| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
20
   |
Posted - 2013.01.21 11:01:00 -
[31] - Quote
I think some of the problems lies in the sandbox. Some big alliances in w-space with huge numbers have a sort of bully attitude; "if you 5 guys fight our 25, that proves you are just pve:ers and than we have good reason to kick you out."
Smaller corps are terrified and fortifty themselves with poses at every moon because of that.
What we need is smaller stuff to shoot at that doesn't take a weekend to finnish off.
I had high hopes when they changed custom offices to be destroyable as a way to drag people out of their poses or at least able to do little damage without a launching a full scale invasion. Sadly reinforcement timers and the amount of life you have of a wormholes makes it just pointless..
More incentives for corporations in all sizes to bring fleets out would make w-space much more dynamic.
Just imagine if there was some sort of buildings that you could anchor (not at poses) that upgraded your system a little bit (like in FW or nullsec) that was decently easy to destroy or at least sabotage. Reinforcment time about an hour, giving your enemy chance to defend. |
Terrorfrodo
376
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 11:34:00 -
[32] - Quote
Roime wrote:I think preventing SD inside a force field could rekindle evictions.
Which is good because...? Evicting people means fewer people in w-space. Really great 
PvE farmers and the ganks they provide are an important part of the pvp food chain in w-space, I don't want them to leave even though I don't like them. We don't need more evictions, we need ways to hurt residents that are both easier to accomplish and less drastic than outright evicting them.
For example, there could be a structure that upgrades sleeper sites in the system. There won't be more sites, but every site will get an additional wave, or every sleeper will carry a little more blue loot, increasing the worth of sites by 25% or so. (If this would buff wh income too much, the base income could be nerfed and the upgrade would just bring it back to current levels.)
And it would be relatively easy for an aggressor to disable this module, but hard to destroy it. It has hitpoints like a small POS, and drops no loot, but can be hacked within 30 minutes (with no way to speed that up by having a blob). Once hacked, it is disabled and it takes 24 hours to 'wipe the virus' and online it again. So if the residents don't defend it, they lose part of their income for a whole day.
What about people not being online 24/7? The upgrade structure has a configurable daily time window where it is invulnerable. So corps can protect themselves during the night when they have no way to defend. For C1-3 the invulnerabilty would last for 12-16 hours of the day. For C4-6 it would be shorter, maybe even zero for C6 because you can expect corps living there to be big and have people online around the clock. (Changes to the invuln period would only take effect after 24 hours so it cannot be adjusted on the fly to divert an ongoing attack.)
What would happen? Usually, the upgrade structure would be vulnerable during the time the residents are active so attacking/hacking it can provoke a response. The most pathetic carebears still won't fight. But people with the basic wish to fight, who stay pos'd up now because they don't dare to engage and don't have a real reason to take the risk, will try to bring everyone online and repel the attack.
I just realized that while this works against C1, C3 and C4-6, it wouldn't hurt C2 residents because they use their static for ratting. So we need even more ways to hurt residents... 
. |
Simon Severasse
Los Marginales
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 11:56:00 -
[33] - Quote
I think the biggest problem we have is having too much information, as much as I like some sites, knowing as soon as you see the name of the system, the inhabitants, the fights, and even their timezone is a problem to get good fights (even if I'm not a pvper myself I like the nature of whs).
Maybe changing the anomaly cycle of life, so as soon as one of the sleepers got damage it will despawn in the next hour whatever you do, you can grief small whs a lot, and I know it will hurt the anomaly farming in higher whs.
As terrorfrodo says we need (or you need) more objectives that make us the bears fight. But making easier to evict us is not the solution I think.
And for the love of good don't let the undock games comes to wormholes.
TLDR: My votes will go to the guy that wants the wormholes to be more dinamic, more about small gangs and fun pve (plus the risk of unwanted pvp), and less about blob and massive alliances steamrolling unknown space. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1732
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ok my choice of wording was wrong, I should have said siege, not eviction (eviction is a possible outcome). I'm not assuming all small w-space corps are out here just to farm. I'd like to promote combat among them, and what would be a better reason to fight over than system control?
Currently it just doesn't happen because of force field SD.
Other structures have the same issue as pocos, they are just too cheap and easily replaceable to force a fight out of pansies. Losing a days worth of increased income is also not a reason to fight against the odds.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Axloth Okiah
Dark-Rising
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.
(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF) |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
564
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.
(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF)
You're correct on the first point.
I do not support removal of SD ability from within the FF. Pretend scenario for you to illustrate why. (Quoted so you can skip it if you're uninterested in a cool story bro)
Cool Story wrote:Let's pretend I live in a c5 with 5 or 6 friends of mine. Lets then pretend that we're not super hardcore gamers and we only play 3 or 4 nights a week and we haven't given our RL phone numbers out. We don't have a lot of ships, lets say we have 4 T3s each, a scanning ship, a hacking/analysing ship and 2 dreads and 2 carriers for farming our sites.
Now let's imagine that we ran our sites for the day, then went and spent 2 hours roaming in a null sec we happened to find in our static. We killed a few things, then two of us exploded and we came home and logged off for the night. The next day Fred had a work dinner he had to attend so we decide to have the night off. But that night while we were off doing other things, TLost found our hole and decided that they'd like to kick us out. The next day I log in to find 30 minutes left on the reinforce timer, a **** cage in place and there's TLost sitting outside the POS shields with 30 T3s, 2 carriers and 4 dreads.
The only choice I have is to wait the timer out and hope enough people can get on to maybe save (read: log off in) some of our ships. I can make sure that TLost don't get to take ONE of our ships; the one I'm sitting in that will explode when the FF goes down. But the rest of them are free loot and there's not a damned thing I can do about it anymore because I can't self destruct them. I also can't get anything out of the Hangar because it goes offline when the tower goes into reinforced.
Removing SD inside FFs means that the big guys get to take what ever they like from the little guys, and there's not a thing that the little guys can do except bend over and pray for lube.
Cipreh wrote:The class 5 and class 6 wormholes are already incentivized, via the capital escalations that pay very well. And if you take into account the reduction in gases coming out, sleeper salvage, and mag site loot, I suspect it would have a broader impact then most people would expect. You would likely see less undefended farming systems, as the sites themselves would be in higher demand.
As I said, it's a subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about, in both directions.
There wont be any reduction in gases/mags/salvage coming out, because you're only removing unoccupied holes that aren't being farmed/used anyway. You would have to also reduce the total number of sites to the point where there were LESS sites per c5... and then we're back to the same reason that no one lives in c5s now, because a c6 is just as good for capital escalations and has better sites as well. |
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
57
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:52:00 -
[37] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.
(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF)
Really? Modular POSes with the ability to destroy modules without an RF timer. Then you roll into the hole of someone and if they don't have full timezone coverage/don't want to fight, you spend 30 minutes or an hour and destroy a POS module worth a couple billion. Gives them an incentive to come out to defend and they'll have guns on their side, etc.
I don't know how well it would work but that's a solution it literally took me about 30 seconds to think of, can't be too hard for a game company/CSM. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
K162
3122
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
A couple of questions:
1) If CCP doesn't change the voting system, would you participate in a primary?
2) Why did you post this in the wrong forum?
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Axloth Okiah
Dark-Rising
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 12:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
ad cool story:
1) Living in C5 implies being able to defend your home. If your corp is too small/weak/casual, then join someone stronger or live somewhere else (lower class perhaps). W-space is not a kindergarten.
2) Sieging many POSes in w-space isnt really a popular past-time for most corps. I seriously doubt that additional loot would change that. I'm not very familiar with past TLost ops, but evictions usually require some previous grievance of one form or another. |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
1923
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 14:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
I've deleted some troll posts from this thread.
Community Representative GÇ+ EVE Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Guild of the Faceless Men
Entropy Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 14:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
@Cipreh
First off, you are circumventing the proposed wormhole primaries which would have given you a much larger voter base to work with. In doing so you basically guarentee you will only get half of the votes you could have had you been a part of the wormhole primaries and won that. For this, you are a fool.
Second, your first stated position about foritifications is clearly directed at one group in partitculiar who will remain nameless. Your current plan is to instead of conquering said group by playing the game they wish you to play, You want the rules changed so you can in theory come in with your group and maybe one other organizations host and wipe the slate clean in their fortress. If you are willing to call them complacent and weak then why don't you go take them out as it stands right now? Oh thats right, your scared shitless of their reputation for obliterating those that get to the top of the mountain to try to kick them off.
As for the rest of your blither, I stopped reading at the first statement. My four votes will not be yours and doubtless many others that could of been yours will not be since you chose to try and go **** on the new way to make the voice of the people in wormhole space heard on the CSM, and you have taken positions that in fact help larger groups rather than smaller ones. If a 10 man group wants to harden their hole so it takes about 50 people to fight 10 folks. So be it! Or, if a 260 toon corp wants to do the same thing so it takes 500 individuals to take their home, so be it! That sounds like an epic fight to me. You are the candidate for people who do not have the will to do what it takes and need to change the rules IMO.
Good day sir.
@ the rest of you.
Read this and mull upon its content for a time before you go voting for a guy who uses fundamental mechanics changes as part of his election platform.
Malcanis' Law |
Casirio
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 15:08:00 -
[42] - Quote
I'm not voting for you cus I don't like you. but good luck! |
Mister Tuggles
Faceless Men
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 16:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Who is the current CSM member for WH's? |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
590
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:09:00 -
[44] - Quote
Mister Tuggles wrote:Who is the current CSM member for WH's?
Two step. I don't know if he is running again though.
Why i play EVE:-á20% for gameplay experience, 30% for the social aspect and 50% because of CCPGÇÖs empty promises.-á |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Exhale.
590
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:10:00 -
[45] - Quote
double post
Why i play EVE:-á20% for gameplay experience, 30% for the social aspect and 50% because of CCPGÇÖs empty promises.-á |
Malception
Cold Moon Destruction
Transmission Lost
68
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:18:00 -
[46] - Quote
He isn't running again. Or so he said on the podcast Down the Pipe. |
Cipreh
Clann Fian
Transmission Lost
226
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:40:00 -
[47] - Quote
Two step wrote:A couple of questions:
1) If CCP doesn't change the voting system, would you participate in a primary?
2) Why did you post this in the wrong forum?
I have already stated publicly that I am 100% behind the idea of a w-space primary, and would happily be a part of it. I want to see the candidate who is willing to do his or her best for the majority of our community get elected, and if it's not me, then I will gladly back someone else.
I posted in this forum, because for all the talk of a primary that has happened over the last few months, nothing concrete has come of it, no dates have been set, and no information has been made available to the potential candidates or the community regarding its organization or timing. We are getting down to the wire here with just over two months to go, and something needs to happen.
In order for people to make an informed decision when the primary does happen, they need to know where the various candidates stand on issues the community feels are important. After the primary, whoever the community decides they want on the CSM can make a post in the appropriate forum and get the prerequisite votes or likes.
|
Bane Nucleus
The Kairos Syndicate
Transmission Lost
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:53:00 -
[48] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
Second, your first stated position about foritifications is clearly directed at one group in partitculiar who will remain nameless. Your current plan is to instead of conquering said group by playing the game they wish you to play, You want the rules changed so you can in theory come in with your group and maybe one other organizations host and wipe the slate clean in their fortress. If you are willing to call them complacent and weak then why don't you go take them out as it stands right now? Oh thats right, your scared shitless of their reputation for obliterating those that get to the top of the mountain to try to kick them off.
LOL! You talk about someone elses blither, then you post this garbage. Get the **** out of here.
Alliance CEO, Diplomat, Recruiter |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics
K162
1307
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:20:00 -
[49] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:ramblings LOL! You talk about someone elses blither, then you post this garbage. Get the **** out of here.
*hugs* ;)
On a related note though, just to clarify, Cipreh, are you planning to push for making it easier to evict any WH or just the high end ones?
I ask because personally I consider it much easier to evict someone in a heavily fortified C5/6, sure, AHARM for example, than someone in a heavily fortified C2, such as several TLOST corps for example.
Also, why do you feel this is actually needed at all?
I mean, people are always complaining that WHs are too empty so how would making evictions easier help bring more people into WHs to populate them? |
Klarion Sythis
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:25:00 -
[50] - Quote
First off, lol @ Casirio.
Second, Cipreh has a point regarding a lack of information on the primaries. That's how I'd prefer to vote, but I haven't seen any solid information on it yet. Is it still just an idea or is someone actually making it happen? |
Cipreh
Clann Fian
Transmission Lost
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:34:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:ramblings LOL! You talk about someone elses blither, then you post this garbage. Get the **** out of here. *hugs* ;) On a related note though, just to clarify, Cipreh, are you planning to push for making it easier to evict any WH or just the high end ones? I ask because personally I consider it much easier to evict someone in a heavily fortified C5/6, sure, AHARM for example, than someone in a heavily fortified C2, such as several TLOST corps for example. Also, why do you feel this is actually needed at all? I mean, people are always complaining that WHs are too empty so how would making evictions easier help bring more people into WHs to populate them?
At no point did I say I wanted to make it easier to evict anyone, just that the current dynamics breed complacency, and I feel there should be more of a risk to the various styles of game play, whether it's exploration, PvE, or industry that are common in w-space, to bring it in-line with the rewards.
Now I am not saying make the sites harder, but I feel the difficulty and risk in these activities should come from other players, more then by anything CCP adds to the game. The changes I have talked about in my previous posts have all touched on ways to improve on bringing people into contact with each other more often, to drive conflict. |
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
60
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
You are being pretty darn vague about what complaceny on high end WH corp means. Do you have any clarifications? Seems like the reasonable conclusion from my end. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
K162
3156
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:08:00 -
[53] - Quote
Klarion Sythis wrote:First off, lol @ Casirio.
Second, Cipreh has a point regarding a lack of information on the primaries. That's how I'd prefer to vote, but I haven't seen any solid information on it yet. Is it still just an idea or is someone actually making it happen?
I am working on it, but if you read the minutes, CCP *may* be changing the voting system which would make a primary unneeded. I am trying to get confirmation from them, which should be this week (hopefully) that the changes will happen. If not, I am planning on running a primary.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Guild of the Faceless Men
Entropy Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:03:00 -
[54] - Quote
Bane, you are just mad I pointed out some pretty hard facts regarding your (terrible) alliances (terrible) candidate. |
Klarion Sythis
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 00:11:00 -
[55] - Quote
To be fair Zarak, you do come off as a maniac when you post. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics
K162
1308
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 00:32:00 -
[56] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:I just posted a blog and moved on. But, damn son! You have some commitment/serious issues for what you did to Bite Me Inc.
oh this is you moving on. my mistake then.
what exactly did i do to bite me inc?
i still like them, i still talk to a lot of them regularly, id be happy to fly with them at any time should the situation warrant it. i also don't troll their blogs, forum posts, channels... really not sure what youre getting at... |
Matuk Grymwal
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 01:08:00 -
[57] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:I just posted a blog and moved on. But, damn son! You have some commitment/serious issues for what you did to Bite Me Inc. oh this is you moving on. my mistake then. what exactly did i do to bite me inc? i still like them, i still talk to a lot of them regularly, id be happy to fly with them at any time should the situation warrant it. i also don't troll their blogs, forum posts, channels... really not sure what youre getting at...
Eh, well I suppose Jack did troll any sub optimal t3/capital fit that got linked in corp. But he does that everywhere to everyone in fairly equal measure, including these forums. The only major grief Jack caused me was leaving to join AHARM and crimping my home ops in the AU TZ  . |
Bane Nucleus
The Kairos Syndicate
Transmission Lost
313
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 01:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:Bane, you are just mad I pointed out some pretty hard facts regarding your (terrible) alliances (terrible) candidate.
You pointed out nothing. You talk about stuff being geared to towards one group in particular, then refused to name them. If it makes you feel better to make things up, that is on you. Just don't come out here and try to spout off nonsense as facts. It makes you sound bitter, which makes sense considering you aren't really relevant anymore.
Alliance CEO, Diplomat, Recruiter |
Bamsey Amraa
Unseen Nomads
Exiled Ones
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
-1 vote |
Sushi Nardieu
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:54:00 -
[60] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
Jack, would you like me to post the Ballad of Jack Miton for everyone to read. Just continue to be a full on forum warrior please. I'll break you off a little preview. Jack Miton griefed his former corp for 6 months out of spiteful feelings.
I just posted a blog and moved on. But, damn son! You have some commitment/serious issues for what you did to Bite Me Inc.
Jack's cool
Guns of Knowledge-á |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |