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) |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3608
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:32:00 -
[631] - Quote
Sith1s Spectre wrote:Also, the people in the lower down holes should be pushing for these changes to go through because if it reduces the amount of farming holes - it can only be a good thing for your nanoribbon prices and gas prices. come on man, the large groups dont give 2 fks about the extra risk because they can protect their rolling fleets. it actually has the exact opposite result to what youre saying; it screws the small corps, who can't protect their rollers, and hugely benefits the large corps who can.
saying this will have any effect on nano prices is extremely naive. It won't.
PS: If you dont believe me, go back and look at who is happy about this change. The vast majority are people who spend their WH lives in large C5/6 'elite pvp' groups. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
Chicken Exroofer
Regional Assault and Recon
13
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:33:00 -
[632] - Quote
Since CCP appears to be actually following this thread.............
We live in a c3/low static. Have for years. The collective changes proposed for wormholes will have this result for us.
1) We will be less active in the hole, except for cloaked alts keeping an eye on traffic. Provides LESS content for others.
2) We will increase the number of PI alts we have, they log on for 15 minutes every 4 days. LESS content for others. If a no implant alt in a hauler gets blown up once in a while by frig roams, we won't care.
3) We will run sleeper sites only under very specific conditions, meaning few cross holes to watch. LESS content for others.
4) We will probably never mine, ever, something we do now fairly regularly. LESS content for others.
5) Under current conditions, we balance risk vs. reward. Every so often we get blown up, once in a while blow someone else up. Under new conditions, the risk vs reward means we will take less risks, LESS content for us/others.
6) Under incoming conditions, our hisec mission runners will probably train up to incursion runners. And provide LESS content for others.
7) Even a carebear at heart like me gets tired of shooting red crosses. Eventually this will result in 4 lost accounts for CCP. Sooner rather than later if this type of silliness continues. LESS content for others.
A large portion of this thread espouses the viewpoints of higher class wh dwellers. They make many valid points. Now you propose to scatter their rolling/pvp fleet all over space when they enter my wormhole. If what I see on my scout makes me think we can engage successfully, we will. Wait, doesn't that create more content? No, it doesn't, because under your proposed changes, as they have stated, they only need to not jump through, and the K162 won't spawn on my side.
LESS content. More hassle. Less players who already have a lot of things to deal with in wormhole life. Less Eve players.
LESS content.
Of all the things that are just silly, last patch, (taxing my own facilities by an npc entity for research/industry in the wh? Really?) and now more changes which will generate LESS content, not more, you couldn't come up with something better?
*No none of you can haz my stuff!
|
Sith1s Spectre
Hard Knocks Inc.
1136
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:38:00 -
[633] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Sith1s Spectre wrote:Also, the people in the lower down holes should be pushing for these changes to go through because if it reduces the amount of farming holes - it can only be a good thing for your nanoribbon prices and gas prices. come on man, the large groups dont give 2 fks about the extra risk because they can protect their rolling fleets. it actually has the exact opposite result to what youre saying; it screws the small corps, who can't protect their rollers, and hugely benefits the large corps who can. saying this will have any effect on nano prices is extremely naive. It won't. PS: If you dont believe me, go back and look at who is happy about this change. The vast majority are people who spend their WH lives in large C5/6 'elite pvp' groups.
Sorry, but I don't agree.
I cannot think of a single time in the last 2 years that these changes would have made a difference when rolling holes apart from being a minor inconvenience.
The reality is if you're warping a cap to a hole where another group is already camping it and set up it's going to die anyway, AU tz best tz
|
J0HN SHEPPARD
The Icarus Expedition The Daedalus Imperium
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:43:00 -
[634] - 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. However, the suggestion in the edits could very dramatically change fleet composition, where currently we are all but forced to fly Proteus fleets (or other close range brawlers). I get that the goal is to increase the danger of our regular activities, but looking at the big picture of your current suggestion will force smaller corporations into one of 2 choices:
- consolidate into larger entities
- leave w-space
We have said many times in many places that what we really want are MORE PEOPLE in wormholes, (and to that end more small to medium size groups of people are far better than more large entities). Find a way to entice more people into wormholes, and the danger will take care of itself.
couldn't be said better! These changes support large numbers or big groups, but then what's gonna happen to the small groups. Small Groups Can already hardly manage to operate. This whole WH things is already dangerous enough!! |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:43:00 -
[635] - Quote
Sith1s Spectre wrote:Orange Aideron wrote:+1
Shake the Ant Farm!
I think we'll adapt. Here's why:
WH's are hard. That's why we conquered them. They challenged us, so we made them work for us.
Do these changes have an effect on WH life? of course they do. Will there be a mass exodus from WHs because of the changes? I doubt it. Just as before, we will figure out new ways to roll, and will probably figure out new ways to counter roll.
In fact the only thing I see most effected is solo expo and small cap expo fleets. And that has been an op ISK making venture in the game for a long time (we'd all admit that).
I say bring it on the changes. We will adapt. QFT I'm going to go against what most people are saying and say these changes are good. All it will do is add more risk to closing connections (and an extra minute tops to closing holes) and affect all the small farming holes that we all have (come on, own up to it. Almost every big group many people with alt farming holes) Also, the people in the lower down holes should be pushing for these changes to go through because if it reduces the amount of farming holes - it can only be a good thing for your nanoribbon prices and gas prices.
+1 Finally someone else with some courage! We will all adapt and wormholes will be better for it. Director Swift Angels Alliance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3247397#post3247397 INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:55:00 -
[636] - Quote
To Fozzie! If you do redesign this please just lessen the impact (ie make the distance a little less) the proposed mechanic itself will shake things up which is what wormhole space needs. Again I'll reiterate that I hope you give null sec the same shake up! Director Swift Angels Alliance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3247397#post3247397 INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public |
Bibosikus
Flowery Twats
191
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 00:11:00 -
[637] - 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. EDIT: A better solution would be to invert the numbers: have distance landed be proportional to a function of mass and speed, making it so that lighter and faster ships landing further away from the hole. This would allow us to use kiting HACs as well as brawling T3s. EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be inversely proportional to mass (higher mass=close) and directly proportional to maximum speed (higher maximum speed = further away).
Traiori makes the most salient and convincing points in the (to date) 32 pages of this thread. And he makes them on the very first page.
QED.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
386
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 00:37:00 -
[638] - Quote
Andiedeath wrote:To Fozzie! If you do redesign this please just lessen the impact (ie make the distance a little less) the proposed mechanic itself will shake things up which is what wormhole space needs. Again I'll reiterate that I hope you give null sec the same shake up!
I just reviewed you kb. It's impressive, but not really wh related for the most part. I welcome your viewpoint, but with this character I'll have to weight your opinions with your lack of wh experiences. (really a great kb though - I may be applying based on how things turn out here) |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
267
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 01:16:00 -
[639] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Andiedeath wrote:To Fozzie! If you do redesign this please just lessen the impact (ie make the distance a little less) the proposed mechanic itself will shake things up which is what wormhole space needs. Again I'll reiterate that I hope you give null sec the same shake up! I just reviewed you kb. It's impressive, but not really wh related for the most part. I welcome your viewpoint, but with this character I'll have to weight your opinions with your lack of wh experiences. (really a great kb though - I may be applying based on how things turn out here)
LOL! My killboard isnt anything to go on. I run public lowsec roams once a week so its a bit skewed... And when I'm in wormhole space I am usually doing admin stuff. ;) I think you will find though we are very active in wormhole space and have been for the last 18 months. My point of view is based on that experience which is mostly AU timezone (the timezone in W-Space has been growing fast but is still not at the level of the EU/US timezones).
Also note even though I support the change, I can also understand the C5/C6 blocks worry... As the people that usually roll wormholes will have to some how get their lazy corpies that sit in POS shields all day (while playing DOTA) to actually help them find pvp/pve. :) Director Swift Angels Alliance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3247397#post3247397 INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public |
Edward Harris
Lazerhawks
26
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 01:36:00 -
[640] - Quote
Since this is not Null we are talking about, I really want to put emphasis on this - In W-Space, many fights happen on wormholes. If dreads land too far away from carriers, a refit is not possible, and the fight is lost against the defending fleet, which can warp to whichever range it pleases as one.
This change will not provide the content you are looking for - it will perhaps provide ganks, but thats it. Pilots will become much more risk averse and less pvp will happen.
Please realize the difference in mechanics we are talking about - mass limitations, no cynos, nothing you can effectively do when your dread lands 20km away from your carrier.
|
|
Svodola Darkfury
Heaven's End League of Infamy
405
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 01:53:00 -
[641] - Quote
Edward Harris wrote:Since this is not Null we are talking about, I really want to put emphasis on this - In W-Space, many fights happen on wormholes. If dreads land too far away from carriers, a refit is not possible, and the fight is lost against the defending fleet, which can warp to whichever range it pleases as one.
This change will not provide the content you are looking for - it will perhaps provide ganks, but thats it. Pilots will become much more risk averse and less pvp will happen.
Please realize the difference in mechanics we are talking about - mass limitations, no cynos, nothing you can effectively do when your dread lands 20km away from your carrier.
As the CEO of a small C5 corp, here's exactly what was said when heard about this change.
"Okay guys, plated battleships will only land about 1km off of jump range, so if we have to crush a C5 we'll just run 4 battleships in the place of that carrier and not bother risking it."
There's no reason for this change. If you want to drop a carrier on a hole now, it's already one of the slowest, easiest targets to catch. As Jack has pointed out through out this thread, we're already a bunch of risk averse individuals running from crevice to crevice, do you really think anybody is going to risk a carrier or dread to crush when it's going to be faster to warp it off grid and back? No. They're not.
Maybe some the big C5/C6 corps with more people and money than God on their side, but the rest of us? Forget about it.
Svo. CEO of Heaven's End; Bad League of Legends Player. |
Korozaa
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:25:00 -
[642] - Quote
Don't post much - but prompted by my corp to give my two cents.
It makes a fun challenging environment tedious. Can you tell me why I don't see any changes that favor small group play? |
Tom Dirtdiver
Imperium of Suns E.B.O.L.A.
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:27:00 -
[643] - Quote
CCP is once again a master of ignoranz and abuse. Ignoranz to their own creativty and abuse from the CSM...
WH Space is in the most cases the home of small and middle sized corps, starting from 5 to 50 Members.
The only reason i see in this changes are they dont want the lil ones survive in the WH Space. Any other reasons are fake or simply lies.
The only group who gets their sugar out of this deal, are the big ones, who can afford great escortfleets for Roling or Closing Holes.
We WH Citizens are aware, if we live in High/Low/Null Sec we need to obey to the Empires, and i dont mean the NPC Empires... But in WH Space we are Masters of our own luck. There are days we win, and are days we loose. But to change a working system only for the Sake of changing, damn, if thats now the case at CCP, than some ppl should look for a new work to do.
The only reason to violently get this changes to work, is to Terraform the WH Space a great distance nearer to NullSec...
The time of this game are over who it was a Sandbox, it gets every year closer to what the big ones want, they get it. They only sell it cheap as a Sandbox.
I feel like this is a slow big merchandise campaign of a big firm...
Panem et circenses |
Marra Moto
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:32:00 -
[644] - Quote
We have lived in c5 black hole when nobody wanted them. We made it home for 4 years. We are just a small group of friends. This change will totally destroy our play style. CCP is Killing the small corps with this change. |
Zic Izia
Dark Debts Inc
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:34:00 -
[645] - Quote
Hey,
I run a small industrial corp that i have some friends come in and out of as they need a safe haven. I also spend a lot of time in lower C wormholes with this corp or with another sister corp. This kills the way I enjoy my wh. Do I button up? Yes.
Do I still lose ships closing holes, mining, etc? Yes. This just makes it too difficult with 2-3 friends to enjoy our slice of EvE.
I'm just hugely disappointed. There were so many ways to go without changing existing features for the worse. |
Zan Ward
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:42:00 -
[646] - Quote
Boo? I've flown logistics for at least a year and a half with my core group, and I think we're about ready to failscade based on these changes.
That's on us, but it doesn't seem like we're alone. |
MicroNova
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 04:14:00 -
[647] - Quote
CCP Fozzie's states the Dev's intentions for the Hyperion patch are:
1) Create some variety and excitement in wormhole mechanics since most havenGÇÖt changed in many years 2) Provide ways for players to engage more fully with the random and mysterious elements of wormhole life and a ease back on attempts to GÇÿtameGÇÖ and control wormhole mechanics 3) Address some of the imbalance between wormhole environment effects 4) Address some of the imbalance between wormhole classes
(Numbering is mine)
At first glance the MBSD change seems to satisfy all 4 aspects, however after considering many of the well presented salient points in this thread it becomes clear that the MBSD would actually work against the first half of goal 2 and the entirety of goal 4.
In regards to #2. The ability to collapse a WH is the ability to "engage more fully with the random and mysterious elements of wormhole life" IMHO this is the premier reason to live in a WH. In many ways we are using the emergent mechanic of rolling to a new chain of WH's as a content generation tool.
Currently we can close undesirable links to avoid certain hostile situations, but more often than not we are proactively seeking connections that have a substantial positive effect on content creation, whether that is PVP, PVE, Travel, Logistical efforts, or Exploration. This closely correlates to Hilmar's 2013 Fanfest Keynote speech when he describes a jetcan mining op... wait... they're doing what??? holy crap that's cool and better than what we thought.
In regards to #4. MBSD would make rolling much more risky for smaller groups (who presumably live in C1's, 2's & 3's) perhaps to the point of reducing players to POS spin instead of taking the risks of ship loss (which proportionally have much higher value to a smaller corp). Clearly this is the opposite of the stated intent.
Further, our current practice satisfies the first half of #2 far better than the MBSD. Yes, it comes at the expense of the latter half, but the benefits of being able to explo-roll (to generate all types of content) vs rage-roll (create a one jump link so a corp can easily deploy a capital supported force) is an important distinction to consider.
One idea that would satisfy all of the stated goals could be a deployable module that facilitates collapsing wormholes.
In use, the capsuleer would activate the module and protect it while the timer runs. At the end of each cycle it would collapse the hole by reducing a portion of the remaining useable mass. To facilitate an aggressor, the opposing side of the WH would have it's signal strength in the probe scanner boosted to 100% as well as giving a visible and audible state change to the WH itself (I recommend the sound of a screaming goat).
The amount of time the module would need to collapse could be scaled to impede rage-rolling but still allow timely closing for explo-rolling while automatically working faster on lower class/mass WH's. The environmental effects of the various WH types could also play into the time required to collapse the WH. Perhaps an hour for a vanilla C6, scaling down to 10 minutes for a C1.
Additionally some interesting combat scenarios could develop from having a variety of meta / tech / faction variants that provide different ranges vs EHP vs resists vs timings. Additional curbs could also be provided through having it consume some type of PI produced fuel, it's cost, how it is created in game, and the skill tree.
Yes, this module would make it possible for a lone pilot to collapse an uncontested WH. However, in this capsuleers opinion, the benefit of being able to find and generate content outweighs the downsides of controlling the wormhole mechanics. This idea would help to maximize the ability of the existing WH dwellers to create content while helping to curb the abuses of rage-rolling and encourage more players to try out the C1's and C2's. |
Sith1s Spectre
1138
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 04:59:00 -
[648] - Quote
MicroNova wrote: One idea that would satisfy all of the stated goals could be a deployable module that facilitates collapsing wormholes.
No - WH space doesn't need more risk free closing of wormholes. You want to close the thing - commit your ships AU tz best tz
|
MicroNova
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:20:00 -
[649] - Quote
[/quote]
No - WH space doesn't need more risk free closing of wormholes. You want to close the thing - commit your ships[/quote]
What I described is far from risk free.
Have you got a better idea? |
Van Kuzco
Stryker Industries
76
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:22:00 -
[650] - Quote
Sith1s Spectre wrote:MicroNova wrote: One idea that would satisfy all of the stated goals could be a deployable module that facilitates collapsing wormholes.
No - WH space doesn't need more risk free closing of wormholes. You want to close the thing - commit your ships
I don't get it. Unless you are rolling a hisec hole any roller will be polarized and the enemy fleet can jump through and catch the ship on the other side? Sure it requires the hunters to commit into an unknown hole, but isn't that how it should be? |
|
Sith1s Spectre
1139
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:39:00 -
[651] - Quote
MicroNova wrote: Have you got a better idea?
Put webs on the battleship/s that you use in addition to your capital ship - web the cap off and have it warp back to the hole @ 0?
Doesn't seem that hard tbh AU tz best tz
|
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
267
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:49:00 -
[652] - Quote
EDIT: Original post came out wrong. I hope NGR puts this on the Agenda for tonight NGR AU show. As I'm going to enjoy getting in on the conversation and given a point of view from a group other than c5s... But yeah I agree with you Sith1s, it is way too easy to roll holes now. Director Swift Angels Alliance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3247397#post3247397 INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed.
128
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:54:00 -
[653] - Quote
Sith1s Spectre wrote:MicroNova wrote: Have you got a better idea?
Put webs on the battleship/s that you use in addition to your capital ship - web the cap off and have it warp back to the hole @ 0? Doesn't seem that hard tbh That would take as long as slowboatin back to to hole. The setup to do that also needs more people. The result wilt be no more rolling with caps unless there is a big backup fleet. And so no one will be catching a lone closing cap anymore. This change is terrible. |
bongpacks
Mudbug Acquisition Of Empire
75
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:58:00 -
[654] - Quote
I've been living in a C2 wormhole since 2010 and I just can't get behind this mass based spawn distance...thing. I'm in a small corp of only three active players with one having an alt so you could say four pilots altogether. It's already a chore for us to roll for a new static and you're trying to make that take even longer AND more dangerous?
Often times I find myself the only player even online in my corp, this is just going to make POS logistics with an orca a huge risk even if I can get someone to log on to watch my back. What of the times when I get K162s from high class holes with HUGE alliances in them? Am I supposed to just log off or maybe you want me to go into K-Space and waste tons of time for minimal reward. You already killed solo griefing in highsec which was basically the only fun thing I found to do in K-space besides collecting corpses.
I like the majority of the changes proposed for the new release, but I feel that the MBSD and the frigate holes are just geared towards the huge already established wormhole entities. Really what small corp is going to field a frigate fleet into a hostile wormhole? I'll probably be called out for not looking at this from all angles or even whining/entitlement ect. but the change isn't going to be good for small corps like my own. The only plus side I can think of would be if I dedicated myself to camping my statics all day long as it would be easier to catch the occasional trespasser but that's just as boring as mining imho.
The ideas for deployables that can collapse wormholes I like, would give players like me that often find themselves playing during their corporations off times an option for rolling holes that doesn't involve an hour of smashing at it with a BS or quite carelessly warping around solo with an orca. I think the align time alone for these large ships is risk enough, so what if they can just jump right back through, not like they're going to insta-warp away once they hit the other side.
I have no experience with W-space capital warfare so I can't comment on that. No, just no.
|
John Starski
Imperial Navy Lobsters U N K N O W N
3
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 06:00:00 -
[655] - Quote
Sith1s Spectre wrote:MicroNova wrote: Have you got a better idea?
Put webs on the battleship/s that you use in addition to your capital ship - web the cap off and have it warp back to the hole @ 0? Doesn't seem that hard tbh
It's like: yesterday to start your car you needed just to turn the key. Today new rules came out and you need to run 10 circles around it yelling: "CCP rules!", clap 10 times and do a flip in right order then put all 4 wheels back, honk three times and start engine with screwdriver. And randomguy says to you:"It's okay, you can even clap and do a flip in the same time!". Great, did this guy's advice somehow change the fact that all this actions are pointless and just complete waste of time? |
Vasyamba
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 08:16:00 -
[656] - Quote
I just dont understand why CCP has to change something thats not a problem... the defender already has an advantage of having capitals in there home system, why make it harder for the attackers to field capitals...?
|
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
19
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 08:25:00 -
[657] - Quote
Vasyamba wrote:I just dont understand why CCP has to change something thats not a problem... the defender already has an advantage of having capitals in there home system, why make it harder for the attackers to field capitals...?
I'm afraid the answer is depressingly simple. Properly iterating wormholes, or much else, will take too much developer time away from whatever the current big idea is. So they're left with fiddling round the edges with what can be managed. i.e. this. We've already had from one of the Horse's mouths that POS code hasn't been touched because its 'too difficult'. Which to my mind says a lot more about CCP than the code in question. I suspect some of the other major player gripes (like Sov) also fall into this category. |
Janeway84
Its a good day to die
93
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 08:27:00 -
[658] - Quote
wrote:
It's like: yesterday to start your car you needed just to turn the key. Today new rules came out and you need to run 10 circles around it yelling: "CCP rules!", clap 10 times and do a flip in right order then put all 4 wheels back, honk three times and start engine with screwdriver. And randomguy says to you:"It's okay, you can even clap and do a flip in the same time!". Great, did this guy's advice somehow change the fact that all this actions are pointless and just complete waste of time?
this |
Lenroc Elisav
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
20
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 09:41:00 -
[659] - Quote
This is a bad change in the wh mechanics. To understand how bad, just imagine that when cyno-ing a group of caps in nullsec you'll have them dropped inside a 40 km diameter sphere. This will just deter any offensive use of capitals in large PvP fights in W-space or null. Yes I know it's been said a thousand time but I'm under the impression it fell on deaf CCP ears (or is that blind eyes). P.S. When are you going to remove local in null? |
Eryn Velasquez
60
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 10:01:00 -
[660] - Quote
Lenroc Elisav wrote:.... P.S. When are you going to remove local in null?
When we get anchorable structures which scan the whole system permanently - even in wh-systems GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á |
|
|
|
|
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 |