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) |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
378
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 14:57:00 -
[571] - Quote
Glasgow Dunlop wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far. Special thanks to those who are providing lots of text about the reasoning behind your feelings, as those are the most useful posts.
We're continuing to pour over all the feedback and considering multiple options for adjustments to the plan based on what we're hearing. We probably won't have something new to announce for a couple days but we want you to know that we are listening and working hard behind the scenes in the meantime. The best plan would be to leave the mechanics as it with regard to hole jumping, or put this mechanic on every jumpbrigde, cyno and titan bridge, afterall, these are man made wormholes to an extent. . . . .
Fozzie, Kidding aside. I'd like to hear your reasoning for only doing this to the wh mechanice or that you are going to RISK UP the others (cyno, bridges).
Please don't consider multiple options for adjustments. You either come out in jump range and can control the wh or not. This isn't horseshoes, this is moving a slow turning lumbering BUMPABLE capital ship. If it's not in jump range and I see it coming odds are pretty high that i can bump it further without any trouble. WH folks are good at bumping T3 cruisers off of wh, so bumping a moros is a no brainer. 6km off the wh is equivalent to 40km off the wh.
Really, it's a great mechanic that has provided several years of wh pvp epicness. Not broke..... don't fix. Not broke.... don't adjust. |
Xela Kcaneoh
The Pirates Of Orion
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 14:58:00 -
[572] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Why does your satisfaction even matter here, CCP? I do not buy Eve for forced player interaction. How many small corps must be evicted before CCP is "satisfied" with the interaction quotient?
I think you forget that while thousands are watching your massive Eve combat events, there are still thousands more enjoying the anti-social nature of a "space frontier". And we're paying the same membership fee as the more social players. If you feel like I'm "cockblocking" this solar system, then make more W-systems. Why must I be evicted because I choose to live in a small social group rather than a larger one?
Honestly, I think these new WH ideas are ultimately aimed to make independent (small corp) life impossible in W-space. CCP, prove me wrong. |
Steven Hackett
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:05:00 -
[573] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far. Special thanks to those who are providing lots of text about the reasoning behind your feelings, as those are the most useful posts.
We're continuing to pour over all the feedback and considering multiple options for adjustments to the plan based on what we're hearing. We probably won't have something new to announce for a couple days but we want you to know that we are listening and working hard behind the scenes in the meantime. I wrote a very nonconstructive post earlier explaining how constructive criticism is useless when giving feedback to you guys. Your post here proves exactly that. So thank you for showing that while you say you listen, you actually don't.. All you do is try to salvage what was a awful game design idea so you, by the end of the day, still have something to show for all the hours you have wasted..
Ever heard of the phrases:
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it." and "Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them." (think this one is Bruce Lee btw.)
Here is my constructive criticism: I don't want your change, cause it doesn't add anything of value to the game. It only adds grief, frustration and it limits our amount of content .
Here is my idea to a solution: Be a man, admit your mistake, stop trying to fix what isn't broken.. |
Alundil
Isogen 5
632
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:09:00 -
[574] - Quote
Rhavas has a nice write-up here http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/wormholes-not-gates/ as well.
His recommendation follows that of the majority of the wspace pilots posting here.
In short - most of the announced changes are good ones. The mass/jump variance is not one of those good things.
Kill it.
I'm right behind you |
Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
96
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:16:00 -
[575] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. [/quote]
The Problem I see here with your explaination / justification is the following.
How easy and safe it is to close wormholes is as well easy and safe to roll the wormholes. So where you force "risk-adverse" Players to accept more potential conflict (which could also drive them out of w-space Overall if the feel risk is now to big and not worth the effort) you are hindering as well those parties who use this "easy and safe" mechanic to drive conflicts. I have read with interest stories about ragerolling higher-class wormhole inhabitants to find again a specific wormhole to escalate a conflict. For my understanding this will be more difficult now and the question is, whether all parties can / are willing to make the efforts like before. I really have some serious doubts that you reach the Goal with this idea. Correct me please if I see that wrong.
And then there still remain the big issues you create for the smaller groups in w-space! Less inhabitants means less conflict for pvp-driven Players. Less pvp for them, even if it's just ganking a T1 Drake in a lower class wormhole could mean they move out looking for other opportunities. And what I very often understand from reading wormhole Forum section is that wormhole Players have tried and don't like K-Space life, doesn't matter if for political reason in 0.0, being bored in HiSec or lowsec.
my 2 Cents at the Moment. |
Anize Oramara
EVE Protection Agency Bloodline.
212
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:20:00 -
[576] - Quote
look ccp, I get it, you guys spent tons of dev time on this and you have to justify it. I work in a large corp and I get it. but from your reply fozzy I can see its obvious that this change is in one way, shape or form going to go through regardless of what everyone is saying. im not going to discuss too much from where the pressure to implement this comes from (pride, cfc, director, etc.) but this is going to be the mini can explosion fiasco all over again. everyone told you it was a bad idea and eventually with a whole lot of egg on ccp's face you eventually removed it. dont let it get to that point. just accept that you made a mistake and focus on the fact that most of the other changes are actually being accepted by the wh community (I never thought id see the day honestly)
dont let this one change **** up a potentially acceptable wh patch. just let it go. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1694
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:24:00 -
[577] - Quote
As risk averse farmers leave, the value of sleeper salvage should rise. Hopefully players willing to take risk in order to make isk, will take the place of all the players that left. +1 |
Shade Skystrike
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:28:00 -
[578] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Dark Armata wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.
Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure. Posting this here as well for visibility. So despite pages of replies across 2 threads. This comment only proves you are not listening at all to the player feedback you requested as you are still spending more development time on this. Honestly, as someone said earlier; Pull this one part of Hyperion and wormholers will hail this the best update ever. Some amazing stuff in the dev blog, please don't ruin it. Please. 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. EDIT: After rereading my post I feel I should clarify, considering the impact of a feature on gameplay and user experience is also part of being a QA analyst, its just not my place to comment on that on the forums!
Once again you're not listening! How about this guys: Roll out the update WITHOUT the freaking mass ejection modification, and then see how we respond. Then ask us, yes ASK US the players who PAY YOUR PAYCHECK to evaluate what we would like to see next! You guys have many games coming up on the horizon that threaten you. Start listening, or die like the rest. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:30:00 -
[579] - Quote
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. The Problem I see here with your explaination / justification is the following. How easy and safe it is to close wormholes is as well easy and safe to roll the wormholes. So where you force "risk-adverse" Players to accept more potential conflict (which could also drive them out of w-space Overall if the feel risk is now to big and not worth the effort) you are hindering as well those parties who use this "easy and safe" mechanic to drive conflicts. I have read with interest stories about ragerolling higher-class wormhole inhabitants to find again a specific wormhole to escalate a conflict. For my understanding this will be more difficult now and the question is, whether all parties can / are willing to make the efforts like before. I really have some serious doubts that you reach the Goal with this idea. Correct me please if I see that wrong. And then there still remain the big issues you create for the smaller groups in w-space! Less inhabitants means less conflict for pvp-driven Players. Less pvp for them, even if it's just ganking a T1 Drake in a lower class wormhole could mean they move out looking for other opportunities. And what I very often understand from reading wormhole Forum section is that wormhole Players have tried and don't like K-Space life, doesn't matter if for political reason in 0.0, being bored in HiSec or lowsec. my 2 Cents at the Moment.
What is is about wormhole residents then that dictates that they will not occupy space unless they absolutely have a guaranteed way to isolate their system whenever desired? (Ok, that's a bit of hyperbole but it is very close to what is being declared here repeatedly) The threat of conflict will simply force people to leave? Aren't we all under the constant threat of conflict?
I hate the HTFU ideal but seriously, at some point people need to HTFU here. What do low-sec and null-sec entities do when then have threat of conflict? They either ship up or dock up. It really isn't any different for wormhole space except the aspects of a lack of reinforcement avenues. In some ways I wish there was the capability to allow for only WH to WH cynos and only from unconnected chains. It would make for some interesting dynamics. |
Rivka
Wind And Flame Stellar Eclipse
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:39:00 -
[580] - Quote
Xela Kcaneoh wrote:Why does your satisfaction even matter here, CCP? I do not buy Eve for forced player interaction. How many small corps must be evicted before CCP is "satisfied" with the interaction quotient?
...
Why must I be evicted because I choose to live in a small social group rather than a larger one?
Honestly, I think these new WH ideas are ultimately aimed to make independent (small corp) life impossible in W-space. CCP, prove me wrong.
Again, I cannot say this enough ... Please empower small fleets, and small corps. ^^
Larger class ships emerging from a wormhole is /really/ quite beside the point... Should they be able to burn back? etc, etc... with mechanics like "Bumping Capital Ships" at work ... this is kind of a MOOT argument.
BUT. With frigates and cruisers, this is a whole different scenario.
Small Wolf Pack Corps /need/ mobility, so emerging at a greater distance from a wormhole would be advantageous, and would also help them secure the space for BS and Capitals to come in.
Please DO give preference to SMALLER mass ships, invert the proposed equation. Or have separate equations depending on the ship ROLE.
emergeDistance(astrometricsSkills, shipMass, shipRole, standingForStarGateAndJumpGates) ...
I would think that the MAX range from the gate should be 100km, with FULL astrometrics / Recon skills, and that only recon ships should have the max advantage.
|
|
Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
96
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:41:00 -
[581] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:
What is is about wormhole residents then that dictates that they will not occupy space unless they absolutely have a guaranteed way to isolate their system whenever desired? (Ok, that's a bit of hyperbole but it is very close to what is being declared here repeatedly) .
That is just Not possible and your Statement is incorrect. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
57
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:44:00 -
[582] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Fluffi Flaffi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. The Problem I see here with your explaination / justification is the following. How easy and safe it is to close wormholes is as well easy and safe to roll the wormholes. So where you force "risk-adverse" Players to accept more potential conflict (which could also drive them out of w-space Overall if the feel risk is now to big and not worth the effort) you are hindering as well those parties who use this "easy and safe" mechanic to drive conflicts. I have read with interest stories about ragerolling higher-class wormhole inhabitants to find again a specific wormhole to escalate a conflict. For my understanding this will be more difficult now and the question is, whether all parties can / are willing to make the efforts like before. I really have some serious doubts that you reach the Goal with this idea. Correct me please if I see that wrong. And then there still remain the big issues you create for the smaller groups in w-space! Less inhabitants means less conflict for pvp-driven Players. Less pvp for them, even if it's just ganking a T1 Drake in a lower class wormhole could mean they move out looking for other opportunities. And what I very often understand from reading wormhole Forum section is that wormhole Players have tried and don't like K-Space life, doesn't matter if for political reason in 0.0, being bored in HiSec or lowsec. my 2 Cents at the Moment. What is is about wormhole residents then that dictates that they will not occupy space unless they absolutely have a guaranteed way to isolate their system whenever desired? (Ok, that's a bit of hyperbole but it is very close to what is being declared here repeatedly) The threat of conflict will simply force people to leave? Aren't we all under the constant threat of conflict? I hate the HTFU ideal but seriously, at some point people need to HTFU here. What do low-sec and null-sec entities do when then have threat of conflict? They either ship up or dock up. It really isn't any different for wormhole space except the aspects of a lack of reinforcement avenues. In some ways I wish there was the capability to allow for only WH to WH cynos and only from unconnected chains. It would make for some interesting dynamics.
There is always the threat of conflict, people are complaining about adding more of it. In null or low sec you avoid the threat of conflict by moving a couple jumps over. or you cyno to a different area completely and run pve there.
|
Bronya Boga
Isogen 5
412
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:51:00 -
[583] - Quote
Hi fozzie. I think with this recent dev blog you got 5/6 feature that are amazing (at least imho).
So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump.
I am CEO of a corp that isnt large (by wormhole standards) so I often find myself and my corpmates outnumbered which means we often have to use mass to our advantage to limit how much the enemy can bring against us. One of the prominent ways many corporations do that is by using caps and other heavy mass ships and jumping them both ways in quick succession. This is a common strategy that can decide the course of a fight.
Now before I continue I want to first address your statement of why you made such a change. You claim it is to make rage rolling more difficult and dangerous, however larger corporations such as Hard Knocks, Lazerhawks, SSC, ect. Have no issue placing caps in danger because they have the membership base to back up those capitals if they are cought.
Smaller groups such as mine (while we havent had the chance to use this tactic yet) relish in the prospect of throwing dreds at larger entities ON THE CHANCE that we can limit the assets they bring using combat rolling capital. With this change such an action would be suicide for the cap and force us to choose to engage in an unfortunate one sided slaughter to supirior numbers or request an arranged fight where many of their members will lose on content or they will all together decide we would be worth their time. If non of those options are available we are left with no choice but to stay in our pos which we hate doing.
I ask that you reconsider this feature completely. No iteration of a change that reduces the value of tactics and quick responces while rewarding higher membership count is beneficial to the life style wormholers have enjoyed in the past years.
I hope I have made an appealing case and that you would think on this heavily.
Otherwise this expansion is fantastic. Host of Down The Pipe-áIngame Channel DTP Podcast www.downthepipe-wh.com GÇïIsogen 5 is recruiting. Check us out
|
Rivka
Wind And Flame Stellar Eclipse
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:53:00 -
[584] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
CCP Fozzie:
Giving Small Class pilots further distance from gates allows them to make this decision to engage other players or not ... It adds a great deal of tension because there is still the possibility of them being pulled into a conflict... and they HAVE to be alert. This still accomplishes your goal of player exposure.
Sure, it should be much more difficult to collapse wormholes. BUT, this should be done in a trade-off, that there are other means to defend a System... Give POS types specific bonuses in wormhole space to compensate.
I believe that CCP MUST write these design goals in a sticky post somewhere so we all know what you are striving to achieve.
I would like to suggest this mild correction:
The ulimate experience in Eve Online, the greatest satisfaction, the greatest risk/reward, should come from interaction with other players.
It is the case that players desire, and often NEED to choose, to find that tension through PvP, or less hostile methods, (such as ratting in low/null).
In the case of wormhole "Emergence" it IS the case that there is a greater sense of tension--though tempered with the fact there is no default local channel ... (Which I believe should be the case everywhere).
That being said, always allow players to engage others. But ALSO provide players to pick and choose their fights when confronted--give us the option to retreat. Industrialists and Recon/Explorers should have the advantages at retreat. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1694
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:56:00 -
[585] - Quote
Bronya Boga wrote:Hi fozzie. So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump.
Are you against the idea completely or would it help if caps only appeared 5km out of jump range, for example?
+1 |
Hatshepsut IV
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
193
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:59:00 -
[586] - Quote
I feel like an adult telling a kid over and over that if they eat the whole box of cookies they are going to be sick.........
Living in wormholes has made eve for me, I never truly enjoyed and invested myself in the other gameplay options. They didn't interest me.
A lot of us almost think the reason w-space is currently so awesome in regard's to mechanics compared to the rest of eve is sheer accidental blind luck. Sure we have small nitpicks but by and large a lot of the core mechanics of w-space. (Polarity/mass/statics and no local) are why we are here. They are why we subscribe and struggle and work.
Wormholes have let me grow my corp beyond 2 guys starting out into something that im seriously proud of. A big part of how and why that happened was the ability to efficiently roll holes in the search for pvp/pve. Unlike null/low/high sec we are not guaranteed content.
There are no missions, bounties or anything that are permanent. Even our POS can be taken down/run out of fuel. Everything we play with in w-space is at risk. No other space in eve has this. Even if you lose a war in null there are still stations and places things can be saved. If you **** off the wrong person or just are in the wrong place you can lose it all in w-space.
Despite all this we find it compelling to be here, despite the fact that some days we can literally spend 5-8 hours rolling and scouting and not find a fight, we come back and do it again the next day.
Changes to the way we can roll holes affect this dynamic. Fair fights are a minority its reality....part of the head games that go on is sizing up the opposing force and figuring out what you can do to get the advantage. Polarity and the jumping things back/massing the hole is a big part of our tactics.
Quote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snfi2AsJu_c
Watch that video, fights like that is what this change will kill. If this is the type of gameplay you feel isn't compelling/doesn't provide content and value then go right ahead.
You CCP have that your gameplay experience in nullsec isn't what it could be. The mechanics in place which basically mean once a fight is engaged your there win or lose lend themselves to the massive blobs and powerblocs that dominate there. Currently in w-space you can take a fight that isn't a sure thing and retreat back through the hole into a more advantageous position. This change will promote the same type of environment in w-space
Taking away that option will end exactly where people have described, less total fights and engagements short of derpy people losing ships they would likely lose under the current system already.
This change will mean the era of small corps rolling for engagements in their range will likely end, it means rolling over holes during off times will likely just stop. Things will slowdown, this is bad for w-space and therefore bad for the whole game.
We truly want to believe that you have our best interests in mind, prove it to us and don't kill off our way of life. You too can start failing today! Reddit-áad | Cascading Failure Public Channel | Aspiring Failure
|
Bronya Boga
Isogen 5
413
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:03:00 -
[587] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Bronya Boga wrote:Hi fozzie. So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump. Are you against the idea completely or would it help if caps only appeared 5km out of jump range, for example?
I am against it completely. Host of Down The Pipe-áIngame Channel DTP Podcast www.downthepipe-wh.com GÇïIsogen 5 is recruiting. Check us out
|
Rivka
Wind And Flame Stellar Eclipse
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:04:00 -
[588] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Bronya Boga wrote:Hi fozzie. So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump. Are you against the idea completely or would it help if caps only appeared 5km out of jump range, for example?
I agree that there should be a distinction in these mechanics based on ship roles. I especially believe that frigates and recons should get the most distance.
The safety of battleships and dreads/carriers quite beside the point, and changes should not be made to them. (Maybe a little for battleships).
Incursions into wormhole space should be possible. Starting with small ships and working upwards... This can only happen if recons and frigates have some advantages. |
Bronya Boga
Isogen 5
413
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:15:00 -
[589] - Quote
Rivka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Bronya Boga wrote:Hi fozzie. So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump. Are you against the idea completely or would it help if caps only appeared 5km out of jump range, for example? I agree that there should be a distinction in these mechanics based on ship roles. I especially believe that frigates and recons should get the most distance. The safety of battleships and dreads/carriers quite beside the point, and changes should not be made to them. (Maybe a little for battleships). Incursions into wormhole space should be possible. Starting with small ships and working upwards... This can only happen if recons and frigates have some advantages.
I would argue agaisnt scouts spawning far from the wormhole as well. Catching scouts that are jumping into your system or a scout that can stay alive while hunted when entering a system is a show of how good someone is. Its a vital part of learning to scout in wormholes imho, and I say this as a scout and having 90% of my membership being scouts. Host of Down The Pipe-áIngame Channel DTP Podcast www.downthepipe-wh.com GÇïIsogen 5 is recruiting. Check us out
|
Snakes-On-A-Plane
36
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:28:00 -
[590] - Quote
Kirasten wrote:Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote: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? I'd actually like to see this post answered. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but it is thought provoking at the very least. Thanks for picking up on that. I don't agree or disagree either, and think it might be a little bit of tin-foil hattery tbh.
But at the same time, it fits the facts very neatly. |
|
Qalix
Four Pillars Brothers of Tangra
291
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:31:00 -
[591] - Quote
I don't live in WHs, so I don't have a lot to say about this. However, one thing that I thought was pretty cool, but not quite fair, about WH space is that by rolling the hole, you effectively turn the WH system into a giant spaceship that can fly anywhere in EVE (with a few exceptions). It's just like a TARDIS: travel, peek your head out the door, decide if you like what you see, if not, close the door, travel, peek, repeat. There's a lot to like about it, but the residents of the WH system aren't trading off much for what amounts to the ultimate in travel logistics. |
Rivka
Wind And Flame Stellar Eclipse
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:31:00 -
[592] - Quote
Bronya Boga wrote:
I would argue agaisnt scouts spawning far from the wormhole as well. Catching scouts that are jumping into your system or a scout that can stay alive while hunted when entering a system is a show of how good someone is. Its a vital part of learning to scout in wormholes imho, and I say this as a scout and having 90% of my membership being scouts.
Why should you punish recons and scouts who have invested so much SP and ISK into these roles?
It seems there is great consensus that carriers/titans/dreads should not be affected.
So, at least a discussion on smaller classes is merited.
Why shouldn't certain roles, (such as recons, scouts, cloaky haulers), get a bonus to the distance they spawn from gates?
I will go even further and state that these changes should affect /ALL/ gates, stargates, and jumpgates...
This would even help get more cruisers into faction warfare. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1694
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:32:00 -
[593] - Quote
With the new wormhole spawning mechanic (not showing up until you jump) i think rage rolling will still be very easy and the risks will still be minimal.
For capitals you will simply need to warp to the closest planet and back. The orca can just be fitted with a MWD and other propulsion upgrades to burn back to the hole.
The biggest danger will be in rolling an old hole. +1 |
Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
96
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:32:00 -
[594] - Quote
Rivka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Bronya Boga wrote:Hi fozzie. So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump. Are you against the idea completely or would it help if caps only appeared 5km out of jump range, for example? I agree that there should be a distinction in these mechanics based on ship roles. I especially believe that frigates and recons should get the most distance. The safety of battleships and dreads/carriers quite beside the point, and changes should not be made to them. (Maybe a little for battleships). Incursions into wormhole space should be possible. Starting with small ships and working upwards... This can only happen if recons and frigates have some advantages.
Dear Rivka
Again this will cause the complete opposite. If you as a scout spawn 100km off the WH nobody can tackle you. So this inital conflict is already eliminated with the new system. Then you can easily observe whether you want to engage or not. Nowadays if you jump through a wormhole with a scout and face a camp you most of the times have to react immediately and therefore have the conflict CCP wants to have. You get decloaked maybe by cans or you have just 2 quick options. Jump back and get caought by enemy scouts / tacklers or try to burn away first anc cloak.
And if the camp looks engageable for you you engage now and as well with the new mass feature they plan. |
CraftyCroc
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
237
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:36:00 -
[595] - Quote
I think the other ~30 pages have hit the nail on the head.
|
Rivka
Wind And Flame Stellar Eclipse
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:43:00 -
[596] - Quote
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
Dear Rivka
Again this will cause the complete opposite. If you as a scout spawn 100km off the WH nobody can tackle you. So this inital conflict is already eliminated with the new system. Then you can easily observe whether you want to engage or not. Nowadays if you jump through a wormhole with a scout and face a camp you most of the times have to react immediately and therefore have the conflict CCP wants to have. You get decloaked maybe by cans or you have just 2 quick options. Jump back and get caought by enemy scouts / tacklers or try to burn away first anc cloak.
And if the camp looks engageable for you you engage now and as well with the new mass feature they plan.
I think you have stated what I would like perfectly.
EXCEPT: I believe the luxury of spawning 100km away from a wormhole/gate should be reserved for specific ROLES, like recon, cloaky haulers, etc, who have heavily invested SP and ISK into those roles, (specifically navigation, astrometrics, recon, cloaking, etc).
I believe they should get the greatest advantages when it comes to spawning distances.
This gives gate camping a vulnerability--and not always a sure win, and not always some massive slug fest, but a more surgical and tactical outcome. :) |
Steven Hackett
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
41
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:49:00 -
[597] - Quote
Rivka wrote:Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
Dear Rivka
Again this will cause the complete opposite. If you as a scout spawn 100km off the WH nobody can tackle you. So this inital conflict is already eliminated with the new system. Then you can easily observe whether you want to engage or not. Nowadays if you jump through a wormhole with a scout and face a camp you most of the times have to react immediately and therefore have the conflict CCP wants to have. You get decloaked maybe by cans or you have just 2 quick options. Jump back and get caought by enemy scouts / tacklers or try to burn away first anc cloak.
And if the camp looks engageable for you you engage now and as well with the new mass feature they plan.
I think you have stated what I would like perfectly. EXCEPT: I believe the luxury of spawning 100km away from a wormhole/gate should be reserved for specific ROLES, like recon, cloaky haulers, etc, who have heavily invested SP and ISK into those roles, (specifically navigation, astrometrics, recon, cloaking, etc). I believe they should get the greatest advantages when it comes to spawning distances. This gives gate camping a vulnerability--and not always a sure win, and not always some massive slug fest, but a more surgical and tactical outcome. :) So instead of just giving the ships bonuses that makes them insanely hard to catch(if flown properly), you want to make them impossible to catch... The ships you mention are already pretty easy to fly trough gatecamps.. I rather often fly both recons and cloaky haulers and tbh. if you get caught, you are either very unlucky, or bad :o
As for the actual proposed changes, I think the opinion is pretty clear.. Now its up to CCP whether they want a happy community and a healthy game, or continue down the dark road they are on. |
Qalix
Four Pillars Brothers of Tangra
292
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:52:00 -
[598] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:With the new wormhole spawning mechanic (not showing up until you jump) i think rage rolling will still be very easy and the risks will still be minimal.
For capitals you will simply need to warp to the closest planet and back. The orca can just be fitted with a MWD and other propulsion upgrades to burn back to the hole.
The biggest danger will be in rolling an old hole. You're behind the times. Check that thread; they're adding a timer. |
Bronya Boga
Isogen 5
414
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 17:01:00 -
[599] - Quote
Rivka wrote:Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
Dear Rivka
Again this will cause the complete opposite. If you as a scout spawn 100km off the WH nobody can tackle you. So this inital conflict is already eliminated with the new system. Then you can easily observe whether you want to engage or not. Nowadays if you jump through a wormhole with a scout and face a camp you most of the times have to react immediately and therefore have the conflict CCP wants to have. You get decloaked maybe by cans or you have just 2 quick options. Jump back and get caought by enemy scouts / tacklers or try to burn away first anc cloak.
And if the camp looks engageable for you you engage now and as well with the new mass feature they plan.
I think you have stated what I would like perfectly. EXCEPT: I believe the luxury of spawning 100km away from a wormhole/gate should be reserved for specific ROLES, like recon, cloaky haulers, etc, who have heavily invested SP and ISK into those roles, (specifically navigation, astrometrics, recon, cloaking, etc). I believe they should get the greatest advantages when it comes to spawning distances. This gives gate camping a vulnerability--and not always a sure win, and not always some massive slug fest, but a more surgical and tactical outcome. :)
If your scout gets cought by a camped wh. You are just bad at it and need more practice. I havent lost a scout in a VERY long time and catching cloaky haulers is difficult in itself why would you want to make it even harder? Host of Down The Pipe-áIngame Channel DTP Podcast www.downthepipe-wh.com GÇïIsogen 5 is recruiting. Check us out
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 17:07:00 -
[600] - Quote
Bronya Boga wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Bronya Boga wrote:Hi fozzie. So lets talk about that 1/6, the disturbing feature that makes orcas spawn 11k and caps spawn up to 20k away from the wormhole after they jump. Are you against the idea completely or would it help if caps only appeared 5km out of jump range, for example? I am against it completely.
When is the next DTP podcast being recorded? Look forward to hearing you talk about this. |
|
|
|
|
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 |