These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No major PVP driver in WH space

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2013-07-05 14:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Jack Miton wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
The fact that I and many other individuals from big alliances are here asking for CCP to add reasons for us to fight each other proves you wrong.

no, it actually proves us absolutely correct.
it shows that you can see the issue, admit it's there, know youre part of the issue, and yet, do nothing about it.
it's the worst kind of hypocrisy.


No it shows that i realize that there are some problems that CCP should look into for the good of W-space.

I could bounce from corp to corp like you crying that everyone is blobbing but something tells me that will achieve nothing and that two years down the line, things will be even worse and we'll all be board as **** because the is nothing to do but kill for the sake of a kill mail.

Archdaimon wrote:

The second point that need to be made is the all or nothingness of invasions in WH.

Either the inhabitants fights. Ok, we don't invade, yeay, arranged pvp.
Or, they don't and we have a choice:
a) commit full fleet for kicking them out.
b) move on.

There is nothing in between. We can't "raid" the WH or anything similar. Either we let them go or we sentence them to death... completely.. not in a physical way but in the only way that matters: isk and time.


Deny it all you want but this is the real problem.

Anyway, as fun as this has been i think i'll stop going around in circles with you guys o/

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Nix Anteris
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#122 - 2013-07-05 14:07:39 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yep, the C5/6 guys are telling us what they want w-space to be more like....null....the other 95% of us are telling you what it is....not null....not supportive of big alliances....not supportive of huge fleet fight....but the c5/6 guys just won't accept it.

Given CCP stance that w-space should be nomadic....which ultimately is complete BS IMO, I doubt you C5/6 guys are going to get anything resembling what you want....but you might just fck it up for everyone else.


It's like you have no idea whats going on, but you have this posting addiction that forces you to come up with random things to say.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2013-07-05 14:24:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Nix Anteris wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yep, the C5/6 guys are telling us what they want w-space to be more like....null....the other 95% of us are telling you what it is....not null....not supportive of big alliances....not supportive of huge fleet fight....but the c5/6 guys just won't accept it.

Given CCP stance that w-space should be nomadic....which ultimately is complete BS IMO, I doubt you C5/6 guys are going to get anything resembling what you want....but you might just fck it up for everyone else.


It's like you have no idea whats going on, but you have this posting addiction that forces you to come up with random things to say.


It's like you can't stand that I'm using an alt to post which has completely driven you dumb-nuts.

1) big w-space alliances can't find anyone to fight.
2) big alliances don't have juicy easy targets
3) you're an idiot
4) big alliance want something done for them by ccp because apparently they have a play style that they want to play but the space they've chosen to inhabit doesn't support it.....easily or frequently
5) some people think #4 means w-space mechanics are broken
6) other people think big alliances want w-space to be more like null

Well....how about you accept that you're in an area of a game that doesn't support your playstyle and you deal with it? Because the big alliances are the only ones in this thread complaining that everyone else are carebears and won't fight. And yet you would consider me a carebear because I want field my 6 man corp against your 50man fleet.
Fck, you might as well ask for moon-goo while you're at it.

W-space is not about pos bashing ad nauseum....you can't field your dreads and carriers whereever you want....it's small scale....everyone knows this but you guys in c5/6 space with so many people that you get to feel each other's turgid love for each other at night when you guys snuggle in bed.

Don't ban me, bro!
Nix Anteris
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#124 - 2013-07-05 14:27:27 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
one group taking a stand and not batphoning or blobbing does nothing to change the social dynamic all they are doing is weakening themselves if they want to be the strongest entity in WH space.


We're doing just fine, thanks.

And the social dynamic has changed. People accuse us of all sorts of hilarious things. We love it.
Nix Anteris
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#125 - 2013-07-05 14:30:26 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Nix Anteris wrote:
It's like you have no idea whats going on, but you have this posting addiction that forces you to come up with random things to say.


.. insert spew of random shit ..

Thanks for proving my point.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2013-07-05 14:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Nix Anteris wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Nix Anteris wrote:
It's like you have no idea whats going on, but you have this posting addiction that forces you to come up with random things to say.


.. insert spew of random shit ..

Thanks for proving my point.


You can dream and hope.

Oh and you want pew for profit....there is no profit in war when there's nothing to fight over like moon-goo. You guys just want easy rich targets...that's it!

And heres a little factoid for you: Our 6 man corp...2 of which haven't gotten their first kill yet...including alts (some pew some don't) has 42 kills per toon (that's alts included) for the lifetime of the corp....the corp has never been as large as it is now. Took a look at Bitten.'s eve-kill stats and you're about 15 kills per pilot.......so who exactly here is the pvp'r and who is the bear? Who here is afraid of pvp and who takes risks? Who here wants easy kills?

CCP please craft these guys an easy button....please so they can be elite hardcore pvp'rs?

You guys can keep complaining that you're not finding the pew. The rest of us are going to tell you.....you're doing it wrong.

You guys are only successful because of your numbers....and it's your numbers that are preventing you from getting more satifying pew more often.

Don't ban me, bro!
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#127 - 2013-07-05 15:04:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
Rek Seven wrote:
Xiamar, you talk as if every member of every big alliance is involved and okay with the idea of wormhole coalition. The fact that I and many other individuals from big alliances are here asking for CCP to add reasons for us to fight each other proves you wrong.

I'm not aware of any non invasion pacts but if you have evidence, please share it for all the see and discuss.

As i said, everything you said is irrelevant because one group taking a stand and not batphoning or blobbing does nothing to change the social dynamic all they are doing is weakening themselves if they want to be the strongest entity in WH space.

This is not a discussion as to whether big alliances are bad, it's a discussion as we whether those alliances need more reasons to fight each other so that the blue relationship breaks down.


There are plenty of incentives (both related to the w-space markets and to w-space politics) to pvp in w-space. Your failure to see them and your failure to recognize (or even know about) the errors of the alliances who are banding together only prove that you are not here to discuss.

"everything you said is irrelevant because...", "this is not a discussion about A, it's about B"

It's obvious from the way you formulate your responses that you aren't here to discuss and learn. You are here to propagate YOUR way of living in w-space, masking it as a complaint about some meta aspect of w-space and the current state of affairs.

EDIT: Actually, I don't really see a problem with coalitions. I'm not gonna say that numbers don't mean anything in w-space PVP, but they mean a lot less than they do in K-space. I'm gonna go even further to say that coalitions mean nothing, as proper wormhole control can negate bat-phoning.
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#128 - 2013-07-05 15:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
Alright let me summarize a few key points, first i'll start with things that the post is not about.

1- Whinning that there isn't enough pvp

2- An argument that only benefits big alliances

3- Wanting wh space to be like nullsec

4- Wanting more isk (because we are already swimming in it)

5- A change that benefits blobs and blues.

This is simply asking for the view regarding adding more conflict drivers (whatever they may be). What I mean by conflict drivers is in game mechanics that just make people want to pvp more, with all forms of pvp.

Just a small addition, 100 man fleets take too much effort in wh's. and when they happen, either the people are extremely lucky with the chain, or they prepared for multiple weeks instead. You can't form 100 man gangs in wh on a whim. So stop using as an argument, which frankly I don't know how that is even related to the question I am posing.

All I am asking is for in game reason +fun of course, to have fights. I want in addition to the fun fights we already have, to add a form of pvp in wormhole with a meaningful objective, other than just taking revenge or killing people you don't like because 1 of their members called you scrubs. That is all I am asking for, meaningful pvp, pvp with objectives.

For all the people that is attacking noho (very weak form of argument by the way, and all shows your lack of skills in discussions, because this is my personal opinion and no way related to noho), at least personally all the gangs I have been in with noho till now are less than 20 man, the cases where they have more is very rare. I said before my favorite kind of pvp is small gang, so in now way I am arguing against it, I just want more meaningful pvp in general. I don't care how player driven this game is, it is still constrained to the rules and range that CCP deems it with its in game mechanics, again I am not asking for any change in pvp mechanics (because I believe they are close to perfect in wh space), just more in game conflict drivers, which currently none exist in wh space (name one other than fun or revenge).

And 1 more thing guys, please stop this making this topic about small gangs vs big alliances because it simply isn't. Read the first 3 pages at least before commenting Lol
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2013-07-05 15:19:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Joan, when people stop using null as a template 1 thru 5 might be applicable. When I hear "blah blah like in nullsec" I tend to think the ideas are to change w-space into something more nullish. And when I hear examples of a conflict driver like no sding inside the pos, I can't help but think the attackers....to which the big alliances have ultimate superiority...just want easy isk.

W-space is what it is. Conflict drivers only lead to one thing, larger and larger alliances.....aka nullsec. People will protect what they have. And when the conflict driver requires you to be part of a large alliance to protect what you have then we will have a sea of blue.

When I look at numbers that indicate my 6 person corp is pewing a lot more than a big alliance with over 200 members....wtf would I want to join a big alliance? Perhaps it's an indication that w-space is not a place for big alliances and only the big alliances want changes to make it so which of course will only lead to less and less pew.

Don't ban me, bro!
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#130 - 2013-07-05 15:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
I'm afraid, Joan, that your demand for conflict drivers might be idealistic. The people who like PVP are already PVP'ing. The primary factor in the lack of PVP in w-space, is that there are too many carebears (logical, with the high profit and all).

Solution:

Either reduce the number of systems (or make it so that connections are more cluster-oriented) or make logistics easier to promote w-space to nullsec and lowsec pvp'ers.

EDIT: scratch that, logistics should be as is. Do promote w-space to null and low entities! But I may have another incentive, read below..
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2013-07-05 15:29:37 UTC
It would be nice if there was some reasonable incentive for ppl to defend and control their system instead of just POSing up and logging off whenever any pvp group rolls into them. This would need to have reasonable timescale, so that attackers can somehow "raid" a hole without having to spend 3 days in it...

But there might be simply too many problems with abusing any such mechanic and might in the end lead to even bigger alliances (as they would try to cover all timezones). I wouldnt want more incentives to evictions, as that would lead to even more batphoning...

In the end, the most healthy thing would be if alliances stopped refusing to fight outside of their home system... lets just meet in the middle ffs...

SSC Brokering Service
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2013-07-05 15:31:12 UTC
Ellariona wrote:
I'm afraid, Joan, that your demand for conflict drivers might be idealistic. The people who like PVP are already PVP'ing. The primary factor in the lack of PVP in w-space, is that there are too many carebears (logical, with the high profit and all).

Solution:

Either reduce the number of systems (or make it so that connections are more cluster-oriented) or make logistics easier to promote w-space to nullsec and lowsec pvp'ers.


Finally, someone else picked up on what the topic is about. Roll

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2013-07-05 15:34:07 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
When I look at numbers that indicate my 6 person corp is pewing a lot more than a big alliance with over 200 members....wtf would I want to join a big alliance?
This is pure comedy gold coming from npc alt... top shelf bro

SSC Brokering Service
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2013-07-05 15:36:57 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
When I look at numbers that indicate my 6 person corp is pewing a lot more than a big alliance with over 200 members....wtf would I want to join a big alliance?
This is pure comedy gold coming from npc alt... top shelf bro


Ignore it if it makes you sleep better, bro.

Don't ban me, bro!
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#135 - 2013-07-05 15:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
If you want an incentive to fight:

::: Sleeper System Purge :::
A type of incursion for the duration of a week, with a week of 'loading' to make w-space entities aware of the impending system status. Only 1 of these around at any given time.

  • Added new type of anomalies for the duration until they've been cleared (can be cleared after the event too, as a reward for the w-system holder).
  • Escalated anomalies will present sleeper capital ships on top of the regular stuff. Lots of blue stuff which will attract both PVE and PVP entities.
  • The system will have a big increase of the chance of an incoming hole popping up, making sure that a good portion of w-space has access to it and to make wormhole control very difficult, if not impossible.
  • The system gets 7 statics (6 different class systems and null)


It's balanced risk vs reward, it's bound to be good pvp and pve and it should promote larger fights.

What do you think? This won't make all of W-space into null while still presenting a good incentive to keep rolling for pew or pve (= more active fleets to fight).
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2013-07-05 15:44:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Ellariona wrote:
If you want an incentive to fight:

::: Sleeper System Purge :::
A type of incursion for the duration of a week, with a week of 'loading' to make w-space entities aware of the impending system status. Only 1 of these around at any given time.

  • Added new type of anomalies for the duration and until they've been cleared.
  • Escalated anomalies will present sleeper capital ships on top of the regular stuff. Lots of blue stuff which will attract both PVE and PVP entities.
  • The system will have a big increase of the chance of an incoming hole popping up, making sure that a good portion of w-space has access to it and to make wormhole control very difficult, if not impossible.
  • The system gets 7 statics (6 different class systems and null)


It's balanced risk vs reward, it's bound to be good pvp and pve and it should promote larger fights.

What do you think? This won't make all of W-space into null while still presenting a good incentive.


I like it. A conflict driver that doesn't require larger and larger alliances while still promoting alliances. And everyone is invited.

Don't ban me, bro!
Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#137 - 2013-07-05 15:48:31 UTC
What I don't get is why people get so cornered up in small w vs. big w.
It's not like we have mutual different things we want to achieve.

And if people were less busy yelling more ideas like the one above, which isn't all bad, would pop up.

Lets work at making the game better instead of this, whatever, other...

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#138 - 2013-07-05 15:50:17 UTC
If you like it, like it :p
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#139 - 2013-07-05 15:54:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
I hate to do this really, calling out someone like this, but mr kidd your arguments are complete trash, you keep referring how I want wh space to be like null, where I have said multiple that I only used as an example of conflict drivers. Stop attacking me personally and tackle the argument at hand. I love the no local and I love mass limits, I love that it is close to impossible to build an alliance with unlimited number of pilots, I love it that you have to scan to find routes and chains, I love everything about wh pvp, really mechanics wise it is my favorite thing to do. So stop using it as a invisible crutch to your "stupid" arguments (I am sorry to resort to such namings, I really don't like it, but it is warranted and you are is just spewing random crap that is derailing the topic).

In my humble opinion, null has 1 thing better than us and that is in game conflict drivers, we simple have none (fun and revenge are out of game drivers, and in my opinion are not enough), so instead of calling any large alliance scrubs please prove me wrong on this point, show me where we have conflict drivers, and if there isn't any tell me why you don't want any.

And yes maybe I am being idealistic, but what is wrong with that, more in game conflict drivers are just good gaming design. If you disagree or agree or have any suggestions please go ahead and discuss, just please don't derail the topic.

Yes I know yet again I have to repeat ideas I posted before, I am sorry for this, but people seem to be repeating the same unrelated arguments that I have tried to tackle.

Even If I say so myself, discussing things like this is always good, especially for such an important topic.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2013-07-05 16:00:46 UTC
Holy crap. I go away for a day and this thread blows up. I'm almost afraid to post, although I did have a couple ideas to throw out there.

These are very rough "high level" ideas so they are certainly not fleshed out at all. But a couple things I had been mulling over for quite awhile now.

The first isn't really a PVP driver, but a mod. One complaint seems to be that in lower class wormholes, evictions are simply not worth it, due to lack of capitals. I'm on the fence a little bit, as I also like this aspect. It is what allows smaller entities to find a place in EVE to make their own. In 0.0 or even lowsec, unless you are large enough, putting up a POS will likely get you burned out easily as any number of medium to large entities can drop a cap/super fleet and burn it down.

At the same time I understand how a POS siege can be a great enabler of fights, even if the goal isn't a true eviction.

So I've thought some sort of "battleship siege" module could be cool. It would give battleships a boost in damage, giving a subcap fleet a bit more punch in a lower class WH POS siege. Personally I think it would also be beneficial for all those high sec POS's floating around. Obviously it wouldn't bump damage to dread level, but make a subcap siege more accessible.

So something that would up the damage, maybe cause the BS to not move (like a regular siege mod), but also maybe allow remote reps to work, as you really wouldn't be able to tank a BS as well as most dreads.


The second is resources. One thing that has bugged me is stratification of WH space. Essentially every higher class of WH space is just "better". Generally people tend to think of C1's as useless, C2 are also meh, except for their dual statics. and so forth.

Additionally, everything you need flows upwards. IE, all of the things you can get in a C1 are available in higher level wormholes. For example, low end ladars with low end gas still spawn in higher class wormholes. So there is generally no real need for anyone in higher class wormholes to even bother with the lower ones.

Part of the issue is isk generating potential. Honestly I don't know if I would want to mess with that, as I think this is an area WH space is ok if you consider difficulty vs. isk potential.

But I have wondered if there was a way to have some sort of necessary resource that spawns in all of WH space. I have no idea what or how this could be implemented, but im thinking of some sort of thing that would cause people to want or desire to explore through more of WH space. And when found would be something that other entities might find and be worth fighting over.

Just a thought.