Wormholes

Surely, you're joking.

Another thing....i read that these new pos mods would require a freighter to haul, hence would only be available in c5/c6. Does this mean HS will have the best pos's and lower end wh space wont? Think about the logic here.

Two Step, I have read the minutes. However the comment you made about your preference - i.e. a cloaking module (or whatever it'd be called) that'd let the owner hide POS from dscan - is just laughable. The fact that you presume anyone who disagrees with an idea you had/support is uninformed or ignorant is ridiculous. You've done it constantly throughout this thread, stop it.

But since you're fond of just telling people to read x or y, let me ask you to read this thread. As I, as well as several others, have asked what the perceived "problem" is with lower class wormholes. Either what you think is an issue, or what CCP / other CSM members in the past have raised concerns over, because I've yet to see you answer this, instead just blabbering on about potential ways to gimp lower class wormholes to make it easier to evict people from them, as if lower class evictions don't happen (or are somehow harder than knocking over fortresses c6 systems)

Tell us what the issue is and why it needs addressing before swamping us with ideas.

Let me repost my last comment for those who may have missed it:




I don't agree with everything that CCP is planning and i'm not saying major changes like this are needed, I'm just trying to look at things from both sides.

Hey, this is actually a fairly good point.

I am also intriqued by the idea of POSes being on the _overview_ by default, and hidable so they are only seen on dscan with a spesific POS module.

(This is all from the perspective of keeping w-space multi-player and not session changing to a single-player environment, ie: docking in a station. Note that this means space barbies won't be possible, much to the joy and relief of w-space denizens everywhere)

I personally like force fields (proximity based protection zones) because they offer an area of safety. I like this from the defensive perspective, obviously, but it also offers a non-direct advantage to the hunter as well. Some benefits have already been mentioned, and are good ones. I particularly like the ability for a fleet to gather semi-safely, have room to align together semi-safely, and then warp together. For defenders, it's obvious why. For hunters, it means the defenders can organize and might be just that little bit more willing to bring a fight.

The lack of a proximity-based protection zone means that as soon as you are no longer attached to the structure, you are vulnerable. If you can't move while attached, you have to detach yourself (become vulnerable, moving at 0 m/s) to even try to warp out. This makes it much more dangerous for the defenders, and will actually hurt chances for fights to happen in a hostile system.

Sieged victims will most certainly NOT try to warp out into your bubble traps on the exit wormholes if they can immediately be shot at the "ondock" point. C5/C6 may not see many POS sieges, but they happen all the time in C4 and lower; many of our targets are sieged corp members trying to evac, especially when another corp member is smugly "negotiating" for an end of the shooting. After the corpmate is podded, the negotiator usually calms down and boasts less.


If you eject from your ship that is moored, what happens? Does the ship automatically go into storage and your pod becomes safe? Does the ship stay moored, and your pod is now floating and vulnerable? What happens if you don't have an SMA? Can you even eject safely in that case? I would really, really love to hear why CCP wants to get rid of force fields instead of reworking the code to make it an elegant feature instead of a nasty hack.

If I gank a Drake running anoms, and their Noctis warps back to the POS from another anom, that salvager should feel safe enough to reship to a superior ship to mine so he can come at me and fall prey to my ambush without worrying about being shot while reshipping. The proximity based protection zone provides a temporary safe zone while near the POS, so the pilot feels emboldened for further combat. No force field immediately puts someone who was just attacked deeper into a feeling of vulnerability.

This would be very usefull.



This, however, not at all. I don't want a gummy-damage-control-reply, I'd like actual substance.

You already wrote the pr version. Now they just need to post: Read!

Then understood

Then full compliance

Point beeing, it'd be usefull to get some sort of acknowledgement of the concerns beyond just a CSM-member who expressed repeatedly, to not have the same concerns.

Meytal, you have to take my post in context of this entire thread. There are people calling for Dev blogs and Dev interaction and that's unrealistic; CCP isn't there yet. We also have people taking advantage of this thread to attack Two step for obviously unrelated agendas or troll the general community (Slaktoid, SpaceSavage, etc.) so this thread is pretty cluttered with junk posts and redundant 3 page opinion pieces.

Sure, this needs to be discussed, but let's do so under the appropriate context:

• CCP isn't designing this yet; it's all ideas thrown at a dart board.
• Two step probably won't even be on the CSM when the bulk of the design work is being done (unless he's reelected). Depending on how Crimewatch goes, he might not be there when they start asking questions at all.

We're also highly unlikely to get a consensus with so many opinions.

If most people legitimately think Two step is likely to voice his opinions over the community's, then take Two step's advice and elect someone else during the year the POS redesign actually happens. That means someone else capable of doing it needs to step up for the community, but please god, don't start that process in this thread.

Otherwise, keep up the constructive posts that are sprinkled in here.