in w-space... well they cant use the wormholes or jump there.. BUT.. couldnt someone in theory pos up and build one there????
Ki Tarra Caldari Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:45:00 - [82] Originally by: Dav Varan Is it a stargate like mechanic where a group of ships going through will all end up at the same location in system ? Yup Originally by: Dav Varan Is it possible to anchor large bubbles at the exit point effectivelly making w-space a gank-fest party ? Yup Originally by: Dav Varan Did you at any point consider ejecting ships at random points in the system to prevent worm-hole camping ? Yup, people are supposed to find and fight each other in this game. Also, if you did get dumped at a random point, you would need to scan down the exit, and guess where the pirates would setup camp. Originally by: Dav Varan Are wormholes 2 way till they collapse ? Yup Originally by: Dav Varan If there 1 way can the exit point be scanned out like the entrance ? Once they collapse you need to scan out the new exit point the same way you scanned down the entrance. Originally by: Dav Varan Do the sleepers link there systems with stargates we can use or is each system separate apart from wormholes ? We don't have much for prime-fiction about the Sleepers yet.
Smoke Adian Caldari Northern Storm	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:46:00 - [83] Edited by: Smoke Adian on 05/03/2009 18:48:03 Originally by: Aethrwolf No supercaps in w-space... well they cant use the wormholes or jump there.. BUT.. couldnt someone in theory pos up and build one there???? Yikes, the 1st time I responded I reported your post instead of "quoting" it. Whoops! Sorry about that Navigator. Anyways, nice update CCP! If someone can construct a super-cap out there than the deserve the win. :) But doesn't super cap construction require sovereignty?
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:48:00 - [84] Edited by: Nyphur on 05/03/2009 18:50:46 So wormholes won't allow motherships in but will there ever be any that will allow carriers in? Remember that the difference in their masses are currently very small. For example, the Thanatos is 1,057,500,000 kg while the Nyx is 1,292,500,000 kg EDIT: Ah, it's already been answered. Sometimes. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Ki Tarra Caldari Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:49:00 - [85] Originally by: Smoke Adian But doesn't super cap construction require sovereignty? Yup No work around there.
Aethrwolf Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:49:00 - [86] Edited by: Aethrwolf on 05/03/2009 18:50:43 dunno about sov, was just one of those what if thoughts as I was reading. If it does require sov that would make my statement pointless. Though its still a fun thought. edit: thanks for raining on my parade Ki..
Ki Tarra Caldari Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:54:00 - [87] Originally by: Nyphur So wormholes won't allow motherships in but will there ever be any that will allow carriers in? Remember that the difference in their masses are currently very small. For example, the Thanatos is 1,057,500,000 kg while the Nyx is 1,292,500,000 kg They could have easily set the limit at 1.2M kg. That would block all super-capital while still allowing regular capital ships. Remember that the ship size limit is indepentant of the total mass capacity for the wormhole. It is equally possible for them to implement the super-cap restriction independant of the mass limitation if needed.
The Snowman Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:55:00 - [88] Awesome blog, thanks! ..o/ Most interesting point for me: K-space to K-space! didnt see that one coming.
Jayn Cobb Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:55:00 - [89] I've scanned all the replies and I've not seen anyone actually grasp the primary reason why moon mining/dropping a POS in W-space is a sketchy idea... WORMHOLES ARE RANDOM! There are no guarantees that you'll be able to get back to the system you've dropped your POS in, and then you'll be SOL. Sieging is the same scenario. Are you going to have a fleet of system probers popping thru WH's just to see if someone has set up a POS worth sieging, all the while you have a another fleet waiting for the word that a target has been found? Then they have to make it to and then thru the WH before it collapses. I just don't see it being worth the effort.
Cailais Amarr Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.03.05 18:57:00 - [90] Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem Originally by: Cailais Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem Would CCP devs mind explaining the reasoning behind not allowing moon mining? This was essentially CCP's "get out of jail free" card to fix the dyspro prices post-reaction-exploit, as well as spreading the wealth around a little more. It would have given smaller alliances the opportunity to access better moons that they would otherwise be unable to mine due to large power blocs holding space. In a nutshell, this was going to be a godsend for the market. And now? Welp. If you could mine moons in w-space - why bother with 0.0? C. Moon mining is a soul-crushing operation regularly, requiring constant maintenance and supervision. If you add on top of that w-space refueling logistics, chaining between multiple w-spaces that aren't connected, transport of reaction products out of w-space, not getting your ** blown up by sleepers, not getting your POS seiged by a remote-repping BS gang kiting, etc etc etc. 0.0 moon mining inside sovereign space is labor intensive but relatively safe and straight forward. W-space is not, but it is also open to far more people. Exactly - and it's those 'far more people' who would not bother, attempt or even give a passing glance at contesting .0 space. Adding moon mining to W-Space could devalue .0, which isnt the idea behind w-space. C. Originally by:** Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.