Assembly Hall

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

[PETITION] Don't mess with OUR WH's - Two Step, We are counting on You

Author
Suddenly Spaceships.
#41 Posted: 2012.02.01 22:18
+1
Ash Alliance
#42 Posted: 2012.02.03 00:13
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
If anything, update the nebulae in WH space so it looks all cool and shiny like the rest of EvE. We still have the old crappy nebulae with new cool pulsar, mag, etc effects and the contrast is rather odd.


THIS :)
#43 Posted: 2012.02.03 17:29
Just wanted to agree with the poster.

WH stabilizers would COMPLETELY DESTROY any and all reason to live in a wh.

You could hop in at any time from a system with a blob (which is why GOON supports stabilizers, f**king blob warfare needs to stay in null)
Clear out all the sites, and hop back.

This would completely thrash/destroy the market for any and all WH goods... probably another thing GOON wants.

WH's are excellent in their design atm. Small gang pvp for the most part, with the ability to siege and have take downs if properly planned (RnK or AHARM anyone?)

I've lived in a WH for just shy of a year now, and while they can be very profitable, there is also a lot of risk and a lot of time investment (constant scanning, logistics for getting stuff in/out)

All in all i think WH's are one of the most balanced aspects of eve, and shouldn't really be bothered.

#44 Posted: 2012.02.03 21:09
I am not a wormhole dweller although I have considered moving into one several times.

But even I can see how damaging this would be to the wormhole way of life.

W-space is the only place in EVE where you can PVP without the risk of getting blobbed or hot-dropped and it needs to stay that way.

I used to think that it would would be cool if cyno's and jumpdrives worked in W-space. with a mechanic to prevent cyno's in C4 and lower. Of course systems linked by a worm hole would not necessarily be close to one another so it would take so time to find systems within jump distance of each other. But even this would severely damage the current wormhole way of life. The possibility of getting hot-dropped would be equally damaging to the small scale as this idea of wormhole stabilizers.

Leave W-space alone, except maybe expanding it. but the mechanics are close to perfect. do not break them.
Ash Alliance
#45 Posted: 2012.02.11 11:55
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
I am not a wormhole dweller although I have considered moving into one several times.

But even I can see how damaging this would be to the wormhole way of life.

W-space is the only place in EVE where you can PVP without the risk of getting blobbed or hot-dropped and it needs to stay that way.

I used to think that it would would be cool if cyno's and jumpdrives worked in W-space. with a mechanic to prevent cyno's in C4 and lower. Of course systems linked by a worm hole would not necessarily be close to one another so it would take so time to find systems within jump distance of each other. But even this would severely damage the current wormhole way of life. The possibility of getting hot-dropped would be equally damaging to the small scale as this idea of wormhole stabilizers.

Leave W-space alone, except maybe expanding it. but the mechanics are close to perfect. do not break them.



Exactly :)

Leave WH to us - small gang pvp'ers.
Keep You null-bear-blobs hands from it as far away as possible.
Minmatar Republic
#46 Posted: 2012.02.11 15:35
Max Kolonko wrote:

As history of W-space showed - no WH is inpenetrable.

What some members of CSM are sugesting is terrible - to implement some form of WH stabilizers? This will remove the hard limit that make this space unique. This will remove the hard work required to siege well-defended WH's. This will actually hurt more the small corps that dont have huge forces, but just enough to fight on equall footing against forces that can move trough their WH limits.


All WH residents and people that are active in W-space know that this is true!

The WH mass stabilizer would only benefit large alliances as it would make their W-space "take over" much, much, much easier. A alliance wich can bring together 60+ fleet members cane easily take over a WH if they well plan and coordinate the attack. But for that you need time and some effort wich some don't want to give. They want it easier and therefore make it alot harder for the other side. It is allready hard to defend a WH if you are a small corp or small alliance. This would make it impossible. 60+ hostile BS fleet jumping at once into a WH where a 30 member corp lives. Ugh Come on!

"mechanism to get rid of the invulnerability some groups enjoy in wormholes" - huhQuestionQuestionQuestion
If this was refering to C1-C4 Wormholes then that "invulnerbility" shuld be renamed to well planed PVP ships and coordinated team of players wich took alot of time to plan how to effectivly defend their WH, even if that means that they collapse the WH to prevent the enemys forces to get in. That also needs some effort!
C1-C4 WHs usally have a small amount of players in it as there are not that much people needed to do a site and because there is less ISK to share. Therfore if you take some time you can find their weakness. But that time is a bit to much time for some it seems.
C5-C6 are in my eyes allready dominated from large alliances as they have more people inside 1 WH and therefore more people to fly cap ships. For now different alliances can hold their ground if they have alot of people and caps in theitr WH, and that is the only thing that comes near invulnerbility in my eyes. But even that can be taked if you plan well and are willing to take some risk. If the WH stabilizer would come in game then the alliance with the largest fleet and largest number of caps would dominate all C5s and C6s. W-space would become equal to null-sec.
For now people can defend themselves and have a chance against larger corps and alliances. WH mass stabilizer would make the possibility of defending the WH really small. The large alliances would then really become invulnerable!
#47 Posted: 2012.02.11 15:51
Vith Rothe wrote:
Just wanted to agree with the poster.

WH stabilizers would COMPLETELY DESTROY any and all reason to live in a wh.

You could hop in at any time from a system with a blob (which is why GOON supports stabilizers, f**king blob warfare needs to stay in null)
Clear out all the sites, and hop back.

This would completely thrash/destroy the market for any and all WH goods... probably another thing GOON wants.

WH's are excellent in their design atm. Small gang pvp for the most part, with the ability to siege and have take downs if properly planned (RnK or AHARM anyone?)

I've lived in a WH for just shy of a year now, and while they can be very profitable, there is also a lot of risk and a lot of time investment (constant scanning, logistics for getting stuff in/out)

All in all i think WH's are one of the most balanced aspects of eve, and shouldn't really be bothered.




think it was attually the rnk csm member who suggested it not any of the null sec csm's
#48 Posted: 2012.02.11 16:32
The people wanting to push this through are the ones eager to benefit from the feature themselfes; the corp/alliances they are in. In my opinion, those in the CSM voting for this are corrupt, and are abusing their voice and influence.


Wormhole mechanics are just fine the way they are now, do not mess with it!
Ash Alliance
#49 Posted: 2012.02.11 23:11
Reeval wrote:
Vith Rothe wrote:
Just wanted to agree with the poster.

WH stabilizers would COMPLETELY DESTROY any and all reason to live in a wh.

You could hop in at any time from a system with a blob (which is why GOON supports stabilizers, f**king blob warfare needs to stay in null)
Clear out all the sites, and hop back.

This would completely thrash/destroy the market for any and all WH goods... probably another thing GOON wants.

WH's are excellent in their design atm. Small gang pvp for the most part, with the ability to siege and have take downs if properly planned (RnK or AHARM anyone?)

I've lived in a WH for just shy of a year now, and while they can be very profitable, there is also a lot of risk and a lot of time investment (constant scanning, logistics for getting stuff in/out)

All in all i think WH's are one of the most balanced aspects of eve, and shouldn't really be bothered.




think it was attually the rnk csm member who suggested it not any of the null sec csm's



True, but she (well, he) is hard to be called WH representative - RnK have just one WH corp: Guilotine Therapy - all other are just null sec corps
WAFFLES.
#50 Posted: 2012.02.12 07:24
If this ******** "feature" were implemented, wormholes would become nothing more than nullsec with sleeper rats and no local.
Minmatar Republic
#51 Posted: 2012.02.12 16:39
As a long-term WH dweller ( Nearly 2 years now ), I have to say the mechanics, whilst needing a few subtle changes, are fine.

No 2 WH-Stabs!

A few pipe-dreams are:

* Allow a Sov style structure to be anchored in a WH, this gives improved functionality. This structure can be attacked, and when re-enforced will take away the functionality provided.

- This gives you access to the current static exit's marketplace, or in the case of Deep WH's, the closest static exit through a WH.

This could of course be easily argued against as making WH life a little too easy, as we would be able to check the markets without sticking our noses out, and could probably be abused to know what area the exit is in before it's scanned.. so is less than ideal. This is more of a major Pipe-dream than serious idea.

- An anchorable cloning facilty in WH space, so when we die you are back in your POS. This cannot be used outside W-space, so can't be anchored in Null, low or Highsec.

When killed, if you are in K-space , you go to your K-space medclone. If you die in W-space, you go to the W-space Medclone.

This has again advantages and disadvantages.

For attackers, it's more of a gamble as when we kill at the moment, we know that we have removed that player from the field for at least the next 30 minutes or more, depending where/if the residents know where their exit is. With this mechanic in play, the aggressors can come back into the fight, potentially within minutes.

The disadvantage is of course the fact that fights on WH could simply become meatgrinders, throwing clone and ship after clone and ship into a fray, and of course it makes life more difficult for any aggressors. Prehaps a "Cooldown" of 24 hours before another W-Space clone can be made available to limit the tactical advantages?

Just a few brain-farts to throw into the mix, I'm sure there are a lot more than that out there.
Surely You're Joking
#52 Posted: 2012.02.13 13:33
WH stabilizers are the worst idea ever.

I live in a WH for more than 2 years now, ALL wh people that i know and that i've talked to agree that:

WH stabs will destroy wormhole game play. We don't want o.o space without local. There are many ways to improve WHs, the WH stabs one is a fail.

@ CMSs that suggested that: I hope your idea won't get any support.
#53 Posted: 2012.02.14 20:48
+1

i agree with op 100%
Brave Collective
#54 Posted: 2012.02.18 00:21  |  Edited by: Isaiah Harms
Mars Theran wrote:
Agree with you on everything but the last bit, which I have supported elsewhere. I can see a use for limited mass stabilization of Wormholes using player anchored gates/structures. These would require fuel of course, and function like a POS in that fashion, and also be capable of being destroyed. No reinforcement timer.



Ah... Never had your wormhole pos camped 24/7 by a major invader huh?

Most wormhole corps are small size. The current wormhole mechanic is a good thing.

You want to stabilize my wormhole so you can shove endless amounts of T3's through it? Would you consider letting me moon mine in my wormhole? Now that would make you 0.0 carebears really cry.

Oh... and for crying out loud. You wanted the 5000+ members in your alliance so you could "own" 0.0. What's the problem? Having a hard time supporting all of them?

Cry harder. I'll send some tissues. I suggest you figure out how to make 0.0 profitable.

Otherwise it seems like you're a failure at 0.0 and just want to mooch off the pro's who specialize in making team work happen in Wormholes. Certainly seems that way with lowsec incursions. Pathetic. Really pathetic.
Brave Collective
#55 Posted: 2012.02.18 00:25
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
Agree with you on everything but the last bit, which I have supported elsewhere. I can see a use for limited mass stabilization of Wormholes using player anchored gates/structures. These would require fuel of course, and function like a POS in that fashion, and also be capable of being destroyed. No reinforcement timer.



Ah... Never had your wormhole pos camped 24/7 by a major invader huh?

Most wormhole corps are small size. The current wormhole mechanic is a good thing.

You want to stabilize my wormhole so you can shove endless amounts of T3's through it? Would you consider letting me moon mine in my wormhole? Now that would make you 0.0 carebears really cry.

Oh... and for crying out loud. You wanted the 5000+ members in your alliance so you could "own" 0.0. What's the problem? Having a hard time supporting all of them?

Cry harder. I'll send some tissues. I suggest you figure out how to make 0.0 profitable. Hint: You can't all be mindless pvp'ers who plex in their T3's and carriers. Suggest you train "industry" skills. Seem them rocks? Go get 'em!

Otherwise it seems like you're a failure at 0.0 and just want to mooch off the pro's who specialize in making team work happen iCertainly seems that way with lowsec incursions. Pathetic. Really pathetic.

#56 Posted: 2012.02.19 12:32
+1
This petition needs to stay on the first page.
Ash Alliance
#57 Posted: 2012.02.22 23:21
Elisa Fir wrote:
+1
This petition needs to stay on the first page.


EmptyQuoting :D
Minmatar Republic
#58 Posted: 2012.02.23 14:19
Lord Lewtz wrote:

+1 Just say no to easy cap and blob mechanics.


Yeah this is total horseshit. One of mittani's stupid ideas so his goons can ruin more peoples' gametime.

CCP needs to step on this **** if they wish to retain players.

#59 Posted: 2012.02.23 15:25
Revolution Rising wrote:
One of mittani's stupid ideas so that everything in the game is homogeneous and the same strategies apply everywhere, because that would most benefit him.

FTFY.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
#60 Posted: 2012.03.04 20:08
I tried very hard not to snigger, but the juvenile in me could not resist a smirk at your begging for your wormholes not to be interfered with.
Forum Jump