With the changes they propose the only things i would like them to change at the same time.... and an option to se if a pos is online or offine on directional.

People who build capitals in the lower class wormholes are in the minority, and not very smart about what they're doing, since they can't get them out. So you're not going to come across corps that have "built as many of them as they wanted"......

You know what though we actually have to post on alts blah blah blah

You can already do that. If you dscan in the direction of a pos, and it doesn't show a forcefield on dscan, it's offline.

That is the same thing as saying it is safer to mine in Zero sec than in Hisec!

You comment is laughable. Do you have any idea what it requires to live in a c6? from an organizational point of view?

1) There are so few c6 that if any one wants to find you, they will find you. You see? With a static c6, you can cycle hole for every 5 min. which mean that you should find the right hole once every day. Means that within a week you should be able to get a cap fleet into the system. You cannot hide, you have to fight.

2) No one lives in a c6 without a large cap fleet of there own. Yes we loose less ships in homesys to random ganks, but if we loose home sys the loss can hardly be counted in billions.

3) The only reason we do not loose ships to random ganks (which we btw still do, cause in order to logistics done, we have to go through lower class because of logistics), is the effort put into hi class wh.

4) We solo as much as the next isk hore in lower class wh, when there is nothing else to do.


Honestly. We live as much in c2's as you do. My bet is you never lived in a c6.

What we cannot do is to expect to find a certain low class wh within a week with our major logistics through hi, low and zero.

I wonder how many invasions you've done?

Two step, you were elected in hopes that our voices, through you, would lead to the betterment of W-Space as a whole and all of the corps within... not just AHARM and C5/C6 dwellers.

I believe he was saying once the changes have been implemented, that is to say if there's no forcefield involved anymore.

I believe most people here only concern about fixing broken role/access system.

As for the FF stuff, people are blaming me for CCP's decisions here. If it were up to me, I don't see a reason to get rid of them, but *it isn't up to me*. My preferred mechanism would actually be that people could choose between docking and having a forcefield, but not both.

This and the T3 subsystem change. I don't know why they feel they need to change the whole damn thing. It's like buying a new car because your old one had a flat tire.

Two step > CCP said that the docking module might be too big to move by anythign other than a freighter

but did you tell them that? or are you just an ass-kissing wannabe politician sucking up to the people that are paying for your trips to Iceland?

You know what though we actually have to post on alts when posting sensitive information like i did about our WH on alts to get our point across because hey there is actually people in C1-4's that go after gravy WH's to evict people.

...snip...

Give me a break.

I find it funny that some people think they are the community. lol

The only real thing we all seem to agree on is that low class wormholes are fine and should not be nerfed. I've seen proponents and opponents about all other issues. So, claiming two step is acting against the community is just not true. Give the guy a break, it's hard representing an entire community, especially one filled with ocd folks like us :P I think he's doing fine as our voice on the CSM.

Did you not read enough of the pages where he has said several times that he does not agree that low class WH's are "fine"?

You must have missed all the response he got on that.

Defenders in lower class wormholes already have the tremendous advantage of being able to build their own capitals, and as people have pointed out, they have even easier access to highsec, so they should be able to build as many of them as they want. I don't like this, and I don't see any reason that they should also have the full POS defenses and shield HP that someone in a C5 has. The simplest reason for this is because *any* attacker is going to be bringing *far* less DPS to shoot a POS in a C2 or C1 than they could bring with one or two dreads in a C5 or C6. A single dread is somewhere around 10,000 DPS (and DPS at a range that can hit a POS), in a C1 where you are limited to BC and below you are talking about 600 DPS per ship max. That means each dread is 16 or so pilots worth of DPS.

As for the FF stuff, people are blaming me for CCP's decisions here. If it were up to me, I don't see a reason to get rid of them, but *it isn't up to me*. My preferred mechanism would actually be that people could choose between docking and having a forcefield, but not both.

I understand that lots of folks are worried about docking games, and I have a couple of responses:
1) Docking modules will not be on every POS. They will at least cost a lot of fuel to operate, and may not fit into lower class wormholes at all
2) Being docked is, as was pointed out, both an advantage an a disadvantage. When docked you don't have intel on what is going on outside the POS, and people don't know what you are flying.
3) Docking in a POS will be different than at a station. For one thing, you have guns, webs and points on your POS to attack campers. Consider the situation right now, how many of you camp random POSes with defenses online?
4) How are docking games any worse than forcefield games right now? With a forcefield, you can even enter while agressed, unlike docking currently (though I have no idea if POS docking would have the same restrictions)

I do agree that having some sot of indication via scan probes or d-scan of a pos being offline/out of fuel would be a good thing. I also agree that showing how many people are docked or maybe even what ships they have active would be a really important part of a new system.

Multiple POSes on grid I talked about in the post right before your post! I do have concerns about them, and I think CCP needs to think about a system like limiting the amount of guns that could be on a single grid, or something similar. In general, just like the current system, POSes should be defended by ships, not by turrets.

POS anchoring locations is certainly a concern. I think this falls pretty far into the "it hasn't been designed yet" camp though. Perhaps most POSes will be findable with the built in scanner? Perhaps they will be on the overview unless you spend lots of extra power on cloaking modules (which are again, just an idea)? Perhaps it is a good thing that someone could be sitting in a POS you don't know about and surprise you?

Give this man the golden medal, he has actually solved all the issues with this one statement here! Choose between a forcefield module or a docking module, have both of them use 51% CPU of what a large tower can put out, this will only enable one per tower.. or something to that effect (it doesn't have to be the CPU thing).

If it were up to me, I don't see a reason to get rid of them, but *it isn't up to me*. My preferred mechanism would actually be that people could choose between docking and having a forcefield, but not both.

PS: change clone is also BS, if you're too scared to fly your +5 clone to pvp in wspace, go back to empire.

Minority? maybe.

But they are the ones that do it right, or at least try to. You don't seriously think that it's a bad idea to build caps in a low class WH because you cant get them out do you?

That the same minority in most cases either opts to not use them or cant fly them properly when they are really needed is another matter.

He's not speaking on behalf of c5/c6 dwellers in general either, since none of us want stupid docking games.

I imagine it went something like this:
CCP: *throws around some ideas, including very bad ones*
Two Step: Yup yup yup yup *just happy to be there guy* yup yup yup
Two Step on forums: *praise these ideas*
Everyone who voted for him: Wow, no. These are bad because ...
Two Step: Well it's ccp doing it anyway, but I do love it. Yup yup yup.

and in the future:
wormhole space in ruins
two step never getting near a seat on the csm again

Politician Tip
Two Step you were not elected to promote and present your view, but the view of the community that elected you! Be sure that you won't be elected again if you act in such manner.
After seeing how community reacted to the ideas of possible POS rewamp, you should have picked up that CCP batphone and scream to the devs - "Oh shite, we ***** up big time, need to discuss all the ideas again! ASAP! Before it's too late."

[quote=IgnasS]Constituent tip:
I am representing my community. I wrote a blog post in April where my first bullet point was that new POSes should have docking. The feedback I got from my community then was that this was good.

Constituent tip:
I am representing my community. I wrote a blog post in April where my first bullet point was that new POSes should have docking. The feedback I got from my community then was that this was good.

Another free tip: This stuff isn't going to be in the Winter patch, so there is another chance to discuss it with CCP at the upcoming winter summit.

Because of the ease in which it is possible to flood a C2/HS system with invading forces compared to the difficulty in doing the same thing in a C6, I maintain that a C2/HS/? is more dangerous to live in than a C6/C6.

Defenders in lower class wormholes already have the tremendous advantage of being able to build their own capitals, and as people have pointed out, they have even easier access to highsec, so they should be able to build as many of them as they want. I don't like this, and I don't see any reason that they should also have the full POS defenses and shield HP that someone in a C5 has. The simplest reason for this is because *any* attacker is going to be bringing *far* less DPS to shoot a POS in a C2 or C1 than they could bring with one or two dreads in a C5 or C6. A single dread is somewhere around 10,000 DPS (and DPS at a range that can hit a POS), in a C1 where you are limited to BC and below you are talking about 600 DPS per ship max. That means each dread is 16 or so pilots worth of DPS.

I understand that lots of folks are worried about docking games, and I have a couple of responses:
1) Docking modules will not be on every POS. They will at least cost a lot of fuel to operate, and may not fit into lower class wormholes at all

4) How are docking games any worse than forcefield games right now? With a forcefield, you can even enter while agressed, unlike docking currently (though I have no idea if POS docking would have the same restrictions)

I do agree that having some sot of indication via scan probes or d-scan of a pos being offline/out of fuel would be a good thing. I also agree that showing how many people are docked or maybe even what ships they have active would be a really important part of a new system.

Multiple POSes on grid I talked about in the post right before your post! I do have concerns about them, and I think CCP needs to think about a system like limiting the amount of guns that could be on a single grid, or something similar. In general, just like the current system, POSes should be defended by ships, not by turrets.
why on the same grid ? just simply why ?

POS anchoring locations is certainly a concern. I think this falls pretty far into the "it hasn't been designed yet" camp though. Perhaps most POSes will be findable with the built in scanner? Perhaps they will be on the overview unless you spend lots of extra power on cloaking modules (which are again, just an idea)? Perhaps it is a good thing that someone could be sitting in a POS you don't know about and surprise you?

Constituent tip:
I am representing my community. I wrote a blog post in April where my first bullet point was that new POSes should have docking. The feedback I got from my community then was that this was good.