Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
11 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

[Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

First post
Author
#21 - 2012-08-30 12:24:07 UTC
Removing forcefields is more than likely a terrible idea, as I see a lot of ways in which it'll make organising a defense/escape from a pos that is under siege near impossible

Gimping towers in lower class wormholes is just a god damn awful idea. I have yet to see a single justification for it either, or at least one that isn't simply stupid and wrong (wah wah you can't evict people from lower class wormholes as easily! - except evictions in c2s happen just as much as evictions in c5s, and even if they WERE more 'secure' I think that'd be a legitimate trade off for the worse sites/opportunities you have in c1s/c2s...)

Before running around with the nerfstick like a window-licking moron, how about you determine if there is actually a problem, and if there is how your solutions would improve it. Gimping lower class wormholes won't improve them at all, it'll just depoulate them - there'll be less incentive for people to live in them, less incentive for people to evict others from them, etc. They'll be the lowsec of w-space
#22 - 2012-08-30 13:03:47 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Removing forcefields is more than likely a terrible idea, as I see a lot of ways in which it'll make organising a defense/escape from a pos that is under siege near impossible

Gimping towers in lower class wormholes is just a god damn awful idea. I have yet to see a single justification for it either, or at least one that isn't simply stupid and wrong (wah wah you can't evict people from lower class wormholes as easily! - except evictions in c2s happen just as much as evictions in c5s, and even if they WERE more 'secure' I think that'd be a legitimate trade off for the worse sites/opportunities you have in c1s/c2s...)

Before running around with the nerfstick like a window-licking moron, how about you determine if there is actually a problem, and if there is how your solutions would improve it. Gimping lower class wormholes won't improve them at all, it'll just depoulate them - there'll be less incentive for people to live in them, less incentive for people to evict others from them, etc. They'll be the lowsec of w-space

Gunny, you obviously didn't listen. The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower.

If you also went through listening Two Step explained that he's not sure how he would suggest they balance it, but that's not OUR job or HIS. We bring our REQUIREMENTS, not gripes with WAHHHHH I don't want change. For example:


  • Gaining Intel is important to us, so being able to use D-scan in this 'New POS' is important to us
  • Not having timers is important to us, so not having timers with these 'New POSs' are equally important to us
  • Being able to see who is active is SUPER important to us, not sure how to implement but we want to be able to see who is active
#23 - 2012-08-30 13:41:37 UTC
Fradle wrote:
Gunny, you obviously didn't listen. The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower.


The idea that you shouldn't need more people than the wormhole can support to take down the tower is a bit flawed and self defeating, I think. I understand the basic idea that requiring more people to 'claim' the system than the system could serve would be problematic, but the major thing I disagree with is the "how many people can the system serve" bit. I think that's quite flawed.

I'm certain more than approximately 10 people could live in a c2 just fine - of course, if their sole purpose was whoring the pve sites an individual members income would be pretty low, but.... maybe PVE isn't their raison d'être? Maybe they're willing to take the hit to their isk-per-hour for the added safety, or easier logistics, or any other of the various trade offs that come with living in a c2? The amount of people who the wormhole could serve will vary massively depending on what they actually want out of wormhole space, and how their corporation is structured and its playstyle - you mentioned transmission lost as having more than 20 people living in a c2... well, ok. Doesn't that kind of prove that lower classes can serve bigger entities?

I think placing arbitrary mechanical limitations on lower class wormholes based on the assumption that only a small handful of players could ever live or use them is quite flawed. And as someone else said, they already have limitations - a more "natural" one, I believe - in the form of increased fuel prices for large towers, and no delicious freighter entrances. Worse still, these limitations would take the lower class wormholes and basically enforce a "THIS IS FOR SMALL GROUPS ONLY" policy on them, whereas currently I believe they're more flexible than that. I also can't think of anywhere else in EVE where artificial limits have been put in place to 'force' things into smaller scale.

I think this whole "lower class wormholes can only serve a few people, therefore they should be gimped so only a few people can evict easier" is just... idiotic. Or maybe it was an argument invented later to justify the "i wanna gimp low class wormholes" idea.
#24 - 2012-08-30 13:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Additionally, I don't think small corporations looking to move into lower class wormholes currently have much stopping them at all. Find a system they COULD evict based on their numbers and strength, or find an empty one. If they run across a system whose defenses outmatch them, or that they feel make the system "not worth the effort", well that's just the way it is. There's always someone bigger and stronger than you in the sandbox. I don't think we need to change the mechanics to bring those defenses down to their level.
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-08-30 14:31:09 UTC
Dscan, grid, and overview will not be possible with docking. You are moved from the grid with the tower to a new single-player instance that resembles the inside of a station. To get dscan, grid, and overview, one of two things will need to happen:

1) Cobble together some hacks to get this information while in the single-player instance based on what the tower object sees in space.

2) Keep players in space and fix station services code.


Fradle wrote:
The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower.

Really, no one is supposed to be living in wormhole space. If I remember correctly, that was the reason CCP gave for no moon goo and no ice belts. That we have adapted to the restrictions of w-space is in spite of CCP's plans for w-space, or lack thereof, and speaks to the resourcefulness and creativity of EVE's playerbase. If CCP is changing their position and saying it is okay for players to live in w-space, then they should add at least ice belts to the Grav sigs, even if they don't add moon goo.

Assuming then that we're "supposed" to live in w-space, who says you shouldn't have more than 20 players living in a wormhole system? How would one determine the number of people a wormhole system can support? Is CCP (or anyone else) really stupid enough to specify arbitrary numbers for w-space occupancy limits and completely destroy the sandbox and emergent/adaptive behaviour?

Fradle wrote:
Being able to see who is active is SUPER important to us, not sure how to implement but we want to be able to see who is active

With a modular POS, with or without forcefields, we won't see people crawling around to interact with various services. Everyone will appear to be POS spinning while they perform their activities if there are force fields, and everyone will be completely stationary if there is mooring/docking. However, the technical benefits for implementing a modular POS, as well as the conveniences it offers, would offset the little bit of information loss that it presents.

As long as there is no docking (moving players out of space into a single-player instance), we will still at least be able to see that the pilots are online, what they're flying, and when they start to move.


Force fields solve a sticky issue. Without some sort of proximity-based protection zone, what happens when you eject from your (protected) moored ship at a new-POS that does not have a SMA-equivalent? Does the ship stay moored and protected while your pod launches into space, vulnerable? Does the ship get launched into space where someone might shoot it or steal it and the pod stay protected?

Force fields also provide a bit of misdirection for the casual observer. If I don't actually have a scout on-grid with your POS, I don't know what ships are piloted or unpiloted. It forces me to find your POS(es) and forces me to stay on-grid with you to watch that you're active. If all I have to do is use dscan to see a ship to know that ship is active, then that's a massive WoW-life nerf to w-space reconnaisance.
Spatial Instability
#26 - 2012-08-30 14:38:09 UTC
Fradle wrote:

Gunny, you obviously didn't listen. The explanation was you shouldn't need more people than the WH can support to evict someone from a WH. With exception of Transmission Lost you shouldn't have 20+ people living in a C2, even 10+ is pushing it, which you would need to take down a tower.


I disagree. I know, hard to believe.

You chose to live in a particular WH because of the static(s) and the opportunities they provide. If you live in a C2 for instance, with the sole desire to run local anoms, then you are amazingly inefficient. Are you saying that a corp of oh let's say 150, can't live in a C2 with static HS and C3 or C4 and make enough ISK in the C3 to be successful? If that's what you are saying, you are doing it wrong.

As long as you have the planets you want/need for PI, enough moons to house the towers you want, and perhaps a system effect favorable in your eyes, you can house a hell of a lot of players anywhere you want. The only real limitation between wh class is the size of ships you want to move in and out. If you aren't moving caps, and want a static HS, whose to say a C5/C6 is "better" for us than a C2? The logic on nerfing and eviction just completely fail IMHO.

So what does living in, and defending a C2 have to do with how many people it can "support"? Nothing at all. And on top of that, I should be penalized because we figured out how to make C2 life work for a larger Corp? KAIRS wasn't always "large". Any Corp in Eve could do the same, and be successful, if only they took the time and had the desire. Nerfing lower class POS is basically forcing a welfare system on everyone to try and make it "fair" which is total BS.

And to top it all off, as was stated a gazillion times already, who needs conflict to find an good wh to live in? There are so many empty WH out there anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can find an adequate home. Make it hard to defend and they simply won't bother trying which will lead the what? Tada, more empty systems. Awesome ideas...

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...

Caldari State
#27 - 2012-08-30 14:57:55 UTC
A month of fuel, 30 days supply, is 28,800 fuel blocks for a large tower. If you are purchasing this from a trade hub, it is 144,000 m3 of cargo you need to haul in from k-space. As mentioned, C1-C4 holes can't fit freighters, so you're stuck with Orcas or industrials. C1 holes can't fit Orcas, so you can only use industrials. I can't begin to describe the joys of hauling in paper-thin industrials.

144,000 m3 is 4 trips with a decent industrial (40k m3, about 20m mass). This puts 160m mass on the C1 hole, which is only a 500m hole, just for hauling fuel for the month. This is for one tower for one month for a decently-skilled player. If you want to bring in a couple months supply, for emergencies, or if multiple people want to fuel their tower, because maybe you have a close exit to a trade hub, or if you can't carry 40k m3 per trip, you'll collapse your hole just fueling your towers. And did I mention how fun it was to haul in industrials?

Let's not think about how many trips are required to bring in everything to even set up a tower in a C1, and how many times you'll collapse the static for each tower you bring in. Remember the last time you set up a tower? I do. It wasn't fun. I'm only thankful it wasn't in a C1.

Sure, no one needs to set up a Large tower. But if you do, you already suffer a huge logistical burden, especially in a C1.


Lower class w-space already have some pretty harsh restrictions on them. They don't need artificial limitations just because some lazy scrub fleet can't take down a POS before they get jumped by a third party looking for a fight.
Spatial Instability
#28 - 2012-08-30 15:19:21 UTC
Meytal wrote:
...some lazy scrub fleet can't take down a POS before they get jumped by a third party looking for a fight.


Lol

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...

#29 - 2012-08-30 15:40:11 UTC
Look what you guys need to realize is change IS HAPPENING. You can't stop it, the objective is to give requirements on what we want. It's not your job to say what is or what can't possibly be done, you're not the game designer. If I said I want to believe able to tell who is active in a POS to gain intelligence. THERE that's my requirement, I don't care how they do it, so don't go and poke holes whining about docking.

I've given my requirement and it's up to them to figure out how to do it. Also what we'd really like to hear is something from SMALLER corps, not the big names. Sorry gunny you don't live in a lower class WH, and nor do I. It's their voice that needs to be heard.

Once again Two Step isn't looking for a long whining post, it would be nice to know what the problem is with force fields so that we could better understand... But we can't.

So how about we realize that change is and will happen, what we need to do is help shape it and make sure our ways of life can remain as much the same as possible.
Brotherhood of Starbridge
#30 - 2012-08-30 15:49:41 UTC
And what do they want to do with POS operators?
#31 - 2012-08-30 15:57:04 UTC
Fradle wrote:
Look what you guys need to realize is change IS HAPPENING. You can't stop it, the objective is to give requirements on what we want. It's not your job to say what is or what can't possibly be done, you're not the game designer. If I said I want to believe able to tell who is active in a POS to gain intelligence. THERE that's my requirement, I don't care how they do it, so don't go and poke holes whining about docking.

I've given my requirement and it's up to them to figure out how to do it. Also what we'd really like to hear is something from SMALLER corps, not the big names. Sorry gunny you don't live in a lower class WH, and nor do I. It's their voice that needs to be heard.

Once again Two Step isn't looking for a long whining post, it would be nice to know what the problem is with force fields so that we could better understand... But we can't.

So how about we realize that change is and will happen, what we need to do is help shape it and make sure our ways of life can remain as much the same as possible.


We all know change is happening, pretty much all of us WANT some change to the awful pos system. Pointing out possible issues with the changes that sound more and more likely to go ahead is part of the the feedback. We're not saying OMG DONT TOUCH POS AT ALL, more along the lines of OMG MAKE SURE X DOESNT BECOME A HUGE ISSUE WHEN YOU CHANGE Y because we know how long it'd take ccp to eventually address 'new issue x'

Anyway, I was in a smaller corp before joining bite me, and we'd tried some living-in-a-c4 (or maybe it was a c3?) wh stuff. I'd certainly not want arbitrary limitations put on me for iffy at best reasons, making life in lower class wormholes even harder/less attractive...

And why should hisec bears be allowed large towers but not a small-medium sized corp trying to eke out some isk and funz in wh space?

And speaking from a purely selfish point of view, I do think such limitations would only serve to depopulate lower class wormholes, and less people in wormhole space = less people for me to shoot at, so I have to be against it.
Transmission Lost
#32 - 2012-08-30 16:05:54 UTC
Smaller POS's = bigger targets. I don't see how that benefits any small corps in C1-C4 wormhole space.

No trolling please

Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-08-30 16:18:37 UTC
Arbitrary limits on the occupancy of a lower class w-space is something that does not make sense to me.

If I have a corp with 25 to 30 active players that wish to live in a c2 because it gives me access to HS and lowsec and quite often null sec, then why should i be denied that right in this sandbox.

I don't want to PVE for my living, I want to roam and shoot and kill and die. I can do PI to make the isk I need to reship and go out and do it all over again. I can make some ISK while I PVE or not, I can mine the grav and ladar or not. This is a sandbox and to tell me that I can longer play the game the way I want to play because you wish to impose some arbitrary limits seems to me to be agains what this game was built on.

As a small corp in a c1-c3 if I set up my POS correctly I can defend it against a well organized larger fleet for a while....but in the end if I cannot muster enough forces to evict the invading fleet then they will take down my defenses and my POS.

I am fine with the current POS mechanics, if CCP needs to change it then tell us why. We live in w-space because of it's unique nature and quirkyness. We adapt to the environment. To change that and make it Lowsec without local seems a gross change for no reason.

No I will not rage quit if they make some of these proposed changes, and we will adapt. I am curious how they are going to deal with corps living in c1,c2,c3's that are larger than the arbitrary limit they may impose.

Change for the sake of change is sometimes necessary, but change because I can is often frought with peril. I hope that what ever the plan is in the end it is well though out and that it includes the input of every one from c1-c6. I will bet there are more small players/corp in W-space that the big boys that live in the larger locations.... but that is just a guess Lol
Spatial Instability
#34 - 2012-08-30 16:34:07 UTC
Fradle wrote:
Also what we'd really like to hear is something from SMALLER corps, not the big names. Sorry gunny you don't live in a lower class WH, and nor do I. It's their voice that needs to be heard.


This. It seems it is the same few people throwing ideas around in all these threads. Where are the smaller corps??? There have got to be more than have made their voices heard. If they don't care enough to get involved, fine, but if that's the case then I don't much care what they will have to say when changes that nerf them happen and they flip out...

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...

Surely You're Joking
#35 - 2012-08-30 16:41:38 UTC
Pell Helix wrote:
Two Step invited everyone onto AHARM's Mumble to discuss the state of W-Space. He did a Q&A and answered everyone's questions to the best of his ability.


http://soundcloud.com/haha-15/wormhole-townhall-with-csm-two


I was there.
Phantom-Recon
#36 - 2012-08-30 17:16:30 UTC
Bane Nucleus wrote:
I miss my forcefield already Sad


I hope there is an ability to cloak a pos. More so for smaller pos if they do disallow larger deathstars from lower class wormholes.

possibly a longer cloak time with less fuel cost on smaller pos and shorter cloak time with higher fuel cost on larger pos as it would require more energy to cloak a larger object.

Cloak would be the best alternative to the safety of forcefield if ccp is hell bent on ridding pos of forcefield.

At least the ability to cloak a small tower for 24hrs, medium for 12hrs and large for 6hrs would still allow for pilots to do their afk chilling in the sanctuary of their pos with still the added danger of doing so. You can still be decloaked.

Possibly ships moored to pos are veiled by the cloak while ships undocked unattached are visible unless they themselves activate their ships cloak.

Cloaks would make it possible to afk, allow potential for being killed(if decloaked), and be an alternative to deathstar super poses being in lower class wormholes. It would also allow for smaller corps to have a defense against overwhelming forces(long as they aren't located).

Fuel based cloaking of pos' would prevent unlimited afkcloaking of a pos. Would provide a buffer of protection for the smaller pos' that cannot fit extreme defenses for when the owners find it time to log for the night. Right now we have our forcefield. We know if we have enough fuel, it will remain up till we log back in next day. Without forcefields, how do we protect our smaller pos' in a wh while we are offline?
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#37 - 2012-08-30 17:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Fradle wrote:
If you also went through listening Two Step explained that he's not sure how he would suggest they balance it, but that's not OUR job or HIS. We bring our REQUIREMENTS, not gripes with WAHHHHH I don't want change.


this is a valid point.
i will hence rephrase what I have been saying:

forcefields are a fundamental requirement of POSs.
feel free to add docking to it if you must (i wont prefer if you didnt, these are POSs, not stations) but removing the forcefield from POSs is about on par with removing the ability to dock from stations. it's fundamental.



for the record, i think everything else they are planning/talking about is good.
(apart from some of the more obviously stupid things like cloaking POSs...)

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Phantom-Recon
#38 - 2012-08-30 17:42:14 UTC
Bane Nucleus wrote:
Smaller POS's = bigger targets. I don't see how that benefits any small corps in C1-C4 wormhole space.


I don't see how either. If they want to rid lower class wh's of giant pos' that are heavily defended, then they need to come up with a valid defense and incentive for having less weapons,ewar,hardners due to being a smaller pos. Best solution I heard mentioned in that q&a was cloaking of a pos.

I don't much like the idea of it taking weeks to take down a smaller tower. Why spend so much time to remove a small tower in a system that will only allow a small tower? Maybe they want more corps and alliances to coexsist in the same systems. I don't know. but weeks to take down a small tower and only small towers allowed in lower class wh's as an idea needs more incentive. Risk and Reward need to be balanced in the end. I just hope they don't scew one or the other with their proposed changes.
#39 - 2012-08-30 21:14:24 UTC
Bernie Nator wrote:
And best of all, no one was a complete idiot about asking questions.


The disgraced lawyer clearly wasn't there. P

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Caldari State
#40 - 2012-08-30 21:45:35 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
I don't much like the idea of it taking weeks to take down a smaller tower. Why spend so much time to remove a small tower in a system that will only allow a small tower?

When you can bridge a thousand ships into a system in the blink of an eye to siege all the towers there, those towers are not going to stay online for very long. Forget the fact that it would severely impact hisec wars, because it would take longer than a wardec period to take down your target's towers. Forget the fact that you have limits on fleet sizes in wormholes. This makes Nullsec "more interesting" by having prolonged tower sieges.
11 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump