Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Delta2003
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:29:00 -
[1]
I would like to draft a proposal with the assistance / support of a representative of CSM to submit a proposal regarding the matter of Sovereignty in Wormhole space.
Wormhole space is not unique in its technical design to that of any 0.0 space other than graphical interfaces its pretty much the same. Yet, WHole space is not afforded any of the benefits of 0.0 and in fact are very much excluded. If players / Alliances living in WHole want to fully develop their pos's / strongholds it would be beneficial to all that such Alliances can achieve Sovereignty like any other in 0.0. It seems that this would be a natural development of WHole, just like CCP did with 0.0 Sovereignty. It would be helpful to get in detail from CCP what, if any, objection there is to this as personaly I cannot see any benefit in denying Sovereignty to an Alliance dominant in in ths sector of Eve.
Thankyou in advance for yoru consideration with respect to the above. Delta2003
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:41:00 -
[2]
you got lots of advantages compared to normal 0.0, e.g. no cap hotdrops, the big 0.0 alliances cant just drop a cap fleet into your system to wipe your posses and then leave again.
not supported. one of the nice things about wh space is the lack of the sov warfare.
|
Delta2003
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 09:48:00 -
[3]
Have you not heard of mass restrictions? at the hole. You cannot just hotdrop a capfleet into a WHole, for various reasons. Mass restrictions being one of many... sorry but please read up about WHole space. Thankyou for your post anyway.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 10:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Delta2003 Have you not heard of mass restrictions? at the hole. You cannot just hotdrop a capfleet into a WHole, for various reasons. Mass restrictions being one of many... sorry but please read up about WHole space. Thankyou for your post anyway.
you want to read it again: I said one of your advantage in wormhole space is that you cant get many caps dropped onto you. ;)
|
Delta2003
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 11:05:00 -
[5]
darius. Im trying to see your rationale and argument against as I should on a debate, and respect such. However, how does a TCU change those components that exist already with the benefits you mentioned. Please explain....
No Alliance / Corp can hotdrop ( Cyno ) in a fleet, you know this already. The only way for a small fleet with 1 or 2 carriers to get into your Whome is through the hole. My proposal is for sovereignty in a system, this does not mean by default that there would be changes to access by means of hotdrop, far from it.
Im enjoying this debate. Please continue.
Best regards Delta2003
|
KaiserSoze434
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 11:09:00 -
[6]
The reason, stated repeatedly by CCP, is that W-space was not intended to be permanently inhabited. Sovereignty, by definition, involves the claiming/habitation of the space. They want mining camps and exploration outposts, not WH empires. "Aghast the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." |
FlameGlow
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 11:50:00 -
[7]
No, it's way too much to have WH defensive advantage and profitability AND 0.0 sovereignty benefits. Maybe you want agents in your WH too? |
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 16:07:00 -
[8]
So wait, lemme make sure I'm getting this.
For a small maintenance fee, I could have...
- Uncontested Sovereignty over the system. The only way to contest Sov is by setting up SBU at the incoming gates, which there are none for WHs.
- 25% less fuel consumption for POS.
- The ability to setup an Infrastructure Hub. The most useful benefits of which being. -- SuperCaps? Not sure if anyone really needs these, but whatever. -- Pirate Detection. This results in guaranteed Anomaly spawns. Meaning an endless supply of Sleeper tags and salvage. -- Ore Prospecting. This results in guaranteed Belt spawns. Meaning an endless supply of ore. While it's the same ores available to regular Sov holders, it's better protected by the remote nature of WHs, and the bored SuperCap pilots. -- Survey Network. This increases the chances of finding Profession sites. Meaning an increase in T3 production materials, along with Sleeper loot since they're heavily guarded every time.
So in short... claiming Sov in a WH would guarantee endless profit for the alliance, with no way of having that taken away from them.
Did I miss anything? |
Stick Cult
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 16:31:00 -
[9]
Support for the mere chance to build Titans in wormholes.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford my bad. Rest assured I'm being ridiculed by my co-workers.
|
Libra's Slave
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 16:37:00 -
[10]
Marcus said it well.
I do not support this. Wormholes are SUPPOSED to be dangerous. Not hello-kittied into a brothel.
|
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 17:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Delta2003 Wormhole space is not unique in its technical design to that of any 0.0 space other than graphical interfaces its pretty much the same.
WH space doesn't have gates. It cannot be jumped to via cyno. It does not have fixed routes to each system. If I wanted to attack your space, I would have to get lucky and find a route to your space.
Originally by: Delta2003 Yet, WHole space is not afforded any of the benefits of 0.0 and in fact are very much excluded.
When was the last time your system was hit by a roaming gang? If you cannot honestly say within the last 2 hours, then your WH space has a huge benefit over 0.0. If you want sov, you need fixed routes to balance the benefits gained. If this rolls out with a module that makes those fancy Sansha WHs that get you to the system you want to go to, then I will support this.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 18:04:00 -
[12]
No... total waste and complete utter fail.
You obviously do not understand sov mechanics like you pretend to do so.
WHS is disjointed and doesn't connect to any other space aside from totally randomized wormholes. What your asking for would do nothing in the end other than become an incredibly expensive venture... an to top that off... CONCORD has no jurisdiction there... or DED I should say... because they are the ones who track Sov. (pardon the Role play bit).
It's 0.0 because its totally new space... new frontier... not been explored... etc.
CCP made it clear.... it is not the kind of space they want people to live in permanently. This keeps its fresh... and challenging.
Using I-Hubs to "upgrade" said space is game breaking at that point as far as the original intent meant.
But who am I kidding here.... your just wanting "moar stuff".
So no stealth proposal for you.
Not supporting. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Delta2003
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 18:11:00 -
[13]
Thankyou for all your respeones and lets keep it going. I still have not seen what the disadvantages to Sovereignty in Whole Alliance could be. I believe CCP often operate on the premise that any discourse, advantage one over the other is the right course to take as the shift of pwer promotes fair game.
The more disadvantages and objections exist to a proposal ie; an adavantage by one group over another is a great way to ensure enhanced game activity and can only promote the agrieved parties to try and take over said advantaged party.
Living in a C5 / C6 is no gay party and is often subject to 'roaming gangs' with caps, especially when plexing the sites. Plexing is no party with dps exceeding 25,000, + point + neut. Then salvaging with roaming gangs. Thats the dangerous part.
I agree with KaiserSoze434, so in other words we one of the largest Whole plexing Corps must remain 'super miners' for eternity and keep supplying 0.0 / Empire with Tech3? sooner or later we will want more than that. We wish to evolve in this game as others have and not just be tagged ' super miners ' building and supplying Tech3.
I appreciate all yoru commenst and please keep this going.
Best regards
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 18:18:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Delta2003 Thankyou for all your respeones and lets keep it going. I still have not seen what the disadvantages to Sovereignty in Whole Alliance could be. I believe CCP often operate on the premise that any discourse, advantage one over the other is the right course to take as the shift of pwer promotes fair game.
The more disadvantages and objections exist to a proposal ie; an adavantage by one group over another is a great way to ensure enhanced game activity and can only promote the agrieved parties to try and take over said advantaged party.
Living in a C5 / C6 is no gay party and is often subject to 'roaming gangs' with caps, especially when plexing the sites. Plexing is no party with dps exceeding 25,000, + point + neut. Then salvaging with roaming gangs. Thats the dangerous part.
I agree with KaiserSoze434, so in other words we one of the largest Whole plexing Corps must remain 'super miners' for eternity and keep supplying 0.0 / Empire with Tech3? sooner or later we will want more than that. We wish to evolve in this game as others have and not just be tagged ' super miners ' building and supplying Tech3.
I appreciate all yoru commenst and please keep this going.
Best regards
The disadvantage is that it allows WH residents to truly setup space in such a way that they will not be able to be dislodged. There is supposed to be risk. Risk is decreased by having sov. As I stated, you need to add other things that increase risk if you are going to decrease risk.
If your proposal were to happen, 0.0 alliances would immediately take WH space as they would be invincible there.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Dont Lookatme
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 19:19:00 -
[15]
No.
The goal should be to make w-space as different from k-space as possible.
Make it more hostile to permanent settlement's. Make it bigger, stranger and with tons of cool easter-egg's hidden in it's deep dark corners.
Not supported.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 22:38:00 -
[16]
Not supported for the sake of variety of options in this game.
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust Mostly Cookie
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 02:19:00 -
[17]
Sov warfare is already a fat, bloated, Scottish ***** with poor dental hygiene (no offense to my Scottish space-faring brosefs <3)
NOT SUPPORTED
Quote: Aedun Sole > flying with lyk is like flying a bus filled with 5 year old children
|
Cromo Effect
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 02:37:00 -
[18]
Worm holes should be more customizable. This will get them more in line with 0.0
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 11:57:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Cromo Effect Worm holes should be more customizable. This will get them more in line with 0.0
You know if Cromo thinks it's a good idea, it's really not...
/thread |
Icarus Vane
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 19:21:00 -
[20]
Quote: Worm holes should be more customizable. This will get them more in line with 0.0
null I personally have no problem with bringing wormholes in line with null sec. In addition to sov, they should have permanent gates linking them to other worm/null systems. Sleeper spawns should also be available throughout the eve universe - only baby sleepers in hi-sec.- and gas clouds should be as common as veldspar. When CCP commits to this then I will fully support this motion.
null Until then, Not supported.
|
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 19:43:00 -
[21]
No, reasons already listed by other players.
Space that is always having the way in/out changing means no one can cohesively threaten you, thus you are near permanent residents and under little if any real threat.
If you want to be more than advanced miners I suggest you petition for more 00, better changes to 00, a 3rd type of space you could conquer but that doesn't give you the safety of WH from other player power block/groups, or save your money and look to rent some 00 space. -------------------------------------------------------------- Fanboys would make great cult members. |
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 23:12:00 -
[22]
Not supported.
If you had sov you could build an outpost. You then would have an indestructible haven with no fuel requirements. It would be almost impossible to remove you from the WH because no-one would be able to bring the firepower to do it. |
Captain Torgo
The Geedunk Expedition
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 23:37:00 -
[23]
Though I would like to have an actual station in a WH, I say no to the sovereignty of it.
|
jjbest2
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 14:30:00 -
[24]
i will say this one more time, i have asked and been treated like an idiot, make the wh's able to have sov but only 6 wh's can be claimed and joined via jump bridge i will explain a little for the thick people hope this helps. ok wh level 1 joins to wh level 2'3'4'5'6, wh level 2 can be joined to wh level 1,3,4,5,6 and so onbut it is restricted to the amount of moons so if 1 wh onl has 2 moons then it can only link to 2 other wh's, and a alliance can only join/claim level 1 through to level 6 wh, so a alliance cant join 50 wh's they can only join 6, 1 of each level and by doing this they should be able to put a station up in either a wh of there choice or have it made so a station can only be put up in a class 6 or something, now i hope for the thick people this shows that this idea can help young alliance grow and will not make the big alliance take it over because if they did they would only have 6 systems joined and would be a waste of time for them.
0/ i hope this can become possible it would help alot of young alliance say 100 member alliances
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:00:00 -
[25]
Originally by: jjbest2 i will say this one more time, i have asked and been treated like an idiot, <snip>
Maybe if you took the time to read and to pay attention as to why we oppose this you'd stop being called an idiot.
But once again... you ARE an idiot.
Not supporting.
And seriously epic fail on necro'ing a thread. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 21:16:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/09/2010 21:18:13 Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/09/2010 21:17:37
Originally by: KaiserSoze434 The reason, stated repeatedly by CCP, is that W-space was not intended to be permanently inhabited. Sovereignty, by definition, involves the claiming/habitation of the space. They want mining camps and exploration outposts, not WH empires.
Ok, CCP did not intend many things, they did not intend ninja salvagers to exist, theydid not intend peole to fit smartbombs on titans,they did not intend people to use destroyers as salvagers, they did not intend carriers to be used forhauling, they did not intend orca to be a mini freighter, they did not intend blasters to suck,they did not intend hyperion to be next to uselss, they did not intend station dock-games..there are tons of things that they did not inted, but you need to look at situation ytou have on your hands NOW, and worck wit it. SO what have we got? WOmholes became a place where a small and mediumorpcan place their assets and live in. THey can call it home. THey can exploit it, they can pvp in it, and they cannot be hotdropped easelly. Theonly prblem is when a wormhole goes on dry spell, the wholecorphas nothing to do. SO while mecanic currently used in 0.0 would be unsuitable, certain improvements can be made,idon't see why they would hurt anyone. So, let's use those few improvements. WE don't need caps in wormholes. We don't need outposts. We don't need cynos Wedon't need TCU's We don't need gates We would like more spawns, or more connecting wormholes, or something of that nature, that would prevent a wormhole from going on a dry spell.
Quote: But once again... you ARE an idiot.
And sto calling each-other idiots, it does not make any of you look any better.
|
jjbest2
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 23:44:00 -
[27]
Some of us have playd this along time and some like the person under my first post havn't, if a small alliance wants to become big explain to me some good ways to go from 100 in a small alliance to 1000 with out being someones ***** and paying for space? if 6 wh's could be joined ( VIA JUMP BRIDGE NOT GATE) then a small alliance could grow to probably 3-400 wich would be sufficient to go to 0.0 for there own space, 100 is a rediculas number to try and take and hold your own 0.0.
[Maybe if you took the time to read and to pay attention as to why we oppose this you'd stop being called an idiot.]
maby if some people would consider an idea instead of no, no ,no all the time just because some people love to live in high sec all the time or be pirates doesnt mean small alliance that want to play against npc instead of wrecking other peoples experiance. The only reason for sov in a wh from my oppinion is so u could join 6 wh's together. If some people read what i had written thaey would c that i asked for class 1- class 6 to be joined ( NOT 6X CLASS 3 WHS ) wich would give newer players a chance to make isk in the lower classes and build an alliance.
before some smart A post a reply atleast tell me why this basic set up of joining 6 wh's is so bad
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 03:16:00 -
[28]
I live in a WH and even i don't support this...
Turning WH space into null sec is such a bad idea. Yes it would be nice to get more sites to run more often. THe disadvange would be that all the 0.0 corps would invade all the WH and the rest of us would never be able to kick them out... ever.
Not supported due to it being a dumb idea that would breke the game.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 21:00:00 -
[29]
Originally by: jjbest2 Some of us have playd this along time and some like the person under my first post havn't, if a small alliance wants to become big explain to me some good ways to go from 100 in a small alliance to 1000 with out being someones ***** and paying for space? if 6 wh's could be joined ( VIA JUMP BRIDGE NOT GATE) then...
The big alliances would do it as at least one of the systems they string together would have a WH into friendly space, sort of making a permanent connection to their space. These, plus an outpost or two would also become the jump off point for WH roams, which is what you don't want.
I'm sorry, but the more structure you allow to be laid in WH space, the more likely you make it that the coalitions/alliances, like the one I'm in, will oust the little guys and move some people in.
I have given lengthy explanations why this is a bad idea more than once. Read them before you claim people are making unthinking "no" responses in this thread.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
klyeme
Soft War Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 04:07:00 -
[30]
Maybe outposts that allow everyone in them and are not owned by the anchoring alliance.
OR CCP could just fix the posses so you can refit t3s in WH space
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |