These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Second Static for C4s

First post
Author
Samsara Nolte
Untethered
Almost Competent
#161 - 2014-08-08 14:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Samsara Nolte
Amgurr Alabel wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.

We're aware that the PVE reward progression isn't ideal across the different wormhole classes, and this is something on our radar. Your CSM members are helping us do a bit of mapping and plan making at the moment on that issue.

We're aware that this change will be less welcomed by those who live in C4s with the intention of isolating themselves, but overall we beleive that this change will be positive for Wormholes as a whole. You may find that C4s with C4/C1 statics and other similar configurations may still meet your needs well.

We will not be publishing the list of new statics, but players will be able to investigate them on SISI once it is updated with this change. The second statics are not configured as predictably as they are in C2s, but there are still some patterns that can be discovered.


I'm sorry but this is a kick in the teeth. Not only are you drastically changing my home system but you aren't even giving me the information ahead of time to see if it will continue to be suitable for living in? I have never had an account on SISI but unless I can just choose to spawn my character in my home wormhole it would be highly unlikely that I would able to find the WH to check what the static will be. If the static is a c5/c6 the WH will no longer work for us while a C4 or lower we can compete with the corps in those holes.

It is bad enough that you are drastically changing the homes of a lot of people but it's even worse that you aren't going to readily make the information accessible for us to make a decision about the future of our corp.


I totally agree some of these changes - to name a few Double static for C4, change of variable effects are some serious concern for the ones living in them, in most cases cripple the inhabitants (their setups income) to such a degree that they probably will need to move out. What initself is no easy task ... (you got any idea how complex the logistics are for moving in and out of w-space) just consider someone living in C5/C6 with a C1-C4 static takes weeks to be able to get out your caps (parking them deep in sov null doesn´t do them much good ... and most w-space residents don´t happen to have cyno alts spread out over all new eden)... a much longer time to allow people to validate if they are still able to live in their homesystem after these changes would have been necessary -
the poor guys living in a C4 and getting a C6 as a second static will be the ones getting the short end of the stick

edit some spelling mistakes
krazyskillz
If we die it's lag
#162 - 2014-08-08 15:10:36 UTC
Been reading all the posts in this thread, while I think a lot of people have great concerns about the new dual statics I will agree that I don't think dual statics are the solution. That's NOT TO SAY I'M AGAINST the idea, but if you want to revamp C4 space then by all means do that.

We currently live in a C4 - C3 static system with no effect. We originally moved in because C4 space was known to be low traffic. After a while we've become pretty bored with our WH due to low isk payouts and we actually crave more pvp action then our WH can supply. This has to be one of the most boring holes to live in - yet peaceful. We have one cap pilot and 2-3 others training for caps and a couple months out. Personally, I would love to see some higher payouts for sites in C4, I think EVERYONE can agree this is THE deterrent from living in C4 space. I would even love to see carrier escalations in a C4 to try and get people to build them in WH space (my own opinion, not saying everyone should agree with that). Obviously make them toned down from a C5 with less payout, but not NEARLY as bad as they are now. Either C4's need to be soloable, or promote group play, not a 50/50 of both witch makes no one want to do it, like it is now.

I'm not at all opposed to the two statics idea, but I do think something needs to happen with the isk payout in C4 sites at the same time. If you can't manage your statics then IMO you probably shouldn't be in WH space. If you don't know how to close off your hole so you can farm in safety then a Google search is not far off. Not saying I'm a WH pro at all by any means. Personally I think CCP could make C4 space very fun. I just don't think dual statics are the only solution, isk really needs to be increased as well.

My PERSONAL ideal scenario for C4 space would be dual statics with 1 carrier escalation in SOME sites. Either C4 sites need to be easier, or slightly harder with more isk payout.

TL;DR
Dual statics are nice, but isk payouts need to be increased as well.
Kp Amelia
Tillistrian Enterprises
#163 - 2014-08-08 15:18:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kp Amelia
krazyskillz wrote:
Been reading all the posts in this thread, while I think a lot of people have great concerns about the new dual statics I will agree that I don't think dual statics are the solution. That's NOT TO SAY I'M AGAINST the idea, but if you want to revamp C4 space then by all means do that.

We currently live in a C4 - C3 static system with no effect. We originally moved in because C4 space was known to be low traffic. After a while we've become pretty bored with our WH due to low isk payouts and we actually crave more pvp action then our WH can supply. This has to be one of the most boring holes to live in - yet peaceful. We have one cap pilot and 2-3 others training for caps and a couple months out. Personally, I would love to see some higher payouts for sites in C4, I think EVERYONE can agree this is THE deterrent from living in C4 space. I would even love to see carrier escalations in a C4 to try and get people to build them in WH space (my own opinion, not saying everyone should agree with that). Obviously make them toned down from a C5 with less payout, but not NEARLY as bad as they are now. Either C4's need to be soloable, or promote group play, not a 50/50 of both witch makes no one want to do it, like it is now.

I'm not at all opposed to the two statics idea, but I do think something needs to happen with the isk payout in C4 sites at the same time. If you can't manage your statics then IMO you probably shouldn't be in WH space. If you don't know how to close off your hole so you can farm in safety then a Google search is not far off. Not saying I'm a WH pro at all by any means. Personally I think CCP could make C4 space very fun. I just don't think dual statics are the only solution, isk really needs to be increased as well.

My PERSONAL ideal scenario for C4 space would be dual statics with 1 carrier escalation in SOME sites. Either C4 sites need to be easier, or slightly harder with more isk payout.

TL;DR
Dual statics are nice, but isk payouts need to be increased as well.


I agree with all but promoting caps. C5s and 6s work because you can get caps in and out. Rather as you say target the sites towards gangs, not solo and not caps, a happy medium. They are not all that easy now, just not very rewarding.
Fish McCragg
Adventure Bros.
#164 - 2014-08-08 17:00:14 UTC
So I've been thinking about it. . .

At first I was very turned off by the idea of another static in my wormhole, but the more I think about it the more I'm starting to warm up to the idea. That being said, it's not going to do anything to help players become more active in C4 space. Just from the law of averages, it might lead to more random accidental encounters just from the increased travel-through they're likely to see, but balance that against the increased need to turtle to survive and the likelihood that many smaller corps will be moving out, you get a lot of empty space.

CCP, if you want larger corps to move in, or you want the current C4 residents to do more pvp, then you need to give us a chance to replace what we lose. As it stands right now, it takes ages to replace even the bare minimum fleet for running the combat sites in there. Whether you're looking at 3 RR Domis, a lone Marauder, or a flock of tengu, the cost for replacing lost ships is too high for C4 corps to remain viable without turtling up.

Say your bare minimum Dominix team is somehow able to run the sites with 3 ships totalling 300m each after fittings. . .
In order to afford a replacement fleet, you'd need to run between 10 and 15 Barracks depending on salvage. Let's say it takes you two weeks to get that many spawned (in my experience, it takes longer). That's about 260 mil in fuel at current Jita prices for one stick. That adds 3 more sites onto the calculation.

Assuming you have NO other expenses, your break even is 13-18 of the best sites in the class before you can afford to lose one bare minimum fleet. Keep in mind, that fleet just barely squeaks by on those sites. The payout for the work just isn't there. People turtle up, not because they're afraid of dying, but because they can't afford to replace their ships on that kind of income.

TL/DR: If you want more activity in C4s, then you need to provide a living wage, yo. People stick to c3s and c5s, avoiding c4s not because of logistics, but because of income potential
TomyLobo
Holy Hunters
#165 - 2014-08-08 19:09:46 UTC
Fish McCragg wrote:
So I've been thinking about it. . .

At first I was very turned off by the idea of another static in my wormhole, but the more I think about it the more I'm starting to warm up to the idea. That being said, it's not going to do anything to help players become more active in C4 space. Just from the law of averages, it might lead to more random accidental encounters just from the increased travel-through they're likely to see, but balance that against the increased need to turtle to survive and the likelihood that many smaller corps will be moving out, you get a lot of empty space.

CCP, if you want larger corps to move in, or you want the current C4 residents to do more pvp, then you need to give us a chance to replace what we lose. As it stands right now, it takes ages to replace even the bare minimum fleet for running the combat sites in there. Whether you're looking at 3 RR Domis, a lone Marauder, or a flock of tengu, the cost for replacing lost ships is too high for C4 corps to remain viable without turtling up.

Say your bare minimum Dominix team is somehow able to run the sites with 3 ships totalling 300m each after fittings. . .
In order to afford a replacement fleet, you'd need to run between 10 and 15 Barracks depending on salvage. Let's say it takes you two weeks to get that many spawned (in my experience, it takes longer). That's about 260 mil in fuel at current Jita prices for one stick. That adds 3 more sites onto the calculation.

Assuming you have NO other expenses, your break even is 13-18 of the best sites in the class before you can afford to lose one bare minimum fleet. Keep in mind, that fleet just barely squeaks by on those sites. The payout for the work just isn't there. People turtle up, not because they're afraid of dying, but because they can't afford to replace their ships on that kind of income.

TL/DR: If you want more activity in C4s, then you need to provide a living wage, yo. People stick to c3s and c5s, avoiding c4s not because of logistics, but because of income potential
Very comprehensive sum up of what's going on in C4s.
XvXTeacherVxV
Be Nice Inc.
#166 - 2014-08-08 23:48:12 UTC  |  Edited by: XvXTeacherVxV
I've lived in several C4s over the years, and this change won't be the nail in the coffin of c4 corps that people are suggesting. A second static means your location can appeal to even more types of players which makes it easy to recruit and keep players. C3s are good for high SP solo PVE, C2s are good for lower SP solo PVE. Having both means everybody has something to do.

Pro-tip: Rolling two holes doesn't actually take that much longer than rolling one. Hit first hole, hit second hole, wait out timer.

Now that said, I worry that some c4s will get statics that drastically change the nature of their location. Because of how difficult they are to crash, adding a C1 static to a hole that doesn't have one would be like adding anchovies to cake. Maybe you like anchovies, but you probably don't want them put in your cake. Especially if you're in the middle of eating it (i.e. living there). Likewise, suddenly getting a c5 or c6 static might open your location up much more frequent visits from much larger and experienced PVP corporations. I don't really get why it's problematic to add another static identical to the current one, except for two c1s. Closing them by mass is time-consuming enough, but having two would make it more difficult to just wait them out too.

Getting the wrong static will most certainly be enough to convince some people to leave and the time that it takes to move in or out of a hole is enough to make a person stop playing entirely, especially if they felt like their hand was forced. It would propbably take each corp more time to move than it would for CCP to find out which holes are occupied. If a hole is empty, I think it's reasonable to add just about any kind of static to it without worry. But if a hole is occupied, here's how I'd institute the changes to avoid ruffling too many feathers.

Hole/Static - New Static
C4/C6 - C2, C3, C4, C5 or 2nd C6.
C4/C5 - C2, C3, C4, 2nd C5 or C6.
C4/C4 - C2, C3 or 2nd C4.
C4/C3 - C2, 2nd C3 or C4.
C4/C2 - 2nd C2, C3 or C4.
C4/C1 - No new static.

If it's just too difficult to change occupied holes one way, and unoccupied holes another then I'd just bite the bullet and use the above chart for all of them. At the very very least, you should announce which holes are getting which statics so players can prepare. If you don't, then you're alienating your wormhole players for no reason. Change is fine if it's reasonable and if this change is done correctly, the corps that live in c4s will benefit more than they lose.
Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE
Mister Tuggles
THE AESIR.
Hostile Probes
#167 - 2014-08-08 23:58:25 UTC
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:
I've lived in several C4s over the years, and this change won't be the nail in the coffin of c4 corps that people are suggesting. A second static means your location can appeal to even more types of players which makes it easy to recruit and keep players. C3s are good for high SP solo PVE, C2s are good for lower SP solo PVE. Having both means everybody has something to do.

Pro-tip: Rolling two holes doesn't actually take that much longer than rolling one. Hit first hole, hit second hole, wait out timer.

Now that said, I worry that some c4s will get statics that drastically change the nature of their location. Because of how difficult they are to crash, adding a C1 static to a hole that doesn't have one would be like adding anchovies to cake. Maybe you like anchovies, but you probably don't want them put in your cake. Especially if you're in the middle of eating it (i.e. living there). Likewise, suddenly getting a c5 or c6 static might open your location up much more frequent visits from much larger and experienced PVP corporations. I don't really get why it's problematic to add another static identical to the current one, except for two c1s which would make closing that hole off almost impossible.

Getting the wrong static will most certainly be enough to convince some people to leave and the time that it takes to move in or out of a hole is enough to make a person stop playing entirely, especially if they felt like their hand was forced. It would propbably take each corp more time to move than it would for CCP to find out which holes are occupied. If a hole is empty, I think it's reasonable to add just about any kind of static to it without worry. But if a hole is occupied, here's how I'd institute the changes to avoid ruffling too many feathers.

Hole/Static - New Static
C4/C6 - C2, C3, C4, C5 or 2nd C6.
C4/C5 - C2, C3, C4, 2nd C5 or C6.
C4/C4 - C2, C3 or 2nd C4.
C4/C3 - C2, 2nd C3 or C4.
C4/C2 - 2nd C2, C3 or C4.
C4/C1 - No new static.

If it's just too difficult to change occupied holes one way, and unoccupied holes another then I'd just bite the bullet and use the above chart for all of them. At the very very least, you should announce which holes are getting which statics so players can prepare. If you don't, then you're alienating your wormhole players for no reason. Change is fine if it's reasonable and if this change is done correctly, the corps that live in c4s will benefit more than they lose.



I completely agree with this. My corp is planning a move to a c4/c4. With the new change coming, and a second static added, we have been forced to put our operations on hold until this change is rolled out.

Why you may ask? A c4/c4 turning into a c4 with a c4 and c5+ will be bad news bears for the majority of people living in a c4/c4.

You are going to **** a whole host of the few people living in a c4 off if this is something that happens.
Fish McCragg
Adventure Bros.
#168 - 2014-08-09 00:18:01 UTC
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:

Now that said, I worry that some c4s will get statics that drastically change the nature of their location. Because of how difficult they are to crash, adding a C1 static to a hole that doesn't have one would be like adding anchovies to cake. Maybe you like anchovies, but you probably don't want them put in your cake. Especially if you're in the middle of eating it (i.e. living there). Likewise, suddenly getting a c5 or c6 static might open your location up much more frequent visits from much larger and experienced PVP corporations. I don't really get why it's problematic to add another static identical to the current one, except for two c1s which would make closing that hole off almost impossible.



Why does everyone keep saying c1 statics are near impossible to roll? I live in a c4/c1 right now, and we roll the c1 all the time. When we get an incoming c4 or larger, we have a very difficult time rolling it since the max mass is so much larger, and we still can't fit caps through. Am I missing something crucial here?
XvXTeacherVxV
Be Nice Inc.
#169 - 2014-08-09 02:17:56 UTC
Fish McCragg wrote:


Why does everyone keep saying c1 statics are near impossible to roll? I live in a c4/c1 right now, and we roll the c1 all the time. When we get an incoming c4 or larger, we have a very difficult time rolling it since the max mass is so much larger, and we still can't fit caps through. Am I missing something crucial here?


Impossible is the wrong choice of words. Time consuming is better. A c2 or c3 static can be closed with 6 roundtrips from a battleship. A c1 requires dozens round trips from smaller ships going through it to close, so that just means more time. When I lived in a c4/c1, I wouldn't bother rolling them via mass. I'd just roll all other holes and then wait for the c1 to expire from time. If I had to wait for two c1s to expire by time, it would be much rarer for them both to be closed when I wanted them to be.
Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#170 - 2014-08-09 04:02:31 UTC
Mister Tuggles wrote:

I completely agree with this. My corp is planning a move to a c4/c4. With the new change coming, and a second static added, we have been forced to put our operations on hold until this change is rolled out.

Why you may ask? A c4/c4 turning into a c4 with a c4 and c5+ will be bad news bears for the majority of people living in a c4/c4.

You are going to **** a whole host of the few people living in a c4 off if this is something that happens.


If my old C4/C4 turned into a C4/C4/C5, I would definitely move back in. I left C4 space after I got a taste of C5 isk. Even w/o cap escalations, C5's pay really really well. 200 a site in blue loot alone. Being able to resupply via freighters. Multi boxing orca boosted gas mining. Easier to close most holes than any C4 hole using carriers{for now at least}.
Odin Skydiver
Alexylva Paradox
#171 - 2014-08-09 05:13:16 UTC
Here is my tribute to last Frontier Barrack solo in T1 Raven. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK5XPJShggk

Why:

I need around 23mins to solo frontier barrack in that solo run salvage was 85mISK = 221mISK/h that -20% corp tax and shared with my scout I'll get 88.4mISK/h. If this happends income would drop to 59mISK/h.

I can fly vargur and go to hs and get 100mISK/h doing SIS lv4s 0 risk but it's so brain melting boring.

Difference in wh that our scouts could make isk and corp gets isk to fuel to towers.

So again -1 to this or do I need to go look are C5 doable in raven. C4 income is the reason to low activity no carebears to gank.
Winthorp
#172 - 2014-08-09 07:14:13 UTC
Odin Skydiver wrote:
-20% corp tax


Dafuq
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#173 - 2014-08-09 08:45:09 UTC
Odin Skydiver wrote:
Here is my tribute to last Frontier Barrack solo in T1 Raven. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK5XPJShggk

Why:

I need around 23mins to solo frontier barrack in that solo run salvage was 85mISK = 221mISK/h that -20% corp tax and shared with my scout I'll get 88.4mISK/h. If this happends income would drop to 59mISK/h.

C4 income is the reason to low activity no carebears to gank.


Then you add the two miningalts so you have to split 4ways. Then another 10% for your CEO´s golden POD and monocle fund.
It get´s even worse if you have to pay the POSfuel. That´s another 500M taken away from that one site you run, so it is like you are loosing 400M. So horrible for running some of the hardest content alone in a T1 ship.
Odin Skydiver
Alexylva Paradox
#174 - 2014-08-09 09:59:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Odin Skydiver
Shilalasar wrote:
Odin Skydiver wrote:
Here is my tribute to last Frontier Barrack solo in T1 Raven. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK5XPJShggk

Why:

I need around 23mins to solo frontier barrack in that solo run salvage was 85mISK = 221mISK/h that -20% corp tax and shared with my scout I'll get 88.4mISK/h. If this happends income would drop to 59mISK/h.

C4 income is the reason to low activity no carebears to gank.


Then you add the two miningalts so you have to split 4ways. Then another 10% for your CEO´s golden POD and monocle fund.
It get´s even worse if you have to pay the POSfuel. That´s another 500M taken away from that one site you run, so it is like you are loosing 400M. So horrible for running some of the hardest content alone in a T1 ship.


SOE Lv4 in hisec give 100mISK/h you don't need share it with scouts or have towers to fuel and you can spam them as long you like.

Do you really think I have just run one barrack?

Hardest content? I plan to try C5 Garrison solo in sisi but I'm missing couple modules to make raven test fit. I almost quit eve cause of lag of pve challenge before I got in to wormholes. I know it can be done in Vargur already.

EDIT:

Also if you bold anything you should check this if they do this whole day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDQ8pU0OBb0.
Kp Amelia
Tillistrian Enterprises
#175 - 2014-08-09 17:31:18 UTC
Odin Skydiver wrote:
Shilalasar wrote:
Odin Skydiver wrote:
Here is my tribute to last Frontier Barrack solo in T1 Raven. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK5XPJShggk

Why:

I need around 23mins to solo frontier barrack in that solo run salvage was 85mISK = 221mISK/h that -20% corp tax and shared with my scout I'll get 88.4mISK/h. If this happends income would drop to 59mISK/h.

C4 income is the reason to low activity no carebears to gank.


Then you add the two miningalts so you have to split 4ways. Then another 10% for your CEO´s golden POD and monocle fund.
It get´s even worse if you have to pay the POSfuel. That´s another 500M taken away from that one site you run, so it is like you are loosing 400M. So horrible for running some of the hardest content alone in a T1 ship.


SOE Lv4 in hisec give 100mISK/h you don't need share it with scouts or have towers to fuel and you can spam them as long you like.

Do you really think I have just run one barrack?

Hardest content? I plan to try C5 Garrison solo in sisi but I'm missing couple modules to make raven test fit. I almost quit eve cause of lag of pve challenge before I got in to wormholes. I know it can be done in Vargur already.

EDIT:

Also if you bold anything you should check this if they do this whole day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDQ8pU0OBb0.



I don't think most people have a problem with the current difficulty, more the reward for it not being on par. Plus now the increase in risk to come.

As people have been saying, why would anyone ever want to live in a C4 after the patch when you can sit in High sec running SOE missions making much more isk with much less effort and risk.
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#176 - 2014-08-10 02:09:12 UTC
I probably shouldn't admit this but I'm more afraid of getting ganked in highsec than in a C4. I can't recall a single time I've been dunked on while running sites. Lots of times when rolling, subsequent shens, & fuel/loot runs. Esp the loot run part.
BlakPhoenix
Load Up Blast Everything
DARKNESS.
#177 - 2014-08-10 04:27:39 UTC
While I will look forward to more PVP opportunities, I don't like the fact that we won't know what static we get until the patch goes live as finding your wormhole while on the test server is near impossible. If you want to improve C4's, then you need to reduce the range that the NPC's spawn at. Personally, if our wormhole gets a C5/C6 static, I will be leaving WH space. We are a small wh group and chose C4 space for the fact that we are not directly connected to k-space, yet do not get rolled by the big C5 & C6 alliances. You will not make your small corp players happy by forcing them to interact with large, blobby wormhole groups...
Odin Skydiver
Alexylva Paradox
#178 - 2014-08-10 06:45:20 UTC
Adriana Nolen wrote:
I probably shouldn't admit this but I'm more afraid of getting ganked in highsec than in a C4. I can't recall a single time I've been dunked on while running sites. Lots of times when rolling, subsequent shens, & fuel/loot runs. Esp the loot run part.


In highsec it's easy don't use officer mods and don't shoot other players.
Winthorp
#179 - 2014-08-10 06:49:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


We will not be publishing the list of new statics, but players will be able to investigate them on SISI once it is updated with this change. The second statics are not configured as predictably as they are in C2s, but there are still some patterns that can be discovered.



Can we get a date on this happening and will the move request get us some love or will we have to do it the hard way?
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#180 - 2014-08-10 07:48:39 UTC
Odin Skydiver wrote:
Adriana Nolen wrote:
I probably shouldn't admit this but I'm more afraid of getting ganked in highsec than in a C4. I can't recall a single time I've been dunked on while running sites. Lots of times when rolling, subsequent shens, & fuel/loot runs. Esp the loot run part.


In highsec it's easy don't use officer mods and don't shoot other players.


Found out the hard way on a few things. Like, can't warp away after ganks, undocking in a new ship while still criminal = concord, & the joys of kill rights avail to all.