These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

new POSes and wormholes - what do w-space dwellers need?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Papiranti robcki
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2012-08-13 15:03:38 UTC
I am too indeed very worried about this reinventing the wheel CCP is trying to do here. The more I hear about their ideas the more I begin to love the POS system that we have now Shocked . Yeah there are some annoying issues that would make life simpler but looking at the whole its not that bad.

About the FORCE FIELD technical problems that are still under NDA I am pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that CCP is hellbent on allowing more then one pos per grid. There was a lot of talk about pos cities so I imagine CCP figured if they want to go ahead with this idea they would have to remove force fields because there would be enormous problems with force fields overlapping and all the other technical problems that would come with it. Of course they could code it so that the fields from all the towers would join in a common bubble that would shrink when towers begin to die. But CCP naturally chose the way which requires less coding and technical details.

Now that we know why FF's are being removed I suggest we take a look at the more then one pos on grid retardation. As many already have pointed out here and on failheap this is a feature that should have been shot down the moment it came from a devs mouth. It's not even w-space related imagine 10 deathstars on a tech moon. Most of the high end alliances will have 50+ towers on one grid easy. I cant imagine how an attacker will be able to take that out even if they add some sort of cap how many guns you can have online. But then again if CCP forces you to gimp yourself when having more then one pos on a grid why even have more then one?

In the end I hope CCP sees how stupid their idea of tower city is and drops it by which removing the technical problem with force fields.I do find the idea of being able to put up a pos anywhere in space pretty cool. I already have a nice spot picked out 800km away from our plasma planet Cool .

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57524/masseffect/images/4/49/IllusiveMan1.jpg Anyone?
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#182 - 2012-08-13 15:18:06 UTC
I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already, but where is it required for the POSs used in w-space to be the same as the ones in null?

Why can't null have their FF-less docking POS and we have exploratory platforms?

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#183 - 2012-08-13 15:28:23 UTC
Papiranti robcki wrote:
Now that we know why FF's are being removed


That's highly presumptive. Your reasoning is plausible, but to take that as fact is silly.

@TwoStep: How set is CCP on getting rid of forcefields?

Do they want them gone to mesh with new features as Papiranti suggests? Do they want them gone because coding them is a nightmare? Or is there some technical reason that they have to go?

Bottom line, are forcefields realistically up for debate, or should we be focusing on ways to get what we want from a new system?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#184 - 2012-08-13 15:46:17 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Papiranti robcki wrote:
Now that we know why FF's are being removed


That's highly presumptive. Your reasoning is plausible, but to take that as fact is silly.

@TwoStep: How set is CCP on getting rid of forcefields?

Do they want them gone to mesh with new features as Papiranti suggests? Do they want them gone because coding them is a nightmare? Or is there some technical reason that they have to go?

Bottom line, are forcefields realistically up for debate, or should we be focusing on ways to get what we want from a new system?


Well that stuff is all NDA'd for now. Best to just assume forcefields are as good as gone and start making noises about how to prevent awful docking game bs
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#185 - 2012-08-13 15:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Madner Kami
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Do they want them gone to mesh with new features as Papiranti suggests? Do they want them gone because coding them is a nightmare? Or is there some technical reason that they have to go?


I think the actual primary reasons behind removing FFs are the problems they create for ship-based weaponry (range is really an issue on any size of close range weapon, when assaulting a POS) and the problems they present for the POS's very own weapons (Hello Blasters, yes I am looking especially at you).

However the FFs also provide various options to the POS-owners, as detailed in this thread and elsewhere, which prevent dealing with POSes from becoming a nightmare:

  • some sort of actually working protection for ships that prepare to take off the POS or arrive at it (docking delays, dock-timers, 100% predictable exit-vector) - this beeing especially a concern for larger ships, making it a deathtrap without FF or a similar function, especially in low-intel w-space
  • providing an actual in-system staging ground for defences that is not nearly or completely effort-free to deal with
  • preventing no-effort chokepoints (you do have to bubble the POS or possible warp-out points instead of mindlessly hugging the eject-point)
  • preventing some of the more absurd problems that normal station-exits provide, for example blocking a fast warp-off by virtue of the structure beeing in the way most of the time (well, this still happens fairly often at current POSes, but at least you don't pay dearly for a gamemechanic-flaw), absurd eject-vectors (amarr stations), absurd station-designs that force you to fly a certain way before actually beeing able to move off (amarr stations again) and the vector-change-necessities to actually warp off makign you an easy target (getting ejected at high speeds, having to turn around and getting bumped and bumping by the dozens - this will be a very high profile problem with undocking during POS-defence, especially, again, with larger ships) making you an easy target and naturally cloak-prevention in large radiuses (sure the FF doesn't allow you to cloak, but you do know where the radius ends, not like with some of the stations)
    • [...]
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#186 - 2012-08-13 16:27:07 UTC
I'm not expecting an answer to the "why" question; I just want to know if, based on what TwoStep knows, forcefields are up for debate or not. If he already knows they have to go, then no sense pissing in the wind with complaints. Time for ideas to make the upcoming system work for us.
Papiranti robcki
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2012-08-13 17:55:40 UTC
Madner Kami wrote:


I think the actual primary reasons behind removing FFs are the problems they create for ship-based weaponry (range is really an issue on any size of close range weapon, when assaulting a POS) and the problems they present for the POS's very own weapons (Hello Blasters, yes I am looking especially at you).



This can be fixed easily by making the FF the target that we are shooting not the tower itself. I always found it kinda silly that bullets/missiles can pass through the FF and hit the tower but nothing else. I know its a gameplay issue with towers having armor and structure but since they are redoing everything they can probably just trow the hp around and make it so that when the shield goes the ff goes.

Would be awesome if they made it look something like this http://images.wikia.com/stargate/images/3/3d/AtlantisShieldImpact2.jpg


Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#188 - 2012-08-13 18:16:29 UTC
^^ That please :)
Slaktoid
Perkone
Caldari State
#189 - 2012-08-13 19:22:27 UTC
Some random statements:

Dunno bout you guys but I get a heck of a lot more action on stations than POSes when I roam Nullsec for example. Small gang warfare is impossible on a POS due to the guns.

KAIRS live in C2s because they're pansies.

So what if POS docking give the attacker an advantage? Come attack my POS when I'm docked in there, please. Let me get the fights right on my doorstep and have homefield advantage for once.

You all preach small gang warfare, as if it's the holy friggin grail, but most of you won't engage without 20-30 man fleets with dread support, logi and Falcons out the ass. Maybe 5% of you actually have the guts to come attack me when I travel through your system on my way to Nullsec, the only place one can find small gang warfare. "Small gang warfare" my ass...pansies...

Oh and ganking 3 month old Drake characters in C2 anoms isn't pvp. Fun occationally due to tears, but not pvp.

Would you be more or less inclined to come fight me if you could podjump back to your wormhole when I waste you?

I would like to know how you'd stop a nullified T3 from instaing off of a station. Genuinely, I do! Teach me something, oh ye knowledgable Lords of New Eden.

Eve Online would simply be a more fun game without ECM drones and Falcons. Falcons are gayer than gay people.

Hopefully I've pissed off people now to the point where you'll actually crawl out of your FFs and do something next time you see me. Too bad they don't have the "dislike" option on the forum. I feel I could have done real well in that department with this post.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#190 - 2012-08-13 19:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
Slaktoid wrote:
but most of you won't engage without 20-30 man fleets with dread support, logi and Falcons out the ass. ]


You've had 2 1v1's this month, and one of those was against a noobship, the other you blapped a dictor with a Talos.

I have a pretty high opinion of AHARM, please don't ruin it any more than you have.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Slaktoid
Perkone
Caldari State
#191 - 2012-08-13 19:52:20 UTC
Actually I have had zero 1v1 this month. And the **** I blapped with the Talos there was the only stuff I could kill from those gangs. Thanks for your opinion "generic guy #1 who has never been in a wormhole", I'll take that +1 dislike.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#192 - 2012-08-13 20:12:56 UTC
Slaktoid wrote:
Blahj blah blah


Pretty sure this is a poor attempt at a troll, as AHARM has always been respectful in the manner they present themselves.

Also, I am fairly certain that AHARM isnt beyond ganking a hauler doing PI or a T3 running an anom. Hell, I am sure that anyone in wh space does this kind of thing regularly.

No trolling please
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2012-08-13 21:07:23 UTC
Slaktoid wrote:
Some random statements:.



One would think that you are reacting as if this thread is attacking AHARM or some sort of agenda from AHARM. If that is not so then chill out and let people voice their opinions and thoughts on what is a very serious change to the w-space mechanics.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#194 - 2012-08-13 21:19:15 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
So basically you did not address anything. All you did was just say docking games are kinda sorta almost completely unlike force field games so its all cool. Then you said yes, we should be able to find online POSes but because we can possibly steal them and make a measly side profit on them we should now lose the ability to conduct covert recon. You did not address the following points at all:

-Multiple POSes on Grid
-POSes anchorable away from celestials will require active probe scan thus ruining covert aspect of w-space
-Ability for system defenders to conduct d-scan from inside the POS

I don't know man, this seems like a pretty poor response to an extensive discussion. You haven't really addresses any of our concerns, you just expanded on your previous points that were already deemed irrelevant to the regular w-space dweller.


You have deemed my points irrelevant, that doesn't mean the supposed "regular" w-space dweller has done so. In fact, the vast majority of the feedback on the minutes I get outside of this thread is actually very positive for the changes.

as for the things I supposedly didn't address:
Multiple POSes on grid I talked about in the post right before your post! I do have concerns about them, and I think CCP needs to think about a system like limiting the amount of guns that could be on a single grid, or something similar. In general, just like the current system, POSes should be defended by ships, not by turrets.

POS anchoring locations is certainly a concern. I think this falls pretty far into the "it hasn't been designed yet" camp though. Perhaps most POSes will be findable with the built in scanner? Perhaps they will be on the overview unless you spend lots of extra power on cloaking modules (which are again, just an idea)? Perhaps it is a good thing that someone could be sitting in a POS you don't know about and surprise you?

Defenders not being able to d-scan from inside their POS sounds like a feature to me. If you want intel, you need to undock. This is somewhat a balance to providing possibly less intel to the attacker when you are docked...

Klarion Sythis wrote:
I'm not expecting an answer to the "why" question; I just want to know if, based on what TwoStep knows, forcefields are up for debate or not. If he already knows they have to go, then no sense pissing in the wind with complaints. Time for ideas to make the upcoming system work for us.


What we were told was exactly what is in the minutes, that CCP did not want FF's to be part of the new POS system. I partly understand why they NDA'd out the reasons for this, but I wish they hadn't so you guys would stop with the crazy theories.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#195 - 2012-08-13 21:26:18 UTC
Senn Denroth wrote:
Disclaimer: Long post. Two Step; please read.
(long post snipped)


I am reading all the posts in this thread... :)

Senn Denroth wrote:

Clones –
Not to mention that if normal clones are introduced to these new starbases: If I’m a new player and I’m away for a week or more from the game, and my only clone is set at a starbase in unknown space. That starbase could be wiped out and I come back to the game with no SP left, my clone is destroyed and me being a new player I have to start over again.

I say it in that way because if it was me, keeping that game mechanic in mind I would never put my primary clone in wormhole space.

Also, will all the modules/ships/corpses drop of people that were docked up and stored at the starbase? Or do you have to shoot all the modules individually after you’ve destroyed the initial starbase core.


I think you aren't understanding what I am asking for. I would like to be able to switch jump clones in w-space, not set my med clone to a w-space POS or jump into or out of w-space. Just store some clones, and be able to switch between them. If I die, I would be in my med station in empire.

Senn Denroth wrote:

Ability to put starbases wherever you want –


I address this above, but I agree that being able to find POSes without probing is good, though I don't have a problem with people having to make sacrifices to their POS setup to force people to probe their POS down.

Senn Denroth wrote:

Shield reinforce timers – are they going to exist still? Do we still have shields even though there looks to be no shields on a starbase? Or is the new starbase format going to be similar to a ship where you see hardeners active on the ship/starbase. Or is there just going to be a mini shield near the undock as the minutes suggest?


This is my biggest worry from the minutes. As proposed by CCP Greyscale, POS reinforcement timers might stretch into the weeks, and that is a terrible thing for w-space.

Senn Denroth wrote:

Docking – Those that are saying undocking games are worse than station games are only kidding yourself. You just don’t like the idea of docking in general. Think about it seriously, if all the carebears dock up.. they can’t see how many are bashing their POS. They can be bumped off of the undock. They can’t self destruct their caps. It will make wormhole space a bit more ruthless than it is now, people will have to start fighting to survive.


This might be the case. I really don't think the docking games thing will be at all the same when you have POS guns to back you up.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#196 - 2012-08-13 21:34:27 UTC
Nash MacAllister wrote:
I will try to keep it brief and I apologize if I have duplicated anything said in the previous 9 pages.

First, I support changes to the POS system. WH dwellers desperately need better user-specific security and roles, not to mention storage options. Changes can be good, and I certainly don't hit this with a blanket "Don't change anything in w-space!". But, I have some concerns...

First, and some will not agree, but the idea of making C4 and below w-space corps live in substandard (medium) or small) POS is insulting. KAIRS lives in a C2 because it is part of how we play the game. We could live in a C5/C6 but simply choose not to for a variety of sandboxy reasons. After seeing the insides of hundreds of wh, one thing is clear, VERY FEW people know how to correctly set up a POS. So the idea that C4 and below are impenetrable fortresses is sadly mistaken. But, as many people can attest to, if someone wants to burn your system, it can be done. It all depends on determination. So having said that, to make C4 and below residents live in "lesser" POS (not large), is a hell of a slap in the face. Not to mention how much more difficult it will make life if for instance, they have less capabilities as they would under the current model. Anyways, I and my corp have a lot of anger building over this potential change and see it as potentially a wh breaker for us.


I certainly understand your position, but I don't think it is fair to allow, for example, the same level of defensive firepower in a C1 that someone could have in a C6. If the attackers can't use a dread (without spending weeks building it in place), you should have less firepower available as well. You guys have made a purposeful decision to live in a C2, where you have less income from sleepers, and easier access to empire.

You guys have decided on less risk to your POSes, there should be a tradeoff to that decision. I don't support giving you *less* functionality than the current system, but I do think it is reasonable to give you fewer defenses, and possibly not some of the features that people that choose to expose themselves to higher risk would get.

Nash MacAllister wrote:

Docking games. Hell no. This whole idea is asinine and if you make w-space like k-space, people will simply leave w-space, and I think a large portion may just leave Eve altogether. W-space is a refuge from the bs that goes on in the rest of Eve and to take that away would be catastrophic. Now, docking modules where you could see ships but not attack them, hmmm, maybe that is workable. But again, for the love of God, no docking games...

Multiple POS at a moon on the same grid. Interesting. Gonna wait and see where this goes. Same for LOS shooting.

Scouting and Intel Gathering. Gonna have to digest this a bit more as small changes to the proposed POS could vary this greatly. Going to be tough to balance this.

I am not trying to be outlandish here, or brag, but w-space PVP is what KAIRS does. And you don't have to live in a C5/C6 to be a "real" w-space corp. Proof - http://whkills.info/stats/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=98 , just look at the w-space kills. Two Step, we have some folks that would love to talk to you personally (and potentially CCP) to discuss some of the potential POS changes. I think a dialogue is important, and we are willing to spend the time to help make this successful because we all see that change is going to happen regardless of how loud people scream. Lol.

-Nash
CEO - The Kairos Syndicate [KAIRS]
A Founding Member of Transmission Lost [LOST]


I'm going to skip the docking games stuff as I really do think it would be completely different than in k-space.

I'm happy to talk to people anytime, it sounds like hosting a town hall type meeting for w-space would be something that people are interested in. I will try to schedule that after the full CSM town hall, which should be this weekend.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#197 - 2012-08-13 21:47:25 UTC
Two step wrote:
I'm going to skip the docking games stuff as I really do think it would be completely different than in k-space


It'd be slightly different to camping jita 4-4, yeah, but I still think it'd be pretty terrible, for reasons already expressed fifty times in this thread.
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#198 - 2012-08-13 21:59:57 UTC
Two step wrote:
Defenders not being able to d-scan from inside their POS sounds like a feature to me. If you want intel, you need to undock. This is somewhat a balance to providing possibly less intel to the attacker when you are docked...


Yeah, you know where else this "balance" exists? K-space.

I mean our entire thread is saying keep your k-space out of my w-space and then you come up with a response like that, which basically says, yeah...well it's balanced in k-space. I can't imagine anyone in this thread is satisfied with that. We don't live in k-space, why are you so intent on bringing k-space "features" to us?

Two step wrote:
You have deemed my points irrelevant, that doesn't mean the supposed "regular" w-space dweller has done so. In fact, the vast majority of the feedback on the minutes I get outside of this thread is actually very positive for the changes


I'm not going to say who elected you, I certainly don't have the demographics, but considering the amount of people in large w-space PvP corps and the amount of alts we all have, I certainly think you should be listening harder to this thread (and failheap) than your evemails.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#199 - 2012-08-13 22:05:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Gnaw LF
Two step wrote:

You have deemed my points irrelevant, that doesn't mean the supposed "regular" w-space dweller has done so. In fact, the vast majority of the feedback on the minutes I get outside of this thread is actually very positive for the changes.

as for the things I supposedly didn't address:
Multiple POSes on grid I talked about in the post right before your post! I do have concerns about them, and I think CCP needs to think about a system like limiting the amount of guns that could be on a single grid, or something similar. In general, just like the current system, POSes should be defended by ships, not by turrets.

POS anchoring locations is certainly a concern. I think this falls pretty far into the "it hasn't been designed yet" camp though. Perhaps most POSes will be findable with the built in scanner? Perhaps they will be on the overview unless you spend lots of extra power on cloaking modules (which are again, just an idea)? Perhaps it is a good thing that someone could be sitting in a POS you don't know about and surprise you?

Defenders not being able to d-scan from inside their POS sounds like a feature to me. If you want intel, you need to undock. This is somewhat a balance to providing possibly less intel to the attacker when you are docked...




Guess thats democracy in action for you, sad thought that so many are willing to give up the hunter/prey aspect of w-space for such crappy gimmicks as market and contracts. Also your idea of balancing lack of intel on the attacking side is to remove intel from the defender? I guess we will have to live and see how all this will get implemented.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#200 - 2012-08-13 22:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gnaw LF
Two step wrote:


I certainly understand your position, but I don't think it is fair to allow, for example, the same level of defensive firepower in a C1 that someone could have in a C6. If the attackers can't use a dread (without spending weeks building it in place), you should have less firepower available as well. You guys have made a purposeful decision to live in a C2, where you have less income from sleepers, and easier access to empire.

You guys have decided on less risk to your POSes, there should be a tradeoff to that decision. I don't support giving you *less* functionality than the current system, but I do think it is reasonable to give you fewer defenses, and possibly not some of the features that people that choose to expose themselves to higher risk would get.


Whoa, I was planning on leaving this convo for a while until I read this. This is just plain bad and feels like some weird elitism. How is C2 or C3 less? Yes, its scaled for smaller corps and alliances. The sleeper sites can be done in ships that require smaller SP investment and the connections prevent capital ship movement. Besides those two points this part of w-space is just as cruel and unforgiving as the rest of w-space. There is no local, no security status hits, you can still anchor bubbles and use all kinds of items that are not allowed in high sec. But high sec, where a freighter can move a Large POS will not have this limitation?

What the rest of k-space? Is null sec going to have better POSes than low sec? And how is having capitals in C5 an excuse for larger POSes and better defenses? Why can't the defender use the capitals to defend? After all you just said it yourself, that POSes need to be defended by ships and not turrets. So how does that make lower class w-space an exception? Also, I think Empire access is a liability as the attacker can use it to bring in more people into the system then cycle, as opposed to higher class w-space where an empire connection is rare.