Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Britney Nolen
Sama Guild
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 09:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
I think bringing wow style arenas would be better than this. The amount of abuse would know no limits. |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy Not Yet Critical
6
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 09:23:00 -
[32] - Quote
Bob would not approve more safe ratting in your home systems!
-1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1027
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 10:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
I think some of you are being too harsh and close minded. A couple people what already made suggestions that would balance the feature better.
Granted, if people in low class wormholes no longer needed to run sites in their static, that would be bad. +1 |
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
242
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 18:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Since everyone in C5/C6 would have one of these, I really don't see how this would drive conflict at all..
The bears you are looking to pull into a fight won't care, will orbit pos at 10.
Once you're done pulling in all their sites u mock them in local, and cycle your wh in frustration.
Bears open up their static. anchor their own module there and send u screenshots of their system filled with new anomalies.
At which point the fleet that was logged off in their wormhole comes online and slaughters their plexing fleet.
|
VANILLALIV 3
FRAPPE NATION The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 09:39:00 -
[35] - Quote
Insted for that modul (to take sites for other WH) why CCP dont make a modul for motion detector ? you can make it anchord in the entrance and it will notify u in Directional scanner for a movment! |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
583
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 11:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
Being currently inactive except occasional farming of a c4 I can say that this feature would multiply my almost completey safe income, if I wanted it (which I don't, even running my few home sites is almost too much effort and boredom for me).
Live in a c4, have c4 static, open static, which will usually be uninhabited and/or inactive. Siphon sites over into home system, log off. Run sites next day when there is no open hole, which is the natural state of a c4 90% of the time.
The advantage over running sites in the static is enormous. At least a 100% gain in safety (only one system instead of two or more that could get a new connection, and it is guaranteed to be the one you can monitor for new sigs). Shorter times for warping, no mass considerations. Can warp straight to POS, no risk of getting ambushed at hole to home. Especially saves time if you don't have a dedicated Noctis alt. Ability to drop off loot after every site, minimizing loss in the (nearly impossible) event that you lose the Noctis.
And last but not least: You can live in a system with a favorable anomaly and could pull sites into it from systems with no or a bad anomaly. Think about living in a Magnetar and connecting to a Black Hole. . |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1029
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 12:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote: Live in a c4, have c4 static, open static, which will usually be uninhabited and/or inactive. Siphon sites over into home system, log off. Run sites next day when there is no open hole, which is the natural state of a c4 90% of the time.
After you logged off, chances are that someone rolled into you and siphoned all your sites. Your choices would be to run sites in your static (as you can now) or siphon sites into your system at a rate of between one every 15 minutes to 1 hour. Either way you are active in space with the risk of being attacked.
If the beacon/siphon was popular in wormhole space, i don't think people would stop running sites in their static at all. +1 |
BobFenner
Black Hole Runners Brainfarts
83
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 12:36:00 -
[38] - Quote
Bad idea for many reasons as has been stated by many of the above posters
-1 My missus thinks of EvE as 'the other woman'. :) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1029
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 13:01:00 -
[39] - Quote
Good point, well made... +1 |
Sandslinger
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
110
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 14:08:00 -
[40] - Quote
Open to way too much abuse under the forms you posted above.
Remember sleepers are pretty damn powerful entities.
Scenario : Scan Chain Place (lure) on every hole. Every hostile gang that tries to make it through the hole's get ganked by sleepers.
This would completely and utterly remove the ability for smaller entities to run non logi gangs. And that's just for starters.
Hell you wouldn't need to keep hole control just place (lure) and bubbles there.
|
|
Iq Cadaen
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 14:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
Go home people, you drunk!
If that wasn't clear enough, then: No, it's a horrible idea. I guess your idea was that you could siphon off the sites from your C5/C6 static and merrily quad-escalate them in your home system? |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
278
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 19:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.
However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.
Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.
In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.
Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.
|
Sandslinger
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
110
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 22:41:00 -
[43] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.
However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.
Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.
In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.
Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.
Hmmm
Holy Faeces
That's actually a superb idea !!!!!
+1
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
370
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 02:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Link or it didn't happen.
Sounds like a good idea, but the problem with the lack of fights is human nature. People won't be able/willing to fight a larger group, and for that reason this won't work. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
370
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 02:18:00 -
[45] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:LINK Sleepers go crazy for it!
More like sleeper catnip! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Bronya Boga
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
158
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 02:47:00 -
[46] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Rek Seven wrote:LINK Sleepers go crazy for it! More like sleeper catnip!
Don't you guys live in null now? Host of podcast Down The Pipe www.downthepipe-wh.com Podcast Public Channel is DTP Podcast @drverikan on twitter [email protected] |
RedHair Shankz
Failed Diplomacy
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 08:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Fantastic Idea....roll on more fights!
+1 |
Jay Joringer
Blackstar Privateers Disavowed.
211
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 08:48:00 -
[48] - Quote
I like the idea in principle. The problem I have is that in anything other than C5/C6 space, people can just go in and run the sites anyway if they want PvE. This will only significantly benefit the higher classes - of course the risk of income loss will likely drive PvP in C4 and lower, but this needs to be something new. Something that can only be obtained by using this. Otherwise, if people don't defend their sites, you're left with the same old shooting red dots in space that we've seen for how long?
New content. New content. New content. www.blackstarprivateers.co.uk-á
http://blackstar.eve-kill.net/ |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy Not Yet Critical
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 11:20:00 -
[49] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.
However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.
Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.
In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.
Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.
I like this.
But: Some (maybe most) active corporations are known to despawn the sites in WHs within their region. They do this to increase the spawn rate in their home system. If the respawn was delayed by a week or so this abuse could not only be prevented but also be a means of damaging a target corporation that lives in the same region.
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1031
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 12:19:00 -
[50] - Quote
Meytal wrote: Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.
In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.
Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.
I disagree. If you incorporate the ideas others have posed in this thread, and make the structure cost a lot of isk, people would field a fleet to protect it and said fleet could be jumped.
Your idea isn't bad but it's just a method to mess with people for no gain. At least with my idea you either get isk, a fight or both. The only people who lose are the risk adverse.
Admittedly i'm thinking of this from a C5/C6 perspective, where we don't tend to run sites in our static. Perhaps it would need to have an additional mechanic to remove the extra safety this device might offer. For example, the structure could increase the chance of roaming wormhole spawns... but i'm sure some people would have a problem with that to. +1 |
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
280
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 12:57:00 -
[51] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:I disagree. If you incorporate the ideas others have posed in this thread, and make the structure cost a lot of isk, people would field a fleet to protect it and said fleet could be jumped.
Your idea isn't bad but it's just a method to mess with people for no gain. At least with my idea you either get isk, a fight or both. The only people who lose are the risk adverse.
Admittedly i'm thinking of this from a C5/C6 perspective, where we don't tend to run sites in our static. Perhaps it would need to have an additional mechanic to remove the extra safety this device might offer. For example, the structure could increase the chance of roaming wormhole spawns... but i'm sure some people would have a problem with that to. If you make your structure have a high cost, the benefits may not outweigh the costs, and it might not be used.
Remember, you're trying to provoke the risk-averse to fight (supposedly). If I'm just a Nullbear farm corp, I'm going to deploy this, and run back to my hole and hide, accepting whatever anomalies I can find. The more systems that connect to mine, the more of these that I deploy. The risk-averse loses nothing (except the initial investment) if they don't protect this, and they have no incentive to fight. They lose nothing by completely ignoring this item. By putting the control in the hands of the risk-averse, you're promoting a PvE farming option, not a PvP fight-encouraging option.
Constantly requiring special case adjustments also hints that the idea may not be the right thing to do.
If the risk-averse doesn't deal with the "Anomaly Evaporator", they lose income. Continually. Cowering behind the POS shields like a scared little girl won't make it go away like it makes the roaming gangs go away; cowering only makes your income go away.
There should not (necessarily) BE any financial gain for the attackers. You're trying to get a fight, not farming for ISK. Run your own home sites for income. Like you, I'm also thinking mostly of C5/C6 residents, though denying them of their home sites unless they PvP instead of making it easier for them to earn money (though Nullsec would be an interesting application). |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1031
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 13:07:00 -
[52] - Quote
Meytal wrote: If I'm just a Nullbear farm corp, I'm going to deploy this, and run back to my hole and hide, accepting whatever anomalies I can find. The more systems that connect to mine, the more of these that I deploy. The risk-averse loses nothing (except the initial investment) if they don't protect this, and they have no incentive to fight. They lose nothing by completely ignoring this item. By putting the control in the hands of the risk-averse, you're promoting a PvE farming option, not a PvP fight-encouraging option.
If they ignore the structure, they lose their sites. Granted they can just anchor their own the next day and pull sites into their system but that is a slow process and if they are unwilling to defend that structure, they might lose that to.
I personally like having lots of isk as much as i like having fights. Rewarding the bold with isk creates competition. Competition for limited resources results in conflict. +1 |
Lord LazyGhost
The Bastards The Bastards.
116
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 13:37:00 -
[53] - Quote
Hows about an Item that you anchor at the mouth of the WH and it keeps the hole open for longer then the 16hr limit. make logistics easyer if you have found a HS exit
the item will cost 100m or so and require fuel. drop them in a HS chain you have and it can last a few days. or how ever long u keep fueling the item. Item gets blown up and its after the 16hrs limit the WH insta closes. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
281
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 14:03:00 -
[54] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Meytal wrote: If I'm just a Nullbear farm corp, I'm going to deploy this, and run back to my hole and hide, accepting whatever anomalies I can find. The more systems that connect to mine, the more of these that I deploy. The risk-averse loses nothing (except the initial investment) if they don't protect this, and they have no incentive to fight. They lose nothing by completely ignoring this item. By putting the control in the hands of the risk-averse, you're promoting a PvE farming option, not a PvP fight-encouraging option.
If they ignore the structure, they lose their sites. Granted they can just anchor their own the next day and pull sites into their system but that is a slow process and if they are unwilling to defend that structure, they might lose that to. I personally like having lots of isk as much as i like having fights. Rewarding the bold with isk creates competition. Competition for limited resources results in conflict. Your device generates income for the user and may deny income to third-parties if the target system is inhabited. If the target system is uninhabited, like most of C5 space, it's purely an income generator.
My device only denies income to targets guaranteed to exist, as there is no intended purpose for deploying this in an uninhabited system. It is effective in W-space and Nullsec both.
There is already a lot of ISK floating around W-space (and Nullsec where mine could be useful), so yet another way to increase profits for already-rich groups doesn't sound like a good idea. More ISK sinks are good.
It sounds like we may have to agree to disagree though :)
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
371
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 19:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
Bronya Boga wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Rek Seven wrote:LINK Sleepers go crazy for it! More like sleeper catnip! Don't you guys live in null now?
Only when nobody will fight us in WSpace. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Ayeson
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
334
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 19:22:00 -
[56] - Quote
Feel like I missed out on the golden opportunity, but, The 11 things you'll never believe sleepers go crazy for!!!![CLICK HERE] Ask me about Rengas-dar, HRDKX's Most recent, groundbreaking, game-changing, wormhole-collapsing research endeavour.
|
scotayne hawkins
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
7
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 13:37:00 -
[57] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.
However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.
Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.
In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.
Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.
awesome turn on a forcing peep's to pew |
QT McWhiskers
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
239
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 07:30:00 -
[58] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:Sigh, and i thought QT's thread would be worst i would have to read this week.
See Im like the gatekeeper. While my shiptoasting is bad, its more a conduit for everyone to get onboard and make it soo much worse.
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed.
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 18:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
An interesting idea, although it would be a nightmare to balance. Maybe you shouldn't be able to pull in sites from holes above you is a start. But at what cost and how long untill it is online and if it needs fuel,... . The thing is if people can stomp on anyone they will do that. But it would give us a thing similar to the siphons , a way to poke people in the eye and make some isk. Doesn't have a good way to fit into the lore though. Maybe it would make an end to small corps/alliances, maybe it would end expo's for large alliances,... . The biggest problem i see is that in c5/c6 big alliances/corps could make isk all to easy. If you are making isk in a home hole the defenders can easyly escalte with multiple caps and many more chars, if the fight drags out long.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |