These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

W-Space Little Things List

First post First post
Author
Armaros Liwet
Manufactorum.
#61 - 2014-09-18 12:04:10 UTC
I'm assuming "Deploying MTC for corp/alliance" should be MTU's insted?
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#62 - 2014-09-18 14:27:18 UTC
Armaros Liwet wrote:
I'm assuming "Deploying MTC for corp/alliance" should be MTU's insted?

Yes, typo. Fixed.

I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I--THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY

Youtube: /asayanami

Twitter: @asayanami

wormholefundamentals.com

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#63 - 2014-09-18 16:27:47 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Maduin Shi wrote:
Okay so, on the deployable to extend wormhole lifetime. I also think its a not-so-great idea and unnecessary. But a deployable to increase the mass capacity of capital-ship capable wormholes (C5/6 to C5/6 and C5/6 to null/low) might be interesting. It would make it easier to go on the offensive with capitals, and would make an offensive fleet make-up harder to predict. I have no idea how popular this would be since I live in a C2 but there's an idea to try and improve on the original.


I think a deployable that extends the life of a wormhole would be okay if balanced correctly. As long as someone could destroy it easily and only one could be placed within a certain time period, it would be okay. It would allow people to go through a eol hole without fear of it closing behind them.

I agree with scorch that the ability to increase mass wouldn't be such a great idea.



Really? It would allow people to go through an eol hole w/out fear of it closing behind them? Let's just get rid of eol. Make a R-click pull down on the wh hole. When you're done w/ it you can sellect OK to close. I can usually keep my fingers off the keyboard and let other folks handle the silly ideas as appropriate (Thanks jack. I love you man... no 5hi7), but this one is just super silly.

You want to take the risk out of an eol wh? You're one of the guys that came up w/ the mass range thing aren't you? (read take the risk out of ganking a rolling party)

Just NO.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#64 - 2014-09-18 16:33:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Rek Seven wrote:
Lowering the mass on a battleship would allow them to be used more easily in wormhole pvp, which could shake up the meta a bit.

Not sure about removing sleepers from relic sites but i think the number of sleepers should be reduced in C5/C6 relic/data sites to create solo/small-gang PVE options in higher class wormhole.



So you don't like time limits - so the eol extender module. [see above post]

Now you don't like mass limits - so the BS Dr Shrinker Ray




WH have 3 things: time limits, no local and mass limits. LEAVE THEM ALONE

[They used to have a 4th - Jump mechanics... I think there may be a post somewhere about recent changes to this one]
Atum' Ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2014-09-18 20:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Atum' Ra
[ Technical ] + [ Gameplay ]
People needs in WH the ability to construct gates which can be destroyed. And "claim" wars will begin.
Let people decide where to construct structures. Someone wants POS - okey... Someone wants stations... Someone wants turrets. Anywhere! If someone don't want a station there - they could try to destroy it... If they can.
Give the ability, give us freedom.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#66 - 2014-09-18 23:12:16 UTC
Atum' Ra wrote:
[ Technical ] + [ Gameplay ]
People needs in WH the ability to construct gates which can be destroyed. And "claim" wars will begin.
Let people decide where to construct structures. Someone wants POS - okey... Someone wants stations... Someone wants turrets. Anywhere! If someone don't want a station there - they could try to destroy it... If they can.
Give the ability, give us freedom.

Give us Null sec!!
umnikar
Fishbone Industries
#67 - 2014-09-19 12:49:10 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Atum' Ra wrote:
[ Technical ] + [ Gameplay ]
People needs in WH the ability to construct gates which can be destroyed. And "claim" wars will begin.
Let people decide where to construct structures. Someone wants POS - okey... Someone wants stations... Someone wants turrets. Anywhere! If someone don't want a station there - they could try to destroy it... If they can.
Give the ability, give us freedom.

Give us Null sec!!


Yeah, I wanna rent me a wh-system!
Moloney
The Bilderberg Group
#68 - 2014-09-19 14:25:15 UTC
Atum' Ra wrote:
[ Technical ] + [ Gameplay ]
People needs in WH the ability to construct gates which can be destroyed. And "claim" wars will begin.
Let people decide where to construct structures. Someone wants POS - okey... Someone wants stations... Someone wants turrets. Anywhere! If someone don't want a station there - they could try to destroy it... If they can.
Give the ability, give us freedom.


Null sec has enough systems, pfo.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#69 - 2014-09-19 18:24:40 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
What is the general opinion in regards to adding Sleeper "faction" ammo? I would imagine it being built using the "useless" sleeper loot, at least in part, and possibly even being oriented towards wormhole useage in that system effects would have secondary effects on sleeper ammo.
Seriously, I'm actually asking for constructive opinions on the internet...

Edit: Uses existing materials, encourages "bearing" and site running, puts more ships in space for gankers, adds depth to PvP, and increases the reward from running sites
Luft Reich
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-09-20 17:36:04 UTC
For the love of bob, reduce spawn range of sleepers in C4 sites. They spawn almost as far away as CCP is from the playerbase.

ISD Cyberdyne liked your forum post

Kyle Meshuggah
A N T H E M
#71 - 2014-09-21 02:06:25 UTC
We have lived in a C2 w/ C2/LS statics for years. Did a quick survey of my corpmates via mail, here's our Top 5 "Little Things"


1) Increased Profitability of lower class systems (more blue loot, more nano ribbons, Sleeper faction modules, escalations, whatever.)
2) Personal tabs for SMAs
3) DScan hot key OR seperate window for DScan
4) Corp/Alliance MTU
5) Roll back scan changes so ore anoms must be scanned down like the gas sites are

o7

"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon." - Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#72 - 2014-09-22 11:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Kyle Meshuggah wrote:
We have lived in a C2 w/ C2/LS statics for years. Did a quick survey of my corpmates via mail, here's our Top 5 "Little Things"


1) Increased Profitability of lower class systems (more blue loot, more nano ribbons, Sleeper faction modules, escalations, whatever.)
2) Personal tabs for SMAs
3) DScan hot key OR seperate window for DScan
4) Corp/Alliance MTU
5) Roll back scan changes so ore anoms must be scanned down like the gas sites are

o7

These are all so obviously a requirement, it is amazing that they have not been done years ago.
Sometimes, it feels that we have to beg for something as simple as air to breathe.

Add to this list
Being as we have so many more "things" to scan can we get away from that damn "beep beep beep, ok now I can slowly scan and swipe the indicator across the screen Sslooooowlly" with core probes.
There is some sense with combat probes, but when each hole has 10+ sigs and 3 or 4 plus wormholes, it is taking a team forever to scan the chains down, and boredom is the main reason to stop now. NOT because we have found something.

Ps Fozzie, the law of unintended consequences, with so many holes we can now see for ourselves just how much of WH space is abandoned.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2014-09-23 04:51:15 UTC
Kyle Meshuggah wrote:
We have lived in a C2 w/ C2/LS statics for years. Did a quick survey of my corpmates via mail, here's our Top 5 "Little Things"


1) Increased Profitability of lower class systems (more blue loot, more nano ribbons, Sleeper faction modules, escalations, whatever.)
2) Personal tabs for SMAs
3) DScan hot key OR seperate window for DScan
4) Corp/Alliance MTU
5) Roll back scan changes so ore anoms must be scanned down like the gas sites are

o7


Pretty much this. I would add new ore anoms vs pushing the old ones back. Might as well have both scannable ore sites and no scanning needed ore sites. We all need a place to put the bait procurer.

Yaay!!!!

Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#74 - 2014-09-24 13:58:36 UTC
please fix the bugs in relic and data sites regarding sleeper spawns.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#75 - 2014-09-24 15:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Saede Riordan wrote:
please fix the bugs in relic and data sites regarding sleeper spawns.


Saede, whilst we may be thinking of the same thing, can you specify exactly which one you have in mind with a few details please? Otherwise it will just get lost as just another "weirdness". If it is clear then hopefully it can be fixed? And we can all report it as a bug whenever we encounter it.

Edit:- read blog,question answered, thanks for your thoughts in the Blog. There is potential there, interesting idea, I need to give it some thought, quite original, but there is a danger of people becoming tethered Goats to slaughter. Not a fan of the warp bubble while running the site. conflict is one thing, providing victims is another matter. One would be exposed enough even without that feature.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Marox Calendale
Voices of War - Research and Production
Evictus.
#76 - 2014-09-25 12:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Marox Calendale
[Gameplay/Industry/PVE] (I´m not sure wihich kind would be the best for it):

Decouple all Gas, Ore, Relic and Data Sites from Wormhole Classes as Saede already wrote in his blog.

[PVE]

Add T3 Burner Group Sites, so you would need a small group of well skilled and fitted T3´s to kill the 2 or 3 Burner Sansha´s (or Sleepers) in it.
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#77 - 2014-09-26 23:07:39 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Maduin Shi wrote:
Okay so, on the deployable to extend wormhole lifetime. I also think its a not-so-great idea and unnecessary. But a deployable to increase the mass capacity of capital-ship capable wormholes (C5/6 to C5/6 and C5/6 to null/low) might be interesting. It would make it easier to go on the offensive with capitals, and would make an offensive fleet make-up harder to predict. I have no idea how popular this would be since I live in a C2 but there's an idea to try and improve on the original.


I think a deployable that extends the life of a wormhole would be okay if balanced correctly. As long as someone could destroy it easily and only one could be placed within a certain time period, it would be okay. It would allow people to go through a eol hole without fear of it closing behind them.

I agree with scorch that the ability to increase mass wouldn't be such a great idea.



Really? It would allow people to go through an eol hole w/out fear of it closing behind them? Let's just get rid of eol. Make a R-click pull down on the wh hole. When you're done w/ it you can sellect OK to close. I can usually keep my fingers off the keyboard and let other folks handle the silly ideas as appropriate (Thanks jack. I love you man... no 5hi7), but this one is just super silly.

You want to take the risk out of an eol wh? You're one of the guys that came up w/ the mass range thing aren't you? (read take the risk out of ganking a rolling party)

Just NO.


You're just bering stupid now. I could explain in detail why I think such an idea has a place in wormhole space but I think I would be wasting my time on you, as you're just a typical nay sayer.

Try not to get too carried away. I'm not shouting from the roof tops here and if you don't agree with what I say that's cool, there are no right or wrong answers with theory crafting.
Hatshepsut IV
Un.Reasonable
#78 - 2014-09-27 14:21:04 UTC
[Gameplay] ability for directors to flag certain bookmarks as undelete-able.

[Gameplay] ability to set a predefined pattern with how bookmarks sort themselves in the right click in space menu.

[Gameplay] have director level roles be a valid option for corp titles. (Also allow titles to be grant able without having director roles)

[Gameplay] option to use corp titles as the access level setting for pos mods. ( E.G. Random corp title 1 grants access to an sma to anyone holding it.

Public Channel | Un.Welcome

Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#79 - 2014-10-05 16:52:11 UTC
If you have anything else to add to the list, post it soon. We will be moving forward with it in the coming weeks.

I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I--THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY

Youtube: /asayanami

Twitter: @asayanami

wormholefundamentals.com

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#80 - 2014-10-05 20:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Asayanami Dei wrote:
If you have anything else to add to the list, post it soon. We will be moving forward with it in the coming weeks.

Most of the major points seem to have been covered, some good feedback from all concerned, it all boils down to removing the unbalanced areas of risk ie mining being an anomoly and the similar concerns, the pos side, I think we all realise seriously needs love, but probably more than a little thing, new content, doesnot need to ba jesus features, just more for small numbers or solo to do, and a serious need to revisit the sites, remove or repair the significant issues with some sites, and to make the rewards match the risks. Regarding clone swapping, what most of us want is actually the desire to swap implants,we don't really care about clones. whilst impossible in Kspace, being able to swap implants in a wormhole data site would be interesting and achieve our goals

I believe that If we have to go to KS to replace losses then wormholes are failing, we can only adapt and work with reasonable mechanisms, the impossible takes longer than we have. We don't mind a challange, but a well implemented and fair one is desireable.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE