These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
pierre arthos
Overload This
Escalation Theory
#101 - 2012-09-04 18:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: pierre arthos
Casirio wrote:
Two Step your logic regarding making lower class POS's easier to destroy is pretty wack. If POS's are easier to destroy, people will blue up and form bigger groups to be able to defend, or they will be pushed out of WH space for lolz. Don't understand why you don't seem to see that.


Your logic doesn't add up mate. At the moment, having a large POS in a C1-C4 FORCES your attacker to form a large blob. In turn, to defend, you have to blob up too. This stops smaller groups from attempting to invade, and also small groups cannot defend themselves without blueing up or hiring mercs.

Of course, you can't stop people blobbing up if that's how they want to play the game. But if you can give people the chance to get small gang goodfites based around infrastructure attack/defence and not just site ganks or wormhole camping then that must be a good thing, right? Well, this change would allow that option - whether people took that would be up to them, but at the moment it isn't even possible.
Anselm Cenobite
Gold Ring Enterprises
#102 - 2012-09-04 18:21:57 UTC
[quote=Rek Seven]If CCP want to change wormhole mechanics (i.e. small/medium POS in low class) to make it easier for smaller entities to get into wormhole space, i can understand that. What i fail to understand is how you can nerf the defences of current c1-c4 wormholes without making those wormholes suseptable to blob warfare...

For me, that's the biggest sticking point. How can one nerf a class 1 POS so that it is vulnerable to take-over (for example) by a small corp of 6-12 members who intend to claim/take over the system for themselves permanently, without the same nerf making it ridiculously easy for a 100-man corp to come in and destroy everything for loot and lols?

A one-week timer as Two-Step suggests might help slow those random-drive-by POS-bashes--and I'm mulling over that idea as a serious possibility--but then you end up with the small corp having to invest a week of time (rather than 2-3 days) to conquer the POS. For a lot of small corps, you are lucky to get everybody on at a single time once a week or so. They simply don't have the manpower to keep up a siege/block POS exits /shoot logistic POS reppers for a full week, but the 100-man corp or alliance might. I'm having trouble imagining any such tweak to help the little guys invading that wouldn't end up merely serving the benefit of the larger wormhole alliances/invaders.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-09-04 18:24:14 UTC
Two step wrote:
Gumby Ambraelle wrote:

My *why* it would drive groups to be larger is that as POS are made easier to bash, it will take larger groups to defend them. This need will drive groups to either leave W-Space or will force them to join in with other groups so there is the chance to defend their homes against random invaders/POS bashers.

I also believe that when a POS becomes easier to take down, there will be more POS's bashed for lols and this will drive players from w-space. I believe that you will see a new subset of mercinaries that are strickly used to bash lower end POS's. Since they will be easier to remove it will be cheaper to hire these groups. I am not sure that this is the intended outcome of the POS modification but I could see this becoming an uninteded consequence of the change.

All of this would lead to the need for a larger group to be able to support and maintain life in w-space.

I hope I am wrong and none of this happens, but the nature of game play in eve leads me to believe that this is a very likely outcome for such a change.


I think you are contradicting yourself here. If you have smaller merc groups that are bashing these POSes (or if people don't have to hire mercs at all), then you can have a smaller number of people fighting them off. This sounds like a good thing to me.


Two Step i don't know what game you are playing but in the eve i know, people have no qualms about blobbing a significantly smaller group.

I agree with Guymby. If POS's in low class wormholes are easer to destroy, more people will start doing it. If more people start bashing POS's then people in low class wormholes will need to have an overpowering number of pilots living in the wormhole to defend it.

I am still waiting to hear why you, CCP or whoever feel that low class wormholes are less vulnerable that c5's and c6's...

The only legitemet thing i can think of is what Bane said - dreads can bypass ecm.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-09-04 18:31:18 UTC
Two step wrote:
I'd love to hear *why* you think making POSes easier to kill would make people group up more. I think it would have the opposite effect.

Fair question; I'll elaborate.

Based on how POSes work now, limiting the size of the POS is a double edged sword. Less defenses means less players needed to take it down. Less HP means more people willing to try. If more people are trying to blow up all of their stuff, that's a pretty good motivation to join up with more people to help you defend it. I know that a major factor in whether or not a POS gets sieged is what size it is because that's always the first question asked when it's considered (not including full invasions). I've reinforced a few small POSes that had little to no defenses (with subcaps) just to see if it had stront. I'd never do that to a large tower because it's a pain.

The compromise, in my mind, would be limiting the defenses, not the POS size. The biggest problem is ECM. That sets a fairly hard minimum for the number of players needed to take it down. By limiting the defenses, it makes it possible for a small group to take down a POS. Possible...but not easy. There still needs to be sufficient deterrent to prevent people from doing it casually. They need to have a reason for taking down that POS.
mr roadkill
Silent but Violent
#105 - 2012-09-04 18:40:47 UTC  |  Edited by: mr roadkill
pierre arthos wrote:
Casirio wrote:
Two Step your logic regarding making lower class POS's easier to destroy is pretty wack. If POS's are easier to destroy, people will blue up and form bigger groups to be able to defend, or they will be pushed out of WH space for lolz. Don't understand why you don't seem to see that.


Your logic doesn't add up mate. At the moment, having a large POS in a C1-C4 FORCES your attacker to form a large blob. In turn, to defend, you have to blob up too. This stops smaller groups from attempting to invade, and also small groups cannot defend themselves without blueing up or hiring mercs.


May i ask how you define a small group vs a blob?

Is a 15 man fleet a small group or a blob?

@twostep - i apologise if i made it sound like it was all your doing, as CSM you have CCP's ear this is all i meant. You can and do advise them.

What exactly is wrong with the current size of large in a lower class wormhole?

If you answer my earlier question of does a 15 man gang constitute a small gang or a blob by saying its a small gang. Then it is more than possible for a small gang of this size to evict someone with a large tower from a c2 over the course of a weekend.

Are you saying this is to long or too much challenge in your opinion? If so i can see your reason for wanting to reduce the size of tower. However how will you stop these small 15 fleets being totally overrun when they cannot pitch more than a small tower in their wormhole when they get a joining connection to a higher rated hole and a fleet comes through with as many logistics ships as we have in our entire fleet?

As the guy from exhale pointed out this is possible now also but if the tower size is to be limited will there be other changes to limit further the number of ships that you can be attacked by? Bear in mind some low class holes have adjoining holes that MANY ships can pass through and wipe up small towers in a matter of hours and a small gang (15 ships for example would stand no chance).

This is the problem with 'balance' if you must ask how you can make it easier for 'small gangs' to effectively remove people from lower class holes you must also ask (in my opinion)how do you make it fair and even for those same smaller fleets when they encounter bigger alliances.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#106 - 2012-09-04 18:42:41 UTC
I don't see the need to nerf lower end wh space. Any potential hostile gives up his ability to bring in caps for the sheer ease of bringing in more people. That is the trade off for lower end wormhole space. Logistics may be easier, but hostiles getting a massive fleet in is a lot easier too.

Two Step, based on the sheer number of people that think this is a terrible idea, why do you continue to support this idea of lesser POS's?

No trolling please
Gumby Ambraelle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2012-09-04 19:01:33 UTC
Two step wrote:
Gumby Ambraelle wrote:

My *why* it would drive groups to be larger is that as POS are made easier to bash, it will take larger groups to defend them. This need will drive groups to either leave W-Space or will force them to join in with other groups so there is the chance to defend their homes against random invaders/POS bashers.

I also believe that when a POS becomes easier to take down, there will be more POS's bashed for lols and this will drive players from w-space. I believe that you will see a new subset of mercinaries that are strickly used to bash lower end POS's. Since they will be easier to remove it will be cheaper to hire these groups. I am not sure that this is the intended outcome of the POS modification but I could see this becoming an uninteded consequence of the change.

All of this would lead to the need for a larger group to be able to support and maintain life in w-space.

I hope I am wrong and none of this happens, but the nature of game play in eve leads me to believe that this is a very likely outcome for such a change.


I think you are contradicting yourself here. If you have smaller merc groups that are bashing these POSes (or if people don't have to hire mercs at all), then you can have a smaller number of people fighting them off. This sounds like a good thing to me.


I believe that it will take larger groups of WH residents to fight off a group of mercs, most cannot do it one v one. It will most likely be one v 2 or one v 2.5 ... so I guess it depends on the definition of large groups....

It seems to me that alot of the groups we run into in C1-C3 WH space are industrial type of corps with some pvp types sprinkled in.... I do not think most are true pvp only corps living in those classes of W-space. By not being true pvp corps they will need to have a larger number of people to engage in POS defense.

Meytal
Doomheim
#108 - 2012-09-04 19:26:48 UTC
Two Step wrote:
It matters because small groups like your corp should be able to take and hold wormholes just like the larger groups.

I agree with you 100%. However, a 3-man corp should NOT be able to "take and hold" a wormhole from a larger, more organized corp, at least not in any kind of time frame that resembles the word "short".

In Nullsec, corps can't do this.
In Hisec, corps can't do this.
In Lowsec, corps can't do this.

Everywhere else in EVE, if you are a small fish and you want to beat up a bigger fish, you BRING FRIENDS. That's the whole point of the ally system in Wardecs. That's the whole point of the Merc market. Corps and alliances exist who make a living selling attack and defense services to other corps and alliances.

If you make it easier for the small fish to kick out the big fish in one tiny region of space in EVE, you need to make it easier for the small fish to kick out the big fish in EVERY region of space in EVE.

Two Step wrote:
I think it is really interesting that folks in this thread are arguing that less HP for lower class wormhole POSes would both reduce and increase PvP.

They are not mutually exclusive, though the "PVP" might not be the same PVP as we enjoy now. Once the small fish are evicted, you will have fewer fish in the w-space sea. The increase in "PVP" will be brief. The small groups who today might just set up a tower as an experiment to try this wormhole life thing won't bother returning or setting up residence because it will be so easy to evict them if they don't do the right thing or say the right thing. Thus, the overall net effect is that after a brief surge in "PVP" (ie: evictions) due to the almighty killboard stats, there will be less PVP available as people move to Hisec.

The "barrier of entry" to POS bashes right now makes them only bashed for specific purposes. When you remove that barrier, greed and killboard envy will take over.

Two Step wrote:
I think you are missing my point here though. Right now, if some larger wormhole corp wanted to kill your POS, they would be able to do so, as it sounds like happened to your corp before. Do you really think that having less shields would make that more likely to happen?

Yes, but not just a smaller number on shields. After all, an Amarr dickstar is just as annoying to shoot down as a Caldari dickstar, even though the Caldari has more shields. It's not the shields, but the defenses. Due to lack of better justification attemptsexplanation, we are left to assume that a smaller new-POS will be similar to a smaller current-POS: fewer shields AND fewer defensive capabilities.

Two Step wrote:
I don't think that is the case, especially if it took longer to wait out the reinforcement timer.

This is almost as bad of an idea as docking in w-space. The current reinforcement timers are sufficient for an active corp or alliance to rally defenses, or hire mercs. If you don't know that you've been attacked and only log in to an empty spot in space, then you weren't active enough and deserved to lose your POS. There is a certain level of commitment to supporting a POS.

Two Step wrote:
The thing that less shields *might* do is make some other small corp decide to invade you, and that would bring more of the good, small-scale PvP that makes w-space fun.

Just by your use of punctuation, you admit it's a stretch for an argument.


And Two Step, when you start representing the community instead of your own isolated, near-sighted point of view, then maybe you will have standing to demand people to change the name on the posts they make.
Meytal
Doomheim
#109 - 2012-09-04 19:49:41 UTC
pierre arthos wrote:
Your logic doesn't add up mate. At the moment, having a large POS in a C1-C4 FORCES your attacker to form a large blob. In turn, to defend, you have to blob up too. This stops smaller groups from attempting to invade, and also small groups cannot defend themselves without blueing up or hiring mercs.

Yes, indeed!

Now. Why is that? Why do you need more attackers to siege a well-defended POS in C1-C4 as compared to sieging a well-defended POS in C5/C6 ?
[Hint: it's not shield HP]

pierre arthos wrote:
Of course, you can't stop people blobbing up if that's how they want to play the game. But if you can give people the chance to get small gang goodfites based around infrastructure attack/defence and not just site ganks or wormhole camping then that must be a good thing, right? Well, this change would allow that option - whether people took that would be up to them, but at the moment it isn't even possible.

At the risk of drifting off-topic...

Unfortunately, human nature is such that self-preservation usually ranks fairly high on the list of priorities when planning activities. This is illustrated in gaming just as it is in real life. You don't look at your target's forces (that you can see), calculate exactly how many counter forces you need to just barely squeak out a victory, and then go in knowing you actually may not succeed. No, you bring whoever you have ready. If it's enough and are just a bit better than your targets, you win. If your targets are cautious and watching, you get nothing. If your fleet size is not enough, maybe you try to split up your target or you don't engage in the first place.

And if you have 10-15 people who are out searching for kills when that C3 Plexing fleet of two Drakes and a Tengu is found, which ones do you tell to stay home, and deny them participation in a kill? And who takes responsibility for telling the rest of the fleet to stand down when that C3 Plex fleet turns out to be bait for the 10-15 player group holding the next w-space system over, and the "appropriately sized" fleet ends up in new med clones before the rest of the support can arrive on grid?

The beauty of PvP in w-space is that you Just Don't Know what you will really be facing. Local won't tell you. The solar system map won't tell you. Only your scouts can tell you, and they can only tell you what they've seen. You jump in with what you have, and hope you're not being baited, while trying to watch your back for the ever-present counter-ambush.
nStedt CapBuilder
Salamander Researches And Industries
#110 - 2012-09-04 19:50:46 UTC
its fairly obvious who meytal is its a alt of mytal cohen from surely you're joking characters
Nash MacAllister
Air
The Initiative.
#111 - 2012-09-04 20:08:45 UTC
While I agree with the post, there are 2 gems here in my eyes. The first:

Meytal wrote:

And who takes responsibility for telling the rest of the fleet to stand down when that C3 Plex fleet turns out to be bait for the 10-15 player group holding the next w-space system over, and the "appropriately sized" fleet ends up in new med clones before the rest of the support can arrive on grid?


And the second:

Meytal wrote:
The beauty of PvP in w-space is that you Just Don't Know what you will really be facing.


Well said.

Change is cool, I love it, but don't tell me how to play, and don't **** up my sandbox. It's w-space, anything can happen, but good organization and tactics do tend to prevail in the long-run.

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...
Casirio
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2012-09-04 20:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Casirio
Nash MacAllister wrote:
Change is cool, I love it, but don't tell me how to play, and don't **** up my sandbox. It's w-space, anything can happen, but good organization and tactics do tend to prevail in the long-run.


yeah well said too. edit: and yeah I understand change will happen, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2012-09-04 21:14:15 UTC
Out of all the proposed POS changes, the POS size in the lower class w-space is literally the most insignificant one, meaning that you have very few people actually complaining about the current mechanics. So why is it that we have pages of proposals and rebuttals when we clearly need to keep our eye on a different prize?

Two Step, its time to pick your battles and drop this argument. Its pretty clear that most of the w-space players do not really care if lower class w-space has the access and ability to anchor large POSes. Also, most of w-space players realize that in exchange for capital ship restrictions the lower class w-space gives up the ability to control their exits and prevent the enemy from getting in.
Ayeson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#114 - 2012-09-04 21:34:49 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
Out of all the proposed POS changes, the POS size in the lower class w-space is literally the most insignificant one, meaning that you have very few people actually complaining about the current mechanics. So why is it that we have pages of proposals and rebuttals when we clearly need to keep our eye on a different prize?

Two Step, its time to pick your battles and drop this argument. Its pretty clear that most of the w-space players do not really care if lower class w-space has the access and ability to anchor large POSes. Also, most of w-space players realize that in exchange for capital ship restrictions the lower class w-space gives up the ability to control their exits and prevent the enemy from getting in.


QFE

I ♥ the orthrus
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-09-04 22:09:42 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Removing forcefields is more than likely a terrible idea, as I see a lot of ways in which it'll make organising a defense/escape from a pos that is under siege near impossible




I love how people keep saying this when they have no idea what the new system will be. Do you actually think they're just going to remove force fields and leave everything else the same? Let CCP do their job, save your whining until some actual information comes out.


Also want to reiterate how foolish the idea of weakening towers in lower class wormholes would be. You'd better weaken the ones in lower end null systems too, while you're at it. That would be the only way to keep it fair. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is just someone who wants an easier time greifing people who aren't playing the game the same way the "pvper" is.
Frying Doom
#116 - 2012-09-05 00:55:00 UTC
Excluding everything all I can see happening with longer timers is

1) Group A lis living in a wormhole
2) Group b decides to take over said wormhole and puts up a tower
3) Group B reinforces group A's tower
4) to try and remove them Group A reinforces group B's tower

Now with the long timers this will just go on for several weeks to a month until

5) group C sees 2 reinforced POS towers and decides that they might like the wormhole

So eventually group A and B leave the wormhole broke from the loss of ships and inability to do anything and then Group C starts making its self comfortable until Group D comes along.

The whole process while nice to have a safer home in matters of time it also means that if anyone put up another POS in your system you are both screwed.

And as to limiting the size of POS towers...It is just insane, if you limit any part of EvE like that it would be a ghost town, except Hi-sec as most of them would not notice...

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2012-09-05 01:02:57 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:


Making scanning easier seems a bit silly, especially considering people are complaining that they can't find POS', where you can find them with no probes what-so-ever. Compared to the old-school scanning, current scanning is ridiculously easy! Making it even easier seems to be a step in the wrong direction imo. Cool


so true. i
Dino Boff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-09-05 01:57:40 UTC
Large amount of blue can't help defend a system from invasion. Once a merc corp control a system static, you're on your own.
Wolvun
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-09-05 03:14:13 UTC
Bane Nucleus wrote:
I don't see the need to nerf lower end wh space. Any potential hostile gives up his ability to bring in caps for the sheer ease of bringing in more people. That is the trade off for lower end wormhole space. Logistics may be easier, but hostiles getting a massive fleet in is a lot easier too.

Two Step, based on the sheer number of people that think this is a terrible idea, why do you continue to support this idea of lesser POS's?



@ Two step, the above post sums it all up. Just because you think we are wrong is insignificant.

You where elected to put forward the voice of your voting people and when we have overwhelmingly come out and told you not to do something, you should really be hearing it, accepting it and moving on to what we can make happen in the new POS's and not continue on with the nerf parade that ONLY YOU seems to want.
Wolvun
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2012-09-05 06:01:23 UTC
I keep hearing the argument that small corps can't go and take a WH for themselves. Why should they when so many are empty?

You can find them easy enough or buy them for less then a nights site running to replace, and less then a ship loss that you will get in taking over an inhabited WH.

Lets talk WH nerfs when WH's are ACTUALLY full.

Perhaps try buffing low end WH space to entice more people in to live in them so we can shoot at them and not keep finding empty WH's to roam in?