EVE Search - [Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

All Channels

Wormholes

[Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Pell Helix Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 14	Posted - 2012.08.28 04:47:00 - [1] - Quote Two Step invited everyone onto AHARM's Mumble to discuss the state of W-Space. He did a Q&A and answered everyone's questions to the best of his ability. http://soundcloud.com/haha-15/wormhole-townhall-with-csm-two
Bernie Nator 4U Services Inc. Talocan United 409	Posted - 2012.08.28 08:42:00 - [2] - Quote And best of all, no one was a complete idiot about asking questions.
Oxandrolone Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 47	Posted - 2012.08.28 20:23:00 - [3] - Quote thanks for recording, couldnt get my sound to work :(
Jack Miton Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 521	Posted - 2012.08.28 23:33:00 - [4] - Quote Just going to say that forcing caps to be moored and not stored is a bad idea. It gives out totally free intel which is not what WHs are about. Also, i really hate the idea of being able to steal offline POSs. ive left offline POSs around deliberately for very good reasons on several occasions. (and no, not for moon coverage.) it needs to at lease have a 30 timer on it or something.
Pink Marshmellow Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost 51	Posted - 2012.08.29 00:32:00 - [5] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Just going to say that forcing caps to be moored and not stored is a bad idea. It gives out totally free intel which is not what WHs are about. There are plenty of morons who like leave their capital floating the pos.
kapolov Hedion University Amarr Empire 18	Posted - 2012.08.29 01:07:00 - [6] - Quote Bernie Nator wrote: And best of all, no one was a complete idiot about asking questions. ^ This. Next time boot the people that don't get that they can't continually ask questions without using the chat. And i will hate a little less on Two Step after this, i think he listened and answered the best he could. Even if he didn't agree with stuff he has said he is prepared to listen to the views and put them forward if enough people want them. So start eve mailing him your views people, don't ***** later. Can we get this meeting advertised next time, there was a lot of Alliance representation but not a lot of small corps there as far as i am aware.
Jack Miton Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 521	Posted - 2012.08.29 07:17:00 - [7] - Quote Pink Marshmellow wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Just going to say that forcing caps to be moored and not stored is a bad idea. It gives out totally free intel which is not what WHs are about. There are plenty of morons who like leave their capital floating the pos. yes, and thats their choice. if they want to talk in local too while theyre at it, that's also fine by me. but forcing people to do something that is currently considered stupid is, well, stupid.
Bane Nucleus The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost 240	Posted - 2012.08.29 07:36:00 - [8] - Quote I miss my forcefield already Alliance Diplomat, Recruiter
Swordfingers Restless Obsession 31	Posted - 2012.08.29 09:35:00 - [9] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Pink Marshmellow wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Just going to say that forcing caps to be moored and not stored is a bad idea. It gives out totally free intel which is not what WHs are about. There are plenty of morons who like leave their capital floating the pos. yes, and thats their choice. if they want to talk in local too while theyre at it, that's also fine by me. but forcing people to do something that is currently considered stupid is, well, stupid. No one is forcing you. You can log out your cap with a sitter alt.
Two step Aperture Harmonics K162 2151	Posted - 2012.08.29 11:54:00 - [10] - Quote kapolov wrote: Bernie Nator wrote: And best of all, no one was a complete idiot about asking questions. ^ This. Next time boot the people that don't get that they can't continually ask questions without using the chat. And i will hate a little less on Two Step after this, i think he listened and answered the best he could. Even if he didn't agree with stuff he has said he is prepared to listen to the views and put them forward if enough people want them. So start eve mailing him your views people, don't ***** later. Can we get this meeting advertised next time, there was a lot of Alliance representation but not a lot of small corps there as far as i am aware. Yeah, the next one will be advertised a lot more widely, I just wanted to test the format with a smaller group first. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Jack Miton Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 523	Posted - 2012.08.29 13:08:00 - [11] - Quote Bane Nucleus wrote: I miss my forcefield already same... i honestly think removing them will ruin POSs. it's going to make it almost impossible to escape from a POS under attack for starters.
Kalel Nimrott Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail 41	Posted - 2012.08.29 13:16:00 - [12] - Quote I don`t know about that, Jack. I think this is one of those situation that you first have to see what is throw at you. I like the pos system and I`m not as grumpy about it as most of dwellers are. In fact I Don`t have any real complains about the pos system at is currently state. But I will like to see what is proposed in the new system, at least to see if there is going to be any basic mechanics changed or if they are going to add up some new mechanics, and not just for Wspace. (They kind of got me when they said that you could ensamble starbases togheter. LEGO FTW)
Thallius O'Quinn Stealth Assassins 0	Posted - 2012.08.29 13:33:00 - [13] - Quote Any chance for a download? I don't see one on soundcloud, but I'd like to listen to this on my way in to work.
Ya Huei Imperial Collective 82	Posted - 2012.08.29 15:05:00 - [14] - Quote Weakening lower class pos's seems like a bad idea to me because as Bane already stated, it is very easy to bring numbers into near k-space systems, therefore weakening the pos towers will only empower the larger entities currently in w-space, not to mention all the K-space folks that might want a piece of the pie if the new pos structures end up being more squishy.
Xen Solarus Inner 5phere 141	Posted - 2012.08.29 16:31:00 - [15] - Quote I'm also somewhat worried about this idea of the removal of force fields, especially considering that the actual alternative for them seems to be somewhat vague and still in the "wait and see" level of development. I'm also completely confused why CCP is unwilling to explain why force fields have to go. If theres a logical reason for their removal, why not say? Ever since i moved into wh-space i've complained about the burden of POS security and general rubbishness, but does the solution need to be this drastic? What happens to my current POS, and all the ships currently stored? What about all the guns? I realise these ideas are still in development, but there seems to be alot of factors that need to be nailed down. From what i've heard, im starting to think perhaps its better to stick with the current broken system. But i will continue to look at the ideas for changes in the hope that it will develop into a better system. Whilst i agree with Two-Step that station games won't be a big issue considering that they're will be POS guns present, (no-one comes near a POS unless they are looking to bash it) this makes attacking them alot easier. If you are under siege, people will be unable to escape, and as yet i've not heard a solution to this. Making scanning easier seems a bit silly, especially considering people are complaining that they can't find POS', where you can find them with no probes what-so-ever. Compared to the old-school scanning, current scanning is ridiculously easy! Making it even easier seems to be a step in the wrong direction imo.
bluen0te Jazz Associates Azgoths of Kria 1	Posted - 2012.08.29 20:29:00 - [16] - Quote As someone who has lived in wormholes from the very beginning I think it would be an enormous error to weaken posses in the lower class wormholes. Firstly this is not a problem screaming for a solution. Who finds it difficult to evict or attack posses in the lower category wormholes? Why would anyone want to weaken the situation for dwellers in, say, a class 2 or 3 which is likely to have easier access to high or lowsec? Pos takedowns can usually be finished with bombers when the guns and ewar are taken out. I would suggest the mechanics are totally different in the larger wormholes where cap access is possible through the wormhole statics. Changing the pos dynamics for cat 2 and 3 wormholes would damage the finely balanced pvp dynamics existing across wormholes. What worries me about the wormhole pos discussion is the focus on change driven by people who don't spend a lot of time in wormholes. I love living in wormholes. Its the only reason I play the game. I don't want local. I don't want cap ships jumping into lower cat worholes. I dont want to have to scan for posses when I can find them easily without dropping probes at the moment. Many, many wormhole dwellers have found a new lease of life through wormhole pvp and I consider it the highest form of eve pvp currently available. It ain't broke. Please don't try to 'fix' it.
Fradle Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 7	Posted - 2012.08.30 04:10:00 - [17] - Quote There's going to need to be some give and take. And what it seems to me is that alot of people aren't willing to give anything. Even though this could potentially solve the problem of having ships self destructed in POS bubbles in front of our faces... it could solve alot of problems but people only see the negatives. Cmon people, we're wormholers. We adapt to any problem that's brought in front of us and we tell people to HTFU and learn to play EVE. We'll adapt to how it is without forcefields, if that's the direction they choose to go. Honestly if it makes it harder to escape POS's while under attack... GOOD! You shouldn't be able to easily get away if I'm sieging you.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 610	Posted - 2012.08.30 07:31:00 - [18] - Quote With modular designed POS systems force fields really had to go and some of the ideas like armor repair units sounded kind of cool. As to limiting the size of a POS anywhere, why? I mean yeah if someone has a monster POS in a C1 it will suck to bring down but at the same time that person or those poeple are paying for the upkeep of a monster POS. Artificial limits anywhere like that or limiting the size allowed for different class worm holes is just stupid. As it grows so does the bill so if you want to pay 10 bill a month in fueling cost so be it, you should be allowed. It would mean that people would have huge POSs in their base systems and it would also occur in null and in lo-sec where people wanted a permanent home and where willing to pay for it. Besides the limiting comment on C1-C4 Whs the comment I didn't like was when he stated that people want a bigger POS for their corp and then an even bigger one for their Alliance. Now this in its self is good I should be able to change ownership from personal to corp and then the corp should be able to change it to an alliance asset but the POS structure should not contain anything where in order to use that module you HAVE to make it a corp or Alliance asset. Hell if I am paying for it I should easily be able to choose who I want to be able to use it whether that be corp mates, alliance guys or just people I have set to blue. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Kalel Nimrott Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail 42	Posted - 2012.08.30 11:11:00 - [19] - Quote I-¦m starting to think that If you do not "nerf" low end WH poses (The fuel limit proposed by ccp sounded more solid, natural balance), make walking the stations optional and a docking ring big enough that lets you undock and warp out without being locked, then ppl wouldnt complain.
kapolov Hedion University Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2012.08.30 11:47:00 - [20] - Quote Kalel Nimrott wrote: I-¦m starting to think that If you do not "nerf" low end WH poses (The fuel limit proposed by ccp sounded more solid, natural balance), make walking the stations optional and a docking ring big enough that lets you undock and warp out without being locked, then ppl wouldnt complain. This has to be your only post i could ever agree with. If they accepted this then we could get off the whole complaining arguments and get onto the great ideas part of this debate like being able to dock and be able to see dscan and allow others outside to dscan and see you while your docked. Then we could develop ideas that we want CCP to implement to benefit us WH people and not just argue over what we want them not to do to us.
TheGunslinger42 Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 326	Posted - 2012.08.30 12:24:00 - [21] - Quote Removing forcefields is more than likely a terrible idea, as I see a lot of ways in which it'll make organising a defense/escape from a pos that is under siege near impossible Gimping towers in lower class wormholes is just a god damn awful idea. I have yet to see a single justification for it either, or at least one that isn't simply stupid and wrong (wah wah you can't evict people from lower class wormholes as easily! - except evictions in c2s happen just as much as evictions in c5s, and even if they WERE more 'secure' I think that'd be a legitimate trade off for the worse sites/opportunities you have in c1s/c2s...) Before running around with the nerfstick like a window-licking moron, how about you determine if there is actually a problem, and if there is how your solutions would improve it. Gimping lower class wormholes won't improve them at all, it'll just depoulate them - there'll be less incentive for people to live in them, less incentive for people to evict others from them, etc. They'll be the lowsec of w-space
Fradle Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 8	Posted - 2012.08.30 13:03:00 - [22] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: Removing forcefields is more than likely a terrible idea, as I see a lot of ways in which it'll make organising a defense/escape from a pos that is under siege near impossible Gimping towers in lower class wormholes is just a god damn awful idea. I have yet to see a single justification for it either, or at least one that isn't simply stupid and wrong (wah wah you can't evict people from lower class wormholes as easily! - except evictions in c2s happen just as much as evictions in c5s, and even if they WERE more 'secure' I think that'd be a legitimate trade off for the worse sites/opportunities you have in c1s/c2s...) Before running around with the nerfstick like a window-licking moron, how about you determine if there is actually a problem, and if there is how your solutions would improve it. Gimping lower class wormholes won't improve them at all, it'll just depoulate them - there'll be less incentive for people to live in them, less incentive for people to evict others from them, etc. They'll be the lowsec of w-space Gunny, you obviously didn't listen. The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower. If you also went through listening Two Step explained that he's not sure how he would suggest they balance it, but that's not OUR job or HIS. We bring our REQUIREMENTS, not gripes with WAHHHHH I don't want change. For example: Gaining Intel is important to us, so being able to use D-scan in this 'New POS' is important to us Not having timers is important to us, so not having timers with these 'New POSs' are equally important to us Being able to see who is active is SUPER important to us, not sure how to implement but we want to be able to see who is active
TheGunslinger42 Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 328	Posted - 2012.08.30 13:41:00 - [23] - Quote Fradle wrote: Gunny, you obviously didn't listen. The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower. The idea that you shouldn't need more people than the wormhole can support to take down the tower is a bit flawed and self defeating, I think. I understand the basic idea that requiring more people to 'claim' the system than the system could serve would be problematic, but the major thing I disagree with is the "how many people can the system serve" bit. I think that's quite flawed. I'm certain more than approximately 10 people could live in a c2 just fine - of course, if their sole purpose was whoring the pve sites an individual members income would be pretty low, but.... maybe PVE isn't their raison d'+¬tre? Maybe they're willing to take the hit to their isk-per-hour for the added safety, or easier logistics, or any other of the various trade offs that come with living in a c2? The amount of people who the wormhole could serve will vary massively depending on what they actually want out of wormhole space, and how their corporation is structured and its playstyle - you mentioned transmission lost as having more than 20 people living in a c2... well, ok. Doesn't that kind of prove that lower classes can serve bigger entities? I think placing arbitrary mechanical limitations on lower class wormholes based on the assumption that only a small handful of players could ever live or use them is quite flawed. And as someone else said, they already have limitations - a more "natural" one, I believe - in the form of increased fuel prices for large towers, and no delicious freighter entrances. Worse still, these limitations would take the lower class wormholes and basically enforce a "THIS IS FOR SMALL GROUPS ONLY" policy on them, whereas currently I believe they're more flexible than that. I also can't think of anywhere else in EVE where artificial limits have been put in place to 'force' things into smaller scale. I think this whole "lower class wormholes can only serve a few people, therefore they should be gimped so only a few people can evict easier" is just... idiotic. Or maybe it was an argument invented later to justify the "i wanna gimp low class wormholes" idea.
TheGunslinger42 Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 328	Posted - 2012.08.30 13:49:00 - [24] - Quote Additionally, I don't think small corporations looking to move into lower class wormholes currently have much stopping them at all. Find a system they COULD evict based on their numbers and strength, or find an empty one. If they run across a system whose defenses outmatch them, well that's just the way it is. There's always someone bigger and stronger than you in the sandbox. I don't think we need to change the mechanics to bring those defenses down to their level.
Meytal School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 98	Posted - 2012.08.30 14:31:00 - [25] - Quote Dscan, grid, and overview will not be possible with docking. You are moved from the grid with the tower to a new single-player instance that resembles the inside of a station. To get dscan, grid, and overview, one of two things will need to happen: 1) Cobble together some hacks to get this information while in the single-player instance based on what the tower object sees in space. 2) Keep players in space and fix station services code. Fradle wrote: The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower. Really, no one is supposed to be living in wormhole space. If I remember correctly, that was the reason CCP gave for no moon goo and no ice belts. That we have adapted to the restrictions of w-space is in spite of CCP's plans for w-space, or lack thereof, and speaks to the resourcefulness and creativity of EVE's playerbase. If CCP is changing their position and saying it is okay for players to live in w-space, then they should add at least ice belts to the Grav sigs, even if they don't add moon goo. Assuming then that we're "supposed" to live in w-space, who says you shouldn't have more than 20 players living in a wormhole system? How would one determine the number of people a wormhole system can support? Is CCP (or anyone else) really stupid enough to specify arbitrary numbers for w-space occupancy limits and completely destroy the sandbox and emergent/adaptive behaviour? Fradle wrote: Being able to see who is active is SUPER important to us, not sure how to implement but we want to be able to see who is active With a modular POS, with or without forcefields, we won't see people crawling around to interact with various services. Everyone will appear to be POS spinning while they perform their activities if there are force fields, and everyone will be completely stationary if there is mooring/docking. However, the technical benefits for implementing a modular POS, as well as the conveniences it offers, would offset the little bit of information loss that it presents. As long as there is no docking (moving players out of space into a single-player instance), we will still at least be able to see that the pilots are online, what they're flying, and when they start to move. Force fields solve a sticky issue. Without some sort of proximity-based protection zone, what happens when you eject from your (protected) moored ship at a new-POS that does not have a SMA-equivalent? Does the ship stay moored and protected while your pod launches into space, vulnerable? Does the ship get launched into space where someone might shoot it or steal it and the pod stay protected? Force fields also provide a bit of misdirection for the casual observer. If I don't actually have a scout on-grid with your POS, I don't know what ships are piloted or unpiloted. It forces me to find your POS(es) and forces me to stay on-grid with you to watch that you're active. If all I have to do is use dscan to see a ship to know that ship is active, then that's a massive WoW-life nerf to w-space reconnaisance.
Nash MacAllister The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost 14	Posted - 2012.08.30 14:38:00 - [26] - Quote Fradle wrote: Gunny, you obviously didn't listen. The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower. I disagree. I know, hard to believe. You chose to live in a particular WH because of the static(s) and the opportunities they provide. If you live in a C2 for instance, with the sole desire to run local anoms, then you are amazingly inefficient. Are you saying that a corp of oh let's say 150, can't live in a C2 with static HS and C3 or C4 and make enough ISK in the C3 to be successful? If that's what you are saying, you are doing it wrong. As long as you have the planets you want/need for PI, enough moons to house the towers you want, and perhaps a system effect favorable in your eyes, you can house a hell of a lot of players anywhere you want. The only real limitation between wh class is the size of ships you want to move in and out. If you aren't moving caps, and want a static HS, whose to say a C5/C6 is "better" for us than a C2? The logic on nerfing and eviction just completely fail IMHO. So what does living in, and defending a C2 have to do with how many people it can "support"? Nothing at all. And on top of that, I should be penalized because we figured out how to make C2 life work for a larger Corp? KAIRS wasn't always "large". Any Corp in Eve could do the same, and be successful, if only they took the time and had the desire. Nerfing lower class POS is basically forcing a welfare system on everyone to try and make it "fair" which is total BS. And to top it all off, as was stated a gazillion times already, who needs conflict to find an good wh to live in? There are so many empty WH out there anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can find an adequate home. Make it hard to defend and they simply won't bother trying which will lead the what? Tada, more empty systems. Awesome ideas... *The enemy of my enemy is... -ájust another guy that needs killin'*
Meytal School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 98	Posted - 2012.08.30 14:57:00 - [27] - Quote A month of fuel, 30 days supply, is 28,800 fuel blocks for a large tower. If you are purchasing this from a trade hub, it is 144,000 m3 of cargo you need to haul in from k-space. As mentioned, C1-C4 holes can't fit freighters, so you're stuck with Orcas or industrials. C1 holes can't fit Orcas, so you can only use industrials. I can't begin to describe the joys of hauling in paper-thin industrials. 144,000 m3 is 4 trips with a decent industrial (40k m3, about 20m mass). This puts 160m mass on the C1 hole, which is only a 500m hole, just for hauling fuel for the month. This is for one tower for one month for a decently-skilled player. If you want to bring in a couple months supply, for emergencies, or if multiple people want to fuel their tower, because maybe you have a close exit to a trade hub, or if you can't carry 40k m3 per trip, you'll collapse your hole just fueling your towers. And did I mention how fun it was to haul in industrials? Let's not think about how many trips are required to bring in everything to even set up a tower in a C1, and how many times you'll collapse the static for each tower you bring in. Remember the last time you set up a tower? I do. It wasn't fun. I'm only thankful it wasn't in a C1. Sure, no one needs to set up a Large tower. But if you do, you already suffer a huge logistical burden, especially in a C1. Lower class w-space already have some pretty harsh restrictions on them. They don't need artificial limitations just because some lazy scrub fleet can't take down a POS before they get jumped by a third party looking for a fight.
Nash MacAllister The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost 14	Posted - 2012.08.30 15:19:00 - [28] - Quote Meytal wrote: ...some lazy scrub fleet can't take down a POS before they get jumped by a third party looking for a fight. Lol *The enemy of my enemy is... -ájust another guy that needs killin'*
Fradle Bite Me inc Elysian Empire 8	Posted - 2012.08.30 15:40:00 - [29] - Quote Look what you guys need to realize is change IS HAPPENING. You can't stop it, the objective is to give requirements on what we want. It's not your job to say what is or what can't possibly be done, you're not the game designer. If I said I want to believe able to tell who is active in a POS to gain intelligence. THERE that's my requirement, I don't care how they do it, so don't go and poke holes whining about docking. I've given my requirement and it's up to them to figure out how to do it. Also what we'd really like to hear is something from SMALLER corps, not the big names. Sorry gunny you don't live in a lower class WH, and nor do I. It's their voice that needs to be heard. Once again Two Step isn't looking for a long whining post, it would be nice to know what the problem is with force fields so that we could better understand... But we can't. So how about we realize that change is and will happen, what we need to do is help shape it and make sure our ways of life can remain as much the same as possible.
StaIk Starbridge Brotherhood of Starbridge 0	Posted - 2012.08.30 15:49:00 - [30] - Quote And what do they want to do with POS operators?

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.