EVE Search - Ideas for "Worm-hole" More Conflict......

All Channels

Wormholes

Ideas for "Worm-hole" More Conflict......

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
BEPOHNKA Legions Force 18	Posted - 2013.01.29 04:53:00 - [1] - Quote Hello, Worm-hole end topic.... Time and again we see players saying it's to hard to get in to player own space.... so why not beef up worm-hole space some for the big to small gangs...... only some systems can be upgrade-able allowing more fighting for the "special" upgrade systems... Kill-able stations as well, if you can kill them you should be allowed to build them their..... The special worm-hole systems.... can be fully upgraded with some key things removed.... "no super building" etc etc So I ask you this would this be "idea or not "?
Sushi Nardieu Bite Me inc Bitten. 58	Posted - 2013.01.29 05:26:00 - [2] - Quote Number 1. Why did you put quotation marks on certain words? Who are you quoting? Is there a special meaning behind these words perhaps? Maybe you are emphasizing them, but I fail to see the emphasis. Number 2. Yeah. K-space has own-able upgrades, NPC space/non-claimable space. Did you even put any thought into this? Guns of Knowledge-á
BEPOHNKA Legions Force 19	Posted - 2013.01.29 05:28:00 - [3] - Quote Point is we want NPC-0.0 built in wormhole space making for more conflict..... space which moves... dose not have to be upgraded... gives good income ... and you have to fight to control the system ships vs. ships.... maybe gain special items over time....
Sushi Nardieu Bite Me inc Bitten. 58	Posted - 2013.01.29 05:36:00 - [4] - Quote Adding new PvE mechanics just attracts new farmers. PvE mechanics will never be a mystery forever because t will be understood in it's full character over time. Even the intelligent nature of Sleeper AI is understood by any established wormhole corp now. Unless something state-of-the-art comes along, I say that PvE is not the way to make w-space more conflict driven. EVE is about giving tools to players that are flexible and contribute towards the "sandbox." Find a way to give players a new tool to create conflict. Either that or a improvement, adjustment, revamp of existing tools. Guns of Knowledge-á
smokeAjoint No Self Esteem Malefic Aspects 39	Posted - 2013.01.29 05:47:00 - [5] - Quote there is no space for sov space in worm space my 2 cents, don't think i need to explain myself to other wh dwellers -álegalize it
Euthanasia Anneto Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 4	Posted - 2013.01.29 06:38:00 - [6] - Quote smokeAjoint wrote: there is no space for sov space in worm space The only good thing for that would be the decrease in pos fuel tbh. Then you're better off of planting a pos in a 'locked down' k-space with a station/OP that has a WH-upgrade so you can nearly daily roam in W-space if sov is so special to you. Best thing we want is improved POS infrastructure & conditions! All the rest is already given to learn and to master. Oh yeah, the wormhole despawning graphics are also a nice to see returning.
Jack Miton Aperture Harmonics K162 1341	Posted - 2013.01.29 06:38:00 - [7] - Quote so tl;dr: turn WHs into kspace. no thank you.
Borlag Crendraven Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 250	Posted - 2013.01.29 07:34:00 - [8] - Quote Structure grinds and upgrades don't bring conflict, all they accomplish is more boredom and even less incentive to go out there and fight. "Why bother, we have our isk printer right here, someone wants to fight come on over we have our dreads pimped and ready to go". More unpredictability for wormholes is how you increase conflict, for example by adding a completely random second static to each wormhole (by this I mean the connection can change between high sec, low sec, null sec and all classes of wormholes and once it collapses, it would be randomized again) and by removing the requirement to scan down your new static before it's visible on the other side. This removes the methods used currently for safe farming, and as such automatically encourages more fights without changing the actual balance of the game one bit (ie. the holes would still be mass restricted just like they are now).
Utsen Dari Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 75	Posted - 2013.01.29 09:38:00 - [9] - Quote One thing that makes wormspace superior to kspace is the terrain variation. I agree with OP that they should add more of that. But sov mechanics, not so much.
Terrorfrodo Renegade Hobbits for Mordor 393	Posted - 2013.01.29 10:52:00 - [10] - Quote I do think that better PvE would also help PvP/ganks. But better here does not mean "more ISK" but "more fun". PvE in EVE is so boring that many people do it only when they absolutely need to. What if PvE was changed so fundamentally that it was actually fun to do? There are a lot of single-player games that are fun to play, so certainly it is not impossible. Fun PvE would make people do it a lot. It could even have lower payout per hour if people do it because they enjoy it and not only to grind ISK. This means that there will be more people running sites, more people to gank. To encourage actual fights instead of only ganks, change all npc rats in low, null and w-space so that you need a pvp-fit ship to kill them. How? Make rats warp out and disappear when they are about to die, denying the ratters their loot or bounty. Unless players have a point fitted and prevent them from warping like they would in pvp. This way ratters are forced to "waste" a slot for a point, which automatically makes their ships somewhat viable for pvp. The "fun PvE" would only exist in dangerous areas of space, hisec PvE remains as boring as it is. So even carebears will come into low, null and w-space, just for the fun of it. They get fun carebearing, we get fun killing them. And yet they will come again because it's fun. Fun for everybody! How to make PvE fun? I don't know, I'm not a game designer. But it is possible. Design completely new minigames and make several different ones that are not similar to each other. Rats need to behave differently. Analyzing stuff should involve some actual game, not just activating a module on a wreck. Hacking should be a completely different activity, not exactly the same with a differently named module. Give players reasons to be in space where they are vulnerable for most of the time they are logged in instead of only brief periods between hours of being docked or cloaked or idling in POS. .
tgl3 Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms 253	Posted - 2013.01.29 11:18:00 - [11] - Quote BEPOHNKA wrote: so why not beef up worm-hole space some for the big to small gangs...... only some systems can be upgrade-able allowing more fighting for the "special" upgrade systems... I fail to see how adding more defences which, due to mass limits, are even harder to seige benefits smaller gangs? Entrenched wormholes are difficult as-is to take down. Adding in outposts and the like would simply make the issue worse. Member of the EVE Blog Pack - Through Newb Eyes Twitter - TG_3
Rek Seven DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale. 606	Posted - 2013.01.29 11:52:00 - [12] - Quote I hate how you guys are so quick to jump down someones throat for having an idea... I've had a similar idea in the past and my corpies and i have spoken about it at length and believe that giving player the ability to upgrade their wormhole systems would increase conflict. If we had upgrade structures that are only anchorable outside POS shields (like POCO's) then i think that would force more people to mount an offense instead of just posing up. Why i play EVE:-á20% for gameplay experience, 30% for the social aspect and 50% because of CCPGÇÖs empty promises.-á
Durzel Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 113	Posted - 2013.01.29 13:06:00 - [13] - Quote This is such a confusing thread to parse. Wormhole space is imo probably the best space in Eve because it doesn't operate like 0.0. The rewards are "good enough" without anything else really needing to be added, and the dynamic nature of wormholes (mass & time limitations) means that whilst you're always going to come up against people with more pilots to throw at a problem - it's not as magnified as it is in sovereignty-claimable 0.0 where you've got pretty much no chance of hanging on to space unless you're a renter or a pet. That's not to say wormholes are perfect - but they're easily the best thing CCP have come out with in years.
Vincent Gaines Double-Down Transmission Lost 291	Posted - 2013.01.29 14:19:00 - [14] - Quote Great. Now whenever I say wormhole I'm going to stretch it out. worm-hole worm-hole worm....hole.
BEPOHNKA Legions Force 21	Posted - 2013.01.29 14:32:00 - [15] - Quote Well many things can be changed, you wont lose much at all with current changes. You would have a mixer of different types of unknown which we can add on too. If you don't like the one type which is a special system then move on with your self. go else were you know. At this point i'm talking about adding more ways to bring conflict of ship vs ship then sov vs ships. To solve this type of problem you wont need to shoot "any" but you will have to stay at points to capture the solve marker. The more ships in a 10km area the fast the rate will would go, over time it will force a reset on marker. This could easy solve the shooting part on markers. But as you wait for it complete you could fight some npcs as you wait... just idea. Less faver of my idea is to reduce the shooting points and reduce the timers...
Meytal School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 145	Posted - 2013.01.29 14:38:00 - [16] - Quote BEPOHNKA wrote: Point is we want NPC-0.0 built in wormhole space making for more conflict..... space which moves... dose not have to be upgraded... gives good income ... and you have to fight to control the system ships vs. ships.... maybe gain special items over time.... Because Nullsec isn't a gian't blue NAPfest, and is the perfect model of conflict and fast-paced action.
tgl3 Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms 253	Posted - 2013.01.29 14:40:00 - [17] - Quote Vincent Gaines wrote: Great. Now whenever I say wormhole I'm going to stretch it out. worm-hole worm-hole worm....hole. worm.... ... ... ... ... ... hole. Member of the EVE Blog Pack - Through Newb Eyes Twitter - TG_3
BEPOHNKA Legions Force 21	Posted - 2013.01.29 14:48:00 - [18] - Quote Only changes we would see is adding few more systems for players to use... which makes the idea nice if you don't like the one system then move on to other one.... Structure grinds are not much fun...
Sushi Nardieu Bite Me inc Bitten. 61	Posted - 2013.01.29 15:08:00 - [19] - Quote Meytal wrote: BEPOHNKA wrote: Point is we want NPC-0.0 built in wormhole space making for more conflict..... space which moves... dose not have to be upgraded... gives good income ... and you have to fight to control the system ships vs. ships.... maybe gain special items over time.... Because Nullsec isn't a gian't blue NAPfest, and is the perfect model of conflict and fast-paced action. w-space isn't immune to bluefest too. Guns of Knowledge-á
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1094	Posted - 2013.01.29 16:08:00 - [20] - Quote BEPOHNKA wrote: Well many things can be changed, you wont lose much at all with current changes. You would have a mixer of different types of unknown which we can add on too. If you don't like the one type which is a special system then move on with your self. go else were you know. At this point i'm talking about adding more ways to bring conflict of ship vs ship then sov vs ships. To solve this type of problem you wont need to shoot "any" but you will have to stay at points to capture the marker. The more ships in a 10'km area the faster the rate will would go, over time it will force a reset timer on marker. This could easy solve the shooting part on markers. But as you wait for it complete you could fight some npcs as you wait... just idea. Less better of the idea is to reduce the shooting points and reduce the timers... Types of Worm-holes would fellow as.... C1 - C6 - No changes. keep the 5,000 systems. C7 - Upgrade-able systems (500) systems C8 - NPC 0.0 (Stations) (250) Systems (Different NPC Races maybe add "Jove's") C9 - Dirt to Gold Systems. Gain over time.. with use of systems (100) WH's with NPC stations? Aside from how terribad of an idea it is, it is moot as it will NEVER EVER HAPPEN So far you have shown nothing that would do anything to cause more fights. If anything adding a bunch of new systems just spreads people out more, which makes it harder to find occupied systems for pew.
Shenra Twrin Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 25	Posted - 2013.01.29 16:10:00 - [21] - Quote tgl3 wrote: Vincent Gaines wrote: Great. Now whenever I say wormhole I'm going to stretch it out. worm-hole worm-hole worm....hole. worm.... ... ... ... ... ... hole. Worm.......................... ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ ..............................-Hole thats how u spell it right
Gnaw LF AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 332	Posted - 2013.01.29 16:37:00 - [22] - Quote BEPOHNKA wrote: Point is we want NPC-0.0 built in wormhole space making for more conflict..... space which moves... dose not have to be upgraded... gives good income ... and you have to fight to control the system ships vs. ships.... maybe gain special items over time.... No we dont want NPC 0.0 built in wormholes. In fact there is already plenty of structure grinding in w-space if a group undertakes an eviction, additing stations and TCUs to the mix is not going to drive conflict, it will only create additional grind and turn players away from w-space. We also don't want station, w-space pilots are mostly averse to docking games and prefer the predetorial nature of w-space where the forces of your opponent can be seen on d-scan.
Gnaw LF AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 332	Posted - 2013.01.29 16:42:00 - [23] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I hate how you guys are so quick to jump down someones throat for having an idea... I've had a similar idea in the past and my corpies and i have spoken about it at length and believe that giving player the ability to upgrade their wormhole systems would increase conflict. If we had upgrade structures that are only anchorable outside POS shields (like POCO's) then i think that would force more people to mount an offense instead of just posing up. People in w-space POS up for three reasons. First, they either don't have the adequate amount of pilots online to mount a fight. Second, they are a small group and won't have the numbers to fight the larger aggressor. Third, they are bears who only want to make ISK. Now you are proposing that adding structure outside of POS's FF will drive towards more conflict. I have to disagree, if the group that is POSing up falls into one of the three categories above why would they come out and fight? In the end their structure will still be destroyed but now they also stand to lose all those ships.
Daenor Falknor Heaven's End League of Infamy 4	Posted - 2013.01.29 16:53:00 - [24] - Quote The OP seems to be of the opinion that a major (potential) conflict driver in w-space would be the system benefits (NPCs, upgrades, etc). I disagree and don't think we really need any of that to drive conflict. Our existing systems already provide good benefits and plenty of iskies. The main barriers to gud-fights right now, IMO, are: 1) Challenging access to other systems 2) Quiet systems (nobody living there or all logged off). By challenging access I simply mean that there are fairly limited connections. We have our 1 (or 2) statics and any k162s. The number of connections is not significantly different from k-space, but factor in (a) the need to scan those connections down, (b) the fact that if you come across a hole that is RENL (reaching end of natural lifetime) you can't trust it, and (c) mass limits such that if a hole is mass-disrupted it gimps the ability to use it. Obviously we have all learned to deal with those issues, and they are not all bad. They help to provide the ability for "safe" pve ops, and can reward (or burn) risk-takers. But it does put a damper on w-space travel. I'm not in favor of any major changes to the way wormholes work. The existing mechanics (scan them down, limited mass, limited lifetime, etc) are all good and allow intelligent players to function effectively. I would simply like to see more connections, either by adding double statics to more holes (e.g. the oft-mentioned C4s), multiple statics (maybe even of random type as I saw a post suggest), or more wandering holes. It would give us more options as we travel/scout. More traveling = more people bumping into each other, which WILL produce pew-pew. As for the empty systems or everyone offline... We need more people living in w-space. The best way for that to happen, IMO, is to fix the crappy POS system. If you fix the POS access security issues so that we can allow "half-trusted" people to live at our POS, we can allow more peeps to move in. More active pilots = more people bumping into each other, which WILL produce pew-pew. Fixing #1 would be very easy for CCP to do. It would require no changes to the underlying mechanics. Just add more wormhole connections. Fixing #2 is more difficult, but we REALLY need something to be done there. The big modular POS thing might not be achievable in the short-term (would certainly be nice, though) but PLEASE at least do something to improve the roles or secure access to personal POS storage.
Casirio DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale. 368	Posted - 2013.01.29 17:18:00 - [25] - Quote Hmm.....inter-esting thread.
Rek Seven DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale. 607	Posted - 2013.01.29 17:46:00 - [26] - Quote Gnaw LF wrote: Rek Seven wrote: I hate how you guys are so quick to jump down someones throat for having an idea... I've had a similar idea in the past and my corpies and i have spoken about it at length and believe that giving player the ability to upgrade their wormhole systems would increase conflict. If we had upgrade structures that are only anchorable outside POS shields (like POCO's) then i think that would force more people to mount an offense instead of just posing up. People in w-space POS up for three reasons. First, they either don't have the adequate amount of pilots online to mount a fight. Second, they are a small group and won't have the numbers to fight the larger aggressor. Third, they are bears who only want to make ISK. Now you are proposing that adding structure outside of POS's FF will drive towards more conflict. I have to disagree, if the group that is POSing up falls into one of the three categories above why would they come out and fight? In the end their structure will still be destroyed but now they also stand to lose all those ships. Because these structures could cost billions. Another category could be people that don't fight unless there is a reason. There are many reasons that people don't fight, not just the ones you listed. But really, what are the conflict drivers in wormhole space? Why i play EVE:-á20% for gameplay experience, 30% for the social aspect and 50% because of CCPGÇÖs empty promises.-á
Warlord Shat Bite Me inc Bitten. 7	Posted - 2013.01.29 18:43:00 - [27] - Quote smokeAjoint wrote: there is no space for sov space in worm space my 2 cents, don't think i need to explain myself to other wh dwellers I second this, If you want SOV go to SOV space There has been alot of bad suggestion on the forums lately, This is one of the worst
Joran Jackson The Red Circle Inc. 71	Posted - 2013.01.29 19:06:00 - [28] - Quote Gnaw LF wrote: Rek Seven wrote: I hate how you guys are so quick to jump down someones throat for having an idea... I've had a similar idea in the past and my corpies and i have spoken about it at length and believe that giving player the ability to upgrade their wormhole systems would increase conflict. If we had upgrade structures that are only anchorable outside POS shields (like POCO's) then i think that would force more people to mount an offense instead of just posing up. People in w-space POS up for three reasons. First, they either don't have the adequate amount of pilots online to mount a fight. Second, they are a small group and won't have the numbers to fight the larger aggressor. Third, they are bears who only want to make ISK. Now you are proposing that adding structure outside of POS's FF will drive towards more conflict. I have to disagree, if the group that is POSing up falls into one of the three categories above why would they come out and fight? In the end their structure will still be destroyed but now they also stand to lose all those ships. I think this is a valid idea as long as you get some defenders advantage. 1 and 2 will give fights if we could get somethig where we get our enemies with pos gun/ewar on them
lanyaie 815	Posted - 2013.01.29 20:09:00 - [29] - Quote Isn't wormhole space supposed to be unknown? How are we capsuleers able to get in the resources to build our stations there? Hay
Gnaw LF AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 333	Posted - 2013.01.29 20:28:00 - [30] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: But really, what are the conflict drivers in wormhole space? Why would anyone want to spend billions in upgrades when Sleeper loot is already a fairly lucrative method of making ISK? And again you are coming back to the idea where someone has to do structure shooting. Right now there are plenty of conflict drivers in w-space, drivers such as epeen, trash talk in local, blue balling on fights and so on. If you want more conflict in w-space then maybe what we need is not new reason to kill each other but rather new opportunities. Such as less w-space systems, changing "undesirable" system effects (such as black hole) into something different, more null sec connections and so on.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.