These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
6 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

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

First post
Author
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-01-18 10:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Kolonko
First of all, Two Step - I hope I can count on Your support for this motion.

Now on to the topic:

Right now WH's are unique in their design and with that they are very different in their nature than k-space.

There are hard limits on what one can move trough a certain type of WH.

This limits both: ship size and ships amount that can at one time move into given WH in short time. This allows us to keep WH in range of small-pvp scale engagements. Which is great for WH gameplay

If anyone bottered to watch RnK famous Clarion Call 3 on Youtube - You can siege WH with small forces. Once You overcome initial resistance with good planning and resources You can start amassing troups inside (once you controll WH's in system its piece of cake)

WH are like fortresses of Middle Age Europe - You need to actually take time and preparations to siege them. But once You breach outer walls you can move more people in, as the gate is broken, and walls crumbled.

As history of W-space showed - no WH is inpenetrable.

What some members of CSM are sugesting is terrible - to implement some form of WH stabilizers? This will remove the hard limit that make this space unique. This will remove the hard work required to siege well-defended WH's. This will actually hurt more the small corps that dont have huge forces, but just enough to fight on equall footing against forces that can move trough their WH limits.

What W-space needs or could benefit from is totally different than what is proposed:

- WH need POS revamp
- WH needs individual storing place in hangars and more security of those
- WH needs more variety in terms of PVE (the same problems incursion have - to predictable)
- WH needs more dangers from Sleepers (sleepres atacking on safespots, rewarping to mining sites, atacking pos, etc)
- WH may need more variety in WH's - like ocassional smaller or lager WH (within current system capital limit - so no capitals in C1-4)
- WH may (i stress that - MAY) need some form of upgrades (this one is very, very delicate subject)
- WH may (i stress that - MAY) need some form of moon-mining (no moon goo, some totally different material that can be linked to some new features or maybe just the source of ice) - again a very delicate subject
- WH may need higher triers of WH (C7,8???) with even more difficult to counter bonuses/penalties and even harder Sleepres
- WH may need more variance in terms of anomalies bonuses (pulsar, blackhole, etc...)
- WH may need more WH systems added

WHAT WH DONT NEED is:
- any form of moving supercaps inside
- any form of moving much larger forces trough a single WH
- any form of moving capital ships inside lower WH's (C1-4)
- any form of prolonging WH life to allow connection to Your home WH for entire Siege time (jump in, fight over space, reinfore, reinforce time, finish taking donw poses, get loot get back home)
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-01-18 10:48:24 UTC
Agreed, +1
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-01-18 10:53:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maksia I
+1
#4 - 2012-01-18 11:06:04 UTC

+1 Just say no to easy cap and blob mechanics.
#5 - 2012-01-18 11:31:29 UTC
Agreed, I may not hang out in w-space often but it's current basic mechanics must remain untouched, they are perfect as is. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against more site anom/sig variety or adding more systems.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-01-18 11:56:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
I agree, though I do think that longer lasting wormholes would be nice to improve quality of wh life, especially for small scale activities. With wh's lasting two days instead of one, it would save you rescanning if yesterday's wormhole system chain still has targets or resources to harvest. Unless of course you or someone else exhausted the mass.

I'm hardly a wh veteran but don't see how longer wormhole durations would benefit an invasion force. The limiting factor is mass, not duration.
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-01-18 12:58:20 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
I agree, though I do think that longer lasting wormholes would be nice to improve quality of wh life, especially for small scale activities. With wh's lasting two days instead of one, it would save you rescanning if yesterday's wormhole system chain still has targets or resources to harvest. Unless of course you or someone else exhausted the mass.

I'm hardly a wh veteran but don't see how longer wormhole durations would benefit an invasion force. The limiting factor is mass, not duration.


All depends on what kind of forces are needed to kill enemy.

While attacking heavy bunkered capital forces require large ships, so yes, mass if a deciding factor. But when atacking c4 for example, you can move 40 tengus/BC tier 3/command ships/HAC's - clean up in two days and get back, while all this time having a way out if **** hits the fan. Or get home, do some pve while waiting for reinforcment timer to end than move there again and than get back home - thats still less than needed for WH to enter Criticall mass if i remember corectly

Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-01-18 13:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Max Kolonko wrote:
While attacking heavy bunkered capital forces require large ships, so yes, mass if a deciding factor. But when atacking c4 for example, you can move 40 tengus/BC tier 3/command ships/HAC's - clean up in two days and get back, while all this time having a way out if **** hits the fan. Or get home, do some pve while waiting for reinforcment timer to end than move there again and than get back home - thats still less than needed for WH to enter Criticall mass if i remember corectly


Still failing to see how that would be an advantage to invasion forces. A convenience yes, a real advantage? No.

Going back home and relinquish control of your entry wormhole? Your enemy will close it in a few minutes. If you want to come back, you'll need to have a character in the invasion system to find you a new entry (or cycle holes hoping to get lucky).

There is always a way out and back home. If you can't go back where you came from, you scan a new hole down. Finding an exit from the invasion system should be trivial. If you're really carrying lots of loot, you'll need to consume multiple holes anyway.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-01-18 13:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Kolonko
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Max Kolonko wrote:
While attacking heavy bunkered capital forces require large ships, so yes, mass if a deciding factor. But when atacking c4 for example, you can move 40 tengus/BC tier 3/command ships/HAC's - clean up in two days and get back, while all this time having a way out if **** hits the fan. Or get home, do some pve while waiting for reinforcment timer to end than move there again and than get back home - thats still less than needed for WH to enter Criticall mass if i remember corectly


Still failing to see how that would be an advantage to invasion forces. A convenience yes, a real advantage? No.

Going back home and relinquish control of your entry wormhole? Your enemy will close it in a few minutes. If you want to come back, you'll need to have a character in the invasion system to find you a new entry (or cycle holes hoping to get lucky).

There is always a way out and back home. If you can't go back where you came from, you scan a new hole down.


I'm not gona argue about it. You are right.

Having WH open for longer than 24 hours is not as bad as my first assumption - but the question is, should it be player driven way of expending lifetime of connection or just random WH having longer than usual lifespan


EDIT: weird, part of my post got truncated, so here is the rest:

I prefer the second approach, that is part of what I proposed in more variety of opening WH's
#10 - 2012-01-18 15:06:30 UTC
Wh's as they currently are, is the closest any part of eve comes to perfect.
Any "wh stabilizer" would be disastrous beyond words.
#11 - 2012-01-19 07:31:56 UTC
Agreed. As a wormhole inhabitant I would not like these changes.
#12 - 2012-01-19 08:10:32 UTC
Csm are really proposing wh stabilizers? Urgh how stupid, have they actually been in w-space? Proposal to remove clueless csm from proposing changes to aspects of gameplay they know nothing about
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-01-19 11:52:47 UTC
Supporting this, no WH stabilizers, wormholes are actually fun as they are now for smaller gangs
#14 - 2012-01-19 12:28:15 UTC
I think it was Mittens trying to monopolize C6 farming by kicking out all W-space corps and static linking those C6's to his evil nullsec empire ;)
#15 - 2012-01-19 15:25:23 UTC
#16 - 2012-01-19 19:41:55 UTC
Wormhole Stabilizers? I have never heard of such a moronic idea. This goes against the very meaning of what wormhole space needs to be, and it goes against CCP's idea of making wormholes more difficult to inhabit.


Nullsec CSM members probably never lived in a wormhole or been in one for very long.


Remember these guys are in it for themselves.

Nullsec CSM members wanted high-end ores to be REMOVED from Wormholes a few months ago.
Spatial Instability
#17 - 2012-01-19 20:34:57 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
Wormhole Stabilizers? I have never heard of such a moronic idea. This goes against the very meaning of what wormhole space needs to be, and it goes against CCP's idea of making wormholes more difficult to inhabit.


Nullsec CSM members probably never lived in a wormhole or been in one for very long.


Remember these guys are in it for themselves.

Nullsec CSM members wanted high-end ores to be REMOVED from Wormholes a few months ago.

Yeah, nullbears don't do WHs well, if at all. ;)
#18 - 2012-01-20 01:18:30 UTC
Agree with OP. +1
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-01-20 07:42:17 UTC
Agree with you on everything but the last bit, which I have supported elsewhere. I can see a use for limited mass stabilization of Wormholes using player anchored gates/structures. These would require fuel of course, and function like a POS in that fashion, and also be capable of being destroyed. No reinforcement timer.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Adhocracy
#20 - 2012-01-20 20:05:58 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Agree with you on everything but the last bit, which I have supported elsewhere. I can see a use for limited mass stabilization of Wormholes using player anchored gates/structures. These would require fuel of course, and function like a POS in that fashion, and also be capable of being destroyed. No reinforcement timer.

I have to disagree with the poster above me (with all due respect sir!).

Remember, Two-Step isn't the only CSM with a familiarity with WH's:
Meissa Anunthiel's Blog - Ahhhh, just to stir the pot a bit, and maybe get WH'ers stirred up and involved in the process. From the Blog the interesting bit to WHers here:

Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
This would be a long post, and I'm not sure this is the place to handle it because it's going to be long-winded argument. The short version of it is I am in favour of a mechanic, no matter what it is, that removes the invulnerability that some people well entrenched in their wormhole enjoy. Obviously that position is not one shared by AHARM.


That said, the difficulty with which one can reach a wormhole (logistics wise and all that) is what makes it interesting and viable too, something that makes it unique and interesting.


Balanced mechanics can be found, and the wormhole stabilizer idea is but one that has already been discussed (we actually had a discussion with Two Step from AHARM and CCP Soundwave on that very subject during the emergency meeting), but I do not shy away from stating that I was the one advocating for a mechanism to get rid of the invulnerability some groups enjoy in wormholes while keeping the overwhelming majority of the wormhole dwellers in no worse a position than they are now. Which is a bit not mentioned in the minutes.


I don't care if it's a stabilizer, a destabilizer, an undectectable wormhole entrance, or a divine intervention. I'll make a longer post as soon as humanly possible on the subject because, as shortly described, this would be a negative game-changer for everyone living in a wormhole. So if you can hold your judgement on my position until you heard it in full, that'd be great. And if you want to bash me then, by all means. :-)


"Some CSMs suggested that Sleepers should attack POSes, and/or pod people.". Pod people, why not, attack POSes I objected to that idea.


I have my own opinion of these statements, however, for the moment i prefer to think it through, rather than post before I have considered everything, which is a bit of change for me... Oops


Lastly, I don't know if I'm remembering this correctly, but there was some speculation that the mechanic/module whatever that Sansha was using to form incursion wormholes was something that was going to/might be put into play generally in Eve. Can't remember where I read that, so it might just have been uninformed rambling.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

6 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump