These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Improving Risk/Reward in Wormholes (Idea thread)

Author
Van Kuzco
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-09-03 04:28:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Kuzco
Everyone can post their ideas here for discussion.

Idea:

  • Add 1-3 waves to each sleeper site/signature. Possibly stronger ships that drop more valuable loot.


Result:

  • Increased payouts for site runners
  • Site runners stay on grid longer, which gives roaming fleets more time to drop on them


List of ideas (quotes edited for conciseness):

From Blake Nosferatu
In C4s: Increase blue loot and add a single carrier escalation wave



From calaretu
Introduce T3 frigs - the demand for salvage will rise leading to better prices and income in lower classes.

Increase demand of sleeper salvage through:

Sleeper pos modules
Sleeper implants
Sleeper industrial ships (t3 industrials or somewhat something)



From Rek Seven
Anything T3 (rigs or mods) will do as long as it achieves the two goals outlined in my earlier post.



From Marox Calendale
- What about T3 Burner Sites?

- Add some more Ships to C4 Sites, quite enough that they´re not be doable for a single marauder. Their value should be like HS Incursions.

All Wormhole Sites should have Capital Escalations! Why only add them to C4? Even after Cruis you still need about 16 days to build one and after that you can´t get them out. So no possibility for day trippers but for those who settled in low class WH. This would increase low class site values and would also force cap kills.

Some things to build by sleeper stuff:

- T3 Outpost. Would look like a sleeper enclave. Destroyable. You can only anchor 1 at the sun of a WH system. I still like the idea of having an "alliance home". Right now we´re all living just in our own houses, but a town hall for our little village would be nice. No need for any upgrades. Its use should be like a meeting or trading point.

- T3 Rigs, T3 Implants, T3 Haulers there are much possibilities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
#2 - 2014-09-03 04:45:11 UTC
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.
Blake Nosferatu
Phoenix of the Black Sun
#3 - 2014-09-03 04:45:18 UTC
C1's through c4's need to be rebalance aka add more valuable blue loot to the sites. In c4's on top of the slight increase in blue loots add a single carrier escalation wave. The addition of the single c4 carrier escalation wave will mean more carriers out in triage for roaming party's to kill and a reason for the residents to build them in their hole.I think it would also allow people to finally truly agree they are a high class wh instead of just... c4's are sorta high class but not really. :)
Blake Nosferatu
Phoenix of the Black Sun
#4 - 2014-09-03 04:49:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Blake Nosferatu
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.


There are more random connections then ever. I have had several holes open up recently while I was doing sites. I have also recently caught someone doing a site with his static open. Seems alot of people dont want to bother closing holes atm.

P.S. I think corbexx is working on lower class wh isk stuff atm.
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#5 - 2014-09-03 05:15:31 UTC
If ccp introduse t3 frigs when they are doing a pss on t3's the demand for salvage will rise leading to better prices and income in lower classes. This will also tie into the theme with new frig holes and be an increased reward for the more risky enviroment
Blake Nosferatu
Phoenix of the Black Sun
#6 - 2014-09-03 05:34:35 UTC
calaretu wrote:
If ccp introduse t3 frigs when they are doing a pss on t3's the demand for salvage will rise leading to better prices and income in lower classes. This will also tie into the theme with new frig holes and be an increased reward for the more risky enviroment


+1
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-09-03 05:59:01 UTC
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.

they actually do. a lot and often.

There is no Bob.

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

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

umnikar
Fishbone Industries
#8 - 2014-09-03 06:34:33 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.

they actually do. a lot and often.


are they all dumb then?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-09-03 06:55:36 UTC
Add a new tech 3 class of ship that requires existing gas/salvage to manufacture.
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#10 - 2014-09-03 09:50:44 UTC
umnikar wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.

they actually do. a lot and often.


are they all dumb then?


Nope. They are just not letting fear dictate their gametime. Some even take it as a challenge to counter or evade a drop with fewer ships or some insane tactic. Have you ever tried to get on top of a marauder that use his mjd every minute?
Pavel Sohaj
BAND of MAGNUS
#11 - 2014-09-03 10:15:43 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Add a new tech 3 class of ship that requires existing gas/salvage to manufacture.


As someone mentioned, especially the T3 frigs with regards to the new WH holes.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#12 - 2014-09-03 11:25:36 UTC
What value would t3 frigs actually bring to the game?

Are you jokers being serious? I could see the argument for making T3's different to what they are now, or even increasing the mineral/manufacturing requirements of them to consume some of the huge surplus of materials...

but really if you want to stimulate T3 production markets and make them actually expensive to fly again - my suggestion would be remove the SP loss for starters. Encourage actual risky use of T3's first before you go an make changes to how they're built. Lower EHP values over all would also be a good step. This is a thought for a T3 rebalance.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#13 - 2014-09-03 11:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
I'm all for incentives for people to run with their static open - but the overall risk/reward balance has to be right. People shouldn't be forced into that.

People do run with open holes for various reasons from naivety through to using a PVE setup that can adapt to PVP on the fly or is a PVP setup and various scenarios in between.
Van Kuzco
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-09-03 11:39:58 UTC
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.


Every single person with a PVE kill in wormholes completely disproves your statement.
Pavel Sohaj
BAND of MAGNUS
#15 - 2014-09-03 11:48:39 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
What value would t3 frigs actually bring to the game?

Are you jokers being serious? I could see the argument for making T3's different to what they are now, or even increasing the mineral/manufacturing requirements of them to consume some of the huge surplus of materials...

but really if you want to stimulate T3 production markets and make them actually expensive to fly again - my suggestion would be remove the SP loss for starters. Encourage actual risky use of T3's first before you go an make changes to how they're built. Lower EHP values over all would also be a good step. This is a thought for a T3 rebalance.


Variety and probably big purpose to frigate holes. Plus new skills to train, which is alwayst not welcome and fun. And its about stimulating the melted nano market. Its not about having expensive T3s at all, just having more. Tho to say, the SP loss is pretty detrimental in the whole T3 thing. Nor to mention, T2 can do it almost same, for lower price.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-09-03 11:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
What value would t3 frigs actually bring to the game?

Are you jokers being serious? I could see the argument for making T3's different to what they are now, or even increasing the mineral/manufacturing requirements of them to consume some of the huge surplus of materials...

but really if you want to stimulate T3 production markets and make them actually expensive to fly again - my suggestion would be remove the SP loss for starters. Encourage actual risky use of T3's first before you go an make changes to how they're built. Lower EHP values over all would also be a good step. This is a thought for a T3 rebalance.


Stop talking, you're embarrassing yourself. T3 frigates would obviously work similar to T3 cruisers.

The point is, the introduction of T3 frigates would do two things:

1. As the demand for salvage/gas increases so will the price, benefiting the wormhole economy
2. The introduction of new tech will spur a "gold rush" in wormhole space, encouraging more people to move in

Of course, the cruisers are yet to be balanced, so the frigates would have to be designed accordingly. The sp loss is all part of the risk in flying a T3 ship.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#17 - 2014-09-03 11:54:14 UTC
A little off topic but IMO there are so many options with frigs as is t3 ones seem a bit silly. t3 destroyers with some overlap of the frig role could be interesting though potentially extremely OP.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-09-03 12:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Rroff wrote:
A little off topic but IMO there are so many options with frigs as is t3 ones seem a bit silly. t3 destroyers with some overlap of the frig role could be interesting though potentially extremely OP.


The problem with that is, it makes no sense when you look at cruiser class hulls. There are a variety of T2 cruisers and frigates and although a T3 ship can do the job of a T2 ship ok, they can't do it as good. Their strength is in the ability to do multiple jobs at once. Basically the frigates will be smaller, less powerful versions of the cruisers and you could get somthing like to loki with less web range and tank/dps. The only T2 destroyer is and interdictor and there is no middle ground in how good you launch a bubble.

... So i disagree that it's silly and actually think that it makes a lot of sense.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#19 - 2014-09-03 12:14:03 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

... So i disagree that it's silly and actually think that it makes a lot of sense.


Yeah if you compare them to t2 sadly but with the number of base variations, faction, t2, etc. there is really very little room for t3 variants.

I'm not a big fan of the way t2 and t3 integration is "supposed" to be in game - its one of those things that sounds ok on paper but doesn't actually translate into something good in game - same reasons behind why games like brink were flops. (Bit of a complex thought process there so not expecting people to really follow it :S).

I've always thought t3 should be something a little unique and separate as while it doesn't really match the original ideals it does good things for the game (within reason).
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#20 - 2014-09-03 12:21:27 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
What value would t3 frigs actually bring to the game?

Are you jokers being serious? I could see the argument for making T3's different to what they are now, or even increasing the mineral/manufacturing requirements of them to consume some of the huge surplus of materials...

but really if you want to stimulate T3 production markets and make them actually expensive to fly again - my suggestion would be remove the SP loss for starters. Encourage actual risky use of T3's first before you go an make changes to how they're built. Lower EHP values over all would also be a good step. This is a thought for a T3 rebalance.


Stop talking, you're embarrassing yourself. .


Ha- no. CCP design team already ruled out T3 frigates years ago during crucible/retribution time period. Ytterbium himself can be directly quoted as saying the add no value to the game and would be impossible to balance.

So you stop talking and do some research first, mate.
12Next page