Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
11 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

[Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

First post
Author
Red Alliance
#41 - 2012-08-30 22:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolvun
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.


I have said it before but sure i will say it again, we as a small corp know POS's are vulnerable as they are now and can be taken down by people who put in the effort to do so. All we ask is that they be required to put in that effort, it should not be a very easy thing for a few people who are bored to pass the time with. That is our REQUIREMENT to live there.

A medium POS and the lack of defenses it can field is laughable and you can't expect people who actually want to stay in w-space for a long time to live out of them. It just won't happen. Plenty live out of them now and they are nothing but targets waiting to be spotted.

EDIT: If you have read the other massive thread about this you will find a significant number of "smaller" corps who have said pretty much the same thing, but like the larger corps that have voiced their views on this we are all getting ignored on it. I know Two Steps disagrees with us on this but i hope that he can see the overwhelming response from people that don't want POS nerfs to happen and put those views to CCP ahead of his own.

That is his job after all.
#42 - 2012-08-30 23:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
As a low class (C2) resident for over a year, and a low class (C3) resident for a year before that I can safely say that removal of force fields, increases in fuel costs, inability to store caps in sma and placing artificial player count limits on the smaller wormholes will have great negative effects on smaller corps the enjoy the solitary existence of wormholes.

We use ours as a stage of industry, pve site running, some mining (more gas than minerals) and a staging for roams out to C3 for more gas and the opportunistic pvp.

Several of our players have been in EVE since 2003 and this aspect of wormhole living is what keeps many of them interested in the game and logging on.

As others have said in more words than I'll write on my phone, POS mechanics need work. This is undeniable. It's also something that we'd welcome. However, if that means a sacrifice to our existence or playstyle it should not come at the cost to our existence or the massive time and isk investment we've made to carve our home out of the last true frontier on EVE.

Small scale pvp, industry and security are afforded to those small entities who have invested the time and effort. Please do not invalidate that "just because" as the issues with POS do not require this level of amputation fix being proffered.

I'm right behind you

Transmission Lost
#43 - 2012-08-30 23:32:11 UTC
As a fellow C2 resident from a large corp, I am glad that the smaller C1-C4 corps are speaking up. Hopefully we hear more from them, as I have already stated my points of view 30x over Lol

No trolling please

Lord Fudo
#44 - 2012-08-31 01:16:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Fudo
So I listened to the whole thing.
What I'm most curious about is.....how invulnerable, or vulnerable will moored ships attached to pos be?

Can they take any damage from say a stealth bomber that decloaks, and launches a bomb at it?

Will those ships assume the overall EHP and resists of a tower?

Will there be an undocking/detaching timer of invulnerability?

Will ships be able to dock/attach upon warp in to the POS, or have to maneuver to an open docking point?

How long will it take for the POS to target any decloaking stealth bombers or any other ship that arrives at pos to get a quick kill on a docking or undocking ship?

What is the technological problem CCP is currently having with Force Fields? Is this a nullsec issue, or a game wide issue?

If a pos can cloak, how long can it cloak for, and can it be decloaked?

How much is CCP leaning towards allowing us to anchor POSs anywhere in system?

Personally I'd like to see some mechanics like what Atlantis had on Stargate Atlantis. Their force field was power based(meaning it only lasted for so long). In coming fire further depleted the power source of the force field. They were able to reverse the effects of the force field to cloak the city to ruse the Wraith. City was able to power up and relocate(if they had a ZPM of course).
#45 - 2012-08-31 03:05:44 UTC
Personally as a resident of one of the lower class wormholes, it sickens me that they would want to limit what types of towers we can use.

I chose a corp in a lower category because I like small gang PvP and find capital warfare crap.

If with the New POS setup coming out, I am not able to have my new "Home' as I would like it and would become an easy target for people who felt like kicking me out. Well what is the point? I might as well go live in lo-sec or Null where although I can get my POS hot dropped but I can also defend it to my hearts content.

Stuffing up C1-C4 Wormholes just because you cannot attack the POS with capitals is insane.

We are getting the new POS system no matter what and that means no force fields, to this we will adapt to but limiting us is crap, and as to the ability to support corporations I normally don't run anoms or harvest Ladar sites in my own system thats what other peoples space is forSmile

Making C1-C4 Wormholes different because they are popular is just nuts, they are popular because they work. They work for everyone who doesn't want to be in a Large corp. They work for people who don't want to be in a Null sec sized blob and they work for people who want to be involved in combat and not as an also appearing in capital combat.

Maybe the question should really be why are the lower wormholes more popular than the C5 and C6, maybe it is the C5 and C6 that needs altering?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#46 - 2012-08-31 10:25:40 UTC
Dear C1-C4 Wormhole Dweller,

I hope you're paying attention to this thread. Because it's you that's impacted.

Pay attention to those advocating change to POS in lower class wormholes. Look at their corporation and alliances, pay attention to the numbers of members in each. Visit their killboards take a look at their average gang sizes and the class of system they most frequently kill and die in. Without exception they are all large alliances. Some once lived in lower class wormholes, a few still do, some still have fragments there, but most are now resident in c5-c6. All frequently shoot structures. In wormholes.

They are advocating alterations to your way of life. They feel your POS are too strong.

They'll tell you change is coming, that it's inevitable, that it can't be stopped Big smile I remember changes in Eve not so long ago that were far dearer to CCP. They were stopped. Change itself may be inevitable but the nature of those changes is always up for discussion. You, after all, are the customer.

Perhaps you should speak up lest those with other agendas do so for you.

Sincerely,

A former C2 resident

TL'DR - Large alliances that've forgotten how to get fights without shooting structures want to soften up your loot pinatas for their purusal. Remember if any POS in a C2 is killable by a gang of 10-15, imagine how easy that is to a gang of 50+ Beware the change that claims to benefit the small group, for it usually benefits the bigger group even more.

#47 - 2012-08-31 11:19:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Fradle
It didn't save my post! And I'm too tired to repost it all WAHHHH!


tldr; We don't evict people or even attack people's POSs for loot or isk, that gets selfdestructed in front of us. We attack people for fights, I'm sure most people here don't care or even think about attacking anything lower than a C5 due to not being able to use our toys. Also people need to remember that some of us(myself) moved out of lower WHs long before T3 BCs, maybe Large ECM dickstars and deathstars aren't a problem anymore... and maybe they're still stupid hard to get rid of.
#48 - 2012-08-31 11:22:58 UTC
When Two Step ran for the CSM I campaigned for him in my alliance, and now I'm starting to think it was a mistake. You seem to only be viewing W space from a C5 / C6 dweller perspective: Weakening lower class worm holes just gives you an easier logistics route to high sec, because if people can't defend what they own in those systems they'll just empty out.

Some of us actually want to live in lower class W space -we get a lot of small scale fights that way...

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...

#49 - 2012-08-31 11:23:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Personally as a resident of one of the lower class wormholes, it sickens me that they would want to limit what types of towers we can use.

I chose a corp in a lower category because I like small gang PvP and find capital warfare crap.

If with the New POS setup coming out, I am not able to have my new "Home' as I would like it and would become an easy target for people who felt like kicking me out. Well what is the point? I might as well go live in lo-sec or Null where although I can get my POS hot dropped but I can also defend it to my hearts content.

Stuffing up C1-C4 Wormholes just because you cannot attack the POS with capitals is insane.

We are getting the new POS system no matter what and that means no force fields, to this we will adapt to but limiting us is crap, and as to the ability to support corporations I normally don't run anoms or harvest Ladar sites in my own system thats what other peoples space is forSmile

Making C1-C4 Wormholes different because they are popular is just nuts, they are popular because they work. They work for everyone who doesn't want to be in a Large corp. They work for people who don't want to be in a Null sec sized blob and they work for people who want to be involved in combat and not as an also appearing in capital combat.

Maybe the question should really be why are the lower wormholes more popular than the C5 and C6, maybe it is the C5 and C6 that needs altering?


It sounds similar to the low-sec/high-sec type arguments you hear from time to time. You know, the ol' "lowsec isnt as populated, nerf highsec to make more people go to lowsec!" type stuff. Maybe it's a similar situation, maybe they see too many people / too many large entities in lower class wormholes and want to nudge more of them along into higher class ones.

Of course, both of these things are stupid. People who don't go to lowsec / high class wormholes don't go because what they offer don't interest them. Nerfing the hell out of the areas that DO offer what they like doesn't fix anything, it just alienates those players.
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-08-31 11:24:12 UTC
Fradle wrote:
Janus Nanzikambe wrote:
Dear C1-C4 Wormhole Dweller,

I hope you're paying attention to this thread. Because it's you that's impacted.

Pay attention to those advocating change to POS in lower class wormholes. Look at their corporation and alliances, pay attention to the numbers of members in each. Visit their killboards take a look at their average gang sizes and the class of system they most frequently kill and die in. Without exception they are all large alliances. Some once lived in lower class wormholes, a few still do, some still have fragments there, but most are now resident in c5-c6. All frequently shoot structures. In wormholes.

They are advocating alterations to your way of life. They feel your POS are too strong.

They'll tell you change is coming, that it's inevitable, that it can't be stopped Big smile I remember changes in Eve not so long ago that were far dearer to CCP. They were stopped. Change itself may be inevitable but the nature of those changes is always up for discussion. You, after all, are the customer.

Perhaps you should speak up lest those with other agendas do so for you.

Sincerely,

A former C2 resident

TL'DR - Large alliances that've forgotten how to get fights without shooting structures want to soften up your loot pinatas for their purusal. Remember if any POS in a C2 is killable by a gang of 10-15, imagine how easy that is to a gang of 50+ Beware the change that claims to benefit the small group, for it usually benefits the bigger group even more.




I am sure there are alot of smaller C1-C4 alliances out there that have not spoken up yet...

Would love to hear your input
#51 - 2012-08-31 14:40:44 UTC
My views and information may not be as current as the current crowd demands due to an enforced absence in a barren part of the world, but I'll do my best.

Been playing since 2004, and I can safely say that the only thing that keeps me around is the WHs and the nearly unlimited choices of what I can do every day. However, like many others I dont have the time that the large corps need to run sites in the higher classes of holes, so I stay in the lower ones.

I cannot agree with imposing a player limit on smaller holes, and it seems to me like they are making the "soft limit" (the number of towers/players that can use a hole before the sites begin to dry up, though it was never completely confirmed) into a hard limit that will put shackles around the corps who are using the holes for what they are intended to do, such as smash fullerenes together, build T3 materials, etc. I also know many corps who use C1s/C2s as "training wheels" to get people more organized for deeper wormholes and lowsec/nullsec PVP as well. I feel that limiting this even more than how a C1 is already limited would be detrimental to the populations that inhabit the lower class WHs. And if logical thought is used, if these people did not think (or had proven they could not) handle anything higher than a C2, then evicting them from their homes will most likely not encourage them to go deeper into WH space.

I acknowledge that change is coming, forcefields are going away, etc. I think the idea of modular space stations is a good one, and one in keeping with the flavor of EVE and the general path that POS/Outposts have been taking over the last few updates, and I even expected it to a point. But as others have stated, there need to be some limitations to prevent someone from recreating the shipyards out of Star Wars that spanned entire systems and took major fleets (or exploding stars) to wipe out.

As many others have pointed out, however, a work around needs to be made for the current issue of removing every last iota of situational awareness from a pilot when he docks up, or else we will see the Olympic Undocking Games make an unwelcome appearance in a part of space that we have largely cherished for not having to deal with such crap. I dont have any particular ideas at this time how that can be achieved, but I know that between the multitude of high-IQ EVE players and sympathetic devs, something will be worked out. Perhaps a POS module that is low cost, and works the same as a D-scanner, that can be used while inside the station via a pop-up window?

Though many would argue about the masses of the wormholes for hauling in say a month's worth of fuel in industrials, I dont think that's the right way to go about advocating them to re-look at the issues at hand. We dont need increased mass limits on C1 holes that can already support an alarmingly large number of T3s and bombers, and I feel thats the path that arguement takes us down. If you want to place a limit on towers themselves in a lower class WH system, I feel that is a better way of handling the situation than saying, "Only small towers in C1s", etc. If a single corp can only have 3 large towers in the system, that is an appropriate number, and the inability to haul in the requisite fuel will keep people from creating system-wide death stars if the modular POS idea goes into effect the way I think it will (increased fuel consumption, starting from 0, for each module added on, much like the old system worked with certain fuel items)


#52 - 2012-08-31 14:56:31 UTC
Really what is so wrong with a control tower + forcefield? this isn't highsec if you want to dock up head back to k-space...

All that needs changing is some of the management interface/mechanics to refine or fix options have haven't had the dev time they need and/or were implemented before WH space existed without consideration of how they'd work in an environment that didn't exist in the game at the time.

Where does this need to impose arbitary limits on lower class wormholes come from?
#53 - 2012-08-31 16:07:55 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Really what is so wrong with a control tower + forcefield? this isn't highsec if you want to dock up head back to k-space...

There are CODING problems with the forcefield and supposedly it's hell on their system or something like that. As a coder IRL I can see the potential problems with them and the load.

BUT WAIT FRADLE, it's their job, they're lazy... just fix it! (it's never that easy and if they say it needs to go, it needs to go)

We don't know the real problem with forcefields as it's held under NDA, maybe they'll eventually tell us. What I would urge is for Two Step, moreso everyone else is to evemail Two Step and NICELY explain that it would help us all understand some of these changes if they lifted the NDA on what's wrong with forcefields(unless there's something exploitable)
#54 - 2012-08-31 17:18:20 UTC
Fradle wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Really what is so wrong with a control tower + forcefield? this isn't highsec if you want to dock up head back to k-space...

There are CODING problems with the forcefield and supposedly it's hell on their system or something like that. As a coder IRL I can see the potential problems with them and the load.

BUT WAIT FRADLE, it's their job, they're lazy... just fix it! (it's never that easy and if they say it needs to go, it needs to go)

We don't know the real problem with forcefields as it's held under NDA, maybe they'll eventually tell us. What I would urge is for Two Step, moreso everyone else is to evemail Two Step and NICELY explain that it would help us all understand some of these changes if they lifted the NDA on what's wrong with forcefields(unless there's something exploitable)


Would be interesting to know what the problem is as far as performance goes it shouldn't be a problem aslong as your using broadphase filtering to keep as much as possible out of the time intensive calculations.
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-08-31 18:46:22 UTC

I know that a lot of us are noticing system memory usage massively increase when inside a POS forcefield.
#56 - 2012-08-31 18:51:37 UTC
Starbuck Raider wrote:

I know that a lot of us are noticing system memory usage massively increase when inside a POS forcefield.


That and massive fps drops if you look at reactors/arrays/silos...

But I still don't know if that justifies some of the other more "egregious" and damaging solutions being suggested.

I just have to hope to BoB that this isn't Incarna , full-speed ahead, redux.

I'm right behind you

#57 - 2012-08-31 18:57:24 UTC
Starbuck Raider wrote:

I know that a lot of us are noticing system memory usage massively increase when inside a POS forcefield.


Could be a nightmare in terms of resource/asset footprint especially if someone has an obscene amount of anchored modules, ships left floating in FF, stuff used for decloaking, etc.
Phantom-Recon
#58 - 2012-08-31 23:30:29 UTC
Are they saying it's a problem with force fields on the current POS system, or with the POS system they want to create? All I've heard in the Q&A was that it's a technological problem, but I don't recall any clarification on whether they think it's something that wont work on the new, or something they're struggling with on the current.
#59 - 2012-09-02 08:53:19 UTC
Its gotta be issues related to the system generating essentially millions of items, and updating their posistion in space every x seconds. Thinking big picture, all the POSs out there, with the new methods of defense, it's gotta e a huge drain on system resoures serverside. That alone makes it a big, huge target for the anti-lag guys. I dont think the anti-lag guys talked to the gameplay guys about it though, before issuing the statement of "We hate POSs as they are now, they will change."
Plucky Adventurers
#60 - 2012-09-02 15:46:09 UTC
As fun as it is to speculate on why CCP wants to remove FF's, it isn't actually helpful to the discussion, so I would ask folks to take that speculation elsewhere.

I've heard some great feedback from a lot of people via EVE mail and convos. Just wanted to answer a couple of the more common questions I get via eve mail in this thread:

1) Yes there will be more of these town halls. I'm not quite sure when, but the next one will be advertised more widely, including a post here and on my twitter account (@two_step_eve), as well as my blog.

2) I am in no way advocating player limits or some such nonsense for lower class wormholes. My view is that because a POS in a C1 doesn't have to face dreadnaught guns, it shouldn't have dreadnaught-level shields and weapons. In exchange, perhaps these POSes would have the longer reinforcement timers mentioned in the minutes, especially if those timers required action from both the attacker and the defender to prolong. I think this would be a good solution to folks worried about having their POS randomly reinforced.

3) There have been some accusations both here and elsewhere that this is because AHARM wants to attack more lower class wormholes or something similar. This is total nonsense. If we wanted to attack lower class wormholes, we could certainly do so right now. Your 10 man corp isn't going to be saved by your large POS full of ECM, it is safe because large groups have no interest in attacking you. We aren't in it for the loot, which is pretty meager, we are there for the fights, and we wouldn't get one from a small corp in a C1.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

11 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump