Wormholes

I'm good with promoting more reasons to be in your static. I don't agree with cutting esc isk in half and dropping a can worth 350 mil isk at site completion to make that happen.

The more I look at it, the math is pretty bad. We'll use 600mil for quad escallation. Currently I can run them 4 times for 2.4 bil isk. If you cut the esc in half it comes out to 1.2 bil and you throw in a 350 mil isk can for completing the site. So 2.4 bil down to 1.55 bil.

That cost to home site runners is given (plus interest) to larger corps that roll for pve in their statics. A large wh corp can do a single escallation for 150 mil plus the completion can of 350 mil pulls in 500 mill per static site. (1 carrier and support)

This isn't so much about isk. For sure we don't do pve every day. It's about the ability of a larger corp being able to farm 23/7 (if they choose to) and their ability to erase the income potential (home systems sites) for a smaller corp. If small single time zone (US is the worst) keep logging in to no sites then they will leave. Keep in mind smaller corps aren't equipped to run sites at any time. It may be only Thursdays and Saturdays when Joe the Dread pilot can be online.

This is about taking from the little guy and giving to the big guys. It's about my desire to not see wh corps grow to 300 pilots. It's about not putting in a series of 'kind of bad changes' that add up to what null is trying to dig its way out of.

Keep in mind the craptastic sov BS wasn't just dumped on null in a single expansion, it was nudged into place over a series of changes. What guys want and what WH (or null) needs usually aren't the same thing.

(Pro hint: humans suck, are selfish and continually neglect the long term for short term gains)

I don't buy the pve in the static increases risk and pvp stuff. NOHO, Lazerhawks and so on can come into my wh and do whatever they want based soley on size difference. Once you get to a certain size most wh corps can't do much about you. The proposed change will (my estimate here... based on.... guessing) will allow large wh corps to push their numbers from 150ish to 300ish with this change. It will just make it too easy to feed larger numbers. A lot of folks came to wh space to get away from that sort of thing.

I don't know if it will be better or worse, but I can justify worse. A good number of folks moved out, so sites don't get activated and moved around as much due to lack of use. C6 have a lot of turnover because they get run a lot (and some other reasons). C5 anoms can stack up in certain wh and lounge there for a week at a time.

I don't think I need to draw an arrow to where this directly benifits your proposed change to how esc work. OK I will. You roll into 3 anoms set up and run them and back out of the system. The rolling, setup and backout take time. If you rolled into 20 or 30 anoms (which I have seen post hyperion in c5s) then your rolling/setup/backout time becomes much smaller compared to isk making time.

Speaking of that. You've been asked many many times and remained silent. Can we get some wh graphs to benchmark what the outcome of the hyperion change was.

I'll help you:

Time span is from today back 8 months. Graph the folloing -

POS forcefield (a different collor for each class of wh)
NPC kills - (same thing w/ colors)
Player kills - (same)

Not looking for anything tricky. Just 8 months of data for the 3 items listed. I think it would be cool if you did it using daily data in vertical bar form - it would draw some smooth and pretty curves.

seriously if you think i havent been asking over and over for this stuff your sadly mistaken

I keep asking but I cant get the ******* numbers myself. and if ccp wont do what more do you ******* want me to do

From what I have seen/heard - you're doing a pretty good job (for as far as my opinion matters). If you are open to suggestions as to what I want you to do..... perhaps you could sing 'careless whisper' to me when I get on comms w/ you. It's a comms classic and an all time favorite (I.... promise..... I won't .... record it for future use)

I'm just beating the "WHERE'S THE FOOKING GRAPHS???" drum. Tell them that I'm the one asking. Maybe the prestige of my pilots name will add some leverage (easy guys, I'm kidding around). It's interesting how they can pull off some truely amazing and (my opinion) worthless graphs about the economy in eve, but can't fork up 3 simple ones regarding activity levels. Maybe their graph guy was too busy making that tug ship w/ the 90% fatigue reduction that no one is going to abuse.

I took Corbexx up on his invite to comms. We had a good discussion. I'll say this. His mind is in the right place as far as changes to wh space. He is looking to move forward and on several fronts to improve both game play and the long term vitality of wh space. We don't agree on one fundamental aspect, but I will say that on all but one of his ideas he really is looking out for all of wh space. (if he looks deep in his heart, he will eventually understand I am right and will come to his senses on the one issue)

Others have said it before, and now I'll say it one more time. He's on our side, understands the issues (of all the wh classes) and is working to move forward. 3 thumbs up for Corbexx (even though he didn't sing Careless Whisper - )

This is where I try to jam his inbox and his chat windows. Seriously, if you guys have something to say to him - he'll listen. He may not agree with you (and that's not his elected job), but he will listen and intelligently discuss issues with you. Give it a try if you feel strongly about something.

That being said - game changes are about making the game better for all, not pushing your personal agendas, so always keep that in mind (nudge nudge )

Thanks for your time Corbexx - useful and much appreciated!

I've seen an issue here mentoned tangentially but not actually directly approached so I will give it an attempt.

More anomolies: especially smaller ones with shorter than average life spans. Like this - average anomaly lasts for 3 days as long as the despawn trigger isn't pushed. Now have a series of "small" anomolies that spawn per wh class site and contain maybe 5 cruisers and a battleship - as soon as the player shoots the site despawns from the list. Site has a lifespan of 16 hours or so to keep things moving. Extrapolate the idea to not less than 3 new anoms per class and include relatively heavy ewar and neuts in at least some of them.

In this relatively simple move you get more reasons to be in space, more probing and sites will despawn regularly enough not to pool in one system. It will also help solo/small gang players who otherwise might not have the muscle power to run regular anoms in their home hole (if they were logged in outside of prime time for example.)

Just a thought.

Haven't read the previous 5 pages, so apologies if any of this has already been said.

First of all, great job laying out a very concise set of ideas!

Mini escalations

I really like the idea of escalating lower end WH's - I would however be very careful of what you use to trigger the waves, due to variance in pilot skills and the different types of ships people use to farm - it would suck to penalize someone for using their drake in a c2, if that's what causes the escalation to happen :D as much as I would laugh...

If you intend to leave this as capitals triggering the wave, that would be cool too ( more incentive to build sandcastles in lower end WH's - could create an interesting new dynamic with buffed income in those places! )

Faction sleeper spawns (commanders)

Really like this idea, even if it is abit nullsecy, but it would add a new dynamic to WH's which I'm all for, especially with upcoming lore and such on the horizon ;) the content here is VERY predictable, this would add a random element to it, and incentivise the mindless grind where people make mistakes, which other people then capitalise on :D

C5 and C6 Capital escalations.

Point 1 - while part of me screams no, realistically I think this is necessary to force people to diversify the way they live and make money in wormholes. It's been the same for a very, very long time and forcing people to farm in their statics would hopefully kickstart some content creation, through mistakes, ganks, awoxing, what have you. The downside I would see to this is less content due to more people using their static to farm, rather than to hunt. But, equally that means there would be more people farming outside of their sandcastle, so it's swings & roundabouts I guess.

Point 2 - Having seen the smartbombing action in play, this definitely needs to be nerfed in some way. I'd be more for removing a guardian and adding cruisers/frigs after some thought, if you randomize the spawn point I think you'll end up with less people farming in the end, due to the PITA nature of capital escalations anyways. If you make it spawn 60k southwest of your warpin, people will likely stop farming 'cus it'll add too much time for something when you can make twice the isk/hr in your static (assuming you arent multiboxing the site on your own...)

In summary:

Mini escalations - great idea! more like it please, incentivise those newbros!


Faction sleeper spawns (commanders) - really like it, add something new and give us some form of 'special lootz'

C5 and C6 Capital escalations. - I think you need to be careful how this is changed, as it could easily be made to be redundant in place of static farming, assuming it isnt 2-3 people multiboxing escalations. The isk/hr could be made too little for groups if you add arbitrary 'time sink' mechanisms just for the sake of changing the status quo.

Overall, great work and please, do keep it up!

o7

I did a bit of research over the US holiday. Fun fact I didn't know until I looked - about half of both C5 and C6 statics are to lower class or kspace. So, the proposed escallation changes to force folks to make isk in their statics would reduce the home site isk potential by over 50% in half of the WH and make it unbeleivably high for large corps in C5/C6 w/ high end statics.

Again, this is just a plug for smaller wh corps trying to get by and a warning that the proposed changes would improve the income potential for larger wh corps. I will say that I think it's a good thing that the current isk making scheme in wh space caps the size of wh corps where they currently are.

Larger corps can already 'move in' for 3 days and make billions when they find a sweet sweet honey hole. This proposed change would just turn the honey hole billions into easy mode and take away the 'move in' requirement to make said billions.

I get the desire to make life tough for the 'farmer only' corps, but geesh, this isn't the way to do it.

I think they all have the potential to be occupied, so I'm not getting the unoccupied part of the argument. The ones that are more occupied (I think you're getting at pulsars and magnetars?) have the same spread of statics as the rest, so I'm not getting the effect angle.

Here's what I think the isk breakdown is atm:

C4 static - best isk/hr - you keep rolling and earning (I was in a corp that averaged 5 min/site a few years back)
C5/C6 home - crazy escallation isk, but only once per site per day

C6 do better than C5 because they get run and turned over more than C5 (where some/many empty systems become collectors)

All others are distantly less.


The proposed changes to escallations aren't going to force anyone to go into their statics. It will greatly aid the ones that already do. The only incentive the change would give is for wh pilots to join up into even larger forces to survive. I know some guys are getting to the point where that is desired to keep things fresh. Eve has low sex and null for that sort of game play. WH space is uniquely buffered against it. It's why a lot of folks are in here. (I'll tip my hat to SYJ one more time for realizing their play desires out grew the mass / isk constraints of wh space - and they seem to be having a good time out in low/null). For guys that think bigger is better.... that's cool, but wh space isn't the place for that (by design I think??)

To be clear, I'm just stating my opinion on the proposed change.

We typically have 2 or 3 runnable sites in our wh. We typically run said sites maybe (that's maybe) 2 or 3 times a week. So.... If anyone rolled in and killed our sites, we would probably just assume they expired naturally. That being true (which it is) let's try to not focus on how this affects me or mine personally. It's not about that - we're all pretty bad at pve on multiple levels (which mirrors our pvp prowess for the most part).

It's about greatly increasing the sustainable size of large wh corporations. My opinion is that they are large enough. A lot of folks are in wh space to get away from large fleets. Like I said, there are places for that (LS and Null) and currently only one place that guards against it (WH space).

As far as sucking it up buttercup and going C5/C5... I've lived in C6/C6, C5/C5, C2/C4, C5/C3 and C5/C2. My current wh suits my current play style. I just don't feel like rage rolling or blowing out a huge chain to keep a 25 man fleet entertained. I'm not against it, but it's just not something I want to do right now.

One of the things I am against is where you tell me to move to a C5/C5. I do what I want to enjoy the game. I do it without forcing other folks to play may way. I think you telling me what I should do, and this proposed change forcing me (and everyone else) to run sites in our statics because that's what you think I should be doing is pretty wrong. I'm pretty smart and can figure out how to have fun w/out you or Corbexx or anyone else dictating how WHs should be played.

Historically, when players push the game to meet their agendas, long term it gets kind of crappy. Just look to null over the past 5 years. Player influence made a mess. I like eve, and I'd like to keep wh space fun. So keeping the blobs out as best we can is my view of how that will happen.