These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

[Question] Progressive versus Conservatism
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
#21 - 2014-03-15 09:29:14 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:


This can be done imho in two ways:
- increasing the occurence of connections
(adding statics to C4s, boosting spawnrate of random holes for example, adding new space accessible via WSpace)
- making preventing others from interacting with you more difficult
(making crashing holes more risky, not showing new sigs on overlay immediatly, incentivizing farming outside your WH)

I'd also like to post my idea I floated during the townhall and some seemed to like it:
The higher the ship mass, the higher the warp accuracy deviation. Ie. small ships would come out of warp and land pretty much exactly on the BM. Larger ships would land gradually farther and farther, until capitals would have decent chance to land let's say 5km off, so that you might need to slowboat a bit towards the hole in order to jump through...

So this would be "making crashing riskier" kind of idea - thoughts? how terrible would that be?


Everything and I mean everything you say promotes the style of gameplay you do. Not everyone can run around in 30 man t3 fleets. I really hope none of the devs read the drivel being posted on this subforum.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2014-03-15 10:32:40 UTC
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Nightingale Actault wrote:
**Snip**


Why did you retract your statement, Nightingale?

To answer your question, what i was saying is that i wouldn't want CCP to change the way wormholes currently work because lots of people that are happy with their system could be disappointed but i would like them to add content that would allow players to change things and create conflict at the same time.

Proc, would you like me to refrain from debating in this thread? Blink


The problem i have with player driven "conflict driver" ideas is they always come in the form of a module or set of scenarios that only favor the aggressor in the situation, add to that the multiplication factor of an aggressor with numbers to overwhelm the opponent they no longer become "content drivers" and instead become absurd ways to drive out your opponent from the space they/we live in.

I am yet to read a "conflict driver" thread that is even remotely close to being balanced.


Community questions:

> Do we need "conflict drivers" added?
> Is it possible to balance any of the suggested "conflict drivers"?
> Any particular "modules" or "scenarios" proposed that could work if adjusted?
> What are the pro's and con's of adding or not adding "conflict drivers"?
> If changes to the game aren't desired, what would you expect from your CSM?

Feel free to add questions, answer questions, debate, discuss.


> no
> no
> no
> zero
> stop ccp fro breaking existing functionality and/or adding stupid features

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Previous page12