EVE Search - CSM Minutes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Wormholes

CSM Minutes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ridvanson 12	Posted - 2014.10.29 19:26:29 - [1] - Quote The CSM minutes are out! "CCP Greyscale said he thought the amount of isk earnt in W-space was still alot. Corbexx replied that you could make more isk mining oreGÇÖs in Lowsec than you could in a C1 or C2. He also stated that while C5 and C6 cap escalations were good isk, running sites in your static without capital escalations would earn less than C4 space per person. He suggested maybe moving some of the isk from cap escalation to the actual site and limiting the amount a site could be escalated to encourage people doing stuff in there static. Asayanami Said you could earn isk running incursions. CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Corbexx Gave rough estimates of how much you could earn in lower class wormholes. Along with the fact that lower class wormho les were alot more reliant on melted nanoribbons and thus affected alot more by market value of these items. Ali agreed that C1 and c2 isk was ****, and that even compared to missions they were still had a higher level of entry." I also recommend reading the chapter on POS, the word s h i t is being used a lot xD
B0T0 X Legion 9	Posted - 2014.10.29 19:46:34 - [2] - Quote Quote: CCP Masterplan - Right now alliances are not normal things in the game. They have their own set of Alliance IDs which is why they donGÇÖt exist and cannot own anything. We also want to give Alliance IDs in order to be able to allow them to have bookmarks, hangars etc etc. We don't plan on having this happen this year however, but we'll be adding the functionality on the back end to prepare for this. Then there is the longer term planning. Asayanami Dei - Alliance bookmarks! CCP Fozzie - We are laying the groundwork for them but we do not expect to have alliance bookmarks in the 2014 calendar year. Soon... 01010111 00101101 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00100001
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 387	Posted - 2014.10.29 20:17:48 - [3] - Quote Some portions of the minutes have already gone live obviously but it was interesting to see from the first 30 pages how eager CCP are to start making more... "adventurous" changes to the game. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
Jezza McWaffle Pandora Sphere Disavowed. 155	Posted - 2014.10.29 20:39:29 - [4] - Quote A good / long read :D Although it was quite disappointing how few of the people involved actually realised the effort behind running sites in Wormholes and how bad the payout is for the risk in the C1 - C4's. Its not like you just look at local and then undock in 100% safety. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 805	Posted - 2014.10.29 20:46:42 - [5] - Quote It was an interesting read. There needs to be a industrial boom in wormhole space. Stuff needs to be more than about t3's (has to be a purpose to build in them). I think they get that though. There was zero discussion about the frig wormhole (though I don't know if they have metrics on it atm). Ice might be a possibility. Interesting read though. Yaay!!!!
Pro TIps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 70	Posted - 2014.10.29 21:56:24 - [6] - Quote Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ******* nerf it. It's that simple.
Incindir Mauser Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 477	Posted - 2014.10.29 22:09:22 - [7] - Quote Pro TIps wrote: Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ******* nerf it. It's that simple. Perhaps it's not that the incursion isk faucet is too good, just that everything else is just that bad.
B0T0 X Legion 9	Posted - 2014.10.29 22:12:03 - [8] - Quote Incindir Mauser wrote: Pro TIps wrote: Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ******* nerf it. It's that simple. Perhaps it's not that the incursion isk faucet is too good, just that everything else is just that bad. Nerfing one thing is faster that buffing everything else and more drama. 01010111 00101101 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00100001
corbexx eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 820	Posted - 2014.10.29 22:13:55 - [9] - Quote B0T0 wrote: Incindir Mauser wrote: Pro TIps wrote: Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ******* nerf it. It's that simple. Perhaps it's not that the incursion isk faucet is too good, just that everything else is just that bad. Nerfing one thing is faster that buffing everything else and more drama. and the incursion tears......... Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
Jack Miton Isogen 5 3894	Posted - 2014.10.29 22:17:22 - [10] - Quote Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/

Viscis Breeze No Vacancies 69	Posted - 2014.10.30 01:09:21 - [11] - Quote I honestly don't know which is more scary for the future of wormhole space, CCP leaving wormholes alone or CCP trying to fix them. Recruitment: http://bit.ly/1r4G5Pv Website: http://www.no-vacancies.net/ Channel: No Vacancies
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 806	Posted - 2014.10.30 02:46:16 - [12] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I'm thinking they are leaning on making them more siegeable (less blue balling). It tends to take a decent sized wormhole fleet to do them in c4's and below. That's mostly due to the amount of time it takes to reinforce (half hour to an hour or two per pos, not including encapping pos mods). Two plus if it's some type of stupid resiststar. Blowing through 80 million hit points is annoying. This is without dreads. With the whole jump range changes going, killing pos's are going to be more relegated to a subcap fleet. This is more of a kspace issue that'll bleed into wormholes. Yaay!!!!
Jack Miton Isogen 5 3894	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:28:35 - [13] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I'm thinking they are leaning on making them more siegeable (less blue balling). It tends to take a decent sized wormhole fleet to do them in c4's and below. That's mostly due to the amount of time it takes to reinforce (half hour to an hour or two per pos, not including encapping pos mods). Two plus if it's some type of stupid resiststar. Blowing through 80 million hit points is annoying. This is without dreads. With the whole jump range changes going, killing pos's are going to be more relegated to a subcap fleet. This is more of a kspace issue that'll bleed into wormholes. what does ANY of that have to do with removing FFs? just lower the HP if you want them easier to kill... Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
Hatshepsut IV Cascading Failure Un.Bound 303	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:57:46 - [14] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: ...Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. qft You too can start failing today! Reddit-áad \| Cascading Failure Public Channel \| Aspiring Failure
Seraph Essael Devils Diciples League of Infamy 953	Posted - 2014.10.30 08:01:53 - [15] - Quote Viscis Breeze wrote: I honestly don't know which is more scary for the future of wormhole space, CCP leaving wormholes alone or CCP trying to fix them. Could it be too much to say "both as scary as one another"? Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."
Rek Seven Probe Patrol 1951	Posted - 2014.10.30 08:05:56 - [16] - Quote In Corbexx we trust. +1
Steven Hackett Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 90	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:59:05 - [17] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. This. Also, I know that offline towers might trigger peoples OCD, but it isn't broken? Buhu, you need to shoot a tower to set up at your moon, if you can't shoot a dead stick, you prob. shouldn't have that moon anyway. - Not broken, don't fix.
Chitsa Jason Quantum Explosion E X P L O S I O N 1284	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:57:20 - [18] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I cant believe I agree with Jack :) Edit: Technically they don't work very well. IE. Titan bumping for example. Still the shield mechanic is way better than any kind of stupid moreing (or whatever). Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 806	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:16:48 - [19] - Quote Chitsa Jason wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I cant believe I agree with Jack :) Edit: Technically they don't work very well. IE. Titan bumping for example. Still the shield mechanic is way better than any kind of stupid mooring (or whatever). Fact is we don't know what CCP is going after regarding pos and force field, mooring, field reductions, or the mechanics (well maybe you do Chitsa). I usually like to see proposals of what they are thinking before I condemn it to "its sucks" rants, but I also know CCP tends to just do things in wormhole space regardless of what we say afterwards. Are there better options besides force fields, I am sure their are. Are force fields broken or not functioning in any specific way. No. If there were methods of improving the entire mechanic as a whole, I have no problem with that. "It ain't broken, don't fix it" does not apply here because EVERYTHING in Eve is broken. We just adapted to it. Yaay!!!!
corbexx eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 835	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:04:06 - [20] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I'll be honest I really think they will struggle to have teh fuctionality of a ff with other stuff. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better

Nolak Ataru Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC 241	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:55:11 - [21] - Quote Incindir Mauser wrote: Pro TIps wrote: Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ******* nerf it. It's that simple. Perhaps it's not that the incursion isk faucet is too good, just that everything else is just that bad. I would like to point out that the ISK costs in LP stores as well as the conversion ratio are major isk sinks in incursions.
MooMooDachshundCow Incertae Sedis 102	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:00:28 - [22] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Incindir Mauser wrote: Pro TIps wrote: Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ***** nerf it. It's that simple. Perhaps it's not that the incursion isk faucet is too good, just that everything else is just that bad. I would like to point out that the ISK costs in LP stores as well as the conversion ratio are major isk sinks in incursions. "I mean, sure I made 3 billion isk this week - but I had to pay 25m to monetize that last 500m isk" Not really, since you're making more money than you're spending. It's only an isk sink on a technicality, and that's intellectually dishonest because the isk faucet is 10x the size of any sink as far as I'm aware. I suppose that they're a major isk sink relative to other sinks in incursions, but the net effect of incursions is still very positive even with a small isk sink to access your LP earnings. Yeah, well, it's just like my-áopinion**, man.
O'nira united system's commonwealth 40	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:23:52 - [23] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Incindir Mauser wrote: Pro TIps wrote: Ridvanson wrote: CCP Greyscale commented that comparing anything to incursions was unsound as they were potentially paying out to much anyway, and it wasn't a good benchmark. Unless incursion-runners suddenly got their own special currency that isn't ISK, it is obviously sound to compare every form of income in the game to incursions. If they nerf incursions, fine. Until that happens, whenever anyone wants ISK the smartest thing to do is log onto your highsec carebear alt and begin doing incursions for 150M+/hr plus concord LP. That incursion ISK affects the price of every item in the game. PLEX, tritanium, blablah. I don't have to tell any of you guys this, but I'd like to tell Greyscale, because you can't dismiss an ISK faucet simply because you think it might be paying too much. If he thinks it's paying too much then ******* nerf it. It's that simple. Perhaps it's not that the incursion isk faucet is too good, just that everything else is just that bad. I would like to point out that the ISK costs in LP stores as well as the conversion ratio are major isk sinks in incursions. since you pay tax when you sell the blue loot that too is an isk sink.
Pro TIps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 73	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:28:20 - [24] - Quote MooMooDachshundCow wrote: "I mean, sure I made 3 billion isk this week - but I had to pay 25m to monetize that last 500m isk" QFT
Jess Tanner Hard Knocks Inc. Irresponsible Use of Capital. 145	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:35:21 - [25] - Quote It's amazing how much more we see from Corbexx in these minutes compared to " " our " " previous wormhole " " representative " "... Go with Bob, keep Him always in your heart. He is your Sword, Shield, and the Knife in your back.
Alundil Isogen 5 739	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:14:21 - [26] - Quote corbexx wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I'll be honest I really think they will struggle to have teh fuctionality of a ff with other stuff. Without violating NDA or any other CCP restricted concerns, can you elaborate on your statement? I have similar concerns (ff grants some area to stage from, an area to exchange items between pilots without access to corporate hangars, etc). Not least of which is with the sheer number of hulls typically kept in smas having those 'tethered' to some structure would likely look ridiculous (or at the very least like some Lego construction built by five year olds with crap hanging off all over the place). I'm right behind you
corbexx eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 844	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:51:44 - [27] - Quote Alundil wrote: corbexx wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I'll be honest I really think they will struggle to have teh fuctionality of a ff with other stuff. Without violating NDA or any other CCP restricted concerns, can you elaborate on your statement? I have similar concerns (ff grants some area to stage from, an area to exchange items between pilots without access to corporate hangars, etc). Not least of which is with the sheer number of hulls typically kept in smas having those 'tethered' to some structure would likely look ridiculous (or at the very least like some Lego construction built by five year olds with crap hanging off all over the place). you need to be able to see whats around you in wh space, lets say they have a tether (using tether as a example so dont think this will happen) will you be able to dscan while tethered, what about session changes. in a ff your safe you can look about see whats around, swap ships safely dump mods for other people etc how would you do taht with tether? we get say mini outposts (again this is a hypothetical example) while docked can we dscan can we see who is outside will this lead to station games etc etc The ff provides a handy safe zone to be and move about see whats around drop mods change stuff over etc. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
Pro TIps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 73	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:21:56 - [28] - Quote I don't understand the tethering idea, but I would like to know more about 1) why CCP thinks forcefields are broken or have room for improvement (post-Titan-bumping fix) 2) what other concept they think would be better My concern is this: I want to put a POS in lowsec and construct capital parts with a Thukker Component Assembly Array. That's a new item added in Crius that is specifically meant to encourage lowsec industry. It has a 15% material cost reduction, compared to 2% at a normal POS array. My POS in lowsec might get attacked. If it becomes reinforced, my industry jobs will stop, and I will lose my materials (as I understand the mechanic.) That means I lose mats/ISK/time even if I defend my POS successfully when it comes out of reinforcement. Now, it takes some work/risk on the part of an enemy to reinforce my POS. You need a fleet that is worth killing. If a fleet worth killing attacks my lowsec POS, I'll ask my K-space alliance to help me, and they probably will because content. If I'm lucky, I will get help before it even goes into reinforce, and I will be able to use my POS guns (if they aren't dead) and not lose mats if my side wins. So if something changes with the POS mechanics, how will it affect CCP specifically trying to encourage POS manufacturing by introducing new items? I also care about all the points others have raised about SMAs, cans to exchange items with friends inside a shield, D-scan, etc. I just want to make sure someone is considering this from an industry perspective as well, because it matters to me and to CCP.
Pro TIps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 73	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:33:09 - [29] - Quote Oh and another thing, if CCP want to further encourage risky POS manufacturing, they should improve the documentation on what happens when the tower goes into reinforcement (will I lose my materials? I think so, but NO DOCUMENTATION) and consider the very short amount of time it takes to reinforce a POS with a dread fleet, vs the large amount of industry jobs you need to have running in a POS to make it profitable. Fuel for a large POS costs around 450M a month. It takes way under an hour to reinforce one if you have some dreads. That 15% material savings I can get by making components at a POS instead of a totally safe station in highsec only adds up if I am making at least 3 billion ISK worth of components each month. Considering the job times, it means I need to have almost a billion ISK of jobs running at one time just to break even. Sorry to interject so much carebear industry stuff into this thread, but if you are happy with POS shields the way they are, find reasons why CCP shouldn't want to change them; or should want to change them in ways that you agree with. Personally, I want better documentation of POS features/mechanics first, because I literally don't even know if I would lose my mats or not; it is an assumption I have made out of inexperience. If it does work this way, then I want the shield to have MORE EHP not less, because drive-by dreads would hurt my wallet and they might be able to do it so fast that no content is really created.
Alundil Isogen 5 739	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:12:35 - [30] - Quote corbexx wrote: Alundil wrote: corbexx wrote: Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. I'll be honest I really think they will struggle to have teh fuctionality of a ff with other stuff. Without violating NDA or any other CCP restricted concerns, can you elaborate on your statement? I have similar concerns (ff grants some area to stage from, an area to exchange items between pilots without access to corporate hangars, etc). Not least of which is with the sheer number of hulls typically kept in smas having those 'tethered' to some structure would likely look ridiculous (or at the very least like some Lego construction built by five year olds with crap hanging off all over the place). you need to be able to see whats around you in wh space, lets say they have a tether (using tether as a example so dont think this will happen) will you be able to dscan while tethered, what about session changes. in a ff your safe you can look about see whats around, swap ships safely dump mods for other people etc how would you do taht with tether? we get say mini outposts (again this is a hypothetical example) while docked can we dscan can we see who is outside will this lead to station games etc etc The ff provides a handy safe zone to be and move about see whats around drop mods change stuff over etc. I agree with your uses of the FF and POS current mechanics. I can't help but wonder what CCP hopes to accomplish in a "player owned starbase" sans forcefield. @ Pro TIps - I believe that CCP stated an intention to balance/address POS defense mechanism (ie. guns and ewar etc) as they realize as POS currently function there's virtually nothing a defender can do against a capital fleet intent on reinforcing the POS. I look forward to seeing what changes they have in mind for that particular aspect of POS mechanics. I'm right behind you

unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed. 153	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:47:50 - [31] - Quote I think even former csm member said that CCP considers the forcefield a problem from a code point of view(area of effect and stuff). But the FF does do a lot for us. Not only a staging area or a place for us to exchange things, but also viewable for scouts, d-scan available for us, ... . We can place and move/remove pos mods safely in it also. I even saw a dude eject ships from a sma once, just so that d-scan would fill up with ships , trying to scare us away. Knowing the form up pos can give people valuable info. Pos place holders help defend a system,... .
BayneNothos United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners 111	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:42:55 - [32] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Urg, same old garbage about 'POS tethering' instead of forcefields... Just leave the fkn forcefields! it's the only part of the current POS system that works really well, move on. Somewhere in there is one of the CCP devs stating they want a session change (like a jump/dock etc) in relation to POS's. It's not the first time I've heard them say it too. Corbexx/Asay, would you be able to ask CCP to release why they want a session change over the current FF bubble?
BayneNothos United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners 111	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:07:32 - [33] - Quote BayneNothos wrote: Somewhere in there is one of the CCP devs stating they want a session change (like a jump/dock etc) in relation to POS's. It's not the first time I've heard them say it too. Corbexx/Asay, would you be able to ask CCP to release why they want a session change over the current FF bubble? To expand a bit more, is this a technical decision or a game design one. And in both cases, is it due to something W Space specific or is it K space issues spilling over into W space. If so, could this be solved by creating a specific POS type for W Space, WormPOS if you will.
Jack Miton Isogen 5 3901	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:12:22 - [34] - Quote cmon man... NO ONE wants more session change timers anywhere in the game... Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
Pro TIps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 74	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:49:53 - [35] - Quote Maybe they want peoples' Titans to actually fly out of their shield to bridge people. That seems reasonable. However, it could easily be done by disallowing the Titan to activate his portal generator while inside a forcefield. Warfare links (except mining links) work this way already, so the mechanic is in the game. Maybe they do not want people to duck inside a shield when they are in trouble, yet have a weapons timer. They would be unable to dock in that circumstance. I assume they could deny ships the ability to fly through a shield while they have weaps timer with relative ease? Wouldn't it work as if the pilot had no shield harmonic password set, and wasn't a member of the POS' corp? I still think POS shield is under-powered if anything, and the basic mechanic of it does not need to be changed. Above are two ways it could improve so the shields aren't "abused" as much, though.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 1818	Posted - 2014.11.03 02:46:15 - [36] - Quote i think it is important to maintain the forecefield insofar as Corbexx said; in w-space if people are docked up there is literally NO WAY of interacting. If you are in a FF currently, and are uncloaked (and yes, you can land cloaked and be cloaked inside, neat trick) then everyone can see you and you can (in theory) d-scan and see anyone not cloaked. This causes ::content:: especially when people helicopter dicq your POS in a Nereus. Just for example. It allows baiting, and intel gathering, including the "launch everything from SMA to scare off an attacker" gambit, however poorly that works. Causing a session timer upon entering or exiting forcefields, I'm not sure where Greyscale is coming from or going with this. If he wants to prevent bubble games, then I can't see the value. There are a few people and a few situations where the bubble games are exploited (in a non-pejorative term) during PVP, and there's also some where they are (like carriers launching a flight of fighters and then ducking inside a field). For example, bubble fighting is already basically identical to docking games, you just do it a bit differently than on a station. You can even set your POS up to utterly take advantage of this, and it provides you with a valuable mechanism for defending your POS during an attack, during the RF / cage phase, and on the final assault. This is true in and out of w-space; some Russian guys in Khanid lowsec were pros at it, really fancy and impressive. But the question is then - are bubble games detrimental as compared to docking games? Not in my opinion. The alternative, of tethering, is bizarre. It's like, OK, so the ship and the player are going to be on grid but inside a totally invisible no-touchy zone where you can't bump them...as opposed to being inside a spherical hazy bubble of no-touchy where you can't bump them? That's a vast improvement. (extreme sarcasm eyeroll) That said, the ideas of modular POSs, POS fittings, making POS's look more substantial than a scrawny stick (shepherd's crook, rusty dreidel, grey dreidel, green lawn ornament) would be fantastic. Also my suggestion of damaged POS's flaming out in hull? Plox. Regarding ProTips concerns, well, that's an economic decision and a risk you have to take to be a better carebear than other carebears. Speaking as an habitual low-class sieger, stront checker, POS fitting war-gamer and all round general idiot, my conception of POS warfare as it stands at the moment is that only a very, very small number of people adequately defend POSs in any active fashion - be it defending in a fleet, defending from inside the bubbles with bubble games, or POS gunning. In general, POSs are pretty much borked the moment someone attacks with dreads, or in the case of low-class wormholes, gathers eenough extremely bored people to go fishing, or to overwhelm the defences, and the defenders are bad. The first failed siege I attended in a long time was because of 240M EHP's (yay 82.5% omni on a DG Large) and the ability to anchor and online infinite numbers of guns at ANY time, which is terrible game play. If your defence strategy relies entirely on anchoring more EHP in front of an enemy than they can be bothered grinding through, then the whole POS system favours defence based entirely on boring. As it stands currently, you are better off with an 82% omni large Dullstar and a hangar loaded with 200 medium long range guns packaged up inside, which you begin onlining. There is absolutely no upper limit to the lengths you can go to to anchor guns around your POS in the face of an attack, during the attack, and online them. No. That's a lie. There is a shell of space starting 15km from the forcefield and extending 40km from the forcefield. Within this shell, there is a cellular grid of anchoring slots into which you can anchor guns. Theoretically, with infinite ISK, infinite lack of sleep, a defender could fill this volume entirely with guns and ammo. A defender who cannot use dreads would then be obliged to incap X number of guns before he could render the POS defenceless. It's a ridiculous mechanic. I know the line is that a defender gets to online and anchor defences as a, I quote, "last ditch attemt at defence" but what ends up happening is that the attackers spend hours for naught but to see defenders anchor literally hundreds of millions of EHP more guns in front of them. Even one or two man corps can avail themselves of this. That's shite gameplay which favours grind defence, not skill or interaction. What I'd like to see is a limit. Yeah, you screw up, your POS blows up. Tough caca buddy. Make a choice and live with it. J's before K's. Prolapse. Turning holes inside out with pew pew. http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
Jack Miton Isogen 5 3907	Posted - 2014.11.03 05:00:51 - [37] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: (and yes, you can land cloaked and be cloaked inside, neat trick) this hasnt worked in years. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/
Winthorp 2850	Posted - 2014.11.03 08:31:25 - [38] - Quote The problems i see with no ff is the obvious intel needs to remain as is now both for defenders and agressors. Now for tethering it raises some serious concerns besides intel. When someone wants to rapecage a pos now they have to go to a little effort with at least four large bubbles giving the defendor a little wriggle room to break out and options to split up agressing forces when you force them to cover the whole spread of a rapecage. How easy will it become to harrass every small entity if the teather point for defenders/locals is much smaller then it is now. Also if a pos is RF'd how will the defenders do anything they can currently do while in that stage of an eviction or even out of an eviction in everyday living. The whole teathering concept i find concerning, i understand from the development side they are struggling with force field but they need to give the whole gammit of pos living some thought before teathering with docking games becomes a thing.
Alundil Isogen 5 739	Posted - 2014.11.03 15:34:43 - [39] - Quote Obligatory "BL. - do you even wh bro?" :) Winthorp wrote: The problems i see with no ff is the obvious intel needs to remain as is now both for defenders and agressors. Now for tethering it raises some serious concerns besides intel. When someone wants to rapecage a pos now they have to go to a little effort with at least four large bubbles giving the defendor a little wriggle room to break out and options to split up agressing forces when you force them to cover the whole spread of a rapecage. How easy will it become to harrass every small entity if the teather point for defenders/locals is much smaller then it is now. Also if a pos is RF'd how will the defenders do anything they can currently do while in that stage of an eviction or even out of an eviction in everyday living. The whole teathering concept i find concerning, i understand from the development side they are struggling with force field but they need to give the whole gammit of pos living some thought before teathering with docking games becomes a thing. EDIT: I also find that my phone can't auto correct for ****. Agreed though - tethering is already a concern from an intel gathering perspective as well as a attack/defense perspective as mentioned. Adding the crap that is session change to it as well would really suck. Hopefully CCP is not so careless to implement any kind of weapons timer shenanigans in "unknown" (and un monitored) space. That would be crap. Trinket is correct though in his assessment of POS warfare. It's a mind numbing and soul crushing experience for all parties. It's either "Defender has more EHP than I can be assed to shoot through (especially relevant in low class holes)" or "Attacker has dreads". I'm right behind you
Andrew Jester Origin. Black Legion. 760	Posted - 2014.11.03 20:20:40 - [40] - Quote Alundil wrote: Obligatory "BL. - do you even wh bro?" :) OBLIGATORY "HAVE YOU EVEN CHECKED HIS CURRENT ALLY BRO?" If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy

Pro TIps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 77	Posted - 2014.11.04 21:55:34 - [41] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: If your defence strategy relies entirely on anchoring more EHP in front of an enemy than they can be bothered grinding through, then the whole POS system favours defence based entirely on boring. That's why I think a reduction in control tower signature radius could be an appropriate nerf to dreads. I agree that it shouldn't become "too hard" to defeat a POS shield in sub-caps, but it is currently too easy to do so with capitals.
Ridvanson 14	Posted - 2014.11.04 21:59:24 - [42] - Quote Pro TIps wrote: Trinkets friend wrote: If your defence strategy relies entirely on anchoring more EHP in front of an enemy than they can be bothered grinding through, then the whole POS system favours defence based entirely on boring. That's why I think a reduction in control tower signature radius could be an appropriate nerf to dreads. I agree that it shouldn't become "too hard" to defeat a POS shield in sub-caps, but it is currently too easy to do so with capitals. Only Phoenixes would be affected by such a change though, since turrets hit stationary targets regardless as long as they're not moving themselves


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.