These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#141 - 2013-07-05 16:01:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
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 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).


Sounds okay and the opportunity to earn more isk would probably encourage more people to come to wormhole space but those people would probably just be coming for moar isk! No?

A couple friends and i were talking about a similar concept but it involved adding a new class of wormhole.

C7 wormhole features:
* more mass than C6 wormholes (maybe double)
* no moons (i.e. no pos)
* multiple statics (2-4)
* capital speepers
* sleepers that appear on wormholes and attack fleets
* random system effects (no one fit can be dominant)

Basically this would be space for nomad fleets and would create king of the hill gameplay.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2013-07-05 16:10:23 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
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.


I'm short on time so this will be brief.

Look, some people just want to hulk smash little guys all day and call that fun and pew. W-space makes that difficult. I'm here just to make sure that other people understand what w-space is about. Again the only people that want change are those that aren't finding what they want out here. The rest of us like it for what it is. We're concerned the big guys will use their numbers to change that and ruin it for the rest of us.

It would be like me going to losec and start requesting changes to be more like w-space....I'd get laughed out of whatever forum for that.....

Don't ban me, bro!
QT McWhiskers
EdgeGamers
#143 - 2013-07-05 16:15:52 UTC
Bob damnit... 8 pages of people complaining about PVP. Just invade someone and get it over with. Purge your system for bob's sake. I guarantee you that if you get into a 40+ man engagement and you kill multiple billions on the enemies side, you will feel much better.
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#144 - 2013-07-05 16:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
Rek Seven wrote:
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 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).


Sounds okay and the opportunity to earn more isk would probably encourage more people to come to wormhole space but those people would probably just be coming for moar isk! No?

A couple friends and i were talking about a similar concept but it involved adding a new class of wormhole.

C7 wormhole features:
* more mass than C6 wormholes (maybe double)
* no moons (i.e. no pos)
* multiple statics (2-4)
* capital speepers
* sleepers that appear on wormholes and attack fleets
* random system effects (no one fit can be dominant)

Basically this would be space for nomad fleets and would create king of the hill gameplay.


I initially had the same idea, but then I figured something dynamic and clustered would be better, to promote the king of the hill gameplay we'd like to see. Even better for nomad fleets, since the pew wouldn't be tethered to just a few systems, but to all of them randomly. So an incursion-style event seems better in my opinion. Also, I'd rather go with more holes than mass manipulation, as that would make it easier to calculate.

To iterate on my previous post:

Sleeper system purge
- fits in with lore, sleeper AI wants to get the infection (us capsuleers) out by sending in previously dormant cap sleepers
- system effects will be the native ones, so it would force w-entities to skill up for both shield, armor and sig/speed doctrines, if they want to engage in all the different systems.
- half a dozen statics (not necessarily all of them) & a higher chance of incoming holes
- addition of a new type of anomaly with capital sleepers in them (for added value)

If people come for the ISK making, the PVP guys can jump them or they can try and defend their Pot o' Gold.
If people come for pew, they'll find it, as the system will connect to a LOT of other systems.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#145 - 2013-07-05 16:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Ellariona wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
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 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).


Sounds okay and the opportunity to earn more isk would probably encourage more people to come to wormhole space but those people would probably just be coming for moar isk! No?

A couple friends and i were talking about a similar concept but it involved adding a new class of wormhole.

C7 wormhole features:
* more mass than C6 wormholes (maybe double)
* no moons (i.e. no pos)
* multiple statics (2-4)
* capital speepers
* sleepers that appear on wormholes and attack fleets
* random system effects (no one fit can be dominant)

Basically this would be space for nomad fleets and would create king of the hill gameplay.


I initially had the same idea, but then I figured something dynamic and clustered would be better, to promote the king of the hill gameplay we'd like to see. Even better for nomad fleets, since the pew wouldn't be tethered to just a few systems, but to all of them randomly. So an incursion-style event seems better in my opinion. Also, I'd rather go with more holes than mass manipulation, as that would make it easier to calculate.

To iterate on my previous post:

Sleeper system purge
- fits in with lore, sleeper AI wants to get the infection (us capsuleers) out by sending in previously dormant cap sleepers
- system effects will be the native ones, so it would force w-entities to skill up for both shield, armor and sig/speed doctrines, if they want to engage in all the different systems.
- half a dozen statics (not necessarily all of them) & a higher chance of incoming holes
- addition of a new type of anomaly with capital sleepers in them (for added value)

If people come for the ISK making, the PVP guys can jump them or they can try and defend their Pot o' Gold.
If people come for pew, they'll find it, as the system will connect to a LOT of other systems.


Here's what happens.
1. The only "PVP guys" with enough numbers will be the blobby big alliances.
2. The only "PVE" guys will be the only blobby big alliances because the PVP guys made it too hostile not to mention it will require too many numbers to carebear
3. Nothing will change, the big blobs will continue to farm and eventually whine about no fights.


You know the single thing that will fix a good chunk of PVP problems in wspace? The coming T3 nerf.
No matter what solution people storm up now, people will always be flying the same overpowered tech 3s, forming fleets that cannot be matched without equal number of tech 3s, or at least double the number in conventials.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-07-05 17:03:58 UTC
Please explain why a T3 nerf would fix anything. I'd predict the opposite , as the bigger alliances will just grow bigger so that they accomplish the same goals in the same time they did before the nerf.

Also why is bringing lots of people to a fight bad. If you can't handle it, you can always ask Mr kid if you can join his C2 corp.
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#147 - 2013-07-05 17:14:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
I disagree, Messoroz. And don't belittle my 'pvp guys' phrasing. Not everyone is in a corp and not everyone is worthy of being called an 'entity'.

Anyway, the proposed w-incursions would allow multiple corporations and alliances to fight in the same system, as it would have plenty of connections (more than enough statics and incoming holes to use). It wouldn't just be for blobby alliances, as wormhole control would be highly difficult. The high numbers in local, plenty of connections and the king-of-the-hill type gameplay would allow for smaller pvp corps and alliances to use guerrilla warfare against the blobby alliances, effectively forcing them to either split fleets or try new tactics. Imagine a fight between two large w-alliances and two or three small corps jumping in to opportunistically shoot them both mid-fight.

Also, I thought VOC didn't focus on w-space anymore? So, what's the deal?
anishamora
Atelierele Grivita
#148 - 2013-07-05 17:15:46 UTC
Evangelina Nolen wrote:
This is why we need moon goo in W-space.


Just wanted to say you're an uglier me.
Yokomaki
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#149 - 2013-07-05 17:17:48 UTC
Don't form mega WH PvP alliances and form a bunch of smaller pvp corps. Is it surprising that 25 man corps don't want to fight 200 man corps or 500 man alliances?
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#150 - 2013-07-05 17:18:22 UTC
Yokomaki wrote:
Don't form mega WH PvP alliances and form a bunch of smaller pvp corps. Is it surprising that 25 man corps don't want to fight 200 man corps or 500 man alliances?


Yes, cowards!
chris elliot
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#151 - 2013-07-05 17:22:05 UTC
Ellariona wrote:
I disagree, Messoroz. And don't belittle my 'pvp guys' phrasing. Not everyone is in a corp and not everyone is worthy of being called an 'entity'.


This is precisely the attitude that wormhole space does not need, and a large part of the reason no one likes fighting you.
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#152 - 2013-07-05 17:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
Please, elaborate. In case you didn't notice, I'm not on the blobby side. And neither is the corp I'm in.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#153 - 2013-07-05 17:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Ellariona wrote:


Also, I thought VOC didn't focus on w-space anymore? So, what's the deal?




Here's another fun factoid for you.



Just because someone in an alliance says something.

Doesn't mean they represent the entire alliance.

I guess maybe in our alliance we actually are allowed free thought and are allowed to do whatever we want. Heck, we don't have real alliance leadership or goals or whatever. We just do fun stuff instead of wasting time on politics which nobody wants.


So me calling you all scrublords is more than allowed.


Ellariona wrote:
I disagree, Messoroz. And don't belittle my 'pvp guys' phrasing. Not everyone is in a corp and not everyone is worthy of being called an 'entity'.

Anyway, the proposed w-incursions would allow multiple corporations and alliances to fight in the same system, as it would have plenty of connections (more than enough statics and incoming holes to use). It wouldn't just be for blobby alliances, as wormhole control would be highly difficult. The high numbers in local, plenty of connections and the king-of-the-hill type gameplay would allow for smaller pvp corps and alliances to use guerrilla warfare against the blobby alliances, effectively forcing them to either split fleets or try new tactics. Imagine a fight between two large w-alliances and two or three small corps jumping in to opportunistically shoot them both mid-fight.

Also, I thought VOC didn't focus on w-space anymore? So, what's the deal?



You have "hopes" of multiple corporations and alliances.

Do you realize there are VERY FEW of these corporations and alliances that can match the numbers of the big ones?

Do you realize that people are not mentally challenged and will not partake in fights they have no chance of winning?

Do you realize guerrila warfare does not work in wspace because someone is sitting in a 40 man tech 3 blob with links providing long range webs, points, ridiculous tanks and DPS?
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#154 - 2013-07-05 17:38:57 UTC
^ I smell weakness... Wormhole coalition - assemble!
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#155 - 2013-07-05 17:47:30 UTC
I have to laugh at some of the comments on here. I wish some of you would step back and look at what you are posting. It really is pretty bad.
Nix Anteris
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#156 - 2013-07-05 17:51:21 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
I have to laugh at some of the comments on here. I wish some of you would step back and look at what you are posting. It really is pretty bad.


In before you get randomly accused of wanting wormholes to be like nullsec.
Indo Nira
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2013-07-05 17:52:35 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
I have to laugh at some of the comments on here. I wish some of you would step back and look at what you are posting. It really is pretty bad.


i can confirm that THIS post and the post i quoted is on-topic and bring valid discussion points to this ongoing thread
Svodola Darkfury
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2013-07-05 17:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Svodola Darkfury
Nix Anteris wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
I have to laugh at some of the comments on here. I wish some of you would step back and look at what you are posting. It really is pretty bad.


In before you get randomly accused of wanting wormholes to be like nullsec.


"Omg like just move out to null-sec and stuff that's where all the real PVP is."


Wormholes are sand-boxier than the rest of the game. We have POS's, POCOs and PVE. Everything else is player generated content. [edit]: I'm realizing 2 of those 3 are player generated content as well, don't flame me! Wormholes are rich in the e-honor, or douche-baggey, or whatever meta.

Honestly if you don't like it change how the game is played. We don't need conflict drivers except maybe POS's actually dropping stuff. That was sort of a silly change. That and the rest of EVE is waiting for you. I had a good 3 year run in low / null-sec before I realized I hated every second of it :P

Verge of Collapse might be getting a little heavy on the rhetoric, but the one thing they are saying is this: "when we can't fight (because it's stupid to) we go and do something else in the game. And we have fun." That's not a half bad goal imo.

Svo.

Director of Frozen Corpse Industries.
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#159 - 2013-07-05 18:03:21 UTC
I have been following this thread since the beginning, and I will be honest, I have no idea what we are arguing about anymore.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#160 - 2013-07-05 18:16:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Svodola Darkfury wrote:


Verge of Collapse might be getting a little heavy on the rhetoric, but the one thing they are saying is this: "when we can't fight (because it's stupid to) we go and do something else in the game. And we have fun." That's not a half bad goal imo.

Svo.



All I have to say. VoC is not the one partaking in this thread. It is simply me using examples.