Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Rick Stumpf
Phoenix Infernis Knights Of The Singularity
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 21:29:00 -
[331] - Quote
Personally I would like it more if it was opposite. If smaller ship landed farther away. It would keep dreads and carriers in refit range like now. But I wouldn't stop rolling. But from living in a WH I enjoined rolling. But we rolled for PVE more then PVP. We would run all the sites in our static then collapse, and get a fresh one and do all the sites in that one. Rinse Repeat. From my point of view Capitals caught on WHs are screwed either way since there is no aggression timer you can jump and catch them on the other side no problem. If smaller ships had to go farther it would be easier to kill them because u could web them down before they got into jump range. But of course there is a con to having smaller ships appear farther away it would be nearly impossible to bubble a sub cap fleet if they are appearing like 10 to 15km from jump range. |
Xercodo
Xovoni Astronautical Manufacturing and Engineering
3666
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 21:31:00 -
[332] - Quote
I'm largely indifferent to these changes but it seems the overall opinion is this:
If there's more of a risk to rolling statics these things then people won't do them any more to begin with. If they aren't rolling statics they get bored, if they get bored they leave and WHs as a content area die with them.
I also see that a lot of people are either ignoring the new "tiny regen" holes or are disregarding them because no one flies frigates nor do they ever want to. In other words "All WH PVP is dead because I can't bring my shiny proteus to a fight without waiting for a WH to respawn naturally and if I have to wait that long I'm leaving". The Drake is a Lie |
Trent McRent
Raptor Navy Dominatus Atrum Mortis
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 21:36:00 -
[333] - Quote
why do we need this cange?
It's not that we have an easy time in wormholes allready. Everytime we are going out to do some ratting in our static c5 we allways have to, first find a system that is empty, then check all sigs in that and then crit/collapse all wh execpt ours ofc. Then we need to have scouts and stuff on the crit wh just to be sure no one comes in. All this things takes a loong time and a lot (for our size) of people. It's atleast 1.5 hours before we even start to do some sites and whit these changes its going to take for ever to do anything if we want to have a reasonable chance of getting our pve ships out. It's still big risk everytime we take out ships out as this is not our "home" system and this is going to make it allmost impossible to earn some isk for us, as it would take us to long time to do all the preperations. So if we don't have a nice connections from the begining or if we are connected to something big and scary we are all going to just log off for the nigth and that is going to suck. It's dangerous enough for us to try to collapse the hole if we are connected to something bigger beacuse we usally don't have the people online to collaspe it instantly and they have the abillaty to just assemble a big fleet and jump us. This changes leaves us sadly whit a lot less options for content and that is not a nice place to be. We thrive now as a small corp and can have a lot of fun as it is, but if you impliment this change we migth not be able to live in our hole anymore, beacuse we are to small. |
Steven Hackett
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
35
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 21:57:00 -
[334] - Quote
Traiori wrote:20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community: 1) Rage rolling becomes much more annoying for large groups. This limits their ability to find content that they can take, whether it be site-runners to kill (which you *have* to rage-roll for, incidentally) or other large groups. The proposed change slows down chain-rolling, slowing down the speed at which content can be found. This also has the side effect of making farming safer, because the probability being rolled into whilst running sites comes down to how many holes can be opened whilst your caps are not in their POS. Less holes=less chance of dying to everyone else. 2) Rage rolling becomes essentially impossible for small groups. They also have to find content, and rolling the chain is often the only way to reliably find content of interest - whether that be PvP or PvE or anything else. The proposed changes stop you from being able to do this without fighting the larger groups... which you can't do because numbers are important in every case. Small groups can no longer rage-roll consistently, especially given that most larger groups will seed scouts into their chain. 3) Committing capitals to wormholes outside of home systems requires winning the fight or losing the cap... which in turn means that it won't be committed by anyone that hasn't already got the forces on-grid to win it. The proposed change ensures that capitals shoved into another wormhole can't get back into home system. Whereas we currently see Triage used to balance out fights against bigger entities, smaller entities can't afford to lose the triage carrier every time, so they'll just stop bringing them. Less fights is bad for everyone. 4) Using our capitals in nullsec (and arguably losec) means losing them. We're not stupid. The proposed change would strand our capitals 15-20km away from the hole. The fight would become a race against time: will they be able to form up capitals/supercapitals to kill our triage archon before we get it back into the hole? In most cases, the answer will be no. Power projection means that we can no longer commit capitals. It's bad enough at present, without increasing the scope of the problem. Once again, less fights is bad for everyone. 5) Sub-capital wormholes also suffer from the problem because orcas land far away too. The major difference between rolling C4 wormholes and C5 wormholes is that C4 wormholes use Orcas. If those orcas are guaranteed to be in danger, they're also guaranteed to die. We'll take orca kills any time of the day. So will other groups. This means that C4 groups also need to be fielding support fleets for their orca if they don't fancy losing them daily. Bad for small groups, which means they'll leave, which means we lose more groups and hence, lose content. The error here is the belief that all groups can afford to field support groups. We can't. We aren't 10000 man coalitions, because wormholes can't support that kind of lifestyle. There is a maximum limit to how many people can fit into a wormhole, and unless we're now expecting all pilots to be on all of the time, that means that this change will make smaller groups increasingly unfeasible. I originally made most of these points on a reddit post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2cro9k/where_are_the_devblogs/cjihkl9. Some inital discussion over it can also be found.
This.. It honestly makes me a bit worried if the Dev's can't look at a bad idea and think trough the consequences by them self. What is the next genius idea you will waste money and hours on? WH-stabilizers? Incarna 2.0? If this is the way the game dev's think and work, its a miracle if EVE makes it to the 15 year mark. |
Witchway
Hard Knocks Inc.
113
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:03:00 -
[335] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Witchway wrote:You're assuming all the large entities haven't already been in your place and lived in the lowend. Hard Knocks wasn't born into C5 space, we started out in lowend just like yourself. We paid our dues and we've earned everything we have, you want large systems to live in then you need to make that happen for yourself. No one is forcing you to live in lowend space. Nope, noone is forcing me, but also noone is forcing you into a highend. Let-¦s be honest the difference is capwarfare and larger groups. Which is possible because of the way higher (and arguably less risky but more expensive) income and needed because soloing caps is kinda hard. But you can-¦t tell me that atm it is harder to roll with capitals than without. You still get your highsecs/lowsecs/lowends connecting. If it is too risky to use a cap you can still use BS. Ofc then it will take 15 minutes instead of 2 and the risk of getting detected is higher. The question is a) are you entiteled to easier rolling because you risk more isk and b) if this change, whilest it might be "right" it might be too bad for the overall health of highend wormholespace. And yes, I have had my share of c5 living, I just didn-¦t like it so much because lowends have more opportunites for solo-/smallestscale gameplay than highends if the rest of your corp isn-¦t logged in with you.
It's not harder to roll C5s but there is way more inherent risk with putting 2-3B on the field rather than 150mil |
Susitna
Negative Density No Response
13
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:10:00 -
[336] - Quote
Please no to this change. I have seen three main reasons to roll a hole.
1. Current chain has no content for PVE or PVP 2. Hostile chain with forces beyond your ability to fight 3.Close off entry points to make it safer to do sights.
I understand a desire to make number 3 more risky. However, your changes will impact all three. Please look for away to increase farming risk that leaves us a way to find reasonable content. From my experience wormhole corps are hungry for good fights and roll to find them and not avoid them.
Additionally, these changes will make it harder for smaller corps to roll for content. Even large corps will find it difficult to roll during non peak times. If rolling for content is too risky or too painful players will just log and do something else. If this happens too often they may leave wormholes or even the game.
Again please do not do this change. Look for a way to increase risks for farming. Perhaps, make a chance for a new J entry to spawn to the farmed hole whenever a sight is cap escalated. Heck even make it a massive hole.
|
Admiral Douros
aWc Heavy Industries GoonSwarm
51
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:17:00 -
[337] - Quote
Susitna wrote:I understand a desire to make number 3 more risky. However, your changes will impact all three. Please look for away to increase farming risk that leaves us a way to find reasonable content.
The change to K162 mechanics already makes PVE more risky. In my opinion, they should start with that change, see how it impacts the game, and then brainstorm other changes if necessary. Introducing the K162 change, huge spawn distance after jump, and impossible-to-crash holes all at the same time is too broad a stroke. |
Deeone
Deadspace Zombie Factory
24
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:19:00 -
[338] - Quote
Ok I propose this change for all wh. Some kind of gravity distortion prevents the use of a cloaking device within like 20km. Different distance for different classes. All ships spawn at like 5-10 km off the hole. Also maybe with the WH effect re-balance Different WH have different spawning habits. This adds a bit of unknown to the system for explores and something to consider for people that live in WH space. Or If you just want to nerf caps insta closing holes that is easy make them polarize on the first pass... |
J0HN SHEPPARD
The Icarus Expedition The Daedalus Imperium
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:33:00 -
[339] - Quote
As CEO of a small corp, I must say. This is not a good change! The Risk of rolling WH now is already pretty high, specially with a small group. Sure small Corp can change tactics from orca to Battleships but that will only make the whole process of rolling, more of a headache and ass clenching process that already is. if small ships land further, I understand but as for big ships that just makes that process way more dangerous than it already is. specially with a small group of player. EVE is already a numbers game, and I liked WSpace because numbers aren't a necessity as it is in null or low.
I can stomach all the other changes even the one's about giving us another Static in the C4 that will most likely end our seclusion but putting more of our ships in more danger than they already are in, That I cant stomach. |
Jamaica Merchant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:35:00 -
[340] - Quote
Keep the distances, tweak the position.
Ships, relatively close to each other, jumping simultaneously or within a small interval (2-3 secs) appear relatively close to each other on the other side. |
|
Simsung Padecain
Hard Knocks Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:43:00 -
[341] - Quote
Ships aside, getting popped couple km away from a wormhole 100% will get you podded aswell.
Not only you lost your ship (bs, orca, carrier, dread), on top of that you lost your implants (which we cannot change in WHs), and you're in k-space presumably locked out of home system. + updating our clones aswell! :)
This change is not what wormholes need. |
David Laurentson
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
97
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:46:00 -
[342] - Quote
Dama Arishe wrote:I can get on board with most of the changes, but the mass-based spawn just isn't a good idea. This isn't the kind of attention wspace needs. It doesn't provide any new content and adds frustration to an already annoying process. Cue pos-spinning instead of ninja-rolling for small corps. (At least if you're going to make a change like that, sweeten the pot and give us T3 frigate to jump through those tiny new wormholes!)
I'm a small corp guy: never been involved with more than 30-40 players in a corp, usually a lot fewer, and for easily a year I was The Only Active Player in a C2 corp. I've also 2-manned a C3 (living out of a cloaked Orca), and farmed content from C2 to C5.
You really, really come to appreciate the Orca when it's the difference between logging off to play something else, and shutting the static when it opens to Scarybadman, Inc.
If the new situation is that the half-hour process of solo-closing a wormhole (because of polarisation timers) also includes an extra few minutes of approaching a hole while cloaked (or significantly increase d-scan presence), then, well... I don't see how or why my younger self would have gotten through the early days to actually build a corp that's got the numbers and the ISK to throw into a proper fight. |
Lord Blacksmith
Midnight Conclave
15
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:46:00 -
[343] - Quote
There's thirty-odd (at least) pages of feedback on this issue already. Tweaking the ranges slightly really changes nothing.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:52:00 -
[344] - Quote
Lord Blacksmith wrote:There's thirty-odd (at least) pages of feedback on this issue already. Tweaking the ranges slightly really changes nothing.
Considering the only change you are likely wanting to see is a return to the status quo, I would begin preparing yourself for disappointment. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2062
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:53:00 -
[345] - Quote
Does anyone have hard stats on wormhole activity?
If the current numbers are low, and/or falling then defenders of the current system need to explain why, not attack needed changes. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
374
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:55:00 -
[346] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:na'Vi Ronuken wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release. Can you tell the dudes sitting in your building that this is a bad change and we don't want it. or better yet -- as him/her to start reading this thread to understand the public sentiment behind this. Don't worry, everything posted in this thread is being read by the relevant designers (I sit right next to Fozzie so can confirm this first hand!).
You set next to Fozzie?
I'm mailing you 2 large Haddok.
Please smack him over the head with the smaller of the two for what he did to my beloved geddon.
The second one..... get a 4 step running start and whack him across the back of the head with it. If (after he gets up) he mentions or you even think he is thinking of mentioning or implementing this mass range mess get a 5 step running start and do it again. If you run out of room or the haddok gets too mushy - let me know - I'll send another. |
Neil DeTyson Degrassetyso
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:55:00 -
[347] - Quote
How about this:
Have wormholes have an automatic effect that prevents warping within X distance based on the Wormhole size but you can still warp to 0. For example a C1 to C2 is a small hole so the wormhole only disturbs 3-6k; a larger hole C6 to C6 would have 10-12k. This would allow for caps to warp to 0, jump, jump back, and then slow boat away a bit. Leaving assets on the field for longer when one is rolling an empty hole is no big deal because your hole should already be closed. IF the hole has hostiles in it, the hostile fleet has a chance to jump in after and get some kills and then scan themselves out.
This is just an idea, I'm sure it is exploitable but seems to give more corps of different sizes the ability to generate content. |
MrSnooze
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:56:00 -
[348] - Quote
Nys Cron wrote:This will be not that big a deal for large corps as they can bring enough support to still roll safely, it will just be a bit more annoying to do. There will probably be less rolling for PvP but not that significantly.
Small corporations connected to bigger PvP entities will just not bother with trying to roll the connection but log off instead, this is already happening with lower class WHs that are more tedious to roll.
The biggest problem I have with this change is that it renders triage carriers nearly useless as the only way to have a chance of surviving a medium to large fight with triage carriers is to bring two of them and alternate siege cycles/refit. With the change these carriers will spawn up to ~40km from each other which makes these tactics impossible. Solo triage carriers usually die very quickly and are not worth bringing. Furthermore this benefits entities that are risk averse and prefer staying in their home system even more: in addition to being able to bring nearly unlimited reinforcements and numbers of capitals, they don't have to deal with the spawn distance problem while the attackers are even more limited in what and how they bring capitals than they already are.
All in all it seems like this change would just cause less PvP to happen and make PvE more annoying and risky for small groups. I think this goes against the overall goals for the proposed changes to w-space.
/edit: i like the idea to base it on velocity when jumping that was mentioned somewhere
i have to agree with Nys on this one. By forcing an attacking site to actually give your fleet over to random spawn luck you can loose the entire fight just by jumping in. i guess new approaches will develope over time but for me its a pro and con for more engagements and right now it seems that probably it will go in the opposite direction in terms of the risk is too high we will not do it. the ones who will still do it are the ones who are doing it right now. so bascially all the major w-space corps/alliances (noho, hk, etc. )
https://www.fcftw.org
Wanna join FC? Click Here |
Brutus Le'montac
122
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:57:00 -
[349] - Quote
this change is for the worst, if you dont like rolling wormholes you should make more or better balanced connections, which imo are the reason people roll a new wh.
just some numbers from oure wh:
got a lowsec static, class 3 past 2 days:
day 1 :4 nullsec openings. no low or hi, no wormhole chain. day 2: 3 nullsec openings.
why use a " static" if it barely follows it??
ofcourse we rolled the wormhole in hope for a hisec/lowsec opening so we can finally do some stuff or restock.
if you dont like that behavior, then more fix the statics or max amount of openings to hi/low/null at any time, sitting in a wh with 3 exits to nullsec is bound to be trouble.
Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
374
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:05:00 -
[350] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Since i am no wh dweller, is it the rolling of interconnected holes that you guys are upset with, or also the connections to regular space, like null?
Cause from the null sec point as fc i hate when fights end with the jumping of caps and the level of security they do it with. If i go through a gate in null i risk everything at spawn distance, in the case of regional gates a ***** on logi with a damp on em.
Th rolling of interconnected whs i dont know thr pro s and cons, can wh people share some info on if its both?
1. capitals don't go through gates, so??? 2. there are thousands of gates for you to play on. If you don't like the wh mechanic, then don't fight on wh (in lieu of changing wh).
The wh mechanics are probably the best pvp thing dropped in the game in years. They have led to so many outstanding pvp occurances. They aren't broken and they don't need changed. Lots and lots of guys really like rage rolling as a play style.
This change creates so much negative (2 threadnaught in 24 hrs). At some point I would I'm hoping that it might occur to folks to not change it after all. |
|
Greymist
Power Absolute Absolute Damage Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:06:00 -
[351] - Quote
This would virtually KILL the smaller WH corps. There are only a hand full of large corps who can viably rageroll under these new parameters. Smaller corps who depend on this ability to defend themselves will largely die off. WH space will become another Null sec where only a few corps/alliances control.
I would suggest a random WH mass size where the mass of a WH can radically change from 1 bil to 3 bil regardless of WH class. So in essence a C5 with a C5 connection could potentially collapse the moment a capital jumps through or it might not.
also you could make them regenerate as ships are trying to collapse the hole. |
Ray Kyonhe
Ray's Relentless Research
122
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:21:00 -
[352] - Quote
Idea which suggested that all caps in a fleet should be placed closer to each other - but whole fleet still on significant distance from wh they entered the system through - should solve the problem. It will allow this cap fleet to refit and fight in full force, and will introduce additional risk simultaneously. So, what the matter? Solution have been found, actually. Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3593
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:30:00 -
[353] - Quote
This idea is AWFUL and you should feel bad about it. Please refer to the ~35+ page threadnaught already here on it for reasons why. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
375
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:31:00 -
[354] - Quote
Ray Kyonhe wrote:Idea which suggested that all caps in a fleet should be placed closer to each other - but whole fleet still on significant distance from wh they entered the system through - should solve the problem. It will allow this cap fleet to refit and fight in full force, and will introduce additional risk simultaneously. So, what the matter? Solution have been found, actually.
I didn't look at your other ideas, but this one solves nothing. Let me lay out the problem clearly for you.
WH mechanics are fine. They generate a lot of great fights. WH mechanics aren't broken.
This change will affect something that isn't broken so said change is bad. Any change to a great (and obviously loved) mechanic is bad. Tweaking a bad idea doesn't change the fact that it is a bad idea.
Here's an example: You work for me. I'm the boss. I show up monday and tell you that I'm getting rid of all your health benefits. You and all the other employees point out it's bad and all the bad effects. As a good and understanding boss I only cut your benefits in half. Does that make me a good and understanding boss? No. Does that make cutting your health benefits in half a good idea? No.
|
Yew Nuttah
Revenant Tactical Ineluctable.
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:32:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Please keep your feedback constructive and in accordance with the forum rules. While you can of course just disagree with the proposed changes, it is much more helpful if you list the reasons and explain why you disagree. The post above by Traiori is a good example of constructive feedback. Thank you!
Um actually he did give constructive feedback. I didn't read one thing that was offensive. |
Edward Sanmora
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:39:00 -
[356] - Quote
As someone who spends most of their time in worm holes, these changes will drastically diminish of the game.
Being able to have wormhole control isn't a bad thing. For groups wanting to organize such there always the possibility of new holes opening into them. However several of these changes make that harder.
Worm hole mass reg - This makes it much hard for groups who are trying to do wormhole control because of a planned operation.
Distance from worm hole - This makes it much hard to find a new hole, just through and possibly get in a fight. It means that ships are very scattered when they come in. Also groups who are actively rolling holes have to spend far more time doing so.
Wormhole appearance - By waiting till the first person jump through you give the aggressor an unfair advantage, because they had time to form up a fleet on the hole, where the location being open into had no warning. At worse as soon as someone get within range of the then it should show up on the new location. The simple logic is if the worm hole there, it's open on both sides.
I realize that the little news things says that CCP isn't trying to punish Worm Hole people, but it seems that every proposal I've heard since I started playing a bit over a year ago has made things worse. Yet things like POS mechanics which could use some help have been completely ignored.
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
783
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:42:00 -
[357] - Quote
Kirasten wrote:Quoted for emphasis.
The great thing about wormhole living is that we can carve out our content with small groups of friends. This suggested change favors the large and will be more than crippling to the small groups. HEY!
CCP!!!
THIS!!!!
Edward Sanmora wrote: Yet things like POS mechanics which could use some help have been completely ignored. Actually, some very good changes have happened with POS mechanics (or at least their associated structures).
The reason POS mechanics are such a hard change is that it is literally legacy code from the launch of the game.
When they start digging in there, everything starts changing in unpredictable ways. Bob is the god of Wormholes.
That's all you need to know. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
520
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:46:00 -
[358] - Quote
Undoubtedly one you're expecting a firestorm over. With good reason :) This is a major change to a core mechanic that defines life in W-space.
If you bothered to read the concerns from the other thread, you would know just about all of the reasons why this is bad. Remember, this is a core mechanic that defines life in W-space. It defines how we engage in the majority of our combat situations. Instead of rehashing all of the very well-worded arguments from the other thread, which you have either read or ignored, let me give an example of why it is so bad.
I've already said this is a core mechanic that defines how we engage in the majority of our combat situations. The nature of wormholes means we can hide a fleet on the other side, or in another connected system, away from prying scout eyes. Any scouts entering the hole sniffing for the trap would need to put forth extra effort, besides just checking local and warping to neighboring gates.
The closest comparison to K-space mechanics is the Cyno. You can land your fleet on that group of seemingly helpless ships, as the surrounding systems are empty, when suddenly they light a cyno. In jumps a subcap fleet double that of your own, followed by a couple of capital ships. You were caught completely off-guard, and without significant effort, there was no way for you to know this was coming.
So it is with combat in W-space. We fight on wormholes because they are a natural boundary. You can jump in, and if there is too much trouble, you can jump back and attempt to get away. This carries a danger with it, that of polarization. If you are caught when you make that return jump, you CAN'T get away again. There is no other option except to kill or be killed.
With this change applied to W-space, it would be like your carriers landing up to 20k away from the cyno beacon, and supers and titans even further, in any random direction. Combat refitting, a major strategy in capital combat, would no longer be possible. If this change were made to Cynos and bridging, would anyone bring a Revenant into combat again unless they were DEAD certain it wasn't a trap? How would the use of Supers and Titans change if such a change went into place. This would kill an aspect of gameplay PL is well known for.
Since Orcas and Freighters are also a mainstay of logistics in W-space, and will be impacted by this change, imagine by comparison what effect this would have on jump freighters as they move throughout Nullsec. With a possibility of landing 10-15k away from a station, or inside of the station if RNG is against you, would this increase conflict with harassing logistics traffic, or would it eliminate the use of such expensive ships altogether?
It's easy to see that such a change would have a drastically negative effect if applied to cynos and bridges. Unlike W-space, those are not even the primary mechanics used for encountering combat in Nullsec the way wormholes are for W-space.
So scrap the whole spawn distance change, keeping the 0 - 5km spawn distance we have now.
If you wish to slow down rage-rolling, and add risk to combat rolling holes in the face of larger groups, add one-way polarization timers instead of breaking spawn distances. When you jump into a wormhole, depending on your ship's mass, you may not jump back for a period of time; frigates would have the shortest timer, perhaps only as long as the session change cloak, while capital ships would have times in the order of minutes. This is in addition to the already-present polarization timer, perhaps extended some minor amount, to 6 or 7 minutes The one-way timer provides risk. The two-way timer provides equalization between all ships.
Unlike the spawn distances, this would add meaningful choice to rolling holes in W-space: can I defend my capital ship long enough to jump it back if I need to, or should I use a smaller ship instead? Is it worth hanging my dread's backside out in the wind to easily roll the hole, or should I use a few more people and some Orcas or battleships instead? Smaller groups could still use bigger ships in quiet systems, as they only need to wait out their jump timers, but it's no longer a matter of 10-15 seconds to collapse the hole with virtually no risk.
This would also place risk on rolling fleets comparable to a capital ship jumping to a cyno. It's fuel based, yeah, but it's also capacitor based. You can't immediately jump back to your escape cyno beacon (assuming not tackled) because you have to wait for your cap to regen. The same with jumping back into your originating wormhole system.
|
BeanBagKing
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
292
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 23:48:00 -
[359] - Quote
I'll cut straight to the obvious change, tldr; here's my suggestion that would allow for rage rolling to continue, yet make it hard to control holes rolling into your system.
If I jump through the static type W237 in my home wormhole, I appear at current range (between 0 and 5km). If a new sig appears in my WH, a K162, and I jump through it, then I appear at ~mass range~, so I have to either warp off and back or burn back to my hole.
Here's my reasoning: You want us to face more risk and less hole control. We want to be able to roll out hole to find pvp. You have a point in some ways, but you are ignoring the glaring obvious point we are all trying to make. If make it an unsafe pain the the ass to roll holes, we're going to stop doing it at worst. At best it takes us twice/three times as long to roll holes, we roll less holes and find less pvp.
Changing it like this makes it so we can still roll holes just as quickly as we do now, we can still find pvp, and we can still control our static. However:
We face more danger from incoming k162's, we can't slam them closed in the face of someone rolling into us.
We can't easily extract, if we jump back because we are losing, our caps come back scattered and outside of jump range (assuming they aren't polarized to begin with).
Traps can be set. If we are out on a roam and hostiles get between us they can cloak and wait till we come back, jumping back into our home system will put us outside jump range.
I'm sure there's other scenarios more creative people can think of. My point is that it retains the status quo that we want in terms of being able to seek out pvp. Yet increases the danger we face if other people come into us or we are jumping back into our own system. In fact, this would stack the odds in favor of someone jumping into our system from their own static, they would land at 0 whereas if we took the fight to them we would be jumping a k162 and landing at range. TBH someone jumping into another persons home needs the odds stacked in their favor.
Rage rolling, and the forming up, logistics, scouts, etc that are needed is already a HUGE pain in the ass requiring hours of preparation. Do not make that process take twice as long (if it happens at all).
Let me reiterate what EVERYONE ELSE has been saying. This change, as it stands, is a terrible terrible idea. 90% of the time when we roll a hole it's to find pvp. If you make this more difficult, you reduce the pvp that occurs in wormhole space, not increase it. Look at the player feedback here, if you make this change we're going to be saying "I told you so" in 3 months.
If you want a lore reason, then knowing the WH type allows us to calibrate our jump drive engines and stabilize our mass inertia nullifiers. Whereas jumping through an unknown k162 doesn't allow us to calibrate our doohickies. >_>
I'll put replies to other changes (if I have any) in a separate post.
Edit: And to address the first note in the dev blog, this not only breaks things up and adds something new, it does so without destroying the way we find pvp, and also does it in a way that creates some variables on each side, not the same thing no matter which way you go through a WH. |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3594
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 00:04:00 -
[360] - Quote
Let me bottom line this for you:
The health and activity levels of any WH corp is very closely linked to how often they roll their static. Rolling the static generates new content, leads to PVP and PVE alike, gives people new chains to scan out, hell, finding things to do in new chains is what you do in active WH corps!
Sure, this change doesnt actually make it impossible to roll your chain but it makes it astronomically more tedious and dangerous.
This change actively discourages small groups from rolling their holes and makes it take much longer for them to do so. Even for large groups, how many times do you think someone is going to be willing to slowboat their Moros 20km back to the WH, even with full fleet support, before they get super bored and log off? I don't know what the actuall number will be but I guarantee it will be FAR lower than the number of WHs people are willing to roll in a row currently looking for action.
This change leads to a lack of motivation to roll your chain which directly results in a general decline in activity since less fresh chains = less interaction and less opportunities. If you want to look at it in another way, it's like restricting the number of jumps a kspace gate can take per hour. The only thing it does is reduce activity.
Please, do NOT implement this change in ANY form. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |