Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 Pages123Next page
 

[Open question to CSM Candidates] What is Your stance on WH stuff?

First post
Author
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-02-25 21:04:30 UTC
I would like all (well, at least those that have anything to say in the subject) of CSM candidates to state their point of view on WH balancing/iterations/mechanics/tweaks/etc...

I would like to know what you think is broken and what works perfectly and should never be changed.

What would You like being added to WH and what taken away?

How do You see WH (as a gameplay style) fits in whole EVE gameplay experience?
New Eden Trading Company.
#2 - 2012-02-25 23:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
I'm very positive about WH as a gameplay style. Noir. has a WH home and we have taken many contracts in WH space, evicting, protecting, and working alongside big names like Si Radio, AHARM, CCRES, and many more.

I definitely don't think WH income needs a nerf of any kind. I'm glad the ABC nerf that was tossed out during CSM6 died on the vine and I'd work to keep it that way.

WH combat is currently pretty awesome, but obviously any ship balancing tweaks will impact WH PVP so I'd like to make sure they do so for the better i.e. improving less used ships and giving them a role instead of nerf batting everything.

Lvl 6 chain-collapsing, as featured in the latest Clarion call, seems a bit screwy and might need a tweak but I don't think introducing a "WH Stabilizer" to make links permanent is a good way to go about it. I'd look forward to working with the other WH reps like Two Step and/or Meissa in providing CCP better guidance there.

Corp bookmarks were a godsend to WH residents. Further improvements to the corp bookmark UI have my support and if scaling that feature up to the Alliance level was on the table, I'd push for the development resources to make it happen.

The POS code needs a redo; the players know it and CCP knows it. However the POS code is a big ungainly mess and given CCP's current priorities I doubt they will have the resources to devote to it this year. CCP has made great strides in tiding us over till then with fuel blocks and shortening the anchoring/online/unanchoring timers. Further quality of life POS improvements will strongly benefit WH residents as well as industrial and 0.0 players so I support them. With those changes made, I see the current weak areas as the POS management UI, permissions, and aggression-related bugs. The roles/permissions side of things may be too resource intensive but I am hopeful CSM7 can successfully advocate for improvements in the other two areas.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-02-25 23:16:21 UTC
Just in case it escapes the radar of candidates this topic might be of interest and might require commentary:

CSM minutes Dec 2011 wrote:
CCP and some of the CSM members brought up the difficultly of invading a large established group in a wormhole as one of the biggest current issues with w-space. The idea was raised of having some sort of ship or module that would allow more mass to pass through a wormhole. One of the CSM members explained the defensive mechanic of leaving your static wormhole at critical mass and collapsing it when invaders were close to entering.

One CSM stated that "If you build a fortress in there it is impossible to invade". The mechanics of infiltrating capital ships into wormholes was discussed, as well as the "chain-collapsing" mechanic. CCP expressed some concern that as long as you were with a group of people, wormhole space is too safe. CCP was worried that the introduction of some sort of wormhole stabilizer would remove some of the everyday safety that people have grown to expect. Some CSM members raised an objection to the stabilizer, as they thought it would remove some of the main constraints from wormhole space that help to keep it different than known space.
#4 - 2012-02-25 23:45:57 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Just in case it escapes the radar of candidates this topic might be of interest and might require commentary:

CSM minutes Dec 2011 wrote:
CCP and some of the CSM members brought up the difficultly of invading a large established group in a wormhole as one of the biggest current issues with w-space. The idea was raised of having some sort of ship or module that would allow more mass to pass through a wormhole. One of the CSM members explained the defensive mechanic of leaving your static wormhole at critical mass and collapsing it when invaders were close to entering.

One CSM stated that "If you build a fortress in there it is impossible to invade". The mechanics of infiltrating capital ships into wormholes was discussed, as well as the "chain-collapsing" mechanic. CCP expressed some concern that as long as you were with a group of people, wormhole space is too safe. CCP was worried that the introduction of some sort of wormhole stabilizer would remove some of the everyday safety that people have grown to expect. Some CSM members raised an objection to the stabilizer, as they thought it would remove some of the main constraints from wormhole space that help to keep it different than known space.


^^That was one of the most pants-on-head things I'd ever seen.^^

Don't forget the bit where "some CSMs" said that they'd like to make wormholes easier for nullsec alliances to invade.

TwoStep--and, I'm happy to note, Aleksyev Karrde, as I've always had great respect for Noir.--you are needed!

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-02-25 23:53:46 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Just in case it escapes the radar of candidates this topic might be of interest and might require commentary:

CSM minutes Dec 2011 wrote:
CCP and some of the CSM members brought up the difficultly of invading a large established group in a wormhole as one of the biggest current issues with w-space. The idea was raised of having some sort of ship or module that would allow more mass to pass through a wormhole. One of the CSM members explained the defensive mechanic of leaving your static wormhole at critical mass and collapsing it when invaders were close to entering.

One CSM stated that "If you build a fortress in there it is impossible to invade". The mechanics of infiltrating capital ships into wormholes was discussed, as well as the "chain-collapsing" mechanic. CCP expressed some concern that as long as you were with a group of people, wormhole space is too safe. CCP was worried that the introduction of some sort of wormhole stabilizer would remove some of the everyday safety that people have grown to expect. Some CSM members raised an objection to the stabilizer, as they thought it would remove some of the main constraints from wormhole space that help to keep it different than known space.


^^That was one of the most pants-on-head things I'd ever seen.^^

Don't forget the bit where "some CSMs" said that they'd like to make wormholes easier for nullsec alliances to invade.

TwoStep--and, I'm happy to note, Aleksyev Karrde, as I've always had great respect for Noir.--you are needed!


Oh I know, if you check my "stop apathy" thread in my sig you can see how I don't support the idea of large null sec alliances simply wishing to roll over WH residents with capitals.
K162
#6 - 2012-02-26 05:57:28 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
I would like all (well, at least those that have anything to say in the subject) of CSM candidates to state their point of view on WH balancing/iterations/mechanics/tweaks/etc...

I would like to know what you think is broken and what works perfectly and should never be changed.

What would You like being added to WH and what taken away?

How do You see WH (as a gameplay style) fits in whole EVE gameplay experience?


First, I would urge you to check out my thread and blog (linked in my sig). I am the only serious candidate who lives full time in w-space.

In general, I think much of w-space is working really well. The major system I think needs work is the POS system, especially relating to security and ease of use. The likely fix to that is the long awaited POS rewrite, and it is especially important to have a w-space person participating in that process.

I'd love to see randomness in sleeper sites, so that the same ships don't trigger new spawns. I'd also like to see CCP devote some effort to adding new sleeper sites over time, so we get a little more variety in our PVE.

On the PVP side, I think w-space is in pretty good shape. I've heard a lot of folks ask for changes to self destruct mechanics, which is an issue I agree with, and have raised them with CCP. This includes preventing people from SDing inside POS shields, killmails for ships that SD with aggression, and longer timers for capital ships.

I think w-space is (and should remain) a home to small-medium gang PVP. I think the biggest threat to that is the wormhole stabilizer idea put forward by Meissa Anunthiel and CCP at the December summit. I go into a lot more detail on this on my blog, at http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-take-on-december-csm-summit.html and I encourage you to read it.

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

Rooks and Kings
#7 - 2012-02-26 09:43:21 UTC
Two step wrote:

I think w-space is (and should remain) a home to small-medium gang PVP. I think the biggest threat to that is the wormhole stabilizer idea put forward by Meissa Anunthiel and CCP at the December summit. I go into a lot more detail on this on my blog, at http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-take-on-december-csm-summit.html and I encourage you to read it.


Two Step, while being otherwise a decent candidate, seems intent on using intellectual dishonesty to further his campaign. Pray tell, Two Step, what is this wormhole stabilizer idea that was mentionned, how does it work, what caveats were mentionned. We talked about this very topic together with Soundwave, so I suppose you should be able to tell exactly what I am supposed to be advocating.

So I'll have to repeat myself again.

I don't care about a stabilizer, I want to see if a way can be found to prevent people from walling themselves in to an extent such that they are safe from harm, that idea is but one of the ideas that got talked about (and since two step crafted that part of the minutes, he obviously selected to leave every other consideration out). I'm not talking about opening everything up so every wormhole is easily entered, I'm talking about a situation where an attacker has at most the ability to get in 3 caps to the defender's 30+. The idea is not to create a place where any random group can storm any wormhole at will. Any change along those lines need to be a lot of effort. No place in Eve should be safe, and that applies to wormholes as well. This is an idea obviously not shared by AHARM. So I will still check if a solution can be found, I don't give a rat's ass the form it takes. The one thing that is important is that the overwhelming majority of the wormhole dwellers should find themselves in no worse off a position after a change like that than before.

As far as WH improvements go, I have continuously considered that Wormholes were one of the few things CCP got right from the start. I obviously advocated small changes that happened (like probing UI, faster anchoring/unanchoring, etc.) but others I have been advocating for have yet to come to the game, so I'll keep pushing for those. Among them you'd see T3 refitting, easier POS configuration, personal hangars, the ability to change implant set inside a wormhole (I offered using rorqs as a way of doing it, but I'm not attached to specific solutions, if CCP comes up with another way that meets the needs), etc.

Since WHs work fine as they are, I wouldn't recommend any large changes at this stage. The equilibrium that makes them a nice place for small entities to live is such that it needs to be handled carefully. So, it's more a question of improving living conditions, improving on content, and making sure changes that are introduced to other areas of the game integrate well with wormhole life.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-02-26 17:48:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiifa
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
I'm talking about a situation where an attacker has at most the ability to get in 3 caps to the defender's 30+.


There's your problem.

There is no insuperable wormhole fortress. There are merely those that take more time and teamwork than others. And before you call this a facile conclusion, consider the unique mechanics of wh space.

The attacking force can choose to engage when their targets are inactive, or they can seed in caps for weeks on end until they are satisfied they can succeed with brute force.

If those 30+ caps don't currently have friendly pilots to sit in them, then the invading force of 3 + support can control the statics of the target system to bring more ships in.

Do your research. No place in w-space is safe.

Two Step is the only wormhole candidate, and people who want to continue living in wormholes need to vote for him.

"Since WHs work fine as they are" <-- this is you conceding this is not your area of expertise; your advocacy sounds more like someone waving through obvious fixes that don't apply just to wh space
K162
#9 - 2012-02-26 18:33:04 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Two step wrote:

I think w-space is (and should remain) a home to small-medium gang PVP. I think the biggest threat to that is the wormhole stabilizer idea put forward by Meissa Anunthiel and CCP at the December summit. I go into a lot more detail on this on my blog, at http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-take-on-december-csm-summit.html and I encourage you to read it.


Two Step, while being otherwise a decent candidate, seems intent on using intellectual dishonesty to further his campaign. Pray tell, Two Step, what is this wormhole stabilizer idea that was mentionned, how does it work, what caveats were mentionned. We talked about this very topic together with Soundwave, so I suppose you should be able to tell exactly what I am supposed to be advocating.

So I'll have to repeat myself again.

I don't care about a stabilizer, I want to see if a way can be found to prevent people from walling themselves in to an extent such that they are safe from harm, that idea is but one of the ideas that got talked about (and since two step crafted that part of the minutes, he obviously selected to leave every other consideration out). I'm not talking about opening everything up so every wormhole is easily entered, I'm talking about a situation where an attacker has at most the ability to get in 3 caps to the defender's 30+. The idea is not to create a place where any random group can storm any wormhole at will. Any change along those lines need to be a lot of effort. No place in Eve should be safe, and that applies to wormholes as well. This is an idea obviously not shared by AHARM. So I will still check if a solution can be found, I don't give a rat's ass the form it takes. The one thing that is important is that the overwhelming majority of the wormhole dwellers should find themselves in no worse off a position after a change like that than before.

As far as WH improvements go, I have continuously considered that Wormholes were one of the few things CCP got right from the start. I obviously advocated small changes that happened (like probing UI, faster anchoring/unanchoring, etc.) but others I have been advocating for have yet to come to the game, so I'll keep pushing for those. Among them you'd see T3 refitting, easier POS configuration, personal hangars, the ability to change implant set inside a wormhole (I offered using rorqs as a way of doing it, but I'm not attached to specific solutions, if CCP comes up with another way that meets the needs), etc.

Since WHs work fine as they are, I wouldn't recommend any large changes at this stage. The equilibrium that makes them a nice place for small entities to live is such that it needs to be handled carefully. So, it's more a question of improving living conditions, improving on content, and making sure changes that are introduced to other areas of the game integrate well with wormhole life.


I'm not sure I would be allowed to answer your question under the NDA. You certainly did discuss some restrictions, but the general idea I think is conveyed pretty well in the minutes.

As I have said many times, no entity in w-space is safe. If someone wanted to, they could certainly devote the time and effort required to remove even AHARM from our system. The key is that it would take time and effort, and nowhere *near* as much time and effort as we spent building it up. Just because R&K wasn't (and apparently isn't) willing to put in that time and effort doesn't make it impossible. As mentioned by Aiifa above, the attacker has the massive advantage of knowing when they will attack, and can certainly seed the system with enough capitals if they are willing to put in the time scanning and chain collapsing.

Anything that lets people put more mass through a wormhole would hurt smaller entities way more than it would help people attack large groups. That is why I oppose it, because it would be something that ruin the ability of small groups to live in w-space without constant attack from the big guys.

I don't see how you can advocate for something that would change the basic mechanics of w-space and yet still say you aren't advocating for large changes.

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

Northern Coalition.
#10 - 2012-02-26 19:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Voloses
A few days ago I talked to some friends of mine that live in a WH. They Said in very bold lettering to LEAVE THEM BE. They are hard to live in, hard to move into, and one spot where they get a lot of small gang fights. What is there not to love about that. The pay outs are nice but there are lots of risks. Risks vs Rewards.

Yea I know we are all taking about the POS rights and roles, because it needs fixed bad. But that is the main issue that has been brought up.



http://www.e-peen.com/voloses-for-csm/
Empyreus
#11 - 2012-02-26 19:27:35 UTC
For what it's worth I haven't spent a huge amount of time in WH space and as such I feel i'm unqualified to comment.

It does seem however it would take a fair bit of consultation to achieve the desired result (assuming anything does need changing)
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2012-02-26 20:08:11 UTC
"delegate WH issues to Two Step"

voila

~hi~

Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2012-02-26 20:08:53 UTC
generally also, "take Two Step's side in an argument about w-space if Meissa is disagreeing with him"

~hi~

Caldari State
#14 - 2012-02-26 21:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Kolonko
Meissa. At Your Blog You wrote:

Quote:

Wormholes


This would be a long post, and I'm not sure this is the place to handle it because it's going to be long-winded argument. The short version of it is I am in favour of a mechanic, no matter what it is, that removes the invulnerability that some people well entrenched in their wormhole enjoy. Obviously that position is not one shared by AHARM. That said, the difficulty with which one can reach a wormhole (logistics wise and all that) is what makes it interesting and viable too, something that makes it unique and interesting. Balanced mechanics can be found, and the wormhole stabilizer idea is but one that has already been discussed (we actually had a discussion with Two Step from AHARM and CCP Soundwave on that very subject during the emergency meeting), but I do not shy away from stating that I was the one advocating for a mechanism to get rid of the invulnerability some groups enjoy in wormholes while keeping the overwhelming majority of the wormhole dwellers in no worse a position than they are now. Which is a bit not mentioned in the minutes. I don't care if it's a stabilizer, a destabilizer, an undectectable wormhole entrance, or a divine intervention. I'll make a longer post as soon as humanly possible on the subject because, as shortly described, this would be a negative game-changer for everyone living in a wormhole. So if you can hold your judgement on my position until you heard it in full, that'd be great. And if you want to bash me then, by all means. :-)


Now maybe this is a good place to elaborate on Your proposal?
Rooks and Kings
#15 - 2012-02-26 23:05:13 UTC
Two step wrote:
and can certainly seed the system with enough capitals if they are willing to put in the time scanning and chain
collapsing.


I believe a situation where pilots are asked to stay offline for weeks at a time while their mates are chain collapsing to find an entrance (one does not just walk into a wormhole, it can take more than a week to find one) to be undesirable.
If that is your suggestion, well, then I don't have much more to say.

Two step wrote:
Anything that lets people put more mass through a wormhole would hurt smaller entities way more than it would help people attack large groups.

Indeed, and that's why I'm not advocating for that, as you know very well but repeatedly fail to mention.
Allowing more mass, constantly or timed, by means of ships or modules, from one side or the other, are but a few of the ideas that are discussed, including by you if you remember the various options and the back and forth we have been having with devs on the issue.

The dishonesty is not in saying I'm looking for a potential solution to what I perceive to be an issue, but in saying that I advocate for a solution that is not one in light of the collateral damage it would cause. Something I don't do... This is where you're dishonest.

I don't have a solution, I don't even spend much time looking for one, which is why I'm not advocating any.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

#16 - 2012-02-26 23:13:17 UTC
CCP definitely should not nerf WH's. In fact CCP owes us the rest of the originally promised WH content, there are more sleeper types discussed that have yet to be delivered.

I spent a while living in a POS in a pretty decent WH and found it a fun challenge. I'd love to see the experience even richer!

Issler
#17 - 2012-02-27 01:30:52 UTC
Worm-space, best space.

(Oh, and nicely played back-pedal, Meissa. Very...aaah...adroit. It's why there's no way in Hell that I'd ever vote for you.)

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-02-27 10:23:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiifa
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

I believe a situation where pilots are asked to stay offline for weeks at a time while their mates are chain collapsing to find an entrance (one does not just walk into a wormhole, it can take more than a week to find one) to be undesirable.
If that is your suggestion, well, then I don't have much more to say.


It's one of many possibilities. It's certainly the one of the best when up against a well-organised set of targets with good timezone coverage.

Yes, the home team is chain collapsing to find the target hole, but you'll also have a scanner in the target watching for opportune k-space routes to slip caps in from losec, perhaps 3 at a time. We all know high end wormhole pvp requires you have multiple characters, I'd rather increase the pressure on people to maintain several accounts rather than force them to join large nullsec entities just to continue living in wh space.

Also, don't view that route as a black and white situation. There's a chance an invading force might be noticed as they seed. Sometimes the seeding ships were initially part of a harassment expedition, so they are designed to stay logged off in hostile space.

Sometimes the best way of getting a fight is staying logged off. :EVE:

Hasn't your alliance done exactly this? Hint: answer is yes

Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
which is why I'm not advocating any.


...but you did in the past
Rooks and Kings
#19 - 2012-02-27 16:59:33 UTC
Aiifa wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

I believe a situation where pilots are asked to stay offline for weeks at a time while their mates are chain collapsing to find an entrance (one does not just walk into a wormhole, it can take more than a week to find one) to be undesirable.
If that is your suggestion, well, then I don't have much more to say.


It's one of many possibilities. It's certainly the one of the best when up against a well-organised set of targets with good timezone coverage.

Yes, the home team is chain collapsing to find the target hole, but you'll also have a scanner in the target watching for opportune k-space routes to slip caps in from losec, perhaps 3 at a time. We all know high end wormhole pvp requires you have multiple characters, I'd rather increase the pressure on people to maintain several accounts rather than force them to join large nullsec entities just to continue living in wh space.

Also, don't view that route as a black and white situation. There's a chance an invading force might be noticed as they seed. Sometimes the seeding ships were initially part of a harassment expedition, so they are designed to stay logged off in hostile space.

Sometimes the best way of getting a fight is staying logged off. :EVE:

Hasn't your alliance done exactly this? Hint: answer is yes

Against a decently sized alliance controlling a wormhole, probing from within is not going to work, particularly in C6s, because you'd need to find a link between whatever system you end up in and lowsec/null/another WH to get your caps in, giving the owner ample time to bring the exit/entrance on the brink of collapse. There's a fixed number of WHs that lead out of a given wormhole.

So the burden is unduly high against someone who walls themselves in.
Aiifa wrote:

Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
which is why I'm not advocating any.

...but you did in the past


Nope, which is why this irritates me. I have never had any issue defending unpopular measures I thought were beneficial, feel free to look at my track record. If I thought this idea was the one to go for, I'd be defending it tooth and nails. I don't...

I don't have any issue with someone voting for someone other than me, particularly if that other candidate is a decent one (which Two step mostly is, in the "one trick pony" category). But if you decide not to vote for me, at least do so because you actually disagree with me, not because you disagree with what you think I said.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-02-27 17:15:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiifa
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

Nope, which is why this irritates me. I have never had any issue defending unpopular measures I thought were beneficial, feel free to look at my track record. If I thought this idea was the one to go for, I'd be defending it tooth and nails. I don't...

I don't have any issue with someone voting for someone other than me, particularly if that other candidate is a decent one (which Two step mostly is, in the "one trick pony" category). But if you decide not to vote for me, at least do so because you actually disagree with me, not because you disagree with what you think I said.


Is this you officially disputing the CSM minutes Two Step and others wrote up and opened for review before publishing? A little late to do that. (You imply above, or here, that you were or were among the CSM rep(s) who proposed a wormhole stabilizer).

As the official record reads, you were one of the people who mooted wormhole stabilization in the first place, and no matter how enthusiastic you personally were about it, Two Step was the person who responded with aptly vehement disagreement (apparently) and that's why he is getting the votes.

Perhaps when you say "one trick pony" you mean devoted specialist and splendid, necessary choice for CSM rep.
3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump