|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
13
   |
Posted - 2012.08.16 02:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:Two Step wrote:
I'm basing it on my experience, and talking to lots of people. I don't think capitals are the be all and end all, but they are a tremendous people multiplier. A triage carrier in a C1 where no Bhaalgorns can come in and neut it is very powerful.
As for the big fish comment, that is already true. Right now, many of the larger w-space alliances could kick just about anyone out of c1-c4 space. The only reason they aren't doing that right now is because they have no reason to do so. I don't see how making them more vulnerable to smaller groups changes that in any way.
Before we go well into nerfing low end w-space on "your" experience can you get some actual figures from CCP about low class w-space? And how many towers get destroyed in C1-4 compared to C5/C6 and the use of capitals linked to that data?
I see so many other people "with" experience refute your claims that C1-4 need nerfing, why are you so unwilling to listen and so steadfast that you will put your views forward to them instead? I would also ask that you make the people that have alledgedly said to you that pos sizes need to be lowered in low class holes come and say it publicly and say why they think they should be lowered, as it stands you seem to be the only person to have the opinion that they need to be nerfed.
Every time you have commented back about the POS size nerf in low end w-space you have come back with your reasoning regarding C1's and their mass limitations. I actually agree that C1's need a shakeup, but i definitely do not think you need to nerf the people that have gone to significant effort to protect there part of space in a C2,3 or 4.
You pointed out the reasoning that a small group of people can't go in and take a WH with a large well set up tower. I would like to say i doubt that it would even help them if you changed them to small towers as there is still so many empty low class w-space systems that are completely empty that a small group of people could move into without needing to fire one shot of ammo to get. There is very much still opportunities for people new to go and get themselves a piece of space to try out wormhole life.
But there is the problem now that if you put your views forward that POS's should be nerfed that it would be unattainable to expect us to stay in a C1-4 and expect to have to defend our towers consistently against anyone that wants to roam through and get some fun. There is plenty of people in my view that already have the organisation and numbers to go evict people in alarge well built pos, why make it so that a 3 people can come and knock your tower into reinforce every night while you sleep with little effort on their part? |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 00:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dino Boff wrote:I think POS defences in w-space are OP and mentioned it perviously. Connection short life span is good enough to prevent griefing. Taking down a POS require commitment during all the reinforcement period; your POS only get bashed if you have too many shinnies, people want your system or you pissed off the wrong people. And we can't bring as much DPS either.
Here what I am hoping CCP will implement in term of defensive capability:
- Some wh effect reducing POS HP.
- No hardeners.
- No death star;
- But enough DPS to require Logi on grid to siege a POS.
- No ECM.
- One very effective neut which would prevent a dread without proper support to reinforce a POS just for the LOL.
- Plenty tackle. If a fleet start to bash a POS, it shouldn't be able to disengage easily. While it start disabling the defensive modules, the sieging fleet would either need to give control of the connections to the defender or split forces.
- The defensive modules can be disabled but for a short period. The sieging fleet should keep disabling those modules to keep a blockade up. The defender should have more opportunities to regain control of connections or at least the POS.
That last point doesn't matter in k-space. K-space defenders don't need that extra help; you can't locked down a system like in w-space. It could be related to a wh effect too to only apply to w-space. Or only T3 POS module would behave like that and only in w-space.
TLTR; Make invasion more dynamic, remove some of the grind.
But why should it be that easy for you to remove a group of people from a Wh? If you really do want to remove those people from a WH you should be expected to put in the effort to have a solid fleet composition to do so. If they do what you propose, you really won't have many people that will set up a tower like that in w-space and those that do will be the same 6-10 man corps that already set up really bad towers like that you could do the same to IN GAME NOW.
|
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 21:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
kapolov wrote:@ Two Step
Can we have a CSM Town hall style meeting with you and leaders of most of the notable WH space entities, i think this would end threads like this reaching over 20 pages of confusing and trolls like me.
What the hell would that achieve? The guy has his viewpoints and doesn't want to listen to the overwhelming response to that at all when he disagrees.
Try getting him to discuss the comparison between large towers as an attempt to fortifying a C1-4 to the C5/6 fortifying their holes with large numbers of caps and the inherent problem with evicting a large well fortified group from a C5/6. The guy is very willing to nerf all low end w-space but unwilling to discuss at all nerfing his end of space. |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 22:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Wolvun, I took the effort of reading most of the CSM minutes regarding the new Starbase system and I can assure you that most of this thread lenght is due to missinformation and trolling. You can have some differences with what was said but you have to remember 2 things that was said there that would help you get in tune with it.
First: NOTHING IS FINAL. Basically was a presentation of an idea that was in the mind of CCP.
Second: Its a long way anything happening soon, so it may not happen at all.
I have a third for the ones that did not read it: JUMP DRIVES ON STARBASES! (WTF?)
I also read the minutes and i understand that nothing is set in stone but the person putting forward our views or doing so like he is supposed to be doing needs to listen to them before CCP starts coding or we will only have CCP's and Two Steps vision implemented.
What you fail to be reading in this thread is the many voices asking him not to go down the path of low end w-space nerfing and him completely determined to gimp all low end space. When the guy is committed to nerfing one end of w-space and unwilling to discuss the other end of w-space is a major problem to me, and if that's the position we go into when CCP starts coding then we are screwed. Perhaps you should read a bit more of the thread here yourself. |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 03:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Wolvun wrote:Kalel Nimrott wrote:Wolvun, I took the effort of reading most of the CSM minutes regarding the new Starbase system and I can assure you that most of this thread lenght is due to missinformation and trolling. You can have some differences with what was said but you have to remember 2 things that was said there that would help you get in tune with it.
First: NOTHING IS FINAL. Basically was a presentation of an idea that was in the mind of CCP.
Second: Its a long way anything happening soon, so it may not happen at all.
I have a third for the ones that did not read it: JUMP DRIVES ON STARBASES! (WTF?) I also read the minutes and i understand that nothing is set in stone but the person putting forward our views or doing so like he is supposed to be doing needs to listen to them before CCP starts coding or we will only have CCP's and Two Steps vision implemented. What you fail to be reading in this thread is the many voices asking him not to go down the path of low end w-space nerfing and him completely determined to gimp all low end space. When the guy is committed to nerfing one end of w-space and unwilling to discuss the other end of w-space is a major problem to me, and if that's the position we go into when CCP starts coding then we are screwed. Perhaps you should read a bit more of the thread here yourself. I know you just want to rant and pick a forum fight, so lets have it. Read carefuly what I posted two post back. I actually referred to the problem of low end Wspace nerf and what was CCP answer to it. Also, If I`m telling you that nothing is final, then not even Wspace low end nerf is final. Tell me next time I`m too subtle for you  Edit: Actually, was 3 post back, but only counting mines.
Was it a rant? Did it bug you?
And i don't care for a forum fight, i only care that Two Step puts the views of a community above his own. That's all.
Actually i don't see any of your posts that even slightly mention low end w-space nerfs so yes too subtle indeed.  Or should i put some words in for you?
And we clearly all know nothing is final, but should we just say nothing and wait until Two Step convinces them of the horrible nerf and then go hey no one wants this, why are you doing that CCP? And then when CCP has put to many resources into making it so that it would take another 5 years to reverse?
I only asked that Two Step be willing to discuss it further and in more detail than caps in lows are bad and towers are to hard mmmk
|
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 05:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Kalel Nimrott wrote:CSM & CCP Meeting minutes, May 30th wrote:CCP Greyscale suggested that perhaps the larger power cores (fuel consumption) might require freighters to move around, which would prevent them from getting into lower class wormholes. Game desing balancing the game play? Edit: Now I know why such a system would be implemented. If you hide in Wspace and have no Walking in station, a Dust Dweller wont be able to shoot you in the face. Still too subtle?
LOL that's not subtlety that's completely generalised and on the topic of nothing at all. Perhaps learn to elaborate your sentence structure to the point it has some meaning and content. |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 05:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Wolvun wrote:Kalel Nimrott wrote:Kalel Nimrott wrote:CSM & CCP Meeting minutes, May 30th wrote:CCP Greyscale suggested that perhaps the larger power cores (fuel consumption) might require freighters to move around, which would prevent them from getting into lower class wormholes. Game desing balancing the game play? Edit: Now I know why such a system would be implemented. If you hide in Wspace and have no Walking in station, a Dust Dweller wont be able to shoot you in the face. Still too subtle? LOL that's not subtlety that's completely generalised and on the topic of nothing at all. Perhaps learn to elaborate your sentence structure to the point it has some meaning and content. If you didnt understood why I brought the fuel comsupton idea,then you didnt read that part of the csm.
I didn't really want to have a tit for tat argument with you when your so happy to edit your posts to suit yourself, but if that's how you win at the interwebs i really must try harder at edits. |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 21:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote: A lot of numbers
Seems to be fairly even across the board for POS killing, what seems to be the reason for the nerf then?
C5's where caps are used for POS killing have around the same amount where C2's have HS access for logistics.
Are C4's on par with C6 figures for the same logistic issue?
Again you cant still say lower Wh space evictions don't happen, all i have asked for is that if you want to take down a tower that has been set up correctly you should be required to put in some effort to do so. And it seems to me by those figures that there isn't a problem at all with evictions happening. |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 01:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Klarion Sythis wrote:Wolvun wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote: A lot of numbers Seems to be fairly even across the board for POS killing, what seems to be the reason for the nerf then? I have no reason to weigh in on the low class wormhole issue, but by what metric could you possibly say they're "even across the board"? How are so many people reading these numbers in such bat **** crazy ways?
Way to elaborate... |
Wolvun
Crimson Cell
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 02:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote:Considering the number of C2s and C5s are almost equal, I am surprised to see the number so close to even.
And without cap fleets to do it, how do they get by........ |
|
|
|
|
| |
|