| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
3
   |
Posted - 2014.03.12 15:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't believe that cutting profitability of escalations will increase any sort of pvp activity. In contrast, you could argue that it would rather lead to people spending more time on logistics and reducing the amount of time that people have for pew pew. Small corporations like mine can already be completely supported by a single hole regardless of repeating escalations, while most big alliances/corps have their dedicated jewholes. Actually (allegedly), there are corps that hold entire constellations just for the purpose of bouncing sites back and forth - so where's the point? (No, can't confirm that it actually works ...)
I support the idea of buffing income for C1-C4 instead.
C4s as a wormhole-highway is another great idea. I would go so far to suggest to increase the number of wandering holes, both intra- and cross-class. Give them a bias to make a connection between pvp-active systems more likely. This would certainly increase opportunities for interaction.
Maybe even switching clones in wormholes ...
In any case: many a people make "dropping carebears" out to be ainokis' primary source of content as with their jewing in statics yada yada... Based on this premise a significant share of suggestions to change wormhole-space is made. Pls don't.
While I enjoy the occasional non-consensuel "pvp", I rather meet someone that shoots back. CCP should work on that happening more often... |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 19:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote:I don't believe that cutting profitability of escalations will increase any sort of pvp activity. In contrast, you could argue that it would rather lead to people spending more time on logistics and reducing the amount of time that people have for pew pew. For my part, I wasn't suggesting that adjustments to downtime respawn mechanics would encourage PvP, though you did just present one argument in support of that: corps might spend more time with logistics. Logistics means moving crap in and out of holes, which puts them in a vulnerable position while they do this. Something Chitsa said during his run for CSM that stuck with me was that increasing movement in W-space would increase the chances of entities bumping into one another, inevitably leading to increased explosions. Racial slurs aside, corps who run so-called Expo fleets for the pure purpose of PvE income actually would be forced to move more often as they farm systems dry, thus increasing opportunities for PvP. It would be non-consensual PvP, but it's still PvP. If groups capable of taking down cap escalation fleets knew that the Nullbears and W-bears farming escalations were more nomadic, that might also increase the search for them, thus increasing PvP opportunities. It might also increase the size of the escort fleet leading to nomadic groups with teeth, which is a plus for everyone involved. My original intent was to reign in the grossly-imbalanced profit margins made possible by abusing cap escalations via downtime respawn. Thank you for enlightening me to the possibility that the increased logistics would increase the potential for PvP.
It might very well pan out the way you're saying; who can tell, really - we never will :) I was just trying to make a point that reducing C5/C6 income will not necessarily benefit the community, whilst buffing the lower-class would probably mean a big deal.
I'll say again though: it could be easier/faster to find other people willing to pvp within wormhole-space (that doesn't mean carebearing should be safer!). More connectivity between active holes maybe isn't such an unreasonable request ... |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 09:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:This is the only area of contention I really have. I don't have a problem with C4's getting another static but let's face it, it's the C5 corps that want it and veil it behind the term "greater interaction"
However if you dare to suggest C5 and C6's get a dual static (thus massively increasing the interaction) you get nayed, ignored, told to shut up etc. .........
Interesting... I wonder if we could get a few C5/C6 residents to provide some insight and a response to your point.
Come to think of it, dual-static C5/C6s doesn't sound so bad either. My only concern is that for wh-inhabitants there would be a lot of "you coming at my system with a static I don't like", even if there wasn't a dislike for dual-statics in general. E. g. if anyone added a C1-static to my C5 I would most def. move out and find me another more useful one. In this, above approach might be somewhat radical.
I wrote before that adding more wandering wormholes (maybe with a bias to connecting active holes) would be just as effective with regards to interaction and far more subtle. However, these holes shouldn't have variable mass/time as some other people suggested. That's just bad ... |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
16
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 08:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nerfing income doesn't help wh-space at all, it's not hard to understand. You might possibly loose as much activity in C5/C6 holes to stuff like incursions and fw as you would gain in lower-class wormholes. Well done.
I used to make about 100m/h per character in high-end nullsec anoms with a marauder BEFORE marauder buffs - with hardly any risk. I think that's a good place to start for a solo pilot in a C1 hole. Have it increase by about 50m per class up to 250m in C4s and you will have nice income progression that's fair in terms of risk/effort/reward and will pull in many high- and nullsec carebears for people to gank.
EDIT: ok, maybe nerf nanoribbon drops from sleepless guardians. income fix "quick and dirty"^^ |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
16
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 09:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:[quote=RcTamiya Leontis] Also, you already can grind for sigifcantly more than 100mil in a c1... just run it with lazors.
Hmm ok, I didn't know that. What are all those people whining about then -.-
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
16
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 16:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Well, how any of the proposed changes would turn out for ainokis, noone can really say. It's all hypothetical and speculative at best.
In any case, CCP would do good to rather buff certain aspects of our space instead of forcing people out of a gameplay that they have grown accustomed to. It has been shown time and again that it doesn't work out very well if you take people's stuff away ...
Armakoir wrote: [...] Yeah, they'll spend some more time farming and less time roaming [...]
I'll let this stand for itself ;P |
| |
|