These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Two Step: killing the gravy train...

First post First post First post
Author
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2015-09-21 11:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Braxus Deninard wrote:
Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote:
I'm sure that reducing escalations to domis in static would be really healthy.

How many groups out there roll/scan endless chains (invest countless hours) just for the opportunity to find someone bearing with caps?
Will they continue to invest so much time and effort into the game when the biggest target they can find is a paladin?

And as for the 'more activity in wh space because ppl farming in static'; You think people will not roll connections in their statics (lets be honest, if escalations get kill, it will probably be unoccupied) and close not 1 system (their home), but 2 (static and home).



exactly this. for example there's one major group in particular which does nothing but run static sites these days and they crit all holes connecting to their static with luxury yachts (yes, luxury yachts with an oversized propmod and a cloak), and then they deploy the marauders and ventures.

nobody is going to invest the time into w-space that they currently do when the chance of finding something good becomes even lower than it already is.


I agree. I'm okay with removing the ability for the site to be ran multiple times but removing capital escalations would be a mistake and would take a lot away from wormhole space. The use of capitals is what makes C5 and C6 space interesting IMO.

If the ability to farm your own wormhole gets nerfed, as some people want, and farming your static becomes the norm, then i feel the maximum mass on C6 & C5 capital class wormholes, should be increased to allow 1 dread and 1 carrier to jump through and back before it closes. This way capitals still have a place in high-class PVE and we will still have capital targets to hunt.

I also thing C6 wormholes should get a second static but that's another thread...
Neckbeard Nolyfe
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#82 - 2015-09-21 11:36:52 UTC
Kalel Nimrott wrote:
Do you guys realize that the problem is not that you can make 75-125 bill a month in one hole, but that it can be done by one person with 8 accounts?


Did you know that 8boxing incursions nets you a bil per hour and there is no limit to sites.
Did you know that lvl 5s earn you 800mil per hour and all you need is 2 accounts, and there is no limit to sites.
Did you know that a farm c5 produces an average of 50b per month.
Did you know that a farm c6 produces an average of 70b per month.

Did you know that only 2 of the stated options provide content and require more time and assets invested than the other 2.


The realization of the problem is real. Blink

~lvl 60 paladin~

Adarnof
Super Secret Spaceship Syndicate
#83 - 2015-09-21 15:16:08 UTC
Luft Reich wrote:

Wow, you seem to really PvP in wormhole space alot and have an extensive knowledge of the current happenings of what is going on. Less and less people far farming on a whole compared to pre-summer.

The reason they turned into landlords was because their style of gameplay was screwed over by CCP, but I don't expect you to understand how BU was able to seed people and gank people almost everyday when WH NPC API was still a thing. Was it kinda broken? Ehhhh, but seeding people got a ton harder.

Just because your corp got dunked a few times doesn't mean everybody else in Wh space is farming constantly all day everyday.


Wow salty. Sorry you killed wormholes bro.
Luft Reich
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#84 - 2015-09-21 21:14:16 UTC
Thron Legacy
White Zulu
Scorpion Federation
#85 - 2015-09-22 20:31:12 UTC
everyone saying incursions got a broken risk/isk ratio should really look at nullsec, fields of carrier krabbing online
Ion Udan
Stellar Ascent
#86 - 2015-09-23 04:32:57 UTC
It pains me to no end, but I agree with Peter on this one.
And this is coming from someone who has only been playing EvE lately to farm solo in W Space purely for the easy ISK. I mean I'm washing myself with the stuff!

Peter Moonlight wrote:
Problem with capital escalations and making ISK in wormholes not just escalations is not that it is too much isk, or it's done too fast or whatever. The real problem is that it is way too safe. You can make 700m a site with escalating a site at range and not being tackled by sleepers or players because your caps are on field for like 10 seconds. CCP was helping escalations being way too safe from the moment they removed NPC KILL API, when Blood Union died etc, but many people really used that to check when hostiles are doing sites, but they haven't been logoff trapping them like BU did.

So, by removing escalations, and replacing with any kind of subcapitals, or static sites or whatever, is complete non-sense, and it will kill any activity left in w-space. And it was going good recently we are having a lot of fights, and I hope it stays like this and gets even better.


So, corbexx, you don't need to nerf escalations, you need to figure a way or mechanic to make them more dangerous, and not impossible to roll in, and you can do that in a few ways..

- Bring back NPC KILL API, so hunters can see when targets are running sites and maybe logoff trap them or logoff in their hole for few hours to wait, I could see even PVP groups loosing escalation fleets this way, and NPC API would help hunters track people site routine down.

- Disable escalating at range, make all the capitals being unable to leave grid for the duration of the site, maybe introduce Sleeper Guardians HIC-like points that spread around caps on grid.

- Make all holes (even low-class holes) that are having sleepers killed in them, have much increased chance of being rolled into, specially C5/C6s having a huge chance to get rolled into by someone ragerolling. I know how you all can cry how we are #WHCFC bla bla, but that way some people like NOVAC+WH0RE+HMASSED can for example rageroll into us when we are doing sites with their 50-60 man fleets and dunk us or get a big fight, which would be good. Other then that ragerolling in 500+ C5s is pretty boring but it should allow you to have a greater chance to roll into people doing sites.
So, maybe make sites harder but, the more sites you do / ships you have make it a greater chance to get rolled into, so PVP entities like us that need ISK to fund expensive doctrines, can get hit by other PVP groups. Corbexx if you are reading this, maybe you will remember how I was hunting Disavowed/TLC/DBEARS back when we were in NOHO, and some other people which we managed to find few times.

- Disable RG farms it is one of the most risk averse and least risk but max profit isk making ways in-game atm.

-Disable FOF missile farms, because AIDS, same reason as for RG farms.

So..
Disable/nerf escalations = wspace truely empty and dead.

Make hunting other people that are doing sites easier, because the more sites you do you have more chance to get rolled into, could make even some farmers trying to hunt other groups doing sites or it would make farmers have PVP ships on standby. I have seen some totally unknown farming groups drop bunch of scorpions and armageddons when they got jumped in the past. That way you would have to engage in PVP, if you want to save your blingy caps, the more you farm the more danger there is..

So, glorious QEX brother steals potatoes from hisec.

Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#87 - 2015-09-23 05:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
I mean, sure... except if you only want to make escalations 'more dangerous' (and we're talking from a PVP sense, not a PVE one since they're p!ss easy to run), why not just increase the guardian EHP 10x so that the caps have to be on field 10x as long?
Achieves the goal right? And does so without reducing the isk available at all too!

A lot of people here are commenting things like 'yeah I'm rolling is escalation ISK, they're OP as hell! though you can't nerf them, that would be mean! you need to fix OTHER aspects of WHs to compensate for my immense greed and wealth!'.
Bottom line is you don't WANT sites to be 'more dangerous', regardless of how you're spinning it. You just want to sound like you do and have CCP make changes that sound like they're nerfing escalations but really aren't.

Even if you increased WH spawn rate and introduced WH Concord that would randomly show up and insta kill you to the point where everyone was getting ganked in their PVE cap fleets 1-2 times a week, you'd STILL be making more money than you know what to do with.
But yeah, I'm sure escalations are fine and the issues lie elsewhere...

It's utter bullsh!t and I expect you'll be in for a rude surprise once CCP actually do something about it. (Here's hoping to soon.)

There is no Bob.

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

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

Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2015-09-23 06:06:19 UTC
I think real issue is not whether ccp nerfs escalations, but what do they replace them with. If its just nerf, then wspace will simply lose farmers that will move elsewhere to make their isk.

Maybe even before that, ccp should fix that "k162 not spawning unless jumped through" and "new holes automagically showing on overlay" bullshits, that allows everybody to just cut off themselves from the rest of eve. These are extremely simple fixes.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2015-09-23 10:09:41 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
I mean, sure... except if you only want to make escalations 'more dangerous' (and we're talking from a PVP sense, not a PVE one since they're p!ss easy to run), why not just increase the guardian EHP 10x so that the caps have to be on field 10x as long?


Because firstly that would reduce the isk per hour below level 4 missions, secondly it doesn't do anything to increase the chance of being rolled into and thirdly it would encourage people to grow so they can field enough caps to not make site running a tedious chore.

If CCP wanted to make site running more dangerous they could do something like; add in a chance for a wormhole to wormhole spawn every time a site is escalated. To prevent capital blobbing in sites; when you have over X number of caps on field, a sleeper capital or drifter could warp in and start doomsday your capitals.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#90 - 2015-09-23 10:11:47 UTC
or they could, i dunno, rework sites to get people to run them in their statics for the same effect?
I get it, you like isk. doesnt make you any less wrong and your opinion any more reasonable.

There is no Bob.

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

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

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2015-09-23 10:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Yeah i already said running sites in your static should be the main method of isk making in wormhole space (see top post)... Was just pointing out the flaws in your idea and suggesting a better solution.
Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#92 - 2015-09-23 11:01:12 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
To prevent capital blobbing in sites; when you have over X number of caps on field, a sleeper capital or drifter could warp in and start doomsday your capitals.


sry but this sort of suggestion points out that you dont really know what youre on about, people who still run sites in big capital blobs paint a huge target on their heads and they get killed, the real problem is being able to do sites easily and quickly without a huge amount of caps in basically the same amount of time as a big blob of caps

also how are static sites a good idea who wants to kill a bunch of domis, sure you can take 1 cap into static but id rather kill a big capital fleet than one
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2015-09-23 11:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Braxus Deninard wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
To prevent capital blobbing in sites; when you have over X number of caps on field, a sleeper capital or drifter could warp in and start doomsday your capitals.


sry but this sort of suggestion points out that you dont really know what youre on about, people who still run sites in big capital blobs paint a huge target on their heads and they get killed, the real problem is being able to do sites easily and quickly without a huge amount of caps in basically the same amount of time as a big blob of caps

also how are static sites a good idea who wants to kill a bunch of domis, sure you can take 1 cap into static but id rather kill a big capital fleet than one


I don't agree with you and think you have a skewed way of looking at things mate.

Firstly using a large amount of capitals gives you safety in numbers and somewhat protects you from being ganked, as there are only a few groups (who are increasingly dying off) who can take on a big blob in their home these days and secondly, you are able to complete the site within one siege cycle, further increasing your level of safety.

Being able to run sites with a small number of caps is not the issue - It's the ability to run sites in relative safety. Try to keep up.
Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#94 - 2015-09-23 11:27:22 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Braxus Deninard wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
To prevent capital blobbing in sites; when you have over X number of caps on field, a sleeper capital or drifter could warp in and start doomsday your capitals.


sry but this sort of suggestion points out that you dont really know what youre on about, people who still run sites in big capital blobs paint a huge target on their heads and they get killed, the real problem is being able to do sites easily and quickly without a huge amount of caps in basically the same amount of time as a big blob of caps

also how are static sites a good idea who wants to kill a bunch of domis, sure you can take 1 cap into static but id rather kill a big capital fleet than one


I don't agree with you and think you have a skewed way of looking at things mate.

Firstly using a large amount of capitals gives you safety in numbers from being ganked as there are only a few groups (who are increasingly dying off) who can take on a big blob in their home these days and secondly you are able to complete the site within one siege cycle, further increasing your level of safety.

Being able to run sites with a small number of caps is not the issue - It's the ability to run sites in relative safety. Try to keep up.


do you really think that it makes you safer warping 7 dreads to 0 on guardians rather than one, a bunch of jams on your lokis and gg enjoy hitting stuff with your dreads

i agree that it might make you safer against a small group rolling in but big groups that actively hunt are going to just dunk on you consistently. also if a small group rolls in and youre doing sites with a small amount of caps you have people in their towers ready to respond in pvp ships rather than in dreads.

i think you're the one with the skewed way of looking at things because your corp is one of the groups that runs with an insane amount of dreads and you're trying to defend that.
Winthorp
#95 - 2015-09-23 11:32:52 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

Firstly using a large amount of capitals gives you safety in numbers and somewhat protects you from being ganked, as there are only a few groups (who are increasingly dying off) who can take on a big blob in their home these days and secondly, you are able to complete the site within one siege cycle, further increasing your level of safety.

Being able to run sites with a small number of caps is not the issue - It's the ability to run sites in relative safety. Try to keep up.


Learn to evolve Rek you are the last of a few that run sites like this.

Safety in numbers eh....
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2015-09-23 11:38:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Braxus Deninard wrote:

i agree that it might make you safer against a small group rolling in but big groups that actively hunt are going to just dunk on you consistently. also if a small group rolls in and youre doing sites with a small amount of caps you have people in their towers ready to respond in pvp ships rather than in dreads.

i think you're the one with the skewed way of looking at things because your corp is one of the groups that runs with an insane amount of dreads and you're trying to defend that.


I'm not even sure what you are talking about...

I glad you agree with me but the rest of your comment is irrelevant. You are basically saying "if a strong enough group rolls into you, you are going to die"... Yeah no **** mate! What is your point?

And if i was someone who ran sites with lots of caps, how is me asking for there to be an in game mechanic to limit the use of camps "defending my play style"?

I think we are getting off topic...
Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#97 - 2015-09-23 11:42:55 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Braxus Deninard wrote:

i agree that it might make you safer against a small group rolling in but big groups that actively hunt are going to just dunk on you consistently. also if a small group rolls in and youre doing sites with a small amount of caps you have people in their towers ready to respond in pvp ships rather than in dreads.

i think you're the one with the skewed way of looking at things because your corp is one of the groups that runs with an insane amount of dreads and you're trying to defend that.


I'm not even sure what you are talking about...

I glad you agree with me but the rest of your comment is irrelevant. You are basically saying "if a strong enough group rolls into you, you are going to die"... Yeah no **** mate! What is your point?

And if i was someone who ran sites with lots of caps, who is me asking for the to be an in game mechanic to limit the use of camps "defending my play style"?


you are saying we should create a mechanic that discourages people from having more caps on field. i am saying this is dumb and we should never discourage people from fielding more caps by making the site harder - we should encourage people to field more caps because the current problem with escalations is that they can be done with one shitfit dread. the risk in escalations should come from other people killing you rather than the site.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#98 - 2015-09-23 11:46:47 UTC
Australians against Rek!

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2015-09-23 11:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Braxus Deninard wrote:
[
you are saying we should create a mechanic that discourages people from having more caps on field. i am saying this is dumb and we should never discourage people from fielding more caps by making the site harder - we should encourage people to field more caps because the current problem with escalations is that they can be done with one shitfit dread. the risk in escalations should come from other people killing you rather than the site.


Ah so basically you want the game to be changed so you get more kill mails... got it.

The last bit in that quote demonstrates why i feel your logic is flawed. If we require people to field more dreads, then smaller groups can't compete. The only people it benefits is bigger groups like you and i don't think that is what we need.
Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#100 - 2015-09-23 11:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Braxus Deninard
Rek Seven wrote:
Ah so basically you want the game to be changed so you get more kill mails... got it.


yes, unlike your corp living in a 5-3 farming sites with 7 dreads and then going to run incursions some of us actually enjoy pvp and hunting.

the whole point of this thread is to change escalations so that they either give less money or create more risk (or a combination fo both). i am of course on the side of more risk because i would love it if more people actually hunted caps but i can see why many people don't at the moment because so many people run with just one poorfit dread. if we just decrease the amount of isk they give w-space will obviously suffer with no benefits other than less isk. i would like to think that the vast majority of people in this thread agree with me.

if you dont enjoy risk i suggest you stop running with 7 dreads. it might not end well. Blink