These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ayeson
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#81 - 2012-08-31 19:42:43 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

My point is that if WH mechanics change, so you use stabilizers to control ship movement through a WH (rather than static game-able mass attributes), you could solve the idiotically low-risk close WH, open WH, close WH, open WH nonsense that prevails in WH Life. In this sense, WH stabilizers (which are really just the new player operated mass mechanic that can be interfered with by third parties) would be interesting and potentially good.... Then again, if you were a risk-adverse PvE'er that can't handle more risk in your WH, I understand why you'd be vehemently opposed to this...


It isn't low risk to close a hole, nearly every orca we kill is on a wormhole, and I like killing orcas on wormholes, as do other people I'm sure.

You can say whatever you would like, but the point stands that you want to have players manipulate wormhole timers and mass using a module, known as a "wormhole stabilizer", which would then be the only method for using an actual wormhole and overly complicates the regular use, and eliminates many opportunities to kill capitals and other hole closing ships in Wspace

I ♥ the orthrus
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#82 - 2012-08-31 20:33:15 UTC
Ayeson wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

My point is that if WH mechanics change, so you use stabilizers to control ship movement through a WH (rather than static game-able mass attributes), you could solve the idiotically low-risk close WH, open WH, close WH, open WH nonsense that prevails in WH Life. In this sense, WH stabilizers (which are really just the new player operated mass mechanic that can be interfered with by third parties) would be interesting and potentially good.... Then again, if you were a risk-adverse PvE'er that can't handle more risk in your WH, I understand why you'd be vehemently opposed to this...


It isn't low risk to close a hole, nearly every orca we kill is on a wormhole, and I like killing orcas on wormholes, as do other people I'm sure.

You can say whatever you would like, but the point stands that you want to have players manipulate wormhole timers and mass using a module, known as a "wormhole stabilizer", which would then be the only method for using an actual wormhole and overly complicates the regular use, and eliminates many opportunities to kill capitals and other hole closing ships in Wspace


Yes, occasionally nice ships get caught trying to close a WH, that doesn't make it unsafe.... it could easily be just moronic pilots...

Whatever words you're trying to attribute to me, this is how I feel:

The ability to control your entrance and exits allows a WH dweller to make their system far more safe than I think they should be.... In my opinion, if you can dictate your entrances and exits, you have WAY to much control.... Imagine living in k-space, where you could tell the stargate to randomly aim at a different system anytime you want.... you just need to pass the right mass of ships through it.... that level of control is bad for the game, even if WH's don't have local, cyno's, or stations....

If changing WH mechanics involves some type of WH stabilizer, I'm more than willing to listen and evaluate it... it might make WH travel overly complicated or it might make an interesting and new tactical tool. I'm not vetoing the idea until I can review it within the appropriate framework... Also, I'm not saying WH stabilizers are the only way to solve the ease with which WH's are closed.... perhaps the mass equation needs to be balanced with diminishing returns, such that if you send a Specific Ship through a WH, it counts for full mass the first time, 10% mass the second time, 1% mass the third time and so on.... Then you might catch multiple orcas instead of just one...

QT McWhiskers
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#83 - 2012-08-31 20:39:03 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:



My point is that if WH mechanics change, so you use stabilizers to control ship movement through a WH (rather than static game-able mass attributes), you could solve the idiotically low-risk close WH, open WH, close WH, open WH nonsense that prevails in WH Life. In this sense, WH stabilizers (which are really just the new player operated mass mechanic that can be interfered with by third parties) would be interesting and potentially good.... Then again, if you were a risk-adverse PvE'er that can't handle more risk in your WH, I understand why you'd be vehemently opposed to this...


The problem with everything posted in this thread is that is just makes no sense to me. You see I am a simple kind of man. I love to shoot people, sleepers, gas clouds, and posses. (posses is barely on that list because it only produces tears.)

Anything that will make it harder for me to produce the tears of others makes me die a little bit on the inside. Do you feel me dying? Do you feel it? WELL STOP IT!!!

As I said earlier, WHs only need 1 thing. More noobs for me to shoot. The spawn rate on sleeper sites is good, the frequency on ladar sites is good, the unpredictability of finding wild holes is great. It gives us a sense of adventure. We cant just go about willy nilly like putting our big ships through new holes, you never know whats inside there.

But you sir... want to change that. You want to make it safe to move large amounts of ships through a wormhole at one time. **** THAT, and **** your plan. (with a capital *). You will completely kill all of us when you allow the goons or HBC into our holes by simply erecting a module on our holes. (Trust me, I know how TheMitanni likes to erect things)

You simply have no clue how WHs or the WH community works. You have never lived in anything that required brain power to use, and you have no clue of the amount of death that awaits you if you ever step foot inside one of our holes. All you simply know is that "WHs are hard, I want to make them easier"

Sit in your drake, farm your c2 sleepers, and leave us higher end folks alone. You will be better for the experience.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#84 - 2012-08-31 20:55:30 UTC
QT McWhiskers wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:



My point is that if WH mechanics change, so you use stabilizers to control ship movement through a WH (rather than static game-able mass attributes), you could solve the idiotically low-risk close WH, open WH, close WH, open WH nonsense that prevails in WH Life. In this sense, WH stabilizers (which are really just the new player operated mass mechanic that can be interfered with by third parties) would be interesting and potentially good.... Then again, if you were a risk-adverse PvE'er that can't handle more risk in your WH, I understand why you'd be vehemently opposed to this...


The problem with everything posted in this thread is that is just makes no sense to me. You see I am a simple kind of man. I love to shoot people, sleepers, gas clouds, and posses. (posses is barely on that list because it only produces tears.)

Anything that will make it harder for me to produce the tears of others makes me die a little bit on the inside. Do you feel me dying? Do you feel it? WELL STOP IT!!!

As I said earlier, WHs only need 1 thing. More noobs for me to shoot. The spawn rate on sleeper sites is good, the frequency on ladar sites is good, the unpredictability of finding wild holes is great. It gives us a sense of adventure. We cant just go about willy nilly like putting our big ships through new holes, you never know whats inside there.

But you sir... want to change that. You want to make it safe to move large amounts of ships through a wormhole at one time. **** THAT, and **** your plan. (with a capital *). You will completely kill all of us when you allow the goons or HBC into our holes by simply erecting a module on our holes. (Trust me, I know how TheMitanni likes to erect things)

You simply have no clue how WHs or the WH community works. You have never lived in anything that required brain power to use, and you have no clue of the amount of death that awaits you if you ever step foot inside one of our holes. All you simply know is that "WHs are hard, I want to make them easier"

Sit in your drake, farm your c2 sleepers, and leave us higher end folks alone. You will be better for the experience.


Please actually read my posts before commenting on them.... I think you very much mis-understand my desires...
QT McWhiskers
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#85 - 2012-09-03 19:57:04 UTC
I did, statement stands.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#86 - 2012-09-04 14:24:02 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
God damn people aren't STILL suggesting those sodding awful "stabilizer" ideas are they? I thought we were past this. They are horrific ideas, stop repeating them.
QT McWhiskers
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#87 - 2012-09-04 14:55:31 UTC
Why not wormhole DEstabilizers. That way we can really just give a giant middle finger to everyone suggested stupid crap in this thread.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#88 - 2012-09-04 17:02:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
QT McWhiskers wrote:
Why not wormhole DEstabilizers. That way we can really just give a giant middle finger to everyone suggested stupid crap in this thread.


lol... we pretty much want the same thing...

The only way I'd advocate a WH stabilizer, is if all WH's are initially"destabilized," and the stabilizer (which would be a vulnerable, attack-able module) somehow replaced the mass limits that currently governs WH travel.... I understand most people hear only "module to let infinite ships through a WH" and equate it with WH blobbing... but that's not even remotely what I'm suggesting....

And as for your WH destablizer....How would it function? A bomb you launch at the WH to randomly remove mass (<-- terrible idea, as people would just launch bombs to close WH's without risking your precious orca targets)?? Would it be a module you anchored that collapsed the WH the next time a ship comes through (<-- terrible idea, as people would use them to close WH's without risking your precious orca targets)? How could it function in a manner that I can't exploit to risklessly close a WH??

The problem is, WH mass limit is too mathematically defined... people know exactly how to close each type of WH.... and worse, WH vitality is actually dependent on the ability to close a WH, because you need to spawn a new WH to find more sites to run.... What CCP really needs to do is randomize WH extinction events... and I don't know the best way to do this, but I'll listen to whatever's on the table to identify it as good or bad....

Other ideas, coupled together, could also work: 1.) Prevent ships from using a WH when their mass is more than the remaining mass on a WH.... and perhaps have it actually close the WH without going through!! 2.) Make it so a new static WH will spawn without needing to close your old static. Example: Whenever a current static goes critical (time and/or mass), a new static will spawn. 3.) More ambiguous WH mass limits via WH mass regeneration (+100m-ish kg/hr).... but don't update the mass critical messages. 4.) Change the critical point, so a WH claims critical randomly when the mass limit remaining is between 10-35% WH's mass limit. 5.) Alter the time-remaining to vary inversely with mass regeneration.... i.e., if a WH's mass is regenerating, then perhaps it's life cycle speeds up so it decays faster...

There are pro's and con's to each of the above too...
QT McWhiskers
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#89 - 2012-09-05 13:55:46 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
QT McWhiskers wrote:
Why not wormhole DEstabilizers. That way we can really just give a giant middle finger to everyone suggested stupid crap in this thread.


lol... we pretty much want the same thing...

The only way I'd advocate a WH stabilizer, is if all WH's are initially"destabilized," and the stabilizer (which would be a vulnerable, attack-able module) somehow replaced the mass limits that currently governs WH travel.... I understand most people hear only "module to let infinite ships through a WH" and equate it with WH blobbing... but that's not even remotely what I'm suggesting....

And as for your WH destablizer....How would it function? A bomb you launch at the WH to randomly remove mass (<-- terrible idea, as people would just launch bombs to close WH's without risking your precious orca targets)?? Would it be a module you anchored that collapsed the WH the next time a ship comes through (<-- terrible idea, as people would use them to close WH's without risking your precious orca targets)? How could it function in a manner that I can't exploit to risklessly close a WH??

The problem is, WH mass limit is too mathematically defined... people know exactly how to close each type of WH.... and worse, WH vitality is actually dependent on the ability to close a WH, because you need to spawn a new WH to find more sites to run.... What CCP really needs to do is randomize WH extinction events... and I don't know the best way to do this, but I'll listen to whatever's on the table to identify it as good or bad....

Other ideas, coupled together, could also work: 1.) Prevent ships from using a WH when their mass is more than the remaining mass on a WH.... and perhaps have it actually close the WH without going through!! 2.) Make it so a new static WH will spawn without needing to close your old static. Example: Whenever a current static goes critical (time and/or mass), a new static will spawn. 3.) More ambiguous WH mass limits via WH mass regeneration (+100m-ish kg/hr).... but don't update the mass critical messages. 4.) Change the critical point, so a WH claims critical randomly when the mass limit remaining is between 10-35% WH's mass limit. 5.) Alter the time-remaining to vary inversely with mass regeneration.... i.e., if a WH's mass is regenerating, then perhaps it's life cycle speeds up so it decays faster...

There are pro's and con's to each of the above too...



Except I was trolling. I dont want any kind of stabilizer or destabilizer. That would just dumb down wormholes. And when you dumb down wormholes, all you do is allow some tard corps have the ability to live successfully in a c5/c6. And thats a bad thing. Noob corps deserve only one thing in c5/c6s. Death.
Lin Gerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2012-09-05 22:31:07 UTC
While I agree with your points the idea of a WH stabilizer COULD hold merit. You are making the mistake of thinking that WH's are individual systems, but they're not. Just like New Eden they're a galaxy of systems, only instead of stargates there are WH's.

What you're seeing here might not just be the option for large alliances to stabilize an entry WH in null and just blob through, but rather a way to travel in this new galaxy, one owned entirely by players without actually owning the territory like null. Basically if it was WH to WH stabilization I dont think it would be a problem.

That being said WH stabilization would add an interesting mechanic. If allowed only in certain WH's or systems it could create an interesting system of linked WH systems while still allowing for random and limited transportation between other sections of the WH's galaxy and KS. Furthermore by making it a player tool that means it can be lost. Unlike stargates that are there forever these stabilizers could be destroyed.

Imagine for a minute if you will an alliance of WH corps who have slowly but surely stabilized WH's connecting to each others systems. They can now combine and coordinate forces inside their linked systems but must limit their movement outside of their stabilized systems or to KS.

Now to prevent corps/alliances from just sieging with a stabilizer in place there would be a system wide warning that a WH is being stabilized giving players a chance to stop it, or a counter module/building, or require that the stabilizer must be put on both sides of the WH making it vulnerable as 1. it would lower mass to bring that through and 2. it would be attackable. Also due to it lowering mass of the WH it would give the defender the advantage as less forces can warp through to defend the WH stabilizer and the more defenders they bring in to protect it the weaker it gets (suicide runs by the defender to try and pass through WH's to close them making the stabilizer set up useless.)

Now that I've said all that, I can full well understand why at face value this seems bad, but honestly it could be a great expansion to the kinds of play you can experience, especially for other WH goers. I've been living in a WH for about 7 months now and while this could be catastrophic if done wrong, if done right it could probably add a lot to the game.
Arbiter Reformed
I Have a Plan
Shadow Cartel
#91 - 2012-09-05 22:39:31 UTC
+1

i find it kind of lazy that sleepers are still based around the scan anom run anom mechanic, i would find it more fitting to have to go through acceleration gates perhaps using hackers etc and other skills to navigate through complexs

ie longer perhaps even randomly generated DED sites which could be completed with different ships, some requiring only a covops say others requiring pure combat vessals
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#92 - 2012-09-06 08:41:27 UTC
I don't think I'd like acceleration gates in wormholes, but I'd support more dynamic sites or more varied mechanics/'goals' for sites
taque
Dutch Legions
Solyaris Chtonium
#93 - 2012-10-07 04:43:55 UTC
Arbiter Reformed wrote:
+1

i find it kind of lazy that sleepers are still based around the scan anom run anom mechanic, i would find it more fitting to have to go through acceleration gates perhaps using hackers etc and other skills to navigate through complexs

ie longer perhaps even randomly generated DED sites which could be completed with different ships, some requiring only a covops say others requiring pure combat vessals


i hope you realize that any frig, destroyer or cruiser would be instapopped by sleeper bs in a c4-c6. warping fhrough gates
is a mad idea anyway.

anomalies in a c5 or c6 are way different from the ones in c1-c4 wh's. the scram, neut. if you do them in a wrong way or shoot one of the triggers by accident you may have a hard time or loose the fleet in the worse case.

someone on page 3 compared anomalies to incursions. imho i think incursions are a lot easier, no risk to be ganked either.


wormhole stabilizers is a bad word. it's more an 'invasion-tool' than anyting else. but even then, there is no other reason i would know how to use it than for invading and making sure i can get a few caps in when my enemy is sleeping. it saves the time needed to colla[se and scanning time though.
Mr Adama
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2012-10-08 00:50:17 UTC
Max Kolonko for president!
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-10-09 17:34:37 UTC
MAX,

I totally agree with you, your petition would really improve the game-play, and It is what CCP have to do to the next expansion, I would really appreciate if the eve community move in this direction,

I have spent some time trying to find a way to gather some Ideas about what is expected of the POS REVAMP that the last CSM claimed as a goal. I would really appreciate your opinion there, also if the CSM read this I would really appreciate if they take this effort to CPP, and some dev use it to speed up their job....

link: [Discussion] - New POS system ( Block Built - Starbasecraft)

thx o7

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
yodayblack
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#96 - 2012-11-11 04:27:00 UTC
Agreed.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#97 - 2012-11-11 09:13:09 UTC
+1 supported.
zelklen
Team-UBER
#98 - 2012-11-12 08:46:23 UTC
+1
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
#99 - 2012-11-12 11:26:48 UTC
Agree, don't fix what ain't broken, plus this has somebodies agenda written all over it.

......................................................
Dar Manic
Dirt Road Services
#100 - 2012-11-30 19:21:20 UTC
+1 agree completely

I just don't understand null sec players.

**Please note: **Anytime I use the phrase PvP in a post, I'm talking about shooting/combat/killing things/blowing things up. Thank you.