| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
   |
Posted - 2014.08.07 09:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
[Posting on trade alt]
I am in charge of a small corp residing in a Class 4 wormhole system with a Class 2 static. Our reasons for choosing this type of class 4 system were:
- A Class 4 system provides better income than Class 3 wormhole sites and they are harder to run. Harder to run is an important consideration for us because the home system sites provide a lot of our income and this discourages newer players to the corp from trying to solo them. We run sites as a group. I will be brutally honest and say that the isk per hour we see in our C4 is only marginally more than we were making day-tripping in C3s. The recent drop in the price of melted nanoribbons has hurt C1-4 inhabitants a lot more than it has C5-6 inhabitants.
- Our corporation is not large enough to live in Class 5-6 space, and we do not have enough cap pilots. A class 4 system makes it harder work for people to evict us - a concern when we all have real lives and will go through peaks and troughs in activity
- Our Class 2 static provides a potential route into long C2 chains and relatively frequent access to highsec. We can roam in k-space, and we can can hunt for PvP targets in j-space. We are active PvPers; 6 out of 7 days will be spent looking for PvP targets.
- Our Class 2 static provides a place for newer members to build up their wallet in a low-cost Battlecruiser whenever they wish as the sites are easily soloable. And if they happen to get attacked... well... that would be terrible :)
The proposed changes concern me, although there are some up sides as well. My worries are:
- We're already not making that much isk for quite significant outlay and risk.
- Giving us an extra hole to roll will give us more risk
- The new emergence-from-wormhole distance change will expose us to more risk when rolling those holes
- K162s spawning when jumped through will expose us to a great deal more risk
- Our new static type is not known. If we end up with a static C5 or static C6 connection, we will be forced to move. If we end up with a static C1 connection, we will be forced to move. We will not have a static C2 connection, as we already have one. The only situations in which we will not have to move are if we end up with a static C4 or C3 connection, and C4s are probably borderline.
- We already have to batten down the hatches to avoid complete destruction when a C5/C6 chain links into us and a torrent of T3s come pouring through whenever they see we have anything on field. C5/6 residents are generally on the ball when it comes to ambushing people rolling a connection, and we need to roll the connection because we don't know if it's active or not. Regardless of whether we are doing PvE or PvP, a potentially open C5/6 link behind us could be deadly. Someone passing through could also have already activated it, and we could already have the inhabitants in our system
- If it was a static C1 link, rolling it will take an age of mankind. This would simply take too much time to roll for it to be worth us staying in the system any more. We used to live in a C2/C1/HS, so I know the pain from experience.
- If it was static C4 link, some of the above caveats about C5/6 links are still in place, as the C4 could still link to class C5/6 space.
- The increased losses from hole rolling would put significantly more strain on our finances
The upsides is another static to hunt for PvP through! We currently have our static C2 which provides us with many of our targets and that we can (currently) roll fairly easily. Another static would give us the opportunity to parallelize scanning and hopefully find targets more frequently.
With the current suite of changes I am expecting to move if we end up with a C1,5,6 static, stay if we end up with a C3 static and see how things pan out of we have a C4 static. Moving would be quite painful as we have a carrier we have built in our hole so that we can up-engage when we need to against the larger wormhole groups; we expected to abandon it at some point, but didn't expect that we may be effectively forced to by game design changes.
|
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 12:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.
We're aware that the PVE reward progression isn't ideal across the different wormhole classes, and this is something on our radar. Your CSM members are helping us do a bit of mapping and plan making at the moment on that issue.
We're aware that this change will be less welcomed by those who live in C4s with the intention of isolating themselves, but overall we beleive that this change will be positive for Wormholes as a whole. You may find that C4s with C4/C1 statics and other similar configurations may still meet your needs well.
We will not be publishing the list of new statics, but players will be able to investigate them on SISI once it is updated with this change. The second statics are not configured as predictably as they are in C2s, but there are still some patterns that can be discovered.
The phrasing of this does not suggest that there is very much room for feedback to result in an alteration to the change you are planning to make.
With CCPs null sec sov changes industry has been updated first as (as I understand it) this was considered a prerequisite to make Nullsec more able to be self sufficient. This seems like a reasonable way of doing things.
If you are aware that PvE reward progression is 'not ideal' across the classes, it would seem to be sensible to fix that prior to making Class 4 wormholes significantly more dangerous to live in. Could this change be delayed to match the point at which PvE reward changes are rolled out? |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 06:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well, our C4/C2 now has an additional C5 static, so we're moving everything out. |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 12:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Yup being able to farm C320 gas from all those empty C5's is horribad for sure..
I'm not quite sure what the point in posting such a ridiculously blinkered statement is; you know that that is not the only knock on effect of having a C5 link permanently in a corp's home system, and everyone else knows it too. |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 12:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Klarion Sythis wrote:Legit question: why is a C3 not viable for you? I've always thought the income was comparable.
C3's only have k-space statics; I know that's the reason that my corp didn't go into a C3 wormhole.
|
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 13:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Klarion Sythis wrote:Fair reason. I still don't think it's a bad place to start, but I can see how that limits growth without a static to farm.
We wanted wormhole PvP as well, so a C4 with static C2 gave us a decent place to base ourselves from. Better income than a C2 on home system sites, and a C2 static to PvP in or run sites when it's quiet if people want to.
|
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 13:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Contrary to what you people seem to think C5 systems are empty or inactive most of the time.
But the times they aren't, we are connected to a group of people with income many times our own, in a system capable of supporting many times the number of pilots we have, with no way of rolling the wormhole due to the other changes coming in the Hyperion expansion. |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 14:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Just like there are many pvp corps living in C2's that are larger than you are an can prevent you from rolling your C2 right now, without any changes.
Sometimes things don't go your way. shocker.
The proportion of corps inhabiting C2 systems that we don't stand a chance against is much lower than the number of C5 corps that we don't stand a chance against. Someone can prevent us rolling our hole right now, without any changes. And on those nights, well, we're pretty scuppered.
But the Hyperion changes will mean that the nights on which we are scuppered will be more frequent, significantly so, because we'll be encountering corps that we can't put a fight up against more often, and we will not be able to roll the wormhole due to the mass-based spawn distance changes. The increased risk paired with our relatively low income will not be sustainable or enjoyable for us.
So we're moving out and finding a system that is more to our tastes.
I understand that you would wish more people to be running sites in C5s - they would be great targets |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 14:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:You got my motivation all wrong, much like most of what you have been posting ...
Said the Neutron-Blaster-equipped spider to the fly?
You may disagree with the risk / benefit analysis I have made, but my points stand. By having an additional static that links to C5 space we could not fail to have more risk present. And you personally stand to gain targets if more people are active in C5 space. |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 15:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:... I gain nothing from you remaining where you are.
Apologies, I thought Imperial Collective were based in a C5/C5
|
| |
|