These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Potential Idea for Discussion: Delaying signature appearance for K162s

First post First post First post
Author
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#661 - 2014-03-27 13:27:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
I have a thought which.. kind of just occurred to me. I'm writing something up in more detail.. but I'll just throw it here.

1) Return the scanner changes to pre-odyssey (needed for the next two changes)
2) In c4, c5 and c6 space... instant polarization upon jumping a hole. Currently when you jump a wormhole, you get a polarization timer from the side you jumped in (usually 4 to 5 minutes). You can immediately jump back through that wormhole. When you do, you get another polarization timer (from the otherside), for about the same amount of time. If you try to jump the same wormhole again, you cannot, until your timer expires. This change makes it so that when you jump, you are just instantly polarized on both sides of the hole (you jumped in, you cannot jump back for 4 to 5 minutes).

You want to rage roll, you put your ships at risk, you rage too hard, you risk trapping one of the otherside. Chain collapsing is still possible, it just takes about 5 minutes vs 30 seconds.

3) Make Dscan a module (and just to add more pain, make it a high slot module). No dscan module equipped, no dscanning for you. There is a t1 and t2 version, T1 cannot be used while cloaked, T2 one can.

4) Add 2 DScan skillbooks (Direction Scanning and Expanded Directional Scanner, cannot be trained on trial accounts). Each level of this increases your dscan range by 1.5 au (we can't just have a module without having people dedicate time to learning how to use it now can we).



What does all of this do?

a) Makes wormhole space a HELL of a lot more dangerous and scary. You put the pvper's at risk of getting popped when rage rolling, or even just jumping a wormhole (hell wormhole camps rejoice, you now have a reason to bubble a hole).

b) Makes exploration and jumping in a "wormhole" actually dangerous (note the polarization changes only apply to c4 through c6 space, leaving the bar quite lowered for c1, c2 and c3 space (allowing for day trippers, easier fighting, less stress, etc).

c) Makes people who want that early detection system sacrifice something on their ship to get it. It makes dedicated probers and scanners a EXTREMELY important position for a fleet and a corporation.

d) It gives the "hunters", some more viability regarding hunting. This does deter a "solo hunter" as they have to sacrifice a slot to equip a dscan module (or they could go with just a probe launcher, oh yea probes are now more viable). You need a scanner to really get around, it makes retro-fitting in space MUCH more viable, it creates hunting grounds, and it just makes the whole feeling of wormholes.. scary.

e) gives a new training for people who really want to know whats out there. If you don't want to train it or just get the first skill to 4, your dscan range is only 6.0 au.

No longer will a fleet of 30 people all mash dscan at once (because they probably don't have a module equipped). Hunters can potentially be just "offgrid", "Uncloaked", and a fleet never know.

No longer will people almost instantly auto detect probes in space without having a dscan module on (heck you could probe to your hearts content now).

No longer can you just mash dscan to see if someone is probing you out (the hunters can be hunted also).

No longer can you just "roll the hole", without risking something trying to do it.

I would aim towards doing this. You fix combat by making it just THAT much more dangerous (Hell I'd hate to be a carebear that has to sacrifice a slot for a module, hate to have to train yet 2 more damn skills to use that module, hate that I risk losing ships by trying to mass a hole, hate that wormholes don't auto pop up on the overview anymore, hate that I can't detect probes without having a dscan module equipped, hate that I have to sacrifice cargo to haul more stuff.

I'd be pretty gitty to have changes like these for hunting.. that is till I lose my hunting ship because they bubbled the damn hole, threw garbage around it to decloak me and had 3 tornado's 90 km away.

Yaay!!!!

MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#662 - 2014-03-27 14:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Said **** about polarization


In your very long post you confuse risk with suicide, the second you jump your last cap through to roll a C5 + hole or an Orca C4- your effectively reducing the mass to a point where anything that comes to your aid should you get jumped is trapped. They have 4 minutes 30 seconds (you seemed to be guessing at the time your polarized on one side so ill give you the exact time) to try and not get bumped of the hole and tank any DPS, those on the other side can warp in as many assets to the hole as they like knowing you can't bring help.

What this would mean is you loose the ability to control your chain, and a corp that is incapable of accessing its own chain at will is a dead one. This could happen only 3 or 4 times a week and members would become frustrated that they cannot do anything confined to there POS shields and exit out the first available door or stop playing eve altogether and go DOTA.

Yes many people have said this change or that would mean a mass exudes from W-Space and i have prity much disagreed with them all. But this would mean a definitive end to any small wh entities i can say that with some confidence as many of them don't feel comfortable rolling with hostiles spotted 2 WH's away never mind instr polarization.

So 3x no

Not even going near 3) + 4)......
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#663 - 2014-03-27 14:58:14 UTC
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.

One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest).

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#664 - 2014-03-27 15:09:15 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.

One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest).



Good to know. It's good that you realise that the proposed changes are absolutely massive.

As to that huge post about polarisation and d-scan being a module and stuff... What are you smoking and where can I get some, it's obviously potent.
Bjurn Akely
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#665 - 2014-03-27 15:49:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Bjurn Akely
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.

One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest).


I queried before but I will try to get your attention again:

What problem is it you are trying to fix? Too little PvP? In what class of holes (any, C5-6)? Should mining be culled specifically? Do you want some parts to be saver for PvE runners? Or is it a brainstorm thing with no clear objectives and no clear problem statement?

Giving us a little more clear info, preferably without words open of interpretation would really help the cause.
MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#666 - 2014-03-27 15:59:36 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
Bjurn Akely wrote:

What problem is it you are trying to fix? Too little PvP? In what class of holes (any, C5-6)? Should mining be culled specifically? Do you want some parts to be saver for PvE runners? Or is it a brainstorm thing with no clear objectives and no clear problem statement?

Giving us a little more clear info, preferably without words open of interpretation would really help the cause.


The problem being addressed is that there are meant to be areas of space that are graded in terms of your safety, High sec > Low sec > Null sec > WH's. All of eve operates on a risk reward system currently with the mechanics in place this scaling of safety is off. This is what the changes are here to address.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
mainly in the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing
Newt BlackCompany
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#667 - 2014-03-27 16:00:52 UTC
There's already a delay of a minute or so. You have to actively spam the 'show anomalies' button to see new sigs immediately. This is as it should be.

The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms. It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward. WH life is already risky enough.

This will force all smaller wh corps to join the big alliances to be able to stay in the wh, and they often came here because they didn't want to deal with the politics and pressure and required ops in the nullsec alliances.

I don't think this is a change that's either desirable or needed.

It'd be very similar to removing, or delaying, local chat updating in Nullsec, and I'm guessing that would be an unpopular move.

MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#668 - 2014-03-27 16:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
Newt BlackCompany wrote:
There's already a delay of a minute or so. You have to actively spam the 'show anomalies' button to see new sigs immediately. This is as it should be.

The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms. It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward. WH life is already risky enough.

This will force all smaller wh corps to join the big alliances to be able to stay in the wh, and they often came here because they didn't want to deal with the politics and pressure and required ops in the nullsec alliances.

I don't think this is a change that's either desirable or needed.

It'd be very similar to removing, or delaying, local chat updating in Nullsec, and I'm guessing that would be an unpopular move.



Show me your history of losses of PVE ships in W-Space! according to the info i can find your total PVE losses in W-Space amounts to 1 noctice. Now please tell me how long you have been in W-Space and how much ISK you have made here, confirm this information then resubmit your premise that W-Space is risky enough.

In fact i make that challenge to every PVE entity that has voiced an opinion in this thread, how often do you indeed loose ships to ganks in sites! remove all losses where you get caught on WH's running away. Purely your looses with sleepers on the kill mail, iv lived in W-Space from almost day 1 and i have never lost a ship inside a site to a gank not once.
Bjurn Akely
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#669 - 2014-03-27 16:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bjurn Akely
MadbaM wrote:
Bjurn Akely wrote:

What problem is it you are trying to fix? Too little PvP? In what class of holes (any, C5-6)? Should mining be culled specifically? Do you want some parts to be saver for PvE runners? Or is it a brainstorm thing with no clear objectives and no clear problem statement?

Giving us a little more clear info, preferably without words open of interpretation would really help the cause.


The problem being addressed is that there are meant to be areas of space that are graded in terms of your safety, High sec > Low sec > Null sec > WH's. All of eve operates on a risk reward system currently with the mechanics in place this scaling of safety is off. This is what the changes are here to address.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
mainly in the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing


Although I appreciate your answer - and the quote does clear it up a wee bit - I would like to get the official CCP opinion. Because you, and this is said with respect, do not have the power to make that interpretation. Neither do I.

But lets for arguments sake say that the safety ladder you mention is correct. Then it clearly means that there should be no class difference between holes. Any delay should be the same for all the holes, since that ladder do not state classes of holes...

And before anyone argues why I'm wrong... me asking CCP Fozzie was just trying to help us not fall into interpretations like that.
mkint
#670 - 2014-03-27 16:11:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.

One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest).

Except meaningful discussion requires context. This is no more meaningful discussion than kicking a beehive is apiculture. There is no dev feedback, no justification, no goals to the proposal, no problems to try to fix. This is one of the least productive threadnaughts, and one of the dumbest OP trolling I've seen on these forums.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#671 - 2014-03-27 16:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
mkint wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far.

One thing I want to clarify so that people don't panic, this proposal and any potential change on this scale would not be in the cards for the Summer expansion. We want to get the discussion going early with the intent of continuing it over time (especially at Fanfest).

Except meaningful discussion requires context. This is no more meaningful discussion than kicking a beehive is apiculture. There is no dev feedback, no justification, no goals to the proposal, no problems to try to fix. This is one of the least productive threadnaughts, and one of the dumbest OP trolling I've seen on these forums.


If you haven't got the context from the OP and the resulting conversation, if you don't understand the goals of the purposed changes by now then i'm afraid there is nothing anyone can do for you at CCP or in life. I could recommend some adult learning centers in your area though if you wan't to join the rest of us with basic comprehension.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
mainly in the ease with which players can now observe new wormhole signatures appearing (which often indicates that the entry of hostile players may be imminent).
---- THIS IS THE PROBLEM

The goal is therefor this not to be the case ie it being EASY, this would then logically mean that CCP intend to make it NOT EASY.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'd like to repeat that this change is currently not planned for any specific release, but we would like to start community discussion on the idea and see where it goes.
-------- THIS IS WHY NO FEED BACK

They want the community opinion the the purposed change, they have no interest on guiding the discussion because that is OUR job as the customer.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
The potential change would be to delay the appearance of the signature beacon when K162 dungeons spawn. This would prevent the dungeon from appearing on probe scans or the Sensor Overlay for up to a few minutes.
------THE CHANGE


Iv referenced the Key points for your convenience, i have also underlined the specific few words you need to focus all your powers of focus and comprehension for. I sincerely hope this helps you in your never ending struggle to work out what the **** is going on.

All my love MadbaM
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#672 - 2014-03-27 16:20:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
you know that communication array that wormhole space will never have connection to? make that a sov upgrade. npc sov has it, and tying it to sov provides some continuity in the spectrum from high sec to wormhole space.
Bjurn Akely
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#673 - 2014-03-27 16:34:56 UTC
MadbaM wrote:
Newt BlackCompany wrote:
There's already a delay of a minute or so. You have to actively spam the 'show anomalies' button to see new sigs immediately. This is as it should be.

The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms. It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward. WH life is already risky enough.

This will force all smaller wh corps to join the big alliances to be able to stay in the wh, and they often came here because they didn't want to deal with the politics and pressure and required ops in the nullsec alliances.

I don't think this is a change that's either desirable or needed.

It'd be very similar to removing, or delaying, local chat updating in Nullsec, and I'm guessing that would be an unpopular move.



Show me your history of losses of PVE ships in W-Space! according to the info i can find your total PVE losses in W-Space amounts to 1 noctice. Now please tell me how long you have been in W-Space and how much ISK you have made here, confirm this information then resubmit your premise that W-Space is risky enough.

In fact i make that challenge to every PVE entity that has voiced an opinion in this thread, how often do you indeed loose ships to ganks in sites! remove all losses where you get caught on WH's running away. Purely your looses with sleepers on the kill mail, iv lived in W-Space from almost day 1 and i have never lost a ship inside a site to a gank not once.


Go to eve-census.com and see for yourself. I deem it unfair that there should be some sort of entry bar for peoples opinions to matter. How long, how much etc.
MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#674 - 2014-03-27 16:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
Bjurn Akely wrote:


Go to eve-census.com and see for yourself. I deem it unfair that there should be some sort of entry bar for peoples opinions to matter. How long, how much etc.


I'm not saying his opinion isn't valid or worth less than my own. The point im trying to make is his statement is incorrect, he says that it is already dangerous enough with current mechanics.

I'm saying that is safety is measured by how often you loose ships something i think is a fair statistic to draw a conclusion on the safety from. Then show me the losses, because i cant find any. If there are no losses or the losses are so small and rare then that means the current state of things are safe not dangerous as he proposed.

I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear, but can we all agree that the loss of ships to PVP is an accurate determining factor in judging if an area is safe or unsafe?
Bjurn Akely
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#675 - 2014-03-27 16:49:42 UTC
MadbaM wrote:
Bjurn Akely wrote:


Go to eve-census.com and see for yourself. I deem it unfair that there should be some sort of entry bar for peoples opinions to matter. How long, how much etc.


I'm not saying his opinion isn't valid or worth less than my own. The point im trying to make is his statement is incorrect, he says that it is already dangerous enough with current mechanics.

I'm saying that is safety is measured by how often you loose ships something i think is a fair statistic to draw a conclusion on the safety from. Then show me the losses, because i cant find any. If there are no losses or the losses are so small and rare then that means the current state of things are safe not dangerous as he proposed.

I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear, but can we all agree that the loss of ships to PVP is an accurate determining factor in judging if an area is safe or unsafe?


No we can't agree on that. Apart from numbers 'safety' might also a feeling and therefore open to opinion. My opinion is that W-space is to safe and the sigs popping up without any effort is a major reason for this. Others might go with their feeling that they want to PvE in peace... ( Curse them! Blink )

It's small interpretations like that that really requires CCP Fozzie to state what the goal the change should reach. And again, is that the goal of all Classes, some classes, some type of activity, ships etc...
MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#676 - 2014-03-27 16:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
Safety is not an opinion, you may think your safe but that dose not mean you are that is called ignorance or denial depending. Safety is a very real and measurable construct and can be defined as such. America even have a colour coding system for there safety .

There are whole areas of work that revolve around grading such things, its called health and safety and they are assessed daily by people gathering statistics and hard facts. The formula is always the same but applied differently in different environments but there is usual a constant underlying formula.
Bjurn Akely
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#677 - 2014-03-27 17:35:04 UTC
MadbaM wrote:
Safety is not an opinion, you may think your safe but that dose not mean you are that is called ignorance or denial depending. Safety is a very real and measurable construct and can be defined as such. America even have a colour coding system for there safety .

There are whole areas of work that revolve around grading such things, its called health and safety and they are assessed daily by people gathering statistics and hard facts. The formula is always the same but applied differently in different environments but there is usual a constant underlying formula.


Ah, an expert. Well then, define 'safety' in regards to all classes of w-space and all different activities that can be done therein. Please do it in terms that that can not be interpreted for us.

MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#678 - 2014-03-27 17:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: MadbaM
All classes of WH have the same Dangers the only thing that changes from a C1 to a C6 is the scale, i see you spend allot of time in Low Sec. An apt comparison therefor may be the lowsec DED sites with the acceleration gate functioning as a WH, they will only allow frigates say to use it.

The danger inside the site therefor is the same as all Low sec the only thing that changes is the scale of ships involved, you couldn't therefor accurately distinguishes the LVL of danger between the whole of that system and specifically the site.

Its also maybe true to say that the smaller entities populate the lower classes and therefor the danger is smaller in actuality, but in the OP then did suggest a scaling system to address this. But as all of W-space tends to flow down the classes the people involved will usually be the same. Its just that the danger is diluted by more and more holes.

Say i start in a C5 > C5 then that C5 leads to a C4 that leads to a C2 I still have access to you although with every connection the danger ill find you in the C2 is diluted the more jumps. But once we connect to you the Class of the WH doesn't change the LVL of danger from the high class holes.

I feel i may have explained myself poorly but i can't think of a better way to describe it, simply put if i find you the Class of WH has no affect on the danger i present to you.

Hard Knocks as long given up rage rolling for PVP because of the current system its next to impossible to find any content, this leads to our chains becoming huge. This increases our chances of finding you in your low class WH, the link is to one of our chains and as you can see there are more C2 and C3 wh's there than C5's.

http://i.imgur.com/VMDhjpC.png - Image link SFW
Von Keigai
#679 - 2014-03-27 18:02:46 UTC
Newt BlackCompany wrote:
The net result of this change will be that the big wh alliances will roll into hole after hole, catching and killing anyone escallating or farming anoms.

I see people running sites every week. And that is just me, roaming solo in a Manticore, using K162s if I can but mostly opening wormholes myself. Either way, many people's opsec is lousy. So, if they wanted to, those "big wh alliances" could be rolling holes and slaughtering people right now. That they are not any more than they are suggests that they want more incentive to do so. Fozzie is proposing to create more incentive.

Quote:
It will greatly increase the risk, without any increase in reward.

Wrong. Risk and reward are mediated via the market. (This is not true of blue loot, which sells to unquenchable NPC orders, but it is true of sleeper salvage, gas, and to a slight extent minerals.) You wonder why melted nanoribbons have dropped in price? Because it is so easy to zip up your system and farm anoms in perfect safety.

If PVE fleets start getting ganked, then the supply of melted nanos declines. Price therefore rises and those who take adequate precautions gain. If the ganked fleets contains T3s that are replaced, then demand rises as well, again increasing price. This is bad, of course, for the gankees, who lose far more in their ganked fleet than they make up in the increased price of wormhole stuff. But it is good for the rest of us.

Quote:
WH life is already risky enough.

No. It isn't. That's what I believe, and that is evidently what Fozzie believes too. And what I think most wormholers believe. Most parts of WH life are plenty risky: that is basically anything that requires moving between systems. Transporting stuff, scouting, hunting. What is not risky enough is the PVE. (At least not in C1-C4.) You seal off a system and it is almost perfectly safe.

vonkeigai.blogspot.com

Bjurn Akely
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#680 - 2014-03-27 18:19:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bjurn Akely
MadbaM wrote:

I feel i may have explained myself poorly but i can't think of a better way to describe it, simply put if i find you the Class of WH has no affect on the danger i present to you.


You're intel is flawed. Smile I've been living in W-space since early 2011. But that is neither here or there.

The reason you feel you may have explained yourself poorly is that there is no clear and concise definition of 'safety'. Look for instance at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/safety where even they struggle. Hence we are back to square 1. It would really help me and I suspect others if CCO Fozzie elaborated quite a bit. More charts! P