These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Distance that you're being ejected out of a wormhole depends on mass

First post First post First post
Author
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#441 - 2014-08-04 15:54:52 UTC
The Icefox wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We will be looking for player feedback at that time.


Since when do eve players wait to provide their feedback? I'll add my .02 isk. Since I just watched 4 of my industrial friends quit and unsub after the recent industrial changes now I'm listening to my fed up worm hole friends say the same thing. This is game breaking for a number of reasons.


That's too bad. My industrial friends are making a killing right now on their industry work. They didn't sit around whining, they immediately started analyzing the markets and going after the high margin stuff.
ISD Cyberdyne
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#442 - 2014-08-04 16:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Cyberdyne
Alrighty guys and gals,

I've performed some thread cleaning and removed some off-topic posting, trolling, ranting, profanity, and other forum violations. This is an important discussion to many players, and as stated by others, should stay on topic and not be derailed. Please don't troll the discussion or feedback being provided by various players in this thread.

I ask that you all keep this on topic, support this thread with respectful and constructive feedback and comments, and don't abuse this opportunity to provide feedback on this subject. The following rules have been broken and were resolved. I'll continue to monitor this thread, but please refrain from violating the forum rules. Thank you!

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.

7. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Cyberdyne

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Mysi
Little Red Riding Hole
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#443 - 2014-08-04 16:46:43 UTC
So will this make black holes something you want to roll into?
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#444 - 2014-08-04 16:47:26 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Winthorp wrote:

I have never seen half the people in this thread bitching about how this is so game breaking ever come to Wh forums to come to discuss any WH mechanics or ideas until their perfect little world of insta rolling away issues is threatened.


People don't complain about things they consider to be working reasonably well...

Do you think this change will result in more activity in wormhole space (more wormhole connections, more people running sites, more people rolling) or less? Please explain your answer.


People don't complain when they think things are stale and boring either, they just leave to do other things in the game or leave the game all together. Look at current login player numbers over a week period, look at the breakup of so many groups and their major consolidation of WH groups into only a few players and tell me you think everyone is happy with the current form of WH's.

Do you really think the way WH's are at the moment are in anyway interesting and fun? (trying not to answer a question with a question but..)

Look the only thing i don't like about this change is it isn't showing any consistency in the goal direction of WH space from CCP and that concerns me that they are not being open with what they want from us.

- They leave instant sig overlay (carebear safe mode)
- They come up with a 5min delay for new sigs (no carebears will stay)
- Then they forget they ever mentioned the idea (back to carebear mode)
- They removed sleeper API data becauseit was too powerfull (carebears get a little safer)
- Now this change (clearly a PVP driven idea)

They need to be more consistent with the direction they want to take because they are not balancing it well currently.


Do you think this change will result in more activity in wormhole space (more wormhole connections, more people running sites, more people rolling) or less? [i] Please explain your answer. [/i


I think if they wanted to do something that resulted in more people in WH space they could have chosen something else entirely instead of this, i have never once said this will result in more people in Wh's. The above carebear mode changes have resulted in more people in wh space (You can't deny that)

What i have said is the current way all these players in Wh space interact with each other is stale and SAFE. The people in this thread that are trying to say its not perfectly safe to roll away hostile chains are ******* delusional. There is only very situational times that you can ever kill people rolling away a C5/6 chain on you.

How many times have you found a group you thought would and could fight you only to hear your scout say "nevermind they are rolling" when they want to do it is all over by then with not a thing you can do and that group then picks and chooses its interactions with whoever they want in what is supposed to be a dangerous area of the game.

I actually do feel this will lead to more fun had by WH people and more interactions, the larger groups will still roll holes like they always have with it only taking them a few minutes longer and yes the smaller groups may be more hesitant to do so but now instead of them safely picking the perfect chain whenever they want they will be forced to scan a chain they may have just rolled away because they saw a known entity in the chain.

So yes i think it will lead to less people rolling chains but maybe they shouldn't be rolling away non optimal chains and be forced to interact with other players in an MMO. If you want a safe escalation period and roll away or crit your static you should be at risk to make that happen. if you want to get your 30B or so escalation loot to HS or replace that fleet you just lost you should have to risk more then just rolling the C5 or C6 untill you get a C2/3 HS, you should have to go down some more risky chains or be forced to risk a little more to roll that chain to get the one you want.

The way it is is too easy and too safe. Not only is it safe to roll now it is STOPPING interactions with other players by the chains you get to pick and choose at will in perfect safety at no cost.

If by your own arguments it will stop rage rolling in its tracks then won't people by that same argument be more inclined to run sites if they feel safer that less people are rolling? Won't they then leave their chain open for you to find them? Or bubble it up now for "safety"?

You guys need to accept this is happening and you are probably too late to stop it and instead start working on ideas and iterations on how you think they could make it better TBH.

EDIT: Loving the hate mail from your alts by the way guys, i feed off that thanks.


Winthrop for CSM10. (In addition to corbexx)

The more I read, the more I like the idea. Yes, it makes my own life more difficult. It also means more ambush opportunities and puts a premium on good intel.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#445 - 2014-08-04 17:07:43 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
As you work for a compromise on this I will point out the smaller corp perspective. There are 2 ranges you can pop out of a wh.

1. Inside jump range - this is were you can use mechanics, skill and what not to have a chance to fight above your weight class. The option to close wh allows a lot of interesting game play that is not based on bigger numbers winning.

2. Outside of jump range - this is where jumping through a wh for pvp becomes a more is better and will win 99 times out of 100.



So as you compromise don't try to fool yourself that 20 km is ok. It's in jump range where you can use wh mechanics or not in jump range where numbers win.

This is a small corp killer. It's not a wh killer, but little guys will get snuffed out like a discarded smoke on a sidewalk. Corp death by new jump range feature slaughter or pos spinning to avoid slaughter. You're listening to the wrong folks on this one. Seriously, if you take away the ability to use wh jump mechanics (mass and polarization) what do we have left??

if small ships aren't affected as much, especially if they land in the same ranges after this change, will you admit small corps with less than ten characters don't really have any business committing to capital holes?



I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

If you read for comprehension in lieu of... well whatever made you think it's about little guy tears you would see the important parts.

Important part: Dah Dah Dah Da Dum Dum

The range 'feature' Takes the wh mechanics out of jumping through a wh and puts advantage clearly in the hands of he who has more numbers. 10 < 20 <50 < 60, there isn't a lower limit on where it's true. It's about removing wh mechanics from jumping through a wh. Which is just dumb. (DUMB)
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#446 - 2014-08-04 17:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Gospadin wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
[quote=Rek Seven][quote=Winthorp]

You guys need to accept this is happening and you are probably too late to stop it and instead start working on ideas and iterations on how you think they could make it better TBH.

EDIT: Loving the hate mail from your alts by the way guys, i feed off that thanks.


Winthrop for CSM10. (In addition to corbexx)

The more I read, the more I like the idea. Yes, it makes my own life more difficult. It also means more ambush opportunities and puts a premium on good intel.

Don't forget about the part we he advises "Shut up and take it", not what a CSM rep should be putting out there. (This is in regards to Winthrop for CSM10, not corbexx in any way.)
In contrast it is nice to see that corbexx has been in here so much on this issue, always nice to know that at least someone is seeing the feedback once CCP goes back to ignoring feedback.
I am against this change because it is going to give larger groups a big advantage, the ability to role holes quicker will allow them greater system security that no amount of superior FC'ing and piloting will overcome. Good ole fashioned RNG. A large group can quickly role any hole they suspect to be compromised by an enemy scout as soon as they think they are clear, whereas a small group (or even an off-shift group) is left with a home turning into swiss cheese.
Winthrop raises some good points about more potential for content, but the mechanic that is creating the opportunities favors large groups over small.
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
Riddle us this
#447 - 2014-08-04 17:20:26 UTC
As someone pointed out earlier. If this had been the way it worked day 1 then noone would be complaining. Having read almost every page in thread I am inclined to agree with winthrop that the current status quo is not a better solution
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#448 - 2014-08-04 17:31:13 UTC  |  Edited by: corbexx
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

But it is nice to see that corbexx has been in here so much on this issue, always nice to know that at least someone is seeing the feedback once CCP goes back to ignoring feedback.


I'm watching this thread like a hawk so don't worry there (i'm sure ccp will be as well).

I'm testing c2 pve at the moment on sisi which is attually pretty relaxing. but i'll be online later to chat to anyone who has issues or wants to come chat to me about this.

I might also try and sort out a mini wh town hall this weekend. (depending on how much spare time i have)
Andrew Jester
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#449 - 2014-08-04 17:33:39 UTC
ISD Cyberdyne wrote:
Alrighty guys and gals,

I've performed some thread cleaning and removed some off-topic posting, trolling, ranting, profanity, and other forum violations. This is an important discussion to many players, and as stated by others, should stay on topic and not be derailed. Please don't troll the discussion or feedback being provided by various players in this thread.

I ask that you all keep this on topic, support this thread with respectful and constructive feedback and comments, and don't abuse this opportunity to provide feedback on this subject. The following rules have been broken and were resolved. I'll continue to monitor this thread, but please refrain from violating the forum rules. Thank you!

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.

7. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.



7 in one post, new record?

If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy

ISD Cyberdyne
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#450 - 2014-08-04 17:37:46 UTC
Please remember that discussion of forum moderation and trolling the volunteers are not in keeping with the forum rules. Please don't risk losing your posting priviledges to make comments and remarks at the expense of CCP or ISD. I sincerely just want to see this thread stay on topic. Please do the same.

Quote:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.

30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD Cyberdyne

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Andrew Jester
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#451 - 2014-08-04 17:50:25 UTC
ISD Cyberdyne wrote:
Please remember that discussion of forum moderation and trolling the volunteers are not in keeping with the forum rules. Please don't risk losing your posting priviledges to make comments and remarks at the expense of CCP or ISD. I sincerely just want to see this thread stay on topic. Please do the same.

Quote:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.

30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.


That's 9 in one thread, definitely a record.

If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy

Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#452 - 2014-08-04 17:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
I disagree with the assertion that the proposed change is an advantage to larger groups.

The current dominate single meta of everyone flying the same doctrine (armor t3s) is what advantages the larger group. As if both sides have more or less the same fleet comp the weight of isk, skill points and most of all fleet size are inescapably the dominant factors on who wins. Hence the larger fleet will almost always win if they are both flying the same doctrine.

Elsewhere in eve there is more of a rock - paper - scissors where each fleet has its prey and is predators. The exceptions to that rule (ishtars and supers) are where the system breaks apart, but in general there is a lot more variation in fleet doctrines and that often matters more than just raw size.

This probably seems a bit off topic so let's bring it back in and ask ourselves why wormholes are different and compress down to so frw doctrines. I believe the answer to that is simply the wormhole mechanics. When you spawn deep in scram/web range it is obvious that brawling will reign.

This proposed change could change that as it might be possible to get an assault frig gang or a nano gang or a sniper gang successfully through the hole if the spawns are a bit further out. As such with this change we might have options where a smaller gang could successfully run through a larger gang and that proves my point that this could be really good for the little guy. Or at least the little guys that will fight whatever they can find. There is no helping the ones that insist on avoiding combat. By enabling more metas this is an advantage to numerically smaller gangs as we demonstrated that the single meta is heavily in favor of raw numbers.

Obviously we need to see the development blog and associated numbers before knowing for sure as that will make or break the deal.
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia
pwn-O-graphy
#453 - 2014-08-04 17:54:09 UTC  |  Edited by: TKL HUN
Seriously, someone please help CCP Fozzie to find he's medicine....

Instead of ruining w-space in general, try to fix nullsec...

W-space isn't the most preffered anyway, only for bigger entities and farming alts.

This change will remove farming alts and smaller groups from whs --> which will remove pvp entites also. If not, there will be 5-6 big groups fighting in some thousand wh systems...

Anyway, what the hell is the plan with this change? Coz i can't understand it really...
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#454 - 2014-08-04 17:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
i just wanna say i loved my ORE hole crasher gang. I did what I could but I can't take it anymore. I'm about to see their purpose in this game nerfed yet. again. why are ORE ships being murdered?? that's what this is about, isn't it. killing ORE ships. my Rorq and Orcas...

first it was mobile depots. role stolen
then it was mobile tractor units. role stolen
compression anchorable. role stolen
hole crasher team nerf. role stolen

the only way this could be worse is if Rorqs only give mining boosts within 20 km of a wormhole. if you want to remove ORE ships from the game, just do it. don't string players along who only want to fly ORE ships.
Cirillith
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2014-08-04 17:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Cirillith
Well - As from my perspective I would like to know what was general reason of this kind of mechanic change from DEVs actually.
Why? Because this thread is kinda full of arguments about this change is being good/or bad (I'm even one of those ppl thinking this would be kinda bad change) and full of theories how this affect future life inside w-space and all of that are pure speculations.
Since we do not know other so called "iterations" planned for W-Space its hard to see the bigger picture. And I started really to afraid of them.

The most annoying thing about this - mentioned somewhere above in this thread - is that it seems CCP doesn't care about us, living in W-Space. Usually we get some knowing about changes affecting environment we are living with, when we dig them out on SISI or TQ even, and some DEVtalks, DEVblogs are appearing on eve website when all is settle, and CCP wants some feedback but is doing nothing after receiving it.
THE ORDER OF MAKING CHANGES SHOULD BE:
1. some ideas
2. checking them internally
3. going with DEVblog
4. getting feedback
5. adjusting changes
6. even more feedback
7. release

BTW - you should know that during our meeting event here in Warsaw just few days ago (last Wednesday) I asked CCP Gargant who was here (really big fellow :)), if they are planning something for W-SPace. I received answer NO (atleast he didn't know about all of this stuff).

Funny isn't it?

Of course I know that WH could be boring some times. Looking for a fight is usually pain in the ass and comes to a conclusion of getting someone on sites or baiting. This takes time, and usually ppl will notice you before you can catch them - close hole or escaping. Even when you send char with too big killboard history your prey wont bait at you. But there are also scenarios when we fought like 4 times on single WH with different setups.

This change is leading to even bigger Mexican stand off situation style - if you would like to seek out some analogy - two WH c6 connected with each other one pulsar second one wolf rayet, both colonized with active pvp entities. The most common way of engagement is shield fleet wait for armor fleet on pulsar side and armor one waiting for shield one on rayet side. Jump mechanic change will lead to same situation since you cant predict where your support capitals will be and they could be like 60 km from each other, also this kind of mechanics favors defending side - in preparing battle - even more that is today.

Other arguments - again right in my opinion - are involved with small entities. If they will saw some active PVP corp scout in their chain they will POS up and log off or if that kind of situation will be experienced very often they will move out of W-space making it even more empty.

Anyway - I know that making W-Space more interesting place would be nice, but still you have so much work to do with thing that are not working well (POSes, rights in Corporations, etc) or you could deliver something new and demanded like ALLIANCE or FLEET BOOKMARKS. Why changing something that works pretty well? I will now repeat question that was pointed at you many times:

Were you actually playing in W-Space? Have you seen how life there look like? Not for a long time - at least for a week or so. And I know that you are allowed to play on some character with other in their corps as long as they do not know you are a DEV.
Nazori Naskingar
Edge of Existence
#456 - 2014-08-04 18:31:54 UTC
Being a pilot who has always been part of smaller wormhole pvp fleets. There is always 2 ways to handle a very large wormhole entity that you get connected to.

Option 1: Combat roll the hole
Option 2: Afk in POS for the day

If this change takes effect there will be only 1 of those options left...
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#457 - 2014-08-04 18:33:00 UTC
Kynric wrote:
I disagree with the assertion that the proposed change is an advantage to larger groups.

The current dominate single meta of everyone flying the same doctrine (armor t3s) is what advantages the larger group. As if both sides have more or less the same fleet comp the weight of isk, skill points and most of all fleet size are inescapably the dominant factors on who wins. Hence the larger fleet will almost always win if they are both flying the same doctrine.

Elsewhere in eve there is more of a rock - paper - scissors where each fleet has its prey and is predators. The exceptions to that rule (ishtars and supers) are where the system breaks apart, but in general there is a lot more variation in fleet doctrines and that often matters more than just raw size.

This probably seems a bit off topic so let's bring it back in and ask ourselves why wormholes are different and compress down to so frw doctrines. I believe the answer to that is simply the wormhole mechanics. When you spawn deep in scram/web range it is obvious that brawling will reign.

This proposed change could change that as it might be possible to get an assault frig gang or a nano gang or a sniper gang successfully through the hole if the spawns are a bit further out. As such with this change we might have options where a smaller gang could successfully run through a larger gang and that proves my point that this could be really good for the little guy. Or at least the little guys that will fight whatever they can find. There is no helping the ones that insist on avoiding combat. By enabling more metas this is an advantage to numerically smaller gangs as we demonstrated that the single meta is heavily in favor of raw numbers.

Obviously we need to see the development blog and associated numbers before knowing for sure as that will make or break the deal.


I agree with your statement..... BUT.....

There are already thousands (probably tens of thousands) of gates in eve where what you said is true. Then there is this wh space where it isn't true. I don't think we need to make wh like the other thousands of gates in eve. I think we should protect the uniqueness of WH space. If you want gate mechanics - you know where to find gates. If I want WH mechanics - it would be nice to have a place I could use them.

Seriously - all the wh folks that want gate mechanics - google DOTLAN. You will find what you seek there.
Andrew Jester
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#458 - 2014-08-04 18:34:30 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
i just wanna say i loved my ORE hole crasher gang. I did what I could but I can't take it anymore. I'm about to see their purpose in this game nerfed yet. again. why are ORE ships being murdered?? that's what this is about, isn't it. killing ORE ships. my Rorq and Orcas...

first it was mobile depots. role stolen
then it was mobile tractor units. role stolen
compression anchorable. role stolen
hole crasher team nerf. role stolen

the only way this could be worse is if Rorqs only give mining boosts within 20 km of a wormhole. if you want to remove ORE ships from the game, just do it. don't string players along who only want to fly ORE ships.


You obviously don't understand the enormous emergent gameplay potential of a Rorqual.

- Shield slowcat: You never get primaried because that ORE skin makes you look absolutely fabulous. Not only do you save your friends, you salvage at the same time, so even if you lose your ship, you'll have paid it off(you have a hauler alt, right?)

- Combat salvager: Have you ever seen a massive fight that's just begging for salvaging? Warp your Rorqual an appropriate distance off and begin tractoring. Nobody has time for MTUs and anyways, you want to show off your awesome skin.

- POS setterupper: Have you ever knocked down a PL dyspro moon that had full silos? Jump your Rorqual right in a scoop all that tasty moongoo. As an added bonus, you can setup a new POS while you're at it

- Mining Booster: I think this is a thing.

- Ore compressor: If you're dumb enough to own a Rorqual, you're dumb enough to mine. Get your ore out of wherever you are by using that thing that makes to Rorqual look super cool and compress your ore today! It's what CCP wants you to do anyways

- Clonebitch: Do you live anywhere but wormholes? You can do this. Do you live in wormholes? getfukt

- Combat mode: Fit a stiff tank and drop on unsuspecting nerds. Who needs fighters when you have Geckos?

All these uses and more can be yours in only ONE ship today. If you're not a stupid poor, you can look fabulous while doing it with the super sexy ORE skin. Contact your local cap seller today and get one of these babys and go make some content!

P.S: WTS Rorqs pls buy them ;-;

If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy

Synthec
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#459 - 2014-08-04 18:36:20 UTC
Great Idea CCP ! /Sarcasm

Stop trying to turn Wormholes into Null Blocks. Most of us came in here to get away from it. There are so many other things you could be trying to FIX . How is this even a good idea?

1. T3 Re-balance
2. Corp Roles
3. And of course POS's <-- Ya we know this will never happen.
4. Bookmarks
5 Separate D-Scan and Probe Windows

As a few


Wormholers have been bringing up these ideas as a majority for a long time and Instead CCP gets drunk on Boone's Farm and comes up with this..

You say you want to drive player interaction give us more random connections to all Space and Classes of WH's
You should be making it easier for use to roll so we can see more chains

If this is put in game it better affect Titan Bridges and Cyno's the same way what's fair is fair.

I will go back under my rock now (Troll away)

O7
Blood Spine
Infinity Engine
#460 - 2014-08-04 18:52:53 UTC
This is absoloute garbage CCP should just leave wormholes alone and work on somthing we actualy need.
Fixing POSs for instence.