|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't think the penalty this gives to larger ship use really brings much constructively to wormhole space while having a slight side effect of shifting the power balance more so towards the bigger established groups at the expense of smaller entities.
While it has some slight (but work "aroundable") implications for collapsing whs with orcas and jump mass, etc. I'd rather see something like for instance using a prop mod when jumping causing you to be thrown further out as this could be combined to make skirmish setups feasible in situations they currently aren't. (Stick a note in the wh information about how prop mods have an effect/advising turning them off). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
xpaulx wrote:Time to shoot the monument
There is a monument in wormhole space? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
688
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lapin Poilu wrote:CCP will need to make some new modules for the ships we use to roll holes.
There is already more then enough risk in rolling a hole with an Orca let alone adding this to the equation.
Personally don't think the risk side of it should be a factor aside from the slight implications of balance of power in regards to bigger entities v smaller ones - wormhole space should never be safe anyway.
That it potentially makes things quite messy for people going all in for a fight and makes hole collapsing much more of a drag without really bringing anything meaningful into the balance in doing so while some modifications of the way it works could bring more meaningful changes i.e. making skirmish setups more feasible are a bigger consideration IMO. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
698
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Mass, speed and inertia entering a wormhole should reflect on exiting the wormhole.
While a fun mechanic the problem would be its too unreliable and not always practical, i.e. you could end up at 0 on a wh with it too risky to burn off to get the run up so as to pull the extra range you need on the other side. Some way of flagging your desired outcome when jumping i.e. having prop mod on when jumping would be more reliable. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
699
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 14:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: Would it be technically possible to spawn capitals - on the condition that another capital from the same fleet is already on the other side - within the spawn parameters, but ALSO within a reasonable range (i.e. refit/rep range) of its already spawned fleet member?
That is a horrid hack from a game development point of view - that you can propose something like that in a manner that is somewhat serious as a suggestion tends to show the underlying idea that caused it to be proposed is faulty.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
702
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 22:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sheeana Harb wrote:Rei Moon wrote:^ so what you're saying, basically, is that, caps jumping wormholes is a bad thing? No. Read it again. I'm saying that after the change capitals will be at greater risk after jumping through a wormhole. Laurici wrote:
You're missing the point, a capital ship in k-space can escape from any position in space to a cyno, i.e. you can siege/triage, coast and cyno out. In wh's you'd have to coast, burn 15km, then jump.
I know that very well. If you have to burn 15km back to wormhole, one would wonder why you actually jumped in the first place if the place was too hot. And if you jumped aware of the danger, well then; deal with loosing a ship.
9 times out of 10 its going to do nothing but cause a bit more of a drag and slow down finding content, that 1 time in 10 people will mostly just not bother jumping and probably log instead in a good many cases, so basically it brings nothing to wormhole space.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
704
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 03:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Dread Nanana wrote:This is an excellent change. And the reason is perfectly clear. It disallows risk-free defensive hole rolling when some enemy fleet is visible 2 WH away. No ifs-and-buts about it. Every comment here is about fight avoidance, even the ones that attempt to to talk about "rage rolling to find a fight" are really just about whining that someone came into their WH and they have to sit in their POS all day. Everytime I see a WH that probably leads somewhere, suddenly a few dreads appear and 5s seconds later the signature is gone along with the dreads. Yeah, they were looking for a fight and I have 0.0 space in Stain to sell too. To be very frank, this entire wihinenaught very much reminds me of the 0.0 AFK cloaker whine thread. And it's still going on, after years and years. Here is one of the later incarnation, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=281588Remind you of something too? Oh yes, this thread!
Even if you had a point instead of being one of the more obvious attempts to troll, doesn't change that in reality people will mostly use capitals well scouted the only change being its more of a drag or those 9 times out of 10 that your not in any real danger and that odd time things look risky either swap to bs or similar or just log of and wait it out, making the whole thing a futile exercise. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
705
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 23:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Andiedeath wrote: Here's an example of our thinking we had a connection in our chain to a C5 group just yesterday. We baited a fight. They brought a huge force. But instead of fighting us they rolled their hole? Why the hell? They outnumbered us 2 to 1. They rolled it with an Orca and a number of battleships. The new changes will FORCE them to protect their assets and generate a fight. Which I believe IS CCPs intention. If they dont like the change, I say let these carebears leave wormhole space and do incursions... They would make heaps more isk... And have 'virtually' NO RISK!
Question is why didn't they fight you - if they were scared to fight you... well they ain't gonna risk it and just log off instead of rolling or find something else to do - so it won't force them to do ****.
Its also possible for instance they had a fight possibly brewing on another wh and shut the connection to you so as to not be fighting on 2 fronts and so on. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
705
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 20:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Richard McTrader wrote: This change is boring for null sec: you will likely never see a WH capital in K-space again, ever. We won't "run away" we will just never be there. You will never bring a capital into a wormhole (not that you ever do). The hole will still get rolled, but you will only ever see some battleships that you won't have time or interest to form up to fight.
I would not want Hyperion to become known as the release that made the exciting world of wormholes into the boring world of empty tedious space.
Some of the most fun fights I've had is where null entities have dropped 70+ BC fleets on us and we've dropped a 10-15 man t3 fleet with triage support out, with mixed results - certainly hasn't always gone our way - sometimes just the loss of 1 t3 tips the ISK balance their way, largely this change would kill that gameplay off except in highly situational circumstances.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
707
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 21:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tytos Khamez wrote: On a less relevant note to this discussion, why do ships even cloak after coming out of a WH? How does a ship that doesn't have a cloaking device cloak? Is it a function of the WH? If so, that's just dumb. Seems to me that if you've just been flung through a cosmic rip in space/time, you're probably not going to be exiting it in a stationary state, and you sure as hell won't be cloaked.
Anyway, that's my 2 isk.
Its more a technical consideration than a gameplay mechanic, though less relevant these days with the way the server works with spread out nodes, unpredictable loads and the range of client hardware and latency without that jump cloak its feasible you could end up loading into the system to find your already podded by the time your fully loaded in and have ship control if someone was waiting on the other side. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
708
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 21:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn wrote:+1 for the change. i know this is bad for the high class groups but to be true. it's too easy atm.
This change doesn't make things hard though it just makes them tedious its actually worse for the smaller groups than the bigger entities in high class systems who can mostly defend their capitals and/or have good intel on what most of the groups likely to be a threat to them are doing at any one time. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
711
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 15:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:I don't know about anyone else but when we roll for caps, we spend an hour at most. We will probably role 10 wormholes in that time and if we don't find anything, we scan the chain or head out to null for our pvp fix. After the changes we will probably be able to warp a dread off and back to the hole within 2 minutes, so we'll only be extending our current rolling session by 20 minutes, which is nothing. So in our case nothing will change apart from the farmer having, in theory, an additional 2 minutes to finish their siege/triage cycles and warp out... Would you feel anymore safer with those odds? Edit: the only people that roll for 7 hours are people looking to evict someone. There is an argument to be made that, due to the changes, evictions and giant blue blobs are going to become a thing of the past, which is a good thing IMO.
That is similar to the behaviour of most of the more organised 5/6 entities, but that extra few minutes of each time that as far as I can see serves no real purpose and doesn't in any way enhance the experience for anyone except maybe in edge 1% cases is going to make people bored sooner rather than later IMO and its probably only 5-6 holes will get rolled before its decided to call it a night rather than 10-15.
People also rage roll to try and assist other entities not just to evict them, granted it doesn't happen that often but its been a mechanic of w-space for a long time and I think overall it will only dilute down the experience if those odd time things really do kick off in spectacular style the chances of being able to chain roll into the action are considerably diminished.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
712
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 16:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:True Roff but i think the extra time is just a byproduct of the CCP wanting to make it riskier for people to roll which i think is a good decision.
Thing is for me I don't really see it as riskier for a lot of people and when it does increase the risk it generally puts the pressure on the smaller entities rather than the bigger ones. While admittedly I've not been very active lately when I have collapsed holes the vast majority of the time the increased risk from spawning further out would be between tiny and non-existent.
Rek Seven wrote: Do you think CCP needs to give us the same level of control that the current rage rolling process allows? e.g. player made wormhole generators?
Don't really have my head around all the pros and cons of that one to give an answer. Being able to reuse quantum flux generators in w-space to toggle on and off depending if you were wanting more activity or not could possibly have some potential. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
715
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 13:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Design/development by vote would be utterly ******** and I don't think taking Fozzie's comment(s) out of context is particularly helpful here.
At the same ignoring that largely this is a deeply unpopular feature even with people who haven't asked for it but would benefit isn't a good way to go about developing a game either. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
715
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 14:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
Not disagreeing with what you say but I think to a degree its the fact that this specific feature has lost its way - it seems Chitsa has unfortunately legitimatised the views of a small number of players who aren't really bringing anything to wormhole space and looking for cheap easy ganks, mixed in with the fact that a similar feature could potentially be useful for mixing up the fleet meta that has often got stuck into certain themes due to the requirements of not being a suicide composition if you jump into another fleet on a wormhole mixed in with that there are some valid reasons in why the feature was proposed.
I mean I'm dead against the feature personally and I've enough accounts to collapse a wh "safely" using sub-capitals/cheap ships if it came to it and part of an alliance that is both big enough to defend collapsing capitals against many of the people we encounter but also made up of people who for the larger part aren't afraid to put capitals on the line even when it means going all in. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
720
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 13:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:^ what a big bunch of hyper-dramatized bullcrap.
CCP's aim is to make the wild unknown less tamed, boring and predictable and you guys are acting like change is the end of the world. In a few months after this patch nobody even remembers what was so awesome and important about the old way, and you'll all be ashamed of yourselves for crying like babies.
Can you still roll holes? Yes. Do you need to adjust your rolling routine? Yes.
And that's the long and short of it.
Sadly its not the long and short of it and a mechanic that massively reduces things to random doesn't make it wilder, less tamed in theme. I disagree slightly that it purely reduces it to random as when collapsing holes you usually make a decision about the order to collapse them in (if you have more than 1 into the system your based from) and scout any direction a threat is likely to emerge from before committing.
Carrying on a theme...
Does it make things more risky? actually a lot of the time no and when it does it tends to mostly exploit the inefficiencies of smaller corps and an enabling factor for easy ganks.
Does it make things more tedious while bringing little enhancement to the gameplay? a resounding yes
To quote verbatim a comment I saw from someone else who is has long been an active part of wormhole pvp: "I rage roll only to find pvp and for this already tedious task to take longer makes me not want to play. " and its a sentiment I've seen from many others who have long been part of making w-space what it is today and even from those relatively new to w-space. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
720
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 00:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Belinda HwaFang wrote: The larger corps who are so hungry for pvp content that they rage roll statics can surely afford to have the support webbers / defensive bubblers ready? And if they do getinterrupted while rolling, they got pvp content, didn't they? I don't see how giving smaller gangs the chance to tackle a capital or capitals being used to rage roll could be an issue for said big and powerful c6 groups?
Thing is 9/10 wh you roll a wh (probably more like 99/100) there won't be the threat there to take advantage of that window of vulnerable collapsing ships while just adding tedium for no good reason and those odd times that threat is there the outcome won't have the desired effect.
Not going to honey coat it any more, I'm usually a fan of what fozzie brings to the table but this one is just pants on head ******** from the perspective of someone with 5 odd years of experience of how this would work out. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
720
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 01:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
That doesn't delay what your doing though, it would be more of an analogue with making you sit uncloaked and unable to warp for 2 minutes at the end of each site just incase someone was about to jump into system and tackle you.
(EDIT: or rather have a scaling timer based on ship type). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
721
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 17:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
I dunno why people focus so much on the risk factor - sure when there is someone to take advantage of that window of vulnerability there is an extra risk factor there but by and large when people are collapsing wormholes there simply isn't anyone there or anyone in an immediate position to take advantage of that. Sure sometimes people roll in the face of entities that they couldn't deal with, occasionally an orca gets away, etc. but as general life in wormholes go those are edge cases.
This change will also tend to strengthen the need to be part of a larger entity and in a small but not insignificant way errode wormholes towards being more like nullsec by reducing the ability to manipulate wormhole space so as you aren't forced to engage larger entities on an open battlefield which tends to more often than not come down to a pure numbers game.
The changes that are needed IMO would be to firstly incentivise people not to collapse in the first place (i.e. random chance to spawn higher value NPCs or containers/items in sites if the static is healthy, etc.) and then maybe a change to the final shrink whereby it becomes some sort of "weak" non-static wormhole for a limited time without holding the static open or introducing needless delays. (Not really a fan of that kind of mechanic but there is some intermediate potential there maybe). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
721
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 18:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
Obil Que wrote: I appreciate your position, truly. It does make me wonder, just as an academic exercise, what do you think wormhole residents, and specifically cap pilots, would be like today if this mechanic had been in place from the inception of wormholes. Would this even be an issue? Would we simply see wormhole space as one where you do not jump caps into hostile holes? Would the inevitable blueballing presence of a cap fleet on a home hole simply have been the death of high-end wormhole combat?
I am admittedly far from engaging in cap combat and this change seems mostly significantly impacting that level of wormhole space. I don't forsee it affecting significantly life in sub-capital wormhole space short of the occasional lost Orca for those groups caught in the process without proper support. I'm trying not to play the game of "it doesn't affect me so who cares". Wormhole space is perhaps the only space in EVE where any element of randomness exists. This change does enter some before untouched territory with regards to how that randomness affects in game play. By a similar token though, many players ask specifically for randomness in their PvE content. It is entirely possible that such random elements could result in no-win situations for a given pilot if they had chosen to enter into that environment with a less than capable ship for all possible outcomes. Is that all that different than a cap pilot rolling the dice jumping into a mechanic that they know as the possibility of being a no-win outcome, especially since that outcome is entirely player dependent at that point by requiring a hostile force engage the cap before it returns through the hole.
Hard to really know for sure - I suspect though it would have resulted in less small to medium sized groups in C5/6 space and more of a gravitation towards a small number of larger power blocs instead. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
733
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 12:55:00 -
[21] - Quote
What some people don't seem to see is that the end result, no matter the ideals behind it and how valid they might be, would be very similar to doing something like making it so that say ships jumping to a cyno couldn't dock, enter a POS FF or log off for 5 minutes after jumping - it would largely result in making day to day activities very tedious, when it does result in someone taking advantage of the increased risk preys on the smaller weaker entities and largely doesn't affect the bigger entities as they have the logistics to backup ships in that position and the burden comes down less on individual members so there is less effect from the burn out (though its still very tedious even for them).
Pushing this change through is just bone headed.
(EDIT: Also can obviously draw comparisons to range based exit on cynos) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
733
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Ragerolling was always just a poor substitute for actual decent gameplay. It came into fashion only because it ended up being the only way to catch cautious farmers at all, by opening a new connection into their system.
After the changes, I expect w-space residents will gradually become used to a) less frequent attacks from rage-rolling groups and b) having open holes in their system most of the time (even if it's just the new frigate-sized, un-closable holes). People will be forced to accept some degree of risk and uncertainty.
The result should/could be that w-space becomes less about closing any hole you don't like (which includes the static of pvp-seeking groups) and more about a web of systems that are and remain connected and where you stay alive by being vigilant and actual scouting, not by cutting connections.
When you have open connections which you cannot close effectively or at all, and it's like that every day, you either learn to accept that and take more risk or you give up and leave. Sure, you will lose more ships, but you also have a greater chance to catch others while hunting. I perceive this as an attempt to change people's mindset regarding risk, or to lure more of the people with the right attitude into w-space. And I think it might well work. We will see.
If your not careful though you then have an environment that is far more an open battlefield, much harder for smaller groups to use the environment to their advantage and encourage people to form power blocs - everything that w-space has so far (largely) avoided.
Other than null sec trolls I'm curious as to who the other lots are that Fozzie is trying to keep happy as 99.99% of people I've spoken to who have anything to do with w-space ingame are somewhere between don't really care either way through to dead against the change. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
733
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
Certainly no anger here - a certain amount of disbelief, leading to me to be somewhat more acerbic in my replies, as from my perspective having spent approx 5 years in wormholes it seems a bit of an off beat implementation - something like suddenly deciding to randomly implement it so that everyone gets a suspect flags for 30 seconds at the completion of a highsec mission or something (not sure I can really convey how it looks to me). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
733
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 16:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
Klarion Sythis wrote:Good lord you guys are dramatic.
Stick to logic and reason. Every post about Devs losing their jobs, no ***** given about the community, and the end of wormholes as we know it just looks like the post of every other over dramatic lunatic who said the same about other changes over the past 11 years.
I'm not saying this change will be good, because whether or not it is is a separate issue from how crazy, entitled, and ungrateful so many vocal EVE players sound with every change ever.
Lamhoofd actually had a good point without sperging. Not every value can be quantified and tracked.
There is no getting away from the fact that in the vast majority of cases this will add nothing to the game (and make things more of a drag for no real reason) and only change the dynamic in fringe cases and largely in those fringe cases come down heavier on the smaller entities than the larger ones - which is something wormhole space has mostly managed to avoid and if people want that they can always go to nullsec. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
733
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 16:09:00 -
[25] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: Nullsec has been desperately agitating for changes. As nullsec requires adaptability nullsec does not have the same reflexive rage at changes in mechanics that require you to adapt: in fact, veterans relish mechanics changeups that force us out of sclerotic ways of doing things that were optimized years ago and force us to use our noggins.
That doesn't indiscriminately justify and validate any change though. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
735
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 18:24:00 -
[26] - Quote
Funny how the only people who support this change are... well pretty much goonswarm... |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
736
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 18:40:00 -
[27] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: ah yes getting rolled out hrm
let's examine the mass exhaustion experience, shall we
I warp to my static with three dreads or w/e
I jump through, then jump back when my session timer exhausts
there is a 10 second window in which a counter-exhausting force could jump through, assuming the client responds in time (which it usually does)
the opposing rollers would have to be set up on your wormhole waiting for you to jump in in order to do that, and even if they did, they would be trapped on YOUR side of the wormhole by doing something so monumentally stupid
and I guess they don't have scouts where you live as by your post they are a nullsec-only feature
No offence but in the context of wormhole space that is one the of the daftest posts I've read in awhile... kindly do yourself a favor and head on down to Features & Ideas Discussion or something where you might be a little less out of your depth. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
736
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 18:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Syndiaan wrote:
That is not true at all, they can have a capital ship cloaked up on your side and as soon as you jump your cap over to roll it they uncloak and jump theirs. you are now stuck on their side with a capital in your face and a subcap fleet showing up on D-scan.
Granted yeah if you are rage rolling that is not an issue because you will have eyes on the hole the whole time. I still do not see how you can sit there and say "wahhhh, risk free boat is over" when all you guys do is use intel channels and frigate scouts.
Ah the good old cloaky thanny :D |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 18:48:00 -
[29] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: it's that scenario in which hole rolling is safe (outside of pilot error) and the situation that this change is intending to dissolve
Which it absolutely does nothing to address in any meaningful way - the only time the supposed increased risk actually applies in a meaningful way is in fringe cases and in those fringe cases it has a hugely negative impact on smaller entities.
Even your own post I'm quoting part from highlights that the risk factor isn't really a factor. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 18:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: cap ships landing outside of the activation range of the wormhole adds plenty of risk
a machariel is blessed with a generous top speed and cruiser-class warp speed -- it can easily land on the wormhole and bump a cap on grid before it can slowboat back to the hole
any caps attempting to warp to perches can be stymied by an interdictor, which is also blessed with a generous warp speed
sure, the caps will probably warp to their perch or celestial or whatever (luv 2 heat my mwds in caps to warp in 12s) but they sure as heck aren't making it back in range of the hole with a bubble on it
granted i am assuming perfect response times and no human error from either party in these scenarios but that is basically how everyone describes eve so here we are
It adds plenty of meaningless risk if there is no one there to exploit that risk and 99 times out of 100 there simply isn't someone there to exploit that risk while in the mean time adding extra tedium just to add risk to fringe cases. Is it really that difficult to understand? |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 19:03:00 -
[31] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: there's plenty of meaning -- it makes the activity interdictable by those with sharp reaction times and good planning where it could not realistically be interdicted before
the consistency at which the risk is realized is not and will never be an issue here
The activity is already interdictable by those with sharp reaction times, good planning and the balls to go for it.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 19:47:00 -
[32] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: not when you're rage rolling
an established hole, sure
Even with the change no one is going to catch you rage rolling unless they already have probes out, a fleet ready to go and prepared to jump straight into a fight they have limited intel on - which almost never happens - is it really worth all the negatives to make this tiny fringe scenario a little tiny bit more feasible at best?
It seems a lot of people really don't have even half a clue how wormhole space actually works. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 19:53:00 -
[33] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: at least there is a window now
36 seconds is better than 0 seconds
or do you think that the window should be increased
A window at any cost? regardless of what else it might destroy? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: what a wonderfully vague response
really you could mean anything by this
feel free to go into detail there Cochise, unless you are just trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass
Did I miss a post where you gave a detailed explanation of why your for this change?, or even posting in this thread in the first place other than to try and stir people up? with all due/undue respect most of your posts seem to boil down to "it will increase risk duh!" while demonstrating only a vague knowledge of how the mechanics actually work in practise and missing some of the larger repercussions of the change due to missing the finer details. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:10:00 -
[35] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Syndiaan wrote:Pretty sure he is saying you are in a null sec corp and do null sec stuff and trying to contribute to an aspect of the game you don't even participate in. doesn't stop y'all from trying to suggest changes for jump bridges, as evidenced by the last couple of pages on this thread nullsec is willing to entertain all opinions, why can't you
Largely it was attempts to draw parallels to what kind of change in null would be an approximate of this change and the reaction suggesting that kind of change would have from people who were connected to nullsec rather than an attack on nullsec. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
742
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: remember -- you're not trying to convince me, you're trying to convince CCP
CCP needs these details, should they exist, way more than I do
your repeated, coruscating failure to provide said details means they might as well not exist
If CCP wants these finer details they are more than free to take part in the topic here.
Your posts demonstrates a theoretical knowledge of the application of these mechanics - as you said its not that complex but shows a lack of practical knowledge of how they tend to work out in actual use. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
743
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Syndiaan wrote: There is already risk for rolling wormholes which has been stated numerous times. All this is going to do is slow down rage rolling, it isn't even going to be a risk because even if someone instantly spots the new sig, which usually doesn't happen, especially when the change that the new sig wont even show up until someone jumps the hole which gives the fleet time to gather on the new hole and be in position. Even if they do instantly spot the new sig, happen to already have their probes out, scan the hole, warp to it, also happen to have a gank fleet already setup and ready to warp to the scanner when he lands, its already going to be too late.
Small entities aside the risk factor isn't really a factor and a tangent really as to the issues here - most of the people posting in this thread belong to entities that are large enough to defend capitals against most of the threats they would likely to encounter other than each other, largely not afraid to fight each and big enough to do things like fund corp/alliance capitals for hole closing, etc. and/or even have disposable characters for just that. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
744
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:54:00 -
[38] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: I don't know what you're trying to do with your mechanics thing, but please do enlighten me as to your reasoning for going to the dude who knows nothing instead of the people who know what they're doing.
If I must use a simpler analogy for your mind, would you ask a 5 day old character who just joined EVE about supercapital tactics and titan fits? No, because they don't know what you're talking about. And neither does 99% of the Goonswarm posts in this thread.
the point is that you can't establish who has the authority from their alliance tag because that is not how authority works we don't establish that mechanics have authority because they walk down the street wearing a sandwich board with "MECHANIC" drawn on the front in crayon, we establish it with facts and evidence the "I have an alt in your corp" nonsense is to illustrate that allegiances in this game are not as cut and dried as your alliance tag and, again, if I'm so out of touch with how wormhole space works, feel free to drop some hard facts on me proving my ignorance
But but I like my sandwich board with member of Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork on it :| |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
745
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:Enthropic wrote:Why are you guys even feeding the goon troll? Because most here are used to a much better quality of troll. to the point its difficult to recognise a standard troll :) We should pay them in kind when the sov changes threads are up. Mutual Assured Destruction AKA MAD.
Can you imagine all the "but your not a member of a nullsec corp/alliance so what would you know" put downs? lol |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
745
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:23:00 -
[40] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: I did -- none of it actually proved that I don't know what I'm talking about
also I don't give a wet crap what goons want -- i speak for myself
All you proved is your versed in the theoretical mechanics and lack much knowledge of the practical mechanics - anyone with even a minimal amount of experience with the practical side knows that 3 caps will close the wh without any getting back for instance.
For yet more examples of some of the more finer points see corbexx's post above. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
753
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 23:33:00 -
[41] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: see, was that so hard? it only took four pages for one of you to finally find a hole in my knowledge
i swear i give you all the perfect amount of rope to hang me and you sit around going "huh what's the rope for"
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4951074#post4951074
Thats actually the 2nd time I pointed out holes in that post as well :S |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
753
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 11:27:00 -
[42] - Quote
As corbexx said its not just about rolling for pew, for instance one method of invading someone in a high class wh is to take control of their static during their quiet tz and roll it for capital entrances til you have your force inside, which is already a highly risky and stressful operation without this change, especially in the early stages when it can be just 2-3 people taking huge chances. Seems to me people for this change either just don't care about the people who have made w space what it is and/or have no experience of how wormhole space works in practical use and its a downhill road from here. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
753
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 11:49:00 -
[43] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:But do you really feel that this method of invading someone is fun? Something that should be preserved for the good of the game?
People do it because they have to and because it works, like people shoot sov strucutres in null wars because they have to GÇô but does anyone like it? EVE history tells us that players will always do what it takes, even if they curse CCP every second of it for making it so boring.
That said, certainly the imbalance of unlimited capitals for the defenders vs. unlimited tedium for the attackers needs to be addressed, with this change now even more than before.
That is a whole topic of its own, was just another instance of one of the many negative side effects of the change. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
754
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 17:19:00 -
[44] - Quote
Bleedingthrough wrote:You will die without being polarized even in cruisers. Prove: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=24970053Devoters will land 10 km off the WH. Good luck getting them back home. It feels like a gate now. And btw. we are talking about a 3 bil C2-C5 connection. Edit: And a few mins later they have enough ppl online so we could not even roll if we had enough ppl online to close it in one go. Now what? Cant split their forces, can't brawl it out (would be suicide), offline for the rest of the day?
**Goes off to suggest on corp forums we have a "don't jump wormholes without full strength online" policy**
(I'm just kidding btw but sadly for some that is likely to happen with this change).
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
756
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 18:15:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:It seems like things have gotten a bit out of hand in this thread. I can fully appreciated that some of you are unhappy with the changes that have gone out. If you feel strongly about these changes, then give civil and concise feedback in the Hyperion feedback thread, and I'll point the development team in that direction. Please don't make personal attacks on eachother, or employees of CCP, otherwise you'll lose the ability to post on the forums, and neither us nor you want it to come to that. While you may see our development staff as avatars on a forum, please be aware that there are in fact people behind these faces, and abuse of CCP and our volunteers will not be tolerated.
I'm not sure you want that thread spammed with basically duplicates of all the same arguments that have gone on in this thread, none the least it would potentially obscure other issues.
There was plenty of time to address the concerns with this mechanic here. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
758
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 19:29:00 -
[46] - Quote
calaretu wrote:Bleedingthrough wrote:calaretu wrote: It takes 4 characters with 100mn mwd battleships (and at least one of those need to know basic addition of numbers) two passes. Unless you are lazy and only willing to roll with orcas this change will have no real risk effect.. raptor navy should know better then the arguments presented above
You will die without being polarized even in cruisers. Prove: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=24970053Devoters will land 10 km off the WH. Good luck getting them back home. It feels like a gate now. And btw. we are talking about a 3 bil C2-C5 connection. Edit: And a few mins later they have enough ppl online so we could not even roll if we had enough ppl online to close it in one go. Now what? Cant split their forces, can't brawl it out (would be suicide), offline for the rest of the day? Eh. Kite? Snipe? Something else creative? I am sure you guys have more doctrines than pure brawling. The killmail you link is exactly why this change is a good thing. Also have scouts so you know what you jump into so you dont jump a vigi into a t3 sitting and waiting.
I would say the opposite - it means that during off-peak times its effectively going to have an impact on the activity of what corp members can do, especially those whose work schedules, etc. might not quite match the rest of the corp. Also knowing the player in question I doubt he just randomly jumped it in unscouted without it being part of a plan.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 21:22:00 -
[47] - Quote
Enthropic wrote: Or maybe literally rather almost EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN WH SPACE MAYBE? Maybe you read that thread and figure out for yourself what the majority of people here want?
Thing is sometimes what everyone wants isn't the best thing to actually do... in which case you'd expect some kind of explanation and reasoning to be presented with some solid counter points to the issues raised... instead we get silence (which given how well written some people's posts have been basically tells me there isn't a strong counter argument for want of any other explanation) a meaningless canned statement and the feature rammed through any way. If this is the way that things are going to be done I can't see that much of a future for myself with the game and its with a heavy heart I even consider that as a possibility. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
764
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 22:37:00 -
[48] - Quote
Think for a second - every time you've collapsed your static so as to be able to bear - how many of those times has there either been someone there to catch your would have been slowboating/bouncing collapsing capital or its been likely there might have been someone there to catch it?
Unfortunately I can't agree with Durzel - this has little to do with 1-2 people collapsing wormholes to bear - the times when this impacts that other than to unnecessarily increase the time to perform that are edge cases when you might happen to be open to another group that is both larger than you and also happens to be active at that time. It would be like focusing on that 1 time a "wonder" drug has cured a cancer patient and ignoring the 99 other patients in the trial that were killed by it and then using that drug as the standard way to treat cancer patients - in isolation it sounds great, widen the scope and its another story. For the sake of fringe cases a whole load of additional tedium is being added to the nominal case.
His second point is a bit more of a mixed one as that can be a bit of a weak scenario but also it can enable an entity to test the waters in a fight against someone they know on paper they can't possibly beat on an open field engagement with the potential for unexpected outcomes.
Regarding cynos - one use for them is to move capitals about either to drop them on a station or POS - should cynos be changed so that depending on mass your always dropped out of docking range? (Also jump freighters and how they are moved about). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
765
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 23:05:00 -
[49] - Quote
Definitely wouldn't wish that kind of cyno change (none the least I move enough caps/blackops around lowsec as it is) but it is in many ways comparable to implementing that kind of change. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
771
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 10:03:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Okay, so I came in a little more gently last time, because I know that there's quite a few people who don't like this particular change. A large proportion of our development staff also play the game, myself included. At times, I don't agree with changes that are being made. However, I do exactly what the vast majority of other people do when a change is made that I don't like - I adapt to what's happened and adjust how I play to suit. This thread was created over a month ago, and a big chunk of the valuable feedback has been drowned out by people ranting and abusing both CCP and eachother, hence why I asked for concise feedback in the Hyperion feedback thread. If you guys want to keep it here, feel free to do so, but don't complain if feedback gets removed because it's packed in with ranting and personal attacks. So, simple instruction for you guys out of your reaction to my previous post: Here are the forum rules. Follow them, or scroll down and read what happens when you break them. It's that simple. We have no problem with you guys voicing your concerns. In fact, I did the same for a decade as a player when I felt CCP had done something wrong. We do however have issues with people breaking the forum rules. Carry on discussing this. I'll point people here, and look at collecting feedback to send to development. However, don't break the forum rules.
I don't agree with the attacks against you or other devs and/or members, but you could not be more wrong in your understanding or response to this situation. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
772
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 11:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:This thread is so full of self-entitlement that it's not even funny. Apparently WH's are now unusable and not worth any of the effort because you're not making any money and cannot fight because you might lose a ship or 2.
Self entitled or not, whether people were right or wrong isn't really the point, pertinent questions backed up reasoning in a feedback thread and not only ignored* but later snubbed, at which point thing got a bit out of hand.
* I can understand Fozzie is working on a million things at this point as well as heavily investing time in AT, but ateast I'd have expected something along the lines of acknowledgement of the issues and that it would be looked at/addressed even if that was post patch, instead of what basically amounts to the finger that we have had from any CCP responses here. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
773
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 14:12:00 -
[52] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we add random total mass to wormholes. Now it is just to easy - each WH have known total mass until it close. Can we put 20% random? Funfact, that was my suggestion for too safe closing of C5/6s, just up the 10% deviation to 50/60%. Sadly CCP already was set on their way and never cared for alternatives.
If its really about being "too safe" too collapse just make it so that static wormholes don't cleanly collapse in one go - but once massed down below their class max mass stop being statics (which allows the new static to spawn) and becomes a new weaker wormhole with a much more limited jump mass and lifetime - would need some mechanism to prevent abuse from players trying to make 100s of the weaker wormholes.
i.e. once you've put 3Bn mass through a H296 it would shrink and become something similar to a H121 but with say 15 or 30 minutes lifetime or something along those kind of lines. Without preventing the new static H296 from spawning. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
773
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 14:16:00 -
[53] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Talking to old corpmates (including the CEO) from a relatively big c5 pvp/pve wh corp, I'm relieved to see that most people are actually quite unconcerned about this change and w-space is not in the state of hysterical anger and grieving despair this thread makes it look to be
From those I've talked to there are quite a few unconcerned about it, there are quite a few who think its a bad idea to vary degrees and I've yet to find anyone who is actually for it - other than the fact they like that their scouts and blockade runners are safer than ever. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
773
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 14:34:00 -
[54] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Rroff wrote: From those I've talked to there are quite a few unconcerned about it, there are quite a few who think its a bad idea to vary degrees and I've yet to find anyone who is actually for it - other than the fact they like that their scouts and blockade runners are safer than ever.
That is not really surprising because the change does not directly benefit any individual in their daily life (except while scouting/hauling). Its sense is clearly strategic and transcending individual players or corporations, and obviously 99% of players don't get that or don't care because they only see their own short-term convenience and disruption of routines established over many years.
Only as pointed out it largely doesn't address the issue(s) it was supposed to while having a largely negative aspect on day to day activities for the sake of mixing up the dynamic in some fringe cases. If the concerns of "safe" collapsing and frequency of collapsing are really such an issue there are much better ways to address that (technical considerations aside) while there are some potential ways this kind of mechanism could be used to mix up the meta a bit without impacting on the tedious day to day activities. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
774
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 14:49:00 -
[55] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote: or be replaced by people who embrace the new environment. But I could be wrong. Or maybe there was no plan at all and Fozzie just hates us, who knows ^^
I'm fairly sure this is largely what will happen... but in no shape or form is this a good thing - especially not in a game that pretends to be about playing the long game. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
774
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 18:25:00 -
[56] - Quote
Valenthe de Celine wrote: As to the new changes, last night went something like this: "Did they just change something? We have 7 wormholes open." After scouting them, the scouts report activity in 2 of them that endangers anyone trying to roll under the new mechanics. Some members reship, follow a chain into lowsec, and go looking for small gang PVP. Rest of the corp (PVE and industry guys) logged out, bored, to go play something else.
Seen something a long the lines of "waiting for wh to collapse, gonna go play #insert name of another game#" a few times in chat today - only once from corp - which later lead to a situation where PVP didn't happen due to *frig hole* (neither fleet could have jumped to the other) . So far these changes look like a right mess. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
778
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 23:23:00 -
[57] - Quote
The acrobatics closing wormholes tonight were hilarious, but very very wrong, a naglfar should not be able to do that.
Doesn't unduly affect us other than its going to get old and boring very very fast but I can see a lot of smaller entities definitely moving out due to this. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
779
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 00:13:00 -
[58] - Quote
^^ Given these changes shift the balance towards power blocs that I'm guessing is pretty much what will happen and where the t3 production will come from - welcome to nullsec 2.0. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
789
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 18:01:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ruffio Sepico wrote: Not everyone in c5/c6 is space rich. and the prospect of lose your ships running an escelation when someone dial into you carries a considerable cost too. In the terms of the cost of the tools you field vs what you actually gain. It's not that much. Beside replacing loss's in pvp cost as well.
I know some players running incursion with alts to supplement income to cover habbits living in wspace. If you want to look at isk being spent on plex's I would think incursion cover more of that than wspace tbh.
While its relatively easy to replace the tools of the trade and put a little aside for a rainy day you actually have to be somewhat motivated and put some effort in to make a lot of ISK from C5/6 sites as part of a medium to large corp.
If it was just about making ISK I'd be able to make more and a lot safer farming a certain k-space NPC faction with the characters and setup I have, it would also be mind numbingly boring. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
790
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 23:25:00 -
[60] - Quote
Valenthe de Celine wrote:All of a sudden jumping a capital put you 20km off a hole. Has that been dropped some? Yeah, maybe a little. I don't know, my corp hasn't dropped a cap through a wormhole since these changes went live. Most of them are still in shock at the massive changes which took place after we ran sites on Monday.
I'm quite surprised (probably shouldn't be) at the number of people who this took by surprise - seen quite a few people commenting on being caught out by the change in game including people I thought were on top of the coming changes.
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
791
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 01:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote: But I do have a huge problem with idiotic comments that are only going to drive CCP Devs deeper into the bunker of denial.
Edit: You're the second person to accuse me of trolling. I think the WH community is poorly served by mouth pieces - like yourself and epicurus ataraxia - who feel they need ad hom attacks to silence slightly dissonant voices. Disappointed.
While I agree with your viewpoint I can quite understand the disappointment that has resulted to some people resorting to it, I've had to go back and edit a few of my posts several times before hitting post. I like a lot of the work Fozzie does but I just can't understand this one, the reasoning behind it is completely lost to me and I don't understand why this thread has turned out the way it has even before anyone resorted to less than polite/less than constructive posting. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
792
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 11:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Anyone remember the ice miner tears? 95% were against the change to remove unlimited ice. Now ice mining is better and more profitable then ever.
Adapt and quit crying. The only mistake CCP made was letting safe-holes go on for this long.
Personally its pretty easy or me to adapt, doesn't change that it adds tedium for largely no good reason and doesn't change that it tends to result in people either logging off or leaving wormholes which is not good at all.
Regarding "safe holes" you really have no clue. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
792
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 12:02:00 -
[63] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote: -1 for the changes. Please implement a fix. I'd settle for a mini-jump-drive, for caps only, that moves you 10km forward, and eats a chunk of your cap.
[/quote]
It more or less puts you back where you were, so might as well not beat around the bush and just revert the change IMO. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
793
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 12:24:00 -
[64] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote:Personally, I've never expected CCP to rollback. That's what ASDA do with supermarket prices, not games developers with much vaunted changes. So, I'm prepared to look for a way forward, and I think that's a more realistic ask. I think you still spawn 15-20km off the hole, and so risk is retained. CCP like solutions that mitigate risk for those prepared to take steps to mitigate risk (i.e. not just remove risk). The risk transfers to the Capital Ship's cap, so it's not just a "you're too far to jump, and automatically lose" button for campers. It's a new module! So new features ftw.
Seems silly enough people are messing about with nano'd capitals as it is without a module like that, not to mention the impact on people who don't have those options. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
796
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 12:50:00 -
[65] - Quote
JTK Fotheringham wrote: I'll just be very surprised to see a rollback - more so if corps have actually pulled out of WH space already. If you want to see dramatic changes to this, unsubbing accounts is the way to go. I'm not in a position to gauge that, but I expect it is not a game changer for many players.
TBH as much as it is I'm not a big fan of the change I have a very low tolerance for developers who push out changes in this manner and/or don't even bother with basic level of appropriate communication - I got a refund and will never purchase a game by treyarch again after black ops was released with game breaking bugs one day 1 and they didn't even bother to address community concerns for 19 days after release, I stopped buying EA games over similar stuff - well for about 7 years until I misguidedly bought BF4 thinking due to recent events they'd actually had a turn around - more fool me, won't be buying anything EA again. So ultimately this is backing me into a corner and in the long run I will stick to my principles. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
797
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:05:00 -
[66] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:y'all do realize that feedback can be received and not acted upon without breaking the general social contract of the solicitation of feedback right
shoot I got a lot of stuff that I don't like about the game but me agreeing or disagreeing with a change in a feedback thread is not the sole arbitrator of whether or not a thing goes into the game
sometimes balance changes have to go through, that is the way it is
Sure, but thats not what has caused much of the fuss. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
798
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:27:00 -
[67] - Quote
Cassini Valentine wrote:Good things about mass based spawn distance:
- Can web and kill things that have randomly spawned a long distance from wh. Purely a luck based system.
Problems with mass based spawn distance:
- Extremely difficult to attack in someone's home system.
- Went to fight in our neighbours home system. Our dread got a really crappy spawn and had a hard time pewing things. We didn't bring x2 carriers in instead of dread because there was a risk they wouldn't spawn within refit range and then we'd be screwed.
- If we'd rolled into serious PvP entity we can't reroll because our numbers would be too low until peak times and the risk of being caught rolling is too high. If this was our only exit from home then we would all have to POS spin until they go away or log off for 24hrs til we get a new spawn
I mean I'd love this change if it was possible for us getting more fights and more contact with w-space members, but so far this change has been a big negative in my own experience from living in a C5-C5.
An interesting tactical issue from what I heard of that fight with the outcome of jumping the carrier(s) in with no idea if the random spawn would have dumped them in overwhelming neut range or not makes things very difficult and ultimately is a pretty poor mechanic to deal with. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
798
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 23:24:00 -
[68] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: It hasn't killed the rest of EVE. It won't kill WH's.
Flaw in your reasoning - WHs aren't like the rest of eve, so what might not kill the rest of Eve might very well kill WHs. (Or not). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
800
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 12:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
Dalron wrote:Here's my take on what these changes will happen with these changes.
Bigger corps will continue pretty much as they are now for PvE, some will get caught rolling wormholes slightly more than others but overall pvp probabily wont actually change that much.
Smaller corps will start losing out more and more. Longer times to roll wormholes, more risk rolling wormholes, and more incoming wormholes (not just the frig wormholes but the hundreds of new C4 wormholes that are appearing everywhere). They will start losing ISK income and getting fed up. They will start to move out, slowly at first but it will continue.
Bigger wormhole corps will look for pvp but the targets will start to become scarcer as corps move out. So they will start to target the smaller corps they would previously have overlooked just so they can get kills. Some of these corps will start to leave too.
Bigger PVP oriented WH corps will leave once they have nothing to do.
We might get a cyclic occupation as prices rise people move back in to take advantage and then the cycle repeats, or a simple lower occupational level might stabilize.
Certainly looking like long term it is going to be cyclic occupation mixed in with power blocs, basically a step towards all that is wrong with nullsec. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
813
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 22:18:00 -
[70] - Quote
Saisin wrote: The current mass change done in Hyperion is fine.
A small group with lokis or rapiers can now actively be a threat to WH collapsers, and also have more time to scan down those eager to quickly close their WH.
Keeping large ships near the WH, even with a 1mn timer, would simply make it too safe again to collapse WHs.
But the flip side also applies - small groups are utterly ****** if they open into a larger group who is active and they want to close - whereas the bigger corps can send in a dozen jamming tengus, etc. and keep you from pointing/webbing the capital on its way back to the hole if they really wanted.
Plus the point I and other have been trying to make in that the larger majority of the time those people simply aren't there to bring in lokis and rapiers, etc. and catch me collapsing - while I'm not the most prolific WH collapser in eve over the last almost 5 years I've collapsed 100s of WHs and so far to my recollection only twice has anyone even been there to try and catch us - one of those times ending badly for them as half their forces jumped ahead to try and catch the orca and the orca coming back cut the other half including their logis off. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
815
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 13:05:00 -
[71] - Quote
Kirasten wrote:Scrubnbubble wrote:So how does this work? Do we have to hit over 100 pages AGAIN in this thread before CCP realizes that we don't like/want mass based spawn distances? Fixed It doesn't matter at this point. I don't think ccp has any plans on rolling this back no matter what we say. So some people will grumble but adapt. Some will grumble and leave. Of course the main reason I have opposed this change is BECAUSE I dont want people to have a reason to leave. But it is what it is now.
For me its not so much that I don't like the change - I don't like the change and it seems ill fitting to me based on years of living in wormholes - but I also recognise that sometimes changes have to come for one reason or another that I don't like but that is where the rub is - there has been no dialog, no addressing concerns*, etc. its just been rammed through regardless and in the long term that is in no way a good thing for the game - even if it does somehow end up having a net positive effect.
* Would be different if it was just general grumbling but some people have made very well reasoned arguments with some pertinent considerations that simply should not have been left unaddressed - even if the points they brought up were invalid (not saying they were). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
819
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:16:00 -
[72] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote: or even radically changed it
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the rest of your points this is just wrong - it has radically shifted the balance in the possibilities for smaller entities to manipulate the wormhole terrain to have half a chance when faced with a larger entity. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
820
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:23:00 -
[73] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote: Don't have lots of active connections? Amount of wormholes are increased massively, or is that not the case in C5s? Dual-static space at least is littered with open connections.
As with most things concerning wormhole spawns, etc. some days you'll have very limited connectivity, if you close your static on those days and bear or whatever your now as a generalisation safer than ever as there are less people bothering to chain collapse to find stuff to shoot at - people seem to be more inclined to use null connections more than ever to find stuff to pew rather than spend ages mapping the more complex chains or rolling the static with the extra effort involved.
As for attitude its a mixed one - we had blue-fire connect to us the other day and they still went for it despite having 4 people online and us having several times that but thats more of an exception than a rule - most people with 3-4 people online opened to someone with 20 active pilots will feel quite limited in what they can do without it being outright suicide whether that is trying to collapse the link or finding stuff to do further down the chain. In the past they could with moderate and proportionally manageable risk collapse the link and try and find something they were more suited to engaging (or just go back to bearing). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
823
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 17:43:00 -
[74] - Quote
Wait we reached 100? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:49:52 -
[75] - Quote
This change sure ain't helping activity levels (not that I can talk too much at the moment) - most people logged off to play other games (LoL :|) last night as there wasn't much to do with another entity active in our static with 4x our online numbers and any attempt to collapse the wh would have been pretty much suicide. |
|
|
|