These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
11 PagesFirst pagePrevious page91011
 

[Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

First post
Author
Adhocracy
#201 - 2012-09-11 14:26:21 UTC
Lexylia wrote:


In PURE theory its a neat idea and sounds good in all but in reallty it will be the carebear dream....

why ?

because in reallty it will look like this: Attackers come and declare "your pos is now sieged"

defenders: oh okay thanks for warning we will just fly out all valuable stuff and only leave a rawr tower with nothing worth shotting it there..... you cant even bubble the pos because pos guns or defenders could risk free destroy them....also they can log out thier alts with hauler/orkas/caps with their stuff in gets even easier. Also you couldnt punish thos special people who dont stront up thier pos like this .... REF system is fine like it is ..... reffing a pos does not take that long about 1-3hrs depends if u have a dread handy or not...

But you are accurately describing the current situation. Except for one thing: currently, the attackers have to do an annoying fight against PVE guns and then the defenders can choose to blow up or log out all their stuff !
#202 - 2012-09-18 06:18:31 UTC
Hi I have a few points & ideas and there is no structure to it just ranting lolz.. I apologise for the long rant and bad grammar in advance.
No I’m not posting with my main as I know what will happen to my lovely wh.
Its great the Pos system is getting an overhaul / redesign.

I like the modular Pos idea. But the size of the Pos should not be limited to the class of WH. If people want to risk their isk resources to create their ideal Pos of choice say more indy or a death star they should be able to regardless of class of WH with maybe exception of ECM modules. I have not attacked a D!ckstar and don’t want to lol.

If the PVP corps want to PVP they will destroy it but it shouldn’t be a weekend safari knocking over a few 10 man corps Poses if they can’t get dreads into a C1 –C2. I know it takes longer now with subcap fleets and it should even take longer with future Poses to destroy. People are risking their assets and time logistics and most are aware of the risk in living wormholes on both sides. If you attack them when they are not online it sucks for them. But that’s Eve. Even now the attackers have the advantage. They probably have scouts watching and can get an equal size Pos up in less than hour maybe a bit longer if you suck like I do setting up a Pos. If the attacker wants to roll over someone they should spend the equal amount of isk/ time doing it versus the defender.

There is no excuse nerfing towers from a gaming side in my opinion. If they are serious about attacking someones WH or want a fight they will drop a tower build a capital or 2 or pay someone to remove a d!ckstar or blob. CCP allows such structures in a C1-C2 but don’t forget how much of an effort it is for a small corp like mine of 5 people to keep it running casually playing.

Different issue----Maybe something to consider.. Increase the cost of having an alliance to stupid amount maybe 50150mio a corporation a month that control have sovereignty. You might have smaller alliances more so called friendly fire more carnage more pvp? It won’t be an issue isk wise for big alliances.

The new Pos should be destructible not conquerable if it turns out the new system is like a miniature Outpost with the amenities of empire living but it can be captured by someone you will probably have less people living in wormholes especially a small corp. 0.0 all over again. Not worth the effort if they can bring a dread fleet in a C1-C2. I live in a WH because it’s not 0.0 and none of the bull$h*t politics. Been there done that got the t-shirt don’t want another dam one lol. I mean why did CCP create Wormholes? In the introduction movie for Eve it says you can choose the path you want. We do not want another 0.0 for wormholes where u can get hotdropped or even more blobbed lol.

If the Pos is replaced with a Modular Pos or NPC stations in wormholes can we in the future do missions for them? As in when our Poses get sieged it might be possible to have the npc defend our Pos based on our standings with Sansha or the Sleepers themselves? Or the attackers could hire the NPC’s to help attack a Pos?

As for the forcefield some of us who live in the wormholes have more than 1 account and pvp with them. I myself pvp with 3 characs and have 2 scouts accounts that I use at the same time watching the other entry points. If the forcefield is removed my few ships they can see are no longer safe and it removes your chances to quickly align inside a Pos to get a cheap gank. And before you say it’s unfair I’m in the safetly of my Pos shields I have spent the time isk and risk for this relative safety to pick fights when I want and hide when I want. The pos forcefield allows me to do so. Changing game play from a dynamic to static station games would suck greatly. Before you can say I know nothing about WH life our system has been seiged 2 times by separate corps alliances a mixed bag the second time of PL some wormhole greifers and luckily we had friends to help to thwart the attacks. Having great FC’s (not our corp) made the difference between winning and losing we had capitals and they did not help us win. The FC’s made the difference.


Some ideas on the modular Pos laugh away lol
If you wanted to spend the isk resources you could have the same defensive power like now just at great cost to individual corps alliances. They still could be destroyed but are and look like normal NPC stations.
The POS is initially bought as a small structure. Only structure on market nothing else. No medium or large. Faction drop as bpc’s. No Pos modules.
You could upgrade the structure from small to medium to large which would increase the power and cpu output from inside the Pos.
Imagine a Stargate Atlantis like someone else said with a dome bubble where you undock which is 20km radius 10km high. You would still have the safety of a Pos shield bubble and shiny radar dish to orbit so you can still scan etc. Rest of the structure is exposed with guns etc sticking out everywhere if you spent the points.

Each time you have upgraded, it gives you additional points to spend where you want. As in if you need a few more guns spend the points. Each time you upgrade it would cost you when you add a module you want similar to PI when upgrading or adding relative to current market costs.

Drag ammo from corporate array to gun slot. No more hauling ammo around to each gun, drop it in your corporate hangar then move it to guns bay through an interface. Maybe a skill for moving your ammo or for damage control of your starbase that will use Automated Robots to do such tasks. Want another corporate or refining array allocate the points and watch them appear. Add a repair station fitting service etc. Auto places the guns EW nuets disruptors etc around your starbase for LOS and for you so even noobs cant fkk it up.. well they could if not enough guns etc are allocated. If you remove a gun point will cost you extra isk.
#203 - 2012-09-18 06:19:07 UTC
continue---

Clones would be good.. Not a jump clone just a clone so if you die you could choose where you will come back to empire or 0.0 or your wh . Doesn’t mean jump clone back and forth to empire.
Anyways they were just a few ideas. They might reduce lag etc.. A bit more simplistic maybe then current system but I look forward any response lol and critcisim. 
Cheers
Interhole Revenue Service
#204 - 2012-09-18 09:18:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
BOBTHEPSY3 wrote:

Not a jump clone just a clone so if you die you could choose where you will come back to empire or 0.0 or your wh .


No, i don't think that would be a good idea. Podding someone out of a wormhole is quite important in maintaining some of the unique PVP tactics we have in W-space.

What some of us want is essentially the creation of a new type of clone - a "swap clone" for lack of a better term. The player would have to physically travel to where their clone was stored (e.g. pos or rorqual). This would allow wormhole residence to use different clones for different ships/activities.

I feel like this new clone should be added to k-space also, as the current 24 hour jump clone timer discourages me from joining in on our alliances low/null sec roam because it means that i have to sit around in high sec until i can jump back in my proper clone, before returning to our wormhole.
Interhole Revenue Service
#205 - 2012-09-18 09:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Utsen Dari wrote:
Lexylia wrote:


In PURE theory its a neat idea and sounds good in all but in reallty it will be the carebear dream....

why ?

because in reallty it will look like this: Attackers come and declare "your pos is now sieged"

defenders: oh okay thanks for warning we will just fly out all valuable stuff and only leave a rawr tower with nothing worth shotting it there..... you cant even bubble the pos because pos guns or defenders could risk free destroy them....also they can log out thier alts with hauler/orkas/caps with their stuff in gets even easier. Also you couldnt punish thos special people who dont stront up thier pos like this .... REF system is fine like it is ..... reffing a pos does not take that long about 1-3hrs depends if u have a dread handy or not...

But you are accurately describing the current situation. Except for one thing: currently, the attackers have to do an annoying fight against PVE guns and then the defenders can choose to blow up or log out all their stuff !


I thought you couldn't use anything in the pos that requires CPU, once the tower has been reinforced?

If the POS is bubbled will their ships warp away when the defenders log off?
#206 - 2012-09-18 10:54:39 UTC
All this talk of / desire for clone jumping (or more accurately 'swapping', since I don't think anyone wants people jumping into/out of/respawning in wormhole space clones) all sounds like a bit of a faff. It's a bit of a convoluted work around to the issue of not being able to just unplug implants (without destroying them).

Now, the arguments for/against that and how to balance it if it were to be done (A 'timer' to prevent it being too easy? Wait at least 24 hours after your brain surgery before doing it again! What will become of actual clone jumping? Etc) is a bit off topic, but I think that'd be better to address that rather than asking for new weird clone mechanics which only serve to accomplish the same thing.
Interhole Revenue Service
#207 - 2012-09-18 11:23:37 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
All this talk of / desire for clone jumping (or more accurately 'swapping', since I don't think anyone wants people jumping into/out of/respawning in wormhole space clones) all sounds like a bit of a faff. It's a bit of a convoluted work around to the issue of not being able to just unplug implants (without destroying them).

Now, the arguments for/against that and how to balance it if it were to be done (A 'timer' to prevent it being too easy? Wait at least 24 hours after your brain surgery before doing it again! What will become of actual clone jumping? Etc) is a bit off topic, but I think that'd be better to address that rather than asking for new weird clone mechanics which only serve to accomplish the same thing.


Story wise, i think is would be much more preferable for capsuleers to just swap clones rather than cutting their sculls open every 24 hours. Blink

The system should work like this:

Jump clones - Allows capsuleer to travel to any region in K-space instantly (timer: once every 24hrs)
Medical clone - Insures skill points
Swap clone - Allows capsuleer to swap clone for implant purposes (timer: twice every 24hrs)
#208 - 2012-09-18 14:28:18 UTC
.......I dont like the idea of clone swapping period. If you dont want to loose your implants, change out your clone in K-space before you even think about going into W-space. Should be part of your prep before you go in every time, just like making sure you got probes in the launchers.

Pretty much everything else he said, though I agree with, cept if you want to make your towers huge, you should have the SP to do it. Isk is nearly meaningless to W-space dwellers ;)
Interhole Revenue Service
#209 - 2012-09-18 14:35:36 UTC
Kelhund wrote:
.......I dont like the idea of clone swapping period. If you dont want to loose your implants, change out your clone in K-space before you even think about going into W-space. Should be part of your prep before you go in every time, just like making sure you got probes in the launchers.


You realise that we are not all wormhole day trippers and that people live in wormhols space, right?

It's not about fear of loosing implants, it's about being restricted to a single clone and consequently, being restricted to a specific ship/activity.
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-09-18 14:39:37 UTC
This is true

If you want to live in a WH then you are required to sometimes do many jobs.

If I want to PVP, I would want diffrent implants than if I was doing manufacturing, and if I wanted to mine they might be diffrent still, or I wanted to be a fleet booster for an op.... etc

living in a WH you have to make comprimises, with the availabilty of a swap clone you could combine 2 jobs into one clone and not try to put 4 jobs into one clone...

But if not we will continue to carry on as we have
Adhocracy
#211 - 2012-09-19 11:34:07 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

I thought you couldn't use anything in the pos that requires CPU, once the tower has been reinforced?

If the POS is bubbled will their ships warp away when the defenders log off?

R.e. the first question, that is true. And I see no reason why a new, stationlike POS design could not also lock down services for CHA, labs, etc when the POS is reinforced.

I am confused by the second question. Logging out in a POS never warps you away, whether it is bubbled or not. That said, the only way currently to catch ships that loggoffski'd during a POS siege is to place one's own heavily bubbled POS directly on the site and hope it catches them when they log back in a week later (the "bug zapper" strategy Lol).

Additionally, the only way to prevent the defender from warping ships out during a siege is to garrison the cage bubbles with enough ships to defeat the defender's entire force, around the clock for 42 hours, to keep him from riding out and killing any bubbles. Which IMO is another example of optimal strategy that is completely not fun. I've done that as the attacker; it sucks.


BTW I took you guys' advice and made a post on F&I about the thing I posted on the last page: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=152897
Caldari State
#212 - 2012-09-19 12:02:38 UTC
Utsen Dari wrote:
Additionally, the only way to prevent the defender from warping ships out during a siege is to garrison the cage bubbles with enough ships to defeat the defender's entire force, around the clock for 42 hours, to keep him from riding out and killing any bubbles. Which IMO is another example of optimal strategy that is completely not fun. I've done that as the attacker; it sucks.

Isn't that what it should be like though? You are attempting to drive your targets out of their home. If your targets make it easy by getting themselves podded out of the system or by having no defenses on their towers, that's beside the point.

It is very much a game-changing experience to be kicked out of a wormhole system, since it's entirely likely that the majority of your assets are tied up in that system. You can't just hide away with everything safe inside the tower until the next time your group re-captures everything. If you get kicked out, everything you had that you were not able to sneak out with you is now gone. You can't get it back.

It should not be quick or easy or fun to do that to someone, but something you do when there is a reason to do so.
Adhocracy
#213 - 2012-09-19 12:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Utsen Dari
What? Sieges should be not fun? Ridiculous. They should be fun for both sides. I know folks like to laugh about how EVE is their second job, but game mechanics designed around making the game explicitly not fun is IMO absurd.

Currently it's not very fun for the attacker, because he has to fight a PVE battle for the hope of getting a PVP fight, or more likely to watch the defender self-destruct after all the attacker's work.

Currently it's not very fun for the defender, because he builds a lot of neat defensive infrastructure to give himself a home field advantage and then never gets to use it since the attacker kills it while he is asleep.

These things should change.



EDIT perhaps it should be noted that the passage of mine you're quoting was intended to show that, under the current system, the defender has the option of killing one bubble and GTFOing with all his warpable ships while the attacker is asleep. Page up a bit and you'll see that I was arguing against a position that my proposal would allow the defender to GTFO more. My intention was not to say that the attacker should be able to keep the defender from GTFOing with no work, sorry if that wasn't clear.
Caldari State
#214 - 2012-09-19 19:55:19 UTC
Utsen Dari wrote:
EDIT perhaps it should be noted that the passage of mine you're quoting was intended to show that, under the current system, the defender has the option of killing one bubble and GTFOing with all his warpable ships while the attacker is asleep. Page up a bit and you'll see that I was arguing against a position that my proposal would allow the defender to GTFO more. My intention was not to say that the attacker should be able to keep the defender from GTFOing with no work, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Nah, I was commenting about the (true) fact that properly sieging a system is a lot of work and is not fun. Making the whole process more PvP and less PvE won't change the point I'm trying to make. I do like some parts of your proposal, but something doesn't feel right; I just can't put my finger on it yet.

Like everything else, bashing a POS is a trade-off. You need to invest a significant effort to kick someone out of a system, or at least take down a major portion of their assets. In exchange, you are taking down a major portion of their assets, and likely crushing a revenue stream. Remember, you are not just shooting up a fleet. You could be setting a corp or alliance back several months or years with an eviction or even a single tower take-down.

If you want these kinds of things to be easy, fun, and more frequent (implied due to the easy and fun bits), there also needs to be a way for the mechanics to support less of an investment required to maintain a healthy w-space presence. The concept is similar to the suggestion of easy-to-bash POSes for the "lesser" classes of w-space. If effort is not rewarded, over time there will be less effort attempted and thus fewer targets available.

The level of commitment in Nullsec is not nearly as high, since you will be docking in an invincible Outpost and storing your possessions there. Even if someone conquers the outpost, your items are safe for as long as you leave them there or find a third party who can get them out for you. If you shoot a POS in Nullsec, you only affect logistics or revenue; you aren't eliminating a major part of your target's assets. And by comparison, POSes are very easy to take down in Nullsec, while Outposts are difficult to conquer.

And honestly, I'm not so sure that the lack of availability of POS defenses is why POS owners self destruct their belongings. I think it has more to do with the fact that they've lost hope and they feel they're going to lose their POS and everything in it anyway, so why should they let the attacker have anything? This is the major difference between bashing a POCO and bashing a POS: you don't lose everything if a POCO dies.
Adhocracy
#215 - 2012-09-19 23:06:05 UTC
Agreed 100% that the cause of self destruct is always loss of hope. Now back up a step and ask what causes loss of hope. I submit that logging in and finding one's defenses wiped out is a big part of that. Looking at the hostile forces, looking at the defense forces, and seeing little chance of victory: this train of thought is more likely to occur the less defense forces one has remaining.



r.e. easy, fun and frequent: I wholly support the last two things, but nowhere have I said that it should be easy. In fact the proposal makes it HARDER to win a siege as the attacker - I proposed that you have to fight fully manned guns and a fleet at the same time ! Note that there is a difference between the statement "sieges should be easier to start" and the statement "sieges should be easier to win."

IMO attacker should be given more incentive to start a siege for lols, get in over his head, and lose. Very hard for a competent attacker to do that currently because automated PVE guns are easy to plan around and offer no surprises.
11 PagesFirst pagePrevious page91011
Forum Jump