EVE Search - Sticky:Reserved #4

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Wormholes

Sticky:Reserved #4

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Andre Coeurl Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 28	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:08:00 - [361] - Quote Most proposed changes to WH space seem reasonable, but two of them clearly go against the chance small groups will have to survive in higher class systems. One is the concept of random frigate WHs spawns, as it will need to be balanced very carefully as we all know how powerful a large enough group of Stealth Bombers can be against anything but a capital ship... and to be honest I have experienced also an increased general rate of WH spawns lately, with two separate disturbing instances where a C248 even lasted as long as 4 days! I hope this was a bug but this whole idea must be introduced and balanced carefully. The other is the mass/spawn distance concept. As lots of other pointed out already and thoroughly explained the reasons why, it will simply mean no smaller entity will ever try to close a WH connecting to larger entities' systems, as well as to inhabited Nullsec and Lowsec. I also want to underline that it isn't at all safe to try and roll a WH under hostile surveillance if your support fleet isn't a reasonable match for the enemy one, because it always takes a long time to align and warp caps to a WH, and if the enemy is already having a covops watching you they'll have plenty of time to warp their fleet to the WH and choose where to engage. If the carrier or dread manages to jump through and close the connection, it will be either stranded on the far end and easily killed, or the enemy will have had time enough to jump their fleet through and kill the capital on the way back. A superior support fleet will then have an easy enough time finding the local static and extracting, even more so after having killed a capital which means reducing thorougly the force factor of the already inferior fleet. Granted, sometimes the trick has worked, but that happens either by sheer luck (enemy FC went for a ****?), or by major distraction of enemy scouts, or by managing to make the available support fleet appear bigger than it actually is. As a Class-6 dweller I constantly experience jumping into C6 and C5s which are empty (I'd say 2 every 3), while a minority are either home of very organized and careful small alliances or they're a hub for one of the very few big PVP WH alliances. While I admire the latter as the most successful evolutionary adaptation to the hostile environment, it's become quite obvious to them that the dwindling of smaller entities residing in WH space provides them with less targets and potential fun, while so many smaller alliances obviously have had enough frustration to push them away from WH space entirely. The total fun-sum has been steadily in the negative for a while, I consider it unwise to push it even lower.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 212	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:14:00 - [362] - Quote just a thought - the capitals - which you really want to be bubbled, will land outside a T2 fit hic's influence, enabling them to warp if you've got a hyena/rapier/huginn on grid. bigger ships will more likely have support for bouncing, so they can get into brawl range, but this does rather kill the kiting small ships..... maybe a better change would be preventing activation of cloak for 3s (you can fiddle with the numbers) after shedding the session cloak if you want to enable more cov-ops kills For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it WILL be.
Snakes-On-A-Plane 27	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:17:00 - [363] - Quote Gospadin wrote: Why is inaction better? If CCPs internal data suggests subscriptions are declining, and lots of folks are giving up on w-space, or purely use it for PI on alts, then a shakeup is probably what is needed. When you are on the brink, there are several directions you can go. While it's not a good idea to stay in your precarious position, it's also a really bad idea to set off in any random direction.
epicurus ataraxia Lazerhawks 924	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:19:00 - [364] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: 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. Come on, be fair, send him a bottle of whisky instead. I really do not feel that anyone could really go ahead with this one now all the issues have been pointed out. all the other ideas have some good in them, feedback is coming in to tweak them that will allow the goals they wish and make things better and more interesting. This idea however stands out like a rotting whale! a lemon slice and a bit of parsley as a garnish and trimming its flippers is not going to change that, and I am sure that they are wishing they had not listened to whoever suggested it. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Serith Ellecon Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 30	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:37:00 - [365] - Quote Inverting the formula so smaller ships spawned further away would be far more fun. Scouts could escape bubbles and crashing holes would remain a viable tactic. Inappropriate signature added.-á CCP Notarealdev.
Des Jardin Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred 11	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:39:00 - [366] - Quote I contend that the proposed GÇ£mass-based spawn distance after wormhole jumpsGÇ¥ does not accomplish its intended purpose and detracts from other positive aspects of gameplay generated by the current wormhole mechanic, and that its implementation should be delayed. While a need exists for CCP to address concerns that player interaction is currently being bypassed, the proposed modification affecting spawn distances after wormhole jumps will not accomplish that goal. As discussed more fully below, CCPGÇÖs institution of additional wormhole changes in the Hyperion release are expected to promote player interaction and are not perceived to counteracting effects on player content generation. Furthermore, a delay in the implementation of the spawn distance modification would allow CCP sufficient time to evaluate the actual impact of the other wormhole modifications without foreclosing its ability to make such a change in the future. However, should the spawn distance modification be implemented simultaneously with the other changes, CCP will be unable to assess accurately the impact of the other player interaction content. Accordingly, I suggest that CCP postpone the spawn distance component of the Hyperion release pending an evaluation of the impact that the other proposed changes have on the wormhole environment. ********************* The proposed change to spawn distance post-wormhole jump is GÇ£intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption.GÇ¥ CCP Fozzie states that GÇ£[w]e are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.GÇ¥ CCP is using time as a mechanic to introduce risk -- the longer it takes for assets to travel to a wormhole to close it, the more those assets are at risk of loss. Presumably, an astute wormhole pilot will spot a capital entering their C5 or C6 system and will have sufficient time to muster troops to block the closing effort. Note that under the proposed mechanic the amount of time available to the defending pilots is not fixed. Lower mass ships spawn closer to the wormhole than larger mass capitals. Since lower mass ships are faster, they can approach and jump through the wormhole quicker. For such ships, the spawn distance modification does not afford the defending fleet any meaningful additional time. Alternatively, the slower capital ships will take significantly longer to return to the wormhole and will consequently create a de facto maximum defender fleet form-up time. Based on the current proposed distances and capital ship speeds, the GÇ£closing timerGÇ¥ is about three minutes after the capital enters the system. Given that a scout ship from the closing fleet would have jumped through the wormhole initially and that the wormhole signature will have appeared on scan, the defending crew should have more than enough time to scramble an interceptor or HIC to head to the wormhole to potentially pin down a capital ship spawning outside of jump range. Risk generated. CCP acknowledges that time equates to risk. CCP Fozzie states that GÇ£[the spawn distance] change would indeed increase the amount of time involved in GÇÿragerolling,GÇÖ but we believe that with the correct [spawn distance] values ragerolling can still be viable.GÇ¥ Whether the distances currently proposed from a wormhole jump range is the correct balance of time vs. risk remains debatable. However, time as a function of the increased spawn distance from the wormhole is not the only component changed as a result of the proposed modification. The absolute distance between the ships that jump through a wormhole will also increase. The ramifications of that change affect more than the time (and risk) associated with closing a wormhole -- the random generation of spawn points over a greater distance will impact the usefulness of certain ship modules. For example, if a capital ship is no longer GÇ£viableGÇ¥ to fly back to a wormhole without support, then additional pilots will be needed for the closing fleet. CCP Fozzie states that GÇ£we believe [the spawn point distance] values would ensure a significant amount of risk in jumping capitals through wormholes while also allowing players to effectively roll wormholes using supported capitals and orcas.GÇ¥ That may be true but the risk is not shared equally. As noted above, support fleets require additional resources. For some alliances/corporations that requirement will be an inconvenience but for others it will be a bar to rolling as they will lack sufficient resources to close the wormhole. As a result, alliances/corporations with smaller numbers will suffer a disproportionate impact from the proposed change. Furthermore, the greater separation of ships when entering a wormhole will also impact a decision whether to engage in wormhole PvP. Given that an attacking fleet can, at most, commit three capitals to a fight through a wormhole, the negative effects of potentially spreading their spawn points as far as 40 km apart would be a sufficient deterrent to jumping into a defending fleet. Essentially, each capital fleet will await the other jumping through a hole -- something that is unlikely to occur. Thus the spawn distance modification, as proposed, (1) will increase the time to close wormholes, (2) require greater resources to do so, and (3) reduce the willingness of pilots to enter into wormhole PvP. Such a scenario is hardly a recipe for increased player interaction. "Good against remotes is one thing.-á Good against the living ... that's something else."
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 375	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:40:00 - [367] - Quote He doesn't need a stiff drink. All he has to do is not implement a stupid idea and he will look smart and hero-ish. What a racket. Most folks would get fired or some kind of ill documentation in their file. He'll get a small statue in his honor and a pat on the back.
Des Jardin Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred 11	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:40:00 - [368] - Quote On the other hand, the Hyperion release is introducing other mechanisms that will unequivocally increase player interaction (e.g., wormhole effect rebalancing, second static for C4s, more randomly spawning wormholes, and changes to K162 signature appearances). While those changes will have a negative impact for some play styles, they do not fundamentally reduce player interaction. CCP should allow those changes to go live and observe whether they generate the desired effect. CCP Fozzie states that GÇ£the increase in random wormholes will provide a secondary outlet for players looking for fights without needing to rageroll as often.GÇ¥ Presumably this positive effect would take place regardless of the spawn distance modification. If, however, the Hyperion release also includes the spawn distance modification and player interaction decreases, CCP will have lost the ability to assess the actual impact of the other modifications. Also, CCP is hardly foreclosed from adopting the spawn distance modification in the future. If the other Hyperion modifications do not generate the desired effect, then CCP can roll out this one and observe what happens. At a minimum, the harm of instituting the spawn distance change outweighs the harm of delaying the change. Accordingly, CCP should postpone its deployment of the spawn distance modification in order to avoid the above identified harms and assess the impact of the other pro-player interaction modifications before moving forward with such a modification. "Good against remotes is one thing.-á Good against the living ... that's something else."
Rain6637 Team Evil 15575	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:47:00 - [369] - Quote exactly the kind of personality that should be added to game mechanics, fozzie. very clean change, I hope they all look like this. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Rainfleet on Twitch \| Twitter \| Rainfleet mk.III \| Imgur
Lero D Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra 0	Posted - 2014.08.07 00:57:00 - [370] - Quote We are a small corporation of mostly PvE people, for the simple reason that we like and trust each other, and we also want to avoid the politics and risks of the large numbers. This change will destroy pretty much our play style by making it impossible for us to roll the WH-s. Keep in mind, we are closing the WH-s to protect ourselves, not to look for fights. If we had the numbers to provide a proper defense on the other side of the WH for the ships we use to collapse the exits, we would be a PvP corporation not PvE/Industrial.

Jack Miton Isogen 5 3594	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:04:00 - [371] - Quote Serith Ellecon wrote: Inverting the formula so smaller ships spawned further away would be far more fun. Scouts could escape bubbles and crashing holes would remain a viable tactic. ^this is actually not a terrible idea if you really MUST mess with a perfectly functional system that works fine as is. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2062	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:04:00 - [372] - Quote Lero D wrote: We are a small corporation of mostly PvE people, for the simple reason that we like and trust each other, and we also want to avoid the politics and risks of the large numbers. This change will destroy pretty much our play style by making it impossible for us to roll the WH-s. Keep in mind, we are closing the WH-s to protect ourselves, not to look for fights. If we had the numbers to provide a proper defense on the other side of the WH for the ships we use to collapse the exits, we would be a PvP corporation not PvE/Industrial. The Hammer is coming wormhollers, flee while you can to SOV with the other bears. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Rei Moon Murderous Inc 11	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:15:00 - [373] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Lero D wrote: We are a small corporation of mostly PvE people, for the simple reason that we like and trust each other, and we also want to avoid the politics and risks of the large numbers. This change will destroy pretty much our play style by making it impossible for us to roll the WH-s. Keep in mind, we are closing the WH-s to protect ourselves, not to look for fights. If we had the numbers to provide a proper defense on the other side of the WH for the ships we use to collapse the exits, we would be a PvP corporation not PvE/Industrial. The Hammer is coming wormhollers, flee while you can to SOV with the other bears. envious much
Rei Moon Murderous Inc 11	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:16:00 - [374] - Quote Querns wrote: 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. ebil goons
Indrid Hot Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 2	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:17:00 - [375] - Quote Des Jardin wrote: I contend that the proposed GÇ£mass-based spawn distance after wormhole jumpsGÇ¥ does not accomplish its intended purpose and detracts from other positive aspects of gameplay generated by the current wormhole mechanic, and that its implementation should be delayed. While a need exists for CCP to address concerns that player interaction is currently being bypassed, the proposed modification affecting spawn distances after wormhole jumps will not accomplish that goal. As discussed more fully below, CCPGÇÖs institution of additional wormhole changes in the Hyperion release are expected to promote player interaction and are not perceived to counteracting effects on player content generation. Furthermore, a delay in the implementation of the spawn distance modification would allow CCP sufficient time to evaluate the actual impact of the other wormhole modifications without foreclosing its ability to make such a change in the future. However, should the spawn distance modification be implemented simultaneously with the other changes, CCP will be unable to assess accurately the impact of the other player interaction content. Accordingly, I suggest that CCP postpone the spawn distance component of the Hyperion release pending an evaluation of the impact that the other proposed changes have on the wormhole environment. . I am of the mind that as soon as you take a ship outside the safety of your pos shield you are vulnerable. Case in point: {edit, didnt realize non corp mates cant see that, just check my loss mails for Sept of 2012} Granted at that time I didnt really know what the hell I was doing, but my case is that this was faught on a wormhole, under current mechanics. Also these proposed mechanics do tend to largely favor the larger fleets. I propose that if CCP intends on going through with this then the implimentation of Personal Ship Maintenance Arrays should be implemented. If CCP is unwilling to sit down and sort through the speghetti code that is the current pos code so we can more effectively sort secuirty, it is difficult for us to gain enough people to counter this. In wormholes, as most people who have lived in wh's know you come to trust your group, new people have a way of screwing this over and theiving. Makes us smaller corps really have to scrutinize each applicant and reject many people that have questionable backgrounds. Implimenting a PSMA would remove alot of the theft aspect and allow us to quickly generate the numbers we need in order to have a so called "support fleet". Either way this may make me quit wormholes. My intention was to never become a huge mega-corp, thats why I left nullsec and embraced wormholes, in the big nullsec alliances and battles it tends to make oneself feel insignificant. "Why should I log on, I'm not doing much of anything to affect change out here". Now if this change forces me to grow my corp 4 or 10 times larger so I can field prolonged backup everytime to cycle a hole.. Its just not worth it. As it stands I usually use my revelation to close wh's and thatsactually what i tend to use it for the most. this will more then likely sit in my sma now and collect dust on the offchance an eviction may be pending.
Klarion Sythis Literally Solo 292	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:28:00 - [376] - Quote For being a group of players who pride themselves on the heritage of taking a set of unknown, hard to live with mechanics and creating an entire community out of it...we sure don't seem to like figuring out new things anymore.
Rei Moon Murderous Inc 11	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:29:00 - [377] - Quote xpaulx wrote: Cosmic Scanner wrote: blackish person wrote: ..... TL;DR 1. This will stop us from rolling 2. This will stop us from taking fights 3. This will stop us from killing rolling caps 4. This will stop people from doing stuff in general and this will make wh space a dark empty sad place :( What Blackish said.
Erasmus Phoenix Balls to the Walls No Response 125	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:34:00 - [378] - Quote BeanBagKing wrote: 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.. Love this.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 1537	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:50:00 - [379] - Quote More of dis exciting gameplay. J's before K's. Sudden Buggery is recruiting w-nerds and w-noobs. Mail your resume in today! http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
Andronitis Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred 3	Posted - 2014.08.07 01:51:00 - [380] - Quote Des Jardin wrote: Thus the spawn distance modification, as proposed, (1) will increase the time to close wormholes, (2) require greater resources to do so, and (3) reduce the willingness of pilots to enter into wormhole PvP. Such a scenario is hardly a recipe for increased player interaction. (continued below) Well said Des. My biggest concern is your final point. I have no doubt that large wormhole corps/alliances will be able to adapt to increased time and resources needed to rageroll for content. However, the proposed mass change puts the entity that jumps in (assuming anyone will still be willing to take fights) at even more of a disadvantage than they currently experience. What I currently enjoy about current wormhole capital warfare is, assuming no prior seeding of capitals, an aggressor can only field up to 3 capitals when taking a fight "on the other side." Despite the implementation of mobile depots (hard to effectively deploy one in combat) tactical refitting of capitals is a major part of w-space combat. With these proposed mass/jump changes refitting your dread or second carrier off of a friendly carrier goes right out the window. CCP, along with my stated reason and then many well thought out responses in this thread, I ask that you consider delaying this aspect of the Hyperion release until further discussion and study of it's affects can be studied. I am not opposed to the other changes mentioned in the devblog. Tweaking wormhole effects is well in line with other re-balancing changes that have been made since CCP Rise and Fozzie joined the team. Additionally, delaying the appearance of K162s I believe will have the desired effect of creating more risk and therefore more content. Again I do not support the change to mass based spawn distance because I firmly believe that overall it will be a detrimental change to all of wormhole activity. Thank you for your consideration.

ROSSLINDEN0 Origin. Black Legion. 265	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:03:00 - [381] - Quote Great change, i would have made the distance greater tbh i think you should consider it as 13-17km isnt far enough a snaked nanod nag with links could get back in range fast as hell so please make the distance greater or nerf the speed of mini caps, ty.
dephekt Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 20	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:04:00 - [382] - Quote So glad I left w-space before this went live. I'm trying to imagine re-living the last four/five years in a high-class WH, with this incredibly uninformed change already in place, and I'm pretty sure the majority of the PvP best content I've had would have never happened, my time in w-space would have ended abruptly, and I never would have met and fought a lot of awesome people. After all this time after adding w-space and being able to watch the activity drop out the last few years, having all the metrics, and making little to no changes along the way to get people back, I still surprised that CCP could engineer a mechanic that shows such ignorance in, and disconnection with, w-space culture and operations since their inception. All strong arguments have been made already by people that have a clue and the patience to explain, to you, how we've played your game the last 5 years, like the NoHo/AHARM/Adhoc/SSC guys. If you put this change through, I have no doubt you'll alienate a large part of what actual community still exists outside k-space. I just wanted to add to the show of disappointment and mirror the frustration as a ex-long term WH dweller that primarily flew caps and participated in the best w-space PvP the community could make with what few tools we were initially given.
fueron Origin. Black Legion. 0	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:05:00 - [383] - Quote ROSSLINDEN0 wrote: Great change, i would have made the distance greater tbh i think you should consider it as 13-17km isnt far enough a snaked nanod nag with links could get back in range fast as hell so please make the distance greater or nerf the speed of mini caps, ty. I concur. Nerf the speed otherwise it's unreasonable. Good point there.
Snakes-On-A-Plane 29	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:08:00 - [384] - Quote I'm just going to put two and two together here. I believe that WH loot has fallen in price significantly, and the purpose of this change is most likely intended to control that depreciation. It's 'very CCP' to focus on the market above all else. Look at what they have actually said about it: Quote: This change is intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption. We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space. We made the assumption that their goal was to increase conflict. But they never actually said that. Their only stated intention was to disrupt W-space operations. Think about it. We have 50-60 pages of posts saying that this won't actually increase conflict, but actually reduce conflict. And yet they soldier on with the idea, even going so far as to implement it without asking anyone's opinion. But when placed in the context of trying to disrupt loot farming, it falls neatly into place. If pursuing this goal, they don't care if people are hugging a POS for a whole day. In fact, that's ideal. The amount of conflict wouldn't actually concern them. Just so long as they aren't farming and flooding the market with the product. The frigate holes also make a lot of sense, in this context. I feel like they are cloaking their intentions. Maybe we should be trying to provide suggestions on how to control loot farming, without ruining wormhole mechanics?
Janice en Marland Cross Saber Holdings 3	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:11:00 - [385] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Lero D wrote: We are a small corporation of mostly PvE people, for the simple reason that we like and trust each other, and we also want to avoid the politics and risks of the large numbers. This change will destroy pretty much our play style by making it impossible for us to roll the WH-s. Keep in mind, we are closing the WH-s to protect ourselves, not to look for fights. If we had the numbers to provide a proper defense on the other side of the WH for the ships we use to collapse the exits, we would be a PvP corporation not PvE/Industrial. The Hammer is coming wormhollers, flee while you can to SOV with the other bears. So WHs should be worse than renting in null?
Samuel Caldara 0ne Percent. Odin's Call 23	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:15:00 - [386] - Quote One of the most frustrating aspects of wormhole living is fighting on a hisec hole. You don't have to worry about losing anything as you emerge right on the hole and you can jump back if things go poorly. The idea where lower mass ships are kicked out further is a good one. Any situation where caps are used they can be followed back and killed. In any other fight when ships come through they can be webbed and taken down by a superior force. I know you are trying to limit ragerolling, but in my mind ragerolling is a good thing. It creates new content, and pvp entities are more than willing to follow someone through with a small fleet and a probing ship if it means a good kill (orca anyone?) That said - Multi-bubble hictors will still be kicked off quite a ways making them open to being killed.
Also Rans Sleeper Trinary Research and Intelligence Project 7	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:19:00 - [387] - Quote This will surely drive out more people out for Wh space. i will be moving out
Levarr Burton B0rthole 63	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:24:00 - [388] - Quote While I support most of these changes, I cannot support the mass-based spawn distance as it currently stands. It falls victim to the same fallacy that the recent jump fuel use changes had: this change assumes that making something more difficult, slower, or more expensive disproportionately affects the largest and most powerful groups, while leaving smaller groups less negatively affected and by extension giving those smaller groups a leg up on using space. In reality, the larger and more powerful groups will be able to most rapidly and readily adapt to the new circumstances, while smaller groups will be left flailing to keep up. Traiori correctly lists several of the major effects in his post on the first page of this thread. Ultimately this change will lead to less risk being taken, and fewer confrontations. While I would prefer having any spawn distance changes delayed until after the effects of the other changes can be seen, I do have some suggestions (some my own, some pawned from this thread). 1. Maximum potential spawn distance should be inversely proportional to ship mass, but the minimum potential spawn differences should be similar regardless of mass. This would allow a greater use of kiting setups on wormholes, while also maintaining some risk to cloaky/nullified fast ships, as they could still spawn in a place where immediate cloaking would be impossible. However, this would also allow the practical and sometimes impromptu use of capitals on incoming and outgoing wormholes to continue in similar fashion as current practices. I do not see this as necessarily a bad thing. 2. Jumping one way through a wormhole should initiate a polarity timer which is proportional to the mass of the ship, or a function of the mass of the ship relative to the size of the wormhole. A covops may have a polarity timer as short as the session change. A HAC-sized ship may have a polarity timer as long as the jump cloak. A dreadnought may have a 2-4 minute polarity timer. Combined with the current (not proposed) spawn ranges, this would force rage-rolling and defensive-rolling entities to attempt some measure of hole control, while still allowing rage rolling and defensive rolling to be practical tactics in content generation. This would also allow a ballsy offensive force to jump into a prepared defensive force without being nearly guaranteed that they would be unable to get their capitals into refit ranges. 3. Sort of related to #1, ships should exit a wormhole with velocity away from the mouth of the wormhole. This would, in cases of mass-use jumping and other rolling, discourage ships from holding cloak as long as possible after a wormhole jump. When combined with #2, this would maximize the amount of time which a rolling force is exposed for, without making rolling impractical. It would force pilots to balance the relative safety of the cloak, with the time needed to return to the wormhole, and the polarization timer.
Asuri Kinnes Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 784	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:27:00 - [389] - Quote Sentamon wrote: The Hammer is coming wormhollers, flee while you can to SOV with the other bears. Says the professional forum alt in an NPC corp. Klarion Sythis wrote: For being a group of players who pride themselves on the heritage of taking a set of unknown, hard to live with mechanics and creating an entire community out of it...we sure don't seem to like figuring out new things anymore. Because WH's were fine at release with the exception of bloody Black Holes? Because "change" just to change isn't necessarily "good"? Because once again, their stated goal is actually in direct opposition to their stated fix? dephekt wrote: I just wanted to add to the show of disappointment and mirror the frustration as a ex-long term WH dweller that primarily flew caps and participated in the best w-space PvP the community could make with what few tools we were initially given. Don't think I've ever shot you before but: o7 Bob is the god of Wormholes. That's all you need to know.
Rei Moon Murderous Inc 11	Posted - 2014.08.07 02:46:00 - [390] - Quote Also Rans wrote: This will surely drive out more people out for Wh space. i will be moving out Sorry to hear that bud. But i might be unsubbing my 6 scrub-ridden accounts too.



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.