These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

W-Space Little Things List

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#41 - 2014-09-15 13:34:09 UTC
Asayanami Dei wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
I'd be happy to help with that if they wanted.

I really think that it will both make their job easier on the forum as well as giving our ideas more momentum when they reach CCP, unlike the F&I trollside.

On the subject of "mini -escalations", what if they were mass based, or dependent on a certain number of ships rather than a particular class? The idea being that, arbitrarily, 275Mtons(is that right, too many zeroes) would trigger an extra wave or somesuch. Maybe a sleeper "officer" with a slightly higher loot drop chance, maybe a new blue loot tag or a few more nanoribbons would be possible.
As for increasing profitability of low class holes, what about narrowing the range of possible nanoribbon drops so that it's still random but with a smaller range?

All of those things are something we've already discussed with corbexx and taking them into consideration

I haven't had nearly enough coffee yet, I didn'r know if those were already floating around in the idea pool. Good to.know they are.
Maybe I'll drink a few more cups and come back later
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#42 - 2014-09-15 14:40:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Maduin Shi
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

Maduin, I live in a C2 as well and the only caps, besides orcas, in low class wormholes will never leave them. For that reason, I tend to stay away from cap discussions just like I appreciate when escalation farmers don't tell me that low class income is fine. Smile I will say though, that I think allowing players to do anything other than reduce wormhole mass is a very slippery slope considering the power that null sec has shown to have when changes are made. If wormholers in general wanted to make cap warfare a little easier, I think something like an advanced capital would be the way to go, low mass but more specialized, something along the lines of a sleeper faction T3 cap. I say sleeper faction only because I think that having one for each race would be a disaster. Also, that is a very rough idea that I just made up, it is purely a hypothetical to illustrate my opinion and in know way should be taken as a suggestion.


Yeah point taken. I was just thinking about ways to incentivize going on the offensive....especially with this mass/spawn distance disaster. But without necessarily encouraging bigger blobs aye.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#43 - 2014-09-15 15:05:44 UTC
Maduin Shi wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:

Maduin, I live in a C2 as well and the only caps, besides orcas, in low class wormholes will never leave them. For that reason, I tend to stay away from cap discussions just like I appreciate when escalation farmers don't tell me that low class income is fine. Smile I will say though, that I think allowing players to do anything other than reduce wormhole mass is a very slippery slope considering the power that null sec has shown to have when changes are made. If wormholers in general wanted to make cap warfare a little easier, I think something like an advanced capital would be the way to go, low mass but more specialized, something along the lines of a sleeper faction T3 cap. I say sleeper faction only because I think that having one for each race would be a disaster. Also, that is a very rough idea that I just made up, it is purely a hypothetical to illustrate my opinion and in know way should be taken as a suggestion.


Yeah point taken. I was just thinking about ways to incentivize going on the offensive....especially with this mass/spawn distance disaster. But without necessarily encouraging bigger blobs aye.

Not trying to jump on you at all, but wormhole manipulation throws all sorts of red flags. And, honestly, caps don't truly belog in wormholes if you ask me, wormholes are about stratefy and patience instead of sheer numbers and hulls. As far as I'm concerned, null can keep their blobs and TiDi "fights", I much prefer the strategy game of wormhole life.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2014-09-15 15:43:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Maduin Shi wrote:
Okay so, on the deployable to extend wormhole lifetime. I also think its a not-so-great idea and unnecessary. But a deployable to increase the mass capacity of capital-ship capable wormholes (C5/6 to C5/6 and C5/6 to null/low) might be interesting. It would make it easier to go on the offensive with capitals, and would make an offensive fleet make-up harder to predict. I have no idea how popular this would be since I live in a C2 but there's an idea to try and improve on the original.


I think a deployable that extends the life of a wormhole would be okay if balanced correctly. As long as someone could destroy it easily and only one could be placed within a certain time period, it would be okay. It would allow people to go through a eol hole without fear of it closing behind them.

I agree with scorch that the ability to increase mass wouldn't be such a great idea.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Cylin Rath
#45 - 2014-09-15 16:38:22 UTC
Posted in the original thread but it didn't make the list:

Give the ability to repackage ships in a POS.
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#46 - 2014-09-15 16:38:48 UTC
OK, the "structure anchorable to reduce T3 build cost". It doesn't really have to be a whole new POS array (I'm assuming this is implying a POS array). But I think there should be some code to detect whether the T3 RE/subsystem array is anchored in a J-system and convey some significant material savings.

Naturally it should be easier to build sleeper hybrid technology in sleeper-land.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#47 - 2014-09-15 16:47:20 UTC
I hate theorycrafting new stuff for wormhole space, but since were here....

Deployable for wormholes. This one is sketchy. Personally I'd rather it be a pilot than a piece of equipment (can be part of the heavy interdictor class changes). You could also make the frigate hole more viable by allowing the heavy interdictor the ability to expand the wormhole mass amount by using a focused script up to a cruiser amount. That same dictor could also reduce the max size of a wormhole by targetting it with a focused script to shrink the mass accepted into it. For instance.

1) C2 wormhole to C2. Heavy Dictor targets hole, focuses it with its bubble script (or another), shrinks the types of ships that can exit it from a orca down to a cruiser. A T2 focused script reduces it down to a frigate. Its a oneway change though. Meaning the shrinkage only reduces the side the interdictor is on. So if you are on the otherside with a orca, you can come in, but if the interdictor is there doing its thing already, you can't leave through the same exit until the interdictor is dead/neuted/stopped focusing the hole.

A similar concept could be done with a deployable, but I think a pilot would be better. You could set it up that a deployable will notify the person on the otherside of the wormhole looking at the hole that the wormhole is under an "adverse effect". A person with a heavy interdictor using a focused script would not have any notification on the wormhole. Now if you are not insane, you'll have a scout and see it. Even if you do, possible fight ensues.

Now this does not reduce its "MASS". It reduces the maximum mass it can accept.

Something like that would give some corps the ability to manipulate wormhole mechanics. Its odd, its funky, its new and its scary. This is a hardly hashed out idea though.

2) Keeping a EOL hole open. I would probably do that also on a heavy interdictor (same idea as above) to keep a wormhole from timing out.

These are just nutty concepts and hardly a small change (these are on par with the wormhole jump range changes).

Yaay!!!!
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#48 - 2014-09-15 18:04:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Maduin Shi
OK some comments on what Jack wrote.

Jack Miton wrote:

Encourage nomadic lifestyle for W-Space:
What does this even mean? I mean, you can be plenty nomadinc in WHs if you want to be but people don't. Do you know why people don't? Because NO ONE likes moving. I've moved a fair few times in WH space and I've never met a single person who actually enjoys it.
As it stands currently, you can move systems every day if you want to so you already can be nomadic so what's the issue/goal here? To make it actively difficult/bad to stay in 1 system long term? If so, PLEASE NO!


I'm not sure what was meant by "nomadic lifestyle" either, but there's a lot of things you can do with an orca to make nomadism possible. I don't think moving POS towers from place to place was implied. We can perhaps modify this "little thing" to mean something along the lines of encouraging more risk-taking in your static, or encourage doing more things outside of your home "fortress". But there needs to be something specific spelled out for that which counts as a "little thing".


Jack Miton wrote:

Remove dead POS towers after an arbitrary amount of time:
Let me bottom line this for you: People who want this just want to be able to make free ISK by scooping dead sticks.
There's zero benefit in touching this POS mechanic and there ARE valid reasons to put up offline towers.


Yeah, I doubt CCP will do anything on this that is specific to wormholes and will either give a thumbs up or thumbs down for easier dead POS removal for the whole game. This change can be moved to the red column as being controversial.


Jack Miton wrote:

Unique PI resources for W-Space:
Why? This is a pure money grab and when WHs already have the best PI of anywhere, seems incredibly self serving without actually adding anything of value content wise.


Yeah it does look like a money grab. PI is already very profitable and much safer than running sites. If lower-class holes get a buff to site income then we really won't need it. This can be red columned too.

Jack Miton wrote:

Randomness in sleeper spawns [they shouldn't be like missions]:
Ok, this again. People who want this, please go find me a single group of people who willingly run C5 Quarantine Area sites (which are already random) over the non random sites.
Making PVE even more tedious is NOT a good thing for WHs.


Well I suppose there's a difference between well-implemented and poorly implemented "randomness" to spawns. The mobile depot helps a lot to make adapting to a change in the tactical situation fast and efficient. But of course nobody will take the time to enjoy a more interesting fight if they can make the isk 10 seconds faster ratting the "normal" sites. I think a better change in any case would be some "terrain effects" on ship performance that would enable some more creative fits to be effective for a significant number of sites that have sleeper constructs or nebulae or whatnot.


Jack Miton wrote:

Roaming Sleepers:
Why do people want this? WHs are hostile enough without needing to worry about getting 3rd partied by stupid gate rats.


Agreed.
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#49 - 2014-09-15 18:05:50 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:

Sec status increase from killing sleepers:
Makes no sense lore wise, Concord are not a thing in WHs.


Sleepers aren't pirates. Agreed.

Jack Miton wrote:

Sleeper capital ship NPCs:
I mean... why? NS doesn't spawn faction caps, why should WHs? Does it add anything to the game? PVE shouldn't be the end goal in WHs, it's a means to an end.

Sleeper drop Faction Loot (Sleeper modules):
Eh, I guess this is fine as long as it's balanced correctly but I really don't see the need given how easy it is to make raw ISK in WHs.


I think generally some more interesting sleepers to fight (not necessarily caps), and some more interesting loot than blue poo would get more people out running sites. Because I can tell you, Hyperion didn't help in that department.


Jack Miton wrote:

Naming your system:
Um, why should you be able to do this? You can't even do it in NS and they get actual sov.


Yeah this idea is dumb. You can get evicted at any time. Your wormhole is never really "yours" forever so naming it is meh.

Jack Miton wrote:

Exemp wormhole effect from the shader:
Look, I get it, people want to see the WH colors on low graphics settings. However, if I can run 5 clients at max settings with no issues on my 5+ year old PC, this really shouldnt be an issue for anyone and it's a waste of dev time even bringing it up.


I play eve on an ultrabook, and I can run multiple clients but only on low graphics settings. Would be nice to have this extra bit of graphical information for people who game on laptops (there are quite a few of us).

I'll see if there's anything else in the list to discuss and post on it later.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#50 - 2014-09-15 18:44:41 UTC
On the subject of removing dead sticks, I would imagine that the deadline would be something on the order of 30 days completely inactive, or some such. I get that dead sticks, often small towers, are used to lay claim to every moon in a system for the purpose of renting, but that seems like a pretty passive way to "rent" a system. If you decide that the system is yours to rent out, shouldn't you have enough of a presence there, at least a roaming presence, to be able to tell if someone has moved in rather than just planting sticks? That particular mechanic strikes me as pretty nullbear, if you are going to lay claim to a system that you don't live in, you should have to expend the effort to maintain it, even if it's just a matter of rolling around sticking fuel in it and onlining it for an hour or 2 since that gets you out and in space vulnerable.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#51 - 2014-09-15 19:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Just make a game out of the hacking game for hacking tower sticks to unanchor an offline tower. If you fail, the tower broadcasts your location in local a warp disruption bubble blows up and you can't re hack it for 5 minutes.

If you succeed, it unanchors.

This is solely for offline towers btw.

Might bring some content to wh space and/or null.

Yaay!!!!
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-09-16 02:59:47 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Here's my do-not-want list with reasons:

Take this guys opinion with a pinch of salt. He simply doesn't want any changes whatsoever.
... The guys doesn't see that the T3 balance is going to mainly affect wormhole space for Bob's sake. Roll

for someone who clearly hates WHs as much as you do, you sure do think everything revolves around them.
if you had actually read what I said you might have noticed I said T3 rebalance was not a little thing, not that it doesnt affect WHs.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Undermine Dahl
Refuse.Resist
#53 - 2014-09-16 06:44:45 UTC
[ Gameplay ]

Switch distance of ships larger ships closer and smaller ships farther.

Or have the speed affect spawn distance: say if you come in with a 2km/s fleet and you all jump at that speed you will end up out of scram range of a fleet at 0m but if you want to brawl you could keep you ships moving below say 500m/s and you spawn within jumping distance.

I mainly dislike how it is now because it makes the person putting his silly little 50mill scanning frigate very safe from dics and such but for the people putting a 2 bill carrier on the hole it makes it more dangerous. for crashing and reducing mass for fights.

Congrats assai I voted for you in the first place. keep up the hard work and release moar vids :D

Fly free,
Undermine
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#54 - 2014-09-16 22:06:27 UTC
Asayanami Dei wrote:
That's something we can work on, but it'll have to wait untill after the summit this week. I imagine there will be a lot to talk about then anyways, and there will most likely be a townhall.


How about a slightly lower mass t2 carrier that's actually a carrier and not a logistics platform? You jump in it and ferry your 10-15 cruiser hulls around, it has an "impressive" cargo bay and a jump fuel bay too.

Otherwise it's just a very special freighter. Perhaps allow it to triage for self-defence but give this new carrier no high slots so it can't be used offensively or for logi in any capacity. Obviously it can't field drones either (although 125mb of drones isn't unfair I think).
Seraph Essael
Air
The Initiative.
#55 - 2014-09-16 23:05:55 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:
That's something we can work on, but it'll have to wait untill after the summit this week. I imagine there will be a lot to talk about then anyways, and there will most likely be a townhall.


How about a slightly lower mass t2 carrier that's actually a carrier and not a logistics platform? You jump in it and ferry your 10-15 cruiser hulls around, it has an "impressive" cargo bay and a jump fuel bay too.

Otherwise it's just a very special freighter. Perhaps allow it to triage for self-defence but give this new carrier no high slots so it can't be used offensively or for logi in any capacity. Obviously it can't field drones either (although 125mb of drones isn't unfair I think).

I think you need the learn the difference between freighter and carrier...
What you're asking for is a tankable jump freighter that can 'triage'.

Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
#56 - 2014-09-17 00:01:43 UTC
Have sleepers/wh structures been V3'd?

Blue-Fire Best Fire
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#57 - 2014-09-17 08:01:58 UTC
Can someone give me the rationale for the following on the list:

1) Module to lower mass of battleships

2) Remove sleepers in C1-C3 data/relic sites



Also, I think we got plenty of extra randomness with hyperion, so the "More Randomness - bring back the unknown to w-space" gets a down-vote from me. I would rather remove the "More Randomness" part. I'd propose to modify this item to just read "Bring back the unknown to w-space". Its still very un-specific and doesn't really qualify as a "little thing" because its too vague. Possibly red-column it then, just as an idea for the devs to keep in mind.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-09-17 09:39:00 UTC
Lowering the mass on a battleship would allow them to be used more easily in wormhole pvp, which could shake up the meta a bit.

Not sure about removing sleepers from relic sites but i think the number of sleepers should be reduced in C5/C6 relic/data sites to create solo/small-gang PVE options in higher class wormhole.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Winthorp
#59 - 2014-09-17 10:36:52 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


Not sure about removing sleepers from relic sites but i think the number of sleepers should be reduced in C5/C6 relic/data sites to create solo/small-gang PVE options in higher class wormhole.


Are you aware you can solo C5/6 relic data sites? (Providing you kill the first wave minus the trigger and tank said trigger) Well the forgotten Core Data Field and the Server Bank respectively. The data site doesn't make a great deal of ISk as only the Abandoned Talocon BS is worth touching but the relic site is damn worth your time as a solo player.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2014-09-17 12:46:06 UTC
Yeah but it's only possible if you game the system and I would prefer if they were designed with smaller groups in mind. That way, people from lower class wormhole would be incentivised to do stuff in the high class wormholes in their chain.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...