These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Future Release] Removing Wh systems from the map/kills EVE API

First post First post
Author
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#221 - 2014-05-06 20:22:07 UTC
Querns wrote:
Two step wrote:
Querns wrote:
Two step wrote:

And as I said, if the "place of unknowns" part was really true, I would be OK with removing the API. The issue is that in fact it is very, very known exactly how to kill Sleepers, which is what is creating the current farming problem.

All I am asking for is you to fix both problems at the same time. Make farming harder and then you can make it harder to find farmers.

People doing PvE in wormholes is a problem? I'd like to hear why.

NOTE: The dilution of your ability to make money in a wormhole because others are doing it is a very poor reason.


I'm sorry, but perhaps you are not aware that the only fing reason to do PVE in this game is to make money. Certainly my arguments about why people shouldn't be able to do nearly risk-free PVE are going to involve money.

I will try to use little words, since you seem to be not getting it. People doing PVE with little risk is bad. Wormholes are big risk, big rewards. You are supposed to have all your ships and assets at risk to be able to make ISK from C5/6 sites. Farmers don't do this. If their POS gets popped, they don't care, and just wait a week to log in.

The farming doesn't just hurt the big groups, in fact it hurts us far less. 95% or so of our income is from the blue books from Sleepers. The little guys in C1-3 space are the ones hurt the most by this, because now their Sleeper salvage is just about worthless.

Ah, yes, we've managed to swing it around from a "my personal isk faucet is being threatened" argument to yet ANOTHER variation on the "fix every related niggling, tangential, real or perceived flaw with the game before moving forward with the part of the change which I personally dislike" argument.

Did they give out a handbook on suggested eve-o arguments that got lost on its way to my mailbox or something? This is starting to get old.

The whole risk/reward thing related to PvP activity is pretty funny at its core, really. There's this giant tower of assumptions that gets erected every time someone invokes this particular argument, primarily revolving around the concept that both parties are perfect, rational actors, and that every single PvP scenario plays out exactly the same because of this. You see it in a lot of places; certainly when talking about nullsec, but apparently in wormhole space as well. What doesn't get said is that in the overwhelming majority of actual PvP actions, neither party is perfect or rational. I'm guilty of it several times; I've lost lots of ships, including capitals, due to making stupid mistakes. I've also lost a lot of opportunities to kill a ship due to my own incompetence.

The point here is that PvP can't be boiled down to a simple set of vignettes. Sure, changes in gameplay can incentivize or disincentivize certain patterns, but you can't just make a blanket statement about risk and reward when PvP is involved like this. There's not enough room to account for the killer instinct or the shrewdness of the actors involved when you're making up little vignettes like this.


I think that book you missed was "How to read (for dummies)".

My "personal isk faucet" is in no way under threat. As I said, most large groups will barely notice any differences.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of words that say nothing interesting. OFC one cannot say that a specific change will have exact effects, but we can, and will, discuss if a given change helps or hurts certain playstyles. In this case, it is quite clearly all about folks that would like less risk to their PVE in w-space. I think in general, PVE in C5/C6 w-space is already less risky than it should be, and this change reduces that risk further.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Nightingale Actault
Borderland Dynamics
#222 - 2014-05-06 20:22:42 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
Nightingale Actault wrote:
I would just like to point out, for those who are stating that we don't have any other way to tell what kind of PvE activity is occuring in a WH without access to the NPC kills in question, that you can in fact make an educated judgement of the PvE activity in a WH without this information. Is there 30+ combat sites in the WH or are there exactly 5 combat sites in a C5 with an online tower and nothing inside? This is definitely not so straightforward as having the number of sleepers and the timestamps available, but I do not believe that is a problem.

Those saying that you can escalate in peace are the most likely to be caught off guard when the clever hunters come calling at your doorstep. Those who are willing to work to find your schedule by scouting your system and gathering intel on your activities are going to be rewarded for the work they put in with your capital kills, the same as they always have, and will continue to do.



You are clueless, those sites can be despawned not just by residents but also by passers by. In fact many w-space groups leave cloacked scouts to despawn each others sites when those groups are feuding.


Clueless? I'll take it.

Yes, I'm aware sites can be despawned by the residents who live there or others simply by initiating warp and will despawn 3 days later. No amount of educated judgement which I am referencing is going to be 100% accurate, however the arguements here are that there will be no possible way to tell if people are doing PvE in their hole. The particular number of sites that I referenced seems to be a "magical" number to most C5/C6 groups at which their sites re-spawn at a higher interval and seeing as from my experience I have often found WHs exactly as I have described here (5 combats with online tower and no mods or arrays inside). Seeing a WH with this same setup and 0 sites would be just as likely to be used for escalations than the other. By using the information available the hunter will need to make the decision if it is worth his time to keep scouting that one hole to verify his intuition or keep scouting his chain.
Bronya Boga
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#223 - 2014-05-06 20:25:58 UTC
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
Andski wrote:
This is a good change. Intelligence gathering should be made an involved, active process wherever possible.


Agreed. We should remove local as well.


Wow wow wow but afk cloaker brah /sarcasm

Nooonnnnnoooo notme
Doomheim
#224 - 2014-05-06 20:28:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
Nooonnnnnoooo notme wrote:
...actually doesn't say anything

There's some goofiness going on with the forums software right now; lots of posts are getting eaten. You can see a couple of empty quotes in this thread. One happened to me about 10 minutes ago. I think the forums are posting drafts of posts instead of the actual, completed post.

I thought something was amiss. I'm detecting a bit of ESL too, maybe it's that.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2014-05-06 20:31:10 UTC
Two step wrote:
I think that book you missed was "How to read (for dummies)".

My "personal isk faucet" is in no way under threat. As I said, most large groups will barely notice any differences.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of words that say nothing interesting. OFC one cannot say that a specific change will have exact effects, but we can, and will, discuss if a given change helps or hurts certain playstyles. In this case, it is quite clearly all about folks that would like less risk to their PVE in w-space. I think in general, PVE in C5/C6 w-space is already less risky than it should be, and this change reduces that risk further.


so instead of asking for further adjustments to wormholes let's just ask CCP to preserve a ****** status quo

what a fantastic attitude to have had on the CSM

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

RudinV
The Dozen
#226 - 2014-05-06 20:34:59 UTC
So back to the topic, devs wanna see wspace more dangerous and scary, therefore they want remove some data and by that make it more safe and calm. Seems...I don't know how to call it, CCPlogical may be.
Citrute
The High and Mighty
Carebear Abortion Clinic
#227 - 2014-05-06 20:35:09 UTC
The safest place to pve just became safer. Roll
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#228 - 2014-05-06 20:36:26 UTC
wormhole stabilizers will solve this problem

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#229 - 2014-05-06 20:38:09 UTC
In general needs to be some balance to it.

Theres some stuff that was fun to find out for the first time when I was new to wormhole space and in the spirit of the whole frontier thing but would drive me crazy having to do it all from scratch day after day now as a day to day thing having now spent somewhere around 4+ years in wormhole space.
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2014-05-06 20:38:44 UTC
Two step wrote:

I think that book you missed was "How to read (for dummies)".

My "personal isk faucet" is in no way under threat. As I said, most large groups will barely notice any differences.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of words that say nothing interesting. OFC one cannot say that a specific change will have exact effects, but we can, and will, discuss if a given change helps or hurts certain playstyles. In this case, it is quite clearly all about folks that would like less risk to their PVE in w-space. I think in general, PVE in C5/C6 w-space is already less risky than it should be, and this change reduces that risk further.


So after the "think of the children" we are down to Risk:Reward balance. If the API perfect intel doesn't exist what would you like to see as far as ingame mechanics to duplicate this?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2014-05-06 20:40:48 UTC
Andski wrote:
wormhole stabilizers will solve this problem

Ideally, this will be represented by two devices on either side of the wormhole, holding it open. One of the sides will have a ring on it, to indicate the polarity of the device.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

G0hme
Perkone
Caldari State
#232 - 2014-05-06 20:43:05 UTC
People who argue that this change "lowers" their pvp capability should simply get the F out of Wspace. NOTHING changes for the groups that are only in Wspace to run sites. The risk is still the same, the threat for them is still the same. The absolute only thing that changes is the inkompetent PVP group that cant functin without some out of game tool that tells what system they can hunt in, are gonna fade away and will be quickly forgotten. You are basicly confirming the need for this change by whining through 13 pages.

Any mechanic that in some way rewards logging out of the game is bad game play. Get off your F'in lazy useless and actively hunt for these siterunners. How the hell do you think people did it before the tools were in everyone hand. Defending the need for the API to stay is pathetic to say the least.

Remember, without siterunning group, Wspace would be dead.

As mentioned earlier, any noteworthy pvp corp in wspace, already has a database of who lives where.

Shook Eelm's hand at Fanfest 2012

Shook CCP Soundwave's hand at Fanfest 2013

Got NPC API removed from Wormhole Space.

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2014-05-06 20:44:40 UTC
Querns wrote:
Andski wrote:
wormhole stabilizers will solve this problem

Ideally, this will be represented by two devices on either side of the wormhole, holding it open. One of the sides will have a ring on it, to indicate the polarity of the device.


Damn you. You stole that from me.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#234 - 2014-05-06 20:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ab'del Abu
Honestly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I find people carebearing with an open static surprisingly often. The only reason I don't get to kill them most of the time is that I don't have a myriad of other pilots backing me up.

The people complaining about this change happen to be those that farm their home sites in (relative) safety ~because numbers~ Funnily enough, at the same time they would complain about CCP turning wh-space into Nullsec where blobs make you king, intel is for free and the individual effort is mostly irrelevant in the larger picture. Still following me? There is clearly some weird sense of entitlement going on here.

To put things in perspective: it's really no one's fault that wh-space has succumbed to a place where the number of ganks is the one true metric for "content" and the ease of gankage the only issue that will get its inhabitants really agitated. Sadly, this is what mechanics promote. At the core of the problem lies the difficulty that said people have a hard time finding each other for real fights, not that farmers are to hard to find and gank.

Seriously. You afraid of RMT? How many people are going to risk multiple high-sp-chars to get banned while there is other ridiculously easy and risk-free money-making opportunities like fw/botting.

You don't want Nullsec-people farming capital escalations? Put a prober in their systems. Whenever they collapse holes and start farming launch some probes and scan the static. They will either notice them probes and stop (mission accomplished) or they will continue and give you the opportunity to bring in a sufficiently large gang to gank them. Alternatively, go and evict them. You do that often enough, I doubt that they'll come back.

And if you really think you should be able to detect activity down your chain without actually having some scout there (I think someone fittingly called it "spider-in-the-web-principle"), well wth is wrong with you^^

As long as signatures are actually delayed, killing the api will be perfectly fine and balance things out.
Nooonnnnnoooo notme
Doomheim
#235 - 2014-05-06 20:46:34 UTC
oh, come on... you guys and your goat-Z wormhole stabilizer idea? Right now, in this thread??
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#236 - 2014-05-06 20:47:47 UTC
Nooonnnnnoooo notme wrote:
oh, come on... you guys and your goat-Z wormhole stabilizer idea? Right now, in this thread??


Given the content of these threads can you imagine a better place for it?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Calmatt
Sanctuary of Shadows
Dock Workers
#237 - 2014-05-06 20:48:14 UTC
I think I've gotten a pretty good grip on CCP's reasoning on this topic, and it comes down to:

Wormholes are not currently what they originally envisioned them.

Really, the only reply to that is "too bad". We live in wormholes, and because of divergent gameplay mechanics, do things CCP didn't "originally intend".

What CCP Foxfour needs to do, is ACCEPT that the players in their sandbox can do innovative things.

While it makes sense lore wise, all that will happen is wormholes will become MORE SAFE. Why should wormholes become more safe?

Accept that WH's aren't as you originally intended them, and make changes only to enhance the content. Removing API data only hinders content.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#238 - 2014-05-06 20:49:01 UTC
Nooonnnnnoooo notme wrote:
oh, come on... you guys and your goat-Z wormhole stabilizer idea? Right now, in this thread??

Well, when the smell fits...

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

John Caldr
Inner Hell
#239 - 2014-05-06 20:49:10 UTC
G0hme wrote:
NOTHING changes for the groups that are only in Wspace to run sites. The risk is still the same, the threat for them is still the same.


https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_pilot.php?id=RUSED+RM

any related like this proves you wrong, instantly
Nooonnnnnoooo notme
Doomheim
#240 - 2014-05-06 20:51:38 UTC
lol. I just didn't see it coming, I guess.